Perhaps never had the issue been argued while a greater portion of the citizenry looked on. Whatever the depth of discussion, here at least were millions of Americans witnessing debate on what it would mean to have a Roman Catholic occupying the White House. The medium was television—Lawrence Spivak’s “The Big Issue” tackling the topic, “Religion and the Presidency.”

On one side were Catholic Congressman Eugene J. McCarthy, Democratic farmer-labor representative from Minnesota and former college professor, and the Very Rev. Francis B. Sayre, dean of Washington Cathedral (Episcopal), grandson of the late President Wilson.

Providing the opposition was Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, represented by Executive Director Glenn A. Archer, former dean of Washburn University Law School, and Vice President John A. Mackay, better known as president of Princeton Theological Seminary.

A panel of distinguished Washington news correspondents was on hand to ask questions: James Reston of the New York Times, a Protestant, Glenn Everett of Religious News Service, Protestant, and Charles L. Bartlett, of the Chattanooga Times, a Catholic.

Moderator Spivak, who is Jewish, gave a rather clear impression through questions of his own that he was sympathetic to the Roman Catholic view. In fact, the hour-long program was scarcely over when the NBC switchboard in Washington became flooded with calls reportedly sympathetic with the POAU position. Viewers protested that Spivak had dealt too harshly with Archer. Here is one of the exchanges that evoked the response:

SPIVAK: Mr. Archer, I would like to ask you this question: Aren’t you really saying, without saying boldly, that no man can be a loyal Catholic and at the same time a loyal American president? If you are not saying that, just what are you saying?

ARCHER: I think Mr. Reston posed that question in different words. I am not taking the position that a Roman Catholic can not be a good president. I am taking the position that there are areas in the political field—

SPIVAK: That wasn’t the question. Can he be a loyal Catholic and a loyal president?

ARCHER: I think he can be a loyal Roman Catholic and be a loyal president.

SPIVAK: Then what are we talking about, then?

ARCHER: Well, we are talking about whether or not he can withstand the pressures that can be exerted upon him by some 100 different organizations.

SPIVAK: Is he less human than a Protestant or a Jew? Is he less able to withstand pressures?

ARCHER: I wouldn’t say he is less able, but I would say he would have more pressures brought to bear upon him than any other Protestant or Jew.

SPIVAK: Don’t you and Dr. Mackay have confidence in the Constitution which assumes that men would seek and groups would seek undue power, and the Constitution was set up to make sure that this didn’t happen, and isn’t that protection against Jews and Protestants and Catholics?

ARCHER: The normal checks and balances in the government of the United States are inadequate when it comes to the pressure of the Roman church in this country.

There remained the possibility that viewer response on Archer’s side could be explained as having been motivated by sympathy for one appearing to be on the defensive. Archer said Spivak rushed to him after the program to say that he had butted in only because the POAU seemed to be making a one-sided impression in their favor. According to Archer, Spivak went out of his way to be cordial after they had left the air.

It was clear at the outset of the program that no one was going to oppose Roman Catholic presidents per se. The POAU position hit Vatican encroachment into politics. In matters of state, where is the Catholic politician’s ultimate loyalty? Mackay expressed serious concern over the rise of clericalism.

Dean Sayre said “mediation” rather than “suppression” is the answer to churches’ “overbearing.”

Representative McCarthy said he was not aware of any intolerances ever having become dramatic issues. The question he thus raised was whether Catholic strategy calls for relative submission only until it can exert a definite majority influence.

While the overall effect of the program may have been disappointing to some in that the issues were not joined as sharply and deeply as they could have been, this much was accomplished: The problem was recognized, ideas were planted.

Archer was only too aware of the omissions, as indicated by this remark:

“I think we are missing some of the problems,” he said. The very pressures which panel members Archer and Mackay had talked about were working against a thorough discussion of all the ramifications in having a loyal Roman Catholic as president of these United States. Archer later pointed out that the program sponsors were to be commended in having the courage to go through with the debate in the face of challenges. Participants reportedly had been admonished beforehand not to insult Catholics in whatever remarks they made. No one seemed to be worried about insulting Protestants.

Thrust Of Life

A giant question mark hung like a weather balloon over San Francisco Bay after six weeks of the greatest Christian meetings northern California has ever known. With the Billy Graham crusade having broken all Cow Palace records and focusing area-wide attention upon Jesus Christ as never before, this remained to be answered: Has the Holy Spirit moved upon the face of the water? Has genuine spiritual awakening really come to the Pacific slope?

No one was willing to be quoted as saying that “revival has come,” although hundreds of pastors with referral slips in hand were rejoicing in the knowledge of concrete evidences of God’s power at work in the lives of men. As of early June, no significantly different break-through had occurred. The San Francisco crusade was developing much as had London, Glasgow and New York. Statistics mounted impressively, attendance soared well past the half-million mark, and decisions surpassed anything previously known except New York. Yet still ignoring the crusade were dozens of powerful churches in San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Piedmont, Alameda, Burlingame, Redwood City, San Mateo, Pleasant Hills, San Rafael and elsewhere. Their pastors had been careful not to engage in vocal criticism but had led their congregations to regard the events in the Cow Palace as curious phenomena theologically unrelated to their church’s worship and Christian education program.

