The kingdom of God is near.

Give and double your impact.

Cover Story

That They May Be One

J. Marcellus Kik

Enthusiasm for ecumencity has taken firm hold on the ecclesiastical world. Constant discussion and debate revolve about the ecumenical movement and its goals, but unanimity concerning the objectives involved has not been reached. To some the goal is deepening fellowship and widening areas of cooperation. To others the aim is visible, organic union—a single comprehensive organization of the churches. Nothing less than a visible structure would satisfy many ecumenists. For such the very word ecumenical connotes visible organizational unity of the church.

Advocates of organic union appeal constantly to the petition uttered by Christ in his high priestly prayer: “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (John 17:21). It has been assumed that this earnest appeal pleads for corporate church union.

Visible Church Unity

Christ’s supplication, without a doubt, does press for visible church unity. Without a visible oneness how could the burden of the petition be effected “that the world may believe that thou hast sent me”? The world cannot behold the invisible. Surely the world would be more inclined to believe the divine mission of Christ if unity among professing Christians were perceptible. Christendom split into fragments must puzzle the unregenerate world and cause it to doubt the value of Christ’s entrance into history. The church united in faith, love, worship and purpose would not fail to impress the world and engender respect for her Leader.

Those who would belittle church unity must quarrel with the petition of Christ. He definitely prays the Father to establish a visible unity among his followers that the world may believe in his mission. While recognizing this need the evangelical, however, is distressed that many ecumenists pay scant attention to the type of church unity for which Christ pleads. In spite of the definitional clause in the petition the ecumenist envisions his type of union—a single comprehensive organization with some acceptable government whether congregational, presbyterian or episcopal. Was this ecumenical church in the mind of Christ as he petitioned the Father?

Our Lord defined the unity he desired with the clause “as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee.” The particle as cannot be ignored if one would interpret the mind of Christ. The concord that exists between the Father and the Son forms the pattern of unity for which the church must strive.

One In Doctrine

Obviously, harmony exists between the Father and the Son in regard to doctrine. Jesus insisted that his teachings were in agreement with the Father. “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me,” he claimed in John 7:16. He said further, “I speak to the world those things which I have heard of Him.… I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me” (John 8:26, 28). Again he said, “For I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak” (John 12:49). These are but a few passages in which Jesus strongly maintains that his doctrine is identical with that of the Father. Unity with contradictions in doctrine was not the burden of the high priestly prayer.

Impatient designers of the ecumenical church shudder at the thought of doctrinal unity, which either appears unimportant or impossible of achievement. Fear has been expressed that doctrinal emphasis will scuttle the ecumenical movement. Yet how can two walk together except they be agreed? Since Jesus stressed doctrinal agreement between the Father and himself, how can any movement worthy of his name ignore this important cohesive force? Organizational union without concord in doctrine will fail to impress the observant world. Actually, doctrinal unity is an important ingredient of the mortar which will hold together the living stones of the Temple of God.

One In Purpose

Between the Father and the Son there was mutual agreement in the carrying on of the work of redemption. They were one in purpose. Jesus said, “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.… And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life” (John 6:38, 40). The will of the Father was the salvation of his people through the atoning work of Christ upon the cross. Thus Jesus could say in anticipation of Calvary, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do” (John 17:4).

The church must echo that agreement of purpose by proclaiming the message of redemption to every creature. Salvation of the lost was the purpose for which God sent his Son into the world. In fulfilling this mission the Church comes into the unity of the Father and the Son. The rapid growth of the first-century church can in part be ascribed to the unity manifested by believers in proclaiming the message of redemption. Organizational unity, where the one purpose of proclaiming redemption does not exist, will fail to impress the unbelieving world.

One In Love

The pagan world stood amazed at the demonstration of love in the lives of believers. “How these Christians love one another. They are even ready to die for each other,” was the discerning remark of a pagan. The church is described as being of one heart and of one soul in Acts 4:32. What affected one affected all. With surprise and admiration the first-century world beheld a fellowship bound by love, embracing men of every race and language. This was the visible unity for which Jesus prayed and which astonished the world.

The present ecumenical movement can never succeed until the desire for closer union springs from dynamic love in the hearts of church members. Many are enamored of ecumenicity because a comprehensive organization seems more efficient and more economical. Many are impressed because church leaders stress its importance. However, a unity brought about by economic reasons or by ecclesiastical pressure has no resemblance to unity engendered by love. A unity built upon superficial motives has little resemblance to the unity of heart and soul of the early church. Nor is it the unity for which Jesus prayed.

Unity Of Early Church

No one will seriously argue that there has been a complete fulfillment of the Lord’s petition in history. Nevertheless, the first-century church does reflect a great unity of doctrine, faith, life and purpose. The Epistles reveal the struggle of the church to achieve the type of unity for which Christ prayed. For instance, the epistle to the Galatians shows how Paul withstood the infiltration of false doctrine lest it split the church. Further, in Ephesians 4:11–14 he emphasized that the work of the ministry was to bring the Church “in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” Faith and knowledge that has the Son of God as the object will bring about genuine unity—a unity that can be destroyed only by heresy.

Central Control

Recent writers have despaired of finding a pattern for their conception of the ecumenical church in the New Testament. John Knox writes, “Our recognition of the fact that the church, which has never been fully united in a visible unity, was not thus united in the Apostolic Age, will keep us from interpreting the goal of the ecumenical movement as being simply the restoration of the forms and usages of the early church” (The Early Church and the Coming Great Church, p. 15). He maintains also that “There was no one over-all organization and no central control” (ibid., p. 43); and “There was no single comprehensive organization of the churches; nor can a universal pattern of organization be traced among all the churches severally” (ibid., p. 83).

The absence of “central control” is explained by the consciousness of the New Testament church that the headship of Christ was a living and vital reality. Expression of the fact is found in Colossians 2:19: “And not holding the Head, from which the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered and knit together increaseth with the increase of God.” Here is true organic unity—a spiritual unity which may disappoint those who feel that organizational unity is the high goal of ecumenicity. The New Testament, however, emphasizes the spiritual Headship of Christ and the spiritual unity of believers.

Visible unity of the church is the desperate need of the present day. Its absence harms the cause of Christianity. Yet the only effectual unity is the unity for which Christ prayed and which the New Testament Church illustrated. The Church today must not yield to the temptation to search for a more human and a lower pattern for the sake of immediate achievement. There must be no bypassing of the pattern of unity expressed in the Lord’s petition, “as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee” and the pattern of unity exemplified by the early church. While this spiritual unity may take longer to achieve, it is that for which our Lord prayed.

Cover Story

The Word for This World

Peter H. Eldersveld

PSALM 96:10, “Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth …”

What is the most important proclamation the world needs to hear? In light of renewed interest in religion, what is the message to modern man in this critical hour of tension and turmoil? In other words, what should be the content of preaching?

There are many answers to that question, popular and unpopular. For example, some people believe the only message for today is racial integration and its related social problems. Others believe it is ecumenicity, the unity of the Church and the need for Church union. Others would constantly preach about the return of Christ at the end of time or some interpretation of the millennium. Others would involve preaching only in theological controversy, such as modernism vs. fundamentalism, and orthodoxy vs. neo-orthodoxy. And still others believe that the threat of communism to the Church ought to be the principal concern of preaching.

All of the above subjects are very important and should be brought into the pulpit. They belong to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But one wearies of hearing the same subjects from preachers with pet prejudices, which they parade endlessly to the exclusion of all else. Surely there is something greater and more vital to proclaim to our world, which will apply to its deepest need, as well as to secondary problems that we are so prone to make primary.

And there is! The true Gospel transcends all the little themes in which little men often lose themselves. We find it in Psalm 96:10, our text, “Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth.…” That has always been the greatest message to proclaim, the word for this world, the fundamental of all fundamentals. The absolute sovereignty of almighty God is the most important lesson for modern man to learn. He must rediscover the basic fact in the universe, namely, that God is really God!

Such little ideas are prevalent about God these days. This may be because we have such big ideas about ourselves. The Bible teaching about the sovereignty of God is not taken seriously. The renewed interest in religion has not produced humbleness. Men are still trying to make God after man’s image. How small that makes God!

We smile indulgently about the strange idols of pagan people, who live in what we like to call the benighted areas of this earth. Poor souls! we say. We make it our business to bring them the benefits of our genius. We can be so patronizingly magnanimous about it all! But, of course, we want them to adopt our “way of life” too. We want them to live in the light of our modern culture, to share the ideas that have made us so great.

However, many reject our way of life. They take our material goods, but not our way of thinking and living. This baffles us and insults us. We wonder how they can be so ungrateful. Perhaps it isn’t a matter of ingratitude. They believe that their gods are superior and we are pagans. Some state bluntly that they even prefer the idols and the ideas of communism!

And no wonder, for the popular conceptions of God that prevail in our supposedly Christian culture can hardly compete with the gods of pagan theologies. For people to take God seriously, He must be greater than the popular idea of Him.

Popular Misconceptions

For many of our scientists, God must be small enough to be seen through a telescope, or to be measured by a mathematical formula or to be put into a test tube. It is considered to be quite a compliment to God when a noted scientist declares that he believes in Him.

For many of our philosophers, God must be small enough to fit the limitations of their little minds. If they cannot comprehend him, they cannot believe in him. The Word of God is for many a modern thinker quite beside the point, a weird jumble of fact and fiction, almost without validity and certainly without authority.

For many of our politicians, God must be small enough to be used for the purpose of getting votes. His name in campaign speeches is like the name of an athlete on a box of breakfast cereal or like the name of an actress on a cake of soap. God is used to recommend the politician to the gullible public, but otherwise he is something of a misfit in politics.

For many of our economists, God must be small enough to bow humbly before the dictates of big labor leaders, big captains of industry and big officials of government, who solve all our problems for us in this area of life. He must wink at injustice, turn his head discreetly lest he look upon violence, put his blessing blindly upon tyranny and then comfort the poor victims of domestic strife. But he may not occupy a decisive role. After all, what does the God of that ancient Bible know about the complicated problems of our modern machine age?

For many of our diplomats, God must be small enough to live within the cozy little chapel reserved for him—and for all other gods—in the United Nations building. He cannot have an active part in the great assemblies of world powers, lest we antagonize those who do not believe in him and thus jeopardize our hopes for world peace. Apparently our international problems are outside the sphere of his sovereignty.

And for many of our theologians, God must be small enough to dwell in temples made with human hands. Some are churches where creeds are dead, where the word of man has replaced the Word of God, where ecclesiastical power is more important than redeeming grace, where the Cross of Christ is little more than a symbol. The towering biblical truths that speak about an absolutely sovereign God are too great to be found in these churches. Modern man does not want the sovereign God. The modern church must give him another one, a smaller god, a more liberal god, like man himself, made in his image, a god he can handle. This is the supreme tragedy of our times, that even churches have become too small for God—the God of the Bible, and of the great creeds that are based upon it! Meanwhile, these churches are big enough to hold all those who want to be religious these days, whatever their religion may be. They have room for the largest membership in history, but they are too small for God—the true God, the absolutely sovereign God.

Whittled To Our Size

Not long ago I had the privilege of participating in a panel discussion before a group of college and university students who wanted to examine the various religious ideas of our day. One member of our panel was a distinguished liberal preacher who became somewhat embarrassed and irritated by the questions asked. They found certain inconsistencies in his theology, and they were particularly critical of his conception of God. Finally, one of them asked him bluntly: “Do you think God is infinite or finite?” The answer was equally blunt, and little caustic: “Of course, I believe that God is finite. He is limited by the actions of men. In this enlightened age, how can any intelligent person still believe in an infinite God?”

What midget ideas we have of God! We have whittled him down to our size, and even smaller, so that he would be more manageable. Indeed, when our text states, “say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth …”—that God is really God—it is speaking to our modern culture, too. That word “heathen” applies not only to those who have never heard the Christian Gospel but also to those who have heard it and have rejected it. It not only fits a civilization where the Word of God has never come but also one where it has come and gone. And in either case, the most important thing to proclaim is that God is the absolute sovereign in this world!

Greatness And Glory

It seems almost incredible that men should miss what is the most obvious fact in this universe. How can they be so blind? Just look heavenward some clear night and you will see a cluster of stars that is the finest in the northern sky. You can count 6,000 stars in that group, if you try, and each one of them is larger than the sun. And the sun is so big that you could put a million of our little earths into it and still have room to spare. Who is behind all of that? Who brought it into being? Who has been upholding it twenty-four hours a day, year in and year out, for centuries, so that every part of it stays where it belongs in its patterned orbit? Why, God, of course! And yet these tiny creatures on this tiny planet dare to deny him or to refashion him to fit the limitations of their own little thoughts.

