ALL OUT FOR EASTER

Pastor Peterson’s Christmas peeve has carried over to Easter. He predicts that the Easter Bunny will soon be riding in Santa’s sleigh. There is scarcely time now for the clearance sales in between. The pastor is depressed by Easter fashions in pew and pulpit—the liberal spending of the first and the liberal theology of the second. We are indebted to him for the following selections from his forthcoming anthology All Out for Easter.

Flowers in the Pulpit

The eloquent Doctor,

To the pulpit born,

Wanders in the garden

On Easter morn

And, wreathing the garlands,

With poetic powers

He distils sweet odors

Of verbal flowers:

“Perfume everlasting

Wafts from springtime bloom …”

Preaching in the garden

He missed the tomb!

Absorbed in the glory

Lilies may afford,

He beheld no angels

Or living Lord!

Easter Observance

To observe Easter season

Will cost her much—

For that mad little hat as

A lighter touch,

For the strange new dress which, as

Fashion decrees,

Must be quite free of shape, like

A French chemise.

Yet she bears like a saint the

Financial strain;

She’ll adorn Easter’s pew if

It doesn’t rain!

These poems have been edited slightly. The first originally included the words, “… lost in the flowers he mythed the angels.” I am glad to say Peterson himself was dubious about the pun.

SAVING THE REPUBLIC

Your editorial, “Can We Salvage the Republic?” (Mar. 3 issue) … is eloquent, prophetic in the best tradition, and makes a number of points which are desperately in need of the kind of statement you have given them.

The Foundation for Economic

Education, Inc.

Irvington-On-Hudson, N. Y.

Is such a decline honestly such a terrible thing? Can I not have enough faith that God will lead the world finally to freedom without America being the power nation in the world? Perhaps there is a leading role for rich Africa to play in world affairs. Maybe the Middle East which once cradled civilization will again lead to world power. Perhaps even the people of Russia who know firsthand the tyranny of oppression and hate can and will one day break those bonds and show us all how precious is the sweet taste of freedom and lead the world.

Chesterfield, Ind.

Your blind criticism of the National Council is out of place in these perilous times when Christians must join forces to fight the common enemy.…

Franklin, Ind.

I am far from being in agreement with all the actions or pronouncements of the National Council; nevertheless I am convinced that the repetition of the unfounded and discredited charges of collectivism and socialism against the National Council, can only proceed from attitudes which are either bigoted or misinformed.

St. Luke’s Lutheran Church

Huntington Park, Calif.

• Perhaps an analytic survey of policy statements on social action by NCC (and its predecessor the Federal Council of Churches) is in order. CHRISTIANITY TODAY made no blanket “charges of collectivism and socialism against the National Council.” But it does not concede that those who have found leftist tendencies in some of its pronouncements have acted merely from bigotry or ignorance.—ED.

Congratulations on your editorial “Can We Salvage the Republic.” Excellent.… And, for the record I wish to call your attention to an error in fact. Frank Chodorov never was a socialist, on the soapbox or off. He was a soapboxer, but the torch he carried was the single tax, or rather the philosophy of Henry George, which is quite a different thing.

Berkeley Heights, N. J.

Undoubtedly, you have brought fire down on your head from the ramparts of the National Council of Churches, Rome, Labor and Government. But you do not stand alone in your convictions and analysis.

North Oxford Baptist Church

Oxford, Miss.

Your analysis of the situation America finds herself in today indicates an understanding that I wish more of our people possessed. I share your apprehension as to the future of America, unless present trends can be reversed.… It is refreshing to know we have a religious magazine that dares to sound a warning, even though it may fall on an unresponsive people as did that of prophetic voices of past generations.

Ozark, Ark.

It is the truest and clearest survey of the present situation and its cause I have ever read. As a Christian duty and American responsibility, it must be reprinted in tract form, so that it may be distributed by the thousands throughout our tortured and confused country.

Central Baptist Church

Dayton, O.

I can see in my mind’s eye the swing of the pendulum all across the broad area of religious thinking in America. And to be able to see in print an article such as this is gratifying.

Bethel Baptist Church

Olanta, S. C.

The statement about the government assuming many of the former functions of the Church … aroused my attention. The Church has been especially negligent in the field of charity. She freely accepts the gifts of her members but will do little in time of trouble even for her own. This is her greatest shame!

Churches could at least give an annuity based on a family’s previous contributions. Many would never ask for it; yet the troubled would take it because it would not be charity but a rightful return on their investment.

Cincinnati, O.

Your very splendid and to the point editorial … turned me very definitely as to sending in my subscription.… I have thought along that line many times, and still have a grave doubt in my mind that this nation can ever repent and return to the sound ideas of the founding fathers.

Paso Robles, Calif.

I believe that we cannot salvage the Republic because we are already too far gone. The Reformation doctrine of liberty of all of life under God, never took deep root in the new world.… Neutrality is one of Satan’s greatest inventions. Not Christianity but rather atheism predominates in the schools. In politics, no room for the God of the Bible. Unless we get together in earnest prayer and repent, we are doomed as a Republic.

Highland, Ind.

TOMORROW’S EVANGELISM

In J. Marcellus Kik’s outburst against Charles Templeton’s Evangelism for Tomorrow (Feb. 17 issue), one detects a vigorous attempt to defend the traditional evangelism of our day.…

But it would seem that Templeton has rightly revolted against our “one-shot” brand of evangelism which moves heaven and earth to evoke a “decision” and pats itself on the back for a job well done.

Even allowing for the book’s faults, I consider Kik’s article a bit too severe.

Bethany Baptist Church

Philadelphia, Pa.

Your … review … is indeed timely. As one who recalls affectionately Dr. Templeton’s early days in the evangelistic field, it hurts me to confess after two readings that (this) is one of the saddest books I have ever read.…

Dr. Templeton has succeeded in unfolding the danger of the pulpit in these crisis days, the weakening danger of skillful preaching that falls short of redemptive revelation.

Evangelist

Presbyterian Church U.S.A.

Geneva, Ill.

PRESIDENT OF THE WORLD

Let me throw a swift salute … for the grand good sense in the piece on World Government and Christianity (Feb. 3 issue). A world government—in spite of the great Einstein’s demand for it, to escape the perils of nationalism-gone-militarist with his baby atom-bombs—is suicide of the prophetic voice of the rare far-seer. I ask myself, when a ‘democratic’ world government is outlined (as by a U. of Chicago commission) whom would I vote for, for world-president? Exactly nobody.

Madison, N. H.

AROUSING PREACHERS

The article by Cannon and Everett (Feb. 17 issue) … interests me very much. Certainly there is deep need for an aroused public opinion on the subject. It seems to me that preachers need arousing more than anyone else. It is extremely doubtful that the vast majority of the brethren are acquainted with the type and volume of obscenity that has been flooding the country for a long time.

Monte Vista, Colo.

Pious churchmen may deplore trashy magazines, but how many churches, much less pastors, are … conducting detailed and realistic classes or programs on what … the … Biblical ideal of family is.…

Bellerose, N. Y.

Thanks for your significant Christian literature issue. The many excellent articles and the editorial, “Upturn in Evangelical Publishing,” have a combined effect of powerfully helping readers realize the importance of the written word of God. And the article, “Sex and Smut on the Newsstands,” is valuable for showing the tragic results that occur when writers do not stand under the prophetic judgement of God and are not guided by Christ.

Religious News Editor

The Nashville Tennessean

Nashville, Tenn.

Sincere appreciation for the two fine and enlightening articles titled “Why our Preaching Fails” and “Sex and Smut on the Newsstands”.…

These were among the best ever appearing in the pages of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

First Church of God

Princeton, West Virginia

We … thank you for printing it and thank the men engaged in this repulsive task, which is so necessary for the welfare of our young people and our country.

Dayton, O.

A world of praise should be given to Ralph A. Cannon and Glenn D. Everett for their two-year study of vile literature on our newsstands.

Baltimore, Md.

(The) article … inspired me to attempt to launch a one-woman campaign here against these magazines.

… Encouraging is the fact that simultaneously with my interest, there seems to be a general awakening here to this evil.…

If there was ever a problem crying for action by ministers and church people, this is it.

Louisville, Ky.

I couldn’t help but think that were there more genuine preaching of the evangelistic type and less of the philosophy of men, a great deal of this stuff would not have the appeal to people in general as it does now.

Missouri Conference of Seventh-day

Adventists, Kansas City, Mo.

MANY-SIDED TRUTH

In … “Why Our Preaching Fails” by F. R. Webber (Feb. 17 issue), his … statement that all preaching should be “Christ-centered” is beyond dispute. But he makes the mistake so frequently repeated by extreme conservatives, in falsely charging that Christ-centered preaching is vanishing.…

… Christ-centered preaching … is preaching not only a theology about Christ and salvation; it is a presentation from the Scriptures of Christ’s full message, exemplified, to be sure, in a plan of salvation, but also by his life, teachings and personality, with direct application to modern problems of life.…

I have visited more than a thousand churches, speaking, counselling.… In nearly all of them—conservative, moderate and those sometimes referred to as liberal—I find, with varying success, a Christ-centered program, more effective in my opinion than a one-sided program of evangelism in the narrow sense. Truth is many-sided.

Lincoln, Neb.

It is interesting that Webber spends one full third of a column quoting a man who 70 years ago was saying what he is saying is true today.…

Fourth Avenue Christian Church

Columbus, Ohio

Would God that every seminary student and any other erstwhile preacher would take its message to heart.

First English Lutheran Church

Missoula, Montana

PLEA FOR SIMPLICITY

L. Nelson Bell’s … “Simplicity in Preaching—a Plea” (Feb. 17 issue) emphasizes a need which I have longed to express, and it does it far better than I probably could.…

There was a time when I preached that I searched for ideas and then tried to find Scripture to bolster up those ideas; now I go to the Word itself and simply invite my people to see what God has to say.…

Mexico Baptist Church

Mexico, Me.

PRESERVING THE DOLLAR

Thanks for your excellent editorial on inflation (Jan. 6 issue). It should do much to make clear that inflation is an increase in the supply of money and credit, and that government is directly responsible for it. Unwise action by both capital and labor certainly develops inflationary pressures. But unless government responded by increasing the supply of money those who seek wages or prices higher than the market will support, would soon bring unemployment and loss of sales upon themselves. That would quickly put an end to the spiral. Unfortunately, government responds to the pressure by increasing the supply of money and credit, as the purchasing power of the dollar falls lower and lower.

Unless our government changes its course, the dollar will eventually be destroyed as have most of the other fiscal units of the world.

Marble Collegiate Church

New York, N. Y.

I wish to congratulate you.… It is a clear presentation of one of the great dangers confronting our nation. So long as we have a currency whose value is subject to the whims of a handful of people who may be motivated at times by political expediency, the economic foundations of our nation are in constant peril.

The National Education Program

Searcy, Ark.

“MATERIALISTIC TRUTH”

Mr. Shen, in his comments on the Rev. Mr. Hebert’s book (Mar. 3 issue) … upbraids your reviewer … for “dodging the main issue,” … “Does the doctrine of verbal inspiration … not involve a ‘materialistic’ view of truth, or an intellectualistic conception of revelation? Can either of them be justified on biblical grounds?”

At least Mr. Shen has not subjected us to the entire gamut of cliches on this point, a good summary of which must include at least “Aristotelianism,” “Greek (vs. Hebrew) view,” “scholasticism,” and “rationalism” in addition to “intellectualism,” “materialistic view” and “Fundamentalism.”

Ever since Brunner and others have popularized the “Truth as Encounter” view, it has been the fashion to assert that truth is not factual correctness (the quality of statements of being in accord with reality), but rather some indefinable ectoplasmic “something,” which is now God himself, now Christ, now some relation between God and man, but never anything as definite as Scripture or doctrinal statements. Moreover these claims are habitually advanced in tones implying that they are so obviously self-evident as to be beyond question or necessity of proof. (Cf. the dutiful approval and unoriginal rehearsal of the neo-modernistic cliches in the Christian Century’s Nov. 27 review, by Dr. Marty, of Hebert’s book.) In fact, such proof is rarely even attempted. To question this modern dogma is to blaspheme the very mother of all of neo-modernism’s … sacred cows.…

These claims about truth have so permeated the theological atmosphere, that even many a conservative is embarrassed by the term “propositional truth” … and when the arrogant, proofless cliches begin to fly, these poor conservatives run in dismay.…

For which position is the stigma of “intellectualism” intended? Obviously for the traditional doctrine of the Church that Scripture does not merely contain, but by virtue of divine inspiration, itself is the infallible Word of God.… It follows since Scripture consists of words and propositions, that there is such a thing as propositional truth and revelation in theology.… The denial of “propositional truth” is a convenient device by which the whole obligation to be orthodox is with one stroke eliminated, and everyone is left free to “witness to” his own “encounters” as he sees fit. This is nihilism.…

Is the traditional doctrine “unbiblical?” Nonsense. Our Blessed Lord Himself asserts: “Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). Note that (1) the reference is to a specific proposition, even one of relatively minor importance; (2) this proposition “cannot be broken” because it belongs to a specific series of propositions, explicitly recognized as “written,” and collectively known as “Scripture.” Or take the refutation of the Sadducees (Mt. 22:23ff.). Here our Lord (1) identifies error with definite propositions, not encounters, (2) opposes to these other propositions, and (3) establishes the truth in the matter not even with a direct proposition from Scripture, but with a mere, and shockingly Aristotelian, deduction from Scriptural propositions. St. Paul also identifies authoritative revelation with a collection of propositions, (2 Tim. 3:15 ff.)

