In the days of our grandfathers it was believed that the great truths of redemption should be preached every Sunday from every pulpit. There were doctrinal differences, of course. The Baptist believed in immersion, the Congregationalist defended the sovereign rights of the local congregation, the Episcopalian kept in mind his apostolic succession, and the Presbyterian insisted upon the Kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ. In one important respect, however, they all agreed: the great message of the pulpit must be sin and salvation. Man is a lost sinner by nature, and he can be saved only by the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. That was the central truth kept before the people by C. H. Spurgeon the Baptist, G. Campbell Morgan the Congregationalist, Charles R. McIlvaine the Episcopalian, B. B. Warfield the Presbyterian, C. F. W. Walther the Lutheran, and scores of others. Young men in seminary were told emphatically that preaching must be Christ-centered and redemption-centered.

Loss Of Anchor

All that was years ago. Then came a period when the pulpit lost its evangelical anchorage. After a few years of sensationalism, smart-aleck sermon titles and catchy rhetoric, many clerical faddists cast away the evangelical preaching of their forefathers and substituted life-centered sermons for Christ-centered ones. It was not a proclamation of the life to come. It was an analysis of the life that we are living today. A popular Scottish preacher, whose books of sermons were known to many in America, was one of the leaders of the new homiletical fashion.

The Saturday church page of almost any newspaper contained such sermon titles as: “On Facing Life in an Atomic Age,” “What to Do When Life Lets You Down,” “The Poignant Call of Life’s Yesterdays,” “On Standing up to Life Unafraid.” Such sermons were often devoid of any evangelical content. A sailor lad was not far wrong when he said of a sermon that he had just heard: “He used the word ‘life’ thirty-seven times and the name of Jesus Christ but once, and that was in his last sentence.”

The formula of life-preaching was simple. It consisted in selecting any trite saying, adding all manner of rhetorical embroidery, then ending with an admonition of the self-improvement variety. A popular preacher, for example, was quite likely to take a current cliche, such as “take it easy now,” and out of this vapid expression produce the following:

“Life surrounds us with all manner of temptations, and one of these is the bad habit of trying to do too much. The business man rushes for his 7:15 commuter train, the children scamper off to school, and the housewife hurries to the shopping center. We are all in too much of a hurry. We have never learned the art of sitting down for a quiet hour and getting acquainted with ourselves. Life surrounds us with too many distractions, and life puts many an obstacle in our way; but on the other hand, life will speak to us with a still, small voice if only we might learn to sit down and listen to the things that life is trying to say to us.”

Having taken his original theme of four words, our preacher has said the same thing in a paragraph of 124 words. Then he restates the idea once more in different form, and continues so to do until 15 minutes are consumed. Then he says, “Let us pray.”

Neither Law Nor Gospel

There is nothing difficult about such preaching, for it demands no study of the Greek text, no effort at exposition, not even a knowledge of theology. Is such preaching a faithful fulfilment of one’s duty? It cannot be, for it contains neither the Law which leads sinners to repentance, nor the Gospel which declares the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ. When such men as Spurgeon, Herber Evans and Moody preached, men and women were brought to a knowledge of sin by the Law, and led to Calvary by the Gospel; but if ever a sermon on “Life’s Message to an Age of Stress” caused one reprobate to live an upright life, or directed one alarmed sinner to the Cross, neither you nor I have heard of the incident.

A variation of the life-centered sermon is the more recent discourse that is loaded with terms borrowed from the prep school’s course in psychology and psychiatry. Such sermons are man-centered and sprinkled with pronouns in their plural form. There is never a mention of sola gratia and sola Scriptura in these we-us-our-ourselves essays. No person with wavering faith has ever been strengthened by a tepid little lecture on procrastination, nor has ever a family, stunned by a sudden bereavement, received comfort on Sunday by listening to their pastor say: “We are all inclined to side-step life’s more basic commitments. There is a tendency in all of us to shirk the duty of evaluating the problems presently before us. Our reluctance to integrate our own potential with life’s more attractive possibilities results in a positive loss to ourselves.” Such words as “commitments,” “evaluate,” “presently” (which means soon, and not now), “integrate” and “co-ordinate” are shop-soiled expressions of the news secretaries of the New Deal period, and to link them together with plural pronouns can bring comfort and strengthening of faith to no one.

Secularized Preaching

John Kennedy of Dingwall, that magnificent evangelical pulpit orator of the Scottish Highlands, realized the danger of secularized preaching more than 70 years ago. In his The Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire (Edinburgh, 1861), in his The Apostle to the North (London, 1867), and in the posthumous Sermons by the Rev. John Kennedy (Inverness, 1883), this great Gaelic-speaking preacher pleads in the English language for better preaching, declaring that the work of the pulpit is “worthless because it is Christless.” Dr. Kennedy declares:

Pauline preaching is becoming, in the estimation of many, an antiquated kind of thing, which, in an age such as ours, should be quite laid as a fossil on the shelf. And what is this new thing which they have introduced? It is not easy to describe it, for it is neither Law nor Gospel, and it is a rare eye that can discern it to be common sense. It is suited neither to saint nor to sinner, and where to find an audience for such preaching, in which neither of these shall be, it is utterly impossible to conjecture.… There are some who are enamoured of what they call practical preaching, by which they mean preaching which is not doctrinal, for they dislike to be made to feel how ignorant they are of the divine scheme of grace, preaching which, taking it for granted that all are Christians, deals out its counsels to all indiscriminately; and which, coming down to the everyday cares and anxieties of life, tends to cheer men in their daily toils by comforts which are furnished by reason rather than by Scripture, and which never flowed from “the fountain of living waters” through Christ crucified. These are the new styles of preaching, and if recent progress is maintained, Pauline preaching will soon cease to be heard from Scottish pulpits (Sermons, p. 550).

Still another type of sermon of our own day is that which attempts to present a Bible character in the light of psychoanalysis. Abraham, Moses, David, Simon Peter, Judas and the dying thief are each given a character dissection, and each part is mounted neatly, labeled and commented upon. The problem is to discover why such men acted as they did. Those who defend such preaching will tell us that Alexander Whyte did it; and was not Dr. Whyte one of the greatest of his generation? Did not all Edinburgh queue up for half an hour, twice every Sunday, before what was then called Free St. George’s Presbyterian Church? However, were one to read G. F. Barbour’s The Life of Alexander Whyte (London, 1923), he will discover that Dr. Whyte preached a Law and Gospel sermon morning and evening at St. George’s. His lectures on Bible characters were given after the close of the service, and in the assembly hall adjoining the kirk. Admission was by ticket, and tickets were issued only to those who had attended the entire service at which Law and Gospel had been preached. Dr. Whyte would not permit Hugh Black, John Kelman or any other assistant pastor to discuss Bible heroes, for he declared that such things are not true evangelical preaching. Men may call Whyte legalistic, yet he told his assistants and all guest preachers that only the great truths of redemptive Christianity were permitted in his pulpit.

The Immortal Truths

It is just these immortal truths of sin and grace that have vanished from many a fashionable pulpit. They have taken refuge in the mission halls and the storefront churches. A few evangelical strongholds still remain in our larger cities, but quite too often do we hear much about life personified, and little in regard to our Lord crucified. Men are preaching psychology and religious psychiatry instead of sin and salvation.

Evangelical preaching begins with the fact that all men, by reason of the Fall, are sinful creatures. Except for the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, such men are helpless. The Law can bring the sinner to a knowledge of his lost state, but the Law cannot save him. Jesus Christ, true God, became man for our sake. He was born of the Virgin Mary without a human father. Where man had failed miserably to obey the Law, Jesus Christ became our substitute in respect to the Law. He kept it perfectly, and God accepted the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ as though it were ours. Our Lord Jesus likewise became our substitute in respect to the penalty of the Law. The wages of sin is death, and our Lord Jesus died for us, taking our place on the Cross, so that hell-deserving sinners might not have to die. He rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven. He is coming again, and we may be sure that every one of us will stand before our Saviour on the last day. He offers salvation freely to all men by grace; and grace is a gift that no man has earned nor deserved. If a man is saved, it is due entirely to this grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ. If a person is lost, it is due entirely to his own sin and unbelief. Faith is the only thing asked of us, and even this saving faith is God-given. The true believer is assured of unending joys in heaven, whereas those who reject the Saviour can expect only the fires of hell.