The Bible says in Daniel 4:35: “He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand, or say to him: What doest Thou?” These words came from the lips of a pagan king, Nebuchadnezzar, but he had to suffer most awful punishment before he became humble enough to say it. Amid all the rubble of twenty-three civilizations that historians declare have already perished, we find the evidence that indicates what happens to men if they refuse to acknowledge this fact. We must either take the sovereignty of God seriously, and live; or deny it, and die!

But if we are going to take it seriously, we must see God at his greatest, his highest, and his best. That cannot be done by merely looking at his heaven through a telescope, or by observing the laws that govern his world, or by marking his footprints in the path of history. God is God, supreme and sovereign, not only because he is the creator of the world, and the One who upholds it, but because he is the Redeemer of the world, the One who saves it.

It was good when he said amid the darkness of an unborn universe, “Let there be light!” But it was much better when he said amid the darkness of a sinful universe, “I am the Light of the world.” He was infinitely great when he formed man’s body out of the dust of the earth and then gave him divine breath to make him a living soul. But he was infinitely greater when he himself became a Man—a babe in a manger, a boy in a carpenter shop, a teacher with disciples, a physician for the sick, a preacher to the poor and, above all, a saviour on the Cross! That was indeed the highest point of his absolute sovereignty! Only one who is really God could have done that!

Preacher In The Red

HIGH TIME

While a student at Bucknell University, I was invited to speak at a church in New Columbia, Pennsylvania. The night before, I set my alarm in ample time to reach the church ahead of schedule. Unknown to me, my roommate came in late that night and turned off the alarm. Much to my chagrin I awoke an hour later than I had planned. By the time I reached the church I was thirty-five minutes late for the service. When I finally got up to begin my talk, I had to announce my text from Roman 13:11, “Knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep.”—The Rev. JAMES H. MIDDLETON, pastor, Calvary Baptist Church, Princeton, New Jersey.

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

Sovereign From A Cross

Justin Martyr used to say that the scribes had omitted three very important words from this text, that it actually reads this way, “Say among the heathen that the Lord reigneth from a tree.…” There is an old hymn based upon that version and confirmed by Philip Schaff, which has in it this very striking verse:

The truth that David learned to sing

Its deep fulfillment here attains:

Tell all the earth the Lord is King!

Lo, from a Cross, a King He reigns!

God is sovereign from a Cross! He alone has the power to save from sin, which is the greatest power in all the world. And only he could have made the sacrifice that was necessary to atone for sin. The hands that hold the reins of world government are the holy hands that were nailed to a Cross. And the feet that have this earth as a footstool are the feet that were pierced. And the crown of absolute dominion in this universe is a crown of thorns. And the blood that brings peace to the hearts of men in their battle with sin is the blood of God’s own Son, Jesus Christ.

Many years ago, Archimedes, the Greek philosopher, said, “Give me a lever long enough, and a place to put it on, and I will move the world.” There is such a lever: the Cross of Christ; there is a place to put it on: Calvary; and God is using it to move the world. And not only to move it, but to save it!

So this is the question with which we must confront every man today, How big is your God? The gods of modern man are not big enough to save your soul and to govern your world. You need the God of the Holy Bible, the God of our historic Christian faith, who alone is big enough to overcome death with life, time with eternity, sin with salvation, and hell with heaven. Without that God your soul is lost and your world is doomed. Go to his throne on Calvary today, confess your sin, ask him to wash you in his precious blood, and surrender yourself in faith to his sovereign grace. There is no other god big enough for you, for there is no other God!

Let us rededicate ourselves and our churches to the high purpose of saying among the heathen that God is really God—from a Cross! That is indeed the word for this world!

The Rev. Peter H. Eldersveld has been the radio and television voice of the Christian Reformed Church since 1946 as minister of The Back to God Hour. He holds the A.B. degree from Calvin College, Th.B. from Calvin Seminary and A.M. from University of Michigan, for post-graduate study in Speech and English.

Cover Story

Christianity in China

Hollington K. Tong

There are those who believe that with the spread of communism, Christianity is a lost cause in China. Nothing could be further from the truth. I propose to deal briefly with (1) the strength of Christianity among China’s leaders and people on Formosa; (2) what has happened to the Christians on the mainland since the coming of the communists; and (3) the place of Christianity in China’s future.

Christianity In Formosa

Most of the important government leaders on Formosa, or Taiwan, are professing Christians. The President of the Republic, Chiang Kai-shek, has been an active Christian for thirty years. The story of how, brought up in a Buddhist environment, he became a Christian, is not generally known in the United States.

Shortly before the completion of China’s unification, President Chiang, who had met and fallen in love with Miss Mei-Ling Soong, journeyed to Japan where his future mother-in-law was recuperating from an illness, to ask Mei-Ling’s hand. Madame Soong was reluctant to consent to her daughter’s marriage to a non-Christian and suggested that he become a Christian.

The Generalissimo replied that he was willing to study the Bible and to become a Christian later by conviction. Madame Soong agreed to this compromise and gave her blessing to the marriage.

The announcement of the coming wedding delighted all the Christians in China. Christianity was then under serious fire in China. The Russian communist advisers attached to the National Army and the native Chinese communists were striving to launch an anti-Christian movement patterned after the anti-Christian movement in Russia.

When, shortly after his marriage, Generalissimo Chiang publicly joined a Christian church, he began a career of devout and dedicated Christianity which has continued until this day.

Other prominent government leaders on Taiwan who are Christians include Mr. O. K. Yui, the Prime Minister; Dr. Wang Chung-hui, President of the Legislative Yuan, an office corresponding to that of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court; General Chang Chun, chief secretary to the President; General J. L. Huang, Commander-in-Chief of the Combined Military Services; and General Ho Ying-chin, Chairman of the Strategic Advisory Board.

Madame Chiang, Mrs. Yui, Mrs. Chang, Mrs. Wang and Mrs. Ho are all earnest Christians. Mrs. Chen Cheng, wife of the Vice President of the Republic, is also a devoted Christian.

General Chiang Ching-kuo, the Generalissimo’s elder son, is also a fine Christian. The names of other prominent people on Taiwan who are Christians would sound like a roll call of outstanding Chinese. Christianity has deep roots on Taiwan.

The Christian influence has extended to the common people of the island. During Japan’s long occupation of Formosa, Christianity was barely tolerated. Only 30,000 people had accepted Christ at the end of Japanese rule. The Japanese discouraged Christianity among the 160,000 aborigines. Today, under the Republic of China, at least 20 per cent of the aborigines have become Christianized.

Today, the number of Christians on Taiwan has reached 150,000, out of a total population of ten million, or a ratio of one Christian to every 70 inhabitants. And the number of Christians is increasing rapidly. Five years ago, at a revival meeting one Sunday evening in a public park in Taipei, I was struck by the fact that more than 600 of the total audience of 800 stood up and expressed their wish to become Christians.

During the ten years Taiwan has been under Christian administration, there has been a great growth in the Christian faith. Take a walk in Taipei and you will find a church, a chapel, a Christian hospital or a mission agency within sight. There is Christian growth in the rural regions as well as the city.

The Taiwan Presbyterian Church is the oldest Christian church on Taiwan—a church that does much work among the aborigines. Established 84 years ago by missionaries from the English and Canadian Presbyterian churches, it has become the mother church of 426 Presbyterian churches on the island. Of this total, 238 are located on the plains and 198 among the aborigines.

One of the Generalissimo’s first acts upon his arrival on Taiwan was to establish a small church for his worship. For more than four years, the Shih Ling Church had as resident pastor the Rev. Chen Weiping. Eighty years old, Mr. Chen recently retired. Now the church secures different pastors to preach by invitation.

On The Mainland

How many Christians are openly maintaining their faith on the Chinese mainland, under communist rule, is not easy to estimate.

In the pre-communist period, in 1934, three years before the outbreak of the war, there were 5,493 Protestant missionaries in China, and 475,205 Protestant church members. This latter figure had increased by 1948 to 618,600. In the same year there were 2,624,166 Chinese Catholics.

The only figure known to us since the communists seized China is that 400,229 Christians signed the Christian Manifesto in September, 1950. This Manifesto was issued by the so-called National Christian Council, organized by the communists. Denominations represented were the Church of Christ, the Lutheran Church, the Episcopalian Church, the Baptist Church, the Little Flock, the Christian Meeting House, the Independents, the American Methodists, the English Methodists, the True Jesus Family, Pue Tao Hui, the Salvation Army, the Apostolic Faith Church, the Free Methodists, the Disciples, the Quakers, the Mennonites, various Pentecostal sects and 23 smaller groups.

Signing the Manifesto was obligatory for all Christians if they wished to avoid public accusations as supporters of Western imperialism. This Manifesto followed a virulent campaign of the communists against all Christian churches which were affiliated or connected with any foreign body. The major object of the Manifesto was to single out the United States for attack. According to the communists, all mission work done by any nation or Christian organization was prompted by American imperialism.

In an article in the People’s Daily, entitled “How Did Imperialism Use Religion for Aggression in China,” Hsieh Hsin-yao declared:

In the past hundred years, churches have been the bastion of the aggressors, with the latter serving as the background of the former. Whenever chances occurred for diplomatic negotiations, certain missionaries came to meddle in affairs. For instance, J. Leighton Stuart, former president of Yenching University, had posed as a religious leader and educator for many years. Outwardly he acted as if he really sympathized with China but in fact he was one of the most important secret agents for American aggression in China. Unveiling himself, he became the American Ambassador to China in order to carry out America’s aggressive policy toward China.

In his book, “China under Communism—the First Five Years,” Professor Richard L. Walker declared that “Christianity has been under attack because in communist doctrine, it represents Western Imperialism in China. No aspect of the humanitarian work of devoted Christian missionaries over the past century has been spared attack. Chinese Christian leaders activities and associations.… In a majority of cases activities and associations.… “In a majority of cases the missionaries were subjected to some combination of imprisonment, torture, house arrest, sometimes lasting for years, and public mass trial.”

I fear that at least 50 per cent of the Christians on the mainland have been driven underground by communist persecution. They dare not openly attend services. Communists keep a close tally on church attendance, and those who attend are subjected to stern discrimination. I can only guess that 50 per cent of the preachers have capitulated to Chinese communist pressure by including communist propaganda in their sermons. Sad to relate, most of the churches on the mainland have joined the so-called new order.

We can understand this apostasy, even though it hurts us. It takes rare courage for any Chinese to be a Christian in Red-ruled China today. It means that he will be treated as an outcast. Paragraph 21 of the Election Law of March 1, 1953, denies the franchise to Christians and Buddhists unless they belong to organizations that are members of government-sponsored bodies, and unless their political conduct is good.

The attack upon religion by the Chinese communists follows the historic Soviet line. Many Chinese communists in their youth undoubtedly received the benefit of education in Christian schools. Some of the Communists who have bitterly denounced Dr. J. Leighton Stuart, former American Ambassador, were students in Yenching University, a Christian institution, during his university presidency. However, sentiment is nonexistent in a communist. Once an individual becomes a communist, he must follow the communist line in his thoughts and actions.

Immediately after the communists took over, an official order was issued requiring all churches and Christian groups to register with the government if they wished to continue. At the same time a government bureau for the control of religious matters was created. Many churches and Christian groups registered with the bureau, but a few had the courage to refuse to register.

In order to centralize control over the churches, the bureau in 1950 set up the so-called National Christian Council. After issuing the Manifesto, the Council proceeded to set up what it called the Three Self-Reform Church Movement. This was a control measure designed to detach the churches from all identity with their original denominations. The “Movement” insists upon self-government, self-support and self-propagation. If a church refuses to join the “Movement,” its property is subject to confiscation by means of heavy taxation. An unaffiliated church must pay heavy land taxes. If these are not promptly paid, a fine of one-half per cent a day is imposed. Thus a church can exist in Red China only on condition that it “reforms.” When it accepts affiliation with the “Movement,” it pays either no taxes at all or extremely low taxes.

The Three Self-Reform Church Movement has made existence very hazardous for preachers. They must constantly ask themselves—what shall we preach, how shall we preach, and who shall preach? The communists have definitely answered the question, who shall preach. They declare that the preacher must be a man who stands firmly on the side of the people. Of course, the communist meaning of the term “the people” differs sharply from the meaning that free peoples accept.

The kind of directives given to the churches through the “Movement” are exemplified by an article entitled “Christians Must Oppose Imperialism and Be Patriotic” by Wang Chin-hsin, a professor in the Nanking Theological Seminary, in Tien Feng (June, 1955), a church paper published by the communists. He argues that those who oppose the Three Self-Reforms have been trying to quote the Scriptures incorrectly to suit their purposes. He condemns them for opposing the new communist church changes.