Fifty-four years ago Bishop Warren Candler prophesied that a great revival would come to the West, aided by all the modern instruments of transportation and communication, and that it would be felt peculiarly on the Pacific Coast. It was still too early to tell whether the present crusade was to be used to fulfill that prophecy. “After all,” pointed out team member Joseph Blinco, “true revival belongs to the sovereign acts of God, not to us.” If God has not thus far brought down heavenly fire upon the Golden Gate in a manner reminiscent of Kentucky and Wales and Uganda, at least he has used the Billy Graham team to send a life-giving thrust into the bay area such as never before experienced.

For six weeks a strong voice has pierced the conscience of a people living in an atmosphere known as sophisticated if not frivolous. Young and old, rich and poor, black, yellow and white have sat transfixed as the evangelist told them to stop their sinning, to receive Jesus Christ into their hearts, and to start living for him. At some point in the service the message moved in; blood mounted as the listeners became aware that they were being addressed personally and directly. It seemed to thousands as if they were hearing the Gospel for the first time as good news—to them! The Spirit of God broke down the barriers with a rush and when the invitation came, they stepped forward. One said, “I was jet-propelled.” Another said, “I was pushed.” Thus ladies in fur stoles, young lovers, ragged little children came and were born into the Church of Jesus Christ.

Young people night after night made up over half the audience. “This has become almost a youth crusade,” said Dr. Graham after the Cow Palace had filled to overflowing for the sixth successive Thursday night. “The young people seem so open, more so than in any crusade we have held. They are the great hope for this area. I have been thrilled by the numbers of little children who have come forward.” It will take four years, he believes, before the impact of these meetings on the lives of the youth of San Francisco Bay will be fully felt in the church and in the region.

The sixth week of the crusade, which coincided with examination week at many schools, saw the attendance dropping below the 10,000 mark for the first time—on three nights—and this may have affected the team’s decision to end Cow Palace meetings on June 15. The original plan called for a four-weeks crusade ending May 25, but was later changed to six weeks. By Memorial Day a further extension to eight weeks ending June 22 was unanimously urged by the executive committee. However, at a two-hour prayer meeting on June 6 it was agreed to hold the last meeting in the Cow Palace on Sunday afternoon, June 15, and to conduct a closing rally in Seals Stadium at 3 p.m. Sunday, June 22. The stadium’s maximum capacity, including infield, is estimated at 30,000. The climactic outdoor meeting was to usher in a week-long campaign of visitation evangelism.

Spiritual revival definitely was felt in scores of churches in the bay area. Pastors’ hearts were overflowing with stories of “hopeless” church members quickened to active service, reconciliations in neighborhoods, vanished bitterness toward God on the part of widows, delinquent teenagers suddenly become radiant and leading others to Christ, amazing zeal on the part of their members serving nightly as ushers, choir singers and counselors. The leading girl member of the radical left-wing element at San Francisco State College (where Dr. Graham’s visit was protested) came to scoff and remained to pray. After going forward at the Cow Palace she told him that she had found peace and fulfillment she had never known before. A Sunday School teacher, choir member, church secretary and organist for 24 years, without victory in her life, made a public commitment in her own church after hearing Dr. Graham.

Meanwhile, the man whom Mordecai Ham (who led Dr. Graham to Christ) described as “better known than the President or the Pope” continued to hammer away at the problem of sin. “You have a moral disease that the Bible illustrates by leprosy,” he told his listeners in a sermon about Naaman entitled “Seven Ducks in Muddy Water.” “This disease is slow, steady, deliberate and deadly. In the end it will get you. Yet Jesus Christ can heal you as he healed the leper. He can make you every whit whole.”

As the evangelist prepared to bring his bay area crusade to its closing crescendo, Sacramento was eagerly looking forward to a week of meetings beginning June 29, and a tour of California cities was planned to follow. Full-page ads in eastern and southern cities urged readers to watch the Saturday night telecasts. A chain of Australian stations began to release “The Hour of Decision” broadcast. And the most powerful medicine in the world was being fed to a world suffering from what radio commentator Paul Harvey has referred to as “spiritual rigor mortis”.

S. E. W.

Canada

Note To Americans

The United Church Observer is on record against American denominations sending “well-subsidized ministers” into Canadian communities to organize congregations “where Canadian churches are already doing good work.”

“In some cases,” an editorial in the journal added, “they woo members away from established congregations where our own mission boards have insisted that the people pay their own way.”

Other Dominion developments:

—Four thousand persons met in Toronto’s Varsity Arena to honor Dr. Oswald J. Smith on the occasion of the People’s Church pastor’s 50th anniversary in the ministry.

—Canadian Girls in Training, Christian youth organization, reports that its enrollment has tripled in the past 15 years. There are now 3,000 members.

South America

Auca Explorer

Two years ago, shortly after the five American missionaries were slain by Auca Indians in Ecuador, a Canadian explorer-doctor arrived on the jungle scene. He was Dr. Robert Tremblay, formerly on the staff of a Montreal hospital, who said he wanted to reach savage Aucas for the Protestant cause. Missionaries, not convinced of his devotion, discouraged Tremblay, whereupon he turned himself over to Roman Catholics.

This spring, Protestant missionaries in Ecuador again heard from Tremblay. He charged that two Auca women who fled their savage tribe last year were being held against their will by Protestants. He accused missionaries of having taken the women captive by craft. (The Ecuadorian government has not recognized the charges.)

Tremblay then announced a jungle expedition of his own. He said he was going to meet the Aucas. He is reported to have said that if they came out peaceably, he would dope them and take them away. If they acted warlike, he allegedly vowed to kill them all. Tremblay had some threats for Protestants, too: He said he would shoot down any Missionary Aviation Fellowship plane that flew over where he happened to be.