Shocking! Christ and his holy Apostles represent the materialistic concept of truth! The fact of the matter, of course, is that this “concept” is not particularly or peculiarly materialistic, but is simply the common meaning of the term, as also Webster testifies. We can congratulate the atheistic materialists of our day at least upon a laudable amount of clear thinking, candid definition, and logical rigor, virtues which modern theologians should be advised to emulate.…

Redeemer Lutheran Church

North Tonawanda, N. Y.

NATURALISTIC ARROGANCE

The account of the recent meeting organized by the faculty of Chicago University School of Theology surprised me. The demand for a naturalistic Christianity seems to me not only intellectually arrogant, but also shockingly absurb.

Science has not, and never can exclude the supernatural.…

The natural sciences are indeed a great and important discipline of truth. If, however, their uniformed prejudice against the supernatural should succeed in discrediting a transcendent faith, their unfounding of freedom, and so of morality, may result in the violent end of modern civilization. I do not believe this will happen; but neither do I believe that men whose minds have been shut up to one discipline of truth are going to command the thinking of the second half of the 20th century. The risen Christ is the Lord of history, and He will find a way to undergird the Gospel which He instituted at such infinite cost.…

Brown Mills, N. J.

IN RE JONATHAN EDWARDS

Not long ago we visited with a Seminary classmate who has served for about two decades as Professor of Systematic Theology in one of the leading seminaries of our country, is the author of several widely read books on theology and is recognized as one of the most able theologians of our country and time. We spoke to him concerning the disproportionate emphasis being placed upon the mercy and love of God so prevalent today in pulpit and religious press, expressing the opinion that this is a chief explanation of the tragic let-down in morals marking our time, lawlessness and fact that there are comparatively few people now who fear God. The Professor replied that he shared my opinion and if time permitted he had it in his mind to write a volume on this subject.

Those who take a different view will be surprised if they will consult their concordance to see how many times the Scriptures mention the justice and wrath of God and enjoin the fear of God.…

It is a tremendous responsibility any teacher or minister takes who misrepresents the true character of God—perhaps sometimes through quest for popularity! Surely he would not fail to warn his friends of an approaching train or storm. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend.”

Erie Conference, Methodist Church

Townville, Pa.

THE TURNING POINT

I was particularly pleased with the Dec. 9 issue, containing Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ Christmas sermon and Earl L. Douglass’ … “Our Lord’s Virgin Birth.” I was Moderator of Philadelphia North Presbytery when Earl Douglass asked to be received by letter from a New York State Presbytery and become Pastor of Summit Church. At once there was a protest, and I urged Presbytery not to act hastily; and after he read a statement of his Christian faith, he was received and the call approved and placed in his hand. That, I take it, was the turning point in his ministry, and he and Mrs. Douglass became big factors in the Presbytery, and later on he took over Wm. T. Ellis Sunday School lesson job, etc.

Gettysburg, Pa.

LATE LAUNCHING

To me CHRISTIANITY TODAY is must reading. It is extremely stimulating, very evangelical, evangelistic—and just what I want, and need. It should have been launched years ago—many of them—when I was much younger—with more years ahead to use and profit by it.

Elmora Presbyterian Church

Elizabeth, N. J.

NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

Three out of every four Protestant ministers classify themselves as “conservative” or “fundamentalist,” while the fourth says he is “liberal” or “neo-orthodox.”

So indicates a representative nation-wide survey of American ministers. The poll was conducted for CHRISTIANITY TODAY by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, using scientific random-sampling methods last October and November.

This question highlighted each survey interview:

Just how would you generally classify your theological position—fundamentalist, conservative, neo-orthodox, liberal, or some other category?

This is a breakdown of replies:

The classifications of theological position were left to the clergymen to define for themselves in their own understanding of the terms.

All were asked whether they felt it was essential to preach and teach the doctrines of: (1) God as creator of man, (2) the literal resurrection of Christ, (3) Christ as Saviour and Lord, (4) One sovereign God, (5) the Bible as the authoritative rule, (6) Christ as the Son of God, (7) the Bible as having been verbally inspired by God in original writings, (8) the virgin birth of Christ, (9) the vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ, (10) the literal return or “second coming” of Christ, (11) the unity of all believers in Christ.

Virtually every minister said it is essential to preach and teach that God is creator of man, and that Christ is Saviour and Lord. An overwhelming majority said it is essential to preach and teach the Bible as the authoritative rule of life and death, the unique deity of Christ as the Son of God, and the unity of all believers in Christ.

However, 33 per cent said it is not essential to preach and teach that the Bible is verbally inspired by God in original writings. Other “is not essential” percentages included the literal return or “second coming” of Christ, 26 per cent; virgin birth of Christ, 18 per cent; vicarious substitutionary atonement of Christ, 17 per cent; historical, literal resurrection of Christ, 11 per cent.

Some 27 per cent feel that working for organic church unity is a “very important” task of the Church. Only 18 per cent of the ministers believe in church union through organic mergers. About 48 per cent believe in church unity only through doctrinal beliefs, while 24 per cent are against any form of merger.

The interviews indicated that most conservative ministers tend toward desire for church mergers on the basis of doctrinal beliefs only, while the liberal and neo-orthodox want mergers based on organic union.

In interpreting the survey, it should be noted that, generally speaking, theological liberalism exaggerates the immanence of God while virtually denying his transcendence. Hence, the doctrine of God’s wrath, man’s fall, miraculous revelation and redemption, a unique divine incarnation in Christ—all these are denied. The Bible is dismissed as nothing more than a record of “the highest religious and moral insights.”

Neo-orthodoxy reacts against liberalism in exaggerating God’s transcendence and emphasizing God’s judgment, man’s sin and Christ as Lord and divine Saviour. But it carries forward the liberal rejection of revealed doctrines and precepts and asserts special divine revelation, formulating it as suprarational, nonintellectualistic confrontation of each individual as against a once-for-all revelation in Christ and the Bible.

Fundamentalism is at the extreme right of the theological scale. Conservative religious beliefs fall in between fundamentalism and neo-orthodoxy.

Of the ministers in the survey who call themselves “conservative,” only 59 per cent said it is essential to preach and teach that the Bible was verbally inspired by God in original writings. Twenty-five per cent in the neo-orthodoxy category and 23 per cent in the liberal classification felt the same way.

The survey indicated that CHRISTIANITY TODAY has the highest paid subscription rate and the most extensive readership of any religious magazine read by American Protestant ministers. According to the poll, more ministers read CHRISTIANITY TODAY regularly than the next two most-widely read religious magazines combined. Of the ministers interviewed, 46 per cent said they read CHRISTIANITY TODAY regularly, another 35 per cent said they read it occasionally, a total of 81 per cent. Some 61 per cent of the ministers interviewed said they agreed with CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S point of view.

“As the ministers discussed the church unity issue,” the official report of the survey said, “they expressed a range of differing viewpoints. There is general agreement on the need to accept Jesus Christ and his teachings as revealed in the Bible, but frequent disagreement on the importance of rituals, as illustrated in the following comment from a Methodist minister on the question, ‘What are the most essential doctrinal beliefs necessary for church unity, as you see it?’ ”

“ ‘I think the first basic thing would be the belief in Jesus Christ; that is, at face value because there are many different theories concerning him. To me, this would be the basic. Other things could come out, such as the method of baptism, communion, and whether we have seven sacraments or two. The Methodist Church does allow more liberal thinking than some.’ ”

The survey interviews were held in the offices and homes of the clergymen.

The Tables Turned

A bank of Easter flowers flanks the flag with the six-pointed Star of David in the little church at 3859 West Lawrence Avenue. The sign says “Our Messiah Is Risen.” A group of young people are rehearsing their parts for a dramatization this Sunday of Christ’s resurrection. The minister’s announced topic for his Easter morning sermon: “His Resurrection Is Best Proven by Our Resurrection to a New Life.”

This is Chicago’s First Hebrew Christian Church, a 110-member congregation pastored by the Rev. David Bronstein and his brother-in-law associate, the Rev. Morris Kaminsky.

The Rev. Mr. Bronstein thinks it ironic that the Chicago Sun-Times should refer to his church as an “ecclesiastical oddity.” It is considered unusual for Hebrews to be Christian now. Two thousand years ago it was considered unusual for Gentiles to be Christian. Acts 15 records a squabble over the admission of Gentiles into the early church.

The First Hebrew Christian Church of Chicago is Presbyterian. It is similar to a number of missions and chapels scattered throughout the country, mostly in larger cities. Many of these Hebrew Christian groups are not affiliated with any church; a number are connected with Jewish evangelistic organizations such as the American Association for Jewish Evangelism, the American Board of Missions to the Jews, the Christian Approach to Missions, the Cleveland Hebrew Mission, the Hebrew Christian Alliance, the Hebrew Christian Fellowship and the International Hebrew Christian Alliance. A key Canadian effort is Scott Mission in Toronto.

Bronstein, 71 and a graduate of McCormick Theological Seminary, preaches the credo that Christianity is the spiritual and historical fulfillment of Judaism. Born in Bessarabia and raised an Orthodox Jew, he was converted to Christianity after coming to the United States at 22. Free English lessons at a Baptist church in Baltimore introduced him to the fact that the Messiah had come.

Bronstein’s pattern of church services is patterned after that of a typically Protestant congregation. Attendance in Sunday school classes and at Wednesday evening prayer meetings is growing. In Bible instruction, there is emphasis on connections between the Old Testament and the New.

The pastor gets much of his message across through individual, personal contacts. Here he describes a conversion:

“Mr. X was brought up in an Orthodox Jewish home in Chicago. Eight years ago he met a non-Jewish girl, fell in love and married her. As is often the case in such mixed marriages, they agreed that neither of them would bother with religion.

“As Mr. X tells us now, his wife was restless and discontent. He gave her everything she asked for, but still she was dissatisfied. She learned about the Hebrew Christian Church and began attending the services. Last October she persuaded her husband to attend a special Yom Kippur. After that, both began coming to church regularly, along with their three children.

“A short time after Mr. X began coming to the church services, we invited him and his wife to our home for dinner. After dinner we brought the Bible to the table. We began a series of six Bible studies. On the last evening I suggested that he come by himself for a final lesson. He came. We reviewed briefly the last three messages, pointing out how these lessons apply to him personally. We showed him how he could have an acquaintance with God if he opened his mouth and asked God to forgive his sins and put a new heart and new spirit into him (See Ezek. 36:24–27). This prayer has to be prayed in the name of Christ, who by his death has made it possible for God to forgive and forget our sins (Jer. 31:34). He prayed thus, and immediately something took place in his heart.

“Last Christmas the wife wrote on a Christmas card: ‘Dear Mr. and Mrs. B. Thank you for leading my husband to Christ. This is the first happy Christmas we have had together since we were married.’ ”

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. Robert H. Pfeiffer, 66, Harvard archaeologist and Old Testament higher critic, in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Dr. Hermann Ullmann, 71, Lutheran journalist, while visiting in Sweden.

Seminary: To be established by Conservative Baptists of the San Francisco Bay area. Classes expected to open in the fall.

Election: As treasurer of American Bible Society, Charles W. Baas; as president of Moody Bible Institute Alumni Association, Dr. Robert A. Cook.

Dedication: A new $2,500,000 United Lutheran Church headquarters in Philadelphia, by Dr. F. Eppling Reinartz, denomination secretary.

Appointment: Dr. Clyde S. Kilby, Wheaton College professor, as executive secretary of Lambda Iota Tau, national collegiate honorary society for students of literature.

The Bible And Defense

The Bible is the spiritual mainstay of the defense of America, says Secretary of the Army Wilber M. Brucker.

The cabinet member states that he is confident that a nation which “practices the principles encompassed in the Bible” will survive, but that a nation which spurns them “will not long endure.”

“The Bible points the way to a genuine brotherhood of man … as well as the only way to lasting peace.”

Secretary Brucker, a Presbyterian, gave his views as to the “tremendous role” the Bible has played in the life of America in a Lenten meditation written for a Washington newspaper.

Evangelism For Hawaii

Hawaii’s Southern Baptist churches will sponsor a two-week evangelistic crusade next month.

Nine visiting ministers will speak.

Southern Baptist missionaries first started work in Hawaii in 1940. A local convention was organized in 1943 and now includes 18 churches representing all major islands of the Hawaiian chain.

The April evangelistic effort will be led by E. V. Appling, Haynesville, Louisiana; Dr. Earl B. Edington, St. Petersburg, Florida; Earl Stallings, Ocala, Florida; L. T. Daniel, Dallas, Texas; Gerald Walker, Pensacola, Florida; Wayne Dehony, Jackson, Tennessee; Charles Bowles, Birmingham, Alabama; Ramsey Pollard, Knoxville, Tennessee; and Ed Boles, Floy Dada, Texas.

P. T.

Rocket Addendum

A St. Christopher medal was attached to the second stage of the Vanguard rocket which successfully launched the Navy’s first satellite. Strangely enough the request to wire the medal to the base of a gyroscope package was made on the same form required for any change in the Vanguard’s design. The request was signed by F. Paul Lipinski of the Martin Company, Catholic engineer who suggested the medal, and by 11 others, among whom were Catholics, Protestants and Jews.

Under the form’s heading “Description of change required,” a St. Christopher medal was drawn. Underneath was a sketch of the gyroscope package with the medal installed.

The “Reason for change” was given as “addition of Divine guidance.”

Four-Month Crusade

Evangelist Hyman J. Appelman opened a four-month tour of New England by proposing a “divine conference” in an address before the twenty-ninth annual meeting of the New England Fellowship of Evangelicals in Boston.

