Orthodoxy is not an end but a means. As an end in itself it can be deadly; as a means to an end it leads the Christian into a full and glorious experience, not only of Christ as Saviour from sin but also of Christ as daily companion and Lord of life.

It is not enough to be orthodox in belief, for the Scriptures tell us that devils believe and tremble. They believe every essential doctrine of the Christian faith but remain devils.

During our Lord’s earthly ministry the most orthodox people with whom he had to deal were the Pharisees. But the most scathing denunciations to fall from the lips of the gentle Saviour were reserved for these men who knew the letter of the law but whose hearts and lives were so far from the truth.

Make no mistake: I believe the very heart of the Gospel centers in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. I accept the Christ of the Scriptures—pre-existent with God, born of a virgin, truly God and truly man, the second person of the Trinity. I believe the record of his miracles. I believe his deity as presented to us in the Bible, that he was verily the Son of God. I believe he died on the Cross as a substitute for me and that by the shedding of his precious blood a way of cleansing and redemption was opened to all who would believe. I believe that the third day he arose again from the dead, that he had the same body although there were changes our finite minds can neither understand nor adequately explain. I believe that he ascended into heaven, sending the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, into the world to dwell in our hearts and to woo us to him. I believe he is surely coming again and that he will judge the quick and the dead and that he shall reign forever as King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

Believing all this without equivocation, I am convinced that if man’s faith and life stops at this point he will find himself in a most dangerous position, for, if orthodoxy of belief does not lead to Christian living it is a barren thing indeed, for Christian living is the fruit of a life redeemed by the Christ of Calvary.

The Bible is crystal clear in its affirmations that we are saved by the grace of God as he gives to us faith to believe and accept that which he has done for us through his Son. It is equally clear that none of this can be earned or deserved, that it is a matter of believing, not achieving, and that even the faith to believe is a work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts.

But the Bible is equally clear that not every one who says, “Lord, Lord,” will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather those who do the will of God. It is his will that we shall live lives consistent with the faith we profess.

The Apostle James, rather than contradicting Paul’s strong assertions with reference to the just living by faith, simply shows the other side of the coin—that a saving faith will show itself in a saved life. As the body without the spirit is dead so a faith without commensurate works is also dead.

John the Baptist demanded that the Pharisees and Sadducees bring forth fruits consistent with the repentance they professed. Our Lord insisted that we who follow him should by good works bring honor and glory to his name.

It is hard for me to overstate my conviction with reference to certain essential doctrines of the Christian faith. There are such doctrines and they are essential because they have to do with what we believe about Christ, both as to his person and also his work of redemption. It is because of lack of conviction on these essential matters that so many have no saving faith or message. But the point of this article is to insist that unless the things we believe have eventuated into a new life in Christ there is something deadly wrong.

An orthodoxy which permits men to hate instead of love, to bear false witness instead of telling the truth, to rejoice in evil rather than to sorrow over it, to proclaim the sins and mistakes of brother Christians rather than to cover them in love, to assume a negative form of religion rather than a positive way of life in which Christ is made the center and his glory the objective: such an orthodoxy is a deadly thing and needs to be repented of in sackcloth and ashes.

Over the years there has been a great controversy over the content of the Christian faith. I believe that one of the great weaknesses of the Church today is her lack of concern as to what must be the heart of the Christian message, while she spends much of her energies in secondary matters.

At the same time, I believe the cause of Christ has suffered greatly at the hands of those who, proclaiming their orthodoxy to the skies, have shown themselves totally lacking in Christian love, courtesy and forbearance. The Apostle Paul writes: “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, forbearing”; but how often we who regard orthodoxy as so important fail to heed this warning!

The fruits of the Spirit should be evident in the lives of the orthodox more than in any other people. Listen: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Does orthodoxy produce such fruit in your life? Does it in mine?

Is not the answer to this riddle that only an orthodoxy of belief which is anointed by and filled with the Holy Spirit is truly worth while?