Native burden bearers accompanied him to the beach where the five were slain. He proceeded from that point alone, with no communications equipment. A search party was organized for him some weeks later. As of early June, there had been no word as to his whereabouts or well-being.

Europe

Needed: Scholarship

“Our evangelists must be theologians and our theologians evangelists,” Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones quoted Professor James Denney’s dictum of a half-century ago in an address given at the dedication of the new headquarters of the London Bible College. The address stressed the continuing need for institutions standing for great evangelical truths to train students for home and foreign ministries.

Planned in 1938 as an interdenominational college “devoted to evangelical scholarship of the highest standard possible,” London Bible College began in 1944.

Ceremonies attending the dedication of the new building included a series of lectures by Professor E. J. Young of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.

S. W. M.

Worth Quoting

“The Kremlin, as an outward show, does grant freedom of worship now. But the communist rulers have in progress an ingenious, diabolical plan that is killing the Christian church at its roots.”—Dr. Bob Pierce, president of World Vision, Inc., upon return from a visit to Russia.

Middle East

Turkish Trends

According to its constitution, Turkey is a secular state. But the overwhelming majority of Turks are adherents of Islam, a faith which claims authority over all society, governments included.

Until 1946, conflict between Islamic forces and those supporting secularity in government was at a minimum. Only one political party was permitted, and that one was dominated by a single leader.

In 1946, permission was granted for opposition parties. Since then, tremendous political pressure represented by millions of Muslim voters has been making itself felt increasingly. Most political leaders are trying, probably sincerely, to preserve the secular nature of the government. However, to prevent religious fanatics from gaining political power, they are obliged to grant concessions to Islam. Voters are thus satisfied.

For example, the teaching of religion is now a part of government school curriculum; there are schools for prayer leaders and preachers; Ankara University has a school of theology. All these represent developments aimed at keeping control of religious affairs by granting controlled concessions.

As religious leaders realize their potential political influence, they feel much more free to express religious convictions. Mosque attendance seems to be increasing. New religious periodicals are appearing. In the face of increasing fanaticism on the part of the general public, non-Muslim minorities are beginning to feel increasingly secure.

Two recent events, nevertheless, illustrate that the government still is trying to maintain its secular character.

The first event was the dedication, April 26, of a new house of worship for an Istanbul Christian congregation. The ceremony represented a triumph of patience and faith over seemingly insurmountable obstacles. The decision to allow construction of a Christian church could have spelled political suicide for responsible authorities. But they relented to a persevering congregation.

The building, inconspicuously located in a quiet residential district, looks much like neighboring apartment buildings. A sanctuary seating 200 is flanked by rooms for church school and young peoples’ programs.

The second event was the suppression of activities of an organization obviously reactionary Islamic. The government moved under laws forbidding secret religious orders. Apparently some of the organization’s circulated tracts advocated the overthrow of democratic reforms. Newspapers announced the curtailment.

Such open suppression of Islamic groups looks like the loss of thousands of votes for the government. However, had officials not acted, a threat to the principle of secularity in government would have gone unchecked. Apparently the government is determined to stay secular at any cost.

Hospital Fire

A spectacular fire in the south wing of Jerusalem’s Augusta Victoria Hospital failed to interrupt patient care in other sections of the building operated by the Lutheran World Federation.

The big hospital located on the Mount of Olives was only partially evacuated despite heavy smoke which poured through the roof.

The National Lutheran Council said the preliminary damage estimate was $112,000. More than 3,000 persons were said to have battled the fire for seven hours. No casualties were reported among patients or fire-fighters.

Rabbi Seat

The Seat of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel was dedicated in Jerusalem last month. More than a thousand persons, including rabbis from all over the world, witnessed the opening of the modernistic Jewish religious center, Hechal Shlomo.

A message from Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion expressed the hope “(a) that the public religious requirements of the inhabitants of Israel shall be met through the resources of the state; (b) that there shall be no coercion, either religious or anti-religious, in religious matters.”

“My greeting to you,” said the prime minister, “is that your institution may be overflowing with love for Israel, and may become a source for the consolidation of our people, the abolition of communal barriers, integration in the historic heritage of the Jewish people, and loyal devotion to the vision of Messianic redemption, for the Jewish people and for all humanity.”

Hope For Childless

The Israel Digest reports development of a method of therapeutic insemination that may enable many infertile men to become fathers. The method involves use of donors’ cell-free seminal plasma and enables the husband to become the true biological father of his child, according to the report.

Investigations of the discovering physician had been directed towards solving the problem of couples who are childless because the husband’s semen contains too few spermatozoa.

Asia

New Ministers

Korea’s Protestant seminaries topped all other Asian countries in turning out new Protestant ministers this spring. In addition to 290 graduates of major seminaries, an uncounted number of diplomas were conferred by lesser known theological schools and Bible institutes.

Here is a breakdown of graduates: Presbyterian Theological Seminary 112, Seoul Seminary (Holiness) 69, Methodist Theological Seminary 52, Hankuk Seminary (R. O. K. Presbyterian) 44, Pusan Seminary (Koryu Presbyterian) 21.

S. H. M.

Honor Statue

A new statue of its president graces the grounds of Ewha Woman’s University in Korea. The statue honors Dr. Helen Kim, Korea’s most famous woman educator and outstanding Methodist leader.

The university has 4000 students.

At a statue-unveiling ceremony, U. S. Ambassador Walter C. Dowling admired Dr. Kim’s “great leadership, based on Christian spirit, her strength, her knowledge, and her vitality.”

