Dr. Leon Morris, Vice-Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne, has further consolidated his reputation for conservative scholarship by the publication of The Lord from Heaven (I.V.F.). This is a study in Christology, based upon an examination of what the New Testament itself says upon this theme. Dr. Morris has read widely, and his work is a model of unobtrusive scholarship. He has studied all the relevant issues; he is aware of current discussions; and he relates all this to an explication of the biblical revelation. The result is a popular introduction to a major theological theme.

One of the hopeful ‘signs of the times’ is the number of younger theologians who are now approaching maturity in Australia. Of this number Dr. Morris is an outstanding representative. A graduate of Science of Sydney University, he took his B.D. and M.Th. at London University, and in due course his Ph.D. at Cambridge. His doctoral thesis has been published under the title of The Apostolic Preaching and the Cross (Tyndale Press). Dr. Morris is in his early forties, and we can confidently look forward to a steady stream of further publications. Two further commentaries are in the press, to be published this year in America and England respectively. His particular field is the Greek New Testament: he has an astonishingly exact knowledge of the Greek language (etymologically and philologically), which he uses to good effect when expounding the Greek text.

An appointment of interest to readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY is the elevation of Canon Marcus Loane to the episcopate as Bishop Coadjutor of Sydney. Canon Loane is a man of proved worth and strong convictions. At the present time he is Principal of Moore College, Sydney, the largest theological college in Australia. He is the author of numerous devotional works, and of three useful historical works: Oxford and the Evangelical Succession (Lutterworth), Cambridge and the Evangelical Succession (Lutterworth), and Masters of the English Reformation (Church Book Room Press). Bishop Loane is a devoted student of the writings of eighteenth century evangelicals, and he himself stands in the same succession. He will bring to his new and important office a deep consecration of spirit, earnest zeal, and tireless energy. He is not yet fifty years of age.

Jerry Beavan, Billy Graham’s executive secretary, has arrived in Australia to coordinate plans for campaigns in 1959. Evangelistic campaigns will be undertaken in both Sydney and Melbourne, with short visits to the capital cities in other states. Campaigns in the two main cities will each be of six weeks duration. Dr. Beavan’s headquarters is in Sydney, and Mr. Walter Smyth in Melbourne.

Strong local committees have been established in both cities, with most of the major churches officially represented. The Archbishop of Sydney, Dr. H. W. K. Mowll, who was one of the signatories to the invitation issued to Dr. Graham, has been closely associated with all the subsequent arrangements. Some opposition has been expressed, particularly from some representatives of the Methodist church, although the President-General, the Rev. Dr. A. H. Wood, is an enthusiastic member of the Melbourne Committee. Much correspondence has taken place in church papers, and there is a general attitude of expectancy.

We live in an age which insists increasingly upon a predigested diet of snippets. Hence the vogue for Digests of every conceivable kind on every conceivable subject. The fallacious belief exists that the mere accumulation of unrelated and miscellaneous items of information is the same thing as the disciplined pursuit of learning and knowledge. Hence, the avidity with which Digests are purchased and passed from hand to hand.

The Christian Church has found itself impelled to take cognizance of this popular demand. One example within Australia is the Anglican Digest under the title of The Living Church. The present issue (April–June 1958) adopts the accepted format, and is copiously interlarded with advertisements. It consists of articles and abridgments from current Christian literature in different parts of the world. If we accept as valid the Pauline principle: “By all means to win some”; then we must recognize the value and admit the justification for these publications. It would be lamentable if they became a substitute instead of a supplement to more solid reading.

Gambling continues to be a subject of growing concern. In several states official lotteries are conducted by the state itself, the extenuation being that the money is used to finance the running of public hospitals. This is simply an application of the dangerous principle that the end justifies the means. Gambling is now assuming epidemic proportions. Pools and prizes are becoming bigger and bigger, and the state further condones and encourages the evil by making the winning prizes tax-free. This is the more anomalous since the winners of coveted prizes for essays and poems and stories are taxed to the fullest possible extent. Gambling is notoriously an Australian vice.

All this has been highlighted by the decision of the Teaching Order of Christian Brothers of the Roman Catholic church to offer a hotel (worth $300,000) as the first prize in an art union. Six other prizes, each a home unit worth $12,000, are also being offered at $2.50 each, and 370,000 tickets are being offered to the public. The object of the art union is to extend a training school conducted by the Christian Brothers.

The Rev. McNeil Saunders, convener of the Life and Work Committee of the Presbyterian church, immediately described the proposal as a disgrace to the cause of Christian education. He said it plumbed the depths of moral cynicism. “This stimulus to public cupidity, under the robe of religion, is a travesty of every Christian principle,” he said.

The Rev. Bernard Judd, secretary of the Council of Churches in the state of New South Wales, said: “This is a most blatant example of that dangerous philosophy ‘the end justifies the means.’ A teaching order whose objective is presumably to inculcate a high standard of citizenship lowers itself by entering the already crowded lottery market. By linking this gambling venture with the liquor traffic the Christian Brothers have allied themselves with two of the major social evils assailing our community. Instead of seeking to combat them they seek to exploit them for—of all things—education.”

The Rev. Gordon Powell, minister of St. Stephen’s, Macquarie Street (who is reputed to have the largest congregation in the southern hemisphere), said: “I have always understood that the Roman Catholic church did not disapprove of gambling as long as it was kept within reasonable bounds, but is a lottery of $300,000 within reason? Many social workers and clergy now believe that gambling causes more human misery than excessive drinking.”

One Religion?

The Coming World Civilization, by William Ernest Hocking, Harper, 1956. $3.75.

The first, shortest, and I believe the best section of this small book concerns “The Impotence of the State.” Clarity and force characterize Professor Hocking’s argument that a state depends on a motivation it cannot supply. A secular state cannot control crime: punishment presupposes that the criminal recognizes the justice of the penalty, but the state cannot produce a sense of justice. Nor can the state educate: teachers must have moral standards, but the state does not furnish them. All the less can the state safeguard the family. The state can, and Professor Hocking thinks that the state ought to control the economic life of the nation, but it cannot make prosperity produce contentment. Although the author repudiates the idea of unalienable rights, on which our nation was founded, he sees that the state cannot protect or create the conditions on which any rights exist. A “church” therefore is needed to supply the motivation that the state cannot give.

Despite the deficiencies of the state the author is apparently none the less a socialist. He equates individualism with solipsism and constructs some clever but not too convincing arguments against the latter. As a philosophic essay this second part of the book is highly entertaining.

The third section on the merging of the several historic civilizations into one civilization prepares the ground for the fourth section on the universalization of Christianity.

No religion can any longer remain ‘local’ (i.e., particular or distinctive). “Jealous gods and chosen people are normal chiefly within an accepted polytheism no longer thinkable” (p. 81). The particularity of Christianity, expressed in the phrases ‘he that loseth his life for my sake’ and ‘ye have done it unto me,’ he empties of any definite meaning by reducing them to “the affirmative power of a purposeful devotion” (pp. 90, 94). Similarly on a later page he writes, “The doctrine of Incarnation [note the omission of the definite article] could be defined as a generality whose role it is to escape from generality, accepting the responsibility of the universal for realization in the particular” (pp. 180–181).

To justify the merging of Christianity with Buddhism and the other religions, Dr. Hocking argues that “Affirmation is not exclusion.… Christian faith does not present itself as an hypothesis competing with other hypotheses.… ‘This way is a way of peace.’ As affirmative, it is not exclusive” (pp. 137–138). There is an ‘Only Way,’ but “The Only Way so far as its essence has by valid induction achieved finality is no longer the Way that marks out one religion from all others: it is the Way already present in all, either explicitly or in ovo. The several universal religions are already fused together, so to speak, at the top.… The religions of mankind—Buddhism not excluded—are already one religion” (p. 149; ital. his).

Now, in criticism, there are two things I should like to say, only one of which there is room for. It would take a treatise to argue that there is no such thing as religion. There are religions, but there is no intellectual or even emotional content both common and meaningfully definite in all. A particular definite religion may become geographically universal, but the philosophic universal ‘religion’ is another night in which all cows are black.

Second, Professor Hocking’s reinterpretation of Christianity is neither objective nor historically accurate. “For my sake” must not be reduced to the empty verbalism of “the affirmative power of a purposeful devotion.” There are too many incompatible devotions. Nor can one honestly equate “No man cometh unto the Father but by me” with a Way that is already present in Buddhism. In this case the affirmation is most definitely an exclusion. And the statement, “The faith of the Christian is continuous with the nature faith by which all men live” (p. 113) is simply false.

GORDON H. CLARK

Jewish Philosophy

Pointing the Way, by Martin Buber, Harper, 1957. 239 pp. $4.50.

Jewish philosopher Martin Buber is easily one of the most brilliant and multifariously gifted men of the twentieth century. By his writings alone, he has touched creatively and with remarkable incisiveness nearly every fundamental sphere of human activity concurrent to Western Europe and the Near East. And as he becomes increasingly recognized by thinkers in this country, it is possible that his impress upon the same will be equally outstanding.

At present he is professor emeritus of social philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Beyond this, his interests embrace modern theology and the Jewish faith, poetry and drama, aesthetics, sociology, education, psychiatry, political philosophy and, of course, the manner in which his own ideology of “genuine dialogue” answers the need of man and his relationship to these things.

Pointing the Way comprises 29 essays, translated from the German, and recording Dr. Buber’s thoughts and responses to these several complexities. Space does not permit even a cursory treatment of these essays, but the mentioning of a few of his basic convictions may place in perspective something of the author’s world and life view.

As the title suggests, Martin Buber recognizes himself as a leader and a teacher (the one without the other, he believes, destroys all that makes human life seem worth living). “In our age,” he says, “powerful transformations are accomplished through individuals who are not equal to the deeds they bring about … they are, in fact, only the exploiters of a situation … A man without restraint who arises and cries, ‘I will show you a way, finds a following and attains success. [But] he knows no way, he points to none, he marches without direction and the masses follow” (p. 158). He is, in short, “the contradiction between being and appearance” (p. 158). Throughout the essays of this book, the inference is clear that the author regards himself as no “contradiction.” He is a man of clairvoyance who believes he knows the way, is pointing to it, and would have the reader follow him in it.

Dr. Buber’s way is toward “true existence” to be found and experienced in the present moment (a perspective approaching that of Kierkegaard), and in the intensely personal encounter of the I and its Thou. He is opposed to the mysticism which he once held—an “all absorbing unity of [one’s] own self … separate from every other self,” and pleads for a spontaneous going forth of the whole or “unconditioned” Self (that “truly human” ideal which Goethe describes), to meet in unity and “love” the world of man, and Him who is above the world, God.

