The kingdom of God is near.

Give and double your impact.

Cover Story

The Spirit in the Old Testament

J. G. S. S. Thomson

In the Old Testament the Spirit operates in two spheres: in the realm of nature and in the life of man. In nature, the Spirit is depicted as an agent who creates (Gen. 1:2; Job 26:13; Isa. 32:15) and who sustains what has been created (Ps. 104:30; Job 34:14). This serves to remind us not only that God created the world, but that the principle that animates nature is not a blind, unreasoning force. The Spirit is not mere physical energy but is life-breathing, vitalizing what God the Father created through the Word (cf. John 1:1–3; Heb. 11:3).

The Old Testament presents this same Spirit as present in the life of man and active at four different levels of man’s personality.

“The Lord God … breathed into his [man’s] nostrils the breath of life,” and in virtue of this “man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life” (Job 33:4). The purely physical human organism is vitalized by the breath of God.

Elsewhere in the Old Testament the spirit of man appears as the animating principle, but this does not conflict with the Genesis account of man’s creation. For the vitalizing power that is the Spirit of God belonged to man, and could, therefore, properly be called the spirit of man (Job 27:3; Ps. 104:29 f.). Both views teach that the life that animates the physical organism results from God’s communication of his spirit.

Now it is this Spirit in man—or, if you will, it is man’s spirit—that distinguishes him from the beast and imparts a unique pre-eminence to man. This is the Old Testament explanation of a self-evident fact.

This Spirit in man is the special gift of God, and constitutes also the source of righteousness, wisdom and morality in man, placing him in a relation with God that is unshared by the animal world.

If it be argued that the terms in Genesis 2:7 are used also in Genesis 6:22, in reference to the animal world in general, it may be pointed out that Genesis 1:27 introduces a factor which distinguishes man absolutely from the rest of animate creation. In addition to his being animated by the Spirit of God, man is created “in the image of God.” These two phenomena—his being created in the image of God, and his being vitalized by the Spirit of God—are not, however, two distinct factors in the nature of man. This spiritual quality of man’s physical organism proclaims his original creation in the divine image.

It may also be argued that some of man’s higher faculties manifest themselves in animals. But even there we find an unbridgeable gulf between man and animals. In man these faculties are conjoined with self-conscious reason; in animals this conjunction is absent. And the conjunction in man is not the result of an evolutionary process but of the inbreathing of God of his Spirit into man. It is this that makes man a spiritual, self-conscious being, capable of communing with God and reflecting something of the character of God. It is the root of man’s rationality and morality. It is man’s inmost self, the essence of his manhood. And this image of God in man did not disappear with the fall. It is handed on to posterity (Gen. 5:1, 3; 9:6) and is the possession of all men in varying degrees.

But this concept of man’s physical organism vitalized by the Spirit of God portrays but the beginning of the Spirit’s activity in the human personality. The Old Testament depicts the Spirit also as the source of man’s mental life, creative faculties, ineradicable moral sense and capacity for knowing and communing with God. Let us consider these elements in turn.

The Spirit And Man’s Mental Life

When God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath of life, he not only vitalized the human organism but he made man a living soul. This implies not merely animation but intelligence. “There is a spirit in man; and the breath of the Almighty giveth them understanding” (Job 32:8). The Spirit is indissolubly linked, in the Old Testament, with the intellectual element in man (cf. Exod. 28:3; 31:3; 35:31; Deut. 34:9). This conjunction is even clearer in the Septuagint, which speaks of “a divine spirit of wisdom, and understanding and knowledge” (Exod. 31:3; 35:3) and of “the spirit of wisdom and perception” (Exod. 28:3). When this “divine spirit of wisdom” became operative in man, intellectual powers, unique among created beings, were manifested.

The Old Testament gives us several examples of such manifestation. Joseph’s discernment and wisdom and his ability to interpret dreams are said to be due to his being “a man in whom the Spirit of God is” (Gen. 41:38 f.). Moses was given the Spirit to help him bear “the burden of his people” (Num. 11:17), i.e., to enable him to dispense judgment at the tribunal (Exod. 18:22 f.), a task requiring the use of the critical faculties to an unusual degree. The seventy elders were also given the Spirit to enable them to assist Moses in guiding and governing the people (Num. 11:16 f.). Bezaleel, the chief artificer in constructing the Tabernacle, was also filled with the Spirit of God, in virtue of which he had the ability to devise complicated designs, execute work in various metals and carve in stone and wood (Exod. 31:2 ff.). Bezaleel’s chief assistant and all the workmen under their direction also shared in this artistic skill, which had its source in the Spirit of God (Exod. 35:30–36:2).

Clearly then, the Old Testament teaches that the Spirit of God, who originated the personal life of man, is also the source of man’s intellectual life; and that where the Spirit is allowed to act in a special degree, outstanding powers manifest themselves. This means that our reason is not completely other than the divine reason. Reason in man is that which feels, wills and apprehends goodness; and God, not being pure reason, also wills, and feels and cares. But it is the Spirit of God which in the divine nature feels (Mic. 2:7), thinks (Isa. 40:13 f.) and acts ethically (Ps. 143:10); and it is this same Spirit in man who feels and thinks, and apprehends goodness.

The Spirit And Man’s Moral Life

In two passages in the Old Testament the Spirit is called the Holy Spirit, Psalm 51:11 and Isaiah 63:10 f. Now, if to this additional fact concerning the nature of the Spirit we conjoin the fact of the divine Spirit’s presence in man, then moral life in man becomes not merely a possibility but a human necessity.

In Proverbs 20:27, “the spirit of man” (which means the Spirit of God in man) is described as “the lamp of the Lord,” whose function is to “search the innermost parts” of man. This is probably a reference to conscience, the inner mentor that tests a man’s motives and feelings, thoughts and actions by God’s law, approving some, condemning others, as they agree or disagree with that criterion. In other words, this divine Spirit who is the principle of life in man and the source of his intellectual gifts is also present as “a moral witness against sin.”

If the rendering of Genesis 6:3 in the Authorized Version—“My Spirit shall not always strive with man”—can be maintained, then here also the divine Spirit appears as a moral witness in man against his sin. Indeed, even if the Hebrew be rendered “rule,” or “judge,” in man, its ethical significance would still be apparent.

What we today would describe as a guilty conscience was explained in the Old Testament in terms of the activity within man of an evil spirit from, or of, the Lord (1 Sam. 16:14; 18:10; 19:9). In 1 Samuel 16:3, this spirit is spoken of as “a spirit of God.” These verses have particular reference to King Saul, and indicate that his guilty conscience had sprung into life through a divine agent that was tormenting his spirit through its accusations. A guilty conscience, a sense of sin, is somehow connected with the activity of a supernatural spiritual agency. This is another aspect of the Old Testament conviction that a moral sense in man is produced by the Spirit of God.

The divine Spirit’s connection with man’s moral life is further established in later Old Testament writings where the word “spirit” connotes in man a fixed state of mind, a permanent attitude of heart, a man’s character. The predominating feature of a man’s disposition may be pride (Eccles. 7:8), haughtiness (Prov. 16:18), quick temper (Eccles. 7:9), humility (Prov. 16:19), patience (Eccles. 7:8) or faithfulness (Prov. 11:13), but in every case the outstanding failure of the character is described as a spirit.

The Spirit And Man’s Religious Life

The presence of the Spirit in man must, of necessity, be significant for his religious life for two reasons. It is the Spirit in man that links him to God, and creates the capacity to know, and commune with, God (Isa. 26:9). And it is the Spirit in man that makes him a moral being, and enables God to lay moral demands upon him. But man as a sinful, fallen creature cannot fulfill these moral demands. He requires a power not native to himself to enable him to respond to moral demands from which he cannot escape.

This is what Ezekiel undoubtedly recognized when he gave God’s epoch-making promise: “I will put a new Spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them a heart of flesh: that they may walk in my statues, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God.… I have poured out my Spirit upon the house of Israel” (11:19 f.; 39:29; cf. 36:26 f.); Jeremiah’s reference to the New Covenant (31:33 f.) carries the same theme.

Here is something new in the Old Testament’s teaching on the relations between man and the Spirit in the religious life. It anticipates a revolutionary change in man’s nature involving such an invasion of spiritual power and such a renewal of character that it would amount to a rebirth in man’s experience. This conception had to wait till Pentecost for fulfillment. If Joel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel were dealing with actual spiritual experience, then at best their words could have meaning only for a few choice souls in Israel.

Even the change of heart promised to King Saul (1 Sam. 10:6, 9) was clearly not of this striking moral or spiritual nature. It was not yet the time of fulfillment of Moses’ yearning cry: “Would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit upon them!” (Num. 11:29). Moral reformation there was, but not spiritual regeneration. The Spirit was still only the source of moral goodness, not the Agent of the birth that is from above.

But this must not lead to undue depreciation of the conception of the Spirit’s activity in the religious life of man in the Old Testament. Sufficient justice must be done to the fact that in the Old Testament the Spirit of God is the Holy Spirit. Why must the tide “Holy Spirit” (Ps. 51:11; Isa. 63:10 f.) be interpreted to mean that holiness is not to be predicated of the Spirit per se, that the Spirit is holy only because the Spirit is the Spirit of the God of holiness? Old Testament saints would be able to predicate holiness of the Spirit because in their experience, limited though it must have been, the Spirit produced holiness of life. It was the Spirit who implanted in the heart “the fear of the Lord” (Isa. 11:2), “righteousness” (Isa. 32:15–17) and a penitent and prayerful spirit (Zech. 12:10).

In the Old Testament the most spectacular evidence of the Spirit in the religious life of man is seen in the experience of the prophets. Through them the Lord communicated his word (Zech. 7:12), and to them he revealed his secrets (Amos 3:7). The Spirit was the power in which the prophet proclaimed his message (Mic. 3:8). It was natural, therefore, that the prophet should be known in Israel as “the man that hath the Spirit” (Hos. 9:7).

It is significant too that one of the chief results of the universal outpouring of the Spirit in New Testament times would be that its recipients would prophesy (Joel 2:28). Obviously, then, the Spirit was the main factor in this phenomenon of Old Testament religious experience. What differentiated the true prophet from the false was precisely that the Spirit lifted up the former into fellowship with God, enabled him to understand, and then to communicate, the divine will to his fellows.

This surely is the only adequate explanation of the genuine inspiration that characterize the prophet’s writings, and which makes them a divine revelation. How otherwise explain the habit of the prophets in attributing their message, spoken or written, to the Spirit of God (2 Sam. 23:22; Ezek. 2:2; 3:24, etc.), and of Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s constant use of the solemn phrase “thus saith the Lord”?

In A Greek New Testament

Language of high and laurelled Attic song,

Homer’s wide wings, and Plato’s cadences;

O trophied speech! Thy mightiest honor is

That God hath made of thee his human tongue.

—NATHAN R. WOOD

Professor J. G. S. S. Thomson served with the staff at New College, Edinburgh, while completing doctoral studies at University of Edinburgh. He specialized in Old Testament and cognate studies and served for eight years in Algeria, French North Africa, as a missionary among Arabic-speaking Moslems. He returned to Scotland as assistant in the Department of Hebrew and Semitic Languages, University of Edinburgh. He is now visiting associate professor of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Ga.

Cover Story

Segregation and the Kingdom of God

E. Earle Ellis

Race relations is probably the most important problem agitating the Christian conscience today. Secular integrationists are calling upon the Church to speak to the problem—assuming that if it “spoke,” it would call for the solution that the integrationists demand. As a matter of fact the Church has spoken and is speaking, but it does not speak with one voice. The cleavage is particularly apparent if one avoids that un-Protestant confusion of the voice of the clergy with the “voice of the Church.” Since the Supreme Court decision of 1954, the issue has been focused in terms of “segregation” versus “integration.” Within this framework Christian integrationists champion their position as “the Christian way” and dismiss the views of segregationists as naive or prejudiced.

Most of the integrationist press treats the question as if all segregationist thinking stemmed from emotional, ignorant or ulterior motives. Religious periodicals, with some exceptions, tend to identify integration with Christianity and segregation with the forces of iniquity. This attitude is not just an oversimplification; it is a basic distortion of the issues. It identifies the principle of segregation with certain evils in segregation-in-practice. It illogically leapfrogs from the proposition, “Integration is concordant with Christian race relations,” to the contention, “Integration is necessary for Christian race relations.” Finally, it ignores the injustices present in integration-in-practice in the North, and the evil implicit in a consistent integrationist philosophy.

Note: In a 2018 editorial, CT highlighted this article as a leading example that “during this crucial era of American history, CT did not lead as much as reflect the moral ambiguity and confusion of that era’s white evangelical churches. Though today we champion racial justice as a vital component of Christian discipleship, we must acknowledge and repent of this part of our history.”

A Southern Point Of View

Few Southerners—certainly few Christians—will defend in toto segregation-in-practice in the South. Too often the color line has been viewed as horizontal rather than vertical; unchristian white men—like unchristian men everywhere—have used their racial status to bully or to prey upon the weaker group; and the slogan “separate but equal” has preserved the separate and forgotten the equal. The greatest sin of Christian segregationists has not been their individual relationship with Negroes but their indifference to chronic injustices within the dual social system. In the forties, Virginius Dabney and a number of other Southerners organized to correct some of these injustices within the segregation formula. Dabney cites the reason for their failure (American Magazine, August, 1956): “There was no cooperation from influential segments of Southern society. The result of such indifference was the removal of the Negro capital from Atlanta to New York and the shifting of Negro leadership from Southern moderates to Northern radicals.”