S. H. M.

Missionary Morale Up

Each spring, when South Indian plains begin to simmer, hundreds of missionaries head for Kodaikanal, a cool mountain-top resort 350 miles southwest of Madras. Schools are dismissed, missionaries are reunited with their children. Special conferences provide another attraction.

Five years ago, missionaries who came to Kodaikanal were optimistic about their lot. Attitudes took a strange twist, however. By 1956 many were discouraged and depressed, resolving to leave India. Last year, morale turned for the better, though a generally wholesome attitude still was lacking.

To learn missionary attitudes in the spring of 1958, CHRISTIANITY TODAY correspondent Dr. W. R. Holmes polled the Kodaikanal colony. The 140 questionnaires returned by 30 missions indicated that the slump in missionary morale is past. The demoralization of two years ago apparently has been “lived down.”

Forty per cent of the responding missionaries reported work prospects improved over last year, while more than half said the situation is no worse. Four of the 140 polled thought it has worsened. Pollster Holmes said his own talks with missionaries convinced him that doubt and despondency are virtually gone.

Those who reported a change in outlook since last year attributed the change generally to enlarged assumption of responsibility by the Indian church. The missionaries also pointed to an increase in lay interest and in the spiritual life of the church, a decline in opposition by the non-Christian community, shifts in individual work assignments, and difficulties in missionary procurement.

Still another factor in the change was the decrease in mission funds, often regarded as a powerful force for increasing local responsibility. Why then all the clamor to increase missionary giving? Holmes listed these replies: “First, it’s good for your church to keep on giving more. Second, if your mission is in an area where the local church is barely beginning, there is no place for a cutback in funds. Third, it is true that in some places in India (at least) the local church is being harmed by and drowned in mission money. You should explore this question with missionary friends and if it is true with them, encourage the heads of your mission (or whoever is not altering policy fast enough) to move on to pioneer areas and allow the local church to grow up on its own resources and not on foreign money. There are plenty of unreached areas where mission money is essential.”

An overwhelming majority of the missionaries questioned said they feel just as welcome in their work as they did a year ago. Only a few said that Indians still resent their presence or misunderstand them.

Have 10 years of Indian independence widened or narrowed the evangelistic opportunity in India? A third of the replies indicated no appreciable change, but of 90 missionaries who said that a difference can be observed, more than half reported non-Christians more open to the Gospel while a third said they were less open. Of reasons given for greater evangelical opportunity, several can be lumped together and stated thus: The social ferment and changing temper of the times have encouraged Indians to see the possibility of change, even in religion, and have given the caste system a vigorous shaking. The dissociation of government and church, moreover, apparently has helped make clearer the fact that Christianity is not a foreign religion.

Those who say that Christianity is getting as poor a reception as ever point to Indian nationalism, which has focused attention on traditional religions while reviving cultural pride. Others say opposition is more organized and that Christian witness shares the doghouse of other things Western.

The missionaries are almost evenly divided on the question of whether the rising rate of literacy makes it easier or harder to win people for Christ. A safe conclusion is that literacy is a two-edged sword and can be used either for or against a cause.

Five per cent said support of the folks back home had weakened, while 70 per cent said the backing was as keen as ever. A quarter of the responses omitted this question.

Missionaries from the United States, Great Britain, Germany, and Sweden participated in the poll.

Citizens of New York, Boston, Toronto, London, Glasgow, and many other cities across the earth have known a common despair. They have sought to read the “unbiased facts” of the results of a local Billy Graham evangelistic crusade. The conflicting accounts they read are not simply lined up according to competing newspapers—rather conflicts often appear in the same journals. Uneasiness with the assessments is often aroused as these seem usually to agree with predictions made by the same parties, whether pro, con, or in-between. As a result, editors are always assured of a goodly dosage of protesting letters one way or the other, and ample ammunition is thereby provided for many an ecclesiastical debate, whether in convention halls or in seminary dormitories.

Seeking to remedy this situation with regard to the recent New York Crusade is Dr. Robert O. Ferm, dean of students at Houghton College. Since the closing of that campaign last fall, he says, varied reports have been submitted. Some of these have been inadequate due to their compilation by the secular press “which lacks the spiritual prerequisite for accurate evaluation.” Other assays “have emerged from religious sources that were antagonistic from the beginning of the crusade and conducted [the surveys] without having attended a single meeting of the campaign or having access to the names of the inquirers.”

Seeking The Answer

Probably the key question in all of this—and it has been asked by thousands—is, “What happens to the converts?” Dr. Ferm sought the answer from the converts themselves as well as from ministers who had dealt with them. More than 2000 converts were questioned by personal interview, telephone, and questionnaire. Also 100 letters were selected from the 30,000 which testified of conversion through crusade telecasts.

Dr. Ferm announces: “Many gratifying facts were uncovered. Contrary to the reports that imply meager results, 95 per cent of the 60,000 who signed cards adhered to their original decision. The confused five per cent showed no reluctance to talk of their failure to grasp the full meaning of salvation through Christ. On the contrary, many of them were deeply concerned though disappointed.”

Of the 231 ministers interviewed, the majority were from the group favoring the crusade. Dr. Ferm discovered that the ministers fell into three categories: “participating, cooperating, and non-cooperating.” The “cooperating group” was that which “was in intellectual agreement but failed to take active part in preparation, in execution and in follow-up.” In the third category Dr. Ferm placed “extreme liberals” into mutually uncomfortable company with “hyper-fundamentalists.” Some pastors, states Dr. Ferm, “desire new members without effort,” while others “cannot adequately understand or cope with the person who is newly converted.”