Said Appelman: “Russian Communist leaders are proposing a top level conference. What America needs most is a conference with the Top of the top, with God, in Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit.” Born in Russia, Appelman recently returned from a tour of his native land during which he conducted services in Moscow, Leningrad, Kiev and Kharkov.

Canada

A Third Career

What would prompt a Princeton Theological Seminary graduate who once drew crowds of 40,000 as an evangelist to wash his hands of the Christian ministry?

Toronto-born Dr. Charles Templeton was so busy criss-crossing ocean and continent in his new capacity as television producer that he hardly could find time to explain.

“If you’re going to preach effectively,” said the 42-year-old Templeton as he left for Rome and Cairo to secure personality interviews for TV, “you have to have conviction. My convictions as to some aspects of Christian doctrine became diluted with doubt. I don’t say I’m right and all others are wrong. But feeling as I do, I could not go on in the ministry. So I left.”

Templeton’s new vocation is his third. At 17 he joined the Toronto Globe as a cartoonist, but within five years he was active as an evangelist. He won respect as a minister by building Toronto’s Avenue Road Church from virtual nothingness into one of the largest congregations in the city. He became swamped with invitations to address church services and evangelistic rallies across America and Canada. He was one of the first executives of the Youth for Christ movement.

When Templeton went to Princeton Seminary, his convictions veered to neo-orthodoxy. Now he views his pre-Princeton formal theological training as “superficial.”

Ordained a Presbyterian minister in 1951, Templeton became the first fulltime evangelist for the National Council of Churches. Three years later he resigned to become secretary of the evangelism division of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. He resigned that post in 1956.

Since last June, Templeton has been writing plays for a Canadian television network. His “Love Is a Punch on the Jaw” is the story of a pacifist minister who finds himself in a position where violence is inescapable. Another of Templeton’s plays is titled “Absentee Murderer.” He is also a performer on CBC-TV’s “Close-Up.”

Last year, Templeton and his wife parted via an amicable, uncontested divorce issued in Juarez, Mexico. The former Mrs. Templeton, who once sang at her husband’s meetings, has since remarried.

Templeton’s marital problems were reported to have played no part in his decision to leave the church. But he has been quoted as saying that had he continued in the ministry, there would have been no divorce.

“The decision to change my vocation was a slow and painful one,” said Templeton. “I could continue to preach, with mental reservations, or accept the alternative and leave the ministry. It became clear to me that I had no other choice.”

The National Council of United Presbyterian Men was cautioned against the perils of ecclesiastical meddling in political and economic affairs, in which church leaders are fallible, to the neglect of inspired precepts and principles, by J. Howard Pew, president of The Foundation of the Presbyterian Church in U.S.A.

The session in Chicago’s Palmer House marked the first united meeting in a century of laymen of the Presbyterian and United Presbyterian Churches, scheduled to merge in May.

Mr. Pew declared that the Foundation, already gifted with more than $700,000, is concerned not only with acquisition and custody of funds, but with “the preservation of a spiritual heritage of precept and principle” embodied in the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Mr. Pew stressed the basic Presbyterian tenets of individual freedom to exercise private judgment in matters of conscience, and the corporate church’s restriction from involvement in matters that are properly the concern of the state.

The founders of Presbyterianism, he granted, “fully believed that the teachings of Christ should be extended to every aspect of human affairs,” and it is “the very essence of Presbyterianism that churchmen shall apply the principles of their religion to every problem that confronts them.” But he emphasized the right of individual determination in public affairs and clerical fallibility in political and economic matters: “If we subject ourselves to the advice or opinions of a governing group in a matter which each of us ought to decide for himself, we are simply ascribing to it an infallibility which, in fact, it does not possess.” The Westminster Divines, he noted, incorporated into the Confession of Faith a statement on the possibility of error in such pronouncements: “All synods and councils since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err, and many have erred; therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith or practice.…” He considered “it is likely that our church fathers had in mind the impossibility of finding any individual or groups of individuals possessing a sufficient store of knowledge to justify them in passing judgment on every conceivable subject.”

“Our forebears learned from experience,” Mr. Pew remarked, “that when the church assumed the right to sit in judgment on secular affairs, it became involved in all kinds of economic, social and political controversies, and it largely-destroyed its power for good.… They knew that the welfare of our corporate church would best be served by restricting it to those activities which deal with the attributes of Christianity as defined in the Holy Bible.”

Noting that most church controversies have grown “out of the issue of freedom,” Mr. Pew posed a series of pointed questions to his lay audience:

“Are we now to regard our church Constitution as a scrap of paper?

“Are we to plunge our church into issues of international trade and all other international relationships?

“Is our church to dictate to government its policies on agriculture, natural resources, and all other relationships between government and people?

“Is our church competent to determine all relationships in social and economic life?

“Should our church set itself up as an authority on public education?

“Should it become involved in all other secular areas of our common life?

“And, are we to repudiate one of the basic tenets of Protestantism by having our church exercise control over the thinking of its members?

“Does our church have a mandate from its members to do these things?

“In fact, should our church have a Division of Social Education and Action?”

Upon the “wise determination” of these “grave issues,” he added, “depends the future of this magnificent Presbyterian institution.”

“Changing human hearts is a slower process,” he said, “but it is far more certain to accomplish the desired results. Let the church not appeal from God to Caesar, but let it devote its energy to that of promoting Christian grace—honesty, truth, fairness, generosity, justice and charity—in the hearts of men.”

Mr. Pew noted the layman’s crucial role in extending Christian influences to the social realm. He spoke of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as “universal, all-embracing, and sufficient to meet the needs of mankind.” But in contrast with ecclesiastical coercion, he commented that “the determination of right and wrong is solely a matter for the individual, subject only to the divine authority which speaks to him through his conscience. Free Christian men will apply the Gospel to all areas of life, to all human activities, to the individual in his life and work, and to society in all of its relationships.”

Dominion Notes

Figures released by the United Church of Canada show more than $5,750,000 given to its Missionary and Maintenance Fund in the past fiscal year, largest amount in history and a 10 per cent increase over the previous year.… The “sector plan” for boosting church budgets was credited for a 33 per cent increase in receipts among 58 congregations of metropolitan Toronto.… A $1,000,000 building under construction in Toronto to house United Church headquarters will be named “The United Church House”.… Dr. Lewi Petrus of Stockholm will speak at the Fifth World Conference of Pentecostal Church in Toronto next September.… Canadian Lutheran World Relief obtained 2,000,000 pounds of dry milk from the government for distribution in East Germany.

After 50 Years

Some 1,000 “Sons of Freedom,” an extremist group of the communal Doukhobor sect, voted at a meeting in Vancouver to move to Russia if British Columbia will provide necessary funds.

A four-man delegation recently returned from Russia reported to the assembly on the possibility of settling in southwestern Siberia.

The 2,500 “Sons” in Canada have been causing trouble for nearly 50 years. They have been repudiated by the 12,000 orthodox Doukhobors because of nude parades and acts of violence.

The Doukhobors came to Canada from Russia at the beginning of the century under an agreement that they would not be required to bear arms for their adopted country. Most of the Doukhobors have observed the laws and cooperated with authorities.

The “Sons,” however, have stirred up agitation time after time in protest of governmental rule. Their acts of violence have involved the burning of schools and community buildings.

South America

Literary Moves

A Christian literature workshop prompted creation of a school of Christian journalism at Cordoba, Argentina.

Alec Clifford and Paul Sheetz, both of Verbo magazine, will direct the new school. Most of the new enrollees are students at the University of Cordoba, for 300 years an active center of Roman Catholicism in South America.

The workshop, held earlier this month, was under the auspices of LEAL (Literature Evangelica para America Latina) and featured classes in writing, advertising, libraries, and salesmanship.

In Rio de Janeiro 66 representatives of several major denominations met last month to form a Portuguese counterpart of the Spanish LEAL.

Plans were drawn up for training courses in journalism for Brazilian evangelicals.

A popular magazine is to be published also.

A. C

Worth Quoting

“No federal scholarships, thank you.”—Dr. V. Raymond Edman, head of Wheaton College, in a letter to President Eisenhower.

“Nowhere is corruption in government more apparent than in what we call ‘foreign aid.’ … This Mutual Security Program strikes at, and if continued much longer, may destroy, our religion, our way of life, the Constitution and, therefore, all decent and moral civilization.… During this century, the individual citizen’s unalienable rights to freedom and property have been whittled away or seized by big centralized government. The foreign aid program constitutes another long and insidious step towards the extinguishment of these rights.”—The Hon. Spruille Braden, to the American Coalition of Patriotic Societies, in Washington.

‘We need to define, much more clearly and implicitly than we have yet defined it, the intimate relationship between a man’s religious faith and what he does in his business. We need to demonstrate that religion is just as relevant to the individual in his office as in his home or church. Especially do we need to establish explicitly-understood Christian principles for the conduct of business affairs. The decisions they are required to make often require courage that can come only from conscious adherence to eternal verities, not the shifting sands of expediency.”—James C. Worthy, vice-president, Sears, Roebuck and Company.

“The most ridiculous statements that I know are ‘Liquor doesn’t affect me’ and ‘I understand the Russians.’ ”—Charles E. Bohlen, former ambassador to Russia.

“Just why so many Americans want to see our highest officials fraternizing with the men of the Kremlin who have on their hands the blood of the Hungarian patriots is difficult to understand, particularly in a country dedicated to high ideals and where the slightest impropriety in our own governmental circles is pounced upon as a violation of public morals.”—David Lawrence, columnist and editor of United States News and World Report.

Europe

An Argument Won

“It is fair to say that we have won the argument against humanism in this generation. After two world wars, with Buchenwald and Belsen, people no longer believe in an escalator to perfection. The Bible is vindicated in its low view of human nature unredeemed by Christ.”

Dr. W. E. Sangster, superintendent of the British Methodist Home Mission, told a Belfast audience of evangelical Christianity’s contribution to remedying social evils of past decades in Britain. William Wilberforce, Zachary Macaulay and others identified with the “Clapham Sect” obtained the emancipation of the slaves. Lord Shaftesbury and other evangelicals worked to secure better conditions in Britain’s factories and mines, and Dr. Barnardo made it his life work to care for homeless and destitute children.

Added Superintendent Sangster:

“People today have no sense of sin. That is one of the characteristics of our age and one of the things that the man in the street has against the evangelical preacher is that he is always talking of sin.”

S. W. M.

Africa

Harmony Or Division?

The question confronting this year’s meeting of the Congo Protestant Council at Leopoldville was this:

Should delegates support the proposed merger of the International Missionary Council with the World Council of Churches at the risk of losing unity and harmony among themselves?

The delegates’ decision to withdraw from IMC was made to allow the young Congo church itself to reach future decisions on international cooperation.

The growing importance of the native workers was manifest at the Leopoldville meeting as they sat on equal terms with delegates from the foreign missions.

The meeting ended March 1 on an optimistic note. Said one observer:

“There was no doubt in the minds of the delegates, particularly the Congolese, that denominationalism should be avoided and that every effort should be made to stress the Christian brotherhood over tribal or other affiliations. The Congo Protestant Council has so shown over the years this unity of missionary effort that its example is now bearing fruit and it warmed the hearts of older missionaries to see that their efforts towards unity had made a deeper impression than they had believed possible.”

Middle East

First Impressions

In old Egypt they call it Al-gumhouriya al-Arabiya al-Muttahida, meaning the United Arab Republic, which came into being with the formal union of Syria and Egypt. A constitution for the new state was published this month after nationwide plebiscites had approved the action.

Through radio and via sound trucks, old Egypt heard the merits of the merger expounded. British and American imperialism was repeatedly identified as the foe against whom the new union was built for protection. Press editorials had little else to talk about. Columns of advertising space were given over to congratulations for Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of the U.A.R.

When word was given to go ahead with celebrations, crews went to work around the clock on a crash basis to prepare decorations. Big firms and merchants paid most of the decorating bills, in exchange for the opportunity to exhibit their names alongside tributes to Nasser.

Much of the celebration activity was government-organized. Even large school delegations which witnessed the official ceremonies were there because regional officers of the Ministry of Education instructed them to be there. Selected organizers picked out selected students to do the parading. Public reaction was to make way for the processions, exercise patience until they were past, and then to go on about the day’s duties.

What effect will the merger have upon Christian witness in the United Arab Republic?

Nowhere did there appear to be any radical change in governmental attitudes toward religion.

The Religious News Service reported from Damascus that the U. A. R. provisional constitution contains no stipulation for a state religion. The constitution declares that all religions are equal before the law.

Previous constitutions of Egypt stated that “Islam is the religion of the state.” Syrian constitutions of recent years, while not mentioning a state religion, provided that “the religion of the President of the Republic should be Islam.”

Two trends hostile to the West were evident even before the union: Pressure against missions has been gradually increasing throughout the past several years, while the feelings of the people have been anti-American. This has been true in both Egypt and Syria. The merger move was not expected to alter the situation.

An observer in Jordan saw the integration of the two Hashemite kingdoms as helpful to the large number of leaderless Greek Orthodox Christians in Iraq. A number of new priests are expected to be sent there and more churches are predicted. The majority of Christians in both of the merged countries of Iraq and Jordan belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Some Middle East mission boards see merger plans of their own as beneficial to the work. Presbyterian and Anglican functions have been strengthening ties for a united approach.

Missionaries throughout the Arab world are placing great hopes in a proposed Christian radio station in Lebanon, a country which aspires to be the Switzerland of the Middle East.