What is wrong with much of the preaching of today? Precisely the lack of these basic truths of the New Testament. Evangelical truth is no longer questioned in the pulpit. The method of some preachers of today is to ignore it. The fault of such men lies in what they do not say. In place of Law and Gospel they substitute their innocuous sermonettes on “the cares and anxieties of life,” and they seek “to cheer men in their daily toils by comforts which are furnished by reason rather than by Scripture.”

If we would see a religious awakening in our time, this can be accomplished only by a return to just that which brought about every spiritual awakening in the past, namely, a fearless preaching of Law and Gospel, sin and salvation. Men have tried other methods, yet the basic fact remains that “it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe” (1 Cor. 1:21). This Gospel that God permits men to preach is a means of grace. It is a bridge over which the Holy Ghost comes to men, and thus we say that the Gospel is a means of grace.

Men have tried to bring about religious awakenings by other methods. Many have assured us that an indifferent world, and a Christian church diluted with secular ideas, will pay no heed to our message of repentance and faith until we form a strongly centralized ecclesiastical government. However, our Lord said, “Thus is it written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations” (Luke 24:46–47). He tells us in Matthew 28:19–20 to go, preach, baptize and teach all nations. Where faithful men preach Law and Gospel in their entirety, such efforts will prove effective. Sinners will be brought to repentance. Uncertainty will yield to conviction. Weakness of faith will become strength of faith. Through the power of God the Holy Ghost the benefits of our Saviour’s suffering, death and resurrection, and the merit of the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ will be given to the believing Christian.

F. R. Webber was Secretary of the Architectural Committee of the Lutheran Missouri Synod for more than 30 years. He has written six books, three on A History of Preaching in Britain and America. The American appraisal appeared in 1957.

A virulent moral sickness is attacking American society. Its obvious symptoms may be seen at any newsstand in large cities or small. American society is becoming mentally, morally and emotionally ill with an unrestrained sex mania.

For two years we have been independently—and in the last six months cooperatively—studying trends in popular magazines and paper-backed books. We have watched, appalled, as scores of new titles have made their appearance in the magazine field, many of them violating every standard of decency which has hitherto been recognized in the publishing field.

We are convinced that the only reason there has not been an indignant outcry from our nation’s religious leaders is that few have been advised of the extent to which standards have plunged. We ourselves are incredulous as we survey from month to month some of the cartoons, jokes and stories that appear in the so-called “men’s entertainment magazines.”

Churches Asleep

It is high time that our churches awaken to the kind of material being circulated to teen-agers and young adults of both sexes, sold openly at drug stores and newsstands under the guise of sophistication and respectability. While the guardians of our Christian moral standards have been comfortably sleeping, those who seek profits by pandering to sensuality and lawlessness have been reaping a golden harvest.

Distasteful and unpleasant as the subject of pornography may be, it is one that imperatively calls for the attention of every churchman in our nation who is concerned with preserving the sanctity of the Christian home as the basic unit of American society.

The expose magazines like Confidential, and its imitators, Whisper, Hush-Hush and Uncensored, enjoy circulations running into the millions. Using the language of the gutter and the names of celebrities whose marital misadventures they exploit, they are spreading the cynical philosophy “Everybody’s doing it!” to millions of impressionable young people.

The so-called “men’s entertainment magazines,” led by Playboy, and its imitators, Nugget, Dude, Bachelor, Gent and Modern Man, hide behind covers of innocuous, sophisticated design, while they peddle article after article glorifying prostitution, sadism, orgies and sexual perversion.

The “girlie” magazines, such as Night and Day, Paris Life, Tab, Pin-Up Art and literally scores of others, go farther each issue in portraying nudity than has ever been the case before. More important, the models are posed in a languorous manner calculated to be as suggestive as possible. It is difficult to stay within the bounds of good taste and convey to the decent citizen who rarely peruses such periodicals and almost never reads the stories, the extent of the depravity to which they have sunk. The current February issue of Playboy which can be obtained from almost any newsstand can serve as a typical example. The language of the gutter is flaunted with a sneer and detailed descriptions of the most sordid acts of fornication are given on almost every page.

These magazines are known to the high school crowd across America, so the mention of the likes is not unwise; it is the ministers of America who are unaware of them, and ministerial meetings and councils that must be put on the alert for swift action.

Openly Anti-Christian

The immorality of such magazines does not lie simply in the fact that there is too much unadorned flesh and an excessive use of indecent language, but rather in the over-all attitude toward sex represented by such publications. The philosophy of these magazines is not just amoral. It is openly and avowedly anti-Christian.

Sex is depicted as a merely biological, animalistic function in the same category as eating and breathing. Women are completely de-personalized and are shown merely as pliant machines which men utilize for brutish pleasure. We have read hundreds of stories in these magazines and in not one has the heroine ever been depicted as having the slightest moral objection to seduction. If the man does not achieve his lustful purpose, it is only because his technique is not right. The typical woman who populates these publications is herself a nymphomaniac whose entire existence and nature is tied up in one prolonged, unbearable, insatiable desire to perform the sex act.

Anyone who puts any stock in virtue, chastity, fidelity or restraint is ridiculed. They are depicted as victims of outmoded hypocritical prudery. To have any scruples about free erotic indulgence is to be neurotically repressed. These magazines are advocating a pagan, libertine philosophy of life directly opposed to the Christian concept of love and marriage. It has become in the last 12 months the most sustained and insidious attack on the moral standards of this nation ever witnessed in the history of our Republic.

A certain pattern runs through the fiction offered in all these periodicals. One theme is to depict religious persons as fanatics and hypocrites. One magazine recently published a story about a Southern Baptist clergyman who in the process of “saving” a sister from her frustrations, “redeemed” her by commiting adultery with her. The writer of this obscenity and blasphemy took care to make his subject a Protestant minister and not a Roman Catholic priest, for that church would surely have moved in massive protest.

Another theme is the glorification of prostitution. It is depicted not as a degraded, back-street crime, but as something that smart girls of the upper middle class do. Bachelor, a magazine obviously aimed at college students in pictures, cartoons and text recently published a story “The Girls in Dormitory A” which told of co-eds who ran a house of ill fame on the night their housemother was out. She caught them, as inevitably she must, but her reaction was to turn it into a real “business operation” open every night.

We also see recurring in cartoons and stories the theme of the wife who prostitutes herself to her husband’s employer so that he can obtain a raise or a promotion to branch manager. Playboy has even gone so far as to make a cartoon jest about incest. Nothing is too degraded for these magazines to touch, for under the libertine standard which they espouse, any restraint on sex relationships is puritanical repression from which “modern man” should be liberated.

Contempt For Religion

The attitude of contempt in which these publications hold religion is illustrated by attacks on Evangelist Billy Graham in the January issue of Rave and the March issue of Foto-Rama, both now on newsstands.

Rave depicts Graham on its cover as a huckster offering a hot breakfast cereal labeled “Instant Salvation.” The story, entitled “How to Sell GOD” bears the subtide “Billy Graham, the Hotshot of the Hucksters, Is Delivering a Packaged Heaven to All who Heed the Call.” The article accordingly declares, “Something new has been added to the fiery-eyed procession of doom merchants.” After paying respects to Jeremiah as “scary-looking,” Savanarola as “scrawny and scowling,” and Billy Sunday as a “baggy-kneed solo artist,” the writer bitingly ridicules Graham’s neat appearance and smooth sermon delivery.

A photograph of Graham talking to President Eisenhower carries the caption “Billy and Ike—Anybody Who Doesn’t Like What he Gives Them can go to Hell.” Rave, which in some respects appears to be an aptly-named magazine, summarizes its opinion of Graham’s ministry as “road-show Christianity—superficial, sentimentalized, sold by the best Fuller Brush man in North Carolina … a product that will oh-so-easily make you five shades whiter.”

Foto-Rama, by contrast, treats Graham with a mocking reverence. It seems engaged simply in exploiting Graham’s name for the sake of a superficial respectability—perhaps in order to include at least one article which counsel can quote if the publication is prosecuted for obscenity. The cover of Foto-Rama carries a large caption: “In Sex: Does Practice Make Good Lovers?” Underneath appears the headline “What Billy Graham Thinks of Girls.” The first article, of course, is one advocating “more liberal sex education” in schools.

In the article on Graham, the magazine gives passing notice to the evangelist’s emphasis on the Christian home as the foundation of American society, then spends most of the space discussing the business side of his crusades. The article concludes a largely critical and cynical account of his work with the pious observation: “Foto-Rama salutes Billy Graham for the splendid work he is doing in bringing religion into American lives.”