This is not the whole story however. Raymond Moley has correctly identified the two salient facts in the segregated South over the past half-century—the great progress of the Negro and the great improvement in racial attitudes. Within the segregation pattern the South has opened the door to the professions for the Negro, in some ways surpassing integrationist areas. In each of several Southern states, for example, there are as many Negro school teachers (receiving “equal pay” and in some areas a higher average pay) as in thirty-one Northern and Western states combined (cf. Dabney); segregated Meharry and Howard universities have provided more Negro doctors than all of the integrated institutions of the North. For several decades preceding the Supreme Court decision, inequities had declined and the business and professional strata of Negro society had increasingly developed. “In the South they have segregation,” replied a Mississippi Negro to his surprised Northern college professor, “but Southerners are kinder to Negroes than Northerners are.” Segregation does not necessitate bad race relations, nor does integration guarantee good ones. On the contrary, the very opposite often appears to be true.

It is sometimes asserted that segregation almost always is associated with domination of and discrimination against the weaker group. It would be more accurate, however, to say that whenever diverse groups have been associated under a political unit, whether on an integrated or a segregated basis, the tendency has been to discriminate against the weaker. This is true of some “integrated” minority groups in Europe today—a problem that finds a “segregation” solution in the political realm through racial, rather than merely geographical, representation in parliament. On the other hand, eastern Canada is an example of segregation equitably administered. The French and the English have separate schools and churches, move in their own social circles and maintain distinct cultural divisions in an attitude of mutual respect.

It is not unnatural that the Christian in the North should look askance upon segregation. He can see no good reason for it (the “melting pot” philosophy worked for the Poles and the Germans, why not for the Southerner and the Negro?); he weighs it in terms of individual discriminations, e.g., the inferior Negro school (a complaint passe in many areas) or the poorer Negro residential area; and he hears of it only in caricature. Emotional and sentimental factors are particularly strong where the problem can be solved by a slogan. It is no secret that the integration sentiment of most white Christians increases in direct proportion to their distance from the Negro as a group factor in society.

The integrationist, viewing the problem as one of “personal” exclusion, overlooks or denies the relevancy of treating it as a group relationship. Christians in the South have a different reality to face: There is de facto a biracial society with vast numbers of each group; cultural, sociological and psychological differences between the races are considerable. (Only a naive appraisal can reduce the problem to one of “skin color.”) Freedom of association, in the eyes of the South, is a liberty applicable to group as well as individual relationships. The white South desires—and holds it to be a right—to preserve its European racial and cultural heritage; this cannot be done if integration is enforced in social institutions, e.g., the schools. Intermarriage, whether in the 2nd generation or the 10th, is a question which, in Alistair Cooke’s phrase, “only the intellectual, the superficial and the foreigner far from the dilemma can afford to pooh-pooh” (Manchester Guardian Weekly, May 24, 1956). The soothsayer may confidently predict that this will not happen, or publicize as the “scientific” view (as though scientists were agreed on the matter) that racial differences are merely physical and environmental. The essential point is that the people who must live in the situation are convinced, for reasons sufficient for them, that integration will be destructive of their society, ultimately an evil rather than a good. (Compare H. R. Sass, “Mixed Schools and Mixed Blood,” The Atlantic, Nov., 1956.) And they are confident that, where the white and black races live together in considerable numbers, the concept of a dual society applying a principle of segregation in varying degrees according to the exigencies of particular situations will, when directed by a Christian conscience, provide the more equitable and harmonious relationship.

The master-servant relationship is passing in the South, and some modus vivendi is desperately needed to replace it. Segregation has the potential to develop into a partnership of mutual respect; this partnership can never arise from a judicial force bill which is intolerable to one of the groups. Southerners often wonder whether integrationists are as interested in good race relations as in forcing a particular kind of race relations. The unfortunate fact is that ardent Christian integrationists, however conscientious, are one cause of the worsening race relations in the South today. Their moral superiority complex, their caricature of the segregationist as an unchristian bigot and their pious confession of the sins of people in other sections of the country have not been wholly edifying.

Segregation in America is, and should be, a fence not a wall, a division with many openings. In former years in the South the writer occasionally visited colored churches and enjoyed their fellowship in an atmosphere of Christian love; they on occasion visited his. At that time segregation was the norm, recognized and approved by both groups; yet it was no bar to friendship or fellow ship in many areas. Then came the integrationist, a self-righteous harbinger of a “new world a-comin,” pounding his pulpit drum and condemning all opposition to Gehenna. The outlines of his new world have come: and what is the cause of the growing resentment, fear, animosity and discord? Why, the segregationist, of course!

Across The Ohio

Whatever appeal integration has for Southern Negroes, it has been produced by the current identification of everything bad with segregation and everything good with integration. Even to the more sophisticated outside the South the word still casts a spell, but some of its luster no doubt has faded. They came north to the promised land, but they crossed the river to find it wasn’t Jordan at all but only the Ohio. In the North Negroes are integrated—at the bottom. There are exceptions, of course, but by and large integration-inpractice is full of discriminations: A Negro student sometimes cannot fulfill his requirements because no integrated school will accept him for student teaching. In Negro sections business and professional services are largely in the hands of whites. There is no “separate but equal” formula to equalize facilities between “white” New Trier and Chicago’s “black” south-side schools.

If the 90-year integration experiment in the North had produced a just and amicable relationship, it might be more attractive to the South. Actually, integration has most signally failed in just those areas which most nearly approximate—in population ratio—the Southern scene. The integrationist “blockbuster” approach is exemplified by Trumbull Park (Chicago) where Negroes were assigned to a white housing project. The result has been riot, race hatred and a 24-hour police guard for more than a year. In nearby Gary, Indiana, Andrew Means, a Negro contractor, using a segregationist approach, has built six Negro suburban-type communities. Race relations are good. Nevertheless, integrationists encounter a mental block at the suggestion that segregation has merit as a pattem-for-living in a multiracial society.

The Southerner can understand the sentimentalist, but the inconsistency of most integrationists is harder to comprehend. In the integrationist North, papers often censor local racial unrest (to prevent riot), then editorialize about immoral segregation in the South. When teaching Sunday School in Chicago’s “black” south side, the writer failed to encounter any homes of Christian integrationists. They live in “white” suburbs, send their children to “white” schools, and then travel through Negro areas to their editorial offices, professions and businesses where they expatiate against segregation. Sometimes they favor admitting a Negro to their suburb if he is the “right kind” of Negro. A Christian friend of the writer, quite integration-conscious, mentioned having had Negro dinner guests. “Of course,” he added, “they were clean and educated—no one like Isaac (our janitor).” Is this the fulfillment of New Testament ethics?

The point is not that the integrationist would defend integration-in-practice in the North. But in condemning the segregationist’s failure to achieve a “separate and equal” society, the integrationist fails to realize the implication of his own failure to achieve a “mixed and equal” society. This failure hardly recommends integration as “the solution” to racial discrimination and animosity—a goal that both groups seek. If Southern Christian leaders can do no better than to follow the integrationist approach of their brothers to the North, the future is less than bright.

And The Kingdom Of God

Both integrationists and segregationists are extremely eager to quote God as on their side. However, the Scriptures most frequently used, the “curse of Ham” argument in Genesis and the “one blood” argument in Acts, are irrelevant. The New Testament does indeed picture all Christians as being united. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male nor female, free nor slave, rich nor poor, educated nor ignorant, clean nor dirty, black nor white (cf. Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11). But in New Testament Christianity this is a unity in diversity, a unity which transcends differences and works within them, but never a unity which ignores or denies differences or necessarily seeks to erase them. The servant is no less a servant, the master no less a master; the rich no less rich, and the poor no less poor. The New Testament ethic is not “we are the same, there is no difference; we are equal, therefore I love you” but rather “we are not the same, we are not equal in many ways; but I love you and desire your good.” The Gospel was not primarily to change the pattern of society, but to bring to bear new motives and new attitudes within the pattern. It is true that Christianity effected changes in the pattern, but its approach was totally different from the integrationist’s philosophy today.

Integration as a moral imperative has its roots in a secular view of the Kingdom of God in which the Kingdom is identified with the church and ultimately with the society of this world, and is to be brought in by social reforms. For the New Testament, however, whatever its manifestation within the Christian community is, the Kingdom of God is never to be identified with or find its consummation in a this-world society. (Compare T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, p. 134; E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, p. 196.) Even within the church the differences between individuals and/or groups are not done away. Paul and Barnabas came to the conclusion that in certain circumstances their best unity lay in separation (Acts 15:36–46). Jewish and Gentile Christians differed in many practices, e.g., the observance of the Sabbath and other Old Testament laws (Rom. 14:5, 6; Acts 18:18; 21:23 ff), differences that ultimately resulted in “ecclesiastical” separation. Not only does the Apostle not view these differences as sinful, but he rather insists on the right of the groups to continue in them (Gal. 2:5; Rom. 14). In other words, the unity of Christians does not necessarily mean a physical “togetherness” or organizational conformity; the Kingdom in the church does not negate the church’s relation to the social customs of the world and of the churches: The same Paul who said that there was neither male nor female in Christ also instructed women to be silent in church (cf. 1 Cor. 11:4; 14:34).

The creed of consistent integrationist Christians could be summed up in the phrase, “the right to belong”; and their heresy, “the refusal to belong.” In their minds “togetherness” is a good, exclusiveness an evil. God—whatever else he is—is certainly “democratic”; segregation is “undemocratic” and therefore immoral.

Only when one applies the philosophy of integration consistently—thankfully most integrationists are not consistent—can he see its full implications. In Christ there is no rich nor poor; therefore, says the economic integrationist, we must integrate society through Christian socialism to eliminate evil class distinctions. It is wrong, cries the political integrationist, to discriminate against a man because of “an accident of birth”—birth in a foreign country; world government and world citizenship are the answers to this wrong. The ecclesiastical integrationist intones: denominations are evil per se, they divide us; we must fulfill Christ’s prayer “that they may be one” by uniting in the “coming great church.” Segregation is discrimination, concludes the racial integrationist, and “de-segregation” is its cure.

The argument for racial integration and the use of governmental force to implement it is a part of a pattern that is very evident in other areas of life. (And how often the voices in the argument vaguely remind one of voices heard at other times, on other issues.) It is a bad argument. Christian communism does not yield a good economic relationship; the “one church” organization does not give true Christian unity; cultural leveling does not produce a common bond of friendship; integration does not alleviate racial animosity and injustice. Further, it is an argument that is ethically anemic: in the name of equality it destroys the liberty of individuals and groups to live and develop in associations of their own preference; in the name of unity it points with undeviating insistence toward authoritarianism and conformity, eschewing the inherent sin root in human society with its inevitable consequence: power corrupts and total power corrupts totally.

If the Kingdom of God as a monolithic homogeneous structure is the goal of Christian ethics—if national, economic, cultural, racial, ecclesiastical distinctions are to be abolished as “immoral,” then the integrationist argument is sound. But if the Kingdom of God is seen as intersecting—and yet above—a this-world framework, compatible with—and yet superseding—the many and varied distinctions in this present age; then segregation is, in principle, an equally valid answer. And in practice it is much more compatible with liberty. Christian integrationists are patently sincere in the path they are forging, but the road signs along that path sometimes remind one more of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World than of the New Testament’s Kingdom of God.

A native of Florida, E. Earle Ellis holds the B.S. degree from the University of Virginia, the M.A. and B.D. degrees from Wheaton College Graduate School and the Ph.D. from University of Edinburgh. His dissertation, “Paul’s Use of the Old Testament,” has just been published. He is Assistant Professor of Bible and Religion at Aurora College, Illinois.

Cover Story

Christianity and the Sense of Tragedy

W. Stanford Reid

The feeling that life is fundamentally tragic seems to be common to the human race. The tendency toward death, frustration and what Carlyle has called “the inane” seems for most men to be the dominant theme of earthly existence. True, in times of expansion, of economic and social improvement, men have usually become optimistic, declaring this to be the best possible world and that every day in every way we are getting better and better. But let there be ever so slight a “recession” and the immediate change of tone in the chorus of optimism becomes very noticeable. The sense of tragedy very soon reasserts its rule over the human heart and mind.

That this is so is seen early in the history of civilization and culture. To the Greeks, for instance, the highest type of dramatic art, that which most truly portrayed life, was tragedy. Aristotle held that such representation performed a catharsis in those who witnessed it, enabling them to project themselves into the situation depicted in the drama. By so doing, they would be able to evaluate and overcome the catastrophic in their own lives. Here, as in much Eastern thinking, the black tragedy of man’s existence is taken for granted.

The Forms Of Tragedy

To the Greek dramatist, whether Sophocles, Euripedes or another, tragedy had one of three principal forms. The hero might find himself in conflict with society and its conventions, the result being virtual outlawry and death. Such an end, however, was not so tragic as that of the man who dared to fight with the gods. If he attempted this, his end was foreordained, for the gods would crush him with the weight of their roaring thunderbolts. In an even worse plight was the man in conflict with himself. There lay the deepest depth of tragedy, for such a one was not only the victim but also his own prosecutor and judge.

Thus, in Greek thought, anyone worthy of the name of man was obliged to enter into one form of conflict or other. As an individual he had to face the demands of society, religion or even his own human nature. One answer he could offer to these demands was submission, but by giving this answer he really ceased to be an individual and a man. This was slavery. On the other hand, he could go his own independent way, a way leading inevitably to a conflict ending only in defeat. But having fought a good fight, he would go down with his flag flying. Here was the gloriously tragic moment of life.

Such an approach to life assumes, of course, a whole philosophy or world-and-life view. It holds that life is fundamentally void, for man is destined to defeat and consequently to hopelessness. The hero is one who does not really overcome but who faces life defiantly and, by maintaining his own individual integrity, transmutes defeat into true victory. This is the tragedy which underlies all of life, for it reveals the ultimate vanity of all human endeavor.