This concept of the “truly human” seems to be one which Buber not only acquires from Goethe but also, perhaps, from the less detestable side of Nietzsche’s doctrine, “the superman.” In the thinking of all three, there runs a picture of a “true” Man who is conceived as an ideal harmony of both the dynamic, infrarational and the spiritual-ethical rational sides of human nature. And in the mind of Buber, this ideal is something that may, yea must, be realized in every man if he would experience “genuine life”—that unconditioned unity of virtue and body (or, better stated, the spiritual irradiated through the sensuous), and also “genuine dialogue”—the abandoning of this integrated Self in love toward others and toward God. The reviewer suggests that perhaps what Buber desires to see, in Christian terminology, are “saved” men, reconciled to God without Christ, and made perfect in the flesh.

It is within the I and Thou relationship, of course, that man finds truth; although he explains this is not to relativize it: “ultimate truth is one, but is given to man only as he enters, reflected as in a prism, into the true life relationships of persons” (p. 79). And it is within this meeting, this other name for history, that Buber believes man can eventually discover the potentialities for world peace.

As with any thoroughgoing existentialist, as well as humanist in his own stripe, many of Dr. Buber’s concepts are at variance with historical Christianity. He does not, in fact, pretend to be a Christian, for his underlying theology appears as something of an Emil Brunner variety of neo-orthodoxy in Judaism. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that to contemporary thinking he has offered an incisive contribution in his creative emphasis upon love. Love is a unique responsibility of an I for a Thou. “Each man you meet needs help, each needs your help … [and] even when you yourself are in need—and you are—you can help others and, in so doing, help yourself” (p. 110).

Martin Buber possesses extraordinary skill in writing. His literary style varies according to the mood of the essay, which at times is straightforward and penetrating, and in places poetic and often musical.

MARIAN J. CAINE

Subjectivism

Jesus and His Coming, by J. A. T. Robinson, Abingdon, 1957. 192 pp., $4.

Jesus is not coming to earth again. The idea of a literal second coming of Christ was an early development in Christian thinking, but Jesus did not teach it himself. By the time of I Thessalonians, only 20 years after Calvary, the Church had applied Old Testament apocalyptic symbols to the expectation of Christ’s triumph, and the outcome was the mistaken doctrine of the Lord’s personal return in glory. What Jesus meant by his coming was that he would be vindicated over his enemies, would come to the place of honor at his Father’s throne, would from there continue the victorious campaign inaugurated when he was on earth until at last all things should be summed up in him.

If you ask how such a thesis can possibly be supported, J. A. T. Robinson replies that much material in the Gospels was not part of the “primitive tradition.” It is only the materials of secondary value that contain apocalyptic elements. The path of analysis is marked by the recurrence of this type of phrase: “generally established principles of New Testament criticism,” “demonstrably editorial introductions … rather than words of Jesus,” “isolated, and on critical grounds, rather dubious, sayings (of Jesus).” Plainly, subjectivism is still a prominent quality in New Testament critics.

It is of note that the trend, so assisted by study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, toward a higher appreciation of the Gospel of John is evidenced in this book. Dr. Robinson favors a fairly early date for John and finds much of the “primitive tradition” in the Fourth Gospel.

J. A. T. Robinson belongs to a school of scholarship to which the idea of inspiration is irrelevant. The mind of Christ, the teaching of the New Testament become plastic in such hands and strange forms appear.

ROBERT STRONG

An Apologetic

Cooperative Evangelism, by Robert O. Ferm, Zondervan, 1958. 100 pp., 75¢.

As a study of historic evangelism this book will be of interest because of its analysis of the methods used by evangelists from the time of John Wesley to Billy Graham.

As an apologetic for cooperative evangelism the book reveals a situation in American church life which needs exposing and correcting. Because this controversy centers in Billy Graham, his message and his policies, Dr. Ferm has done a considerable amount of research work, and this is reflected by an unusually long bibliography with notes and references, all of which help lift the discussion out of the realm of personal opinion and into one of historical fact.

Opposition to Billy Graham comes from the two theological extremes: extreme liberals reject Graham because they have already rejected the Gospel which he preaches. On the other hand, extreme fundamentalists claim to accept the Gospel but they vociferously attack Graham because of his willingness to preach under any sponsorship so long as there shall be no restrictions of any kind on the message he preaches.

As a rule the extreme liberal tends to ignore Graham. It is true that there have been some caustic references to his preaching but usually the criticisms are temperate and objective.

This is not true for the extreme fundamentalists. Some of them seem obsessed with the determination to “tear Graham down,” and the language used, the willingness to distort and the energy and time used in writing articles, letters and broadcasting attacks is in itself evidence of their tenuous position.

Dr. Ferm writes: “Those who are in disagreement with the inclusive policy of Billy Graham have repeatedly mentioned the major evangelists—Whitefield, Wesley, Finney, Moody and Sunday—intimating that Graham’s cooperative policy is novel as well as unscriptural. They would leave the impression that from Jonathan Edwards to Billy Sunday not one of them evinced a tendency to include in their evangelistic campaigns those who had not been proven orthodox. Some of the opposing articles imply that these leaders in evangelism actually investigated the participants in their crusades in order to eliminate the heterodox from sponsoring responsibilities.

“Convincing indeed are the historical records of the methods and associations of these proclaimers of Christ. Sponsorship of campaigns was the least of their concern, and sponsorship and cooperation is the crux of the entire controversy that is carried on today by the hyperfundamentalist spokesmen.

“In order to give strength to a campaign against Billy Graham and inclusivism they have often been guilty of serious errors in the use of historical records.”

Chapter two gives an excellent definition of the meaning of evangelism, showing what it is and what it is not. Making certain distinctions between preaching and teaching we find in this particular chapter an effective answer to those who would have Graham step out of his role as an evangelist and into one of social reformer.

Regarding sin and judgment Dr. Ferm writes: “When a few have even said that there is an overemphasis upon sin and judgment in the preaching of Billy Graham, they overlook the fact that grace and mercy are best revealed against the dark background of sin and judgment. As Wesley somewhere stated: ‘I preach the law in the strongest, the closest, the most searching manner possible.’ Only as the people became convinced of sin did he ‘mix’ more and more Gospel … to raise into spiritual life those whom the law had slain. This has been true of every major evangelist, and the confession of Moody is commonly known: ‘I must not preach hell unless I can preach it with tears.’ ”

Chapter four, “Cooperative Evangelism in History” makes up almost one half of the entire book. This will prove invaluable to all who would know the position of the great evangelists of history. That Graham has followed in their steps is obvious to all who will face the array of evidence here presented.

The author begins his concluding chapter with these words: “Having examined the policy of Billy Graham from the perspective of history and the Scriptures, it has been shown that he is neither out of harmony with the major evangelists, nor is his policy contrary to the Scriptures. He has not conducted his crusades with the attitude of an opportunist, doing evil that good may come, but he has sought for both message and method in the Scriptures.”

Later we read, “The transformed lives of both rich and poor, learned and illiterate, moral and immoral, ministers and laymen, all bear witness to the undiminished power of the Gospel that came to them because Billy Graham dared to enter in where separatists feared to go, and fearlessly proclaimed Christ as the answer to the need of the longing heart. What if he had insisted upon screening and excluding men of different opinions and views from his own, thereby excluding many who sensed their need?”

The opposition of the separatists probably stems from a number of motives, but it also evinces a very low estimate of the saving and keeping power of the Holy Spirit, and of the Church. Deploring the policy of permitting those who make decisions for Christ to “go to the church of their choice,” they limit the power of the third Person of the Trinity.

There is also an ethical phase which they would ignore. Graham rightly feels that any pastor who cooperates in a crusade in which he knows the great historic doctrines of the Christian faith will be preached has the right to receive into his church those who make decisions and then so indicate their preference.

This controversy in which the separatists are so active assumes ridiculous proportions because, when analyzed, it places more importance on sponsorship than on the message itself. That our Lord gives ample precedents is ignored. That Paul preached on Mars Hill under the sponsorship of the pagan Stoics and Epicureans is conveniently forgotten.

Dr. Ferm concludes with these words: “The cooperative policy of evangelism leaves the door open for the entrance of any and all who desire to have the Gospel preached with unparalleled effectiveness. Every true Christian has a great responsibility for being identified with the work of God. The words of Jesus are perennially true, ‘He that gathereth not, scattereth.’

“One of the tragedies of contemporary Christendom is that some once-honored and used evangelists, men who once knew the power of God in their preaching and whose altars were once filled with repentant sinners, no longer preach the Gospel with power, much of their time being apparently spent with others of like mind in concerted attack on some of God’s servants. By word of mouth and printed page there continues to pour forth a volume of criticism, abuse and even distortion which must bring great joy to the enemies of the Cross.

“Most important of all, these are days when Christians should join hands in prayer for every fruitful work of making Christ known. It is a time when we should unite in thanksgiving and praise, and in asking God’s guiding and sustaining hand to rest on all who are preaching the unsearchable riches of his grace. Let us uphold and not hinder!”

The reviewer noted a few typographical errors in this book which will undoubtedly be corrected in future editions. In general, there is presented here most valuable historical data as well as a satisfying defense of cooperative evangelism.

H. B. DENDY

Artificial Construct

The Doctrine of the Trinity, by Cyril C. Richardson, Abingdon, 1958. 159 pp., $3.

This is a lucidly written book in which Dr. Cyril C. Richardson, professor of church history at Union Seminary in New York, reveals his unalloyed antithesis to the fundamental biblical and historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

He believes that God has a paradoxical nature, the primary paradox being that God is both beyond the world and yet related to the world. He reluctantly uses the terms Father and Son to describe the two sides of the paradox. For him the word Father is a misleading symbol for the “aspect or mode of God’s being” that is absolute, transcendent, beyond, and veiled. The word Son symbolizes that aspect of God’s being that is related to the world and unveiled.

Richardson concludes that the Persons of the Trinity are after all not persons. For if the terms Father and Son symbolize two aspects of God’s being, “it will at once be evident that we cannot equate God’s beyondness and his relatedness with ‘persons’ in the Godhead, who love one another.… It really makes no sense to say that God as beyond loves God as related.… Aspects or modes of being do not love one another. It is persons as centers of self-consciousness, that love one another …” (p. 81). “Where Augustine introduces a real confusion is in attributing to all three persons of his Trinity the capacity to love. Persons may love, but relations cannot.… By personalizing the relations in his symbolism, he introduces untold confusion” (p. 103).

Richardson’s basic presupposition as to the twofold nature of God leads him to deny the Holy Spirit. “The Spirit is not a ‘thing,’ over against God, but a way of expressing God in his relation to us” (p. 53). Thus “the Spirit is logically identical with the Logos” (p. 54), and the two terms “are metaphorical ways of talking about the same thing—God in his relation with the world” (p. 48). He recognizes that Paul “perpetually observes” this distinction between Son and Spirit, but “it is evident that Paul had not thought the matter fully through; consequently he introduced some inconsistency into his thinking” (p. 50). Naturally, then, for the author the doctrines of procession and the filioque “can no longer be regarded as legitimate theological issues” (p. 114).