Foto-Rama then gets on with what it obviously conceives to be its business—to bring into American lives such articles as “How the Strippers Took Paree”; a near-nude photo sequence entitled “S is for Sizzle”; and an expose-type article “Why Do Men Throw Stag Parties?,” subtitled “There Were Thirty Men Standing When the Naked Corinne Went Through the Motions.” These stories, together with the inevitable article appealing to sadism, a sordid, depraved tale of alleged cannibalism during World War II entitled “I Ate My Buddy!” would seem to constitute the real mission of Foto-Rama in American life. We might add, in passing, that a disturbing number of articles appealing to sadism appear in recent issues of the sex magazines. Sadism is the most vicious of all sex perversions, since it leads to horrible sex crimes and is a factor in the break-up of many marriages. Yet these magazines, in their lust for the dollar, do not hesitate to pander even to this base instinct of depraved men.

We must voice a most urgent call to our Protestant churches to join in a vigorous campaign to re-establish common standards of decency in publishing.

The United States Supreme Court in the case of Roth v. U. S. last June gave us a workable legal definition of obscenity. It is, to quote the Court, “The presentation of sex in a manner appealing to the prurient interest.” The Court added the caution that it must be judged in the light of “contemporary community standards.”

The Court made it clear that obscenity has no standing under freedom of the press. The way is open, therefore, for use of the courts to prosecute those newsstand dealers, and those wholesale distributors, who bring sex magazines into a community if they fail to heed appeals for a voluntary clean-up.

Churchmen’S Commission

An organization to co-ordinate Protestant efforts in this field has recently been established known as the Churchmen’s Commission for Decent Publications. Membership is open to any Protestant layman or minister concerned with this problem. Its membership includes a more broadly representative group of Protestantism than any group ever brought together. Inman Douglass of the Committee on Publication of the Christian Science Church is the Commission’s first president; Frederick E. Reissig of the Council of Churches, National Capital Area, vice president; Dr. Clyde W. Taylor, of the National Association of Evangelicals, secretary; Editor Carl F. H. Henry of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, treasurer. Mr. O. K. Armstrong, contributing editor of Reader’s Digest and Southern Baptist layman, is legislative chairman.

The very word “censorship” is repugnant to Protestant leaders. The alternative to Protestant inactivity in this field, however, is to leave it by default entirely to Roman Catholic groups. Inevitably, their approach to the issue differs greatly from the Protestant position. Wherever there is strong Catholic-inspired legislation against indecent literature, as in the Province of Quebec, for example, we soon find such things as the movie “Martin Luther” being banned also because it would “disturb the public order.”

Censorship, in the sense of establishing a board of public censors whose approval must be obtained before a book or magazine may be published or a movie exhibited is clearly repugnant to the American tradition and to the U. S. Constitution itself. The Churchmen’s Commission, therefore, favors efforts to obtain voluntary co-operation in securing compliance with community standards. Where this fails, the question of “obscenity” in the light of prevailing community standards should be decided by local judges and juries.

We have laws against dope peddlers and against those who would promote the practice of prostitution. We similarly have laws against those who would subvert the basic foundations of society by assailing its moral standards. All that is needed is for existing laws to be enforced in light of the Supreme Court’s workable and intelligent definition of “obscenity.” Public opinion must be mobilized to do the job. Most of these magazines do not have a leg on which to stand if they are brought into court.

We frankly appeal to churchmen and churchwomen of every persuasion, conservative or liberal, to join hands in common defense of the morals of our society. An assault has been mounted against everything Jesus Christ, Paul and the Apostles taught concerning love, marriage and the family. If our churches fail to answer it, they will rue the day that their timidity and inaction gave a victory, by default, to the advocates of paganism.

(Address of the Churchman’s Commission on Decent Publications is Suite 100, Western Union Building, 1405 G Street, N.W., Washington 5, D. C. The research and action reports which it publishes will be of great help in organizing local drives to clean up newsstands and to keep them clean—ED.)

Ralph A. Cannon is Chairman of the Research Committee for the Churchmen’s Commission for Decent Publications. He holds the A.B. degree from Wofford College and the B.D. from Yale Divinity School. Since 1955 he has ministered at St. James Methodist Church, Spartanburg, South Carolina.

The Preacher’s remark that “of the making of many books there is no end” comes readily to mind when anyone attempts a survey of this sort. The current revival of religious interest in the United States has been accompanied by a renewed interest in the production of religious books on the part of many publishers. Some who had discontinued religious titles have resumed their publication. Others whose interest had been confined to liberal points of view have discovered that conservative and evangelical Christians provide a good potential market. It is to be hoped that the support of these publishers may give further impetus to the progress of biblical Christianity.

In order to be more than an extended book notice, a survey must be also an evaluation. As such, it will represent in some measure the theological viewpoint of the writer. In this case, the viewpoint is that of one who is Reformed in doctrine, holding to a type of inspiration of the Scriptures which is not accepted by many of those whose works have been examined. It is hoped that this acknowledgment will help the reader to understand better any criticisms which are offered; at the same time, should the authors peruse these pages, they may be assured that even where there has been disagreement there has been enjoyment and profit.

The publication this year of the Revised Standard Version of the Apocrypha (Nelson) has not created anything like the furor which greeted the same version of the Old Testament. This is no doubt due to the fact that those who objected to the Old Testament version will likely ignore the apocryphal books. The appearance of the Apocrypha is, however, symptomatic of a renewed interest in the matter of the canon. It is surely significant, too, that a very cogent argument for not receiving the Apocrypha as canonical is offered by one who was himself a member of the translation committees. In Which Books Belong in The Bible (Westminster), Floyd V. Filson states that canonicity means primarily that certain books are basic and authoritative and that the idea of the canon includes the continuing spiritual authority of the books. Of the Apocrypha he states, “They are not Scripture, and they have no right to a compromise position which practically treats them as Scripture while maintaining the fiction that they are without influence on doctrinal thinking” (p. 150).

Over against the view of Filson, who holds that we do not accept the Old Testament canon by slavish necessity because Jesus and the apostles did, is the position of Laird Harris expressed in Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible (Zondervan). There it is said that the Lord Jesus Christ’s seal of approval … is guarantee enough of the canonicity of the Old Testament for those who find in him the Way, the Truth and the Life (p. 179). Much valuable material is found here, including a chapter which deals with some objections to verbal inspiration, an objectionable doctrine to many of the other writers be mentioned.

Literary Introductions

One of the most interesting books in this field that came to your reviewer’s attention is already three years old, but it is valuable at once for its description and its analyses of modern Old Testament scholarship. This is the work by Herbert F. Hahn, Old Testament in Modern Research (Muhlenberg), in which he criticizes incisively the various approaches to the Old Testament such as the critical, sociological, archaeological, etc. The effort at synthesis of these will not satisfy the orthodox student, however.

Problems of introduction, such as the date, authorship and purpose of the Old Testament writings, have not had much by way of new consideration in the past year. The Books of the Old Testament, by Robert H. Pfeiffer (Harper) is an abridgement of his earlier Introduction. In the author’s own words, it “adds nothing, changes no conclusions, and omits much …” (p. x). It is a popular presentation of Dr. Pfeiffer’s position and will bring the developmental view of Israel’s history and religion down to a more popular level. Those who have known the author will readily grant his sincerity in saying that there is no conflict between deep religious faith and historical investigation about the Bible. They may, however, have great difficulty in accepting his idea that both Haggai and Malachi are of slight religious and literary importance (p. 323), or that objective study shows that none of the Pentateuchal codes (except a nomadic decalogue) could have been promulgated by Moses (p. 70).

It is a good exercise to compare with Pfeiffer’s position an excellent study by G. T. Manley, The Book of the Law (Eerdmans). In an objective manner, showing a large acquaintance with the literature of all points of view on the topic, he seeks to show a real, historical connection of Deuteronomy with Moses. Since the date of the origin of Deuteronomy has been said to be the Achilles’ heel of the developmental view, the question is still vital.