Another pamphlet, issued in Peiping, indicates that the Three Self-Reform Church Movement has caused wide confusion within the church groups themselves.

Religious magazines formerly devoted to the spread of the Gospel have also been converted into communist media of information. An instance is the Kung Po, formerly the publication of the Church of Christ in China.

As late as January, 1950, the Kung Po dared to write fearlessly in opposition to the communist evil. The change in the atmosphere in Red China may be seen in the change that has come over Kung Po since that time. The same magazine has been filled with articles equating Christianity with the Marxist doctrines. In 1951, for example, there appeared an article entitled “A Christian of the New Generation.” The writer declared that there is a lack of faith in the church of China today. This is due, he points out, to the fact that the members do not rightly understand the “People’s Principles” and that they have not cut away completely from “imperialistic doctrines.” Without doing these two things, he says, a Christian cannot develop a true love for his nation and church. He then proceeded to tell them, under four heads, what a Christian of the new generation needs.

(1) New Life—“resurrection life.” This means putting forth all one’s strength, working with every breath one draws, “to enter the New Order.”

(2) New Thinking—“Lift up your intelligence.” This means to develop a plan to carry out the principles of Marx, Lenin and Mao.

(3) New Knowledge—One should increase his knowledge. The author argued that American imperialism leads the Chinese to divide and perish, but that Mao is a brave lover of the people.

(4) New Work—Christ commanded His disciples to go into all the world and teach all nations, releasing men from bondage. This is the new work to which every Christian is called. Paul exemplified it. Today, men must follow their example, proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, namely, the establishment of world peace according to the principles of the People’s Republic.

By 1952, the Kung Po was printing a cartoon of President Truman and his Cabinet on their knees before a rat in a cage, pleading with the rat to save them (by means of germ warfare) from the just vengeance of the People’s Armies in Korea.

The picture of Red China today may be clarified by some of the remarks of the Rev. Victor D. Barnett at the Biennial Conference of the Far Eastern Council of Christian Churches at Karuizawa, Japan, in August, 1953. Mr. Barnett’s conclusion was that the State Church today is only a tool of the communist regime, although within it there are, no doubt, many of God’s own people.

He told of a pastor in Canton who, after obeying government orders publicly to accuse missionary friends and Chinese brethren, went into an inner room and wept bitterly. However, “so far as I have heard,” he states, “he is still in the State Church.” Another man, a principal of a theological seminary, who was greatly used of God in past days, is now a compromiser and an “accuser of the brethren.”

Mr. Barnett told of the more admirable group of Christians in China who have not yet bowed the knee to the communists. For example, a church in the South was told to join the Church State Organization, if it wished to continue to function. It refused. As a result, its meeting places were confiscated and ten of its leaders were imprisoned. Four of these were executed as “reactionaries,” three were released after a year of imprisonment, and three are still unaccounted for.

A certain pastor declined to join the so-called reform movement. The communists induced one of his nephews to accuse him of immoral conduct and to publish an untruthful expose of him in a State Church magazine entitled “Heavenly Wind.” The nephew later committed suicide and the pastor was stoned to death by communist terrorists.

So great is the fear in Red China that some day the communists may take the Bible away from the Christians that an “Eat the Bible Society” has been organized among the Christian students in a certain university. The purpose of the society is to require each member to memorize an assigned portion of the Bible against the day when no true Bible will be obtainable in China.

The Future In China

As to the place of Christianity in China’s future, I shall set forth my personal views. God rules in righteousness and justice. The choice must be made by each nation either for God or against Him.

There is no question that the number of Christian leaders in the Government of the Republic of China will steadily increase with time. I feel confident that we shall return to the Chinese mainland, the only question being when. Once we are back, we shall give Christianity the first place in our religious activities. Of course, the Government will not interfere in religious activities—our Constitution provides freedom of religion—but those who will direct the affairs of state will be largely Christians.

We have noted a considerable decline in Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism. These faiths which used to dominate the minds of the people have dropped into a secondary status and will probably never recover their former importance in China. Christianity, which has so much to give, will unquestionably reach millions of new converts in China.

Communism based upon godlessness must fail, or thousands of years of recorded human history are meaningless. Once it collapses, the task of Christianity to fill the vacuum will be immense. It will be the duty of Christians to repair the ravages—spiritual and material—left by communism. With God’s help, we will be equal to the task.

A graduate of the University of Missouri in 1913, Hollington K. Tong is Ambassador of the Republic of China to the United States.

Cover Story

Emil Brunner and the Bible

Paul K. Jewett

The stroke suffered recently by Emil Brunner as he returned to his native Switzerland after two brief but strenuous years of teaching in Japan cannot but leave one with a sense of regret and loss. How much, in God’s providence, he may yet have to say to us we cannot know; but though there be little more, the bequest of his pen to our generation will challenge every serious theological mind for years to come. In this limited article we assay a large task, namely, to discuss his view of Scripture. Brunner himself once remarked, epigrammatically, “The fate of the Bible is the fate of Christianity.” Because this is true, it may also be said that the fate of the Bible in Brunner’s theology is the fate of his theology.

Acceptance Of Critical Views

Let us begin by observing (what is well known) that Brunner accepts many results of the so-called higher criticism of the Bible. That the creation and fall narratives, in fact the pre-Abrahamic history in general, are a late priestly production; that when all is said and done, the Wellhausian order of “prophets then law” has remained victorious; that the latter half of Isaiah is postexilic; that the Lukan account of a census and the Matthaean story of the Magi are legendary; that the resurrection narratives are conflicting; that John is not a historical source; and that the Pastorals are late—all this is for Brunner the common property of educated minds, just as much as Copernican astronomy and Newtonian physics. The Bible “is full of errors, contradictions, erroneous opinions concerning human, natural, historical situations. It contains many contradictions in the report about Jesus’ life; it is overgrown with legendary material even in the New Testament” (Religionsphilosophie, pp. 77 f.). Hence the orthodox view of the Scripture, which conceives the Bible as a book of infallible, self-consistent propositions, is impossible for anyone who knows anything.

It is probably true that Brunner’s liberal theological background, especially in the early years, served to underscore this phase of the problem in his thinking beyond due proportions. But every serious student of the literature knows that biblical criticism has raised questions that cannot be exorcised by the simple denial of their existence. Hence, though Brunner’s concessions to criticism seem to many of us intolerably cordial, our position is such that we are constrained to read on. If Brunner is convinced that we can no longer regard the Bible as an infallible norm of faith and practice—and he is—what place does he give it in our present-day thought about God and His self-disclosure to man?

Revelation Versus Doctrine

To answer this question we must pause a moment on the larger subject of revelation. Revelation, for Brunner, is God’s breaking into time in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus is himself the Word. “Revelation is Jesus Christ himself, not a doctrine about Jesus Christ” (Die christliche Lehre von Gott, p. 63). This revelation is completed in the response of faith on the part of the individual as he is confronted by God in Christ. The proper “echo” of the divine Word in the human heart is revelation consummated. It is “personal correspondence.” Thus the truth of revelation moves in a different sphere from that of reason. It is “thou-truth” (Du-Wahrheit), not “it-truth” (Es-Wahrheit). There is, as Brunner says, an “abyss” which separates “the human word and God’s Word, human-rational and divine-spiritual understanding” (Offenbarung und Vernunft, p. 415). Revelation then moves in the realm of personal encounter, of confession. “Verily thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God!” Every genuine testimony about Christ must arise out of such a personal encounter of him. The rise of “it-truth” from “thou-truth,” or, to speak theologically, the rise of doctrine, such as we have in the Bible, from revelation occurred when the Apostles turned from the God who addressed them to the men whom they addressed.

The first prerequisite, therefore, for the rise of the witness of doctrine, is the stepping out of the thou-relationship to God, a turning of the face, as it were, away from God and toward the world. In doctrine man speaks no more in the thou-form to God, as in the original confession of faith—but he speaks now in the it-form about God. Doctrine is no more the spontaneous personal answer of prayer to God’s word, but even in its simplest form already, reflective speech about God. Stepping out of the dimension of personal meeting into the impersonal realm of reflection, is the presupposition of all doctrine. God is now no more the one who speaks, but the one who is spoken about; no more is God the one who is addressed, but a man or a plurality of men [Die christliche Lehre von Gott, p. 44],

On The Rim Of Revelation

Now the Bible, according to Brunner, is the fixation of this faith-confessing, faith-creating testimony of the Apostles. This viva vox of the Apostles stands in closer relationship to the Word of God than does the Bible, but the Scriptural fixation of this living testimony, which was necessary to preserve it from being completely altered and thereby lost in the moving stream of historical tradition, participates in the authority of that revelation. It is, so to speak, the rim, the border of that unique revelational event of which it bears record. It is this participation in the once-for-all character of revelation as a unique historical event which gives the written documents superiority over the subsequent oral tradition and which grounds the idea of a canon. “We have the word of revelation as something unique and finished, therefore, as canon” (Der Protestantismus der Gegenwart, p. 254). The once-for-all spoken word of revelation meets us as a Perfectum praeteritum in the Scripture, which is therefore the norm of revealed truth.

Words About The Word

Strictly speaking, then, the Bible is not the Word of God in the unqualified sense of Orthodoxy, but rather a word about the Word, a record of the Apostolic witness to the Word, which participates in the authority of that witness. Since Jesus is himself the Word, it is idolatry to regard the Bible as the Word of God in the orthodox sense. When all is said and done, however it may differ from other human formulations of revealed truth, the Bible cannot be the ground of Christian faith, but only its means. I do not believe that Jesus is the Christ because I believe the Bible. The order is exactly the reverse in Brunner’s way of thinking. “Because I believe in Christ, I believe the Scripture” (Offenbarung und Vernunft, p. 166). Nor does it help any to say that I believe Jesus is the Christ because an Apostle says so. It is all the same. Were not the Apostles men? Could they not err? Indeed they could and they did. Their testimony, as we have it preserved in Scripture, is, to be sure, “inspired by the Spirit of God, but it is at the same time a human word, and therefore laden with the frailty and incompleteness of all that is human” (Die christliche Lehre von Gott, p. 40). However, true faith is not shaken by this fact, but, recognizing that revelation is broken in the human medium, it reaches beyond the contradictory perspectives of the Scriptures to that One to whom they all point, Jesus.

The Temporary And Permanent

Hence, Brunner declares, it is our task to distinguish between that which is binding and valid and that which is temporal and human in the Bible. Only we must not fall into the error of liberalism by failing to perceive that our norm and criterion in fulfilling this task can be no other than the Scripture itself. “Only by means of the doctrine of the Apostles can the apostolic doctrine be criticized.” This apparently circular reasoning is really so only for “a legal-orthodox mentality” (Die christliche Lehre von Gott, p. 55). Though the astronomic-cosmological, the geographical, ethnographical and historical pronouncements of the Bible are not, as such, binding upon us, yet this does not mean, as the liberals assume, that we may lop off Genesis 1 through 12 and go about our business. No portion of the Bible is more laden with revelation than the lapidary opening chapters of the Genesis narrative. We do not receive revelation save through the whole Bible, by which Brunner means not simply all portions of the Bible, but all the content of all the Bible, including its antique cosmology and early chronology. The world view of the writers of Scripture is the alphabet in which the witness of revelation was given. Only we should not confuse the alphabet with the witness itself. We must differentiate between them even though we cannot sever them. Hence Brunner can say that we are bound even to the very words of Scripture, for the words of the Bible are not only signs of the thing, but the thing itself. “We have no power in any sense or respect over the words of Scripture, not even then when the need of the church may lie close to requiring such” (Natur und Gnade, zweite Auflage, Vorwort).

Not A Final Norm

Yet along with such commitments, we find Brunner categorically affirming that even in matters of doctrine, not to mention science, the Bible is not a final norm. To put the matter pointedly in Brunner’s own words: “However, the norm of Scripture understood even in the sense of a norm of doctrine, is no absolute, but only a conditional one, conditioned by that which at the same time grounds it; namely, the revelation, Jesus Christ Himself” (Die christliche Lehre von Gott, p. 57). The Word of God can never be identified with the words of the Bible. A final recourse to a passage of Scripture is therefore an impossibility. Christian doctrine remains always, and in every case, a venture of faith (ibid., p. 58). How, then, do I know that the Christ to whom the Scripture testifies is indeed the Word of God? Brunner’s reply is that there is no revelation in itself. Revelation is address and response, “personal correspondence.” I believe in Christ for the same reason Peter did, whose eyes were opened to the truth by a special act of God’s Spirit. To be sure, this testimony of the Spirit is only by means of the apostolic witness as preserved in Scripture. But God’s Word is double; the happened-Word becomes the happening-Word in the moment in which God seals it to me as His Word. The Bible, in other words, becomes the Word of God to me in the moment of revelation when I become contemporaneous with Christ. In a single act of revelation there is created in me faith in the Christ and faith in the Scripture which testifies to him. The relativism attaching to the merely historical, which makes impossible final recourse to the Scripture as such, is overcome in the act of faith, whereby the historical becomes “an other than the historical … an organ of the revelation of the eternal God … The historical has become the eternal Word of God” (Die christliche Lehre von Schopfung und Erlosung, p. 307).