Japan

Centennial Formulated

Select national and foreign missionaries representing a wide variation of church polity and theological outlook have agreed to join forces on the basis of “a common belief in the Bible as the Word of God and our only infallible rule of faith and practice” for the promotion of this year’s Japanese Protestant Centennial.

An executive committee was named to plan a series of centennial conferences to October. Week-long meetings will be held in Tokyo and Osaka. Shorter series are planned for several other big cities.

J. A. MCA.

Jewish Japanese

A number of Japanese converts to Judaism are expected to take advantage of a decision by Israel’s Chief Rabbinate that recognizes them as bona-fide Jews. The decision will enable the Jewish Japanese to enter Israel under the “Law of the Return,” which guarantees every Jew in the world automatic Israeli citizenship and emigration to Israel with all expenses paid.

There are now about 8,000 Jews in Japan, organized into a group called the Union of Jewish Japanese. The group is led by two university professors, an atomic scientist and a prominent naval engineer, both of whom took part in the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

Union members speak only Hebrew among themselves, circumcise their children, and attend services in their own synagogues.

Area Of Agreement

Ecumenism and the Evangelical, by J. Marcellus Kik, Presbyterian and Reformed, 1957. $3.50.

Explicitly in the case of “ecumenism” and implicitly in the case of “evangelical,” the author acknowledges that a wider area of agreement in definition is a desideratum devoutly to be wished. He nevertheless proceeds on the reasonable assumption that the whole ecumenical development whose principal symbol is the World Council of Churches has reached a stage where it needs to be more thoroughly assessed by those who take seriously the Christianity of the historic creeds.

A brief consideration of ecumenical moods and motives launches the discussion on its way, following which certain “evangelical apprehensions” are put forward: ecumenism’s generally weak or ambiguous Christology, its tendency to attenuate theological concern in general, its drift toward an inclusiveness that minimizes differences, its growing fondness for the ecclesiological concept of the Church as a visible society, and its often aggressive insistence on the “sinfulness” of denominationalism.

It is held that the “authority of Scripture” is accorded too feeble a place within the framework of the ecumenical movement. “Those who reject the authority of Scripture and deny its uniqueness as the infallible revelation of God’s mind and will, are confined to the position of giving authority to religious experience or to the position of agnosticism” (p. 32). Anglicans, with their emphasis upon the authority of the church and of churchly tradition, would almost certainly demur, but the main contention is well argued that ecumenism’s anchorage to Scripture is far more dubious than that of the separate churches and their historic confessions.

Rejected emphatically is the notion that our Lord’s high-priestly prayer, “that they may be one,” must be interpreted to mean “a single comprehensive organization of the churches” (p. 46). Much is made of the Pauline concept of attaining “unto the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God” as set forth in Ephesians. The Holy Spirit is the great unifier, and his ministry in this regard consists principally in bringing the church to a oneness of witness concerning Jesus Christ: “his pre-existence, incarnation, earthly life and ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, present reign and coming again” (p. 52). It is the “conflict of voices” within the visible church respecting these central matters that constitutes more of a scandal than the existence of denominational groups.

If this objective unity is seriously lacking, so too is the subjective; and the question is not improperly raised: “Could it be possible that absence of spiritual union in Christ has caused modern day stress on external union?” (p. 62).

Exploring the meaning of the ancient and honorable phrase, “The Holy Catholic Church,” the author cautions against the trend toward a narrowly ecclesiastical interpretation of “catholic.” The incongruity in the sentence is a reflection of the more serious incongruity in the structure of the argument put forward, for example, by Professor Knox when he says, “I simply cannot conceive of the union of Christendom except on the ground of a polity which … involves the full acceptance of the historic episcopate” (The Early Church, pp. 142, 143). It is held that far more important than such an impossible basis of unity as this is the unifying of the people of God around the holy disciplines, private and corporate, on which the New Testament speaks firmly.

The significance of such biblical figures of organic unity as “temple” and “body” are worked out along familiar lines, following which the reader is given a look at the contemporary scene vis a vis the existing inter-church and/or inter-believer councils and cooperative agencies, notably the National Council of Churches, the World Council, the International Council of Christian Churches, the American Council of Churches, the World Evangelical Fellowship, and the National Association of Evangelicals. With a better than average measure of objectivity, these are assessed as to their doctrinal orientation and commitment, their inclusiveness or exclusiveness, and their prevailing temper. On a few particulars a more meticulous accuracy would have enhanced the presentation, as, for example, the calculated use of “vicarious” rather than “substitutionary” in the NAE statement of faith (p. 126) and the misdating of the time when NAE officially defined its policy on evangelism so as to make it clear that the task of evangelism was that of the churches and not that of NAE as such. As correctly reported by the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY in the issue of January 20, 1958, this date was 1943, not 1950.

As might be expected, the author finds it formidably difficult to explain the highly disedifying spectacle of evangelical division and fragmentation. “Ecumenism will never in a thousand and one years achieve the goal of Christian unity until it settles the question of authority” (p. 136). Suppose we agree. But then evangelicals have presumably settled this question. The authority of Scripture is their battle cry. And the result? Along with a creditable amount of informed good will, we have discreditable amounts of division plus divisiveness, sects plus sectarianism, independence plus independency. The author’s plea, therefore, for a vastly more serious coming to grips with the whole concept of the “Church” by those who call themselves “evangelical” is urgently timely.

The book concludes with a chapter called “The Coming Great Church.” The eschatology of this “curtain-dropping” chapter will raise many an eyebrow. Perhaps one should make it stronger: it will raise some theological blood pressure. This reviewer is not prepared to accept the non-premillenarian assumptions of the author, but he is prepared to welcome the fine-tempered discussion of the prophetic Scriptures from a point of view too often totally ignored or inadequately handled by those who have committed themselves to contemporary dispensationalism. In any event, the question may fairly be raised as to whether this particular outlook on the future of the Church is organically bound up with the issues of unity and ecumenicity.

Waiving this point, what seems to me to put us in Mr. Kik’s debt is the practical thesis that ecumenists, however unsatisfactory their theology may be, are often more zealous than “evangelicals” to interpret and to implement the meaning of the Church and the mystery of its oneness.

PAUL REES

God’S Work In Prison

Prison Is My Parish, by George Burnham, Revell, 1957. $2.95.

The engaging story of Chaplain Park Tucker is beautifully told in this volume by the well-known journalist, George Burnham. What Mr. Burnham did for Billy Graham and his work, he has now done for the chaplain of Atlanta Federal Penitentiary. This is an amazing story of a man who was rescued from death in the bowels of the earth and who now is giving his life to rescue others from darkness.

Director of U. S. Bureau of Prisons, James V. Bennett, in the introduction to this volume writes, “Every once in a while a book is published which combines in its appeal a document of human interest and a commentary on our social institutions. This story of Chaplain Tucker is such a book. The successful attempt to raise himself above the economic level into which he was born is not in itself uncommon in our American life, but the quality of his simple religious faith that dominates the book makes the story worth telling.” Director Bennett also points out that from the life and work of Chaplain Tucker we can see the importance of spiritual counselling for men in prison. Chaplain Tucker has a deep and sympathetic understanding of the man in prison and his problems, and a sincere willingness to assist him in finding his proper place when he returns as he must, to our communities. Mixed with the story of tragedy is a delightful sense of humor exhibited by the chaplain.

The finest portions of this volume are the sections devoted to examples of the marvelous redemptive power of Christ. Many instances are set forth to demonstrate that Christ is still able to save unto the uttermost. In the narration of these inspiring stories, Chaplain Tucker is careful to see that all the glory must go to Christ. His comment is “Park Tucker just happened to be on hand when God was at work.”

The final chapter is written by Mrs. Tucker, the chaplain’s wife. She tells of their romance that began at Wheaton College when she was a homesick freshman. She delineates God’s providence in their lives and closes by asking, “How can Park and I ever doubt God’s simple question in the Bible, ‘Is anything too hard for the Lord?’ ”

This is indeed a captivating story. It is moving and inspiring and should be a source of real encouragement to young people who have handicaps and need to understand what the grace of God can do to enable them to achieve real success in life. The Christian life is not always easy, but it is thrilling and satisfying.

JOHN R. RICHARDSON

Light Reading

Now Then, by David E. Mason, Broadman, 1957. 96 pp., $1.75.

In this small volume, 86 object lessons have been gathered, each in the form of a modern “parable.” They were originally given to the author’s Louisiana Baptist congregation through the medium of his weekly bulletin.

Pungent with meaning and pointed in application, these one-page moral admonitions range from the solemn to the sardonical, with occasional flashes of delightful humor throughout. He draws upon situations in every area of life and uses these forcefully to drive home his thoughts. He often provokes a chuckle, as when he advocates legalizing thievery to encourage a decrease in crime, then taxing it to provide more schools and jails, the latter to hold the non-tax paying thieves.

For light reading, this volume is most refreshing and, except for one place where the author holds up Albert Schweitzer as the ideal of Christian piety, is wholly commendable, especially to laymen.

JOHN C. NEVILLE

Exciting Disappointment

Out Lord and Saviour, His Life and Teachings, by Philip Carrington, Seabury, 1958. $1.75.

What the reader obtains from this little book will depend upon what he brings to it, which is the case in so many instances of modern religious writing. We owe much to Anglican scholarship. There have been notable expositors and exegets among them, whose major concern has been the simplification of the Word of God. But Philip Carrington is not one of these. He has sought to produce a layman’s volume on the life of Christ “in the words of the evangelists” (p. 17). The great mass of words, however, are those of the bishop and not of any translation of Holy Writ.

The uncritical reader will be charmed by the gracious humor, the vivid dramatic style, and the facile expression of one who writes well. The history is set in 12 brief, topical chapters. No one can read them without wishing that he might know Bishop Carrington. The alarming feature of what he has written is found in his almost complete unawareness that there is anything wrong with his Christology. In his attempt to get away from the mustiness so often found in doctrinal emphases, he has achieved the effect of being doctrinally flat. The Jesus that he proclaims is “the Man … center of the gospel,” make no mistake of it. He is not the God-man of proper Christian doctrine. From start to finish there is no portrayal of the one who bore our sins in his body up to the tree. He is the master psychiatrist of all time, whose divinity—what there may be of it—is veiled in the charmingly told, if quite imaginary, story of the Man who, when faced with human psychoses, blandly banishes them by his superlative techniques. For “the acts of Jesus are what we call miracles” (p. 36).

The author is sure that for history we have not Jesus’ exact words (p. 50), and implies that imagination can make up for exactitude. The historically minded will cringe at the airy fashion in which he dismisses the critical and analytical problems which beset any New Testament historian. More than once he has misquoted a Scripture location, as in the case where he places the “myth, or parable, in which (man) loses his claim to eternal life” in the second of Genesis. This kind of loose handling marks many passages.

However, to the sermonizer the bishop can be most useful, for his gift of fancy suggests many areas in which the imagination may properly be allowed to wander. It is his lack of sound doctrine that makes his work distressful reading.

But, for those who know the Gospel, and the Christ of the Gospel, it may be worthwhile to own and use this volume. Obviously, Bishop Carrington has not departed far from historico-critical emphases that must have dominated his seminary days. Possibly he finds in their loose and unscientific assumptions a foil for those unique personality factors which can normally be found in a man who has been the successful ecclesiastical leader of ecclesiastics.

WALTER VAIL WATSON

Christianity?

Unitarianism on the Pacific Coast, by Arnold Crompton, Beacon Press, 1957. 182 pp., $4.50.

The author of this interesting study has for 12 years been the minister of the First Unitarian Church in Oakland, California. He has been intimately connected with the work of the Unitarian denomination and its theological seminary in Berkeley, the Starr King School of Theology. He has had access to the sources in his research activities and has rendered a labor of love in his survey of the first 60 years of Unitarianism on the west coast.

The book is well written and generally irenic in its outlook and treatment. The price tag is out of line with the length of the volume. The book is filled with the same type of experiences which the history of any denomination reveals—hardships, financial stress, disaffection, schism, and all the rest. It is the story of sinful men whose best impulses are colored by their Adamic inheritance. Yet, the author of this volume would hardly agree.

One must be impressed by the influence which the Unitarians have exercised—an influence far beyond their numerical significance. Presidents of institutions like California and Stanford have been numbered among their people. A galaxy of honored names flow across the pages of the volume—men who were scholars in their own right and whose influences have extended far and wide. Among them are to be found fathers and sons, and the names of some of these men sound like a roster of Who’s Who. Channing, Starr King, James Freeman Clarke, John Fiske, the Eliots of Harvard, Edward Everett Hale and others. One is impressed by the close connection of the western Unitarian movement with the seed bed of the movement, Harvard College and Boston, Massachusetts.

In spite of the honored names one cannot help but observe that Unitarianism cannot be identified with historic Christianity except as a heresy. This sect has genuinely supported ideas of freedom and liberty. But in so doing it has lost any true connection with the Christian faith, and this raises the question whether it is entitled to the use of the name Christian at all. No one in this age of enlightenment would refuse these people the right to worship God according to their own beliefs. Nor would any wish to circumscribe their liberties. But one is equally hard put to say, even wishfully, that they are in the stream of the historic Christian faith.

HAROLD LINDSELL

Messianic Approach

Commentary on Genesis, by R. S. Candlish, 2 vols., Zondervan. $10.95.

The author’s name will be sufficient endorsement of this work for many readers. The one-time principal of New College, Edinburgh, was a leader in the Free Church movement in Scotland and a theological giant among Presbyterians. As such he was an exponent of the covenant theology which is presented here with firmness and yet with winsomeness.