Biblical Backgrounds

A very delightful assignment was the reading of Denis Baly’s The Geography of the Bible (Harper). The author’s attitude toward his topic is at once clear when he says that God in Christ “came into the land which he had prepared for himself and which he had previously used for the revelation of himself during the space of well over a thousand years.” As a geographer, Baly relates the features of climate, soil, topography, etc., to the biblical text in a way not surpassed and perhaps not equalled in any other recent work. On a different subject, but equally readable, is the book by Ludwig Kohler, Hebrew Man (Abingdon). Through a kind of detective work, the author tries to depict the physical appearance, life and thought of the average Hebrew. Unfortunately he does not hesitate to contradict the biblical account on what appears to be flimsy evidence, e.g., on the original use of circumcision by the Israelites. Rather too easily the conclusion is reached that the Hebrews were more than ordinarily subject to psychoses and depressions. Nevertheless, a better feeling for the Old Testament may be gained from this book.

Also useable as background study is Abraham, by Dorothy B. Hill (Beacon). Regrettably, however, the Genesis story, rabbinical legend, and a vivid imagination are given almost equal validity. The able use of archaeological material in weaving the tale gives a good picture of patriarchal times.

Old Testament History

The year has seen a larger than usual number of histories or surveys of the Old Testament period, due partly, it seems, to a desire to relate archaeological findings directly to the contemporary situation, and partly also to elicit that which is of permanent, religious validity in Israel’s experience. The two most extensive titles are Bernhard W. Anderson’s Understanding the Old Testament (Prentice-Hall) and Emiel G. Kraeling’s Bible Atlas (Rand McNally). The former of these has a greater theological emphasis and is written in a very attractive way. The latter is an atlas and therefore stresses matters of geography and archaeology. Both of them discount to a large extent the miraculous elements in the Old Testament, either by defining away the supernatural or in several instances as, for example, the cycle of Elijah and Elisha miracles, relegating them to the realm of pure legend. An excellent devotional study of these same stories is found in Ronald S. Wallace’s Elijah and Elisha (Eerdmans), from which any young Christian may profit.

A newcomer to the historical field is R. K. Harrison, a Canadian Anglican, whose History of Old Testament Times (Zondervan) is up-to-date and adheres to a high view of the integrity of the Scripture narratives while attempting to find a solution to their problems.

Significant of one trend of thought in Old Testament studies today is the title of a college textbook by Colin Alves, The Covenant (Cambridge). Although Alves accepts most of the older documentary views, he finds in the Old Testament concept of the covenant relation a unifying principle not only within the Old Testament but between the Old and the New Testaments. This is true of Anderson, mentioned above, as it is of a number of recent writers, and is the result of the more truly biblical approach to the Bible.

The turning of scholarly attention to archaeology and theology may be the reason for a dearth of commentaries. At any rate, just one commentary has come to our attention. It is the fine work by Theodore Laetsch on The Minor Prophets (Concordia). This is the second in an Old Testament series, the first being Jeremiah by the same writer. Laetsch is aware of most of the historical as well as the exegetical problems. Though he is not always kind to those with whom he disagrees, the author’s discernment in theology and his positive conviction are stimulating. It is to be hoped that further volumes may appear soon.

Biblical Theology

The revival of biblical theology is the most prominent feature of Old Testament studies and it is not surprising to see a number of titles devoted to this topic. A leader in the reaction to the theological sterility of older liberalism is H. H. Rowley, whose Faith of Israel (Westminster) in some respects carries us back to the beliefs of older Reformed theology. Moses gave the people the Decalogue of Exodus 20 (p. 126). There is reason to believe that though the so-called Messianic psalms were used in royal rites of the temple, they were also “Messianic.” They held before the king the ideal king (p. 192). The Old Testament covenant was not a legal contract but rather Israel’s pledge of loyalty to him who had first chosen and saved her (p. 69). Many will not like the author’s views of the origin of Scripture but they will be pleased to hear his conclusions.

A book that is likely to popularize both biblical introduction and theology is The Book of the Acts of God, by G. Ernest Wright and Reginald H. Fuller (Doubleday). Wright, whose Biblical Archaeology (Westminster) was also published last year, is the author of the Old Testament section. His view of the Old Testament sources is that of most developmental critics. His ideas of the flexibility of the canon are open to criticism. Yet there is much that is helpful to an understanding of the history of God’s people, and a serious dealing with the narrative. There is a fine devotional feeling and also a repeated acknowledgment that the Old Testament finds its fulfilment in Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.

The problems of interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis are mentioned in virtually every work on introduction, history or theology. Two small books are devoted to the topic more particularly. The problem is solved by William M. Logan, In The Beginning God (John Knox), by saying that Genesis 1–11 is a series of theological essays dealing with the universal human predicament. Genesis is not concerned with science, and therefore there can be no conflict (p. 14). It is interesting to see that N. H. Ridderbos, of the Calvinistic Free University of Amsterdam, states that since God is the author both of science and of the Bible there can be no conflict between them. He then explains Genesis I as purely literary form in which historical time plays no necessary role.

Messianic prophecy is coming into its own again in some quarters, without some of the eschatological trappings that have created such disturbance among conservatives in the past. Aaron J. Kligerman, a Hebrew Christian, has given a kind of outline manual on the subject, Messianic Prophecy in the Old Testament (Zondervan). Ministers and students who are eager to do some serious study have now been provided with a reprint of what is a monumental work and the only one, to your reviewer’s knowledge, that attempts to exegete carefully all the Old Testament messianic prophecies, the famous century-old Christology of the Old Testament, by E. W. Hengstenberg (Kregel). Here is good reading from one who, ever more clearly than some modern biblical theologians, saw in the Old Testament the Word who would be made flesh.

Text And Criticism

Most graduates of seminaries, it is well known, have little time and no patience for textual criticism. For those who know Hebrew and are still students, whether in seminary or parsonage, a valuable help has appeared in The Text of the Old Testament, by Ernest Wurthwein (Macmillan). Using the Kittel Biblia Hebraica, third edition, with its critical apparatus, the author has provided an excellent introduction to the Hebrew text, the versions and the methods of Old Testament textual criticism. A series of 41 plates is of great help.

This survey has already become more extensive than was planned, but it is too brief to cover all the titles the publishers have kindly sent to your reviewer. Perhaps the following brief notice will serve to introduce the reader to other available literature:

Broomall, Wick: Biblical Criticism (Zondervan). An analysis of destructive higher criticism, with positive approach. Recommended in its field.

Ellis, E. Earle: Paul’s Use of the Old Testament (Eerdmans). Scholarly investigation of Paul’s quotations from the Old Testament.

Field, Laurence N.: Family Bible Story Book (Augsburg). Suitable to Junior and Senior High group.

Hanke, Howard: Christ and the Church in the Old Testament (Zondervan). A nondispensational approach to the plan of redemption.

Knapp, Christopher: The Kings of Judah and Israel (Loizeaux). A devotional, biographical study.

Metzger, Bruce M.: An Introduction to the Apocrypha (Oxford). An excellent introduction by a member of the translation committee. Recommended for intertestamental studies.

Owen, G. Frederick: Abraham to the Middle-East Crisis (Eerdmans). A quick survey of Israelitish history. Very enlightening in modern period. Apparently premillennial.

Pfeiffer. Charles: The Book of Leviticus (Baker). A manual for Bible study, excellent for church use. The Dead Sea Scrolls (Baker). A sane, Christian treatment of a pertinent topic, recommended.

Pfeiffer, Robert H., and Pollard, Wil.: The Hebrew Iliad (Harper). Popularizes the two-document theory of the Books of Samuel, but makes the story read like an ancient novel. Pleasant.

Robin, Chaim: Qumran Studies (Oxford). Rather technical. Helps to understand the Qumran sect from a Jewish viewpoint.

Sloan, W. W.: A Survey of the Old Testament (Abingdon). A college textbook. Accepts documentary hypothesis. Some good theological insights in well-phrased language.

Strachan, James: Early Bible Illustrations (Cambridge). Especially interesting to a historian, deals with medieval and early Reformation periods.

Thompson, J. A.: Archaeology and the Old Testament (Eerdmans). Will be reviewed later.

Unger, Merrill F.: Unger’s Bible Dictionary (Moody). A revision of Barnes’ Bible Encyclopedia. Most articles brief but up-to-date, evangelical. The Dead Sea Scrolls (Zondervan). Discusses the scrolls in relation to the New Testament. Review of older archaeological finds.

David W. Kerr has been Professor of Old Testament at Gordon Divinity School since 1953. He holds the B.A. degree from University of Western Ontario (where he was awarded the Governor-General’s medal for highest standing in arts), and the B.D. and Th.M. degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary. He has served on the General Assembly Committee on Articles of Faith, Presbyterian Church in Canada.