Difficulties Facing Brunner

This in brief is Brunner’s attempted synthesis of the liberal-orthodox antithesis. Thus he would escape on the one hand the dilemma of the liberal, from whose fingers both tables of the Law have slipped, without committing himself to what he regards as a wooden Orthodoxy. There can be little doubt that he has achieved his end, after a fashion, for he is too orthodox for the liberal and too liberal for the orthodox. This is his privilege, and probably his intention, but would it be a pedantic irrelevance to ask him how he can reject the virgin birth of our Lord and at the same time be bound even to the words of the narrative as both sign and thing signified? We must, no doubt, grant him the liberty that we all take (even though we are not theologians of the paradox) of being a little inconsistent, but sometimes one is tempted to complain with Capulet to Juliet,

How now, how now, chop-logic!

What is this?

To be precise, Brunner insists that without an authoritative Bible, Christianity is lost (and as a Christian Brunner professedly bows before that authority), but at the same time he tells us that its authority is conditional only, that it is an authority freighted with human frailty. Is it not difficult to fit the pieces of this puzzle together?

What is a conditional authority? Is it not one to which we can talk back? One which we may like or leave? Yet our Lord said that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35). So far was he from asserting that final recourse to the Scripture is impossible that he rested his whole defense against the devil on “It is written.” If we are Christians, we ought not to be ashamed of Jesus in this respect, but rather to acknowledge that the Scripture, as the word of God written, is the keystone in the arch of our confession, the foundation on which our view of life rests, the theological axiom from which alone we derive our message to a race of dying men.

Finality That Wavers

If, as Brunner himself says, the fate of the Bible is the fate of Christianity, then to make the authority of the Bible conditional is to place a question mark after the absoluteness of Christianity. Brunner would probably answer that the Spirit of God uses the Bible (even as he would a sermon) though it be fallible, as a means of divine revelation in the crisis of faith. Now it is surely important that the Bible become the word of God to the individual; but is it not equally important that the Bible be the Word of God, for how can the Bible become what it is not? To be sure, it is no longer possible to conceive the Bible as dictated by the Holy Ghost, yet even Brunner admits that “the Word of God is there [in the prophets] in the form of revealed human words, not behind them …, but in a direct identity, in a complete correspondence of man’s word and God’s word” (Die christliche Lehre von Gott, p. 26). This, it would seem, is to concede a very basic point, for however untenable certain scholastic formulations of the doctrine of Scripture may have become, the essence of the orthodox position is that the Bible is the Word of God in the form of revealed human words. But if the Scripture is the word of God, then our task is not to get beyond Orthodoxy, but so to formulate our Orthodoxy, in the light of contemporary problems, that the Bible becomes to men in our world what we as preachers and theologians believe it really is, namely, the Word of God.

Paul K. Jewett spent a year abroad in graduate studies under Emil Brunner on a scholarship from Harvard Divinity School, where he received the Ph.D degree. His book on Brunner’s Concept of Revelation was along the lines of his doctoral dissertation. Jewett is now Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary.

Cover Story

Luther’s Doctrine of Inspiration

J. Theodore Mueller

The recent almost world-wide Luther renaissance, which has again made the Reformer’s teachings a matter of popular interest, has also produced a renewed discussion of his doctrine of biblical inspiration. Conservatives appeal to him for support of their position as well as the neo-orthodox and the neoliberals.

Since all quote passages from his writings to substantiate their claims, it would appear that Luther held heterogeneous and conflicting opinions on this issue. The resulting confusion justifies the question as to what Luther really believed and confessed with regard to the doctrine of biblical inspiration.

Luther’S Opposition To False Views

Only when we view the objective of Luther in its proper perspective can we rightly gauge his attitude toward Scripture. But this will lead us also to assign to him his rightful place as a true reformer of the biblical doctrine of Scripture in general over against the erroneous views of his day. As the first of the evangelical church reformers, Luther had to blaze a new Scripture-oriented trail through a veritable theological jungle of errant opinions in which Scripture, tradition, reason, mystic intuitions and the like were hopelessly jumbled.

Luther’s interest therefore was not attached primarily to the doctrine of inspiration, as was, for instance, that of the later Swiss divines. He accentuated, above all, what is now commonly known as the sola scriptura, that is, the proper source and norm of the Christian faith and life. That exalted position and function of Scripture Luther endeavored to establish and clarify against the Romanist view of Scripture plus church tradition, the humanist view of Scripture plus reason and the enthusiast view of Scripture plus private revelation.

The Bible’S Authority Decisive

To all these varying forms of unequally yoking together “what God says” and “what man says,” Luther once for all called a halt. Very early in his career as an evangelical reformer, he recognized that he could not maintain the central Gospel doctrine of Scripture, the glad tidings of salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ, unless the Bible alone is accepted as the decisive authority in religion.

He knew from both Scripture and experience that the sola gratia, or the sola fide, is a message of divine revelation, entirely foreign to a false church tradition, perverted human reasoning, erroneous mystic speculation, alleged private revelation and other standards which rationalizing theologians of all sorts desired to place side-by-side with Scripture as normative for doctrine and life.

Luther rightly maintained that the Christian way of salvation by grace through faith in the redemptive blood of Christ can come only from God Himself, and not from philosophy or any other manifestation of human thought. It was thus in the interest of the sola gratia that Luther so greatly stressed the sola scriptura. It was also for this reason that he inculcated the entire body of Christian truth from the viewpoint of Christ crucified and risen for sinful man’s deliverance and justification. Luther’s whole theology was indeed Christocentric, but this absolute Christocentric orientation did not flow from any speculative motif. His evangelical teachings were centered in Christ simply because, as he puts it, Christ is the beginning, middle and end of Scripture. Over against the vainglorious arrogance of perverted human reason his theology proved itself triumphantly theocentric.

Protest Against Rome’S Position

To understand properly Luther’s doctrine of biblical inspiration, we must keep in mind, moreover, that in the interest of the sola scriptura Luther also rejected, on the one hand, the false Romanist synthesis of the canonical Scriptures and the Apocrypha and on the other, the Romanist equalizing of the New Testament Homologumena and Antilegomena. Since neither Christ nor the apostles quote the Apocrypha of the Old Testament and since, moreover, Jewish tradition did not accept them as a part of the canon, Luther regarded it as an impious undertaking on the part of Romanism to place them on the same level with the prophetic Scriptures of the Old Testament. Luther’s protest against the Romanist attempt at placing on the same level the Homologumena, that is, the universally received books of the New Testament, and the Antilegomena, or those that were not unanimously received, such as James, Jude, Hebrews and others, was not quite as stern as was his repudiation of the Apocrypha. Nevertheless, he held that since the ancient Christian church, which alone was capable of deciding this matter, had made this distinction, the later (Romanist) church had no authority to abolish the established difference. This conviction largely explains Luther’s well-known condemnation of the Epistle of St. James.

Development In Luther’S Thought

At this point, however, it should be stated in justice to Luther that he later somewhat modified his earlier opinions on the Antilegomena. Thus his last preface to the Epistle of St. James is much more favorable than was his first.

Luther therefore should not be judged merely from certain expressions, often quoted without due consideration of the context, but from his theology as a whole, and that especially in its later development. There is no doubt that Luther increased in wisdom and stature as year by year he occupied himself with the profound Gospel content of Scripture. Hence, what the “young Luther” said must be compared with what the “mature Luther” had to say.

At the beginning of his work as a reformer, Luther had no dependable pattern to go by. Even so helpful a guide from the ancient church as St. Augustine usually failed him, as he faced doctrinal or exegetical problems. Then, too, it should be remembered that Luther was an extremely busy man who commonly wrote under heavy pressure. At one time he complained that his manuscript was taken from his desk by the printer even before the ink could become dry. That accounts largely for what has been called the “uncritical character” of his writings. Lastly, it may be noted that Luther was lacking in the literary punctiliousness, or precision that characterized, for example, such scholars as Melanchthon and Beza. Luther’s writings are like rugged gems, usually unpolished and often unfinished in form, but gems, nevertheless. Therefore the student of Luther may occasionally find in his theological treatises lapses or even contradictions, though these do not pertain to essentials, but to peripheral or accidental matters and may largely be explained by their orientation and emphasis.

But with regard to the doctrine of biblical inspiration there is nothing in his works that denies the verbal and plenary inspiration of the canonical books of the Bible. In Luther’s estimation every canonical biblical book is God’s Word, no matter whether it teaches a Gospel mystery or an intelligible precept and whether it pleases perverted human reason or not.

Champion Of Plenary Inspiration

While Luther did not use the scholastic terminology of the later Lutheran and non-Lutheran dogmaticians such as verbal or plenary inspiration, he in substance held what these terms signify, though he never taught what has been called a “mechanical dictation theory.” To him it sufficed that Scripture, given to perishing mankind by the merciful God through his divinely called prophets and apostles, is God’s own Word and therefore efficacious, authoritative, sufficient and perspicuous.

To Luther, God’s Word, set forth in Scripture, is never anything dead, but always something divinely alive, effective and powerful to work that which God wills, through the Holy Spirit operating in the written living Word. Therefore it must be regarded as efficacious and, as a divine message, also authoritative. But Scripture as the Word of God is also sufficient to quicken the hearts of men and convert them to Christ by a living faith, the Law humbling the conceited natural heart and the Gospel, the message of divine grace in Christ Jesus, as the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, engendering saving faith in Christ. For that very reason Scripture, in all its essential parts, is also perspicuous, or clear, though obscure portions occur in its prophetic utterances.

Luther very earnestly urged all students of the Bible to turn from such obscure passages and portions, if these should perplex them, and study with unabating zeal the divine plan of salvation in Christ Jesus, which Scripture everywhere sets forth in lucid terms. Luther himself never attempted an exposition of the Book of Revelation, which he regarded historically as deuterocanonical, and doctrinally as inexplicable in its prophetic visions.

The Central Interest Is Christ

On the other hand, Luther never wearied of expounding the fundamental Scriptures of sin and grace and to accentuate those Bible books that treat Christ, not because he regarded the others as non-inspired or less inspired, but because in his opinion Scripture serves no other purpose than to make men know, trust, love and follow Christ. Beyond that Luther did not develop the doctrine of biblical inspiration, not merely because there was no controversy on this subject, since both the Romanists and the Swiss reformers agreed with him on the doctrine of inspiration, but because he perceived no need of any further scholastic formulation of the doctrine. Nevertheless, essentially his teaching on inspiration is the same as that of the later Lutheran and non-Lutheran dogmaticians; for Christians who honestly accept what Scripture witnesses of itself are bound to reach the conclusion that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God and as such the only legitimate authority of doctrine and life, just as it is God’s power to convert and sanctify sinners, sufficient for man’s salvation and clear in all its teachings that pertain to man’s salvation.

Luther never changed or modified his doctrine of biblical inspiration which he had inherited from his medieval teachers, namely that Scripture, given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is God’s own saving Word. Having been made a “Doctor of Sacred Scripture,” on October 19, 1512, he, at Wittenberg, eagerly took over the prescribed lectures on the Holy Bible, the so-called Lectura in Biblia, which obligated him to offer continuous discourses on Scripture.

What Scripture Says, God Says

In spring, 1513, he began to expound the Book of Psalms, to which he devoted that entire year. In these his first lectures he again and again impressed upon the students his conviction that the Scriptures are God’s Word, and that therefore such expressions as “God speaks” and “Scripture speaks” must be regarded as interchangeable. Luther thus says, to quote but a few of his many statements on this point: “The Scriptures are divine; in them God speaks, and they are His Word” (Weimar Ed., III, 41,6; 451,26). In 1520 Luther published his famous polemic Concerning the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, in which he states that the church has no authority to set forth new divine promises of grace “… (but that) God’s Word stands incomparably high above the church” (W. VI,561). In 1521, at the Diet of Worms, he refused to recant his statements against the Roman church, because he “was overcome by the Scriptures” and his “conscience was taken captive by the words of God” (W. 7,838). According to Luther, Scripture is always above the words and wisdom of men, because it is God’s own Word.