But among ministers of the participating churches there was the “unanimous opinion” that the crusade was “entirely successful.” A Baptist pastor said, “You reached people that we local ministers could never touch with the gospel, people who are just as much in darkness as those on the foreign mission fields.” Said a Methodist minister, “People are still seeking admission who made decisions at the Garden.”

The coming of the converts into their fellowship acts as a stimulant to many churches. One Bronx minister told of the introduction of prayer meetings in his church for the first time in 70 years. Also, a Brooklyn Saturday evening social club has been transformed into a Bible study and prayer fellowship.

The question is being raised as to why the converts are not filling the local churches. Dr. Ferm says the answer lies with the churches themselves. Thus far, according to the word of those who signed “decision cards,” only 23 per cent have had a personal visit from any minister. Some have received form letters or phone calls. But he adds, “Some churches were able to bring into fellowship as many as 96 per cent of those signing the decision cards referred to them. One church which added 111 members to its roll within the first six months after termination of the meetings could account for 95 per cent of them. They had brought them, one by one, on their chartered bus. The director of a high school youth fellowship spoke of many young converts having become soul-winners.

Another Discovery

Also of importance was the discovery that more than 80 per cent of the ministers were convinced that the larger effects were to be felt in the future. An Episcopalian rector said, “Souls will be coming to Christ for many years as a result of the deepening of the spiritual lives of New York Christians.”

As for the true impact of the crusade, Dr. Graham had early warned it would not be felt for at least three years. Moreover, Dr. Ferm acknowledges that “it is only possible to measure spiritual accomplishments in a relative fashion.” The conversion of a “lad such as Spurgeon does not at once manifest the total meaning of such a decision.” And then there is the case of Billy Graham.

“Will They Last?”

The writer recalls standing in Edinburgh’s Tynecastle soccer field where he had often watched the crack “Hearts” center forward Willie Bauld deftly heading the “footba’ ” home. Now in the center of the “pitch” stood the equally familiar figure of Billy Graham, though his setting was unfamiliar. He was making a different kind of “charge.” And in response, hundreds were flocking forward. As they thronged slowly through the narrow exits to counselors waiting in neighborhood churches, the rest of the crowd stood watching them. Graham seized the dramatic moment to give voice to the question in the minds of many, “Are these converts changed for good? Will they last?” He acknowledged the division which always takes place within such a grouping, even as in the parable of the sower. But he spoke also of the many who would “last” and testified of the multitudes who he personally knew had endured. Then he recalled the evangelistic campaign of his youth in which he and his associate evangelist, Grady Wilson, were converted. “Grady lasted,” he cried. “And I lasted.”

Because Billy Graham “lasted,” there are, humanly speaking, countless others who will last. The real results of his crusades are known only to God, and God has owned them to the extent of providing in them a golden gate for the ushering of these countless ones into his kingdom.

In a coming climactic roll call a Berliner will speak his “hier” in the accents of another sphere. A Brooklynite will echo the call, while an “aye” will signify the consummation of the Tynecastle decision of a Scot. Happy will be those who remembered their coming in an Olympic stadium, across a prizefight ring site, and down a long soccer field. They sing “Worthy is the Lamb,” because of the preserving power of God, wrought in face of human, ecclesiastical, and even evangelical weakness and failure, that power being the one sure thing in this world. Far behind are the Gorgie tenements, the Bowery, and the wreckage of Berlin, now but dim memories testifying to the transforming might of God.

F.F.

Hellish Procedure

Brain Washing, The Story of Men Who Defied It, by Edward Hunter, Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, New York, 310 pp., $4.

The sobering fact that one-third of all American war prisoners in Korea who survived the ordeals of imprisonment eventually collaborated with the communists should make this book one of the most carefully read of our day. Unfortunately, it has not had wide circulation, and wherever communists have their way, it will be suppressed.

Edward Hunter is probably the free world’s outstanding authority on the meaning of, and techniques used, in brain-washing. In a previous book, Brain-Washing in Red China, Hunter gave a gruesome picture of that which had taken place. And at first this book was viewed skeptically by some because little was known with regard to this scientifically formulated process whereby the wills and even personalities of men might be warped and finally molded into a new pattern, basically abhorrent to them. However, as time went on, it was realized that Mr. Hunter knew what he was talking about, and his views were received with increasing respect.

This second book is important because it shows how brain-washing is accomplished, and also how it may he defied. The strength of his writing lies in the case-histories, the painstaking accumulation of evidence, and the clarity of presentation. The importance of the book is that we are warned against a hellish procedure which is now a stock-in-trade of world Communism.

Brain-washing has been called Menticide—murder of the mind—and this is a graphic and true description. That some have denied the existence of such a procedure makes it all the more imperative that it be understood and prepared for.

For one thing, it is obvious that to be successful, brain-washing depends primarily on the subjects’ ignorance of it. Where it is understood, effective resistance has been high as has been demonstrated by many of our own soldiers in Korea. As a matter of fact, it was Communism’s aggressive war in Korea that brought to the free world a knowledge of what brain-washing really is.

The technique of brain-washing is built on the known ability to develop conditioned reflexes by outside influence. Through this there is a deliberate program to bring about basic changes in human nature, one of which is the destruction of the individual I, replaced by the we of collectivity. Self-examination, confessions, self-accusation, and the repeated use of fixed phrases are all designed for one specific purpose—the breaking of the mind and will of the individual, and these designs have a diabolical cleverness as well as a diabolical effect.