It is upon this tradition that the great Western dramatists have built. This theme lies at the heart of Milton’s Samson Agonistes, which the author prefaced with a discussion of Aristotle and his views of the tragic. Corneille and Racine both followed the same pattern. Only Shakespeare at first appears to be different, but he too in King Lear, Macbeth or Othello, while perhaps more psychologically profound, follows the same well-worn path. Whether it be man’s fatuous love, his pride or his lust, they all lead to a destruction which he can only resist, daring the gods to strike him down with their searing darts of lightning.

Bleakness In Modern Life

Nor has our thinking changed much in our own day and age. We, who would seem to have good reason for optimism, particularly if we live in the Western Hemisphere, might well be excused for a certain buoyancy of outlook. Yet, on every hand, tragic bleakness seems to dominate. Robert Louis Stevenson commented more than once on this fact, and the parade of great novelists and writers only bears him out too well. Dreiser, Hardy, D. H. Lawrence, Proust, Dylan Thomas and many others continually point up the fact that life is essentially calamitous. Going even further, historian-philosophers, such as Spengler and Toynbee, declare that civilizations, like the individual, can end only in tragic death.

One may, of course, object that this attitude is a product of extreme intellectualism. It is the fate of the university professor, rather than of the man in the street. Yet is this true? Is it not true that it is part and parcel, not merely of Western, but of human thought? How often have we heard it prophesied in the past few years that there will be a third world war, and that this war will bring about the end of all things! Man seems to accept it as axiomatic that he will eventually bring himself to destruction, perhaps because of his very efforts to survive. In a hostile universe he can look forward to nothing but ultimate disaster. Despite all that he does, the universe will ultimately run down, bringing man’s hard-won achievements in art, science, religion and war to nothing. There is the ultimate tragedy.

And what practical effect does this have upon men? They see no value to life. They make money, they amass power, they build up a reputation. But where does it all lead? There is nothing beyond, for death ends all, and frustration is the common lot of man. Out of this situation come inner tensions, which in turn lead to social conflicts. The individual in his drive, in his search for something beyond his own puny efforts, to make life mean something finds himself opposed by others with the same tensions and acquisitive desires. The result is war in the economic, political or international sphere, and this in turn destroys man and his glory, civilization, and their cultures, nations and their achievements. Man agrees that

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,

And all that beauty, all that wealth e’er gave,

Await alike the inevitable hour,

The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

Mirror Of Man’s Need

The Christian church in human society and the individual Christian as a member of society both have seriously to face this common interpretation of life. A mere glib “God’s in His heaven, all’s right with the world” sort of attitude does not solve the problem, nor overcome the difficulty. Does Christianity, therefore, have any real answer to, any effective argument against, the usual “philosophy of tragedy?” Or, does it simply admit that life is vanity of vanities about which man can do absolutely nothing?

In considering this matter, the Christian must of course realize that this belief in ultimate tragedy is a revelation of man’s need. As man becomes more self-conscious, so he becomes more “tragedy-conscious.” His sense of uncertainty and insecurity grows stronger as he more clearly sees his own smallness against the background of the universe. At times he has felt that he could govern all things by his reason, but before long, further knowledge has made him realize that he was dealing with something far beyond his power to control. Thus it has indeed been true that “he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow” (Eccles. 1:18).

To the Christian this is not unexpected. After all, when man frankly and bluntly refuses to acknowledge God as sovereign, he cannot expect anything else. A limited god, or no god at all, leaves the universe as the plaything of chance and the sport of conflicting currents of forces. In the circumstances, all that man can do is fight back at his environment, in the hope that some day in the future he may see victory—or oblivion. Man’s sin is thus at the root of his tragic sense.

Its Roots Are Deep

One may well ask then if Christianity sees no tragedy in life. Is Christianity a religion of facile optimism that goes its way without considering or caring for the emptiness which obviously lies so close to the surface of all human endeavor and activity? No, Christianity realizes that there is indeed a tragic side to life, but it believes that its roots lie deeper than most men realize.

The Christian bases his understanding of tragedy upon his belief in the doctrine fundamental to all Christian thought—God’s sovereignty. Because God is sovereign, he is the Creator, Sustainer and Ruler of all that is (John 1:3–5; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16, 17). Indeed, he is more: the Redeemer of his people, sovereignly saving them by his grace (John 1:12 f.; 3:3, 6, 7, 16; Rom. 8:28 ff.; Eph. 1, 2). God is absolute in all things.

Yet although God’s sovereign goodness is so bountifully manifest in creation and providence, man continues in rebellion. Although God continually displays his kindness to man in providing what he needs in this life, man shows neither gratitude nor thanksgiving. He prefers to declare that all these things are attained by his own hard work, or even by chance. Completely egocentric, he ignores God, refusing the submission that he should offer (Rom. 1:19–20).

Nevertheless, the sovereign God continues by his providence to sustain and govern the rebel, not only providing him with those things which he needs, but even restraining the ravages of sin in his mind and body. Although man laughs in his face, God still keeps him in this life, for the rebel is utterly dependent, though he acknowledge it not, upon him.

As if this evidence of God’s goodness were not enough, he has entered into history speaking to men through the mouths of prophets and apostles, and calling upon them to return to him. Most important of all he entered into man’s world as man, in the person of Jesus Christ. And in the Incarnation, which led to his death on Calvary’s cross, he substituted himself for man, that he alone might bear the penalty of man’s continual and obstinate rebellion. Here was the supreme manifestation of divine sovereign grace.

The Rebellious Creature

Yet in spite of God’s infinite grace, in spite of all his calls to return, man pays little or no attention. Faced with the offer of the Gospel, he turns his back upon it, and we hear the tragic cry of the Savior: “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not” (Matt. 23:37). Here is one aspect of the Christian sense of tragedy: the tragedy of the rebellious creature.

But there is another side to it, for Christ adds the words: “Behold your house is left unto you desolate.” The tragedy of life consists not only in man’s turning away from the call of the sovereign God but also in the fact that God in his just and righteous wrath may, and does, turn away from his rebellious creatures. This is tragedy indeed—the tragedy of Hell, far greater, deeper and more enduring than anything man can imagine: eternal death.

The Initiative Of Grace

Yet no Christian would ever admit that tragedy is the final word. For the Christian, tragedy is never the end, since God’s grace is as ultimate as his justice. Even though the Christian once rebelled and fought against God, in his infinite mercy and loving kindness God has laid hold upon him. He has sweetly wooed him back to himself, and hope has blotted out the feeling of vanity and emptiness.

The Christian, however, must continually emphasize that this has not happened because of his own willingness or desire to turn to God, but because God in Christ and through the Holy Spirit has taken the initiative.

Born again from above, “not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13), God’s people turn to him in faith and obedience, knowing that they have been saved from black tragedy, by the sovereign grace of God alone.

Swallowed Up In Hope

The Christian cannot and does not seek to escape from the sense of tragedy in the world. But his view of tragedy is not the result of a sense of insecurity forced upon him by a world of chance. He sees tragedy in man’s continual rejection of the sovereign God of grace; but at the same time he also sees tragedy swallowed up in hope. Christ has died; yea, he has risen again and he offers salvation freely to all. Tragedy is not ultimate, for Christ lives and reigns as the Redeemer and Intercessor for all who come unto him by faith.

How does the Christian view affect one’s attitude toward life? For one thing, the Christian realizes that God has called him in this life to serve him. The Apostle Paul never tired of stressing this point when dealing with the individual members of the early Church, because it gave to even the humblest Christian a sense of vocation. God had summoned the Christian to service; therefore the Christian, even though a slave, was God’s freedman.

And out of this sense of calling comes a further result. The Christian’s work, feeble, sinful and ineffectual though it might be, if it is done honestly, faithfully and conscientiously, will redound to the glory of the sovereign God. Thus, even the humblest ditch digger can glorify God in his work. Moreover, this is not just for a day, or a year, but for all eternity, for “their works do follow them.” This destroys frustration, emptiness, tragedy. We are working for the eternal glory of the King of Kings.

“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).

END

Components

Dust … and clay …

and the voice of God.

Here is the Creator’s handiwork;

Here is dust … and clay.

The highest of all organisms,

yet of the earth.

The most complex of God’s creations:

Insignificant.

What good can come of dust …

and clay?

Dust of itself is nothing;

Clay—little more.

What then remains?

The voice of God.

DONALD CLAIR REAM

W. Stanford Reid teaches in Canada in the city of his birth, at McGill University, Montreal, where he is Associate Professor of History and Warden of Men’s Residences. He holds the Ph.D. degree from the University of Pennsylvania and is author of The Church of Scotland in Lower Canada, Economic History of Great Britain and Problems in Western Intellectual History since 1500.

Theology

Review of Current Religious Thought: March 04, 1957

G. C. Berkouwer

Christianity Today March 4, 1957

In the year 1956 at the 70th anniversary of the famous Swiss theologian Karl Barth, many theologians published articles on the significance of the theology of Barth. That was to be expected, since Barth since 1920 has dominated the field of dogmatic theology in several countries.

Barth started the dialectical theology as the theology of the Word of God together with Thurneyson, Brunner and Bultmann. In 1933 came a deep split in the dialectical movement. Since that time we see divergences between Barth and Brunner, Barth and Bultmann, and so on. Only Thurneyson and Barth have remained theological friends from the beginning.

Barth’s largest work is his Kirchliche Dogmatik, now published in ten big volumes. The work is not yet finished. We still expect, if he will have the opportunity to finish it, two parts of volume IV (reconciliation) and the last volume on the eschatological theme.

In 1956 was published a book of 960 pages, wholly devoted to articles on the person or the work of Barth. The authors were theologians and philosophers from many countries and continents. Several important articles dealt with the doctrine of the image of God in Barth’s theology, his doctrine of preaching, Barth and the Heidelberg Catechism, the laughing Barth, Barth and the Roman Catholic Church and the relation between Gospel and Law. This latter theme does not surprise us in this work, because in recent years this relation has become more and more the central theme in Barth’s own theology. There was criticism exactly on this point from the Lutherans, because Barth talked of the law as the form of the Gospel and was attacked on this point that he had no real and important place for the specific significance of the law. Important also is the article of his friend Thurneyson, who wrote together with him the famous commentary on Paul’s epistle to the Romans in the beginning of the dialectical theology in 1918. Thurneyson writes on the contacts and correspondance between him and Barth in that first time. This was an important article as far as orientation is concerned on the origins of this movement.

It will be interesting for American readers to hear that in this book there is also an article from the pen of Emilio E. Castra on the theological situation in South America and on the theology of Barth. He mentions especially the controversy with Rome and the contradiction between fundamentalism and modernism. It might be interesting to write afterwards more broadly on this article, since not everybody will have the opportunity to read this book of nearly 1000 pages!

The last article I mention is from Gempo Hoshino on the relation of Buddhistic thinking and the theology of Barth. Many readers will be surprised by it. Is there any relation between Christianity and Buddhism? The writer tells us of a large influence of Barth’s ideas in the scientific circles of the largest Buddhistic sect in Japan and he tries to analyze the problem of the point of contract. I don’t know if Barth will be happy with this article; the comparison is, as far as I can see, rather superficial.

Besides this big book several other articles also appeared in connection with Barth’s anniversary. In England was published a book, Studies in Christology. It is not a book on Barth’s theology. But when they gave it to Barth on his visit to England last year, he said that it was the theme he judged the most important. Everybody who reads Barth’s book knows how strong the Christological impact has become on Barth’s theological thinking.

In Switzerland the Theologische Zeitschrift (Basel) devoted two numbers in honor of Barth. Some of the articles handle a special theme of Barth’s theology, the sovereignty of God. Especially important, although it does not concern Barth immediately is the article of Oscar Cullmann, Professor in New Testament in Basel and a colleague of Barth on a very important subject: the of the soul and the resurr dead in the witness of the New Testament. This is a theme discussed in the Western European theology of the last 30 years, especially in connection with the question whether the immortality of the soul is a product of Greek thinking or belongs to the New Testament witness. I have the impression that after a long period of criticism of the doctrine of the intermediate state we are now on the way to rethinking this problem. And the remarkable thing is that this is not originating from an egotistical motive (our human importance) but from the message of the New Testament according to the blessed hope, of which the New Testament is speaking. It will be extremely interesting to follow the discussions when Barth, in his fifth volume, will handle the problems of eschatology. That does not mean that we do not know anything about Barth’s views on eschatology. In my book, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, I tried to analyze the eschatological triumph in Barth’s thinking. I know—not only from his books but also from personal encounter—how important he estimates the problems of his last volume to be. They are not only important for theologians but for the whole church of Christ. If there is any point where the discussions of theology touch the church in her faith, it is surely the expectation of the Church, the character of the Christian hope.

The discussions of theology are not to dominate the church. Surely theologians do not have a special privilege for entrance into the kingdom. They also have to listen to the word of the Lord: “I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes,” (Matthew 11:25). But they are not excluded either if they want to serve the Church of Jesus Christ. In that service, everything becomes important, even difficult problems coming up not out of the depth of our autonomous thinking but out of the unfathomable depth of the word of the Lord.

This review of live spiritual and moral issues debated in the secular and religious press of the day is prepared successively for CHRISTIANITY TODAY by four evangelical scholars: the Rev. Phillip Hughes of England, Prof. William Mueller of the United States, Prof. G. C. Berkouwer of the Netherlands, and Prof. John H. Gerstner of the United States.—ED.

Books

Book Briefs: March 4, 1957

Useful Collection

The Ministry in Historical Perspectives, edited by H. Richard Niebuhr and Daniel D. Williams. Harper, New York, 1956. $5.00.