Strictly speaking, these two volumes are not a commentary but rather a series of expositions covering the entire book of Genesis. The method used is not that of word-by-word exegesis but rather the careful examination of passages, sometimes brief and sometimes extended, so as to bring out the meaning and application to the Christian reader. Since there is no quotation of the Hebrew, the work contains no obscurity or difficulty for any Bible student.

The two chief excellences of the Commentary on Genesis, in the reviewer’s opinion, are that it interprets Genesis in the light of the whole of biblical revelation and that it is thoroughly Messianic in its approach. Some readers will not see in Joseph as distinct a type of Christ as does Candlish. Others among evangelicals may be disappointed that the author has found so few types in Genesis.

The scholar will not find in this work a precise exegesis of the Hebrew text but the theologian will find a detailed explanation of the meaning of the text. The preacher will not find in it any ready-made sermons but he will find the material of which good sermons are made. This commentary is highly recommended as one which is likely to prove more fruitful for the pastor’s use than many commentaries on Genesis which have appeared since Candlish first appeared in 1868.

DAVID W. KERR

New Journal

Foundations, A Baptist Journal of History and Theology, ed. by George D. Younger, American Baptist Historical Society, Rochester, N. Y., 1958. $3.00 per year.

A new American Baptist historical and theological quarterly appeared in January as successor to The Chronicle, a history journal. More broadly based than its predecessor, its stated purpose is to widen the search for “those foundations on which we Baptists have built.”

A new channel is here provided for continuing the discussion and self-examination begun recently by American Baptists in theological conference. No one school of thought is to be promoted but rather a variety of opinions encouraged, while at the same time a middle course is to be steered between “skepticism” and “dogmatism.” The end hoped for is more agreement among Baptists as well as more understanding between Baptist and other denominations.

The reader is introduced through attractive format to an interesting group of articles displaying on the whole a good level of scholarship, most of which appears to be quite ecumenically conscious—indicating a major thrust of the journal.

The initial article by Daniel D. Williams, only one by other than a Baptist, finds the mysterious expansive power of the Baptists in a personal experience of the Gospel which is “easily intelligible, vividly symbolized,” and Spirit-produced, rather than in any unity of theology, ordinances or polity, of which he notes there is little. Associate Editor Winthrop S. Hudson attempts to show that extreme Baptist individualism is not true to historic Baptist polity, which gave Associations authority over local congregations. Also critical of modern Baptist polity is V. E. Devadutt, whose article carries implicit approval of Baptist inclusion in the proposed church union of North India.

In similar fashion Lynn Leavenworth is heard wondering aloud about rather low Baptist views not only of polity but also the ministry and ordinances. He feels answers are to be gained through “discussion across the ecumenical front.”

Baptist reaction to such views will be traditionally mixed. Some will applaud the idea of curbing what they regard as Baptist excesses, while others will feel that Baptist distinctives are being whittled away. They will ask whether they wish to be brought more in line doctrinally with other churches and whether this is actually a return to their heritage or perhaps a drifting from ancient moorings.

A somewhat different note is struck in the article by Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. He believes that ecumenical interests and Baptist convictions do not necessarily conflict. The only worthy norm, in either case, is the authoritative Scripture. Hope is offered for greater Baptist unity not so much through ecumenical spirit or erasure of doctrinal distinctives as by a “reburnished regard for authoritative biblical imperatives.” Other writers also call for a return to the Scriptures, though Editor Younger expresses wariness of “authoritarianism.”

A rather more ecumenical spirit might well prevail in the book review section where in this initial issue criticism often limited itself to pointing out deviations from Baptist distinctives.

It is to be hoped that this promising journal will renew and enliven conversation among the many diverse groups of Baptists and stir also a long-awaited revival of Baptist theological literature. These are worthy goals.

FRANK FARRELL

The publication of Gabriel Hebert’s book Fundamentalism and the Church of God has created considerable interest in Australia. Some years ago Hebert was appointed to the staff of the Society of the Sacred Mission in South Australia. He already enjoyed an international reputation as the translator of Gustaf Aulen’s Christus Victor and Nygren’s Agape and Eros, as well as in his own right as the author of Liturgy and Society and The Throne of David. Father Gabriel Hebert is now an old man, but he has brought a rich contribution to the theological life of Australia.

His latest work is important, not so much for what he says, but for the way in which he says it. It is written in anirenical spirit. The author makes a genuine attempt to understand and appreciate those who are so often contemptuously dismissed as obscurantists and fundamentalists. It is a regrettable fact that theological discussion between liberals and conservatives again and again has been bedevilled by wilful misrepresentation. Partisans have been content to damn what they have not attempted to understand. Abuse has been substituted for argument.

Father Gabriel Hebert has been guilty of none of these things. He has made a sincere and painstaking attempt to understand those from whom he differs. He is concerned to do justice to the contributions evangelicals have undoubtedly made to the life of the Church. It is an open secret that Father Hebert was greatly helped in arriving at this understanding by personal links with some younger evangelical scholars in Sydney. As a result, his work is free from certain common errors.

Nevertheless, Father Hebert has still something to learn. He makes no reference to the massive works of B. B. Warfield, a strange omission in a work dealing with the theological presuppositions of conservative evangelicals.

In England Dr. J. I. Packer has made some powerful and incisive criticisms of Father Hebert’s book in The Christian News-Letter (July, 1957). He points out that “the basic issue between evangelicals and others concerns, not biblical interpretation … but biblical authority”; and that evangelicals are pledged to maintain Christ’s view of the authority and nature of Scripture.

In Australia there is much animated debate on the subject of Father Hebert’s book. Can Father Hebert’s charges be substantiated? Dr. Alan Cole in The Reformed Theological Review (February, 1958) stresses that what “evangelicals really hold is Infallibility, not Inerrancy”; and that “the Bible, rightly read, read as a whole, read Christocentrically, and read humbly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the fellowship of the Church, can never deceive us as to what God is like, or as to what man is like, or as to what God’s world is like.” The debate is continuing. If the clarification of terms and the definition of words is the only thing achieved, much good will have been done. At least one fruitful cause of misunderstanding will have been removed.

The Reformed Theological Review is published thrice yearly. It owes its existence to the Rev. Robert Swanton. It is a learned journal, devoted to the defence of the Reformed faith. Its crest is Calvin’s motto: Cor meum tibi offero Domino. In recent numbers Professor Hermann Sasse of Immanuel Seminary, Adelaide, South Australia, has made some trenchant criticisms of the theological implications of the World Council of Churches. As an original member of the Faith and Order Committee, his criticisms carry weight. He is fearful lest the participating churches betray or deny their Confessions of Faith. Sasse writes on all these matters with immense learning.

Within the universities in Australia preparations are advanced for a series of Missions conducted by the Rev. John Stott. As Vicar of All Souls, Langham Place, London, he is exercising a wide and effective ministry. Some years ago he was chosen to write the Bishop of London’s Lent book, Men With a Message (1954). His own gifts are those of an evangelist. He has already conducted, with much acceptance and widespread blessing, missions in Canada and America. He will visit Australia under the joint auspices of the Evangelical Alliance and the Inter-Varsity Fellowship.

Within the universities the religious societies continue to flourish (within one university the largest student organization is the Evangelical Union, with a membership exceeding that of any political society or sporting club). Last year missions were conducted by Father Michael Fisher (an English Anglican Franciscan) on behalf of the Student Christian Movement. He drew unprecedented crowds. His addresses have now been published in booklet form under the title Christ Alive! Sir Samuel Wadham, Emeritus Professor of Agriculture in the University of Melbourne, writes the foreword in which he says that these addresses were the most impressive he had heard in 40 years.

No one can deny Father Michael Fisher’s versatility. He showed an astonishing familiarity with modern literature, ranging from Winnie the Pooh to Peter Abelard. A single example will suffice. In an address on the human predicament he referred to Graham Greene’s latest novel The Quiet American. The novel tells the story of an English reporter called Fowler working in the Far East. He becomes involved with an American who is engaged in certain subversive activity from motives of mistaken idealism. This American is also responsible for enticing his girl away from him. Finally Fowler is responsible for the death of the “quiet American.” On the last page of the novel we know that the American is dead, Fowler has his girl back, his wife has telegraphed that she will give him a divorce, and yet all is not well.… Fowler, the hard-bitten journalist, says: “I wish there was someone to whom I could say that I am sorry.” In these words we have a revelation of the hunger of the human heart for forgiveness, and Father Michael Fisher used them with telling and dramatic effect. It is not surprising that the crowds who listened to these talks found them lively, arresting, and deeply moving.

Someone has said, “The only hope of Christianity is in the rehabilitation of Pauline theology. It is back to an incarnate Christ and the atoning Blood, or it is on to atheism and despair.” This is very fine, and doubtless would command general agreement among evangelical Christians. Our business, it would be said, is indeed to recall the Church to the faith once delivered to the saints. What is not so clear is how the content of that faith is to be defined, especially in its moral implications. Many are convinced that, for various reasons, the primacy of the ethical basis of the Gospel is in jeopardy today, and that evangelical Christians themselves need to be recalled to a more truly scriptural position.

This does not mean that the Church’s witness has deteriorated to a barren and lifeless orthodoxy. Indeed, there is no doubt that evangelical witness is intensely active. Rarely has the Church been so magnificently equipped, or so thoroughly up to date in methods. However, whether with all our streamlined techniques we have achieved as much as our forefathers accomplished without them is a question. Ours is an era of campaigns, missions, crusades, fruitful beyond doubt; and yet the age of our forefathers was the age of revival movements that left their mark upon nations and enabled the Church to speak with authority.

The Missing Note

Is there something lacking, then, in the contemporary evangelical testimony? We believe that a definite emphasis has been lost. Once the chief concern of spiritual work was the creation and upbuilding of Christian character. The great devotional literature of past generations in Scotland reveals something solid and substantial in the Christian experience of former days. That there were giants in the earth in those days is not surprising when we realize that Scotland’s sons were reared on classics like Boston’s Fourfold State and Guthrie’s Saving Interest, and that such titles were household words in almost every humble home in the land.

The evangelical piety, born of such influence, laid inflexible demands for the highest standards of Christian behavior, for probity of life, and, for uncompromising honor and integrity. We look in vain for such qualities today and are in danger of becoming content with a kind of spiritual adolescence that scarcely commends itself to intelligent people. Paul speaks in Ephesians of the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Words like these lay upon us the duty of growing up, becoming men, and putting away childish things. We are suffering in our churches and fellowships from Christians who refuse to grow up into maturity and consequently are unable, as well as unwilling, to engage in the serious and urgent business of Christian witness and the discipline of prayer. Lack of depth and quality prevails.

How has this situation developed and what is the answer to it? Doubtless there have been several contributory causes. We would like to point out two in particular, before attempting to answer the problem.

The New Antinomianism

The first may be expressed in historical terms. The Church has from time to time been exercised and the purity of her faith imperiled by the heresy of antinomianism. And when the moral imperatives of the Gospel of grace become obscured, in the way suggested above, antinomianism in one or another of its forms has begun to undermine the vitality of its witness. As far back as the revival movements of the eighteenth century, which, according to historians, saved England from revolution, a significant trend may be traced that seems to have repeated itself frequently in Church history. When the glow and spiritual quickening of these early revivals had worn off, a slow hardening and petrifying of spiritual life began that, aided by the growing spirit of rationalism, gradually discredited the supernatural in religion and ousted it from its central place in the Gospel. The Christian faith became little more than an ethical system. The Gospel of the grace of God began to be eclipsed.

In the nineteenth century, the pendulum duly swung to the other extreme. Grace was recovered and supernatural religion came into its own again, but the reaction was such that men were saying, in opposition to previous moralistic tendencies, “Good works are useless; it is not what you do, but what you believe that is important.” This serious misunderstanding was furthered by misinterpretations of such words as “Ye are not under law but under grace,” which failed to understand that freedom from the law means to be “enlawed” inexorably to Christ. Ethical considerations became confused and ambiguous, and Christian behavior lost the supreme place given it in the New Testament.

The same process is being repeated in twentieth century evangelical reaction against nominal, moralistic forms of Christianity. As a result, a false antithesis between faith and works has come into being, giving rise to dangerous misunderstandings of, and confusion about, the true nature of biblical faith. Not that Christian behavior is “out” necessarily, but a different emphasis and definition, generally negative, have come about so that to many today Christian conduct is understood as the abstention from the more overt forms of worldliness. By such defective standards is Christian orthodoxy being measured and judged. Now, to be sure, evangelicals have maintained a more or less consistent witness against the recognizably outer forms of worldliness, such as certain kinds of entertainment and amusement. This doubtless has been necessary in a world that seems to have gone pleasure-mad; but there has been no corresponding thoroughness in dealing with the sins that blight and mar Christian life and fellowship: viz., strifes and envyings, petty animosities and jealousies, unholy ambitions, jockeyings for position, and secret intrigues, which all too often exist in Christian circles. These would indicate that our ethical values in the light of the Gospel are in jeopardy. That such “religion without morals” exists today no one deeply involved in Christian work would deny; and ugly thing that it is, it has contributed more perhaps than any other single factor to the discrediting of our distinctive testimony.

The Cult Of Frivolity

Another and very different trend also has contributed to and accentuated this phenomenon of “religion without morals.” There has emerged in our time an evangelical pattern that finds expression in lightsome, frolicsome, superficial Christianity, characterized by sentimental religious jazz and tinkling pianos. We are living through a time in which the cult of frivolity and entertainment bids fair to become the major factor in evangelical life when patter and humorous anecdote are the order of the day and platform jokesters are in danger of turning the pulpit into a variety stage. Comparing this frothy adulteration of the faith even at its best with the massive witness of our Puritan and Covenanting forefathers, one becomes aware why the present generation of Christians comes short of the high standards of the past.