The year 1957 brought a wide variety of books in the field of New Testament studies. Commentaries were numerous, and there were also many critical works of different kinds. Both in the conservative and in the neo-orthodox camps there has been a renewed interest in the study of the Bible, with the result that a great deal of fresh effort has been expended in writing.

A few of the older works have been reproduced, preserving for modern use some that had previously gone out of print. Ellicott’s Commentary, J. A. Alexander’s Commentary on the Book of Acts, and Godet’s work on Romans have all been reprinted by Zondervan. Regardless of their age, much of solid value remains in these older works, and new editions of them should find a ready market.

More On The Scrolls

Two more volumes have been added to the lengthening list of books on the Qumran Scrolls. Krister Stendahl, currently teaching at Harvard Divinity School, has edited a text on The Scrolls and the New Testament. Twelve of the fourteen chapters of this book are articles previously published in scholarly journals, both in English and in German. The essays deal with the possible relation between the teachings of the Qumran Scrolls and the content of the New Testament. Most of them are quite technical, but they are relatively free from hasty speculation and are objective in their viewpoint. The book is published by Harper.

The second, The Dead Sea Scrolls, is by Charles Pfeiffer of Moody Bible Institute (Baker). His treatment is complete and objective, and he makes no wild statements about the relation of the scrolls to Christianity. His work is less technical than that of Stendahl’s book, but better adapted to the needs of the casual reader.

New Critical Works

Among the recent critical works are a few that merit special attention. N. B. Stonehouse’s Paul Before the Areopagus (Eerdmans) is a short miscellany of studies on such topics as “The Areopagus Address,” “Who Crucified Jesus?”, “The Elders and the Living Beings in the Apocalypse,” “Rudolph Bultmann’s Jesus,” and others. Each of these studies deals with some point of contemporary interest in the interpretation of the New Testament, and is characterized by sound scholarship.

Understanding the New Testament by H. C. Kee and F. W. Young (Prentice-Hall) is a combination of New Testament introduction and survey on a popular level. The typography and illustrations are of superb quality, the writing is lucid and interesting, and the careful integration of New Testament history enables the reader to comprehend easily the growth of the church and the development of the New Testament as a written document. The writers are noncommittal on such important doctrines as the virgin birth of Christ and the bodily resurrection, and on many critical questions they take a distinctly liberal view. The general outline of the book is, however, accurate, and provides one of the most coherent accounts of the first century that has been published in recent times.

In contrast to the foregoing book, G. A. Hadjantonianou’s Introduction to the New Testament (Moody Press) is distinctly conservative. It is adapted to the needs of the usual reader who is interested in the subject of how the New Testament came into being. Though conservative in viewpoint, it does not proffer any new solutions for the standing problems of introduction.

The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels: St. Luke and St. Matthew, written by the late Wilfred L. Knox and edited by H. Chadwick (Cambridge) is another attempt to identify the “sources” from which the canonical Gospels drew their material. The editor has utilized materials left by Dr. Knox at the time of his death, and has woven them into a book. He suggests that the non-Markan material in Matthew and Luke does not necessarily come from one document, Q, but that there may have been a number of short tracts used for teaching which the writers of these Gospels combined in their writings. The rejection of a single Q indicates a trend in modern criticism to become increasingly skeptical about the existence of this hypothetical document which, with Mark, has long been supposed to underlie Matthew and Luke. One wonders, however, whether the hypothesis of multiple short tracts is any more likely to be correct. Granting that some of the stories in the Gospels may at times have been used independently in preaching or for illustrative purposes, there is no reason why the testimony of eyewitnesses and the first hand experience of Mark and Matthew may not be equally as acceptable in accounting for the original stuff of the Gospels. Knox did not take a completely rationalistic view of Jesus, nor did he challenge the essential truthfulness of his claim as presented in the Gospels. His theories are, on the whole, more intriguing than convincing.

Barclay’s New Testament Wordbook (Harper) contains a series of selected studies on various key words of the New Testament. It is lexically accurate, and explains in rather simple form the connotations of some of the more colorful or doctrinally important terms. Whether the reader knows Greek or not, he will find it instructive and helpful in theological study.

Flow Of Commentaries

Several sets of commentaries are either being completed or are in process. The last volume of The Interpreter’s Bible on Revelation has been advertised, making the set complete. It is the most massive of modern commentaries. Its introductions are technically thorough, and its expositions are intended to be directly applicable to modern conditions. Its theological slant is distinctly liberal or neo-orthodox, depending upon the individual author. Illustrative material is up to date, but is not always relevant to the Biblical text.

The New International Commentary (Eerdmans), of which Dr. Stonehouse is general editor, is still in process of production. One or two new volumes have been announced for 1958. Its scholarship is one of the best of the evangelical tradition, and the information in it is solidly packed. It is less homiletical and more analytical than most of its rivals.

The newest arrival in American commentaries is Ralph Earle’s work on Mark, the first volume in the new Evangelical Commentary series published by Zondervan. Wesleyan in its theological emphasis, it is admirably adapted to popular use. For pastors and Sunday School teachers it is almost ideal. An annotated bibliography of more than one hundred fifty titles, a brief but clear introductory discussion of the author and origins of the Gospel, and a well-organized outline prepare the reader for the commentary which is based on the American Standard Version. The expositions are concise and informative, leaving technical and scholarly questions to the footnotes.

Two pocket commentaries in the Tyndale series, L. L. Morris on Thessalonians and R. V. G. Tasker on James have appeared (IVF-Tyndale, London, and Eerdmans, U. S.). Another of similar scope, though not of the same series, is J. Schneider on Hebrews. Brief and practical, they go directly to the heart of the text, and are useful aids for the busy student or teacher who wishes to acquire a maximum of help with a minimum of technical detail.

C. K. Barrett’s Commentary on John, originally published in 1955 (SPCK) went through a second printing in 1957. Although a large part of it is devoted to introductory material, the ripeness of its scholarship and the fulness of detail make it one of the strongest commentaries of recent years. Although the author is doubtful of the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel, he is neither careless nor scornful in his treatment of the question. The notes are based on the Greek text, and are intended chiefly for scholars, but there is much in the book that can be profitable to any serious student of the Bible.

C. F. D. Moule’s Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to Colossians and to Philemon begins a new series of the Cambridge Greek Testament to replace the former series edited by J. J. S. Perowne. Modern in format, it crowds into less than 200 pages a surprisingly large amount of information, together with a comprehensive bibliography. It is somewhat less a popular commentary than its predecessor, but it perpetuates the verse-by-verse commentary on the Greek text, and refers frequently to contemporary authors. Its applications are modern and practical.

One of the very best commentaries of the year is Hendriksen’s The Pastoral Epistles (Baker). Not only is the text carefully and reverently treated, but the basic questions underlying it have been analyzed fairly and astutely. Hendriksen makes a good defense of the Pauline authorship of the Pastorals on linguistic grounds; perhaps the best presentation of the conservative view in recent years.

Fresh Translations

New translations are not numerous, but two deserve attention. Kenneth Wuest’s first volume of The Expanded Translation of the Greek New Testament: The Gospels attempts to put into English paraphrase the exact meaning of the underlying Greek original. It is not a smooth literary rendering, nor was it intended to be. It does, however, convey in plain language the connotations of the Greek words that do not appear in ordinary translation, and its author’s effort to be faithful to the original is commendable.

The other, The Book of Revelation, translated by J. B. Phillips, is in some respects quite the opposite of Wuest’s rendering. Phillips’ translations, like the others of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles that preceded this one, is a casual and easy rendering of Revelation into colloquial English. It reads more smoothly than that of Wuest, and contains some apt renderings, but it is sometimes so free that it does not carry the dignity of the original. Wuest’s work will be appreciated by the Bible student who has no knowledge of Greek, but who wishes to catch some of the flavor that the connotations of the Greek text carry. Phillips’ translation will be enjoyed by the person who seldom reads the Bible, but who might become interested in it if he could read it in modern speech rather than in the older English of the standard versions.

Regardless of the viewpoint of the individual author, it is obvious that the Bible is still a vital object of discussion. Those who disbelieve its truth cannot ignore it; those who believe it find in it inexhaustible wells of truth from which they continually draw fresh resources.