The author states: “Brain-washing was revealed as a political strategy for expansion and control made up of two processes. One is the conditioning, or softening-up process primarily for control purposes. The other is an indoctrination or persuasion process for conversion purposes. Both can be conducted simultaneously, or either of them can precede the other. The Communists are coldly practical about it, adjusting their methods to their objective. Only the results count for them.”

One effect of the thoroughly brainwashed individual is his complete inability to stand by himself. The truly indoctrinated communist must be part of collectivity. He must be incapable of hearing opposing ideas and facts, no matter how convincing or how forcibly they bombard his senses.

In many ways brain-washing is more like a treatment than a formula. Each of the two processes that make it up are themselves composed of a number of different elements. Brain-washing is accomplished through hunger, fatigue, tenseness, threats, violence, and in some cases by the use of drugs and hypnotism. There is a period of “learning” which inevitably leads to confession. These two are interrelated and absolutely necessary to the procedure. No one is permitted to retain his own individuality as this is recognized as a deadly menace by the whole monolithic structure.

Hunter makes this arresting statement: “Brain-washing is a system of befogging the brain so a person can be seduced into acceptance of what otherwise would be abhorrent to him.” The book shows how the various elements of brain-washing are used—i.e., hunger, in which the minimum amount of food that a man can eat and still survive is kept carefully tabulated, and then cut by one-third. Fatigue is pushed to the point where even suicide is a welcome relief because of prolonged sleeplessness.

Tenseness is maintained by threats, promises, cajolery, by the holding out of hope one day, and dashing it to the ground the next. This is used to develop a sense of hopelessness and inevitable surrender. Kept in solitude and subjected to these multiplied pressures, along with threats of violence, often carried out, men break physically, mentally and spiritually.

Because it is necessary to understand the disease before there can be an effectice cure, Hunter devotes much of his book to a description of the theory and practice of brain-washing and the giving of documented cases. But the usefulness of the book is most enhanced by a study of the means whereby breakdown can be defeated.

Army medical personnel made an exhaustive study of the men who capitulated to Communism in prisoner of war camps in Korea, and they came up with the fact that these men lacked spiritual and moral convictions, an understanding and appreciation of our American heritage, discipline in the sense of a basic concept of right and wrong, and an understanding of Communism and its propaganda methods. Many of them had come from broken homes and few of them had had any church training or religious ties.

Hunter corroborates fact this to the fullest extent and shows that where men have had deep spiritual faith and moral convictions, they have largely been impervious to brain-washing. He quotes individuals who found the source of sustained strength in prayer and in reading the Bible. Where the Scriptures were not available, as was almost always the case, they spent their time bringing to mind Bible verses, and repeating them over and over. Hunter says, “The people I interviewed were mostly down-to-earth, practical men who could not be swept off their feet by emotionalism. The Shanghai lawyer, the Budapest engineer, the top-sergeant from Korea, and the automobile salesman from Detroit, were men of the world. Still, they declared that the most important elements in their survival were faith and prayer. So did the majority of those who went through Red brain-washing.”

Robert A. Vogeler, American businessman who was kept in a Red Hungary prison (and whom the reviewer has met and heard speak), said he tried, during his long days and nights of incarceration, to recall exactly what the New Testament had said. He gave himself the task of bringing back to mind the verses he had learned as a boy in Sunday School. He made a practice in prison of saying grace whenever he ate, no matter what sorry pretense of a meal was put before him. He keenly felt the lack of a Bible and kept asking for one. As a result of his experience, Vogeler came out of prison more than just a practical businessman; he became a man with a mission.

Mr. Hunter has rendered the free world a great service in writing this book. It is our hope that those in positions of responsibility, both in church and in state, will take the time to read it, ponder its message, and prepare themselves accordingly.

L. NELSON BELL

A Rationalistic Defence

The Resurrection of Theism, by Stuart Cornelius Hackett, Moody Press, 1957. 381 pp., $5.

Professor Hackett’s new book has already created a considerable amount of interest. It was a major topic of discussion at the November 1957 Philosophical Conference under the auspices of the department of Bible and philosophy at Wheaton College. Before his recent move to the philosophy department chairmanship in Louisiana College, Professor Hackett was a member of the Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary faculty in Denver. President Vernon Grounds of that institution writes an enthusiastic introduction. The conservative position of Moody Press is well-known.

Hackett’s work is a reaction against the anti-intellectual tendencies against which James Gresham Machen so vigorously warned. Even since Machen’s day there has been a movement among Bible-believing Christians to abandon the historical, factual and rational evidences of Christianity. It has been said that the use of inductive argument is worse than worthless. It is held that in dealing with unbelievers we must simply demand that they accept Christian presuppositions, or else—. Professor Hackett takes the position, maintained by a continuous line of great theologians throughout the entire history of the church, that the presentation of the Christian message should include rational, inductive, and synthetic arguments.

There are some great books like Warfield’s Revelation and Inspiration and A. A. Hodge’s Atonement about which we can say with satisfactory confidence, “That’s it. That is the book for our generation on the topic designated.” Has Professor Hackett given us such a book on the subject of Theism?

There are certain grounds for a negative answer to the above question:

The implications of Professor Hackett’s title are put into words by President Grounds as follows, “Ever since Immanuel Kant wrote his monumental Critique of Pure Reason, theistic discussion has proceeded on the postulate … that the existence of God can neither be demonstrated nor disproved by reason.… By and large … the alleged demolition of the venerable ‘proofs’ has been taken as a fait accompli by schools of all persuasions whether agnostic or liberal or neo-orthodox or even evangelical.”