But why, in fact, does this “pattern” tend to produce a “religion without morals?” The reason is this: Its emphasis is laid upon (subjective) experience, whereas our forefathers laid it upon character. The moral values of the faith have been overshadowed by the psychological, and this has undoubtedly led to a greater concern about happiness and “fulfillment” than character and conduct. (One has only to examine contemporary evangelical hymnology to see how true this is.) It is an eloquent commentary on the situation that in our churches today there are large numbers of Christians preoccupied, not to say obsessed, with the search for happiness. What they have not realized is that God is far more concerned with our sin than with our satisfaction; that the Gospel is not psychology but salvation; and that Christ died not primarily to make men happy but to make them holy. It needs to be reiterated most unambiguously that the central note in apostolic preaching is not “Jesus can satisfy the heart,” but “Christ died for our sins.” These two phrases in reality express the fundamental difference of emphasis between the new and the old theologies.

The Differing Aims

Actually, we are dealing with two radically different, if not opposing, aims. Modern preoccupations have inclined us to make happiness and contentment the chief end of life. We have proclaimed the message of grace as being the answer to man’s search for happiness. Modern man’s chief aim is to find happiness, but the fact that this desire is universal does not make it right, any more than the universal bias toward sin makes it excusable or right to sin. The aim itself is distorted. To look for happiness is itself essentially selfish and is doomed to failure from the outset. The Gospel is not the universal purveyor of happiness (it would be a justifiable criticism, if it were, to call it the opiate of the people!); it is the one effective answer to this distorted aim in man’s life, for it gives a man a new sense of direction, and enables him to perceive that his chief end, in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Our forefathers—and they were quite emphatic on the point—made the glory of God the consuming passion of their lives. They had a burning concern for the honor and glory of God’s name. Salvation for them meant that henceforth they should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him, not that they but that he should be satisfied. And, paradoxically, they found in this a happiness such as has all too often eluded our hungry hearts. Happiness is found only when we have ceased to look for it. It is a by-product, something that steals upon us when we are busy with something beyond ourselves. The happiest people are those whose vision has been captured by the realization that there is something higher and nobler than personal happiness in life.

Recovery Of Gospel Emphasis

This, then, must be the first step toward recovery—a new understanding of the purpose of the Gospel, a new realization of the moral imperative it lays upon man to live to the glory of God, as distinct from the psychological considerations that have obscured it. No significant advance in Christian witness can be made until this change is effected, for nothing less will succeed in reaching the root of the problem.

But how is this recovery to take place? Only through a return to true expository preaching. The unfolding of the Scriptures in the fulness of doctrinal content is a task which cries out urgently to be performed in our time and for which there can be no effective substitute. Evangelicals may protest that they have always been doing this, as witness the many Christian conventions and the large audiences they can command. A brief comparison between former times and the present makes it only too clear that the sustained, enriching expository ministry of the older divines has been replaced by the short twenty-minute talk replete with pithy humor, seasoned with anecdote, and “put over” by “personality” men. We have lost sight of the kind of preaching that depends upon nothing save the power of the Word itself and the promised unction of the Spirit. Serious attempt to tap the immense resources available in the Word of God for the building of character has been lacking. But, significantly, where such a full-orbed ministry is maintained, where no concessions are made to the easily tickled palates of modern Christendom, and where expository preaching is taken seriously, the results are always the same—not only does it produce fruit, but quality fruit. It builds Christians of caliber. God is faithful to his own Word.

And what, finally, of the content of such a message? Just this: Paul, writing to the Corinthians of his visit to them, says, “I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” The Church of our day has yet to see what God can do through the all-embracing proclamation of this grand and glorious message which Paul describes as being both the wisdom and the power of God. Its threefold reference to justification, sanctification, and service, in which it answers the problems of sin, self and Satan, meets the total human situation in a way no other message can.

As to justification, the Cross deals with the very heart of man’s plight in the sight of God. For his problem is never merely his heart hunger and restless dissatisfaction, but his sin and his revolt and rebellion against the holy God of the Scriptures. As to sanctification, it tells us that the faith that justifies also unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection, and slays the old nature, the sinful self, and imparts new life in him. As to service, in which, to use Paul’s words, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers,” we have yet to grasp in its fulness the meaning of the statement, “They overcame him (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb.” All this is involved in the preaching of Christ crucified. In the hands of consecrated men the Gospel of Christ is a power mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds of sin and error inside the Church and outside it, and to the upbuilding of lives that can bear the scrutiny of God and man alike, and adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things.

Uncreated Love

Why and how?

What and where?

Who is it

I sense hanging there?

Can He be God,

That wretched figure on the Cross?

Ah! Poor voluntary sufferer,

Is it love

That causes you to suffer so?

And what a love!

Not caritas

Nor ego-centric eros

Nor the other-flowing philos,

(Which at best is love of self reflected in a friend).

But agape divine,

Unmerited, unknown, incomprehensible,

Self-sacrificing love.

The uncreated irreducible

Substantia divine,

That stands at the very center of the Universe;

Wholly other, yet wholly mine!

Then this it is that fills

Men with the trust,

That enables me to surrender

Life and motion every night,

And to sink unafraid

Into the waves of sleep,

That little death, Thanatou hypnos,

Without one guarantee in earth or heaven,

That I shall ever waken,

Ever rise,

Short of the Resurrection of the Dead.

JOHN C. COOPER

James Philip holds the M.A. degree from Aberdeen University and is minister of Gardenstown Parish Church in Banffshire, Scotland. He edits the Prayer Bulletin of the Scottish Evangelistic Council. Student work is his special interest.

Giving expression to a point of view which is becoming increasingly popular in some circles, Vincent Taylor writes, “More and more students of comparative religion, and of Old Testament worship in particular, are insisting that the bestowal of life is the fundamental idea in sacrificial worship” (Jesus and His Sacrifice, London, 1939, pp. 54 f.). In this view the sacrifice of the animal is necessary, but only because there is no other way of obtaining blood, the life of the animal. As Taylor says, “The victim is slain in order that its life, in the form of blood may be released.… The aim is to make it possible for life to be presented as an offering to the Deity” (p. 54). Death, according to this view, can play no real part, then, in sacrificial acts when such a view is taken to its logical conclusion.

Let us follow the trail of this reasoning from the Old Testament over into the New Testament. According to popular expression the use of the term blood “suggests the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and opened to our spiritual appropriation” (Vincent Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, London, 1946, p. 198). Being saved by the blood of Jesus is being saved by his life. The death of Christ ceases to have the centrality and the efficacy which the Church has universally attributed to it. Instead, his death becomes considered a mere incident.

The Weight Of Scripture

It is my observation, however, that the passages of Scripture which popular opinion claims as proving “blood” means “life” are out-numbered by passages in which blood clearly means death. In 203 out of the 362 passages where the Hebrew word for blood (dam) occurs in the Old Testament, blood signifies death by violence, much as in the phrase “to shed blood.” Thus we read, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9:6) and “He that maketh inquisition for blood remembereth them” (Psalm 9:12). Over against this observation I can find but seven examples where there is connection of life with blood, and 17 where there is prohibition of the eating of meat with blood yet in it. (In 103 passages blood is used with regard to sacrifices, and these passages do not of themselves imply either life or death. They must be interpreted in the light of blood as a means of securing atonement—which in itself implies death.)

We need therefore strong evidence to substantiate current opinion before we accept the conclusions which gainsay the weight of Scripture cited above. What are we offered? The principal passage which adherents of this view advance is Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.” Blood, in this verse appears to have the meaning A. Lods gives it: “there is a ransom, a redemption, a death by proxy” (The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism, London, 1937, p. 294). Proponents also testify that in Genesis 9:4 and Deuteronomy 12:23 “the blood is the life,” with which must be taken the repeated prohibition of eating flesh with blood still in it.

Evidence Of Death

The writer insists, nevertheless, that these passages are just as easily understood when blood is considered the evidence that death has taken place. David refused to drink “the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives” (2 Sam. 23:17), but this is a highly metaphorical statement. Both Genesis 9:4 and Psalm 72:14 have “blood” in parallel to “soul” or “life”; yet in the first case when Jehovah says that he will require the life and the blood of man, he is holding men responsible for taking life, not asking them to produce it or to give it to him; and in the second instance the meaning of “blood” in Psalm 72 is that shown by similar statement in Psalm 116:15—“death.”

We see, therefore, that passages claimed as proving that “blood” means “life” do not in fact bear the weight that proponents of this popular viewpoint believe. None speak of blood as indicating life in distinction from death. Yet they all speak intelligibly if we understand blood not simply as “life” but “life yielded up in death.”

Those who equate life with blood ignore another important fact, namely, that in the Old Testament blood is commonly used metaphorically, as we already saw in the case of David. Their argument depends on a very literal understanding of such passages as Leviticus 17:11 and others. Yet over and over again we come across references to “innocent blood” or “his blood be on his own head,” which cannot be taken literally. Stibbs draws attention to the Hebraic use of “vivid word pictures involving ‘blood’,” and cites such passages as the one describing Joab who “shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle … and in his shoes” (1 Kings 2:5), and the Psalmist’s idea of the vengeance of the righteous when “he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked” (Psalm 58:10) (The Meaning of the Word “Blood” in Scripture, London, 1947, pp. 10 f.).

Another objection to the view we are considering is that it overlooks the pronounced Hebrew stress on the connection of life with the body. So far were the Hebrews from thinking of an immaterial principle of life that they associated life in the age to come not with the immortality of the soul but with the resurrection of the body. It is most unlikely, then, that they would think of the life of the animal after slaughter. We are far from the practical Hebrew turn of mind when we read of “soul-substance” (with Oesterley and E. O. James), or of “blood” suggesting “the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and open to our spiritual appropriation” (with Vincent Taylor). Stibbs is much nearer the mark when he sums up in the words “Blood shed stands, therefore, not for the release of life from the burden of the flesh, but for the bringing to an end of life in the flesh. It is a witness to physical death, not an evidence of spiritual survival.”

The Means Of Atonement

Where atonement is not brought about by the blood of sacrifices it is effected by things that signify death rather than life. (There are passages where it is effected by gold and the like [e.g., Num. 31:50], which do not obviously point to either life or death. But I pass over such as irrelevant to our present inquiry.) Moses in Exodus 32:30–32 tried to make atonement for the sin of the people by asking God to blot his name out of the book which He has written. Phinehas made atonement by slaying Zimri and Cozbi (Num. 25:13). David made atonement by delivering up seven descendants of Saul to be hanged by the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1–9). The heifer was slain to avert punishment after murder had been committed by persons unknown (Deut. 21:1–9). The principle of blood atonement is that the pollution brought about by blood can be atoned only by the blood of him that shed it (Num. 35:33). But in each of these passages atonement is made or contemplated with no view to a presentation of life to God. It is the termination of life, the infliction of death that atones. Far from any symbol of life being presented to God, Saul’s descendants were hanged and the heifer killed by breaking its neck.

Usually when atonement is spoken of in connection with sacrifice, it is said to be effected by the sacrifice as a whole, rather than by any one part of it. Sometimes atonement is mentioned in connection with the blood, yet sometimes also it is attached to some other part of the ritual, like the laying on of hands (Lev. 1:4) or the burning of the fat (Lev. 4:26). This is natural enough if it is the whole offering which atones, but it is a very strange way to put it if the essence of atonement is the offering of life contained in the blood.

Sometimes it is impossible to see a reference to blood, as in Exodus 29:33, where the reference is to the carcass from which the blood has been drained, (cf. also, Leviticus 10:17). In these cases, however, we are always aware that atonement must be through the death of the animal; there seems no room for the idea of atonement through life. The blood of sacrifices points us to the death of a victim. The death was the important thing, and the blood symbolizes this death.

Life Violently Taken

Our conclusion from all this is that the evidence afforded by the term “blood” used in the Old Testament would indicate that it signifies life violently taken rather than the continued presence of life available for new functions.

In the New Testament the largest group of passages containing the word “blood” refers to violent death, just as we saw in the Old Testament. (Cf. Acts 22:20; Rev. 6:10, for typical examples.)

Quite often there are references to the blood of Jesus which show that death and not life is in mind. For example, in Romans 5:9 we are said to be “justified by his blood” and “saved from the wrath through him.” This is parallel to “reconciled … through the death of his Son” and “saved by his life” in the next verse, and follows references to Christ’s dying in the three verses preceding 9. It does not seem possible to resist the conclusion that “his blood” refers to the death of Christ.

In Hebrews 9:14 f. we read, “How much more shall the blood of Christ … cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death having taken place.…” It is hard to envisage a reason for interpreting “the blood” in a sense other than that given by the words which follow: “a death having taken place.” So in Hebrews 12:24 we read of coming to “Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” The blood of Jesus is contrasted with that of Abel, both pointing to death. And so it is with Hebrews 13:11 f. that we see the comparison made between the sin offering and the blood of Jesus, the point being not the presentation of the blood, but the burning of the carcass outside the camp. It is the death of the animal, and not the presentation of life that is seen here, and again the sacrificial illustration points once more to the death of Jesus.

From all of this a consistent picture emerges, namely, that blood points us primarily to the infliction of death. We have seen passages where one might possibly interpret blood as signifying life, but even these yield to better sense when the word is interpreted according to wider biblical usage and understood to mean “life given up in death.” There seems no reason, therefore, to dispute the dictum of J. Behm: “ ‘Blood of Christ’ is like ‘cross,’ only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning.”