Having abolished the symbol Holy Spirit and having poured an entirely new content into the terms Father and Son, Richardson then proceeds to do away with the terms. Rather than illuminate the meaning of God beyond and God related, the terms Father and Son becloud them (p. 26). For these symbols imply a priority of God’s beyondness to God’s relatedness, and a begetting of one by the other. But “it is doubtful that there is value in thinking of these two paradoxical aspects or ‘modes of being’ in God under terms which imply the one is derived from the other” (p. 25). “Beyondness is not in any sense prior to the relatedness, nor does it engender it. If it did engender it, it would no longer be the kind of absolute beyondness of which we are speaking” (p. 35).

Richardson’s “conclusion, then, about the doctrine of the Trinity is that it is an artificial construct.… There is no necessary threeness in the Godhead” (pp. 148–149).

From the foregoing it is clear that this speculation on the Trinity has not one iota in common with the biblical and historic Christian concept of the Trinity. A whole new meaning is poured into the old terms, and then the terms themselves are abolished entirely. If we are to know anything of the Trinity, we will do so only by humbly submitting ourselves to God’s revelation of himself, which is to be found in the Bible, where men like Paul and John have indeed thought the matter fully through, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

EDWIN H. PALMER

Specialized Topics

The Study of the Parables, The Study of the Types, The Study of the Miracles, by Ada R. Habershon, Kregel Publications, 1957. Types, $2.50, Miracles and Parables, $3.95 each.

The book on Parables is strongly dispensational. Nevertheless the author concedes that parables can and do have historical, present and future truth, a principle by which she abides throughout. She is to be commended for this tolerant view, but the syncretism which is born from it seems to be exegetically impossible. This is especially true when the “future truth” is based upon dispensational presuppositions. Nevertheless the volume is rewarding and stimulating in many places.

The work on Types will reveal many things in the Old Testament to be types which most students of the Word have overlooked as being such. Certainly there are a few things which have been stretched to the point of being fanciful, but this does not minimize the positive contribution of this work. If carefully studied, it will open up much of the Old Testament to the average preacher and will cause him to ground his sermon material in biblical illustration.

The volume on Miracles is unusual and different from other works on this subject. It presents God’s omnipotence in all his acts, and thus expects and understands and proves the miraculous. However, a great many of these acts of God, while exhibiting his power, cannot rightly fall under the category of miracle unless one considers everything to be miraculous.

The reviewer feels that of the three, the volume on Types is the most rewarding and has value for the minister.

KENNETH MCCOWAN

NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

“Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed.”

Thus in Genesis 32:28 the name Israel became associated with God’s chosen people, called earlier (in Genesis 12:1) to “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee.”

Jews have always held that the “land,” with or without the name Israel, was in Palestine. In point of fact, there was no Israel as such between 721 B.C. and 1948 A.D. But for ten years now, the Jews have had a new autonomous Israel—in Palestine!

The end of the new Israel’s first decade prompted observances and varied tributes all over the world in honor of the blossoming desert country with an area comparable to that of New Jersey.

Many American newspapers saluted the tenth anniversary of Israel with editorials commending the state’s spirited progress. “Conceived in idealism and born in fire, Israel has already accomplished the impossible,” said the New York Times. David Ben-Gurion was called a “messianic” prime minister.

Both houses of the United States Congress heard speeches marking the occasion. Some 50,000 persons crowded into New York’s Polo Grounds for a “Salute to Freedom Rally” under auspices of the American Committee for Israel’s Tenth Anniversary Celebration. Protestant and Catholic clergymen participated in the event with Jewish rabbis. A New York luncheon by the American Christian Committee drew another 250 religious leaders and civic officials. A public observance in Washington, witnessed by a crowd of 2500 in Constitution Hall, was addressed by Senator John F. Kennedy, Catholic Democrat from Massachusetts, and Senator Clifford P. Case, Presbyterian Republican from New Jersey. In Israel itself, parades were held as thousands of tourists poured in from all over the world.

Communications media, particularly in America, were carrying prodigious accounts of Israel’s meteoric rise. Politically recognized first by the United States, the young state was now gaining recognition in new phases of achievement. Foodstuffs from Israel were coming to be a more common sight on supermarket shelves. One report said that more than two million wild gladiola bulbs will be imported from Israel to America during 1958. U. S. aid, which in turn has been the backbone of Jewish economy, was taking at least one strange twist: August A. Busch Jr., brewery magnate and owner of the St. Louis Cardinals, was to be honored at a New York dinner, June 4, “to hail his support of the introduction of baseball play in Israel.” A central baseball park, to be named Busch Stadium, will be built on a plot of ground overlooking the Mediterranean just north of Tel-Aviv.

From a secular standpoint, tension with the Arabs ranks as the Jews’ number one problem. Israel has difficulty staying within the frontier established by the United Nations, frontiers which left large numbers of Jews in Arab territory, while many Arabs remained in Israel. Jerusalem, the city through which the Israeli-Jordanian border runs, bears the brunt of the problem.

Neighboring Arab countries never have been reconciled even to the existence of a state of Israel, a point that raises a question pregnant with religious implications: Is independent Israel a fixture in Palestine? Are the Jews there to stay?

Last year more than 71,000 Jewish immigrants were received into Israel (only 180 of them were from the United States). The population has increased from 600,000 at the time of the end of the British mandate to about 2,000,000.

Does the current influx of Jews into a new Israel truly represent a scriptural preliminary to the second coming of Jesus Christ? Many dispensationalists think so. Others feel that the promise to Abraham concerning the land was conditioned upon obedience and that the Jews were oppressed in the land or driven out of it because of disobedience.

Some claim that possession of Jerusalem has tremendous significance; the opposing view can be stated this way: A believing Jew is just as near heaven in Jersey City as he would be in Jerusalem; an unbelieving Jew is as far from heaven in Jerusalem as if he were in Jersey City.

Whatever appraisal is more accurate, Israel still needs her Messiah! Evangelization in the Palestine area seems to hold a priority in the minds of Christians, yet the fruit is small. At last count, there were only 45,000 Christians in Israel, and almost all of them were Arabs. Some Hebrews profess Christ secretly, but only a handful publicly proclaim him as Saviour. Christian churches number 160.

Interested Christians will soon get a new opportunity to testify in person to twentieth century Israelites. A new Israel-American Institute of Biblical Studies is being established in Jerusalem under the direction of Dr. G. Douglas Young.

Assessing A Crusade

Advertisers call it “the hard sell.” Anthropologists call it “mana.” Average people call it “sincerity.” Christians of San Francisco insist on identifying it as the anointing of the Holy Spirit—God’s special preparation of a man uniquely set apart as his messenger in troubled times. By whatever name, the bay area has been exposed to a man and a message that are having an effect totally out of proportion to the brevity of time involved.

It is difficult if not impossible to apprehend the effect of the evangelist Billy Graham on the people of his generation without coming to the Cow Palace and witnessing the nightly miracle. After New York it was felt that superlatives were exhausted; the crusade to end crusades had become history; San Francisco could be only an anticlimax.

Before the first week was out it was apparent, however, that the Billy Graham team was breaking new ground in the West. On Thursday, “Youth Night” of the second week, a new high of 1243 decisions was recorded. The first crusade of the satellite age gave evidence of a yearning of God that threatened to develop into a hunger riot. Not only the breath of spring, but the spiritual breath of revival was in the air.

Dr. Graham told 18,000 listeners just before his first telecast, “I believe God is going to do something deeper here than we have sensed in any of our crusades. It may be that during these spring and summer months this nation will go on its knees before God.” Declared song-director Cliff Barrows as he prepared to lead a record-breaking 2500-voice choir, “This has surpassed anything we hoped for or even anything that we have ever seen.” A reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle said, “We’re giving this more coverage than we expected to. The size of the crowd demands it. It looks as if Protestants are getting rid of their inferiority complex around here.” (The city of San Francisco lists 800,000 population, 40,000 Protestants.)

The team reported not only more counselors than New York, but a new level of counseling. Two hundred ministers sat through the instruction of Charles Riggs and Lome Sanny; seven M.D.’s were enrolled in a single class. Said Riggs: “The counseling in the Cow Palace is the smoothest ever. We have more advisers than we ever had.” Ushering reached a new high; according to assistant director Bill Brown, San Francisco had more ushers at the start of its campaign than New York had at the end. “These men,” he said, “have a depth of purpose; their spirit of cooperation is unusual.”

Mounting statistics indicated that San Francisco will achieve new goals in television coverage (twice as many stations as New York), in churches cooperating, in bus transportation, in choir and counseling participation. New developments such as pastors’ prayer groups, local church Bible classes, special bus committees, telephone brigades are mushrooming. Negro churches are more active. On the first Saturday night telecast Dr. Graham reported “the largest audience at an evangelistic service in the history of the Christian church.”

There are other changes more difficult to assess. One is the change in Billy Graham himself. The evangelist said in Madison Square Garden that “Christ does not remove your problems; your problems may be even greater after you come to Christ, but you will have a capacity and power to face them.” He is saying it more emphatically in San Francisco. If the whole world were to become Christian, he tells his audiences, there would still be problems. “Even in a Christian home there are tensions—but Christ creates an atmosphere in which solutions can be worked out.” This new emphasis cuts across a familiar criticism: that Graham poses too simple solutions for the issues of life.

Evident also is a more discerning analysis of the motives of some of his listeners, and a new attitude toward his brother ministers. “Some of the things I say will make you cringe,” he told pastors at a breakfast the first week. “Just close your ears and eyes and wait for something you can agree with. I cannot devise a theology that will please all of you, for we come from different backgrounds.”

PEOPLE: WORDS AND EVENTS

Awards: To Lieutenant Colonel Roy H. Terry, the “Air Force Chaplain of the Year” citation of the Reserve Officers Association … To Dr. Samuel McCrea Cavert, retired U. S. executive secretary of the World Council of Churches, the 1958 “Upper Room” citation “for leadership in world Christian fellowship” … To Methodist Bishop Arthur J. Moore of Atlanta, the 1958 “Distinguished Service” citation of Georgia State College … To Rochester, New York, and Worthington, Minnesota, “World Brotherhood” citations.

Appointments: As commander of the Salvation Army in Ireland, Colonel Muriel Booth-Tucker, a granddaughter of the founder of the Salvation Army, William Booth … As president of the yet-to-be-organized Alaska Methodist University at Anchorage, the Rev. Donald F. Ebright of Chicago … As general director of United Church Men, Samuel J. Patterson Jr. of Richmond, Virginia.

Distribution: Of more than 14,500,000 Scripture portions in 271 languages during 1957, announced by the American Bible Society.

Development: Program of building to cost $16,000,000 undertaken by Union Theological Seminary, largest interdenominational seminary in the world.