Making surveys is one of the most popular scholarly occupations of our day. It is a relatively painless way of educating not only the surveyed but the surveyor. Sometimes it is pointed at one, sometimes at the other, but usually both benefit if there is any organization at all in the undertaking.

The theological seminaries of the United States and Canada have recently been undergoing such a survey. It has been under the direction of the two editors of this present book and of James M. Gustafson. Some preliminary results appeared in a series of mimeographed bulletins and the final statements are now appearing in three books. The volume under review is the second of the three to appear. It has less to do directly with the survey than either of the other two but may prove, in the long run, to be the most useful of all. Judgment on that point must be reserved until the third appears and time has passed to note the effects. In any case, this volume is a real bonanza for anyone interested in the ministry and how it has reached its present state.

The editors of the volume are not among the contributors, most of whom are professors of church history in American theological schools. They include, in order, John Knox who deals with the ministry in the primitive church, George H. Williams who covers the ante-nicene and patristic periods, Roland H. Bainton for the middle ages and Wilhelm Pauck for the Reformation. Edward R. Hardy deals with modern priestly ministries, Winthrop S. Hudson with the Puritans and Sidney E. Mead and Robert Michaelsen with the American scene.

The post-apostolic age always leads to speculation on the actual course of events, since our sources of information are very limited and do not provide all the desired answers. Knox is a little bolder and more radical in this speculation than is necessary or, in fact, than is likely, in the light of what we do know, to represent the real state of affairs. For example, by considering the Pastoral epistles as non-Pauline and by holding the book of Acts to be “considerably later than Paul” (p. 20), he is able to discuss the offices of bishop, deacon and others at considerable length without introducing the subject of the presbyter or elder. The treatment of the latter follows in a separate section. This results in what seems to me to be a distortion of the picture. There are, however, great excellencies in the clarity of presentation and the use that is made of many of the sources.

The other periods are better provided with source material and the authors, therefore, are able to walk on surer ground. The attractiveness and vivid character of the style varies from contribution to contribution but taken as a whole they are a brilliant and most useful coliection. There is nothing else just like this and nothing as good as this at present available. Williams handles his material in masterly fashion. Bainton is not as technical but is marvellously evocative of the medieval situation. Pauck supplies much information not otherwise generally available concerning conditions at the time of the Reformation. Hardy is concerned to present the ideal as well as the actual. I am not sure that Hudson is quite up to his usual level though he gives a competent review of the Puritan period in England, but Mead has a splendid analysis of the distinctive American scene. It does not push the evidence too far, as Mead has sometimes done. Michaelsen’s characterization of the fundamentalist minister, unfortunately, is on the cheap side (pp. 258 f.).

Almost every institution and office can only be understood if its history is known. The contemporary ministry is no exception to this rule. This book could make some ministers twice as effective.

PAUL WOOLLEY

Facing Decay

The American Sex Revolution, by Pitirim A. Sorokin. Porter Sargent, Boston. $3.50.

Dr. Pitirim A. Sorokin is Chairman of the Department of Sociology of Harvard University and former President of the International Institute of Sociology. He is the author of some thirty books on sociology and is a recognized authority in his field. Thus speaks one who knows.

The thesis of The American Sex Revolution is so challenging and startling that it is well to know it is advanced by a capable authority and not by a religious reformer. Dr. Sorokin claims that the conclusions which he reaches in his American Sex Revolution are reinforced by his many works in sociology, to various ones of which he refers for the evidence to support different declarations. The deterioration of sex attitudes and mores in American life is another proof we are in the sensate state of culture, in a downward process that must be arrested by the sane leadership of this nation or our culture will go the way of that of ancient Egypt, of Greece and of Rome. The student who is familiar with Sorokin’s The Crisis of Our Age will follow the application of Sorokin’s cyclical view of history to morals in the American cultural pattern.

Birth, marriage and death are declared to be the most important events of an individual life and, as viewed by society, of more importance than other events because of the way they are hedged in by laws, mores and traditions. Of these three, marriage is by far the most important because it is the transition from the child to the wife-mother or to the husband-father. The family becomes the most important school for the child, it fulfills the creative urge in humanity, it secures immortality for the individual and the race and it satisfies the demand for fellowship. No illicit sexual relationship can do what the family relationship can do. Sex viewed in the responsible relationship of the family is a healthy and helpful experience, ennobled and beautified in the language of Sociologist Sorokin; but sex in extra-marital relationships or pre-marital relationships or without discipline and control is viewed as a crime, a sin and a symptom of degeneration. Recognizing this, Sorokin declares that a revolution is taking place in the American way of life pertaining to sex. He gives the evidence in the preponderant practice of pre-marital sex relationships and the increasing number of extra-marital sex relations that are resulting in divorce, desertion, orphanaging of millions of children, illegitimate children, abortions, the skyrocketing of the sale of contraceptives and the resultant physical and mental diseases. The statistics presented by Professor Sorokin are impressive. It is his belief that sex promiscuity leads to sex addiction, that such addiction is encouraged by sex reaching its saturation point in pulp magazines, in realistic novels, in the entertainment field of the legitimate stage, the movies and television, in newspapers, in bathing beauty contests, in advertising of every article of life, in present legal practices and enactments and even in science. This, joined with the weakening of taboos on promiscuity in sex by religious, legal and social authorities, has resulted in the present revolution.

Professor Sorokin boldly proclaims that this revolution is having its effect upon the deterioration of physical health of our nation, the increase of mental tensions and derangements, the reduction of creativity, the interference with longevity, the breakup of integrity and the destruction of happiness. He shows that mental illnesses increase proportionately with the sex freedoms. This sex freedom produces tension in the life of the individual in his relationship to his spouse, or to the relatives of the person with whom he has had relations, and with society. These tensions tend to increase and have a disintegrating effect upon society itself.

Out of his vast knowledge of and familiarity with the history of past civilizations, Professor Sorokin demonstrates that the same process took place in the old kingdom and middle kingdom of Egypt, in the change from a strict and puritanical family life to one of freedom, to one of license. He believes that the rigorous restraints upon sex in the family life of the puritanical period result in a creative burst of life. Simultaneous with the creative burst of life the restraints are released, then within two generations they become license, and the culture begins to deteriorate. Proof is also adduced from the history of Greece, of Rome, of Italy and of modern Europe. Sorokin believes that America has passed through this cycle of continence, of creativity, of freedom, of looseness and is now facing decay. He believes that inevitable doom awaits this nation without a moral regeneration in the form of sex continence. To assist the transition from sex anarchy to sex order, he advocates the practice of total love, in pre-marital relations, in courtship and in marriage. Sex-love is only a small part of the total love of human beings. Sorokin challenges present leadership to change society by changing persons, changing practices of our culture and changing institutions.

Here is a magnificent negative preparation for the Christian Gospel standard of morals, teaching on sex and transformation by the power of God. Professor Sorokin has done America a great service to analyze the trend of our present society, to raise warning signals and to summon the nation back to standards of purity. Christians will rejoice in the thesis of the book and will agree, at least 95%, with the book which is not particularly written from a Christian standpoint.

HAROLD JOHN OCKENGA

Social Implications

All Ye That Labor, by Lester De Koster. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. $1.50.

This book, which bears the subtitle, “An Essay on Christianity, Communism and the Problem of Evil,” contrasts the approach of Christianity with that of communism, as religions, to the problem of social evil. It compares in a delightfully effective way the explanations these two systems offer to the existence of an imperfect world, effectively criticizing the explanation of Communism.

All Ye That Labor is the first of a series of monographs, called Pathway Books, which Eerdmans intends to issue on important subjects within the general province of the Christian faith. From Authority to Archaeology, the Pathway series will offer the best available evangelical thought on questions of current religious interest. If the others compare favorably with this first volume, the series will be a valuable one.

The author takes his departure from the assumption that Western man has surrendered his dreams of utopia and is once again engaged in a quest for an explanation of the malignancy he recognizes in society. Point by point he contrasts Communism’s affirmation that man will inevitably save himself with Christianity’s supreme affirmation that God can save man. He finds that Marx’s insights (for instance, that society is sick, a conclusion reached during a period of universal optimism) do not necessarily validate the conclusions drawn therefrom. He establishes, in telling fashion, that man, nature and God are not what Marx thought them to be and that evil is not simply the result of ignorance and of ancestry, inevitably destined to disappear in a classless society.

The author defends but does not worship Capitalism. He acknowledges that Capitalism produces social evil, but he insists that the source of the evil is not in the system but in human sin. This is a profound insight frequently missed by critics who assume that the problem may always he found in the system itself and who look for the evils of Capitalism in its premises rather than in man. On the other hand, argues the author. Communism is wrong as a system, and in the hands of sinful man the evil is compounded. Capitalism is based upon premises that are essentially good and benevolent. It produces evil only as human greed and selfishness add their corrupting influence to a philosophy which otherwise would offer freedom and defend the individual without destroying natural differences.

This book, despite its economic theme, is a masterful apology for the Christian view of man, sin and salvation. It also constitutes a strong argument for the fact that Christianity has social implications. The author’s insights are frequently profound. They are generally phrased in simple and delightful language.

Untreated, however, are at least two important considerations. The first, how human greed and selfishness form the dynamic of Communism instead of an impersonal dialectical materialism. The author declares that Communism’s dynamic is demonic, but he doesn’t point out how this dynamic is, in action, man’s selfish search to improve himself at the expense of those who allegedly exploit him. Secondly, the book says nothing of the relation (if any) of Democracy to either of the systems discussed. Most Americans, at any rate, assume that some form of Democracy inevitably complements Capitalism. At least a statement affirming or denying this assumption would have been helpful.

G. AIKEN TAYLOR

Strong Meat

Red Dragon Over China, by Harold H. Martinson. Augsburg, Minneapolis, 1956. $3.50.

This is a book which should not be read by those who would like to ignore or forget the political ineptness or worse, that permitted China to fall into the Communist Camp. Nor should it be read by those who contend that the unrepentance of sins and atrocities of communism should be overlooked. This book is strong meat. It revolts because it is true. It depresses because it gives the downward course of a great and once friendly nation and tells of the agonies of her people after their “liberation.”

The author was born in China and after receiving his education in America returned to the land of his birth as a Christian missionary. He is not a fanatic but an honest reporter of facts. He does not write of his opinions but of tragic happenings. He writes with care and documents his statements with a generous bibliography.

Mr. Martensen states in his preface: “This book is presented to the public more from a sense of duty than from a sense of choice. Having witnessed at close hand the workings of communism, I feel constrained as a Christian to inform, to warn, to arouse as many as possible against this terrifying blight.”

“In all my research I have not come across a single satisfactory survey of the rise of communism in China.”

With a thoroughness and a clarity that satisfies even though the details are so utterly depressing, the author proceeds to give a running account of communism’s take-over of China. After the establishing of the red regime he proceeds to give case histories in a chronological order of repressions, brain washings and wholesale murder.

One pathetic illustration is an actual photograph of a great throng of people kneeling just prior to their execution. Their one crime was that they had owned a little land.

Here in the peace and quiet of America there is danger of being lulled into a feeling of security, or of feeling that the evil days and ways of the communists have passed. That we have been spared the horrors of war and wholesale atrocities is soon forgotten.

Red Dragon Over China brings one back with a jerk. We see communism for what it was when China was lost to the free world. We see it as it is today. This book should be read by politicians, by church leaders and by any misguided Americans who feel that one can do business with either the system or the adherents of communism.

L. NELSON BELL

Enough Of Barth

Christ and the Conscience, by N. H. G. Robinson, D.Litt., Professor of Systematic Theology, University of St. Andrews, Nisbet & Co. London.

The purpose of this book is difficult to define. The author has quite clear views of his own, and it would have been most welcome to his readers if he had expounded these positively and constructively. Instead of this valuable exposition the reader is supplied with yet another book on Barth. Interesting and stimulating though Barth is, have we not enough of him? The present reviewer would much rather be reading Dr. Robinson in Dr. Robinson’s book. Barth, Brunner and Niebuhr are all weighed in the balances by our author and found wanting! Dr. P. T. Forsyth is shown on this occasion, as on many others, to have been a fore-runner of Barth’s spiritual emphasis but at the same time to have been far more scriptural and certainly far less paradoxical.

The author’s main concern is to draw attention to the absence of the truly ethical element in Barthianism. He contends that theology must take within its sphere not only the setting forth of the truth about the Divine communication of revelation, but also those truths which belong to man’s reception of that revelation. “Theology cannot escape the responsibility of considering the response to revelation as well as the revelation itself.”

Dr. Robinson does not like Barth’s contention that “the response of faith is utterly given” as a kind of creatio ex nihilo. Dr. Robinson argues rightly that Barthianism is evangelically deficient in that it either pays no heed to the realm of man’s moral action or even violates its sanctity. He writes, “Underlying the movement way from Barth by those closest to him there is at bottom … a desire and a search for a more ethical evangelical theology, and theological presentation of the Gospel which does not violate, not indeed the moral realm to which the Gospel is sent, but the larger moral realm to which it belongs, the realm of God’s grace summoning man to salvation.”

Dr. Robinson’s work is valuable in its avowed “preliminary but indispensable task” of defining and defending the standpoint of ethico-evangelical theology. May it be hoped that, the preliminaries being completed, the author will proceed with the development of his own contribution.

ERNEST F. KEVAN

The Good Life

Christian Personal Ethics, by Carl F. H. Henry. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1957. $6.95.

This book is an important contribution to the literature of moral philosophy, and especially to formulations from the point of view of religious faith as it is affirmed in the Bible. It includes an extensive and thorough exposition of systems of speculative moral philosophies together with a penetrating evaluation of their merits and their inadequacies. It argues that “the impotence and sterility of speculative ethics derive largely from a self-enforced segregation from the ethics of revelation.”