Leon Morris is Vice-Principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. He holds the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees. In this article he handles a theme treated more fully in his recent book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1955).

From the point of view of the average businessman, the New Deal launched America on the path of “creeping socialism.” By the mid-1950’s over one hundred “business sponsored” organizations opposing the New Deal’s political philosophy of interventionism began to appear. Many welcomed the name “libertarian” to distinguish themselves from the political liberals who accepted Big Government as a necessary instrument of social progress.

Although differing on many points, libertarians have, since their beginning, shared one common apprehension: the steady growth of government and the corresponding decline of individual responsibility and freedom. They have been driven by a very real fear, the fear that a government which controls the economic life of its citizens today will control their thoughts and souls tomorrow. To the libertarians, the “democratic process,” which many trust as an adequate safeguard against tyranny, supplies no sufficient guarantee against a tyrannical majority. They have read American history and know that the architects of our Constitutional system, who were aware of the danger of tyranny by the majority, tried to prevent it by specific checks which later political developments either weakened or destroyed.

Libertarianism And Religion

Three libertarian organizations that have had the most to do with the religious community have been the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York; Spiritual Mobilization, Los Angeles; and the Christian Freedom Foundation, New York City.

All three organizations have been anti-statist but hardly anarchistic. (Professor Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind, is the leader of another faction which prefers to call itself “conservative” rather than libertarian and tolerates more government authority. Thus, the age-old tension between freedom and authority divides the anti-statists.) All three are indebted for much of their economic thought to the Austrian school of economics mediated by Professor Ludwig von Mises and Professor Friederich Hayek and their disciples. Beyond that, these three organizations have followed different paths.

Foundation For Economic Education

Although sometimes mentioning God in its publications, the Foundation for Economic Education has not consistently risen above a humanistic basis, often implying that man is self-sufficient and capable of ordering his world by reason alone without guidance from other sources, especially government. This Foundation has championed an autonomous man and argued for freedom on the materialistic grounds that man in a free society produces more things and enjoys a higher standard of living than he would were government to interfere. The Foundation for Economic Education belongs to a wing of the anti-statist movement which champions a minimum of government. Occasionally, however, its antipathy toward government has been mistaken as a brand of philosophical anarchism.

Although the Foundation for Economic Education has included clergymen with teachers and other molders of public opinion in its activities, it has not concentrated upon influencing church organizations. Moreover, its policy has been to send literature only to those who request it. In short, it has had much less contact with churches than the two following organizations.

Spiritual Mobilization

Spiritual Mobilization, under the leadership of Dr. James W. Fifield, Jr., minister of the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, with the aid of Dr. Donald Cowling, former president of Carleton College, has ventured a more religious approach than the Foundation for Economic Education. Spiritual Mobilization has published a monthly journal, Faith and Freedom, which has centered on the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and has turned attention to the inalienable rights of man as a creature of God. Spiritual Mobilization has been thoroughly American in its accent, but less evangelical in emphasis than Christian Freedom Foundation. The full name of the movement significantly, is Mobilization for Spiritual Ideals, Inc.

Christian Freedom Foundation

Dr. Howard E. Kershner, a Quaker humanitarian who has served around the world in relief work, together with other religious leaders including Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, launched the Christian Freedom Foundation, which publishes the fortnightly, Christian Economics. This Foundation has as directors a large body of clergymen who account, along with the native pietism of Dr. Kershner, for the biblical and evangelical tone of the paper. This characteristic has distinguished it from the Foundation for Economic Education and Spiritual Mobilization. With the exception of Christian Economics there is very little consciousness of sin in libertarian writing.

Economics And Religion

Since the loss of secular freedom usually appears in the realm of economics, the concentration of libertarian movements has been upon economics. Increasingly, however, the intuition of many businessmen who are concerned about freedom has been that they must strike deeper than economics if they are to preserve economic freedom. Mr. Leonard Read, founder and president of the Foundation for Economic Education, may have been reflecting this trend when he stated that today a more descriptive name for his organization should be the Foundation for the Study of Freedom. One executive of a major industry recently made the statement: “All economic problems find their answer in the area of religious faith.”

This growing awareness of the need to search more deeply into the origin and nature of freedom is in contrast to much of the material sent out by the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce which is often content to contrast the large number of work hours required in Russia to purchase shoes, clothing and other consumer goods with the very few work hours required in America. It is important to recognize that free men produce more, and a free system results in higher standard of living; but is this the essential difference between Communism and private enterprise? Suppose men get bored with two cars in every garage?

The Gospel And Society

Nevertheless, libertarian exploration of freedom has posed some questions evangelicals should consider. The advice that ministers “preach the gospel” and ignore political and economic issues is palpably absurd. Christianity cannot exist in a vacuum. It exists in relationship to men in society and has implications regarding the actions of men in their economic, political and social situations.

What are the implications of the gospel regarding society? Many theological liberals have been sure that the gospel implies Socialism. Does it? Is the Bible on the side of private property or of community of goods? What is the function of government in the light of the New Testament? Should we try to do by government what God refused to do in the Garden of Eden: prevent man from making mistakes? What about the Robin Hood morality of taking from one group in society in order to give to another? Is this Christian?

Evangelicals who think about these problems will have some questions to ask libertarians. Is the purpose of freedom the pleasure of man or the glory of God? Is statism evil because it generates poverty or because it enslaves man and inevitably becomes idolatry? Can we stop on the level of moral and spiritual ideals in our search for the foundations of freedom? Can the dilemma between freedom and authority, which so plagues libertarians, be resolved without Christ who sets men free through the discipline of commitment?

In this dialogue, evangelicals have a ministry that goes beyond raising questions. They have a witness to bear to the Saviourhood and Lordship of Jesus Christ. They must share the libertarian concern about the political and economic crisis which threatens our nation, but they must also be uneasy about the note that is missing from most libertarian publications.

The need of government is usually discounted by libertarians because men are good. This was the same kind of reasoning that was followed by the social gospel of former years to a conclusion far removed from that of Spiritual Mobilization. The social gospel argued that men are so good that they can be trusted to be altruistic and to live co-operatively once the “wicked,” competitive strife for profit is eliminated from society. The social gospel found sin in the environment rather than in the heart of man. Consequently, it was easy for the social gospelers to believe that mankind could bring the Kingdom of God to earth by means of legislation. Social action comes out in about the same place, but for different reasons. Through the impact of neo-orthodox theology, social action has become more realistic about sin, but its hope of redemption is still government action and not divine intervention. Consequently, although some social action leaders have retracted their more extreme pro-Marxian statements, they are still committed to a policy of legislating Christianity into “the structure of society.”

Evangelicals know that there is but one solution to the problem of sin—the Saviourhood and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals know that this is a disease that can be remedied only on an individualistic basis. Individuals cannot be changed by changing society, but society can be changed by changing the hearts of individuals. In their individualism, evangelicals and libertarians are in agreement. It does not take much imagination to see the possibility of that agreement widening to include many other fronts as libertarians become conscious of the terrible lostness of modern society, and as evangelicals become aware of the political implications of their gospel.

It is inevitable that whoever takes the quest for freedom seriously must eventually be led to Christ. When Jesus said: “If the Son shall make you free ye shall be free indeed,” he was speaking of freedom from sin, but this is a freedom which is a source of all other freedom and which acts as a leaven in any society. Without this grace no society can long enjoy political or economic freedom. Witness the failure of South American and Asiatic countries when they have tried to build political freedom on some other foundation. Weber and Tawney drew near to the truth when they developed the thesis that capitalism was a by-product of Protestantism, especially of the Calvinistic variety.

Freedom A Divine Gift

It may be heretical to try to use Christianity to save a politico-economic system, but it is not heresy to point to the fact that political and economic freedom are a gift of Christ and that unless men turn to Christ they will certainly lose both.

Dr. Samuel M. Shoemaker, Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh, and a director of the Christian Freedom Foundation, relates a relevant experience in his book By the Power of God.

He found a delightful group of young married couples in Pittsburgh whose support of private enterprise far outran their interest in Christianity. The husbands were all executives and junior executives in the Pittsburgh area. When first introduced to them, Dr. Shoemaker asked them the question: “Have you ever stopped to think where America got her freedom? There is a Greek element in it, but by far the preponderant factor in freedom as we know it is our inherited Christianity.”

Dr. Shoemaker developed this theme at his first informal meeting with the group. The first meeting led to a second, third, fourth and a fifth, and then the Rector had to leave for vacation. In the fall, the couples reconvened, but not merely to study. By now they were ready to win others to a new way of thinking, and they did. This group of businessmen, with their wives, became the core of an evangelistic enterprise later known as “the Pittsburgh experiment.”

An evangelical who does not compromise with socialism has a greater opportunity to reach business communities today with the gospel than he has had for generations. But he must have some understanding of the economic crisis we face, as well as know the Christ who came “to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Preacher In The Red

THE SILENT CALL

While in school I was no different from any other student minister—I wanted a church that I could call my own charge. Finally a small church many miles beyond the city limits invited me to come one Sunday in view of a call. Filled with excitement and expectation I went, and gave them my student best. They set the next Sunday to call, and I was the only one being considered. The week which followed was a long, anxious one. The months fell away but no news from them. A few years later I was preaching in a town not many miles from that country church. After the service a lady came by and asked if I remembered her. I didn’t. She reminded me that she had been a member of that church and was there the Sunday I preached for them. I remarked, “Well, that was a strange experience. I felt sure the church would call me.”

“They did call you,” she replied.

“But I never heard a word from them,” I said.

“I know. I was the church clerk and they instructed me to write you, but I got to wondering what my husband would think of me writing to a strange man, so never did let you know.”

—The Rev. J. LOWELL PONDER, Karnes City, Texas.

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

Irving E. Howard is associated with Christian Freedom Foundation. An ordained Congregational clergyman, he holds the Th.B. degree from Gordon Divinity School, S.T.B. from Harvard Divinity School, M.A. from Clark University, and is studying Business Administration at New York University.

“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matt. 16:21–23).

Peter came through with flying colors on this examination as to the person of Jesus. But he failed miserably in his understanding of our Lord’s atoning mission. For him there was no place for death in his Christology. To Peter death could mean only defeat for all that was involved in Jesus’ ministry.

That the apostle was not alone in this regard may be seen in an examination of the attitudes held by others with respect to the death of Jesus. To the elders, chief priests, and scribes it was merely the removal of another threat to their privileged position (John 11:48). To the Romans it was only the execution of another criminal (Matthew 27:15–17). To the Greeks it simply involved another foolish sentiment of an unlearned people (1 Cor. 1:23). To the multitude of Jews it was a stumbling block to their faith (1 Cor. 1:23). To Jesus’ most devoted followers his death was a tragic defeat for all their hopes and dreams (Luke 24:21). To all the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of martyrdom to his ideals. In varying degrees all these attitudes have persisted through the centuries even unto this hour.

But to Jesus his own death was the center of history about which all his words and deeds would revolve. To be sure, for many the meaning of Jesus’ death came into proper focus after the Resurrection (Luke 24:25–27). However, there are some who would still stand alongside Peter of long ago and “rebuke” Jesus and those who proclaim him when faced with the facts and implications of his death. His person, character, and teachings they embrace; but for them no cross, no Calvary and no shed blood.

A Voluntary Death

Since Jesus’ death was to him the crux of his ministry and the center of men’s faith, what, then, may we say as to the meaning of it?

That the death of Jesus came as no surprise to him may be seen in that six months before it happened he began to prepare his disciples for that hour (Matt. 16:21). Death had been a reality to him from the beginning. We may well surmise that even as a child he saw himself as the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8; cf. Luke 2:49). Certainly it was envisioned by Simeon as he held the infant Jesus in his arms (Luke 2:35). John the Baptist could have had no other thought in mind when he said of him, “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). We do not fully comprehend the meaning of the baptism of Jesus until we see in it the symbolic foregleam of his death, burial, and resurrection. The burden of proof rests upon those who would avow that the full significance of Psalm 22 was not understood by Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry (Matt. 27:46; cf. Ps. 22:1).

But all this Jesus kept from his disciples until the pressure of the approach of his death made it necessary that he tell them plainly of his pre-determined end. Shortly after his conversation with Peter, Jesus, in his transfiguration experience, conversed with Moses and Elijah concerning his “decease” or exodus (literal translation) “which he should accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31). Thereafter, knowing that “the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51), knowing what awaited him there.

This truth comes more into focus as, later in Jerusalem, we hear him say, “No man taketh it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:18). Still nearer to that event, and in reply to those who warned him of Herod Antipas, Jesus says, “Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.… for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:32 f.). The time of Jesus’ death lay, therefore, not within the whim of Herod but within the wisdom of Jesus. And two days before his crucifixion he predicted the exact day on which it would occur (Matt. 26:2).

The picture of the voluntariness of Jesus’ death becomes even clearer as the hour of it draws nearer. Under the shadow of Gethsemane’s gnarled boughs, when Peter rashly attempts to save him from his arrestors, Jesus allows himself to be taken with the avowal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Matt. 26:53 f., author’s italics).

A careful analysis of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion reveals that through it all he was in complete command, to die not as a martyr nor criminal but as a king. In the midst of his trial he reminded Pilate, who said he possessed the power to release or crucify him, “Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.…” (John 19:11). And at his crucifixion, he caused Pilate to write in the languages of government (Latin), of culture (Greek), and of religion (Hebrew), “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John 19:19).

But the climax of this truth is seen in the moment Jesus died. Matthew records that when He “cried again with a loud voice, he yielded up the ghost” (27:50). Translated literally we read, “He dismissed his spirit.” That is, when all was accomplished according to divine plan, Jesus said to his spirit, “You can go now!” This was a voluntary death!