That remained Luther’s doctrine of biblical inspiration till the end of his life. To him the canonical Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament were at all times the authoritative Word of God and this he asserted over and over, almost ad nauseam. In matters of salvation only Scripture is to be believed, and not any pope or church council, for my faith must be certain and have a sure foundation in Scripture (W. 15,195). Whatever is asserted without Scripture or without its sure revelation need not be believed (W. 6,508; 10,2,191; 2, 297,279,309,315). The true God speaks in Scripture, wherefore we must accept in simple faith what it says (W. 40.2,593). Whatever Paul says, the Holy Spirit says; and whatever is contrary to Paul’s word, is contrary also to the Holy Spirit (W. 10.2,139 f.). The apostles received the Holy Spirit; therefore their words are God’s Word (W. 40. 1,173 f.). So, then, Scripture is God’s Word and not the word of men (W. 5, 184; 8, 597). God is the author of the Gospel (W. 8,584). The Holy Spirit is the author of Genesis (W. 44,532). The Bible is the peculiar Scripture of the Holy Spirit (W. 7,638; 46,545; 47, 133).

Studies Of Luther’S Doctrine

Dr. Reinhold Seeberg, from whose Die Lehre Luthers (Vol. IV) of his Dogmengeschichte (Leipzig 1933), we have quoted these thoughts and words of Luther, rightly remarks: “Such quotations (from Luther) could easily be multiplied.” That is true, and there are many that have performed this task. Luther’s doctrine of biblical inspiration has been very adequately and convincingly set forth by Dr. M. Reu, in his excellent book Luther and the Scriptures (1943). It has been treated still more comprehensively by Dr. Francis Pieper in his three-volume Christian Dogmatics (English translation, 1950). More briefly the writer of this has summed up the matter in his Christian Dogmatics (1934).

A fair and unbiased study of what Luther has written time and again on biblical inspiration should convince any reader that he always and fully recognized the canonical books of the Old and the New Testament as the inspired Word of God, from which a Christian dare not depart nor to which he dare add anything.

Luther acknowledged no degrees of inspiration. He did not look upon some books of Scripture as more inspired than other but considered all canonical books of the Bible to be equally inspired, though not equally important for Christian study so far as the way of salvation through faith in Christ is concerned; for first, as he says, those writings deserve consideration that set forth the fundamentals of sin and grace.

It is commonly said that Luther took over the doctrine of biblical inspiration from his medieval teachers. Rightly understood, that statement may stand. But medieval theology did not develop a peculiar doctrine of its own concerning biblical inspiration. It rather taught what has always been the belief of the Christian church, ever since the time of the church fathers, the apostolic fathers and the blessed apostles themselves, who in their teaching of biblical inspiration followed their divine Master.

A Sacred Tradition

To Christ, the entire Old Testament canon was the inspired Word of God, which he quoted authoritatively as the divine Word, and that not merely according to its general scope, but according to its particular passages or statements. To establish monogamy as the divinely instituted form of marriage over against his opponents, he quoted Genesis 1:27 (Matt. 19:4). To repulse the temptations of Satan he quoted distinctive Scripture passages against him from the Old Testament (Matt. 4:1–11). To our blessed Lord, the Old Testament passages were the authoritative divine Word, and in that sense they were understood also by his adversaries, Satan no less than the Pharisees and Sadducees.

This was the practice also of St. Paul, who as a called apostle of Jesus Christ did not only proclaim in divinely inspired words the divine truths revealed to him (1 Cor. 2:12,13) and wrote by divine inspiration the “commandments of the Lord” (1 Cor. 14:37) but also, in support of his apostolic teachings, quoted Old Testament passages as, for instance, Habbakuk 2:4 (Rom. 1:17).

That was done also by the other apostles, so that from the days of Christ and his apostles up to the time of crass rationalism the canonical Scriptures of the prophets and apostles were unanimously regarded in Christendom as the divinely inspired Word of God.

High View The Prevalent One

This fact was incontestably affirmed some years ago by the learned German theologian, Dr. H. Echternach, in a treatise on biblical inspiration entitled The Lutheran Doctrine of the Autopistia of Holy Scripture, which he delivered before a convention of Lutheran pastors and professors at Berlin Spandau in 1951. He wrote inter alia: “The infallibility of Scripture was the consensus of the church, irrespective of denominational lines, until long after 1700 A.D.” Again: “Lutheran theology … refused to surrender the doctrine of inspiration also for another reason. It was aware of the heinousness of false doctrine, something the moderns have lost.… The 17th century still knew something of ‘being constrained by the truth’ and of the moral implications of religious knowledge. It therefore recognized that both in the secular and in the ecclesiastical realm every error is blasphemy and soul-murder” (cf. Concordia Theological Monthly, April, 1952; pp. 241 ff.).

Acceptance Of The Biblical Witness

Luther took the Bible seriously. When, for example, it declares: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16), or: “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Tim. 3:14), he accepted these statements as the inspired Word of God from which neither he nor any other person had the right to deviate.

Modern liberalism gave up this doctrine of biblical inspiration and with that fatal surrender also the objective Christian truth of Scripture, which Luther valued so highly. It lapsed into a deadly subjectivism tantamount to religious agnosticism; indeed, that tolerating human error and repudiating as false the Gospel of Christ’s free and full salvation as taught in Scripture.

But this agnostic subjectivism is not only subversive of all positive supernatural truth; it is also unfair to Scripture which approaches man as a divine Book, authoritatively demanding, as God’s own Word, both faith and obedience. If this divine Book, the glory of the Christian world, with its Spirit-inspired message of salvation, is not given a chance to sanctify sinners and transform our perishing civilization by its preserving moral precepts, the light of Christ will fail our western peoples as darkness once fell upon rebellious Israel when it declined to listen to the warning of the prophet: “To the law and testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isa. 8:20).

Luther predicted that very thing to his own generation and people. Those who know history know what has happened. There is much that his prophetic voice may tell our own age on how to regard and treat the inspired Scriptures of God.

END

We Quote:

DANIEL A. POLING

Editor, Christian Herald

Always the high purpose, the veritable passion of the Reformers, was to know God through Jesus Christ; to open and release the Bible as the Word of God; to bring men, as individuals, to redemption, and to save the whole world, its institutions and its peoples from sin—sin corporate and personal. Always the message of the Reformation was, and always it must be, just this; Jesus Christ, Who is Very God of Very God, the one and only sufficient Saviour.—From a Reformation Day sermon November 4 in Jacksonville, Florida.

J. Theodore Mueller, whose earlier years were spent instructing in Lutheran colleges and serving Lutheran churches, in 1921 began his long and useful career as Professor of Systematic Theology and Exegesis at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. His books include Luther’s Commentary on Romans and The Lutheran Confessions. Born 1885, he received the Th.D. degree from Xenia Theological Seminary in 1927.

Theology

The Prayer of the Five Widows

Elisabeth Elliot

An account after the Auca ambush in Ecuador, from CT’s seventh issue.

11th November 1966: Kimo, one of the Auca Indians of Ecuador who killed five visiting missionaries, visits London in the company of Rachel Saint, the sister of one of the victims. Kimo is now a converted Christian, although he still displays the large holes in his earlobes which his tribe believe will keep them faithful to their wives.

11th November 1966: Kimo, one of the Auca Indians of Ecuador who killed five visiting missionaries, visits London in the company of Rachel Saint, the sister of one of the victims. Kimo is now a converted Christian, although he still displays the large holes in his earlobes which his tribe believe will keep them faithful to their wives.

Hulton Archive / Getty

On a beautiful Sunday afternoon a year ago, five young women were asking God for two things regarding their husbands: that they might be permitted to contact the Auca Indians again, and that they might be protected. As we sat in our jungle homes here in Ecuador, two in Arajuno, one in Shandia and two in Shell Mera, we little dreamed of the answer God was then giving. He answered both of those prayers, but, as is often the case with him whose thoughts are as far above ours as the heavens are high above the earth, his answer far transcended what we had in mind.

Silence on a Sand Strip

The second contact was given. Probably at about two-thirty in the afternoon at least ten Aucas arrived at the strip of sand where the men had set up their little camp. Having seen them some time earlier from the airplane, approaching the beach, the pilot had reported to his wife the anticipated contact. We can imagine the five, then, as the forest rang with their praises. They sang hymns together, committed themselves to the Lord once more and eagerly prepared for their longed for visitors. It was not long before savage yells, instead of hymns of praise, echoed through the forest, polished wooden spears slashed through the air and five young men lay dead on the Rio Curaray. Silence closed once more over the stand strip, and those beloved Indians returned nonchalantly to their thatched homes, to recount another killing to their waiting families.

When Christianity Today inquired about the burden in the hearts of the five widows of the Auca ambush in Ecuador (January 23, 1956), their reply suggested that this article might appear anonymously, since it mirrors the mood of all five women. Their scribe, however, was Elisabeth Howard Elliot. Graduated from Wheaton College (48) with a Greek major, she studied Spanish in Ecuador and, with a view to Scripture translation, studied the Colorado and Quichua languages in the west and east jungles there. In 1953 she married missionary-martyr Jim Elliot. Today at Shandia, on the headwaters of the Napo River, one of the main tributaries of the Amazon, where the only communication with the outside world is by radio and airplane, she works alone in Bible translation, literacy work among women, teaching and medical work at a government accredited school for boys. Marjorie Saint is now serving in Quito as hostess of the guest house for HCJB (The Voice of the Andes). Barbara Youderian continues to serve in the Ecuadorean jungles, at the outstation of Cangaime among the Jivaro headhunters. Olive Fleming plans to return to the United States to serve in the office of The Fields, a religious publication. Marilou McCully manages a home for missionary children in Quito.

The asked-for contact had been given. But what about the protection?

Protection from Disobedience

When the Lord Jesus prayed to His Father, as recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John, he asked, too, for protection for those whom the Father had given him. For what purpose? “. . . that they may be one, as we are.” Protection from what? “. . . that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one.” Each one of our five men, years before, had asked for the whole accomplishment of God’s will in him at any cost, to the end that Christ be glorified. The Evil One is determined, however, that Christ shall not be glorified. But, in making them obedient men, God had answered the prayer of his Son, the prayer of the men themselves and the prayer of their wives. The adversary did not succeed in turning them aside from Gods highest purpose. They were protected from that most fearful of all dangers, disobedience. They loved God above all else. “Herein is the love of God, that ye keep his commandments.”

The prayer of our hearts today, of the widows who remain, is the same, that Christ may be glorified.

Christ’s Glory in Some Aucas

First of all, we continue asking for that which motivated the men from the beginning of the project—that Christ may be glorified in some Aucas. The contact God gave to the five was only one step in the opening of the fast-closed doors to that tribe.

Nor was it the first step. Others had thought and prayed for years about them, asking for an entrance, flying over the territory in search of their whereabouts, seeking a way to carry to them the Word of Life.

Some of the five men had long borne them before the Lord, asking for their salvation and committing themselves to God for them.

Now, thousands of Christians in all parts of the world have learned of them and are praying.

For us who have been most closely touched by the death of the five, there could be no greater joy than to know at last that the blood of our husbands has been the seed of the Auca church. Our hearts go out to the very ones whose strong brown arms sent flying the lances that killed our loved ones, for we know that they walk in darkness, knowing not even the name of Him who is more than life to us. And how shall they hear without a preacher?

So we ask for those whom God has prepared to be sent to the Aucas and only those. A well-meaning but misguided effort could ruin further opportunities to enter the tribe. But because God has done a tremendous thing in taking five of His choicest servants in this incipient stage, we are bold to expect tremendous answers to prayer in the future. We believe He will send the Light to the Aucas and have given ourselves anew for that, if He should care to choose any one of us to go. We were wholly at one with our husbands in their desire to reach the Aucas and had it been possible, would gladly have accompanied them. The last thing on earth we would have wanted would have been to hinder them in obeying the command of Christ, which was as clear to us as it was to them. He was directing; the only issue at stake was obedience. Jesus made the conditions of discipleship unequivocal—“Forsake . . . Deny . . . Follow.” This is the price we are asked to pay.

Many speak of the five men as having made the “supreme sacrifice.” We do not think of it in that way. They would not have called it that. One of them wrote in his diary years ago, “He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” Jesus promised that whoever loses his life preserves it. Can we call this sacrifice? When we make a purchase, we pay the price, of course, but no one thinks of this as a sacrifice. How much less, then, when our lives, already paid for by Christ at tremendous sacrifice on his part, are offered to him? We lose nothing. We gain everything. Hence, we ask that God may choose those whom He wishes to carry the gospel to the Aucas, that they may be prepared by his Spirit, that they may not count their lives dear unto themselves, and that thereby the Aucas may be brought out of their bondage to know Jesus Christ, that he may be glorified in them.