The fairness with which the author states philosophies is one of the praiseworthy features of this fine book. Another such feature is the clarity of its style and the consistency of its thesis that “ethical ideas underlie the whole” of the Bible and “are capable of systematic presentation.” The author of this book has indeed achieved such a systematization in an admirable and convincing manner.

This book is a scholarly, yet easily understood argument in support of the conviction that “Christian ethics is the ethics of … redemptive religion.” It should be included in the small but indispensable library of ministers, theological students and college students who are interested in studies of religion and in philosophies of religion. This book is strongly recommended for courses in Christian ethics.

BEN KIMPEL

Europe News, March 4, 1957

Mission In Berlin

A lot of violent history has unfolded around the City Mission in Berlin, scheduled to celebrate its 80th anniversary this month with evangelistic services led by outstanding speakers.

The Mission was founded by Hofprediger Pastor D. Adolf Stoecker in 1877.

Pastor Wilhelm Brauer is now director of the Mission.

‘Without Parallel’

A lot of spiritual indifference has passed under the bridge in Norway, but a visitor can’t tell it these days.

Congregational visitation campaigns, patterned after American methods and described as “without parallel in Norwegian Church history,” are bringing new life to churches.

In Oslo, during one week, 1,200 church members visited 20,000 homes. In the district of Rogaland, about 40,000 homes were visited.

The motto—“Bring Christ to the people and the people to Christ.”

French Version

A guitar-strumming priest has become France’s version of Elvis Presley.

The Rev. Aime Duval’s latest album of records is a best seller and he will headline a show at the Gaumont Palace Cinema in Paris this month.

The priest sings gay hymns to catchy rhythm tunes used as dance music.

Deaths

The Rev. Dr. Clarence E. Macartney, 77, pastor emeritus of Pittsburgh’s First Presbyterian Church, noted author and contributing editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY; February 20.

Mrs. William “Ma” Sunday, 88, widow of famed evangelist “Billy” Sunday, in Phoenix, Arizona, also on February 20.

Dr. John Elward Brown Sr., 77, founder of John Brown University at Siloam Springs, Ark.

Dr. Everett Carleton Herrick, 80, president emeritus of Andover Newton Theological School, Andover, Mass.

Britain News: March 04, 1957

‘Profound Impression’

An outstanding Mission was held recently in the Queen’s University of Belfast under the leadership of Canon Bryan Green, Rector of Birmingham Parish Church.

Canon Green’s evening lectures at-traded audiences of over 1,000 and made a profound impression on many students.

Young People’s Conventions have been held in three of Ireland’s four principal cities—Belfast and Londonderry in the North and Dublin in the South. The movement began nearly 30 years ago as a result of the religious quickening in Ulster.

Underpaid Clergymen

Many British clergymen cannot buy new clothes for their families or provide them with enough food.

The Poor Clergy Relief Corporation, a Church of England organization, reports that 6,763 of the 11,387 Anglican Clergymen in Britain get less than $1,820 a year. Only 401 have salaries above $2,800.

From these salaries they must meet such personal expenses as telephone calls and bus fares to visit parishioners. Some even have to pay rent.

One minister said he had been unable to buy his wife a winter coat for 12 years. Another said his teen-age boys had gone without coats since they were little more than babies. A third said “our children are not adequately fed and often rise from the table actually hungry.”

Gold Coast Celebrates Independence

Christianity in the World Today

Five million people on Africa’s West Coast will explode with merriment on March 6—the historic day marking the Declaration of Independence on the Gold Coast.

Feverish activity marked preparations for the great day. New highways were slashed through jungles. Modern buildings were pushed up. Publicity trucks roared through the country telling villagers how to celebrate.

U. S. Vice President Richard Nixon and Britain’s Duchess of Kent, along with other leading world figures, are scheduled to be on hand for the significant event.

The Gold Coast, now to be known as Ghana in memory of an ancient West African empire, has not been marked by the bitter anti-white nationalism of other emerging countries. There has been increasing inter-racial harmony since 1951, when British Governor Sir Charles Arden-Clark released American-trained Dr. Kwame Nkrumah from a two-year sentence (for leading an illegal strike) and made him Prime Minister. Now, after a century of British rule, the all-African Parliament has voted to remain in the British Commonwealth.

The new Ghana will not be without its internal troubles, however. Until January, the threat of civil war shadowed the country as Ashanti tribesmen held out for minority safeguards. The economic life largely depends on a single crop—cocoa. Corruption in the national government was revealed last year by a public commission.

Politicians face such problems. Church leaders also have problems to face. Religious freedom is guaranteed under the new Constitution, but the Church must combat the growing nationalist idea that Christianity is a Western religion and should be curbed in a self-governing African country. They must resist the “synthesis theory” that traditional pagan customs should be merged with the teachings of Christ to make a “national Christianity.” Official weight was given to this theory when the Prime Minister attended both an Anglican Church service and a pagan sacrifice ceremony to give thanks for independence.

Above all, Christian leaders see the need of challenging their people that evangelism should be the responsibility of national Christians, especially in a self-governing country.

“To solve problems in the church, we must get the people back to the basic truths of Christianity through preaching the Word of God,” said the Rev. Peter Kwei Dagadu, secretary of the Ghana Christian Council. “We should not give the people intellectual sermons and politics—but should get down to the faith, backed by Bible knowledge, in which all true knowledge is found.

“In a self-governing country, the church has ever greater responsibilities. We must remind the people that righteousness exalts a nation.”

—W.H.F.

Yale Impressions

(Five students from Princeton Theological Seminary decided to visit Yale and see for themselves the impact of Dr. Billy Graham in his sermon series to the students. One of the Princeton men was James H. Morrison Jr., a graduate of the University of Tennessee and Fuller Theological Seminary. He wrote his impressions for the Chattanooga News-Free Press. Excerpts follow.)

“A very small part of the audience was townspeople; nearly all were students at Yale. One was greatly impressed by the simplicity of the program.…

“The address on Tuesday night was ‘The Challenge of the Cross.’ Using Galatians 6:14 as his text, Mr. Graham said the cross signified at least three things: (1) It is an expression of human iniquity; (2) it signifies the love of God, and (3) it is the only means of salvation.

“… The message received careful and thoughtful attention.

“Mr. Graham then asked all those who were interested in learning more about Christ and becoming a Christian to remain and for the rest to leave quietly. It was a thrilling surprise to see about 500 remain behind. The how of becoming a Christian was carefully, lucidly and briefly explained. Those who knew very definitely that they wanted to accept Christ as Lord and Saviour were asked to stand quietly and then sit down. It was a joy to see close to 100 college men rise to their feet with one accord. Mr. Graham waited in silence for any others that might want to stand, and some 15 or 20 more stood in the few minutes he waited. He then urged them to do four things, explaining each: Read their Bibles, pray, witness and attend church and become active in it.

“Wednesday evening Mr. Graham spoke on ‘The Mystery of Conversion,’ using Matthew 18:3 as his text. He defined ‘conversion’ by showing, first of all, that it is used in nearly every realm of human experience—banking, mathematics, law, psycho-analysis; so also in the spiritual and moral realm. ‘Conversion,’ he said, ‘is a changing of directions.’ He then said, ‘I want to ask you a question straight out. Have you been converted?’ He paused and the vast hall was completely silent.… He continued by showing there are at least three elements in the process of conversion: Repentance, faith and regeneration. Each of these elements was clearly expounded and illustrated.

“Once again those interested were invited to remain.… 700 to 800 remained. Not so many stood to make decisions (probably 75 or 80), but interest was there. That could not be doubted.

“The students at the Yale Divinity School were, in general, either aloof or hostile towards Mr. Graham and his method, if not his message.… A few openly admitted a change in attitude towards Mr. Graham specifically and towards evangelism in general. Here, indeed, is an impact which cannot possibly be measured in terms of the number who stand to make a ‘decision for Christ.’

“A number of the resident missioners in each of the 10 colleges of the university were ministers of the New Haven area. Some frankly stated their ministry had been transformed from participating in the 1957 mission at Yale. Effects such as these may have far greater impact than even the men who stood, not that we would in the least detract from the thrill of seeing college men come to Jesus Christ.

“What is Mr. Graham like in a situation like that at Yale? One would perhaps expect him to have less emphasis on ‘the Bible says’ in a university mission than in a city-wide campaign. This however, is not the case. He used Scripture freely.… We were also impressed with the simplicity, skillfulness and aptness of his illustrations. His rate of delivery was much slower than usual; in fact, he was almost deliberate in places.… His messages were simple and to the point. They were not intellectual; neither were they anti-intellectual. There was no emotionalism or pleading for decisions at any time. There was a refreshing emphasis on the need of a commitment of the totality of the person and upon the fact that many problems will yet face the person who accepts Christ, but there would be a new peace and hope.”

In recent weeks, in addition to appearances of Dr. Graham at Yale, Amherst College and the University of Massachusetts, missions were conducted at Harvard by the Rev. John Stott of London, and one at Princeton by the Rev. Bryan Green, also of England.

Dr. Graham addressed 10,400 students at the four meetings of the Student Mission, besides speaking to 150 students at each of four fraternity houses.

“I did not find the trick questions one used to hear,” said Dr. Graham. “Instead, I found the students asking sincere questions indicating a deep spiritual hunger.” About 300 students made “commitments to Christ.”

‘Lust For Unity’

Religious liberty in the United States is threatened by a “growing lust for unity at too low a level,” Methodist Bishop Gerald H. Kennedy of Los Angeles recently declared.

Decrying “the popular contemporary idea that all separation is bad,” he declared that Protestantism’s division into many sects demonstrated its strength rather than its weakness.

Segregation Status

A survey of Protestant churches in four boroughs of New York City classifies 51 per cent as segregated, 25 per cent as non-segregated and 24 per cent as integrated.

The Rev. Paul W. Rishell, executive secretary of the Department of Christian Relations of the Protestant Council of the City of New York, defined a segregated church as one where the membership and attendance are predominantly of one race; a non-segregated church is one where there is a “reasonable percentage” of persons from minority groups in the membership or attending the church; and an integrated church is one where members of minority groups serve as officers and on boards and committees “to a degree that indicates minority groups are participating in the church’s leadership and activities.”

500Th Anniversary

The Moravian Church, reported to be the oldest Protestant group in the world, begins this month a year-long celebration of its 500th anniversary.

A highlight of the observances will come in August at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, when the General Synod of the Worldwide Moravian Church will meet for the first time in the United States.

Much of the colorful history will be told and retold in the months ahead. It happened like this, according to the Rev. Bruno Schreiber in the 1957 annual of North American Baptists (facts supplied by Moravian Office of Public Relations):

“In the year 1415, John Hus, a Catholic priest, was tried for heresy, condemned, and burned at the stake. His attempt at reform was not altogether in vain. But it was not until the year 1457, 60 years before Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door of the Wittenberg Cathedral in Germany, that a little company of Hussite followers organized a little church in the Province of Moravia, presently known as Czechoslovakia.… In a comparatively short time, more than 400 congregations came into being, numbering about 200,000 members in Bohemia, Moravia and Poland.

“Then came terrible persecutions. For the next 100 years no Protestant was permitted to live in Bohemia.… During the Thirty Years War, which was brought on by religious dissension, they were almost wiped out.

“… Their hope and prayer were that the ‘hidden seed’ would survive. For the next 150 years they were a bewildered and confused people. Without consecutive leadership or adequate instruction, they held on to one great central conviction—the reality of their experience with God.

“In 1722 a group fled into Saxony, where shelter was granted them by Count Nicholas Ludwig Zinzendorf, a generous and devout young nobleman … their ancient unity was again restored.

“So great and earnest was their missionary zeal that, although the total Moravian community in all the world consisted of no more than 600 souls, their missionaries were already at work in 13 different countries … even today their record for missionary endeavor is without parallel in the history of Protestantism. Whereas the congregations of the home church number no more than 65,000 members, the convert members on their mission fields total over 200,000.

“If there was a creed expressed in the Moravian Church, it was simply, ‘Christ, and Him Crucified.’

“In 1736 Count Zinzendorf was banished from Saxony because of the disturbance created by his evangelical zeal. After a number of years of evangelical labors on the continent, in England and in the West Indies, he made his way to Pennsylvania in the New World.…

“Freedom of worship and the opportunity of finding a new home led other refugees to follow Zinzendorf … George Whitefield, who purchased a tract of 5,000 acres in eastern Pennsylvania, offered 500 acres to the new community … On Christmas Eve, 1741, the new community was named Bethlehem.…

“A few years later the first Moravian house of worship was built. To this chapel came Martha Washington, Maruis Lafayette, Benjamin Franklin, Count Pulaski and other prominent figures of the Colonial Days. It is still used for special occasions.…

“The Moravians were also pioneers in education. John Amos Comenius, a bishop in the church, is commonly referred to as ‘the father of education’.… As one of the outstanding educators in world history, he was offered the presidency of Harvard College in 1642.

“… It was during a dreadful storm at sea that John Wesley’s life was first influenced by the Moravians. Many of the passengers had given up all hope of ever reaching land alive. While the small vessel pitched and tossed dangerously upon the stormy sea, the frightened Wesley stared at a little company of 26 Moravians on the same ship gathered around their bishop, David Nitschmann, quietly engaged in singing and praying as if all unaware of the terrible tempest.

“After anxiously inquiring about the secret of such courage and peace, he heard for the first time about a religious faith that could take the spirit of fear out of a man’s heart. The strangest fact about his sea voyage was that he was on his way to preach to the American Indians while he himself was desperately in need of salvation. It is no wonder that his mission proved to be a dismal failure.