Our Lord knew the Pharisees were versed in the law and careful about the keeping of its ceremonial requirements. But he likened them to sepulchres filled with dead men’s bones; to cups which had been washed on the outside but were filthy on the inside.

In our contention for the verities of the Christian faith let us be very sure that the faith we so loudly proclaim has really done something to our lives. Unless we are new creatures in Christ, showing something of his transforming and keeping power; something of his love and compassion; something of his concern for the needy as well as the lost; something of his patience and forbearance under provocation—unless others can see in us something of his likeness, then for God’s sake—and we say this with the deepest reverence—let us stop and examine our orthodoxy and see what manner of men we truly are.

Paul, that stalwart for orthodox belief, that great spokesman for man’s sinfulness and God’s complete provision for that sin, says in Romans 2:13, “For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Let us make sure that we have not simply heard with the ear and given an intellectual assent to divine truth, but let us never rest until the living Christ is both our Saviour from sin and the Lord of our daily lives.

(In an early issue we shall consider the dangers of liberalism.)

L. NELSON BELL

COMPARATIVE ECCLESIASTICS

At the Women’s Auxiliary Buffet, Pastor Weems, Dr. Ivy, and Dean Drinkwater were chatting as Weems finished a second slice of chocolate whipped cream cake. Studying the trio, I was reminded of the importance of Comparative Ecclesiastics, the psychosomatic study of atypical clergy. The following introductory descriptions are of value to research assistants, pulpit committees, and prospective ladies of the manse.

Ecclesiastics Ectomorphus. Solid supporter of church suppers, bake sales, teas. Often visits in the homes of his parish to encourage hospitality. A weighty opponent of asceticism. Prefers Genevan robe in pulpit (52, short). Jolly sermonettes a specialty.

Clericus Mesomorphus. Enthusiastic keystone of young men’s activities, notably at second base on the soft-ball team. Develops small group emphasis throughout the church year: bowling, basketball, tennis, golf in season. Muscular preaching with booming cross-nave volley. Casualties from handclasps at the door.

Doctorandus Endomorphus. His immortal sermons never die, they just fade away. He carries the groceries with a scholarly stoop and drives his vintage Packard with philosophic detachment. He can sometimes recall the name of a parishioner by associating him with a Continental scholar.

Predicandus Amorphus is all things to all men. An evangelicalliberal with leanings toward and away from neodoxy and paleoism. Heartily concurs in both sides of every argument—with minor reservations. Man of many deep convictions which last for days.

Your cooperation is invited in compiling profiles of other notable types. Studies are in progress on Tyranothesaurus Rex who hurls synonyms like thunderbolts and defies you to break into his conversation, and Dialecticus Non Dubitandum.

EUTYCHUS

THE GRAVECLOTHES

Hillyer Straton’s article on the resurrection of our Lord (Mar. 31 issue), on the whole, was very well done. For me, however, the paragraph about the napkin that had enwrapped the head of Jesus, left something to be desired.… What convinced John that Jesus had risen as he promised was the fact, obvious from their position, that no human hands had touched these graveclothes to empty or rearrange them. For the body indeed was gone. The physical remains had been transformed on the third day into that wonderful and incorruptible thing St. Paul called the “spiritual body.” But the linens still lay in the place where the head and torso of Jesus had rested. They had, however, collapsed from the weight of the spices. The Greek word translated “rolled up” in the Authorized Version and “wrapped together” in the Revised Version, used to describe their condition, does not mean that the linens had been folded and placed in piles. On the contrary, it means that as the linens collapsed they retained the annular, ringlike shape that had been given them by the use to which they had been put. Such a sight would indeed open the eyes of one who had the capacity for insight enjoyed by the Beloved Disciple.

So we read (John 20:8), John “saw, and believed.”

Wichita, Kan.