Now, there is nothing new in the experience of younger scholars assuming that what is new to them is new to the world. But as a matter of fact, a long line of eminently competent philosophical theologians like Robert Flint and James Orr have masterfully answered Kant’s objections. Hackett’s title, “The Resurrection of Theism”, is a misnomer, though it is indeed a fresh approach to certain current problems.

The method of approach, called “rationalistic empiricism” is an example of an extreme form of rationalism. The laws of reason, including not only the basic axioms of logic, but also the Kantian categories, or an adapted form of them, and including a rigid totalitarian law of causality,—this rationalistic complex is binding a priori for both God and man! Hackett’s form of argument, “does not at all exempt God’s Being from the casual axiom; it certainly is legitimate and necessary to ask for the cause of God’s existence” (p. 292). Professor Hackett believes that he saves theism by saying that the cause of God’s existence is not exterior to his being, but interior. He holds that there is something in the character of God which causes God to exist. It would seem that the question of externality or internality of cause would be of no consequence, if God’s being is held to be dependent upon any cause whatever. The fallacy in Kant’s handling of the theistic arguments is found in that he thought God must be conceived as dependent upon a logical syllogism, or pure reason. On the contrary, the God of the Bible simply exists, eternally and independently. Professor Hackett is in error in thinking that it is a logical axiom that every event and every being must have a cause. In fact the simple observation that the world exists and that causality is observable in finite things requires us to believe that something must be eternal, unless something comes from nothing. The Christian answer is, God the uncaused, eternal being.

The concept of God being subject to the law of causality almost leads to Spinozistic pantheism. We read, “Spinoza will clarify the point: just as Spinoza held that substance was completely comprehended by a multiplicity of attributes, each of which was a complete embodiment from its own point of view of substance itself so we maintain that all reality is completely explicable in terms of two principles—law and purpose—each of which is a complete account, from its own point of view, of reality itself” (p. 353).

The scriptural doctrine of election is thoroughly misunderstood and rejected (pp. 172ff.).

The answer to the problem of evil is very badly mangled. “The existence of irreducible or real evil results in every case from a contingency that is necessarily involved in those determinate conditions which are themselves essential to the creation of a universe whose ultimate end is the production and progressive development of rational, moral selves” (p. 351f.).

Men with devout Christian hearts may certainly wander far in their rationalizations. There are many cases of logical non-sequiter in Dr. Hackett’s work, and also many other excellent and even brilliant insights which should be presented if there were space.

J. OLIVER BUSWELL, JR.

Theistic Idealism

Crucial Issues in Philosophy, by Daniel S. Robinson, Christopher, 1955. 285 pp., $5.

Out of his later years Dr. Robinson views crucial issues facing the West from the window of philosophical idealism, which he has long expounded. Lectures and essays roam the writings of classical and contemporary philosophers with an eye on social, political and religious concerns. Fifteen chapters deal in somewhat more practical than theoretical vein with modern problems, a dozen more with representative modern philosophers, mostly of idealistic and theistic temper.

“Since 1600 our civilization has been generating a new tension that has recently culminated in a spiritual crisis, of which the first and second world wars were merely phases,” Dr. Robinson notes. “Unless the tension … can be … overcome our civilization and culture will be dethroned” (p. 18).

To reconcile the tension between inherited Christianity, modern scientific research and political democracy—which Communism is today exploiting for revolutionary ends—Dr. Robinson turns to theistic idealism. He disowns Brightman’s finite God.

Aware of the theistic existentialist revolt against the absolutistic conception of reality espoused by Royce and Hocking, he nonetheless thinks the Christian existentialists may be retelling the Christian message so that contemporaries will believe that Jesus is the Son of God (p. 248). But the speculative thrust predominates over the theology of revelation. For while Dr. Robinson properly discerns the Pauline doctrine that “the personality of Jesus is identical with the divine Logos,” he falls into the idealistic fallacy when he extends that doctrine to mean that “the God who is incarnate in Jesus is also incarnate in every believing Christian” (p. 247).

CARL F. H. HENRY

Misunderstanding

The Reformation, by Will Durant, Simon and Shuster, New York, 1957. $7.50.

This is the fifth volume of Will Durant’s magnum opus “The Story of Civilization,” and in order to cover the period 1300–1564 it runs, like the preceding volumes, to over 1,000 pages. The earlier topics with which the author dealt naturally posed their problems; but this one, requiring careful evaluation of some of the most controversial movements in history, must have laid upon the author a particular burden.

The weight of this burden must have been especially heavy in Durant’s case since he attempts to make himself master of the whole of Western world history, and so has been obliged to limit himself largely to secondary sources which at times lead him astray. Moreover, for one who was born into the Roman Catholic communion but apparently moved over to a type of Protestant liberalism, it must have been difficult for him to develop very much sympathy for the sixteenth century Reformers.

His study of the humanistic, political and economic developments in northern Europe between 1300 and 1564 is stimulating and interesting. On the other hand, his facility for generalization and epigrammatic statement sometimes leads him or the reader astray. Despite this, however, his work in this field, if read with due care, provides a useful summary of the Northern Renaissance.