“It was not until he returned to London and came into contact with another Moravian preacher, Peter Boehler, that John Wesley again became anxious about his spiritual condition. He began to probe for the secret of which he had become aware on board the little ship.…

Medical Humbug

“Doctor Advises Beer for Princess,” read headlines across the nation.

Grace Kelly Rainier’s physician had recommended a glass of beer at each meal because “it’s good for convalescing mothers and she loves it anyway.”

Ten newspaper ads carried announcements from Pabst about a foamy gift, Monaco bound. Budweiser jumped on the beer wagon for all it was worth.

Six pediatricians in the Washington, D. C. Medical Society debunked special benefits from beer as new mothers rushed for the grocery shelves.

Milk is better, agreed the doctors.

“About three weeks later in a private meeting in which some Moravians were present, John Wesley experienced what he later called ‘a strange warming of the heart.’ ”

Cut In Clergy Fares

The second commercial airline to file a tariff schedule with the Civil Aeronautics Board offering reduced fares to clergyman is Cordova Airlines of Anchorage, Alaska.

Cordova, which connects a number of cities in Alaska by daily air service, proposes cuts of from 47 to 52 per cent.

Bonanza Airlines of Las Vegas, Nevada, recently put into effect a 50 per cent reduction for clergy, with CAB approval.

Urgent Need

Bishop Richard C. Raines of Indianapolis, in an address to Methodist leaders, listed the following “urgent” needs:

Each year, 1,200 pastors for replacement, 500 for new churches, 275 for chaplaincies, 450 for multiple ministry associates, 375 for circuit churches, 350 missionaries, 280 directors of religious education, 255 campus religious workers and 4,000 student nurses.

Nation’S Oldest Church

“Old St. Luke’s,” the oldest church in America, will celebrate its 325th birthday anniversary on May 15.

Visitors from many points of the world will visit the small rural church, four miles from the town of Smithfield, Virginia. The occasion will be part of the Jamestown Settlement Festival, commemorating the 350th birthday of this notable event.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Geoffrey Fisher, is expected to visit the United States to take part in the celebration.

Now a national shrine, St. Luke’s was in a state of collapse as late as 1954, but has been restored to its rightful place of honor by an alarmed Restoration Committee.

President Dwight Eisenhower, taking note of the effort, sent the following letter to Henry Mason Day, committee president:

“All those who have helped toward the restoration of historic St. Luke’s, known to America as ‘The Nation’s Oldest Church,’ have preserved for generations to come a great symbol of our spiritual heritage.

“This monument to the founders of our country is in truth a national shrine. Visitors there, inescapably, will be reminded of the deep religious convictions of the first settlers, their faith in God and their faith in themselves as children of God. St. Luke’s, more than a time-hallowed relic of the past, will be an enduring witness to the spirit that animated them, for within its walls our forefathers gained new courage, firm perseverance, abiding strength to make of the wilderness a home for themselves and all who followed them.

“My congratulations go to you and to all associated with you in the campaign to restore St. Luke’s, and my warm thanks to all who helped with their contributions.”

In writing of the church’s great history, James Grote Van Derpool, president of the Historical Architects of America and chairman of the Restoration Committee, said:

“Not only is it the oldest extant church of English foundation in the United States, but it is the only original Gothic church remaining within the confines of our great country. The traditional and widely accepted date of its construction is 1632. Even so, it may well be the second church on this venerated site, replacing a temporary chapel which was served by the Reverend William Bennett, who was minister of Warrosquyoake Parish in 1622–23.

“The present church follows in spirit of design the delightful small parish churches of Essex, England, from whence came in 1619 various of the earliest settlers of this region, which was orginally named for the Warrosquyoake tribe of Indians inhabiting it at the time of the arrival of the first English settlers in Virginia in 1607. The name of the region was changed about 1637 to Isle of Wight, the name it still bears as a Virginia county.

“Set in the rolling acres of its venerable churchyard, Old St. Luke’s stands both as a symbol of the living faith of our forefathers and the devotion of their descendants. Fire and strife of war have spared it, while other churches of comparable dating have long since been lost to us. However, the hands of time and zealous restorers have not left it unscathed. The wonderful old timber trusses were renewed and then concealed in the eighteenth century by plaster vault. The floor level was changed on two successive occasions as the earth about the church rose to higher levels with the passing of the years. A series of minor alterations and repairs necessary to the maintenance of any building in the course of its life, accumulated.

“A severe storm in 1887 inflicted such heavy damage to the church that an extensive repair program was initiated, without which the church would doubtless have passed into complete ruin. Its active function had been largely transferred to the town of Smithfield, when Christ Church was built there between 1832–36. Since that time, the use of St. Luke’s has been sporadic and since 1926 only occasional services have been held there.

“By 1951, the walls had begun to bulge ominously, and in 1954 the foundations of the church were discovered to be in such dangerous condition that collapse of the whole structure appeared imminent.

“Alarm spread througout Newport Parish, throughout Virginia, and so on through the nation itself … Could a generation which had seen the construction of engineering triumphs like the Panama Canal, vast harbor installations, powerful dams, great skyscrapers and a whole sequence of incredible scientific feats leading up to nuclear fission, stand quietly by and allow the destruction of one of the most exceptional monuments of our civilization?

Department Of Peace

Legislation to create a Department of Peace, designed to carry out the prayers voiced by President Eisenhower, has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Harold C. Ostertag (R-N.Y.).

The bill, H.R. 4298, calls for a National Peace College as a spiritually strategic counterpart of the Army War College. It also calls for consolidation, under a Secretary of Peace, of International Cooperation Administration (ICA), the U. S. Educational Exchange Program and the U. S. Information Agency.

Rep. Ostertag, in a statement for CHRISTIANITY TODAY, declared:

“You will recall that Emerson said of battleships … ‘By an idea, the battleships were created; by an idea, they will disappear.’ Today we are in peril of annihilating ourselves for lack of an idea to make them (the battleships) disappear. A Department of Peace may not be the priceless idea, but it might well be the seedbed for it.

“At this time, when the motives of the United States are widely misunderstood and are being misinterpreted by the communists for their own ulterior ends, it is doubly appropriate that we create by statute a Department solely to wage peace.”

“Almost as if it were a part of some great design, a loyal Virginian, Henry Mason Day, descendant of one of the original settlers of the region, a man whose business judgment had been directed in furthering great business enterprises, both in Europe and America, returned from New York to visit the home of his forebears.”

Day was inspired to spearhead a restoration movement and his feeling that it should be a national project struck a sympathetic response.

The task proved successful.

Thousands will pause on the scene May 15 and thank God for the great spiritual heritage.

Musical Clue

Thieves took $3 worth of candy and 2,000 copies of sheet music from the car of Albert H. Neinz, chaplain for the Columbus, Ohio, police department.

The sheet music was titled, “Not Mine, But Thine.”

‘Beulah Land’ Rock

The National Association of Music Teachers heard a suggestion recently that such hyms as “Beulah Land” and “There’s Honey in the Rock” should be blacklisted for church use because of their rock and roll effect.

Dr. William C. Rice, fine arts division chairman, Baker University, Baldwin, Kansas, made the suggestion. He commended such hymns as “Holy, Holy, Holy” and “Faith of Our Fathers.”

Memorable Things

Many important things were said and done at the recent annual conference of International Christian Leadership in Washington, D. C. Here are some that impressed the memory:

A prayer, by Richard C. Halverson, associate executive director of ICL—

“Our Father in Heaven, we gather in this warm, comfortable fellowship while there are millions who know neither warmth nor comfort nor dare to gather in thy name. We meet here with respect and affection for our national leaders, to pray for them, while there are millions who live in fear and hatred of their rulers. We enjoy these benefits of food and drink while there are millions who never know the luxury of a full stomach. We live in a dispossessed refugee world, yet our prosperity has so insulated us against the world’s misery that we are barely aware of it.

“Deliver us from the complacency that takes these blessings for granted. Cleanse us of the sins of pride and self-seeking. Grant, O God, that this breakfast may be a testimony to the world that we take Jesus Christ seriously, that America’s leaders accept their role in human affairs to be ordained of God, and so receive our gratitude and dedication here this morning for thy glory, in the name of thy son and our savior, Jesus Christ the Lord. Amen.”

A challenge, by Dr. Billy Graham—

“This is the golden hour for the church. The present moment has no parallel in the history of Christianity. Scientists, students, sociologists and politicians are beaten and baffled by life’s problems and are saying to religious leaders: ‘Come and help us.’ ”

A warning, by Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY, against a “secular surge” in educational institutions—“… the effectiveness of the faith nurtured in our homes and churches is constantly threatened and depressed from above. Advanced and professional instruction instead of nurturing faith, impoverishes it, and the highest strategic grades of our vocational training have been placed largely in the hands of an intelligentsia that is in revolt against our Christian heritage.”

A word of support, by Vice President Richard M. Nixon, for the New York City Crusade of Dr. Billy Graham—“This is one of the most courageous spiritual ventures in our generation.”

(Boyd H. Leedom, chairman of the National Labor Relations Board, was elected president of ICL. He succeeds Governor Price Daniel of Texas. Senator Frank Carlson [R-Kans.] was reelected president of the International Council for Christian Leadership, the world body with which the American group is affiliated. ICL was founded in 1935 at Seattle, Washington, by Abraham Vereide, who still serves as executive director. More than 230 groups meet regularly throughout the world.)

Clergy Ailments

Seven ailments most common to ministers are listed by the Rev. J. A. Davidson in the Observer, official United Church of Canada paper:

► “Shrader’s Neurasthenia—a listlessness and apathy brought on by prolonged meditation over a Life Magazine article entitled ‘Why Ministers Are Breaking Down.’

► “The Schlegenheimer Compulsion-drives victims to speak and write gobblegook. Some victims also suffer from the strange delusion that to be unintelligible in the pulpit is to maintain the prestige of the ministry.

► “Parson’s Red Face—the result of wearing a clerical collar half-a-size too small and not of secret tippling, as some cynics suggest.

► The Dick-Gestetner Syndrome—symptoms include ink-poisoning, hands blistered by constant cranking, twitching of the eyes caused by watching hundreds of sheets of white paper flit by … mucilage-induced toxic inflammation of the mouth and stamp-licker’s tongue.

► “Theologian’s Strabismus (or squint)—comes from too much reading of italicized rubrics in old prayer books.

► “Mark Tapley Neurosis—a strange state of persistent and sometimes violent jolliness.

► “Saturday Night Thumb—the result of spending every Saturday night thumbing through back numbers of Pulpit Digest … the nothing-to-preach jitters.”

New Moody Series

A new series of children’s Bible adventure films for television, produced by the Moody Institute of Science, are scheduled to be shown by stations this year.

Favorable public reaction was reported after a first viewing on 66 stations across the country.

Heart Patients

Comforting visits by clergymen are beneficial to heart patients.

That was the conclusion of heart specialists, psychiatrists and clergymen at a seminar sponsored by the Chicago Heart Association.

The symposium, first of its kind in the Chicago area, was attended by 125 ministers and rabbis.

“We ministers have long wondered whether we should step in immediately when a member of our congregation suffers a heart attack,” said Dr. Granger Westberg, professor of religion and health at the University of Chicago. “We have considered whether our presence at such a time would be the cause of additional shock. Doctors tell us ‘no.’ In fact, the minister becomes the most important person in the patient’s life at that particular moment.”

“The comforting visit of a clergyman is helpful,” said Dr. George V. Le Roy, associate dean of the University of Chicago’s division of biological sciences.

Staggering Title

The nation’s capital should change its name to Washington, D. T., a Methodist minister suggests, because the city has “the highest rate of alcoholism in the world.”

In a speech at the annual meeting of the Methodist Board of Temperance, the Rev. Howard J. Clinebell Jr., Great Neck, N. Y., said Washington’s 49,450 alcoholics, averaging 7.8 per cent of every 100,000 male adults, is well ahead of the national rate of 4,390 alcoholics for every 100,000 men.

Dr. Clinebell said that of the 12 countries “whose rates of alcoholism have been estimated with some accuracy, the United States is so far out in front that she has lapped the field.” France is the nearest contender, he said, with a rate of 2,850 alcoholics per 100,000.

“Since our country leads the world in alcoholism and Washington leads the country, it seems to me that the city has a clear claim to the title of ‘alcoholic capital of the world,’ ” he said.

‘Laddy’S’ Hunch

“Laddy” McKillop, 10, has recovered a prized possession because of a “hunch.”

It had been feared that his Bible had been consumed in flames that destroyed his parents’ home in South Lancaster, Mass. The Bible was cherished as a Christmas gift from his pastor.

Days after the fire, the boy developed a conviction that the Bible had escaped destruction. Largely to humor his son, the father drove him to their former home. Among the charred timbers and other debris they found the Bible beneath a collapsed chair. Its contents and cover were unharmed by fire or water.

“Laddy” wants to be a minister some day.

“They don’t make much money,” he said, “but they do an awful lot of good.”

Worth Quoting

“Nothing short of a leadership led by God is adequate for the present crisis.”—Abraham Vereide, executive director, International Christian Leadership.

“We have the best and most modernly equipped army in the world. I pray each night that it will never be used, and I tell you that all of us had better pray.…”—Secretary of the Army Brucker.

Far East

5,422 Decisions

The largest evangelistic crusade ever held in the Philippines, with 5,422 decisions for Christ from nightly crowds of 6,500 and a closing rally of 15,000, has brought new hope among evangelicals in the predominantly-Catholic country.

Dr. Bob Pierce, president of World Vision, was the speaker for the three-week crusade. The choir numbered 600.