THE CROSS

Your editorial on “Preaching the Cross” (Mar. 17 issue): we distinguish between the fact and the philosophy of the Atonement.… By the Atonement as fact we understand the gracious work of the Lord Jesus for the blessing of men. All else is theory and mode of putting. One might well hold fast to the fact with all conviction and devotion, and at the same time find no acceptable theory.

Nobleton, Fla.

Your editorial … rates the highest comment of praise! May the all-sufficient grace of God lead you to give us more editorials of this sort!

St. Paul’s Lutheran Church

Vincennes, Ind.

In the Roman Catholic church the crucifix stands upon or over the altar. In this house, in every chapel, in every room there is a crucifix.… The Protestants are the ones who have removed the cross from the buildings and from their altars and from their homes.

The Order Of The Holy Cross

West Park, N. Y.

LIBERTARIANS

I wish to express my appreciation to you for … one of the finest magazines of its sort to which I have ever subscribed.… I feel compelled, however, to protest about … “Christ and the Libertarians” (Mar. 17 issue).… It seems to me to be a tragic mistake to interpret evangelical Christianity as being favorable to economic or political fascism. As a fundamentalist, I am convinced that the so-called “creeping socialism” of the New Deal was far closer to the Christianity of the Bible than anything set forth by those peculiar organizations to which Mr. Howard makes reference.

First Presbyterian Church

San Diego, Calif.

I take exception to Mr. Howard’s article. I have long been dissatisfied with the “social gospel” approach and cannot always agree with the National Council of Churches. I support the Spiritual Mobilization movement as a libertarian, and think that you have done that organization a grave injustice by allowing such an un-Christian, humanitarian, bigoted movement as the Christian Freedom Foundation to be compared with the high, spiritual, Christian purposes of Spiritual Mobilization!

Union Presbyterian Church

Lost Nation, Iowa

Christian Freedom Foundation has been called many things, but I think this is the first time we have been charged with humanitarianism! That label we accept! We are humanitarian! We believe in seeking the welfare of man—under God—and are convinced that the welfare of man is advanced better in a free society than in any kind of a socialistic system.

With that Spiritual Mobilization would agree also. In fact, the Christian Freedom Foundation and Spiritual Mobilization would agree on their political and economic views anyhow. The only difference, which I pointed out in the article in question, is a difference of emphasis. Christian Economics has been more biblical and evangelical. This is not to say that what Faith and Freedom has published has not been true. As a former writer for that publication, I certainly hope that was the case.

Christian Freedom Foundation, Inc.

New York, N. Y.

“Christ and the Libertarians” was of particular interest. It has always seemed to me that the Scripture as a whole upholds our so-called “American way of life”—private ownership of property, employer and employee, etc., rather than depending so much on government. The article brings out many factors of truth on the question.

Publisher

Martinsville Daily Reporter

Martinsville, Ind.

Inasmuch as there can be no genuine morality apart from the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit, we conservatives should be in the forefront of a movement to restore freedom to our land, whether it be religious, political or economic.…

Chapelgate Lane Church

United Presbyterian

Baltimore, Md.

THE FINAL TEST

I wish to heartily commend L. Nelson Bell’s “Bricks Without Straw” (Mar. 17 issue). Dr. Bell’s contentions are profoundly true, … show up humanism for what it is and bound to do good.…

But … it is a fact … that fully 50 per cent of the membership of the churches … is worthless to the church.… Surely all of this is not due to modernism. So maybe Dr. Morrison and Chas. B. Templeton have something when they contend for a reformed evangelism. So give us a method that will be as good as the one on message and we will be twice grateful to you. Is it not true that the final test of a thing is the quality of its product?

Franklin, Ky.

It has become apparent that such papers as The Christian Century and Advance have adopted the belief that Christianity is a “corporate religion” of the kind criticized by L. Nelson Bell. The Congregationalist, which first appeared in February, 1958, under a name which for years was most highly honored in American religious journalism, is dedicated to the belief that “the church” is primarily a company of individuals who are disciples of the Lord Jesus.