Christ’s Glory in Us

We ask, further, that Christ may be glorified in us. “For we know that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.” Our hearts are filled with gratitude for the privilege He gave us in being the wives of men who were chosen to be slain for His sake. None of us is worthy. It is all of His grace, but we know that the Lamb is worthy, a thousand times, the lives of our husbands and of us. He chose to glorify himself in their death—may He now glorify Himself in our lives.

During those harrowing days when the rescue party was on its way to the beach, when we did not know what the next radio report would bring, we were conscious that whatever the outcome, God was determined to bring us to himself. He had promised, “When thou passest though the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee; when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned, neither shall the flame kindle upon thee, for I am the Lord thy God. . . . Since thou wast precious in my sight, thou hast been honorable, and I have loved thee.” How could we have proved the truth of that promise if there had been no waters? And what rivers could overflow but deep ones? And so, to show us that he meant what he said, to prove to us his love, this was what he sent, this thing which each of us had been sure she could never endure, the loss of the one who was as her own soul.

Purpose in the Stab of Pain

And how, then, can Christ be glorified in us through this experience? By our responding with thanksgiving to his dealings with us, by our declaration of our love to him in utter obedience, by our believing that his judgments are right, that he in faithfulness has afflicted us. We ask that we may go on in peace, as he has mercifully permitted us to do thus far. In talking together, we have often said that we did not want to miss one lesson which our loving Father would teach us by this thing. To us, the loss of our husbands is not a tragedy in itself—it is one more of our Father’s right judgments. But it would indeed be a tragedy if, in our failure to respond to him with love, trust, and praise, we should miss what he intended for us through it. We ask that we may know him, and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death. If, through the loss of our husbands, we may cause Christ to rejoice, to see in us the travail of his soul and be satisfied, we shall never call it sacrifice. Each day, when little things remind us, with a new stab of pain, that our husbands are gone, we turn these things into prayer—“Lord, by this, too, glorify thyself. For this, too, I thank thee and trust thee, knowing that there shall be glory, as thou has promised, through this suffering.”

Christ and the Little Ones

Not only do we ask that Christ be glorified in the Aucas and in us, but also in our children. Most of them will have no recollection of their fine fathers. But our Lord gave his word, “All thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children.” We ask for his wisdom in training them, for his Spirit in us, that they may be as obedient as their fathers. How wonderful it would be if he should prepare one or more of them to go to the Aucas! We would give them to him for his use, asking that they come to know him as Savior and Lord at an early age. Far be it from us to withhold from the Lord the lives of these little ones, children of the men who did not withhold their own lives. May they sing from true hearts,

Faith of our Fathers, Holy Faith,
We would be true to Thee till death.

Wherever the Spirit Speaks

Finally, we ask that Christ be glorified in the lives of those to whom the Spirit of God has spoken because of the death of the five men. We have received letters from all over the world, telling of the impact of the event on one and another. But we have heard of few who have actually done anything about it, who have been changed by it. We pray earnestly that those who have heard the voice of the Lord may be obedient. We pray that young men who have been attracted by the “opportunities to use their talents for the Lord in the United States” may abandon themselves, with their talents, to Christ, for his use wherever he wants them. We pray that if any young wife is hesitating to commit her husband and family to God, through fear of loss, she may believe the words of our Lord Jesus, “Truly I say to you, there is no man who hath forsaken . . . who will not receive.” We have proved beyond any doubt that he means what he says—his grace is sufficient, nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. We pray that if any, anywhere, are fearing that the cost of discipleship is too great, that they may be given to glimpse that treasure in heaven promised to all who forsake.

And all our supplication is “with thanksgiving”— for his great love, for the high privilege of serving him with all of our hearts, for having given us as husbands men who were true soldiers of Jesus Christ, men to whom we could look up in every respect, men who set for us a great example of faith that acts on what it believes. We look forward with joy to that day when God will reveal to us his complete plan, knowing that we shall see clearly that every step of the way was ordained to the end that Christ might be glorified. Our husbands already walk with him, their joy complete. We, too, shall see him face to face, and be satisfied.

This hath He done, and shall we not adore Him?
This shall He do and can we still despair?
Come let us quickly fling ourselves before Him,
Cast at His feet the burden of our care,
Flash from our eyes the glow of our thanksgiving,
Glad and regretful, confident and calm,
Then through all life, and what is after living,
Thrill to the tireless music of a psalm,
Yea, through life, death, through sorrow and
through sinning,
He shall suffice me, for He hath sufficed:
Christ is the end, for Christ was the beginning,
Christ the beginning, for the end is Christ.
(From St. Paul, F. W. H. Myans)

Theology

Review of Current Religious Thought: January 07, 1957

G. C. Berkouwer

Goethe once remarked, after Immanuel Kant wrote in 1793 about the radical evil in the heart of man, that Kant had dirtied his philosophical robe with the stain of original sin. Others were more concerned to say that the philosopher had insulted humanity. This was understandable, for the expression Kant used reminded people of the Reformation doctrine of the corruption of the human soul. And this was a confession sternly maintained in the face of Humanism, which proceeded from belief in the profound and ultimate goodness of the human heart. The bitter encounter between Kant and Goethe is often cited in books concerning humanity, but it brings to mind for our purpose a problem that transcends the dispute between these two thinkers. The question is: what can we expect of man? Can man rely on man and can he trust himself to be led by man?

There were those in Kant’s time who were willing to forgive Kant for a notion that could be explained by means of the influence on him of his family tradition. But most people judged that he went much too far. If he had to speak of humanity, there were other, better things to be mentioned. It is, however, actually remarkable that Kant’s severe judgment concerning man’s radically evil nature had a bright side. For with Kant too there appeared, at the last moment as it were, an escape from this corruption. He spoke, indeed, of a revolution that was required in the perspective of man in order to make good his rescue. But though he compared this revolution with the biblical talk of the re-birth, he found the solution in human freedom by which man could arrive on his own steam. In the light of this, it is questionable whether Kant actually gave Goethe very much reason for his protest.

In the meanwhile, this anecdote may set us to some serious thought in our own time when the question of man has again been pushed into the foreground. In the history of thought we can see a tendency again and again to hold high the value of man and to refuse to minimize his capacities. We see this in Humanism, which, in various forms, never fully recedes from history. It was inexplicable for Erasmus, for example, that Luther refused to teach the free will of man, that he insisted on talking of the bondage of the will. Erasmus had more respect for man. And it is understandable that he is still the patron saint of Humanism.

After the Second World War, the “Humanist Association” was established in the Netherlands. An appeal was made (after the catastrophe) to fill in the ranks and get going again. The appeal was to the basic humanity of the people. It is interesting that great disillusionments often awaken new trust in man. Evil is explained by circumstances. The possibility is held out of going back to the deeper forces of human personality. No matter how many disillusionments man may suffer, he remains faithful to his confidence in the resources of humanity.

In our time, however, many humanists are saying that we cannot, as previously, be unqualified optimists. There is a recognition of dark and demonic powers working in man—an admission that humanists must this time be realistic humanists. The horrible aberrations of human life are so manifest that humanists cannot themselves go on talking simply about the goodness of man. The eloquence of anti-Semitism and the concentration camps is too persistent to be avoided. Still when the chips are down, the light shines through. The great conflict which according to the New Testament was engaged and won by Jesus Christ is assumed instead by mankind; it is thought that man himself shall yet appear as the victor in this present battle.

One wonders what the background of this perennially renewed confidence in man might be. Will this confidence never fail? Shall the dogma of man’s innate goodness continue to persist in this age when the shocks that humanity suffers have been so terrific that some human acts have been universally branded as inhuman? After the Neurenburg trials, one responsible writer wrote that such criminals were not to be regarded any longer as human. This is too simple a way to dispense with the grotesque aberrations of humanity. This brings us close to Phariseeism; it is a way of holding ourselves aloof from these crimes. No, whatever darkness closes in on us in this age, we shall have to confess that it is the darkness of humanity, of the humanity of which we are part. We cannot get rid of the darkness by raising ourselves above it.

The confession concerning the evil of man has persistently been explained as a form of pessimism. Augustine was accused of Manichean influences in his confession of the evil in man. (Augustine was a Manichean for nine years.) The same pessimism was charged to the Reformers. But the Reformation confession of man’s evil has nothing to do with pessimism. The Christian Church was concerned about the burning question of man’s self-redemption, a question which hovers in the background of many streams of thought in our own time. It is relatively unimportant whether one looks for this self-redemption through the state, society, or from man in his individual striving. For in all these forms of self-redemption we have to do with the healthy who are in need of no physician. Christ spoke his most sharp and revealing word against such people.

In the confession concerning the radical evil of man we are not dealing with a more or less pessimistic or optimistic mentality. We are faced with the decisive question of redemption. For this reason, it is not surprising that the questions arising around Jesus Christ as the Redeemer of men are followed by questions concerning man himself. In our own time one of these questions is that of human freedom. The existentialism of Sartre is freighted with this very problem. The entire human existence is set on the fork of the freedom of man, who must develop his life without reference to dependence on divine power. But there is also recognizable in Sartre a profound resistance to grace. Man, refusing to capitulate to grace, must always blaze his own trail in freedom to freedom. He must also recommend freedom to the children of his time. We are wondering just now whether existentialism has seen its day or whether it is yet expanding its influence. We need not wager an answer to this, though we do note many who are saying that in existentialism life is delivered to chaos. More important for us, however, is that in every adventure in self-redemption the Gospel of Jesus Christ is and remains the great scandal. This says again that the struggle of the Gospel shall be part of our ministry until the Last Day.

Books

Book Briefs: January 7, 1957

Milford Sholund

Lessons For 1957

The Douglass Sunday School Lessons, by Earl L. Douglass. The Macmillan Company, New York. $2.95.

The International Sunday School Lessons and the International Bible Lessons for Christian Teaching are used in Sunday schools throughout the world. Sunday school teachers and leaders looking for stimulating commentaries on these lessons will be rewarded in this volume by Dr. Douglass. For forty years this series of lesson expositions has been a favorite in the United States.

The author has organized the fifty-two lessons in a compact volume of 490 pages. The introductory material for each lesson includes the Scripture reading, devotional reading and daily Bible readings with the printed text from the Scriptures for the lesson of the day. In addition, there are topics designed to help the teacher develop the lesson for young people and adults. The lesson plan includes a simple outline usually with four points which is very helpful for the teacher.

The biblical exposition is simple, scholarly and conservative in interpretation. Pastors and Bible teachers will find a library of choice interpretations on the heart of the Scriptures.

The lesson plan includes a section on suggested questions and topics for discussion, “Suggested Questions and Topics for Discussion.” There are usually five questions for each lesson, thus simplifying the discussion period.

The entire series of studies are made relevant to practical life situations. The author succeeds in showing how to use the biblical text for a twentieth century problem. The first quarter studies include the Gospel of Matthew.

Ten lessons in the second quarter on Studies in Genesis consider the origin of perpetual human issues. The author stresses the point that life and salvation are the great truths of God’s Word.

Personalities of the Old Testament are made to live again in lessons for the third quarter. The lesson on Amos, Crusader for Righteousness, is an excellent example of making an ancient prophet of God speak the eternal truth for American people in the twentieth century. The Sunday school teacher will find abundant help on thirteen biographies.

The New Testament themes are drawn from I Corinthians, Philippians and Philemon in the last quarter’s lessons. The author succeeds again in bringing truth to life. In the lesson entitled, “That I May Know Christ,” page 459, based on Philippians 3:12–14, Dr. Douglass says, “First we observe that Paul realistically regarded life as a struggle. The modern idea that we can lie back and let peace and confidence come down upon us like the gentle rain from heaven, finds no support in the New Testament.”

Temperance lessons are seldom included in graded lesson series. Dr. Douglass has not only included helpful information on this subject, but he has applied the implications of the problem where it belongs. He shows by reliable data what the results of drinking do in automobile accidents, home life, military service and among youth in general.

He includes a bibliography of fifteen pamphlets and periodicals which every Sunday school leader can use, especially for high school students.

Milford Sholund

The New Eve

Christ and the Church, by L. S. Thornton. Dacre Press. 18s.