An off-season tropical thunderstorm broke over the meeting site prior to one service. On his arrival, Dr. Pierce found 3,000 people sitting in the rain, waiting for the meeting to begin. A total of 125 responded to the invitation that evening.

Cooperation for the crusade was a splendid example of spiritual unity among Protestant forces at work in the Philippines. The only group which openly opposed the meetings was the Association of Baptists for World Evangelism, with an expressed view that “God could not bless” a crusade when such as the Philippine Independent Church and other denominational groups were identified on the platform and on the sponsoring National Evangelistic Strategy Committee. (An identical point has stirred a controversy in connection with Billy Graham’s coming New York campaign.)

New Slant In Asia

The religious awakening in the United States is having a “profound effect” on non-Christians in Asia, according to Dr. E. Stanley Jones, noted 73-year-old Methodist missionary and evangelist.

“Many of the intellectual leaders of Asia have scoffed at religion,” he said. “They have felt all that is necessary for their people’s well-being is to raise their standard of living.

“Yet here they see the richest and most prosperous country in the world declaring openly that material possessions are not enough to give happiness and satisfaction in life.

“This is impressing Asians.”

Kermit Johnson, Orient Crusades missionary, is directing the follow-up work. Four classes, held immediately after the end of the meetings, were attended by 900. An estimated 65 Manila churches are now engaged in a systematic visitation program.

Twenty-eight per cent of the decisions were non-Protestant. President Magsaysay invited Dr. Pierce and his team to Malacanang Palace. Before leaving, the evangelist led in a prayer. The President later remarked to a friend what a great inspiration it had been.

Ambush In Philippines

It was the custom of Philip Watts, Christian lumberman from America, to leave his home in Zamboanga each Sunday night, travel by ferry and trail to his camp, work until Thursday and then return home.

The homecoming was always a joy, with a good wife and five wonderful children to greet him. On the weekends, he advised young people in church work and taught Sunday School. As a soldier in the Philippines during the war, he had determined to come back and help the people. He aided in establishing a church at Davao City.

On a Sunday evening in late January, Watts left for the lumber camp, accompanied by a friend, the Rev. Raymond Clemmer, Christian and Missionary Alliance missionary, and a Mr. Ybanez, the company paymaster. They arrived at Ipil at 4 a.m. after traveling on the little ferry for six hours. A jeep was waiting to take them over the rough trails cut through the jungles for lumber operations. About three kilometers inland, as they were making a turn, a burst of gunfire shattered the quietness. Watts shifted into low, for maximum speed in going up a hill, and stepped on the gas. The firing increased. Watts turned to Mr. Clemmer and said, “I’ve been hit.” A few seconds later he was dead.

The missionary grabbed the wheel and tried to get a foot on the gas pedal. With the body of his dead friend in the way, this didn’t work and he had to feed the gas by hand. One tire was flat and the jeep weaved wildly from side to side, but the camp was reached. Mr. Ybanez had a payroll of 9,000 pesos with him.

Police said later, after an investigation, that the ambushers had pursued for about 90 meters and intended to follow their custom of cutting victims into pieces. The missionary was creased on the hip by a bullet.

Despite the injury, Mr. Clemmer conducted a funeral similar to those in America, but without a pretty parlor and polite director.

Mrs. Watts and the children no longer look forward to the joyful homecomings on Thursday. Said the oldest girl, “It’s hard to take, but his grace is sufficient.”

Theology

Bible Book of the Month: Genesis

David W. Kerr

The average church-goer does not hear many sermons from Genesis these days. Writers of Sunday School materials seem to handle the earlier chapters rather gingerly where these cannot be avoided altogether. The opinion is expressed in many quarters that the older parts of this first book of the Bible are interesting fables of a bygone era.

Literary criticism of the kind which separates the books of the Old Testament into supposedly earlier documents began first with Genesis. The majority of the commentaries which have been written since 1825 have dealt in some way with this divisive type of criticism. Many commentaries openly advocate the documentary theories and to the extent that they do so they often cease to be commentaries on the actual meaning of the text. Most graduates of the better seminaries since 1875 have been acquainted with the views of Julius Wellhausen, who declared that large sections of Genesis are completely fictional.

The Importance Of Genesis

The effects of a rationalistic handling of Gensis have been felt in every part of biblical studies including that of the New Testament. A surprisingly large amount of New Testament teaching is built upon the foundation laid in Genesis. Luke’s genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ traces the Saviour human ancestry back to Adam through the patriarchs listed in Genesis. The principle of justification by faith is the life and experience of Abraham, who believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness, Genesis 15:6. The doctrine of human sin as set forth in Romans 5 may not be understood apart from Genesis 3. The paradise which is regained in Revelation 21, 22, with its tree of life for the healing of the nations, is obviously the eternal counterpart of that which was lost in the Genesis narrative. One’s understanding of the whole biblical revelation will undoubtedly be colored by his understanding of Genesis.

The Structure Of Genesis

The style of Genesis indicates even to the casual student that the book as we have it comes from one hand. There is, for one thing, the unusual structure of the book. After the account of the creation which is given in the first chapter, there appears in Genesis 2:4 an expression which introduces the remaining parts of the book. It is said, “These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were created.” There are nine other sections given over to “generations.” There are the generations of Adam, of Noah, of the sons of Noah, of Shem, of Terah, of Ishmael, Isaac, Esau and Jacob.

The structure of the book is progressive. The writer carefully traces the rise of the nation of Israel, the covenant people of God in his day. He shows how God kept alive the knowledge of himself in the great apostasy before the flood and the ignorance after it. With the calling of Abraham in chapter 12 there began the selective process by which God chose a people for his own possession. An individual, a son of idolatrous parents, is called to be a child of God. Yet the choosing of the individual is to result in universal blessing for the promise is, “Through thee and thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). Whenever it is necessary for the writer to go beyond the limits of God’s chosen line as he does, for example, when he traces the families of Cain, Ham, Japheth, Ishmael and Esau, he returns abruptly to the children of God. He is like a navigator on a river who may for a short time explore its tributaries, but who returns to follow the main stream to its mouth.

The book of Genesis is plainly supernatural in its viewpoint although there are certainly fewer miracles recorded in it than in the gospel accounts. The objections which may be brought against the supernatural elements in Genesis may be brought with almost equal force against all that is miraculous in the Christian faith, including the casting out of evil spirits by our Lord Jesus Christ or even his resurrection.

Those who are convinced that God was working in all the events of past ages to introduce his plan of redemption will find that there is growth in the Messianic hope and promise in Genesis. The seed of the woman will bruise the serpent’s head, 3:15. The promise here might refer to any human being. Yet the line of blessing is narrowed among the descendants of Noah to the family of Shem, 9:26, 27. The calling of Abraham and later the blessing of Jacob narrowed the line still further. In Genesis 49:10 the tribe of Judah is selected as the one through which the purpose and kingdom of God will be wrought.

Aids To The Study Of Genesis

There are several commentaries on Genesis which will prove rather sterile since they devote their pages to a documentary analysis rather than an effort to elicit the message of the book. The best helps to the pastor and teacher are those works which recognize that Genesis was written for a theological purpose. The Interpreter’s Bible in its first volume contains a commentary on Genesis. Although the exegesis is marred, in this writer’s opinion, by documentary divisions, there are many useful insights into the meaning of the text. Several of the introductory articles in the volume will be found helpful although the position of some writers is a refinement of that of Julius Wellhausen and is highly subjective at many points. The text is divided into exegesis and exposition. The latter is sometimes rather imaginative. The writer, Walter Russell Bowie, shows a vast acquaintance with literary material which may serve for purposes of illustration.

One of the most valuable of recent commentaries is that of H. C. Leupold, An Exposition of Genesis (1953). Leupold gives a verse-by-verse interpretation of the text but he attempts to deal with a number of archeological problems as well. An older commentary which has recently been made available through reprinting is that of Robert S. Candlish, Commentary on Genesis. Candlish does not give a thorough exegesis but rather devotes himself to an exposition and application of whole passages. His work is really in the nature of a biblical theology of Genesis which is a distinct advantage in our day. Not the least valuable aspect of this commentary is the fact that it relates Genesis to the rest of biblical revelation. Other reprints which rank high in scholarship are available to the pastor who is willing to dust off his Hebrew Bible. Among these are the commentary by Franz Delitzsch in the famous Keil and Delitzsch series and that of Otto Zockler in the Schaff-Lange series. The student who has had no instruction in Hebrew will find such commentaries a bit more cumbersome than others but still very helpful. An up-to-date, one-volume work on the whole Bible is The New Bible Commentary (1953). It is uniformly conservative but necessarily brief.

No student of the Old Testament should rely upon commentaries alone. Genesis is largely historical. The movements of the patriarchs and the peculiarities of their culture may best be understood with the use of a good atlas and a Bible dictionary. Several excellent volumes are obtainable. The Westminster Historical Atlas has been revised as recently as 1956. As a companion volume the Westminster Bible Dictionary is not as complete as the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia or the recently revised Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, but it is somewhat more convenient. J. Howard Kitchen is the author of a fine historical geography of the Holy Land entitled Holy Fields (1955).

Finally, it would be foolish to ignore the bearing of archeology upon our understanding of Genesis. The number of books on this subject is almost endless. Two come to mind as being particularly readable and helpful. These are Light from the Ancient Past (1946) by Jack Finegan and Archeology and Bible History by Joseph Free. The latter is well-known in evangelical circles in America. The former contains some conclusions which are influenced by an attitude toward the Bible with which some readers will not agree, but it is well-documented and has a moderate approach.

Anyone who comes to the book of Genesis expecting to find in it a revelation of the timeless purpose of God’s grace will see the book open before him in many surprising ways. He will draw from it treasures new and old, to enrich his own life and experience as well as those of his hearers.

Ideas

On Meeting Changing Issues

On Meeting Changing Issues

A clear and effective witness for Christ in the name of evangelical Christianity will evidence a number of things. It will, of course, largely be positive and constructive rather than negative and destructive. For we have something to offer as well as something to protect and defend.

But even when evangelical Christianity witnesses positively and constructively, it will ever be conscious of the clamoring voices of competing theologies. And its witness will reflect the fact that it realizes it has competitors for the hearts of men. Evangelical Christianity will, therefore, be wisely apologetic. It will often be aggressive. And it will remain on guard against attack. To do all this and win converts in a revolutionary world is not easy. It requires the scriptural wisdom of serpents—and more.

But this wisdom has not always been evident in the witness of evangelical Christianity. There have been times when we lost more friends than we won. And we have not always been granted even that measure of civilized respect which our competitors seem willing to accord each other in the world of scholarship and learning. Too often our best reception has been an amused indulgence like that which a sophisticated city-slicker might grant his country cousin gawking at his first sight of an escalator. When evangelical Christianity has been given a hearing it has been an audience like that which the bored directors of a large corporation might grant some small stockholder who has claimed his legal prerogative of speaking at the annual board meeting.

Now we are not altogether blameless for the lack of respect which we have been accorded in many circles. For one thing, we have been a little aloof ourselves. We often have drawn our dignity about us like a garment and, in the exercise of our calling, we have stalked ahead heedless of the competing clamor like a proud great Dane frostily ignoring the yapping of mongrel terriers at his heels. But with even more embarrassing consequences, we have occasionally undertaken to do battle for our honor, without first making sure we were meeting our opponents on even terms. We have jousted with weapons unsuited to the style of combat, or we have made ourselves a spectacle by undertaking to do battle against opponents that were not even there. And we have been justly received with the regard due a Don Quixote.

Evangelical Christianity represents, generally speaking, theological stability. Our competitors, on the other hand, are noted for their adaptability and changeableness. Most of them seldom stand for the same essentials for long. As a matter of fact, a principal plank in their theological platforms is their theory of the impermanence of theological systems. The overall problem which results from this difference is that we, who expect an issue to stand still until it is resolved, must adapt our witness to an opposition for whom issues are seldom long the same, with the often disastrous consequences mentioned above.

Now the positive witness of evangelical Christianity to the Truth of God must always remain essentially the same, of course, for the Gospel is eternal in its verities. But it must also adapt itself to the contemporary situation in a manner suited to the occasion. That is, the negative aspects of that positive witness must change with the prevailing nature of the conflict. That aspect of our witness which meets conflicting views must always be shifting and adjusting to meet new and changing ideas: for human schemes and interpretations change with the prevailing winds. We are always in danger of assuming that because our conclusions are permanent, those of our competitors are likewise permanent.

Nor can we afford to treat the opposition with the unconcern which we think his views often deserve, defining the issue on our own terms in order to keep them more easily within reach. For if it is our purpose to speak convincingly to those who disagree with us, we must speak to their understanding of the problem, not to ours.

Thus we are always in danger of being denied a hearing, not only because the human heart is sinful, but also because we may be exercised about something which the other side does not recognize as an issue or no longer considers an issue, having modified its views or passed on to something else. This is a real problem, even though we may rightly recognize in the new issue or viewpoint the essential fallacies of the old.

So the lack of respect with which the evangelical Christian is often met may be due to his failure or disinclination to recognize and to keep abreast of the world on the other side of the fence. “Progressive” theologies can differ from each other widely, without losing their fundamental regard for each other. But the evangelical is met with contempt. Recognizing other reasons, we are also convinced that a part of the reason is that the evangelical often does not command the respect of his opponents by speaking coherently to the point.