National Association of Congregational Christian Churches in the U. S.

Melrose, Mass.

Conversion and church membership are not two steps but one. There is no “clear distinction” between them. The decision to receive Christ and the decision to be a part of the church are one.… Great weakness stems from those who claim the Faith but have never joined the church either in the technical or the broader sense of the phrase. Either act alone is incomplete.

First Baptist Church

Bonesteel, S. D.

FAITH AND PHYSICAL FORCE

There is something I want to say regarding “Catholics in the News” (Mar. 17 issue).… Having spent seven years in South America, traveling extensively in every country of that continent, I know that the church is the government, and when the church condemns for heresy, the state imposes the penalty prescribed by the church.

Their denial of persecutions of Protestants in Columbia are such rank falsehoods that in spite of their adroit duplicity, no well-informed person is fooled. You may be in possession of the following, but I pass it on to you anyway:

“The church has persecuted. Only a tyro in church history will deny that. One hundred and fifty years after Constantine the Donatists were persecuted, and sometimes put to death. Protestants were persecuted in France and Spain with the full approval of church authorities. We have always defended the persecution of the Huguenots and the Spanish Inquisition. Wherever and whenever there is honest catholicity, there will be a clear distinction drawn between truth and error, and catholicity and all forms of heresy. When she thinks it good to use physical force, she will use it. Will the Catholic Church give bond that she will not persecute at all? Will she guarantee freedom and equality of all churches and faiths? The Catholic Church gives no bonds for her good behaviour” (The Western Watchman [Roman Catholic], Dec. 24, 1908).

… The attitude of the Catholic Church toward Protestants is clearly and boldly stated. In view of this I am amazed that many of the so-called outstanding leaders of Protestantism, and especially those who are working so hard to bring about a union of all churches, are flirting with the Catholic Church authorities, making concession after concession, in their determined endeavor to bring that church into the union. And almost in the same breath they quibble about whether Seventh-day Adventists are to be classed as evangelicals or not!…

Eric Tracy, the Roman Catholic Archdeacon of Halifax, York, forecast that by the end of this century the Anglican Church (England) will no longer be an established church. I quote his words: “A nation with a predominantly Roman Catholic population will by then have the constitution of the country changed, so that the cathedrals and ancient parish churches are made over to the Roman Catholics; the king (or queen) of this country is crowned by a Roman Catholic prelate; and the Anglican Church and its clergy are deprived of the privileges that now belong to them as ministers of the establishment.”

This is a fair example of the aims and purposes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, not merely for England, but for the United States, as well. Their aims and purposes as regards our educational institutions are only too apparent.…

Arlington, Calif.

THE ‘PURITANS’

“Sex and Smut on the Newsstands” (Feb. 17 issue) made me slightly ill—but not for the reason you think. But for these:

1. The magazines are sold openly; hence they must be legal; hence they come within the strict censorship laws that the powerful and holier-than-thou Puritans have foisted on us.

2. They are perforce “suggestive”—but not in an obscene sense—since they must abide by the blue laws. Hence they cannot deal adultly with sex. And let’s face it—sex is here to stay!—God-created … in every normal male.

3. Evidence of this is the wide acceptance of these magazines—which keeps them in business.

4. “Suggestive” features of these publications are, as mentioned, entirely due to the bluenoses. Attack these latter, rather than the symptoms, viz. “suggestive” mags.

5. If the powerful Puritans did not keep the U. S. in diapers (cf. the more enlightened European nations), there would be no need for males to search for information in these periodicals.

6. My hackles are raised by the reference to photos of the female body as “smutty.” The most beautiful thing the good Lord created is that same female body.

7. Notice authors of the article read “hundreds of the stories in those magazines.” Thus, by this time and according to their own reasoning, they must be utterly depraved. Hence their views are not to be respected by a normal person like myself.