(To the above should be added some mention of Dr. Tenney’s own recent book, Interpreting Revelation [Eerdmans], which one reviewer calls “the best and most dependable handbook setting forth the fundamental facts about the book, its major teachings, and the significance of its symbolism … published in the last quarter-century.”—ED.)

Merrill C. Tenney is Dean of the Graduate School of Wheaton College. He holds the Th.B. degree from Gordon College of Theology, the A.M. from Boston University, and the Ph.D. from Harvard University. He is author of Resurrection Realities (1945), John: the Gospel of Belief (1948), Galatians: the Charter of Christian Liberty (1950), The Genius of the Gospels (1951), The New Testament: An Historical and Analytic Survey (1953), Philippians: The Gospel at Work (1956) and, most recently, Interpreting Revelation (1957).

A survey such as this is beset with difficulties, since it requires certain necessary and somewhat arbitrary limitations. In this case the bounds have been set by considering theological works of the more philosophical and apologetic nature. No attempt has been made to include books in the fields of biblical theology and Christian ethics.

The year showed evidence in several ways of a growing concern with the kerygmatic theology of Rudolf Bultmann. For a brief but clear and thoughtful introduction to Bultmann, Existentialism and Theology (Philosophical Library) by George W. Davis, is unexcelled. Bultmann is endeavoring to show the world that Christianity is not myth but “fact productive of a tremendous faith in God’s loving concern and activity” (p. 31). Yet, Bultmann believes that the “New Testament myth” obscures the Gospel for the modern, scientifically brain-washed mind. That is, the kerygma must not be confused with the mythical world view of biblical times in which it is clothed and expressed. For example, as Professor Davis points out, to Bultmann the death of Christ on the cross for our sins is biblical myth—meaningless to modern man; but the idea of the sacrifice of the cross being existentially present and breaking the power of sin in personal life is the good news of Christianity. You may not agree with Bultmann but Davis makes clear what he is trying to do.

Under the title, The Doctrine of God (Vol. II, Part 1, Scribner’s), another section of Karl Barth’s monumental Dogmatik has been made available to us in English. Without doubt that decision to make Barth’s magnum opus available in English represents a major theological event of our day. And whether or not one agrees with Barth does not alter the fact that for the last four decades he has stirred the theological world more than any other man.

In this section Barth begins with the problem of the knowability of God. God can be known in his activity. “He can be known of and by himself. In his essence, as it is turned to us in his activity, he is so constituted that he can be known by us” (p. 65). This God is known to us as “the one who loves” (p. 275). “God’s loving is necessary, for it is the being, the essence and the nature of God” (p. 280). God alone is a person. This God whose being is love exists in the three eternal modes, Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Barth is not a modalist in the usual sense of the term). “For the Son of God who became flesh in Jesus Christ is, as an eternal mode of the divine being, nothing more nor less than the principle and basis of all divine immanence, and therefore the principle of what we have called the secondary absoluteness of God” (p. 317).

Because of this “absoluteness” Jesus Christ is the only true personality in history and in him we become persons by being adopted into fellowship with God’s personal being (p. 286). What Barth means is that sin perverts our true humanity and that we are only truly human when we respond to God’s love with reciprocating love. As one reads Barth’s long and often tedious discussions, it is hard to see why thousands of pages and millions of words are really necessary.

Tillich On Christ

The most speculative work, and least biblical in nature, to appear last year was the second volume of Paul Tillich’s Systematic Theology (University of Chicago Press), subtitled Existence and the Christ. Here he continues his symbolic or mythical approach to theology which has so characterized his understanding of the Christian faith. Those of us who have been accustomed to an historically realistic understanding of the Christian Gospel find it difficult to appreciate Tillich’s symbolism.

Tillich insists that man is a fallen creature in his very creation (p. 44). The primal perfection of man before the Fall is, for him, but “dreaming innocence” (p. 33). There is no point in time and space in which created goodness was actualized and had existence.

Man’s hope, the new age, is come in the paradox of the man Jesus as the Christ. This does not mean an historical Incarnation, “for the assertion that ‘God has become man’ is not a paradoxical but a nonsensical statement” (p. 94). “Much harm has been done in Christianity, he writes, by a literalistic understanding of the symbol ‘son of God’ ” (p. 110). Instead, Tillich insists, Jesus is a man, subject to every contingency of existence, but keeping himself in unity with God by constant self-surrender and, at the same time, giving up everything he could have attained by this unity. It is in this ideal of self-surrender that we find, not Jesus the man, but Jesus as the Christ. Christianity was born, not with the birth of the man Jesus, but at that moment when one of his followers was driven to say of him, “Thou art the Christ” (p. 97). Jesus on the cross brings the new age because he suffers the death of a convict and a slave under the power of the old age which he is to conquer. He brings the New Being, for he saves men from the Old Being, that is, “from existential estrangement and its self-destructive consequences” (p. 150). No system could be much further removed from the idea of personal redemption through Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, than this symbolic theology of Paul Tillich.

On Man And Sin

An interesting study of man comes from an Australian scholar, S. B. Babbage, entiled Man in Nature and in Grace (Eerdmans). This is an excellent survey, succinct and relevant. In fascinating fashion the author covers areas of Scripture, the classics, historical theology, politics, existentialism, literature, and finally man’s immortality. Throughout the study he shows the points of difference between the various views discussed and the biblical understanding of man. He does not hesitate to point out that Augustine “was neither consistently nor thoroughly biblical” (p. 44), and that he was indebted to Plato for many of his ideas. His frankness of approach and his willingness to re-examine long accepted ideas is needed constantly.

The best study on the work of Christ was William J. Wolf’s No Cross, No Crown (Doubleday). Since it has already been called the most useful and complete study of the Atonement available today (by a reviewer), it is likely that we will be aware of its emphasis for some time to come. Professor Wolf first covers the biblical teaching on the subject at the point where he rejects the idea of penal substitution. Christ atones by dedication of life, not by substitutionary death. In the second section he deals with the Atonement in history, and lastly, its meaning for us today. Christ redeems us from the past (guilt), in the present (justification), and for the future (sanctification). The author puts considerable weight on the Church as the atoning community today. Wolf places much stress on the suffering of God who gives himself for sin. A good point of emphasis is the suffering of Christ as God as well as man. Yet, it is evident that the atoning work of God is to be found more in suffering itself than in the suffering and death of Christ. Without the cross in life, there is no crown. We too in a sense atone for sin through our willingness to give ourselves. “In our best moments we are responsive to the claims of suffering redemptively for those we love, and yet we recognize that this is really due to the power of God working in us” (p. 199). Again we read, “Human love reaches its peak in costly sacrificial outpouring, or suffering for others. The perfect expression of this paradox is found in the God-man as atoner” (p. 200). Is this the biblical picture of atonement? Is suffering per se the atoning work of God in history?

Niebuhr And Carnell

Richard R. Niebuhr’s Resurrection and Historical Reason (Scribner’s) seems to be an exceedingly important work. Although primarily intended as a study in theological method, using the Resurrection of Christ as the key to the investigation, this book also provides us with one of the most penetrating apologetics for the Resurrection fact to appear in many years. The argument centers around “the contention that any attempt to give the Church status, as the Church, independently of its origin in the Resurrection must fail. Failure is certain because such attempts, in dissolving the historic background of the Church, dissolve the Church also, and with it, Jesus Christ” (p. 153). Throughout this thrilling work, as the author makes his critical evaluation of theologians of varying perspectives, he emphasizes again and again that “the excision of the Resurrection tradition from the fabric of the Gospel history is followed by the disintegration of the entire historical sequence of the New Testament” (p. 14). We must quote Dr. Niebuhr directly once again: “No amount of patching with the concepts of hero and of immortality can make a unity of the history again, once the passion and death are surrendered through the dissolution of the Resurrection as the key to the meaning of the New Testament” (p. 16). Strange indeed are the turnings in modern theology as a Niebuhr of a new generation argues for the historicity of the Resurrection from Harvard Divinity School! It is evident that this great name in theological discussion is going to be with us for many years to come.

Last, but certainly not least, is the work by Edward J. Carnell, Christian Commitment (Macmillan), also in the area of apologetics. The viewpoint of this work is fresh and somewhat unique. Professor Carnell’s thesis is built around the fact of the inadequacy of rational and empirical methodology alone in the area of Christian epistemology. The methods of acquaintance and inference give us ontological truth and propositional truth, but not the whole truth. There is also needed what Dr. Carnell calls the third way of knowing, “moral self-acceptance,” which leads to the truth of personal rectitude. To know is to be morally responsible for knowing. “Moral facts are never rationally known until they are spiritually felt” (p. 7). He rightly points out that “Ultimate reality cannot be grasped unless rational knowledge is savored by spiritual conviction” (p. 13). “The content of the imperative essence cannot be apprehended until one is spiritually transformed by the sum of those duties which already hold him” (p. 22).