But what of specific examples? There are many. Take the issue of “liberalism,” for one. Liberalism, in some respects, is a dead issue. Most informed “liberals,” as a matter of fact, no longer consider themselves “liberals.” They point to the fact that the former optimistic view of the nature of man, of the capacity of man for self-improvement and of an inevitable utopia, have been surrendered by most serious thinkers. They speak of “liberals” with the zeal of an evangelical, for their theology has returned to a “new” orthodoxy, to a new “realism.” Those theologians who once preached the innate goodness of man now affirm the reality of original sin. Those who once denied to man any savior but himself now proclaim our need to walk with the Living Christ. And those who stopped with some vague affirmation of life after death now declare that only the Resurrection can adequately explain God’s sovereignty over death.

This does not mean that the liberal has turned orthodox. Not at all. It simply means that the issues have changed. Now the question is: What does “original” mean? And “living”? And the “resurrection”? The unbeliever is still an unbeliever. But the evangelical who continues to blast all “liberals” with the same fervent heat as of yore stands to lose his audience except for those who, like himself, have failed to perceive the shifting emphasis of the opposition.

Of course this brings up the question of terminology, which is always a difficult one. The proper terms can help or defeat a campaign. But in this field the opposition seems always to have the upper hand. His language is respectable. Ours is usually outdated. “Heretic” is now a word in universal ill repute. (“Fundamentalist” has become a word of reproach and many resent the snide implications that have become associated with a term which once signified courage and integrity.) “Modernists” was badly chosen in the beginning, but is still half-heartedly used. Unfortunately, it implies something intrinsically bad about the word “modern,” which is wholly respectable in other usage. The word “progressive” may be a good one and recent political connections have given it the flavor of radicalism and reactionism—to coin one. “Radical theology” has a very satisfactory sound. Perhaps it will do.

But there is another area which comes to mind, in which modern realistic (pardon us, radical) theology and evangelical Christianity fail to meet on fair terms. This is the area of the social application of religion, and here it is not a matter of terminology. It seems to be a matter of interest. The opposition has almost made good its claim to exclusive jurisdiction within the area of social concern. He has well-nigh convinced the world that love of neighbor in a true fellowship of reconciliation is found in him alone. The evangelical, for whom “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” means the same thing, has not been able—or has not cared—to translate his theology into down-to-earth, practical Christian ethics. And the radical triumphantly carries the field.

Our faith has historically been an informed one as well as a reformed one. If we are to have a maximum effect for Christ in the world, our witness must be intelligently informed about competing theologies as well as about its own. And it must get down to earth in the marketplace and at the crossroads of life.

Spiritual-Moral Unity Wanes In United Nations

A new form of world power politics is finding its forum within the councils of the United Nations, and its implications for international morality are grave. For several generations the so-called “great powers” exercised their will through imperialistic and colonial policies. Where this was enlightened and constructive it unquestionably served a useful purpose, developing backward peoples to the point where personal expression and self-determination made policies of exploitation impossible.

But now, using the United Nations as both a forum and a fulcrum, the smaller nations have themselves developed a form of power politics that threatens to project future international relationships on an entirely new concept. The Afro-Asian bloc now dominates the United Nations under the leadership of neutralist India. In the tug of opinion, a double-standard of international morality has arisen. The United Nations has been contemplating sanctions against Israel while declining to employ them against Russia. This state of affairs requires an urgent and sober reappraisal of America’s hitherto unqualified enthusiasm for the United Nations.

The veto power exercised by Russia 79 different times has again and again made a mockery of the United Nations as a court of consistent usefulness.

Christians everywhere need to take account of their stewardship as citizens, and to express their concern and exercise their influence. What gives American Christians the greatest cause for uncertainty is the fact that the control of that organization now rests in the hands of nations totally lacking in the moral and spirtual concepts basic in the Judeo-Christian heritage.

Six years ago President Eisenhower is reported to have written a friend: “I want to make it clear that I am not an ‘internationalist’ in the sense that I am willing to trust America’s welfare to an international congress of just any kind.”

We hope the President holds the same viewpoint today. We believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans do.

Confusing Reports On Church In Red China

A break-through has been achieved in the effort to establishes relations between churches in the Free World and churches in Communist China, and the results are very confusing. The contact has been made by an eight-man Anglican delegation that spent seven weeks in Red China. The delegation was led by Dr. Howard W. K. Mowll, Archbishop of Sydney and Primate of the Church of England in Australia, a vice-president of Inter-Varsity Fellowship. Originally one of the “Cambridge Seven” who went as missionaries to China, he was for some years Bishop of West China. The delegation included another churchman of conservative theological views, Canon H. M. Arrowsmith, Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Canon Arrowsmith’s report, in which Archbishop Mowll concurs, speaks of impressive social and economic reforms (improved living standards, absence of civil war, a stable and reliable government, a new motivation for progress and a measure of moral reformation) through the communist regime. He contends, moreover, that claims of religious freedom by leaders in the Three-Self Reform Church (the government-approved national church) are to be received as trustworthy. “It is open to people to treat these statements as insincere and … for the consumption of the visitors. But I am convinced that these tributes were genuine.… It is better to err on the side of being naive and trusting than to treat our fellow Christians with cynicism and mistrust.” Even Clause 88 affirming that “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief,” must not, we are assured, be taken as excluding “full religious activity as distinct from belief,” since the Consituation assures freedom of speech, assembly, association, procession and demonstration.

Because of the social reforms in China, Canon Arrowsmith remarks that some leaders are prone to speak of “elements which impart to communism the quality of a twentieth-century Christian heresy.” And he adds: “If I may make a personal confession, it is that I went to China fully expecting to find that the Church had come to terms with the government. This is clearly not true. It rather seems that the State has come to terms with the Church.… I am an unblushing admirer of the Church in China today.”

In another dramatic turn of events, rumor from China indicates that Pastor Wang Ming-tao, imprisoned in August, 1955, after 30 years of faithful ministry as an evangelical preacher and writer, was released after signing a confession that he had engaged in anti-government political activities. Wang is rumored to be giving the Three-Self Reform Church full support. All reports are fragmentary, however, and charges and countercharges of brainwashing and deception prevail.

What are the Western churches to believe? Doubtless mistrust of communism runs deeps, and the worst possible view of events is easily taken. Even Canon Arrowsmith, replying to an Eternity magazine inquiry, admits “another side of the picture”: frightening regimentation and persistent indoctrination, collective conformity prone to damage personality, censorship of press and radio. China’s youth are virtually absent from church. Christian scholarship is distressingly low.

Canon Arrowsmith’s added words on Church-State relationships in China are more important. He thinks it not “necessarily and uniformly wrong” that Chinese Christian leaders are cooperating with their government, in view of the New Testament emphasis on loyalty to the “powers that be.” Canon Arrowsmith does not think the Three-Self movement holds “any quality of political capitulation.… The Three-Self Movement is not wrong.… I do not think that it is loyal at the cost of a disloyalty to the Christian principle.… Christian leaders in particular regard themselves as being free to criticize the government. But the Church also seems to me to be eager to exercise a certain creative influence upon the processes of government and the principles upon which they are based.” Christians are “not necessarily called upon to agree with the communists in their philosophical assumptions.” While the government requires church loyalty to the new regime, Canon Arrowsmith points out, the Church may criticize within that loyalty.

In Eternity the Canon speaks more guardedly of “a high degree of religious freedom.” Evangelistic and expository preaching within the churches is unimpeded. Although noting “a shameful record” of “severity, cruelty and persecution” during two years of the communist regime, Canon Arrowsmith thinks no Christian has been persecuted by communists during the past five years for religious reasons. He states: “I am assured by Christian leaders (I met thirteen Bishops and the leaders of the Baptist Church of Christ in China, Methodists, C.I.M., Salvation Army, Little Flock S.D.A., etc.), that in recent years there has been no known case of a persecution of the Christians purely on religious grounds.” Yet the Canon admits that “open-air preaching and public evangelism outside the churches is discouraged,” and that the present religious policy is probably a matter of government whim, though not capriciously so (not likely to be altered tomorrow). Canon Arrowsmith would even assure us that, while the government has dissociated itself from Christianity, nonetheless “the State has come to terms with the Church in China.” ^PIt would be premature to evaluate the foregoing developments dogmatically. The reports of the Australian delegates are to be qualified by the fact that their informants came mainly from a limited circle of churchmen representing the Three-Self Reform movement, and hence may reflect subtleties of communist propaganda. But aside from this, the report deals unsatisfactorily with two central issues, the relation of Church and State, and that of religious freedom. Canon Arrowsmith confuses religious tolerance—or suspension of religious worship and propaganda upon the will of the State for its temporary or permanent survival—with religious freedom, which denies the State’s right to interfere with religious belief and activity. Nor does he indicate how the Christian conscience can pledge genuine loyalty to a State whose foundations are anti-God, identifying the right with the will of the State alone—even when such a State allows Christians to criticize the State within this assumption. Where these issues are not clarified, most evangelical observers fear that an atheistic state, instead of coming to terms with the Church, is dictating highly subtle terms under which the Church in China may survive.

Joint Moscow-Peking Threat Calls For Christian Realism

There has been an ominously mild reaction in America to the joint statement from Moscow and Peking with reference to threatened intervention in the Middle East. The general world situation and internal difficulties made such a stand almost inevitable and its execution a strong possibility.

The free world is in grave danger of being led astray by a feeling of false optimism. Heartened by the continued resistance of patriots in Hungary, with stories of heroism and devotion continuing to come from that tragic little country; unrest in Poland; uneasiness among students, even in Russia itself; revocation of communist ruthlessness with attendant revulsion of former fellow travellers; too many have been encouraged to believe that communism will become extinct.

That communism, with its terrors and suppressions, may have within it the seeds of its own destruction does not mean that this much hoped for event is in the immediate offing. Just the opposite is a strong probability. Here we have desperation and the potential for a large scale war in the hands of those who control Moscow and Peking. History shows that such a combination has often led to acts of folly.

No longer are her European satellites Moscow’s trusted vassals. However, China’s leaders remain consistent partners and command a reservoir of trained or available man power unequalled anywhere else in the world.

While Krushchev and others associated with him may hesitate to start a full scale war in the West the unpleasant truth faces us that they most certainly would welcome a resumption of hostilities in the Far East. This places South Korea, Taiwan and Southeast Asia, one or all, in danger of aggression. An explosion there, engineered from Peking, would cause such diversions in the West that Russia might well use the occasion to take over the oil-rich Middle East and in so doing trigger World War III.

Terrible potentialities confront the West. Nuclear warfare and its horrible consequences deter men who love and want peace. To the criminally inclined such possibilities have no restraining effect, particularly if they see that the long-range course of events may portend their ultimate undoing.

The great danger gives added responsibility to the thinking and reactions of Christians, particularly in America where now is centered so much potential power and world leadership.

Partisan politics should be no determining factor. World containment on the basis of utopian ideals is out of question. We live in an age of international lawlessness and anarchy. We have temporized with communism and communist nations to the extent of dealing with them as though led by responsible and honourable people.

We maintain firm convictions that Christians need to pray on the one hand and act with realism and decision on the other. That we in America have been spared the physical ravages of war until now does not mean that we are less deserving of God’s judgment, nor that such an eventuality may not be tragically near. Our future can well rest with our decisions of the present.

Peace does not result from man’s desire. Peace results from men and nations ordering their affairs in line with God’s holy and righteous will. The spreading licentiousness and intemperance and lawlessness in America demands judgment.

God has affirmed in his word that righteousness exalts a nation and sin drags it down. Whether the salt and light of true Christian living in America are quantitatively and qualitatively adequate to save us is known to God alone. But of this we are confident—a genuine wave of nation-wide repentance and turning to God for forgiveness and mercy and to His Son for cleansing is our one great hope.

Such a spiritual rebirth is imperative and with it a willingess to determine our internal and external policies on the basis of righteousness and not expediency. Christian principles not only are consistent with but actually demand preparations to restrain evils that are inescapable in a world society.

To that end we believe Christians should work and pray for the preaching and teaching and living of the gospel message on the one hand while with the other they maintain the weapons necessary to deter evil men and nations and the will to exercise those means if necessary.

We are not sure how the prophetic words, “For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them,” will be fulfilled. Of this we are sure; today there is neither peace nor safety and it is a time for Christians to work and pray.

Oversimplifying The Remedy For The World’S Woes

The evils and sorrows that afflict the earth have called forth many suggested cures. A simple remedy offered frequently by evangelicals is the proclamation of Christ and him crucified. This has been termed by some an oversimplification of the answers to world problems. Such criticism has justification since the Scriptures clearly indicate that more is required than simply preaching the atonement. Application of the Gospel to the various evils and problems of society must be made.

Paul informed the Corinthian Christians that he determined not to know anything among them, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. By this the Apostle indicated what was basic and fundamental to his theology and message. However, in his letter to the Corinthians he makes careful application of the Gospel to individual, ecclesiastical and social life. He warns the individual of strife and lust. He admonishes the church on Christian liberty, idolatry, worship and love, and discusses social questions of marriage and poverty.

The Gospel affects all the powers and capacities of the individual and extends to all relations and conditions of human life. The Gospel does not leave the convert kneeling at the altar; it follows him into every avenue of life. The Gospel speaks to the church on doctrine, worship and government. The Gospel has a message for the sciences, the arts, and every social institution. The Bible does not deal with the individual in isolation from society.

The evangelical has often hobbled the Gospel un-biblically. He has not shown that a Christian is a new moral creation destined to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world. He should humbly accept criticism for his neglect and endeavor to rear a superstructure of social justice and righteousness upon the foundation Christ Jesus. He must work out his salvation in its various relationships with fear and trembling.

The evangelical, however, rightly discerns that nothing short of supernatural faith in Jesus provides an effectual remedy for the disease of sin. His basic message must always be Christ and him crucified. Only this message delivers from sin and, attended by the Holy Spirit, carries the necessary power to cleanse the world from evil and error.

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