But why go on? The Puritans, who live in constant fear that someone, somewhere may be enjoying sex, have lobbied through the strictest censorship. Now, they are freshly alarmed that red-blooded males may be enjoying the little they have allowed to trickle through.

New York, N. Y.

We who profess to be Christians must … realize that it has been through our inability to properly present our side that has furthered Satan’s reign. We as Christians must be able to meet every challenge and it is our God-granted duty to show why and how our way is the best and we must do this because … to legislate sin out of existence is an impossibility.

Memphis, Tenn.

BLUEPRINT OF MORE YALTAS?

An analysis of the current objectives of Soviet foreign policy.

The prime objective of current Soviet foreign policy is a summit conference. The communists are in the midst of a very strong campaign to force the United States into an international conference with Soviet leaders. The Soviet leaders have led the neutralist leaders to believe that the USSR might be willing to make concessions which would enhance the possibility of world peace. For this reason the neutralist leaders devote themselves wholeheartedly to the achievement of the sort of international conference the communist leaders desire. The United States, having suffered severe losses at Yalta and in almost every subsequent international conference, has been strong in its opposition. John Foster Dulles, as the Secretary of State, spelled out the United States position in a way that precluded misunderstanding.

Once the United States had taken a position, especially an uncompromising one, the Soviet Union called attention to this position, and suggested that in reality, it was the United States that actually blocked the path to peaceful co-existence. This touched off a very bitter attack on the United States in general and John Foster Dulles in particular. The British Labor Party, Canadian Liberals, and many of the socialist leaders of Europe denounced Dulles and the U. S. in terms almost as vehement as those of Khrushchev. Covert and overt socialists in the United States joined the drive in savage smear attacks on Mr. Dulles. In an all too frequent pattern the socialist parties lent their strength to the attainment of Soviet objectives in isolating the United States from all its allies in a futile effort to gain the sympathy and cooperation of the Soviet communists. The Soviets exude an air of reasonableness, and push the old program of the “front populaire”, while Western socialists devote all their strength to the achievement of the objectives of Soviet foreign policy. Khrushchev and the socialists become allies in the necessary task of painting John Foster Dulles in the blackest terms possible and isolating the United States from all sympathy and help.

When the pressure from America’s “allies” and well-wishers became irresistible, the United States was forced to alter its position and admitted the possibility of an international conference under certain conditions. In such a conference, the United States cannot fail to lose its shirt. For the two camps are Russia on the one side, and the United States and its “allies” on the other. England is the “ally” of the United States to exactly the same degree that the U. S. was England’s ally in the “Suez venture.” France is the U. S. “ally” to the same degree that the United States supports French interests in North Africa. Just as the United States has not hesitated to sacrifice British or French interests in the pursuance of its own objectives, so neither England or France hesitates to sacrifice American interests in an effort to purchase peace from the Russians.

The United States, with England and France and others as ostensible allies, is pitted on the one side against a united and determined Soviet delegation. Could anyone imagine that the United States could do any “hard bargaining” in this situation? Of course not; the inevitable result must be more Yaltas, and a further weakening of the United States, with its consequence, the strengthening of Russia.

Khrushchev wants an international conference because he knows it will produce more victories for Soviet foreign policy. He sorely needs these cheap and easy victories to balance against domestic difficulties in Russia. Communism’s disillusionment from within, and internal economic problems have so far baffled all attempts at solution. With cheap victories in foreign policy, Khrushchev can offer the plausible argument that at any rate he has successfully followed and duplicated Stalin’s foreign policy successes, and therefore deserves the support of all Russians, since there is no excuse for breaking up a winning combination. He also gains respect in the eyes of communists and communist sympathizers outside of Russia for having contributed to the growing strength of the fatherland of Communism.

There is little doubt but that American indifference, British and French sabotage, both based on an ignorance of the objectives of Soviet foreign policy which is inexcusable at this late date, will give to Khrushchev the victories he so sorely needs.

University of Washington

Seattle, Wash.