Election: As an associate superintendent in the Congregational Christian Church, Miss Janice C. Bennett, first woman named to such a high administrative post in the denomination’s history.

Nomination: As chief of Air Force chaplains, Brigadier General Terence P. Finnegan, Roman Catholic priest. Confirmation to the post would elevate Chaplain Finnegan to the rank of major general. He is to succeed Major General Charles I. Carpenter, who has been named Protestant cadet chaplain of the Air Force Academy.

What of the actual effect of the crusade upon individual lives? The Cow Palace “exhibit room” which has been taken over by the counselors has become a production-line of Christian love. The affectionate way these Westerners counsel each other is striking. One young man who responded to Graham’s invitation gave his occupation as “thief and gambler.” A salesman in a bar across from the Cow Palace saw the crowd, decided to have a look for himself, listened, and gave his life to Jesus Christ. A newly-released convict from Leavenworth, a girl from Czechoslovakia, a Dutch refugee mother, three girls—triplets—and their parents, a clean-up man at the Cow Palace, a student for the Roman Catholic priesthood, a Ph.D.-holding college professor are among those who have already yielded to the Lord their lives. The gentle, dignified way in which these inquirers are handled—even to the small children—and the spirit of their united prayer of confession are unforgettable scenes.

One delegation came by train from Nashville, Tennessee, and stayed a week. Other plane and train excursions were scheduled by groups from New York, Georgia and the Carolinas. The “Youth Nights,” Thursdays, and on week ends the crowds have been overflowing. To those on the scene it was clear that no newspaper, no broadcast or telecast could reproduce the spiritual milieu that is being created in the great auditorium. Says co-chairman Carl Howie, “Dr. Graham’s greatest effectiveness is not so much in his sermons as in his moment of invitation. Then it becomes apparent how uniquely God is using him.”

To watch these people of every race and color coming forward without pressure, quietly, reverently, some dabbing at their eyes with a handkerchief, all soberly, is to recognize that here is a work of sheer mercy that is unmatched in the world of our times. They come not to fill their stomachs or to cure an ache or an infection, but to lay their sins and their griefs on the Lamb of God.

Last year columnist John Crosby predicted in a telecast entitled “The Revivalists” that within two years Billy Graham’s popularity would begin to wane. San Francisco was providing little comfort for the prognostication.

S. E. W.

Tour of Russia

Interested in going on a tour of Russia?

The opportunity presents itself in a summer seminar which incorporates visits to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

The seminar is led by Dr. Charles F. Boss, executive secretary for United Nations and Intergovernmental affairs of the Board of World Peace of the Methodist church. The group will leave New York by plane July 22 and will return a day or two after Labor Day.

Invitations for inquiries have been extended to “clergymen, professors, graduate students and competent laymen.” The New York office of the Board of Peace is in Room 1016, 345 East 46th Street, New York 17, N. Y.

Seeking “civic unity” in the midst of “religious pluralism,” the so-called Big Four in American life (Protestants, Catholics, Jews, non-religious humanists) met May 5–9 in New York for a Fund for the Republic seminar to discuss and debate “Religion in a Free Society.” Provocative monologues by speakers of disparate viewpoints (Dr. Robert M. Hutchins, the Rev. John Courtney Murray, Dr. Leo Pfeffer, Dr. Will Herberg, Dr. James Hastings Nichols, Rabbi Abraham Heschel, the Rev. Gustave Weigel, Dr. Paul Tillich and others) propelled the 100 invited participants into dialogic discussion almost spiritlessly genteel at the outset but so ominously polemic by the third night that director John Cogley diagnosed an unscheduled three-hour autopsy of Protestant-Catholic tensions as a “rump session” rather than a technical aspect of the “dialogue.”

Rump meeting or not, the Wednesday night flurry marked a climax which the scheduled sessions failed to rival until the closing hours. With more than half the participants present, Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy and lay leaders engaged in spirited debate, frankly bared their anxieties, and hopefully looked to the future for solution.

Broad issues in national life shaped the five-day program: the meaning of separation of church and state, religion and education, censorship. These themes were prosecuted from diverse points of view. Shifting emphases reflected the cultural tension between supernaturalism and secularism, between Protestantism and Catholicism, as well as measurable disagreement within each religious grouping, American Jewry included. The attempt to delineate American life as a synthesis of supernaturalists (as by the National Council of Christians and Jews) was under fire by the non-religious humanists from the outset. Both the Western sequence of Jewish, Catholic and Protestant history as well as the American accommodation of Protestant traditions to enlarging Catholic and Jewish influence, had now to reckon with secularism. On the opening night Father Murray noted that civic unity would be much simpler “if our society were all Protestant, or all Catholic, or all Jewish, or all secularist”—he even called the secularist “a late comer” who owes his existence to the rejection of Christian values, and warned of the “intellectual barbarianism” of the age. He acknowledged, however, that civil order now requires a pattern of interlocking “conspiracies” united for a common end. The decline of the nation, said more than one, may stem from interreligious disharmony as easily as from irreligious solidarity.

Partisans of an “absolute separation” of church and state gained early momentum from Dr. Leo Pfeffer (who had represented the American Jewish Congress in the McCollum case and against Gideon Bible distribution in New Jersey). He warned that religious compromises (like “so help me God” in oaths, “in God we trust” on coins, “under God” in the pledge of allegiance; required chapel attendance at West Point) supply precedents that will nullify American freedoms and dissolve the Bill of Rights. He urged swift removal of “these impairments … lest they supply a precedent for inverting the whole intention of the First Amendment.” Dr. Pfeffer called the historic prohibition of a law ‘respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof a “uniquely American contribution to civilization.… When our constitutional fathers formalized this concept … they imposed on future generations … a great moral obligation to preserve their experiment and to adhere strictly to the principle they expressed.”

Episcopalian Dr. Wilber G. Katz of the University of Chicago Law School argued that “absolute separation” is “not supported unequivocally” by American historical and legislative traditions (“except for occasional flights of rhetoric, no one urges … this was intended”). He invoked the tradition of chaplains and of prayers in public life as establishing not a deviation but a principle of religious neutrality. President John A. Mackay of Princeton Theological Seminary commented that American tradition favors “the development of religion, but it may not promote religion.” Dr. Katz demurred: “It favors religious liberty, not religion; it should keep the exercise of its power out of the way.” Dr. Will Herberg of Drew University contended that religious institutions are entitled to government support in principle; however, the attempt to rationalize American practices is stifling: in the face of religious plurality “the Supreme Court has articulated a series of irrationalities … We are a religious people, but the government must not go ‘too far.’ Public opinion determines the appropriate limits according to time, place and circumstance.”

With an eye on Roman Catholicism, many Protestant speakers stressed that the First Amendment excludes the Catholic correlation of state and church, while some Roman Catholic participants protested any association of the amendment with a specifically Protestant theology. Dr. Pfeffer had argued that the American form of government is “the result of an alliance between Protestant dissent and secular humanism” (a designation of Jefferson and the Deists especially palatable to contemporary humanists), that “Judaism has accepted this alliance and become one of its sturdiest supporters,” that the alliance “is today challenged by a Roman Catholic philosophy.”

Protestant-Catholic Tensions

Discussion between Romanism and Protestantism heightened with the question whether Roman Catholic parochial education [Father Murray had said the first night that in respect to this an American injustice was now being committed in the distribution of public benefits] involves a system of values basically anti-democratic and somehow competitive with the American political philosophy. Editor Carl F. H. Henry of CHRISTIANITY TODAY proposed a sustained exchange of thought on Protestant-Catholic anxieties. Dr. James Hastings Nichols of the University of Chicago’s Federated Theological Faculty characterized Roman parochial schooling as “censored and irresponsible education.” “Protestants hear the argument for distributive justice with one ear, as an artificial formulation of a real problem,” he said. “The crux … is free education (of the dialogue) and censored education (intellectual segregation). Roman Catholic education is censored education; is irresponsible education (not subject to the review of the community); and is sacrosanct (its substantive content cannot be criticized) … Hence its graduates are crippled as participants in the great dialogue of modern life and … in the civic dialogue.” He bluntly called “the expansion of Roman Catholic controlled education a major threat to a free society.”

With this turn of events, group feeling ran high. The Rev. Neil G. McCluskey of America, who thought any special scrutiny of Catholic positions an “impertinent suggestion,” resented any reflection “on the quality of the citizenship of the Catholic body,” a phrasing that recalled Father Murray’s earlier sally that to a Catholic war veteran whenever the prejudice appears that Catholics are “among us but not of us … them’s fighting words!” After the coffee break, Father McCluskey announced: “It seems we really don’t fit … and we are leaving.… I’m busy getting names to get on the boat!” Inviting attendance at the National Catholic Education Association, and a reading of Catholic self-criticisms of parochial education, he added that Catholic institutions meet state requirements and are fully eligible to confer diplomas.

Paul Blanshard of Protestants and Other Americans United called discrimination against public schools, the hierarchy’s official establishment of parochial schools, undemocratic control, restrictions against texts critical of Catholic doctrines and traditions “undemocratic features” of the parochial schools.

As discussion increased, the special Protestant-Catholic conclave appeared inevitable. The Very Rev. George G. Higgins of National Catholic Welfare Conference dissociating himself “from a sort of hurt feeling,” said he was “not in the least offended by Dr. Nichols’ talk. The majority of Catholics welcome this type of talk if we have time …” He drew from Dr. Nichols the admission that he had not extensively examined Catholic schools. He assailed any notion that Catholics engage in “calculated slander of public schools” (“Is it any more severe,” he asked, “than slander of Catholic schools by secular educators and fundamentalist Protestant groups?”).

Dr. Edward A. Dowey Jr. of Princeton Seminary emphasized that criticism of Romanism is socio-political, not theological. “It involves authority, solidarity and comprehensiveness What worries me is the socio-political implications of a large group in society subject to dictates of the church in matters of the body politic … From this issues a kind of front expressive of an official church opinion within a free society. Moreover, the Roman church seeks to be more fully related to culture in its own particular way (Catholic veterans, Catholic nurses, and so on). Such a large bloc … isolated from ‘the dialogue’ reduces to a power bloc in society, hence the danger of ruining ‘the dialogue’ is clear if not yet present.…” President Mackay asked “what could happen” if the classical Roman Catholic view of religious freedom (and freedom in general) and of church-state relations “were to become dominant in the U.S.A. and if the state were to subsidize their schools and make them contributory to the triumph of that view … which assumes and proclaims the superiority and authority of one particular church over the state and society wherever the Roman church represents the dominant view?”

Roman Catholic participants in turn asked: what values should be taught by all educational enterprises?