Looking back from that juncture in time, we realize, therefore, that our Lord was not swallowed up in a swirling maelstrom of circumstances. Rather he walked with certainty and dignity to the cross as he perfectly did always the will of his Father. On the cross he refused the merciful relief of drugs that in full possession of his mental powers he might lay down his life as a sacrifice for the sin of the world. Having known no sin he voluntarily became sin for us that in his death the power of sin over us might be broken. Nothing short of this would have sufficed. Animals by the unnumbered thousands had hitherto gone to the altar as unknowing and unwilling victims. Yet, they were but shadows of the Lamb of God, the Son of man, who willingly gave his life as a ransom for many.

A Vicarious Death

A vicarious death simply means a substitutionary death. In his crucifixion Jesus was our substitute, bearing the penalty for our sins. This is seen in Jesus’ becoming the substitute for Barabbas. According to Roman custom, the Jews had the privilege of selecting one prisoner to be released for them at the season of the Passover. Knowing this, and hoping thus to release Jesus, Pilate asked the crowd whom they would have released unto them, Barabbas, a notable prisoner accused of insurrection, murder, and robbery, or Jesus. At the instigation of the chief priests and elders, the people chose Barabbas and called for the crucifixion of Jesus (Matt. 27:15–22). Thus, when our Lord died between two thieves he was actually a substitute for the sinner, Barabbas.

In actuality, of course, Jesus died not merely as the substitute for one man, but for all men (1 Tim. 2:6). This truth is clearly taught in the Bible. More than seven hundred years before that event Isaiah spoke of One who “hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows,” of One who was “wounded for our transgressions … bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes [bruises] we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray.… and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:3–6). Literally, the Lord “hath made the iniquity of us all to meet on him.”

Jesus’ vicarious death is the theme also of John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God, the One bearing away the sins of the world” (literal translation). The words “bearing away” mean to take upon one’s self and carry that which has been raised by another. Thus Jesus became the scapegoat of the New Testament as he took upon himself the sins of the world.

Every man, were he to bear to his own death his own sins, would fall under the weight of the burden and be unable to carry them away. For this reason God mercifully raises our sins off from us and places them upon Jesus, the Lamb of God, who in turn carries them for us in death as our Substitute.

It is significant that a few weeks before Jesus’ death, Caiaphas, the high priest, had pointed out to his colleagues that it was expedient that “one man should die for (author’s italics) the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:50). John comments that Caiaphas had unknowingly “prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (11:51 f.). This word for is indeed significant, for Jesus uses it in explaining the purpose of his death: “I lay down my life for (author’s italics) the sheep” (John 10:15), that “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Had the justice of God prevailed Barabbas, not Jesus, would have been crucified. But because his judgment is wielded in mercy, Barabbas and all other sinners may go free.

Jesus Christ was our Substitute. And as we lift our eyes to see him hanging on a tree, we must avow, “But for the grace of God, there hang I!”

A Votive Death

The word “votive” is an adjective describing that which is offered or given in consecration or fulfillment of a vow. The last words of Jesus before he died were, “It is finished!” (John 19:30). In the language of the New Testament these words have to do with reaching an intended goal, carrying out the contents of a command, or performing the last act required to complete a process. In John 19:28 we read, “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst” (author’s italics). The verb in italics is the same word in a passive form of the word “finished.” Jesus’ intended goal had been reached, the command had been fully obeyed and the process completed. And when he had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished!” and bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the author interprets the death of Jesus as the fulfillment of the new covenant which God had made with men (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:6–10:22). He pictures the crucified Son of God as the “mediator of the new testament” (9:15). Pointing out the insufficiency of animal sacrifice for man’s sin (10:4), he adds, “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me … then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God” (10:5–7). That the will of God involved Jesus’ death for man’s sin is made clear by the author’s assertion, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (10:12).

Thus we are carried back into the council chambers of eternity, where, in keeping with the redemptive purpose of God, the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). But this redemption had to be worked out in history. The Father had to prepare a body in which the Son could be incarnated. And in this body Jesus justified the law of God in that he was tempted in all things like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Still he was made to become sin for our sakes “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). It was to this that Jesus referred in his Gethsemane prayer. But he drew not back from the complete will of God. Jesus was nailed to the cross, God “made the iniquity of us all to meet on him” (Isa. 53:6), and God thereby poured out his wrath upon sin. In short, Jesus placed himself upon the sacrificial altar as a votive offering for sin.

A Victorious Death

If the death of Jesus had ended with the cry “It is finished,” our hopes would be futile. Such an end would have been defeat indeed. But the glorious epilogue to the redemptive drama is one of victory. Three days after his death some women came to his tomb prepared to anoint his body with spices for permanent burial. When they arrived they found the tomb opened and an angel sitting at the doorway. Seeing they were afraid the angel said to the women, “Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.…” (Matt. 28:5 f.).

“As he said …!” It was in the foreknowledge of Jesus that beyond the cross would be the empty tomb. And he had spoken of this in many ways. At his baptism had he not come up out of the watery grave? At the first unveiled pronouncement of his death, had he not said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19)? And when asked for a sign as to his deity, had Jesus not given the people the sign of Jonah, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40)? Yet, they understood him not.

They understood not that the victorious climax to Jesus’ earthly ministry would be in the resurrection. It was to be the basis of hope for all who should believe in him. “Because I live, ye shall live also” (John 14:19). He was declaring that assurance when he said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

In this question lies the very essence of our faith. The preaching of the first century did not stop with the crucifixion, but went on to the resurrection. And so must ours! Without that glorious truth we have no gospel, no forgiveness, no hope (1 Cor. 15:14–19). “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (v. 20). The “firstfruits” is the certainty that those in Christ may declare, “But thanks be unto God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 57).

I Hold The Book

Here in my hands I hold the Holy Book.

Like silence coming after battle roar,

Now peace comes home, and all the storms that shook

The heart’s foundation are no more, no more.

Now unafraid, I watch the level length

Of shadows deepen into darkest night:

Here in my hands is quietness and strength,

Here in my hands is gentleness and might.

Though satellites may whirl in outer space,

And hearts may faint with fear, this heart of mine

Is confident. I hold the Book and trace

God’s faithfulness in every single line.

And though the midnight of the world be nearing,

I face the dawn, the day of His appearing.

HELEN FRAZEE-BOWER

Herschel H. Hobbs holds the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees from Southern Baptist Seminary. Pastor of First Baptist Church. Oklahoma City, he serves in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Several recent articles in United States magazines have given the impression that the day of missions is nearly over, and that there is an anti-missionary spirit on the mission fields of the world today. Strong proofs have been cited in support of this notion. Nonetheless, as a Mexican who has served with a mission board for five years and has traveled in nearly every country of Latin America, I do not believe these articles give a correct analysis of the situation—for my continent, at least, and probably for others throughout the world.

Neglect Of Stewardship

Missions have been in Latin America for about one hundred years. At the beginning of their work there, missionaries hesitated to teach the people Christian stewardship, for two reasons: (1) there existed unfavorable circumstances created by the domination of the Roman Catholic church and its exploitation of the ignorance and earnings of the people, and (2) the missionaries wished to emphasize the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace and not by works. In many places, therefore, offerings were not taken, mention was not made of the people’s responsibility to give for the work, and funds for the operation of national churches were consequently having to be supplied through the missionary’s own mysterious sources.

Sadly enough, this policy was pursued for many years with the result that churches in time became accustomed to depending upon missions for their own support. However, as social and economic situations changed, and new missionary leaders appeared who realized the Christian irresponsibility in not teaching new believers the privilege of giving their first fruits to the Lord, there began a new movement which might well be called the plan of responsibility for the children of God. Such terms as “indigenous church” and “self-support” came into vogue as a consequence of this.

To implement the new plan many mission boards decided to reduce gradually the help they were giving to national churches. This brought difficulties, not for the ordinary believers, but for the pastors who often had to face real poverty. I know of families who suffered an economic depression to the point of not knowing what they would eat from one day to the next. In one conference, for instance, which had been called for the purpose of pushing this program, a pastor asked the question: “Brethren, is it right that a missionary have milk for his pet dog to drink each day, when I sometimes do not have a few cents to buy even a piece of bread for my children; and yet we are both in the same work of the Lord?”

This was not the case with everyone, of course, but it reveals that many injustices were committed against pastors who had faithfully served the Lord and missions in the past. The entire situation caused an unfortunate spirit on the part of some nationals—not ingratitude toward mission boards so much as opposition to their methods in “nationalizing” the work. Even today some pastors in Latin America earn only about $25 a month. Of course, the lower standard of living in these countries must be taken into consideration; nevertheless, the remuneration received by these hard-working servants of the Lord is often grossly insufficient.

Service And Salary

The economic situation moreover brought problems between one mission board and another because certain of the boards, which had begun work more recently, were paying the nationals at a higher rate than were the older boards. This caused something of an exodus of pastors from one mission to another, each believing that a higher salary would signify a reward from the Lord for faithful service in the past. Such pastors were judged by their own boards as unfaithful, carnal, and more interested in money than in the true work of the Lord. But now that I have seen the operation of the church in the States, I wonder—would it seem wrong to you, were you in such poverty, to accept the call extended by some other church or mission if that meant a bigger salary?

Of course this whole question of support on the mission field is a delicate one and has caused many problems and misunderstandings. But I do not believe it has caused an anti-missionary spirit. The nationals simply consider these problems inevitable and love the missionaries anyway.

Nationalism Not Anti-Missionary

In Latin American countries today there is a marked spirit of nationalism. Almost every nation protests inwardly or outwardly against foreign companies who own large proportions of the land. It is not unusual to find scrawled on signs, “Get out Yankees!” or something similar. This is only natural. And we know that nationalism is but the natural product of a self-awakening, growing nation.

However, it deserves repeating that nationalism does not mean an anti-missionary spirit. Just as the United States industrialists who exploit Latin American resources do not represent the Christian Church, so the extreme nationalists in Latin American countries do not represent the Christian believers of those countries. Christians of these lands are as grateful for missionaries as you are for the people who first told you the Good News and then fed and nurtured you in Christian life.

Today, and tomorrow as well, Latin Americans desire and need help from the missionary—in somewhat different terms and methods than what they are receiving at present. In spite of the great differences between Latin and North American cultures, perhaps the day is not far distant when missionary leaders throughout the world can meet with national leaders to seek a solution to the difficulties.

Maturing Of Nationals

The national church is coming to maturity. Its leaders feel that they should have voice and vote in the work. They want to be collaborators and not just puppets, and if there are any cases of anti-missionary spirit in Latin American churches today, they are on an individual basis, and are the result of personal resentments caused by this want of responsibility and independence.

Perhaps the greatest problem on the mission field today is simply a lack of understanding between the two groups, nationals and missionaries. Any observer will note that on the mission field there is a feeling of “we” as against “they.” The Latin, regardless of his actual status, is always on a slightly different level from the missionary; and therefore, there is not complete confidence on his part toward the latter. In fact, there are a good many reservations on both sides.

The nationals have resigned themselves to the fact that (as they see it) any opinions contrary to those of the mission must not be expressed if they do not want the danger of losing their positions through moral or economic pressure. On the other hand, missionaries often are not frank enough in expressing what they have in their hearts, because they fear to offend their sensitive brethren or appear superior over them. Identification of one group with the other, openly and in love as true Christians, is needed on both sides.

Toward New Understanding

Let me make four suggestions that might lead to better understanding between missionaries and nationals:

1. It is essential that all missionary candidates make a thorough study of the psychology and culture of the people whom they plan to serve, not only in general but of the specific area which is to be their field. Lack of knowledge and appreciation of Latin American psychology has contributed much to the problems between nationals and missionaries.

2. Since the work has now come of age, national leaders want to work as full collaborators with the missionaries. If mission boards truly wish to avoid misunderstanding, unfairness, and friction, they should formulate policies that give equal rights to all “citizens of heaven,” with ample opportunity for everyone’s views to be heard on a matter before decision is taken.

3. As funds permit, key national leaders from the different mission fields should be brought to the United States for brief visits. This may sound extravagant, but it would accomplish four important results: (a) leaders would be able to observe the operation of the church in the States, (b) they would learn to understand better the psychology of the Anglo-Saxon and his ways of work, (c) they would appreciate how a missionary feels in a strange country without a good grasp of the language, and (d) they would find out that money for missions, far from growing on trees, comes (to non-denominational missions at least) as a result of difficult semibegging on the part of the missionary. Such a trip would be an eye-opener to any national leader who loves missionaries and yet finds their ways at times difficult to understand.

4. In keeping with its increased growth and cultural development, Latin America needs missionary help today more than ever. Our thinking must be in terms of how we can make missions more effective rather than complaining that there is an “anti-missionary spirit” that must be retrenched. The fields of literature and radio, especially, are white unto the harvest. Missionaries must not desert Latin America now when only about 5 per cent of its 180,000,000 people are believers!

If any reader would visit the mission field to test the views that I have given here, he would be surprised at the high regard in which Latin American Christians hold those who have helped in any way to give them the message of peace.

In spite of the problems that still exist, it would be a sin to curtail the Latin American missionary program or stop sending help to countries where ignorance of the Gospel is so great.

Juan M. Isais is a native of Mexico. In 1951 he was graduated from Instituto Biblico Centroamericano, Guatemala. Since 1951 he has conducted weekly radio programs and served in evangelistic campaigns throughout Latin America. Currently he is assigned to mission responsibilities in New York City.