RELISHED OPPORTUNITIES

It seems that a great amount of correspondence that you receive is from theologians, pastors, and other religious adherents who relish in their opportunity to make public their refutations, negations and denials of the great fundamental tenets of Christianity.…

If these gentlemen would either accept, embrace and declare the great teachings that they deny and attempt to undo, or bow completely out admitting their agnosticism, Christianity, with access to modern communications and a purged fold, would surge ahead with an unequalled conquest in history since Pentecost.…

Sao Paulo, Brazil

I am enjoying reading CHRISTIANITY TODAY. The material is of a high standard and even the letters interesting, although not necessarily acceptable in viewpoint. One does not have to agree with another’s argument to appreciate that he might be correct or is as honest in his approach to the correct answer as we are.

I make one observation. One correspondent says, “I am a born-again Christian.” Now, what other kind is there? Surely if one is saved, he is born again. He is a Christian. If he is a Christian, he can only be such by being born again. A saved man is regenerated—there are no degrees. There may be some degree of consecration or holiness, but if he is born again, he is a Christian without any prefixes.

Toronto, Ont.

SPRING FASHION NOTE

The only truly appropriate garment for this current wicked and perverse generation would seem to be sackcloth and ashes. Our fashion designers have now given us “The Sack,” but where are the ashes?

Stuttgart, Germany

NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Call To Voters

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

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

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

Preserving The Sabbath

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Broader Context

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

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

F. F.

A Bridge To Cross

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

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

Not even the evangelist could answer those questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People: Words And Events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Stakes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mekeel New President

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

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

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

Retiring Leader’S Appraisal

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

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

A Bare Sketch

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

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

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

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

Eventual Unity?

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

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

Graham’S Plea A Climax

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

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

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

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

C.F.H.H.

Canada

Taking Sides

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

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

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

Prayerful Prediction

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

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

Europe

Distaff Ordination

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

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

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

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

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

The Right To Meet

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

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

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

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

Africa

Over A Barrel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daughter To Sister

The Evangelical Church of Egypt came of age last month.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Korea

A Korean First

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

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

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

S. H. M.

Pauline Hermeneutics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WALTER W. WESSEL

Sermons On Church Year

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

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

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

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

E. P. SCHULZE

Optimistic Eschatology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WICK BROOMALL

View Of The Scrolls

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

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

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

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

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

J. DWIGHT PENTECOST

Implementing True Love

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILLIAM L. HIEMSTRA

Reporter’S Account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. H. GIROD

Not The Christ Of Scripture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LLOYD F. DEAN

Protestantism In U. S.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RICHARD L. JAMES

Guidance In Music

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

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

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

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

DICK L. VAN HALSEMA

The Prophets: Liberal View

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E. WESLEY GREGSON, SR.

Gospel Portraits

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

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

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

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

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

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

RICHARD ALLEN BODEY

Meditations

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

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

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

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

ERIC EDWIN PAULSON

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Crisis Of The Present

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

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

Reaction Follows Reaction

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

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

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

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

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

History In Tension

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

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

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

Responsibility In The Present

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

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

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

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

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

What Is Christianity?

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

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

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

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

What We Say On Paper

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

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

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

What Is Basic?

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

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

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

Superior Scoutmaster

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

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

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

Opportunism And Fluctuation

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

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

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

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

Solution By Statement

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

Solution In Personnel

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stumbling Blocks

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

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

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

3. Few staff men really know the Scriptures.

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

What Kind Of Program?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Difficulties Of Witness

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

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

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

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

Giving Up A Life

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

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

A Subconscious Dislike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signs Of A New Day

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

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

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

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

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

Stage Settings

I notice when the Great Producer writes

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

He never topples Grandeur from the heights

By showing it upon a sunny day.

He knows where Beauty makes her fairest mark,

Where Hope means most to those whose hearts are bowed,

And so He hangs that vari-colored arc

Against the leaden backdrop of a cloud.

CLARENCE EDWIN FLYNN

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