Although discussion continued in a psychological and emotional atmosphere that “sounds cool and dry but feels volatile,” the issues waited for head-on debate until after the evening reception and buffet dinner. During the day, several priests had already indicated that the Roman church is re-examining its church-state position, and now values religious freedom in a way heretofore unrecognized. (Pope Leo XIII wrote: “Although in the extraordinary conditions of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty.” In the encyclical of 1885, Leo XIII also said: “It is not lawful for the State to hold in equal favor different kinds of religion.”) President Mackay acknowledged that some Roman Catholic scholars repudiate this dominant view as an historical accident and not an essential expression of the inner logic of the church. Would Roman Catholicism in the U.S.A., he asked, repudiate the historic view and give an absolute guarantee of religious freedom?

This issue was prominent in the night meeting on Protestant-Catholic tensions, moderated by a humanist. Asked for an opening statement, Dr. Henry noted that the work of scholars like Father Weigel and Father Murray who are now seeking to adjust its application to meet the unique political situation in America is tacit admission of conflicting interests in the present Roman church-state formula. He said ten per cent of the Roman clergy and an even greater proportion of the laity in the United States are now said to favor the more liberal view. Paul Blanshard stated that the Vatican has in principle repudiated the view of the German Jesuit Gundlach (that the church-state thesis is not final but rather one of several possible theses). Catholic spokesmen admitted “there is a crisis in Catholic thought in this field … We do not know the main thrust for the future … But if Protestants push too hard, the answer may not be what we want.”

Catholic participants protested what “seemed” an uncharitable disposition to put them “on the spot”; to them the Protestant expression of “vague and unprecise fears” was “amusing” and due to “lack of Protestant comprehension.” Dr. Martin Marty of The Christian Century ascribed these fears to Protestantism’s quest for security in a day of shifting political balance and asked “what background explains this ‘nameless, faceless dread?’ ” Dr. Pfeffer noted Rome’s attempts “to utilize the coercive arm of the state.”

Catholic leaders said they were targets of two unreasonable demands: first, that they subscribe to the political notion (of Reinhold Niebuhr, whose participation during the week was precluded by illness) that religious freedom requires a theology of doubt; and second, that the Roman Catholic as a man becomes secular by divorcing himself from religious commitment in his social actions. In a summary statement ending the almost three-hour session Dr. Henry called these problems not the actually central issues (the early Americans whose consciences were informed by Scripture, he said, “were not representatives of a theology of doubt,” and theological commitment properly and even inevitably reflects itself in social attitudes and actions); rather, the main concern is the authority the Roman church assumes in the political order and its corollary authority over the conscience of its members in socio-political affairs. “The question is not one of affection and love for Roman Catholics—priests and laity—as individuals; it is a matter of concern over organization. The Roman church is a principled church, and its principles and their application are at stake.” He noted appreciatively the restatements by contemporary Catholic scholars of the traditional church-state thesis, but pointed out that “the determination of the hierarchy’s official doctrine does not lie with these scholars.”

Two days of the seminar’s larger dialogue remained. James O’Gara, editor of The Commonweal, voiced private anxiety lest excesses on both sides of the recent debate had opened wounds that now required time for healing. Most participants felt, however, that while sometimes intemperate, the exchange cleared some differences, and marked an advance over repressed feelings. But when the Rev. Walter Ong of St. Louis University framed his discussion of religion and society in personalistic rather than Thomistic categories, Professor James Luther Adams of Harvard Divinity School renewed the inquiry: Does Roman Catholicism grant the right of voluntary secular associations to be freely formed and to exist? Does it promote free personal relations? Does the nature of Catholic authority allow this in the structure of that church? Father McCluskey replied that Catholic conscience does not cease to be free when it is voluntarily informed by the authority of the church, and that nothing in the U. S. Constitution is repugnant to a Catholic commitment.

With Protestants obviously leading the thrust for democratic values, the Rev. Raymond T. Bosler of The Indiana Catholic and Record proposed that a half hour be allotted the last day in the general sessions for a recital of Catholic fears. (“In protecting the Protestant status quo, Protestantism in relation to its own principles seems to bend backwards in defending secularists … Protestants hold they can reverse themselves … and lack stable principles of morality …”) But the following day, when President Mackay urged that Roman Catholics be given a full opportunity for “an expression of concerns regarding Protestant attitudes and positions,” Father McCluskey of America disowned any anxieties or worries about “what Protestants will do to Catholics” and Father Bosler waved aside the opportunity (“I simply wanted to reflect some of the emotions we Catholics feel … so that for a second you were ‘on the spot’ ”). Norman St. John-Stevas of Yale University, nonetheless admonished fellow Catholics: “We must beware of being carried away by a tidal wave of metaphysical good will. Criticism of the Roman Catholic church bulks large … This gives the American Catholic a solemn warning that the image created in the American mind is that of a power structure rather than of the Church of Christ.” Last word in the debate fell to Theodore Powell of the Connecticut Department of Education, who spoke to the conscience of Protestant and Catholic alike:

“If Protestant dominance grows, what will the Protestants do to the Catholics?… They will use the force of law and other means of social organization to promote Protestantism, to give advantage to Protestants and to impose disadvantages on Catholics; they will attempt to make the public schools Protestant schools. They will seek laws to make Catholics adhere to Protestant views on gambling and alcohol, while objecting to Catholic insistence on maintaining laws against birth control. They will frown on and will not encourage … the growth of Catholic schools.

“These are not things that might happen. They are happening right now …

“Protestants have not welcomed with much enthusiam, Father Bosler, your Legion of Decency. But I suggest that you ask them to join Catholics in a Legion of Political Decency. A Legion to guard against improper—that is, political—means of proselytizing by religious bodies …

“A League that would insist that the religious mission is advanced most speedily, not by coercion of law, but by reasonable persuasion and spiritual appeal.

“A League that would insist that there are areas where the Church alone exercised authority and the State could neither forbid nor permit—in fact, areas where the State was not competent to act.

“Ask your Protestant brethren, Father Bosler, to agree that the command to go and teach all nations was given to the Apostles and not to Caesar’s legionnaires.

“In short, I urge you to seek general recognition that the Church (of any faith) is working against itself when it permits legal or quasi-legal agencies to take over part of the Church’s responsibilities …

“With such recognition, with such agreement, we could then place our faith in the free response of men’s hearts to the divine message.”

Dismissing the conference, President George N. Shuster of Hunter College acknowledged that the Fund for the Republic had sponsored the seminar “with great trepidation” lest it lead to “meaningless assent,” but the discussion of “religion in a free society” had proved “the most distinguished undertaking yet,” lifting its participants to “the verge of a new era of inter-group discussion.”

C.F.H.H.

Worth Quoting

“I am aghast as the Harwell Thinkometer, which by a system of buttons placed before each member of a group, permits group decisions without the embarrassment of discussion. You press a button, yes, no, or maybe; and the machine calculates the total reaction.

“I am aghast at the Dynamucator, which is alleged to be able to teach you through your pillow while you sleep. Without any intellectual effort, you may learn to be an aggressive salesman, or to speak Russian.

“I am even more terrified by the Dial-A-Prayer movement, by which a machine performs your devotions for you, and you do not have to make any personal exertion to get in touch with the Deity beyond giving Him a ring.”—Dr. Robert M. Hutchins on “Religion in a Free Society,” at a seminar sponsored by the Fund for the Republic.

Which Way Now?

Senate Commerce Committee hearings had hardly begun when the adverse odds became evident. At stake was a bill to ban interstate liquor advertising. Similar measures had died in committee during the last nine Congresses.

“Is the bill constitutional?” The question had already been raised, Committee Chairman Warren G. Magnuson observed in opening remarks. The Democratic Senator from Washington also noted quickly that several federal agencies were on record against the bill, namely the Departments of State and Commerce and the Postmaster General. The Department of Justice declined to comment on the merits of the bill, but pointed out that such a law might favor foreign liquor dealers over domestic interests. The Interstate Commerce Commission took no position other than recommending an exemption for common and contract carriers if the bill was to be favorably reported to the floor of the Senate. No endorsements came from any administrative government source; neither was there any comment from the White House.

The first morning’s testimony opened before 13 of the 15 members on the committee. Subsequent committee attendance never approached that figure, and at times only the chairman and one other member were present. Even the bill’s sponsor, Republican Senator William Langer of North Dakota, missed much of the testimony.

“I made extra efforts to have committee members here,” said Chairman Magnuson. “They don’t seem to be interested or something, I don’t know.”

Committee members found it difficult to attend primarily because afternoon hearings were held simultaneously with Senate sessions. The committee still gets a chance to study testimony, for all remarks are subsequently published in a comprehensive report.

The biggest obstacle for the bill was brought out pointedly in a sharp exchange between Senator Magnuson and Dr. Charles X. Hutchinson Jr., general superintendent of the International Reform Federation and president of the National Temperance and Prohibition Council:

HUTCHINSON: The bottling up of this legislation in this committee session after session raises up a question about the democratic process. Unfortunately, thousands of our citizens have blamed their senators because the liquor advertising bill has not been passed. It is difficult to explain that the bill has perished in committee and that their senators never have had a crack at it. I urge the committee, in the name of democracy, to report this bill at long last to the Senate—favorably or unfavorably. Then if the Senate as a whole is unwilling to do anything about this vicious liquor advertising business, the people will know it and will fasten the blame where it belongs. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hearing you have given me, and urge this committee to report S. 582 to the Senate, favorably I hope, and facilitate its consideration by that distinguished body.

THE CHAIRMAN: Dr. Hutchinson, this committee is composed of 15 members. Any time eight of the fifteen want to report this bill, or any other bill, favorably or unfavorably, it will be reported.

HUTCHINSON: I recognize that, sir.

THE CHAIRMAN: We have taken votes in the committee on this bill on several occasions, and the votes have always been against reporting it, favorably or unfavorably, and that is the democratic process of the United States Senate.

HUTCHINSON: I recognize that, Senator. I did want to raise the point, and perhaps I did it in a little bold fashion.

THE CHAIRMAN: YOU know the processes of legislation.

HUTCHINSON: That is correct. But, sir, I did want the members of this committee to know that there is a feeling abroad in the minds of many people that the Senate as a whole has refused to pass on this measure when as a matter of fact they have never had the opportunity.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is up to the people who understand that to tell them otherwise. Many of the senators have received telegrams, and the word “bottled” is used in the telegrams, a little perversely in this case. This committee functions on all pieces of legislation. Any time eight members of this committee, a majority, want to bring up a bill or pass it out, the bill is passed out, favorably or unfavorably. I would suggest, maybe, that you find the eight members.

HUTCHINSON: Thank you, sir. That is what we are trying to do today.

THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions of Dr. Hutchinson?

There were none.

Proponents spent much of their time pleading the evils inherent in the use of alcohol. They appealed to the consciences of the legislators, and while such presentations may have carried some weight, the senators appeared more concerned over the bill’s legal ramifications.

“The problem is a legislative one,” said Magnuson who, at another point in the proceedings, had extra words of appreciation for a legal brief filed by Dr. Edward B. Dunford, legal adviser for the National Temperance League.