In this comparatively slender volume Dr. Thornton has given us the third and final part of his treatise on The Form of the Servant, and the thesis of its pages is, in the author’s own words, “that the whole mystery of the Christ is re-enacted in the church.” The relation of Christ to the church he sums up in the two terms identify and cooperation. The doctrine of identity centers around his concept of the church as the new Eve coupled with that of Christ as the new Adam: as Eve was formed from Adam’s side while he was in a deep sleep, so the church was formed when Christ “fell asleep in death upon the cross and his newly opened side became the site of the new creation.” The doctrine of cooperation centres around his concept of the church, the New Eve, as “the human agent through whom the obedience of the new Adam becomes effectual in all.” As is common with Anglo-Catholic theology, reconciliation is sought in incarnation rather than in atonement; hence Dr. Thornton’s emphasis on the “one flesh” concept: as Adam and Eve were “one flesh,” so he finds it possible to speak of Christ and the church as sharing “a common nature in organic identity” and constituting “a single organism in which Christ is the head and the church is the body.”

Those who are acquainted with Dr. Thornton’s earlier books will recognize the theme of organic identity: the created order is viewed as a progressive organic series in which each higher level contains and elevates all the lower stages of the organic series. It is in the Incarnation that, at last, the highest level is seen to be reached; indeed, according to Dr. Thornton, it is not until the Incarnation that the plan of creation is fully disclosed. On his premises, it must be concluded that the Incarnation would have taken place even if man had not sinned: for “the first creation was,” he says, “part of a much larger plan which was from the first Christocentric,” so that the form of the first creation “is determined by the necessity that it shall find its fulfillment in the Christ.” Accordingly he maintains that “the ‘place’ of reconciliation with God is the flesh of Jesus in which Christ and the church are one.” Further, in the Incarnation, ex hypothesi, the Son of God embraced “all flesh,” so that “the transfigured flesh of Jesus was the ‘all flesh’ of creation which he had taken to himself.”

Dr. Thornton assigns to the New Testament miracles of healing a sacramental quality, so much so that this miraculous ministry, bringing wholeness to man and thereby effecting the restoration of creation to its true destiny, is propounded by him as continued in the church through the sacraments and particularly in the Eucharist, “the new passover,” in which “the bread is transformed because it is there identified with the Lamb of God as the material of his eucharistie body.” This “creative identification” of the bread with the body of Christ is effected by the repetition “in a duly authorized way” of the words “this is my body” by Christ’s “human representative.” It appears that Dr. Thornton regards the healing faculty of the church, focused in the eucharist, as leading gradually to a universal restoration of all things, until at last “all flesh” will be “one flesh” in Christ and the evolutionary journey will have reached its goal. As for the form of the servant, it finds its primary significance within the framework of the self-sacrifice of the Messiah. As the sacrifice of paschal Lamb is defined as “the substance of worship in the redeemed order,” this leads again to the central significance in Dr. Thornton’s system of the eucharist.

It is not possible in the space of a brief review to deal adequately with the important questions raised by a work so closely woven in texture as this. Throughout, in his use and manipulation of Scripture, Dr. Thorton applies the allegorical method in a manner which would have delighted the more imaginative of the early fathers and which bids fair to rival the more esoteric exegesis of certain groups of the Plymouth Brethren, though it may be doubted whether either early fathers or Plymouth Brethren would find themselves able to approve of his major conclusions.

PHILIP E. HUGHES

Semi-Popular

Titles of the Triune God, by Herbert F. Stevenson. Revell, New York, 1956. $2.50.

In the foreword to this American printing of an English work, the following statement is made: “The Bible makes no attempt at a definition of God. What it does is to give us a wealthy characterization of God.” Thus the reader is introduced to the theme of this little volume.

First, a few words relative to the mechanics of the book. The chapters, in the nature of short essays, are organized into three groups: “God,” “Our Lord Jesus Christ,” and “the Holy Spirit.” For the most part, the author has followed a chronological or progressive line of development in the first division of his book and a topical or nominal one in the latter two. Nothing in the way of an exhaustive concordance is furnished.

Second, some remarks relative to the content. There are two basic types of names treated in such a study: those formed from a single word and those formed from a combination of words. In the former class are to be found those deriving content from the word itself, e.g., “Jehovah,” and those of a descriptive nature involving something of the metaphor, e.g., “rock,” “shield,” etc. In the latter class, the general rule submitted is that the first word retains its own meaning while the subsequent word or words is an additional “unfolding of His Person, or will, or provision for His people” (p. 37). New experiences sometimes demanded new names. In some instances these names were ascribed to God by men while in other instances they were pronounced to man by God. In passing from the first division into the second, one moves into an area in which some change in meaning is evident, i.e., prophetic names of the Old Testament move into their New Testament fulfillment in the Incarnate Son and words of common use are given a deep, sacred content. The author’s treatment of the third division, the Names of the Spirit, which he calls a major theme in the New Testament, is Trinitarian and shows how in this area one moves from the vague and implicit Old Testament treatment of the Spirit of God into the concrete and explicit New Testament treatment of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity.

Third, a brief criticism of the book. For a proper perspective, one must keep in mind what must have been the author’s purpose in writing the volume. It is, first of all, to fill the gap created by the lack of any book treating “all the names and titles of the Three Persons of the Trinity,” (p. 7). Thus the scope is extensive rather than intensive. It is, next, written “not … for scholars but for students—for just plain you and me” (p. 6). Thus the nature and tenor of the book is what one may call “semi-popular.” For the pastor, this book will be extremely suggestive homiletically; for the layman it furnishes a guide for profitable devotional study; and for the scholar, in either group, it gives a good “bird’s eye view” of the subject plus a four page bibliography. The author has not purposed to enter into the arena of theological debate and therefore the expression of his own personal views without development at points is only to be expected, e.g., “the gap theory” (p. 171), his millennial view (p. 87), etc. Occasionally there is, we feel, a tendency to overdo the typology element.

HEINRICH B. EILER

Intelligible To Laymen

God In His World, by Charles S. Duthie. Abingdon Press, Nashville. $2.50.

Testifying that “the events of my own life have compelled me, from very early days, to see how necessary it is to take Christian thought and Christian evangelism with equal seriousness” (p. 7), Dr. Duthie has been concerned to present a theology that will be intelligible to laymen and that will serve them well in their efforts to win others to Christ. Out of a background that includes the pastorate, the chaplaincy, teaching, and participation in the Tell Scotland Movement of evangelism, he writes with a passion and with an ability to state old truths in fresh ways.

The author recognizes that many who previously had no interest in things spiritual are today groping for something that will satisfy their hearts, and he is concerned that the Christian faith be presented to them in an intelligible form. His interest in doctrine is to the end that men may come to know Christ as He is offered in the Word, and that they in turn may be used to bring other groping souls to him.

This is obviously a worthy aim, and it is good to be able to report that in a real measure, the author accomplishes his purpose. Recognizing the importance both of working from the Gospel out to the situation of modern man, and from the situation of man back to the Gospel, he does both effectively. His writing is full of fresh spiritual insights, and whether he is dealing with our beliefs in the persons of the Godhead, or in the opportunities which confront the Church today, his treatment is vigorous and helpful.

Each reader will have his own favorites among the chapters of the book, but there are highlights here that should have the widest appeal. The presentation of the meaning of surrender in the closing chapter of the book, for example, is a masterpiece. Dr. Duthie describes it under the headings of capitulation, acceptance, communion and confidence. Developing these thoughts, he shows that in the biblical sense, surrender is giving in to God, taking in from God, drawing near to God and trusting in God.

All of which is not to say that there are not occasional disappointments in the book. Dr. Duthie gives a central place to Christ’s redemptive work on the cross, but he cannot quite bring himself to admit that Christ was punished for our sins (p. 33). He seems to feel that the formation of the World Council of Churches marks a major step forward in Christian unity. His acknowledged indebtedness to liberal scholars is at times disturbing. But without denying or minimizing these disappointments, it must be said that Dr. Duthie has something for us, and that his message is well worth heeding.

H. L. FENTON, JR.

Faith Fades Away

Sermons from an Ecumenical Pulpit, edited by Max F. Daskam. Starr King, Boston. $5.50.

The Unitarian fellowship of German-town (it doesn’t say where, but presumably that is the Boston influence) does not have a resident minister. Instead, this congregation invites prominent preachers of every faith to occupy its pulpit for a few Sundays at a time. The plan has been in operation for twenty years and if the sermons in this book faithfully represent the result, the pulpit committee must draw its names from Who’s Who among America’s pulpiteers. Niebuhr, Tillich, Paul Scherer, James Cleland, Van Dusen, Fosdick, McCracken and Norman Thomas are among the many who contributed one sermon each to this collection.

“But how,” Max F. Daskam, the editor, reports they often are asked, “can you have (all denominations) in one pulpit? Don’t they contradict one another?” By way of reply Mr. Daskam reports that it is their experience that “denominational differences tend to fade away as our guest ministers stress the great and eternal truths of our Christian faith.” He would have spoken more accurately had he said that in these sermons whatever is explicit about the Christian faith tends to fade away.

The sermons are collected under significant headings, such as: I. What Goodness for Man; III. The Nature of Jesus; VI. The Larger Hope. When the time comes for him to speak, Niebuhr affirms the impossible possibility of human perfection; Tillich, that one can be righteous and yet feel no relief because little is forgiven him; Rabbi David W. Wise, that a true God-concept is one which does not fractionalize the Universe, accepting pleasure, for instance, but not pain, but is one which accepts all of life and substance as a part of God and His never-ending process; Harry C. Meserve, that you understand Jesus when you see Him to have been a man who found his vocation, that of a religious teacher, and went about talking, “not even about God, or any significant religious idea, but about the life that he found around him” with its necessities to maintain faith amid corruption and to get along with other human beings; Cleland, that we must get to know Jesus if we are to fit our lives to the ethical discernments and demands of our Lord and Master, for only in loving Him will we grow more like Him until our new conduct becomes second nature with us—theologically, this means re-birth; Elton Trueblood, that true freedom follows the recovery of the disciplined Christian life; Bishop Oxnam, that the ideals of a peaceful world and a unified church can be kept alive if we keep close to Jesus who incorporated those ideals; and Halford Luccock, that Easter is far more than an affirmation about the length of life, it is a symbol of the reality and the triumph of the spiritual world, the miracle of a life lived in a new relationship to God.

These are beautiful sermons. They are so beautiful, in fact, that almost everyone would enjoy reading them. But I am reminded that it is occasionally possible to string beautiful sentiments together without preaching the Scriptures. And this book suffers from the scarcity of a clear Word unto Salvation.

G. AIKEN TAYLOR

Psychological Approach

The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul, by Donald Guthrie, Tyndale, London. 1s.6d.

This pamphlet of 44 pages reproduces the Tyndale New Testament Lecture for 1955; it deals with a subject to which the lecturer, who is Tutor in New Testament in London Bible College, has devoted special study for a number of years.

In contemporary discussions of the New Testament Epistles, it is generally taken for granted that the three Pastoral Epistles—the two addressed to Timothy and one to Titus—cannot, as they stand, be ascribed to Paul. Some regard them as completely pseudonymous (one German scholar has recently suggested that they were composed by Polycarp of Smyrna, martyred in A.D. 156); others recognize genuine Pauline fragments embedded in them. Among the latter the most eminent name is that of the veteran English scholar P. N. Harrison, whose painstaking study, The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles (1921), has perhaps done more than any other work to convince scholars that Paul was not the author of these letters in their present form. Yet the case against Pauline authorship has not been permitted to make its way without contradiction; commentaries maintaining their authenticity have been produced in recent years by Jeremias in Germany, by Spicq in France, and by E. K. Simpson in England and the scholarship of these writers is unimpeachable.

Mr. Guthrie defends the genuineness of the three epistles from the psychological point of view. His approach involves linguistic and doctrinal considerations. Dr. Harrison laid particular stress on the differences in style and vocabulary between the earlier Pauline letters and the Pastorals. Mr. Guthrie does not challenge Dr. Harrison’s data, but claims that other data must be taken into account as well and that the inferences drawn from the data by Dr. Harrison are not so certain as many suppose. To make the situation clearer, he supplies at the end of his study (among other linguistic appendixes) a list of particles and other small words which constitute the connective tissue of language, comparing their use in the Pastorals with their use in the earlier epistles.

Paul’s increasing years and the changing needs of the church account for the less dynamic approach and more formalized theology of the Pastorals. In an examination of the summaries of the doctrine called the “faithful sayings,” Mr. Guthrie points out that, with the exception of that in 1 Timothy 3:1 (where, it might be added, the Western text reads “popular” instead of “faithful”), the doctrine summarized is thoroughly Pauline.

Mr. Guthrie does not shirk the difficulties which a defender of the epistles’ authenticity has to face, but he concludes that the difficulties inherent in the pseudonymous and fragmentary theories are greater, especially on the psychological side. His arguments ought to receive the serious attention of all careful students of the New Testament.