Dr. Carnell is not afraid to accept truth no matte: where he finds it. The insights of great thinkers are accepted even though they may not stand fully within the evangelical tradition. Hence, he is quite ready to recognize the contribution of such men as Kierkegaard, but he is also just as ready to point out their inadequacies. While Kierkegaard, “using the cold steel of relentless dialectic, chisels away the very foundation of formalistic ethics” (p. 74), at the same time his methodology fails because of his unwillingness to undergird his existentialism with proper and reasonable support based on the sufficiency of evidence (pp. 75–79).

By uniting the three ways of knowing, Professor Carnell has been of real service to the Christian Church. Without the third way there is a definite emptiness. “We certainly dare not treat God as an object; he cannot be regarded as the conclusion of a rational argument. God must be spiritually experienced; he must be encountered in the dynamic of fellowship” (p. 127). God does not speak to abstract, universal man in rationalistic propositions, for such a man does not exist. But God does encounter John, Mary—you and me—in existential experience—in the act of living itself.

Hence, Dr. Carnell can point out that logic has its definite limitations in the presentation of Christian truth. There is something in the Christian faith that transcends the propositional structure of Aristotelian logic and the scientific method. “Whenever a systematic theologian becomes too systematic, he ends up falsifying some aspect of revelation” (p. 285). Our author is saying that revelation cannot always be stated and conveyed in propositional form, for God meets man in the personal, revelatory experience—if we understand him rightly.

While 1957 probably was not the greatest year in the area of theological publishing, it certainly has been most interesting in its developments. We may well be on the threshold of a new era in theological discussion. There are changes of emphasis evident among thinkers of all theological perspectives. The old lines of demarcation seem to be more and more intermingled, if not quite tangled up. There are definite suggestions in the air of exciting developments in the years immediately ahead.

Warren C. Young is a Canadian by birth, and is author of A Christian Approach to Philosophy (1954). He is Professor of Christian Philosophy at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, and recently was elected President of Evangelical Theological Society. He holds the A.B. degree from Gordon College, the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees from Boston University.

A Review Article

Evangelism is confronting the Church with a renewed and stirring challenge. Both its nature and its methods of promotion are receiving increased attention. There is a deepening conviction that responsibility for evangelism is really the task of the Church rather than of itinerant and independent evangelists. There is present dissatisfaction over both content and methods. Some feel strongly that present-day evangelism presents a truncated Gospel that is unrelated to pressing social problems.

Indicative of the critical mood is a recent book by Charles B. Templeton, Evangelism for Tomorrow (Harper, 1957, $3.00). Its author has had wide experience in the field of evangelism and writes from firsthand experience.

Fosdick Versus Graham

Most evangelicals will be quite appalled by Dr. Templeton’s evaluation of the relative significance of Harry Emerson Fosdick and Billy Graham. He writes of Dr. Fosdick, “A strong case could be made for the assertion that the greatest evangelist of the past generation was Harry Emerson Fosdick.… There was an unmistakable evangelistic note at the heart of Fosdick’s sermons and real evangelistic passion. It may be that, though anything but typical of his predecessors, he will be seen to have been the outstanding evangelist of his day” (pp. 84–85). He “damns” Billy Graham with faint praise, adding that “Graham has a deficient understanding of the nature of sin, a strong tendency to present conversion as a transaction, a tendency to ally God with America in a common opposition to Communism, and a rather naive conviction that revival will resolve the world’s great issues. On the whole, his message typifies the strongly conservative, evangelical Protestant view, and though the majority of the clergy in the major denominations would not entirely concur with Graham’s theology or his methods, they are impressed with his earnestness and usually co-operate in his campaigns” (p. 87).

More appalling than this evaluation of Fosdick and Graham, however, is the insipid evangelism that Templeton presents as the “evangelism for tomorrow.” Templeton does not come to grips with the moral law, with sin, with guilt, with judgment. One must search diligently for even a hint of atonement. Yet he writes, “An adequate evangelism is impossible apart from an adequate theology” (p. 64). The discerning reader will detect here the book’s unwitting self-condemnation, inadequate is the descriptive adjective in evaluating the theology of Evangelism for Tomorrow. While the author does provide sharp, and sometimes justified, criticism of nineteenth-century evangelism and of formalism within the instituted church, no positive, constructive evangelism is advanced. One may find religious sentiments and pious utterances scattered here and there, but no vital message addressed to the needs of modern man.

The closest allusion which he makes to the Atonement comes under a concept of reconciliation. He writes, “What is Evangelism? Essentially, evangelism is ‘the proclamation of the evangel’—the bearing of a witness in any way and by any means to the good news that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself’ ” (p. 42). “The Church’s good news in the turmoil of time is Christ. At the heart of a world under judgment stands a cross. On that cross is to be seen the love of God in full and perfect expression.… This is the good news—that God has taken the initiative: that ‘God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (p. 126). The distressing factor about this presentation is that Templeton nowhere explains how Christ effects the reconciliation. What actually constitutes the “good news” is missing from the pages of his book. If an evangelist cannot explain to a troubled and convicted conscience how Christ has atoned for sin, he has no vital message.

The person of Christ receives emphasis, and rightly so. Templeton stresses the deity of Christ and maintains that the evangelism of tomorrow must be Christo-centric (pp. 122 f.). He writes, “Two thousand years ago the world turned a corner and came upon Jesus Christ. He is the message of the Church; not his teaching or his example alone, but he, himself” (p. 26). But how can one preach the person of Christ without giving Christ’s witness of himself or the witness of the apostles? Supposing that the world is confronted with the person of the God-man, would not the people say, “So what?” Why did God come to earth and assume human nature? What was the purpose of the Incarnation? Must not the evangelist firmly reply in the words of Christ that “the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28)? To preach the person of Christ indifferently to the Atonement is essentially wrong. Paul determined to proclaim not only the person of Jesus Christ, but him crucified. The absence of biblical definition of atonement vitiates the evangelism advocated by Templeton.

Scorns ‘Transaction’

We have already noted the criticism of Billy Graham for having “a deficient understanding of the nature of sin, a strong tendency to present conversion as a transaction” (p. 87). Graham, however, has sufficient understanding of the nature of sin to know that its evil affronts the holy God, needs the blood of Christ to remove its guilt, and supernatural power to eradicate its power. Templeton does not see, apparently, the heinousness of sin and its offensiveness to God. His quarrel about the concept of conversion as a transaction is not only with Graham but with Christ who said, “Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” and with Paul, who stated this proposition to the Philippian jailor, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” A transaction is an action involving two parties mutually affecting one another. God has promised salvation to those who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.

A greater service would have been rendered by Templeton had he pointed out the tendency of many evangelists to confuse conversion with regeneration. Often evangelists urge people to be born again as though that were within their power. As our Lord reveals in the third chapter of John’s Gospel, one is reborn from above through the power of the Holy Spirit. Through the operation of the Spirit the soul is resurrected from the dead and becomes a new creature. To urge people to resurrect themselves and become new creatures is like demanding the dead to become alive. Jesus gave life to Lazarus before he came forth from the tomb. Regeneration precedes conversion. Genuine repentance and a turning to Christ for salvation mark a true conversion. Conversion may be either a sharply marked moment in life, or a very gradual change.

Confused View Of Conversion

Templeton’s misunderstanding of the biblical conception of conversion is revealed in several statements. For instance, he confuses sanctification with conversion. He writes, “There is seldom any mention of corporate sins or any awareness of the individual’s involvement in the great social ills of our time. Consequently, the converts tend to be converted only in certain areas of their lives” (p. 119); “Every Christian has areas in his life in which he needs to be converted. One of the major weaknesses of the Church is that much of its membership is only half-converted.… The verdict sought through preaching is not necessarily a first decision. Christianity is not a matter of making a single ‘decision for Christ’; it is a whole life of decision” (p. 140). Actually there is no such thing as being half-converted or partially converted. The Bible speaks of temporary conversion but not of partial conversion. Conversion that is the fruit of regeneration causes a radical change of mind, will and desires. A new and holy principle of life enters into the soul. This does not mean that one becomes perfect in a moment, but it does mean the beginning of his struggle against sin. If the decision be genuine one does not call for its repetition.