A number of witnesses called for legislation to prohibit all liquor advertising because it can be considered false and misleading. Magnuson commented that if this was the case, remedial authority was then in the hands of the Federal Trade Commission and the Alcohol Tax Unit of the Internal Revenue Service. He conceded, however, that there is precedent for congressional legislation in cases where administrative agencies fail to act even when given proper authority.

Langer’s bill would not ban liquor advertising per se. It would outlaw liquor advertising which crosses state borders. Liquor advertising in the mails and on the air would be prohibited. Though national magazines could no longer carry alcohol promotion, local carrier-delivered newspapers could.

Opponents of the bill charge that this would amount to discrimination, that the result would be a shift from national to local advertising, that interstate liquor businesses would be losing out while local interests flourished.

How good were the chances that the bill would get to the floor of the Senate? Liquor interests did not seem worried in an election year. Even temperance leaders did not seem too hopeful, but they did see the hearings themselves as a force for good. They were serving public notice on the alcoholic beverage industry that advertising needed to be restrained.

Among those who testified in favor of the bill were several congressmen, Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, Dr. Daniel A. Poling, Dr. George W. Crane, and Dr. Sam Morris. Methodist Bishop Wilbur E. Hammaker introduced the proponents.

Placed on record against the bill were brewery officials, liquor group leaders, labor representatives, the publisher of the American Legion magazine, advertising legal advisers, and the National Association of Broadcasters.

Free Organs

Spinet model electric organs are being given away to 700 needy churches in Ohio by a retired 85-year-old Cleveland industrialist at a cost of about half a million dollars.

The organs which retail at $1,300 each are going to churches of more than a dozen denominations in the state’s 88 counties. Installation of the organs will be at the rate of 15 a week.

Philanthropist Claude Foster, the donor, first offered to give away about 500 organs on a first-come, first-served basis. But in four months he received about 1,200 appeals from Ohio churches and hundreds from out of state. Said he: “I only wish I had enough money to give an organ to everyone who asked.”

In 1957 Foster became ill and promised that if he recovered he would do something “in the Lord’s service.” The organ gifts are the fulfillment of that promise.

College Move

Furman University, the South’s oldest Baptist college, will move next fall to a new 1,200-acre campus five miles north of Greenville, South Carolina, in sight of the Blue Ridge mountains. The liberal arts institution, founded in 1826, will have expended some 8 million dollars on building and grounds by moving day and plans to spend $14,900,000 more for its complete program, providing accommodations for 2,500 students.

T. M.

Accc Meeting

At a semi-annual national meeting in South Carolina last month, the American Council of Christian Churches espoused the conservative South’s view of segregation and called on Protestants to oppose the election of a Roman Catholic president.

The council’s executive committee also adopted a resolution endorsing the continuance of all nuclear tests “necessary to the defense of the United States from foreign attack.”

An ACCC statement said segregation within the church on racial, linguistic and national lines is not unchristian.

Another of the group’s statements said, “There are, no doubt, some Roman Catholics who would place their country before the wishes of the Roman hierarchy,” but in view of Romanism’s “religio-politico” character and record in Spain and South America, all identified with her “must be considered suspect.”

The council’s stand on nuclear tests drew sharp attacks from radio stations in Communist Hungary. The stations especially criticized Dr. Carl McIntire, president.

Council meetings were held in Greenville and at the nearby campus of Bob Jones University. Dr. Bob Jones, founder of the university, has been closely associated with the ACCC, along with author John R. Rice.

There were some heart-warming periods of testimony and inspiration. Many of the delegates bore the marks of suffering for the Gospel’s sake; some expressed a longing for true revival.

T. M.

Evangelism Mission

Some 160 Missouri Synod Lutheran congregations in western Iowa will participate in an October evangelistic mission. Never before has there been such “all-out” mobilization of a segment of the denomination’s membership.

Forty-six per cent of western Iowans reportedly lack church affiliation. The Lutheran program seeks to make a thrust into this unevangelized area plus reaching delinquent church members.

In St. Louis this month, the Missouri Synod assigned 901 new full-time workers to teaching and preaching posts. The workers are graduates and undergraduates of the synod’s 14 North American education institutions.

The 202 ministerial candidates assigned to various congregations and mission stations included 156 graduates from Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, and 46 graduates from Concordia Seminary in Springfield, Illinois. Because there were not enough graduates to go around, an additional 22 requests went unfulfilled. The synod reported 258 bona fide vacancies in its 5,857 congregations.

Canada

Church Progress

The cornerstone of the $1,750,000 national headquarters building of the United Church of Canada in Toronto was laid this month by the denomination’s first moderator, the Very Rev. George C. Pidgeon.

The church, meanwhile, reported that more than 700 men and women are studying in its colleges throughout the dominion, compared with 659 last year. This year’s figure represents an all-time high.

T. W. H.

Montreal Morality

An inter-faith committee will make moral cleanup recommendations to the Montreal city council.

Long known as one of the “wide-open” cities of North America, Montreal was openly rebuked last January by Cardinal Paul Emile Leger for allowing objectionable night club shows and obscene literature. Growing sentiment prompted the cardinal to bring together a number of Protestant and Jewish leaders who joined in setting forth a manifesto “deploring the moral and spiritual conditions” of the city.

City fathers responded by ordering police to enforce rigidly both municipal and provincial laws governing closing hours, liquor permits and types of shows. Some entertainment activities were curtailed.

Finally, a committee of Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Jews was appointed to investigate local cabaret shows and obscene literature.

W. S. R.

Europe

Seal Of Disapproval

A matter of principle placed a brick wall between the Rev. Umberto Righetti and his congregation in Fondi, Italy.

Pastor Righetti had rented two rooms in an ancient castle for a church. The only entrance led through the apartment of Mrs. Gemma Rasile, a Roman Catholic who soon decided she objected to continuing intrusion. A court ruling gave Mrs. Rasile permission to have the only door leading to the church apartment walled in, and the pastor tried to have a new doorway cut, but the Italian General Superintendent for Fine Arts denied a permit on the grounds that the door would “ruin the palace.”

This month the showdown came. As bricklayers arrived, the pastor declared he would not abandon the premises as a “matter of principle.” Sealed in his church apartment, Righetti conducted his next service through the window to an outdoor congregation. Parishioners supplied food with the help of a 20-foot rope and a bucket. He said he was confident that “sooner or later” the door would be reopened.

Righetti’s predication came true. Three days later Mrs. Rasile relented and a doorway was hacked open by a mason.

“It was the only reasonable way to put an end to all this fuss,” she said.

Native’S Return

Evangelist William P. Nicholson’s return to his native Ireland recalled memories of a remarkable movement of the Spirit of God in the early twenties. The 82-year-old Nicholson has been living in Glendale, California. He returned to Northern Ireland for a series of evangelistic missions during the summer and autumn.

In a television interview, evangelist Nicholson referred to some of the missions held in Belfast in the early twenties when conversions led to large scale restitution. He received a letter from a firm which could not find adequate room to store stolen tools being returned.

Nicholson was ordained by the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. in 1914.

S. W. M.

By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13).

The unity of the Church is one of the most clearly revealed doctrines of the Bible. There is one fold, and one shepherd; one king, and one kingdom; one temple, an habitation of God through the Spirit; one vine, of which all believers are the branches; one body, of which all are members. The very expression “the Church,” so familiar to the ears of the readers of the Scriptures, implies that there can be but one Church which Christ loved and for which he died.

I. This one Church includes the saints in heaven as well as those on earth. Both classes belong to that kingdom of which Christ is the Lord, and to that body of which he is the head. There is but one Father of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

Such has been the common faith of Christians. They are taught to say: “We believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” On this point there has never been any diversity of opinion.

II. A second point no less clear is that believers are one in virtue of their union with Christ. They are one body in Christ Jesus. He is the vine. They are the branches. Union with the same vine makes the branches one. He is the head. We are the members. Only those in vital union with the head are members of the body of Christ, which is his Church.

III. The next question is, what constitutes union with Christ? Who are in him, in the Scriptural sense of those words? This is a question which cannot be answered in a simple sentence, because that union is manifold, and includes three distinct, although intimately related elements.

1. We are said to be in him before the foundation of the world. There is a union in idea, in thought, of purpose, which antedates all that is real and actual. As we were in Adam before we were born, so we were in Christ before the worlds were made. This covenant union secured actual, living, saving union in time, according to the terms of the compact between the Father and the Son, on which it is founded.

2. Those thus in Christ come into the world in a state of sin and condemnation, and so remain until united to him, by renewing of the Holy Ghost, and the indwelling of the Spirit.

3. The first conscious exercise of the new life thus imparted is faith in Christ. As soon as the newborn child of God opens its eyes, it sees the glory of God in Jesus Christ, and receives him as its God and Saviour. The soul is now in him by faith. Faith is the living, abiding, conscious bond of union between the soul and Christ.…

In Ephesians 3:17 it is said, Christ dwells in our hearts by faith. In 1 John 4:15 it is said: “Whosoever confesseth that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.” As there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ, so those who believe are not condemned. In Galatians 3:26 those who are in Christ are said to be sons of God.…

IV. The unity by faith is however due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit; so that it is by one Spirit we are baptized into one body. As the vine is one because it has one life; and as the body is one, because animated by one soul, so the Church is one because there is one Spirit, the Holy Ghost, which is the Spirit of Christ, which is given to him without measure, dwelling in all his members. They have a common life. It is not they that live, but Christ that liveth in them. “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Rom. 8:9). “Know ye not,” says the Apostle, “that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” (1 Cor. 3:16).

To this indwelling of the Spirit, the existence, continuance, and fruits of spiritual life are referred. And this being the real bond of union between Christ and his people, and of their union one with another as members of his body, it is obvious that this must determine the nature of the unity of the Church, and all its legitimate or normal manifestations and fruits.

1. First, then, the Church is one in faith. This follows because the Spirit is a teacher, and his teaching is common to all the people of God. The Spirit was promised to the disciples, and not exclusively to the apostles. Our Lord says of his followers: “They shall all be taught of God (John 6:45). The Apostle says of believers: “Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.… The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you, but the same anointing teacheth you all things, and is the truth” (1 John 2:20, 27). The natural man, says St. Paul, receiveth not the things of the Spirit, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned; but the spiritual man discerneth or knoweth all things. It was promised of old that when Christ came the Spirit should be poured upon all men, upon young and old, upon men servants and maid servants, and the effects of this affusion should be not only temporary miraculous gifts, but spiritual illumination and divine teaching. For it is written of all the people of God: “I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts … and all shall know Me from the least unto the greatest” (Heb. 8:10–11).

As this teaching of the Spirit is common to all, it must produce the same effect in all, and that effect must be a common faith. Hence the Apostle tells us that the Church has one faith, as well as one Lord and one baptism. All are baptized in the name of the same God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; all acknowledge Jesus Christ to be their Lord; all believe the record which the Father has given of the Son.