F. F. BRUCE

Christian Verse

The Valley of Silence, by Jack Shuler. Zondervan, Grand Rapids.

This well-printed and attractively bound volume contains 94 selections. Some of them are by such well known writers as Annie Johnson Flint, Grace Noll Crowell and Ella Wheeler Wilcox, and there is one each by John Greenleaf Whittier, Rudyard Kipling and Charles Dickens. Forty-two of the pieces are listed as by unknown authors. Sometimes a textual comparison with such a book as J. D. Morrison’s Masterpieces of Religious Verse would have improved the printed version, e.g., in “Making Harbor” where about half the first stanza is omitted in Shuler’s collection.

These selections are fairly uniform in quality. They belong, however, not to poetry proper but to verse. In the Foreword the publisher describes them as “writing for every occasion … the fitting conclusion to a sermon, the effective opening to a speech.” Verse lends itself to such ends; poetry does not. Genuine poetry operates in a different capacity than to gild the lily. It is not decorative but rather carries its own essential autonomy. It penetrates not with the pin prick of a self-evident moral but with a massiveness which is as freighted with meaning as life itself. Verse can afford to be facile, clever, ingenious. Poetry proper is original, expansive and generative. Verse may toy with an idea; poetry thrusts toward truth itself. Verse is generally satisfied with a mere twist of meaning; poetry presents the genuinely significant. Verse is descriptive; poetry presentational and symbolic. Verse is usually practical and didactic; poetry, if it is to be called functional at all, is functional at the root of man’s being. In a word, verse may deal with the surface of things, but poetry will content itself with nothing less than the center.

The selections in Mr. Shuler’s book are as good as the average of Christian verse, but too often they are marked by the inevitable characteristics—cliches, forced rhymes, padded lines and the like. The time is ripe for orthodox Christians with a gift for writing to attempt devotional verse in the great tradition of literature itself.

CLYDE S. KILBY

Simple Testimony

The Angel Spreads her Wings, by Maxine Garrison. Revell, Westwood, New Jersey.

This is a book about a book. Maxine Garrison, a friend of Dale Evans and Roy Rogers, tells the story behind the writing of Dale’s little book, Angel Unaware.

She tells the heartache and faith behind the writing of that beautiful volume and describes the way in which it was received by the public. Many quotes are given from letters received by Dale Rogers showing how her simple testimony of the mission of her frail, short-lived, Mongoloid daughter has inspired and comforted others, particularly those with similar experiences.

As interesting as it is, I regret that no mention is made in this book of the precise nature of Dale Evans’ faith. In Angel Unaware we see her insistence upon a proper relationship with Christ. Edwin Orr vouches for Dale’s genuine Christian faith in his book, The Truth Behind the Hollywood Christian Group. But if one reads Maxine Garrison’s book alone, he gathers, I am afraid, that Dale’s faith is some beautiful, mystical thing having little or no connection with orthodox Christian faith.

NORMA R. ELLIS

Composite Volume

Encyclopedia of Morals, edited by Vergilius Ferm. Philosophical Library, New York, 1956. $10.00.

Here is another composite volume edited by tha indefatigable compiler, Vergilius Ferm. The first entry on the Aboriginals of Yirkalla emphasizes the statement in the Preface that the material is not only philosophical but also anthropological.

Then when we come to Puritan Morals (12 pages, double columns), we find more description of their allegedly disagreeable conduct than exposition of theory. The articles on Aristotle, Kant, and Sidgwick are well written. The difficulties, particularly in the last two thinkers, are lightly touched on, as may be wise in an Encyclopedia; Aristotle receives more criticism, though the total effect is not so clear. Christian Moral Philosophy (49 columns) dates the Mosaic Law after the prophets and claims that the Pharisees were the legitimate heirs of Ezekiel, but in contrast with this radical view the author recognizes the eschatological theme of the Sermon on the Mount and gives a tolerably good account of Romans. Justification by faith is explained, and the infliction of a penalty on Christ is acknowledged.

As it is impossible to review every article in an encyclopedia, these must suffice as samples.

GORDON H. CLARK

News about North and South America: January 07, 1957

Sparks In Canada

Nearly 500,000 persons attended 125 rallies in the first two months of a national evangelistic mission conducted by the United Church of Canada.

“It is impossible to estimate the number of persons influenced by these missions,” said Dr. W. G. Berry, crusade director, “but reports show that large numbers came forward to make personal decisions for Christ.”

The missions were held in cities across the country. Leading speakers were Dr. Alan Walker of Australia, the Rev. Joseph Blinco of England and the Rev. Leonard Griffiths of Ottawa.

Dr. Berry said the missions are “only a small part of a much larger plan of the United Church to conduct the greatest evangelistic campaign in its history.”

The crusade, he said, will “challenge every area of Canadian life and culture with the Gospel. We propose to offer the Gospel not only to individuals but also to society as a whole and attack sin not only in personal life but also in social life.”

The missions will continue through 1957. Over 300 rallies are planned during the Lenten season. Speakers from overseas will include Dr. Charles Duthie, the Rev. Tom Allan of Scotland, Dr. Donald Soper and the Rev. William Gowland of England.

Giving Goal Soars

The present goal for total Southern Baptist Convention giving in the year 1964 is $728,000,000—including $189,000,000 in missionary and benevolent work.

In 1955 the total was $335,000,000, with $35,000,000 used for missionaries and benevolences.

The following goals have been set by the SBC executive committee:

1957–$364,000,000; 1958–$416,000,000; 1959–$468,000,000; 1960–$520,000,000; 1961–$572,000,000; 1962–$624,000,000; 1963–$676,000, 000.

Along another front, a survey has disclosed some interesting facts about the average Southern Baptist minister in Tennessee. In his survey, Professor Herbert J. Miles of Carson-Newman College, found:

They agree (90 per cent or more) that Southern Baptists should not join the National Council of Churches, should not ordain women to preach, should not take part in the Lord’s Supper outside a Baptist church and should not accept by letter a non-Baptist even though he has been immersed.

They disagree on such issues as capital punishment, integration of races and performing weddings where one party has been divorced.

The average minister is 41 years old, has been preaching 14 years and has held five pastorates.

Lutheran Merger

Representatives of four American Lutheran churches have agreed to proceed at once toward a goal of organic church union.

Delegates, at a meeting in Chicago, voted to form a constitution for a united Church that will include articles of doctrine as well as “practical matters of organization.”

Involved in the merger plan are the United Lutheran Church in America (2,270,000 members), Augustana Lutheran Church (536,000 members), Finnish Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (Suomi Synod) (35,000 members), and the American Evangelical Lutheran Church (20,000 members).

“We have among us sufficient ground of agreement in the common confession of our faith, as witnessed by the Lutheran Confessions, to justify further procedure,” delegates announced.

Sales On Sunday

The growing trend of Sunday selling throughout the United States received a slight setback when the New Jersey Supreme Court outlawed the Sunday sale of automobiles in the state by a 6–0 vote.

It was a victory for religious forces in the state. They have been conducting a campaign against the rising tide of business-as-usual on Sunday.

The state legislature last year enacted a law prohibiting the Sunday sale of automobiles. Its validity was attacked by two New Jersey used car dealers.

In June, Superior Court Judge Howard Ewart declared the law unconstitutional. He said it had· not been enacted to promote the general health, safety and welfare, but had as its main purpose the controlling of competition in the sale of new and used cars.

The high court’s opinion, prepared by Chief Justice Arthur T. Vanderbilt, rejected this contention. It maintained that the dealers were not being discriminated against because the ruling applied to all motor vehicle dealers and all were “protected in their businesses.”

Floundering Students

Recent surveys prove that theological students are not being adequately trained to grapple with modern church problems, Dr. Colin Williams of Australia said at the 70th annual meeting of the Theological Faculties Union of Chicago.

Dr. Williams, new professor of historical theology at Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, Illinois, asserted:

“Too many unapplied content courses and too many ungospelized practical courses leave the student frustrated and floundering when he takes a church. There is a big time lag—20 years or more—between seminary graduation and the time a man gets into a church big enough to count, and by that time he has forgotten his theology.”

Dr. Williams expressed fears that American Protestantism “identifies Christianity with Eisenhower prosperity and fails to bring modern culture under the judgment of the Gospel.”

He added:

“Contemporary religion in the United States lacks an awareness of Christ’s Lordship and sovereignty, which involves a break with the world.”

The speaker urged teams of seminary professors to go out for workshop conversations with laymen of the churches in order to bring the needs of the churches and the teaching of the seminaries into better focus.

F.D.W.

Educators Retire

The second president of a Southern Baptist College to announce his retirement, in recent weeks, is Dr. D. M. Nelson of Mississippi College.

Exact date of the retirement was not announced.

Dr. Harwell G. Davis has reported he will retire as president of Howard College in 1958.

Dr. Nelson has been associated with Mississippi College for 50 years. A graduate there in 1907, he later served as professor of physics before succeeding Dr. J. W. Provine as president in 1932.

The college increased from 360 students to over 2,000 during his span as president.

In announcing his plans, Dr. Nelson said:

“We have thought that with the completion of the library and fine arts building and with three other buildings begun and on the way toward realization, we should transfer the responsibility of the presidency to younger and more capable shoulders.”

The board of trustees appointed a nominations committee to seek a successor.

No Giving Up

Pilot John Keenan, who replaced the martyred Nate Saint, has been flying, in recent weeks, over Auca villages discovered after the death of the five missionaries.

He reports that the famous “George,” the Auca man who visited the martyrs’ camp with his two companions, always appears friendly and that he has in his possession the model airplane last seen floating in the water near the bodies.

It has been noted that Auca houses are adorned with the tin strips used to cover the graves of the missionaries.

College To Close

Shurtleff College, Alton, Illinois, 129-year-old American Baptist College, will suspend operations on June 30, according to a vote by the board of trustees.

One of the mid-west’s oldest educational institutions, the college was founded by a famous Baptist home missionary, John Mason Peck, in 1847.

The college has been unable to finance the additional personnel and equipment necessary for accreditation by the North Central Association of Colleges. Its facilities probably will be taken over by Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, as a branch school.

Britain and the Continent News: January 07, 1957

Christianity Today January 7, 1957

Responsibilities

Dr. Regin Prenter, professor of theology at the University of Aarhus, has warned members of the Danish Parliament that too great a dependence upon government will stifle self-reliance of the people and make them incapable of democratic self-government.

Speaking at the annual worship service in Copenhagen, marking the opening of Parliament, he declared that “the greatest danger of the modern welfare state lies in its failure to acknowledge its limitations.

“The danger is that the State not only cares materially for those who are not able to take care of themselves, but that it will care both materially and spiritually for all of us … to such a degree that the personal responsibility of the individual is weakened by it.”

Taking as his text, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” Dr. Prenter praised “the far-reaching social legislation” of recent years which has “put an end to much human need and misery.”

“But,” he added, “a democracy can live only as long as there is a feeling of responsibility in the people. On the day when the politicians alone have any responsibility and all of us let ourselves be blindly led by them … democracy will be finished.”

Sharp criticism of the sermon was voiced by the Danish press. Editors took issue on the grounds that it was a “political sermon” rather than the “ordinary devotional service” customarily delivered on the opening of Parliament.

In response to the criticisms, Dr. Prenter said “a colorless church service is of no devotional value.” (He is chairman of the Commission on Theology of the Lutheran World Federation.)

Changes In Hungary

The presidium of the General Synod of the Hungarian Lutheran Church has acted in Budapest to widen a reorganization of the Church begun in the wake of the anti-Soviet uprising during October.

It confirmed the reinstatement of Dr. Jajos Ordass, head of the southern district and acting leader of the Church. The presidium announced that elections will take place this month to fill all other church posts, including bishoprics. Results of the elections are scheduled to be announced January 19.

The General Synod also reinstated all pastors who had been removed or suspended by the former Communist regimes for political reasons.

Bishop Ordass replaces Bishop Laszlo Dezsery, former head of the district which includes Budapest. Bishop Dezsery was named to the post, with the approval of the Communist authorities, in 1950, only a week after Bishop Ordass was released from prison, where he served 20 months of a two-year sentence for alleged “foreign currency manipulation.” Bishop Dezsery resigned recently and may soon quit the ministry.

The General Synod also named Bishop Zoltan Turoczy to replace, temporarily, Bishop Lajos Veto, another Communist appointee who resigned, as head of the Trans-Danubian district.

Digest …

Greater Manchester (England) Evangelistic Campaign, with the Rev. Joseph Blinco as speaker, scheduled March 23 to April 13, at Albert Hall. Mr. Blinco now serving as associate evangelist of Billy Graham team.

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