The responsibility of causing the convert to become aware of social ills cannot be placed upon an evangelist whose assignment is to reach the unchurched and the unconverted within the churches. Because the churches have failed on such matters of racial discrimination, economic injustice and commercial exploitation is no reason for making the evangelist the scapegoat.

Misconception Of Task

Yet Templeton maintains that “The goal of evangelism is not to make converts; it is to produce mature Christians” (p. 45). But how can one bring an infant to maturity with several feedings? The Scriptures recognize the necessity of feeding the new convert with the milk of the Gospel. Paul wrote to the Corinthian converts, “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it” (1 Cor. 3:2). The Apostle Peter declared, “As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby” (1 Pet. 2:2). The growth and maturity of the convert is a continual responsibility of the Church and quite outside the specialized work and limited time of the evangelist. The task of the evangelist is to call for decision—to urge conversion. The task of the pastor is to nourish and strengthen new life. Of course, the minister should do both and call in the evangelist only for special concentrated effort.

Role Of The Church

That evangelism should be church-related is without question. In calling attention to this, Templeton describes the Church as “the redeeming fellowship.” He writes, “It is impossible to overemphasize the importance of the Church in evangelism. The Church is not only the fellowship of the redeemed, it is a redeeming fellowship. The Church is at one and the same time the saved and the saving society.… When the Church speaks with uncertainty or fails to be a redemptive force at the heart of a society there is an inevitable moral decline” (pp. 111–112).

In the biblical sense of the word, however, the Church does not redeem. Christ has paid the full price of redemption once and for all, and it is the Church’s business to witness to the fact of completed redemption, to point to the Redeemer himself. With Zacharias the Church rejoices, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people” (Luke 1:68). This is the heart of the Gospel. Evangelism that ignores this accomplished redemption is surely not biblical evangelism.

‘Paper Pope’ Doctrine?

Disturbing also in Evangelism For Tomorrow is the denial that Scripture is the infallible rule for faith and practice. The statement is made, “Papal infallibility finds its counterpart in a view of biblical inspiration implicitly denying the real presence of the living God at the heart of the Church and substituting, in Luther’s words, a ‘paper Pope.’ The Fundamentalist, like the Romanist, tends to become the patron of Deity and presumes to state under what circumstances God is bound to act” (p. 67). One must ask, does not the author see that the fundamentalist does not formulate the doctrine of the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, but reflects the teachings of Christ and the apostles? And does the author ignore the fact that high views of inspiration are found in almost all of the creeds of the historic denominations?

Templeton also speaks in this connection of the historical method of criticism which he claims provides a better understanding of the Bible and a faith more firmly rooted in history (p. 33). It might be asked again, of course, why then has biblical preaching disappeared to so great an extent from the modern pulpit? The contribution of many higher critics has been to leave the minister puzzled as to how much is left of the Bible to preach. No one can deny that all successful evangelists in the history of the Church have been those who believed in the infallibility of Scripture. This is not the doctrine of a “paper pope,” but the doctrine of a reliable revelation made by the loving God.

The resurgence of interest in evangelism nevertheless constitutes a hopeful sign in this generation. But if the evangelism of tomorrow is that advocated by Templeton, then it will sound forth as a truncated gospel, a bloodless atonement, an unfinished redemption and an unauthoritative message—all adding up to a warmed-over, bankrupt liberalism.

Far more than some realize, there is danger of making the Christian faith seem so complicated that it is not understood by laymen; or, it may be so attenuated as to become practically devoid of spiritual and practical content.

Many ministers, intrigued with the craftsmanship of preaching, unconsciously project their messages over the heads of their congregations. Others, particularly in their writing, keep the theologically elect in mind and write primarily to them. But when others, remembering the man in the street, express Christian truth in non-technical terms they are sometimes accused of an oversimplification of the Gospel.

It would prove a blessing to all concerned if it were recognized that the ordinary layman—the man in the office, in the shop, in the everyday pressures of work—needs a Christian faith which is vital but simple, concise but accurate, factual but practical.

One justified criticism of much of modern preaching is its failure to be specific. This can stem from taking too much for granted—assuming that those who listen are believers and instructed Christians. Again it can be a deliberate evasion of crucial theological truth. In either case it is the laymen who suffer, and through them the entire Church.

Unquestionably we who make up the congregations across the world need to know our duties as Christians, both as to personal living and corporate responsibilities. But it does little good to tell us what to do unless we have the power to carry out such responsibilities and that power is found in the living Christ. We need to know more about Him.

Christian ethics are desperately important, for only too often we belie our faith by the way we live and speak. But, it must never be forgotten that there can be no effective Christian ethic without the Christian dynamic and that is to be found in the Lord Jesus Christ and his indwelling Spirit.

It may sound trite but it is everlastingly true that the Christian faith centers in a person—Jesus Christ. But this statement is adequate only as we understand its implications. We need to know something about him, who he is and what he does for us. Christianity embraces certain facts without which Christianity is little more than an empty term. And it is just that to many people. We are instructed as to the fruits of Christianity without knowing the Root, the source of the fruit.

But Christianity does not end with accepting certain great and eternal truths. God forbid! The exercise of faith is the door through which we enter into a fellowship with Christ that should affect us every hour of the day and night. A simple faith should lead to a practical application of that faith.

The average layman faces innumerable temptations and problems each day and he painfully muddles along because Christ has never become a personal or practical reality. He is neither the object of our praise nor is he our daily companion. He is neither the source of guidance nor the arbiter of our ethics. But a simple faith will lead us to appropriate the help and the blessings open for and assured to those who accept and know him.

Decisions have to be made; frustrations or triumphs come; there may be unexpected sorrows, or joys, but because we lack this simple faith we miss so much. We walk in loneliness because we neither recognize nor turn to the One who is there unseen.

There is not a problem that cannot be taken to Christ. This may be in the seclusion of our room, or in the crowded ways of life. How often there are circumstances which demand immediate help, guidance, strength. A simple faith will reach out and lay hold on Christ and receive from him the help and wisdom needed at that particular moment.

Temptations? Yes! And the strength to overcome, or the spiritual insight to see the escape route he has provided.

Problems? Yes, and the wisdom to sense the solution which the Holy Spirit will give.

Sorrow? Yes, and the comfort and strength so needed and so precious at such times.

Success? Yes, and the ability to see our good fortune in its relationship to eternal values.

This is not an oversimplification of either the Christian faith or of its practical aspects. The Scriptures make it abundantly plain that the essentials of the Christian faith are so simple that a little child may grasp them and so profound that the most scholarly never exhaust their depths. It is also clear that Christianity is not to be excluded from the so-called trivialities of life, or from its complicated problems.

A simple faith will maintain a vital connection with Christ all the time and under all circumstances. And with it will come a peace and joy which our Lord so truly described as being beyond understanding. We also begin to see sin for the distressing thing that it is, while forgiveness and cleansing become precious realities.

This is an appeal for a return to simple preaching, to Christ-centered preaching, to the authoritative preaching which has its source in the Book rather than in books.

It is our conviction that such can be great preaching for its very simplicity demands a profundity of understanding and a clarity of expression that comes from much prayer and from a saturation with the holy Scriptures. In such preaching the opinions and writings of men decrease as the profound affirmations of divine revelation increase—and the effect of the message becomes more profound on those who hear it.

In no sense of the word is this a plea for a trite recitation of orthodox shibboleths or phrases. But it is a plea to preach the Christian faith in terms of such simplicity that it becomes relevant for everyday and vitally connected with the living Christ.

For some this could require considerable adjustment, for it is an humbling experience to return to the ABC’s of Christian truth when one has long since passed on to its more complex depths.

For others it could require a complete re-examination of the essential factors of Christianity itself. Such examination could prove most rewarding.

From the standpoint of the layman, nothing could prove a greater blessing than to learn that Christ is a living reality, and that a simple faith in him has its issue in a daily fellowship which permeates every phase of life.

It is the lack of this simple faith that is keeping men outside the Kingdom of God. It is a failure to grasp the implications of this faith that keeps so many Christians from living their faith before the world.

And it is a lack of this simple faith that lessens the influence of the Church and causes many to turn from her unsatisfied.

L. NELSON BELL