As the promises of God, however, do not secure perfection to the individual child of God in this life, neither perfection in holiness or in blessedness, so neither do they secure perfection in knowledge. And so long as knowledge is imperfect, it will be attended more or less with ignorance and divinity.

In consistence, therefore, with this unity of faith in all that is necessary to the existence and fruits of the divine life, and to the salvation of the soul, there may be, and must be, in this world, differences of doctrine among the true members of the Church. Perfect unity is the goal toward which we tend. God has given us the means of instruction “until we are come to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God; unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Eph. 4:13). So long as we know in part, so long as we see through a glass darkly, we must, within certain limits, see differently. But this is no more inconsistent with the real and living unity of faith than the different measures of our love and zeal are inconsistent with our having a common God and Saviour.

What is declared in the Scriptures to be true is found to be true in fact. All Christians adopt the Apostles’ Creed. All historical churches subscribe to the doctrinal decisions of the first six Ecumenical Councils. Every doctrine essential to salvation is found in the creeds of the Greek, Latin, Lutheran, Reformed churches, and of every recognized Christian denomination on the face of the earth. In spite, therefore, of diversity of opinion on non-essential points, in spite, too, of mutual denunciations, and criminations, and sentences of excommunication, the Church emerges from the discord and tumult of conflict as one body, having one leader, and marshaled under one standard.

2. The Church is one in its inward religious life. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit produces the same effects in the hearts of all believers.

Conviction, regeneration, sanctification are essentially the same process in all the children of God. All are brought especially to acknowledge their just exposure to condemnation for the sin of not believing upon Christ. All are convinced of his righteousness, of the righteousness of his claim to be the Son of God, God manifest in the flesh, who has wrought our everlasting righteousness for us sinners, and that he is therefore the only Saviour of the world. All therefore love, worship, and obey him as their God, and trust him as their Saviour. All are convinced of judgment, of the final condemnation of Satan and overthrow of the kingdom of darkness.

As human nature is everywhere the same, so that as in water face answers to face, heart answers to heart, so also one regenerate soul, the world over, answers to another. They all have the lineaments of their common Father. They are all more or less conformed to the image of Christ. They are one, therefore, by an intimate, enduring community of spiritual life, derived from Christ, head of the whole mystical body.

3. The Church is one in virtue of the mutual love of all its members. The Spirit dwells in all believers as the Spirit of love. This is the test of discipleship. “Hereby shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love for one another” (John 13:35). “If a man … loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?” (1 John 4:20). This love is founded on congeniality; not sameness of views, feelings, affections, and of objects of interest and pursuit, but founded rather upon relationship. They are brethren, children of the same Father, members of the same family, having a common object of adoration and love.

It is vain to ask why relationship produces love. This is a law of our being, and the degree of love is in proportion to the intimacy of the relation. Members of the same nation have a feeling for each other which they have not for foreigners. Members of the same tribe or class in a community are bound together by a still closer tie. Parents and children, brothers and sisters constitute a unit in a yet higher scale; until we come to the vital union of the members of the same body, when the love becomes perfect. There can be no discord or alienation between the hands and feet, between the eye and the ear. If one member suffers all the members suffer with it. And if one is honored all rejoice with it.

It is this union between the members of the human body which the Apostle selects to illustrate the union of believers. They are one, as the body is one. They have a common life, the necessary result of which is mutual sympathy and affection. One true Christian can no more hate another, without doing violence to his nature, than the foot can hate the hand, or the hand the foot.

If brotherly love is the evidence of discipleship, the want of it, is evidence that we are not disciples, that we have never been taught of God. “Behold how these Christians love one another!” has been the exclamation of the world, in all ages, at every genuine exhibition of the Christian character.

Love is active. It is an operative principle. Wherever it exists, it will manifest itself in its appropriate fruits.

The mutual love of Christians, therefore, reveals itself, first, in mutual recognition. Christians know and acknowledge each other as brethren. One may be rich, the other poor; one bond, the other free; one a Greek, another a barbarian; one a Jew, another a Gentile; it makes no difference. All are one in Christ Jesus. They instinctively love, honor, and confide in each other as the common children of God. They recognize the dignity and the equality which belongs to this high relationship. Every believer has experienced this, and constantly experiences it in his own life. He knows that when he meets a true Christian in any part of the world, it matters not to what nation, or to what denomination he may belong, his heart goes out to him, and he cannot help giving him the right hand of fellowship. He will acknowledge that he possesses all the prerogatives and privileges of a child of God; that he is to be recognized as such and admitted to our Christian fellowship and communion. He will pray with him, worship with him, and sit down with him at the common table of the Lord. If this is not done, violence is done to the instincts of his Christian nature, and he withholds more or fewer of these recognitions of brotherhood out of regard to some external authority, or from obedience to some restrictive principle felt to be in conflict with the spirit of the Gospel.

Love which spends itself in words, which merely says: “Be thou warmed and clothed,” is no love. The union which is produced by the Spirit of God among believers leads to a real brotherhood, a real community of interest, a real disposition to communicate of what we have, so that, as the Apostle says, there may be equality.

The want of brotherhood, the isolation of Christians, so that every one seems to be seeking his own, and not the welfare of others, is perhaps the most glaring defect of modern Christianity. It was not so at the beginning, and it will not be so at the end.

One of the first indications of the revival of the Church, one of the first evidences that strength is coming to her again for the conquest of the world will be the diffusion of this consciousness of brotherhood among all her members, so that no one will be disposed to say that aught of the things that he possesses is his own.

Christianity, however, is not agrarian. It joins no community of goods. It does no violence to the laws of our nature. Even in the best regulated Christian families there is often great disparity in the wealth and social position of its members. Nevertheless, they are brothers. They love each other as such, and are ever disposed to aid, comfort, and defend those with whom they are thus united. Thus it should be, and will be, in the brotherhood of Christians. If one suffers, all will suffer. If one is honored, all will rejoice. “Who is weak,” says Paul, “and I am not weak? Who is offended and I burn not?” (2 Cor. 11:29). “Inasmuch,” says our Lord, “as ye did it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye did it unto Me” (Matt. 25:40).

What has yet been said of the unity of believers in faith, in Christian experience, in fellowship and love, concerns only their relation to each other as individuals. This, however, is not all that is meant by the unity of the Church.

The Holy Spirit, as he dwells in the hearts of the people of God, is a formative, organizing, principle. Such is the nature of man as constituted by God that he is a social being. Men by an inward law form themselves into families, tribes, and nations. This union of individuals into organized communities is necessary for security, for the well-being of the whole, and for the proper development of the individual. A hermit ceases almost to be a man. Half his nature lies dormant. All this is true of the Christian life. A solitary Christian is but half a Christian. There are elements of the spiritual life which can only be brought into action in organic union with his fellow Christians.

Believers have feelings to be exercised, exigencies to be met, and duties to be performed, which assume and demand organic union with his fellow believers. Having a common God and Father, a common Saviour, a common redemption, it is impossible that they should not write in acts of worship. They are impelled by a law of their new nature to call on all who are of a like mind, all who are partakers of the same redemption, to unite with them in worshipping and praising their common Redeemer. They have also the same necessities, the same dangers to fear, and the same blessings to seek. And therefore, just as a nation threatened with a common calamity, or groaning under a common judgment, unites in imploring the intervention of God in their behalf, so do Christians, whose common dangers are always imminent, and those common wants are always urgent, must be statedly united, not only for worship and praise, but also for prayer.

Besides this, as believers are spiritually one, as they are bound together as professors of the same faith, and servants of a common master, they have not only a mutual interest in each other’s welfare, but a mutual responsibility for each other’s conduct. They are jointly intrusted with their Master’s honor. They are therefore bound to decide who are, and who are not entitled to be recognized as Christians. They are essentially a communion, and must have the right of determining who are to be admitted to their fellowship, for whose faith and conduct they are jointly responsible.

The New Testament, therefore, not only assumes that believers will associate for worship and mutual watch and care, but it abounds with instructions and exhortations addressed to them in their associated capacity, that is, as churches. Most of the Epistles were written to such associations, and duties are enjoined upon them which can only be executed in their collective capacity.

They are to receive and reject members. They are to conduct public worship. They are to provide for the instruction of the people and the propagation of the Gospel. They are to have their prescribed officers, and to be united in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

The fact that believers in all ages under the guidance of the Apostles, and from their day to this, have thus associated as churches, proves that such is the Law of the Spirit. If what all men do is to be referred to a law of their nature, what all Christians do must be referred to a law of their nature as Christians.

Since all believers, as such, stand in the same relation to each other, and as the impulse and obligation to associate is common to all, it is obvious that there is nothing except considerations of convenience to determine the limits of such association or churches. Those living sufficiently near each other would naturally unite and form themselves into a Christian Church. Hence in the New Testament we read of the Church at Jerusalem, of the Church in Antioch, Philippi, and Corinth, and of the Churches of Judea and Galatia. Thus numerous individual churches were formed. Now as the unity of the Church does not stop with the inward spiritual unity of believers in faith and love, so neither does it stop with a like spiritual unity of indvidual, separate churches or congregations. There is no reason why it should stop there, and as an historical fact, it never has been thus limited.

First, there is no reason why individual churches should remain isolated, without organic, visible union with other churches. They constitute one body. They stand to each other in a relation analogous to that in which individual believers sustain, the one to another. They are bound to mutual recognition, to fellowship and intercommunion. A member of one is a member of all, for all have the same faith, the same Lord, the same terms of fellowship. A Christian in one place is a Christian in another place. His prerogatives arise out of his character and his relation to Christ, and therefore go with him wherever he goes.

From this it follows that in the ideal or normal state of the Church, all separate churches would be one, so far as their membership is concerned. A member of the Church in Jerusalem, if he changed his residence, became of right a member of the Church of Antioch or Corinth, or wherever else he might fix his dwelling.

Again, these separate churches are as much bound to be subject to one another as are individual believers. We are commanded to obey our brethren in the Lord, simply because they are our brethren; because they are the temple and agent of the Holy Ghost; and because they have a joint interest and responsibility in the character and conduct of all who profess the name of Christ. This obligation does not arise out of mere proximity of residence, and therefore is not limited to those who reside in the same place. Neither does it arise out of any covenant, or mutual promise of obedience, and therefore is not confined to those who may form that social compact. As it arises out of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, it extends to all in whom the Spirit dwells, and is to be exercised, of course according to the rule of Christ, whatever that may be. But the point now is that the law of the Spirit tends to the organic union of separate churches in the same way and to the same extent that it tends to the external union of believers in individual churches.

In the second place, what is thus seen to be the law of the Spirit, or the tendency of the internal life of believers, is found to be the fact in the history of the Church. Wherever churches remain isolated, out of organic union with all other churches, that condition has been recognized as abnormal, as something to be accounted for, if not always justified, by ab extra influences.

In the apostolic period all churches were united, not only, as was remarked, because a member of one was entitled to membership in all, but each recognized all others as churches having all the Scriptural prerogatives and privileges of such organizations. They recognized the validity of each other’s ordinances. A man baptized or ordained in Jerusalem had not to be rebaptized or reordained when he went to Corinth. A man excommunicated by one Church was excluded from all.

But besides all this, they were all subject to a common authority. The Apostles were not diocesan bishops. Their jurisdiction extended over all Christians, and over all churches. This necessarily arose from their gifts and from their commission. Hence, Paul wrote to the Church at Rome with full apostolic authority before he had ever visited that city. Peter, in like manner, addressed as an Apostle and Elder the Churches of Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, in the center of the field of Paul’s missionary labors. The power thus assumed was not that of teaching only, but also of government. We find also that the Council of Jerusalem issued decrees for all the churches of the Gentiles to observe.

What was true in the apostolic age has proved, as a general rule, true ever since. In nature every thing organic, every plant or animal, has a nisus formativus, by which it is impelled, as by an inward necessity, to assume the form suited to its nature. This inward impulse may be impeded or perverted by various circumstances … nevertheless, it never fails to manifest its existence, and the state to which it tends.

So it is with the Church. It has always striven after unity. This has been its characteristic in all ages. It gave rise to the ideas of heresy and schism. It manifested itself in the provincial and general councils. At the Reformation the same feeling revealed itself. The churches then formed ran together as naturally as drops of quicksilver. And when union was in any case prevented, it was by insuperable hindrances, which counteracted an obvious and admitted tendency, and was deplored as an evil.

This historical fact, this continual effort of believers in all ages to present themselves before God and man as one body is the revelation of an inward law which must be recognized as the law of the Spirit. It operates according to the command of Christ, and toward an end which he has taught us to regard as of the highest importance.

The theory of the Church, therefore, everywhere presented in the Scriptures, is that believers are a band of brethren, children of the same Father, fellow-citizens, subject to the same King, united together as one mystical body by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and therefore having the same faith, the same inward life or experience, recognizing each other as fellow Christians, and loving each other as the hands sympathize with the feet, and the feet with the hands. This is the spiritual, or mystical union of believers, as individuals, scattered over the face of the earth.

But, as we have seen, as man is a social being, and is led to unite with his fellow men in organic, external societies, so believers, under the guidance of the Spirit, unite in forming themselves into separate, individual churches, for the purposes of worship, and mutual watch and care. Thus the inward unity of believers expresses itself in the outward union of church organizations.

These separate churches, however, remain one. 1. Because they continue to be subject to the same Lord, to be animated by the same Spirit, and to possess the same faith. 2. Because they recognize each other as churches, just as every Christian recognizes every other Christian as a fellow believer, and consequently recognize each other’s members, ordinances, ministers and acts of discipline. 3. They continue one body because they are subject to one common tribunal. That common tribunal at first was the Apostles, now the Bible and the mind of the Church as a whole, expressed sometimes in one way and sometimes in another.

Such at least is the normal state of the Church. It is one body, not only in virtue of its spiritual unity, but externally, by the subjection of each part to the whole.

It is a melancholy fact that this normal state has never been fully reached. It is a goal apparently as distant now as it was centuries ago. Still it should be recognized as the goal to which the Church tends, for which she should strive, and the failure to attain which should be recognized as an imperfection and a sin.

The causes which have prevented this normal unity of the Church are patent to every reader of its history. Some of these causes are altogether unworthy and evil, others are legitimate and worthy of respect, and such as, while they exist, should be patiently submitted to.

The former class do not demand our attention.

The second consists in such conscientious differences of opinion on questions of doctrine and order as render harmonious action in one and the same externally united body impossible. It is better to separate than to quarrel or to oppress. Two cannot walk together unless they be agreed.

External union is the product and expression of internal unity. The former cannot be safe or desirable when pressed beyond the latter. One of the greatest evils in the history of the Church has been the constantly recurring efforts to keep men united externally who were inwardly at variance. Such forced union must be insincere and pernicious. It leads to persecution, to hypocrisy, and to the suppression of the truth. Where two bodies of Christians differ so much either as to doctrine or order as to render their harmonious action in the same ecclesiastical body impossible, it is better that they should form distinct organizations.

Such are the differences not only between Romanists and Protestants, but between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, between Presbyterians and Independents. We may lament over such differences, and the separations, alienations, jealousies, and conflicts which they are adapted to produce, but no wise man would propose to act as though the differences did not exist. They are facts which must be recognized and taken into account. We may labor to remove them, and to produce such unity of opinion as to render external union practicable and desirable, but until such unity is attained, all attempts at external union are premature and injurious.

Admitting, therefore, that the existence of denominational churches, in the present state of Christendom, is unavoidable, the practical question is: What course ought they to pursue to increase their spiritual fellowship, and to diminish the evils of their external divisions?

1. The first of those duties is mutual recognition. As we are bound to recognize every Christian as a Christian and treat him accordingly, so we are bound to recognize every Church as a Church, and treat it accordingly. And as we are not at liberty to give an arbitrary definition of a Christian so as to exclude any of the true children of God, so we are not at liberty to give an arbitrary definition of the Church, so as to exclude any of the true Churches of our common Lord.

A Christian is a man united to Christ by the Holy Spirit. A Church is a number of such men united together for the purposes of Christian worship and mutual watch and care. This is the Scriptural definition which we are not at liberty to alter.

The Church consists of the Called. And an organized body of the Called, organized i.e. for church purposes, is a Church. Everywhere in the New Testament the word ekklesia is used as a collective term for the kletoi. As a man’s being a Christian does not depend on anything external, upon stature, color, or nationality, so whether a body of Christians is a Church cannot depend upon the mode of their organization. There may be a wise or unwise, a good or bad, a Scriptural or unscriptural mode, but the form cannot be essential to the being of a Church unless it be essential to the Christianity of its members. Ubi Spiritus Dei, ibi Ecclesia has been a motto and an axiom with evangelical men in all ages.

There is indeed a theory which makes the form everything. Romanists teach that Christ gave the Holy Ghost to his apostles, and with it the power to communicate the Spirit by the imposition of hands. This gift and power they transmitted to their official successors, and they again to theirs in unbroken succession. It is in the line of this succession that the Spirit works. His saving influences are imparted to those only who receive the sacraments from men who have the supernatural power to render them efficacious. As no man, therefore, can be a Christian, who is not subject to those thus commissioned to impart the Holy Ghost, of course no organization can be a Church unless it be subject to the exclusive dispensers of salvation. This is a theory with which, at present, we have nothing to do. A man who confines Christianity to the members of any one external organization is not to be argued with.

Apart from this theory, we do not see how, on Scriptural principles, we can deny a church character in their collective capacity to those whom we are constrained to recognize as Christians.

2. A second duty which denominational Churches have to each other is intercommunion. The terms of Christian fellowship are prescribed by Christ, and are the same for all Churches. No particular or denominational Church has the right to prescribe any term of communion which is not common to all. And as we simply recognize as fellow Christians those with whom we commune, it is evidently a breach of Christian fellowship to refuse to join our fellow believers at the Lord’s table, provided nothing is required of us beyond what Christ has enjoined.

3. A third duty is that of recognizing the validity of their sacraments and orders. If the validity of the sacraments depends on some virtue in him who administers them, then those only are valid which are administered by those having that virtue. But if their validity depends, first, on that being done which Christ has commanded; and secondly, on its being done by a Church, and by its authority, and by its appointed agents; and thirdly, with the serious intention of complying with the command of our Lord; then it follows that we must recognize the validity of the sacraments administered in any body which we recognize as a Church.

So also of ordination. If ordination be the communication of supernatural power (called the grace of order) by those to whom the ability to confer such power exclusively belongs, then those only can be regarded as true ministers who have been ordained by that specially gifted class of men. And if ordination be, in the strict sense of the term, the conferring of authority by those having the right of appointment, as a king or president, who grants commissions, then again those only can be recognized as clothed with the ministerial office, who have been appointed by those having the exclusive right to appoint and ordain.

But if the Protestant doctrine be true, that the call to the ministry is by the Holy Ghost, and the office of the Church in the matter is simply to authenticate that call, and testify of it to the Churches, then we are bound to regard as a minister of Christ any man whom a Church has, by its appropriate agents, recognized as called by the Holy Ghost to the sacred office.

This of course does not imply that every denomination is bound to receive into the number of its own ministers any man whom any particular denomination may see fit to ordain. Every denominational Church has a right to determine its own standard of ministerial qualifications, according to its understanding of the law of Christ. But nevertheless we may consistently recognize him as a minister of Christ.

4. A fourth duty of denominational Churches is non-interference. The field is the world, and is wide enough for all. And therefore it is a breach of the principles of unity for one denomination to attempt to break down or to encroach upon the churches of another denomination.

5. Finally, there is the duty of cooperation in the promotion of the objects of our common Christianity.

Such is a meagre skeleton of the principles of Church unity as held by the great body of evangelical Christians.

All believers, scattered over the world, are one body in Christ Jesus, in virtue of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. This constitutes them one in faith, one in their inward religious life, one in love, and one in Christian sympathy and fellowship.

These individual Christians organize themselves into local churches for the purpose of worship and mutual watch and care. These local churches, in the normal state of things, would constitute one body, not only by the unity of their faith and fellowship, but also by their mutual subjection. But as believers are imperfect in knowledge and in grace, such diversities of opinion in doctrine and order unavoidably arise which render this external union of all local churches impractical and undesirable. Hence, denominational Churches become an absolute necessity. But these Churches are bound to recognize each other as Churches, to intercommune, to regard the sacraments and orders of each other as valid, to avoid interference with one another, and to cooperate in the promotion of the cause and kingdom of their common God and Saviour.

If these principles are correct, it is of the last importance that they should be acknowledged and practically followed out. Instead of conflict, we should have concord. Instead of mutual criminations, we should have mutual respect and fellowship. And instead of rivalry and opposition, there would be harmonious cooperation. The Protestant world might then present an undivided front against infidelity and every anti-christian error. And the sacramental host, although marshalled under different banners, and organized into different corps, would still, in the sight of God and man, be one great body, glorious, and through grace, invincible.

We must remember, however, that real union is within and by the Spirit. It must begin there. And as it is there perfected it will more and more manifest itself outwardly in unity of faith, of love, of worship, and obedience; until the whole multitude of believers shall, as at the beginning, be of one heart, and of one soul, and when they shall with one accord praise the Lord in all the languages of the earth. There is more included in union with Christ, and in the fellowship of believers, than has entered into the heart of man to conceive. Let us then see to it that we are in Christ, and be ever mindful that we are one body, and members one of another.