It is his efforts to deal with the Reformers which rouse the most fundamental criticisms. While he tries at times to be sympathetic and understanding, it is clear that he simply is not able to grasp the basic spirit of either Luther or Calvin. Indeed, sometimes he has even failed to understand their plain teachings, as for instance, in the case where he states that Luther kept most of the medieval church’s doctrines (p. 571), or where he refers to the Reformers’ doctrine of “justification or election by faith” (p. 465). A blow at Calvin, whom he dislikes intensely, comes at a point where he refers to that Reformer’s doctrines as the “most absurd and blasphemous conception of God in all the long and honored history of nonsense” (p. 490).

Perhaps Durant would have understood the Reformation better had he read some of those who have favored it, viz., Doumergue, Bohatec, Rupp and others. But as it is, not only are there misstatements of fact, but one cannot help feeling that to the whole Reformation, the author is in fundamental opposition, and that therefore any true understanding of it is precluded.

W. S. REID

Unified Insight

A Survey of The Old and New Testaments, by Russell Bradley Jones, Baker Book House, 1957. $5.95.

In many ways this is an excellent book. It is definitely conservative in theological outlook, it is written in a clear understandable style, and indicates that the author, who is head of the Department of Bible and Religious Education at Carson-Newman College, Jefferson City, Tennessee, is a man of excellent judgment.

This last point is evident again and again throughout the book. Thus, in discussing divine sovereignty and human responsibility, the author does justice to both (p. 23). He rejects the fantastic restitution-theory with respect to the story of creation (p. 35). He does not tolerate an unfair attack on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (p. 329). He gives a summary-interpretation of Revelation 20 which is satisfying (p. 360).

What is perhaps the outstanding virtue of the book is the fact that the author makes us see the history of revelation as an organic whole. It is all one story, the story of God’s redeeming love. I recommend this book for those who wish to gain a unified, organic insight into the story of redemption as revealed in the Bible.

I do have a few criticisms to make. It would seem that the author has struggled with the problem of giving a survey both of the Bible story and of the Bible books within the very limited space of 372 pages. His treatment of the story is excellent. This is not always true with respect to the books. In fact, some of them receive hardly any attention: to Nahum only a few lines are devoted; to the entire Gospel according to John hardly two pages. Also, the chosen themes and divisions are often difficult to study or memorize. Frequently, too, it is not clear how the divisions are related to the theme.

It is perhaps due also to the author’s ample treatment of the story, that very little space is left for the treatment of well-known problems, e.g., less than a page is given to the Synoptic problem.

It is puzzling to understand how the author, in bestowing high praise upon a number of listed Bible translations, of which he says, “In no instance is the Word of God being deliberately changed,” and in which he characterizes the translators as “devout scholars for whose consecrated toil we should be thankful,” can include the Revised Standard Version, without offering a word of criticism (p. 20). The one redeeming feature in this connection is that the author does mention in his bibliography the work of O. T. Allis, Revised Version or Revised Bible? But these criticisms do not in any way take away the fact that Jones has written a fine book on Bible history.

WILLIAM HENDRIKSEN

Teaching Children

Beyond Neutrality, by M. V. C. Jeffreys, Pitman, London, 8s.6d.

The author is Professor of Education at the University of Birmingham, England, and one could wish that all who hold similar posts in the universities of the world were such as he. In five excellent chapters Professor Jeffreys sustains the plea that the cult of moral and religious neutrality in the teaching profession shall be brought to an end. By means of cogent arguments the author insists that unless a teacher both has and reveals convictions of a moral and religious kind he is failing in the most elementary aspects of his duty in the education of the young lives entrusted to him. The important guiding principle for a teacher is that he is not teaching “subjects”: he is teaching children. A child is a developing person and needs the stimulus not merely of factual information, but of challenging ideas. The directionless feature of so much present-day education denies to the child-person those very elements that make for a strong mind, a steadfast character, and a full personal life. The best way of indicating the healthy tone of these lectures and likewise to commend them to the serious teacher is to quote a few sentences:

“It is sometimes maintained that, in matters of belief, the teacher ought to ask questions, never to answer them; that anything more positive than a question-mark must prejudice the intellectual liberty of the pupil by putting someone else’s ideas into his head. This evasion of the educator’s responsibility, in the name of freedom, rests, however, on the false assumption that the positive presentation of a view of life is incompatible with the cultivation of the pupil’s critical judgment. The truth surely is that powers grow by exercise, and a person will never learn to withstand propaganda who has never been exposed to the force of opinion. The guarantee of freedom is not the teacher’s neutrality but his respect for the integrity of his pupil’s personality. Let the teacher preach the faith that is in him so long as he desires his pupil to exercise responsible judgment more than he desires him to accept the teacher’s opinions. The minds and souls of the young are safe with the teacher at the heart of whose faith is reverence for human personality. This is the one condition that reconciles freedom and authority. Without it, there is no escape from anarchy on the one side and tyranny on the other.”

This is a little volume that should be placed in the hands of every potential teacher and it would do experienced teachers no harm to read it.

ERNEST F. KEVAN

Neo-Orthodox Sympathies

Basic Christian Beliefs, by W. Burnet Easton, Jr., Westminster, Philadelphia, 1957. 196 pp., $3.75.

This book purports to delineate and defend biblical Christianity. Stating that Christianity is a supranatural religion, the author notes that such a faith, rather than mere obedience to the Christian ethic, is essential if one is correctly to be called Christian. In a provocative analysis of faith and reason, he shows that the “naturalist,” as well as the “supernaturalist,” is dependent on faith, and in a valid criticism of the traditional theistic proofs he points out in effect that they at best prove the existence of a God.

He holds an extremely low view of inspiration whereby he maintains that the biblical writers were storytellers who often invented details that did not or could not have happened. For him the Bible “speaks the Word of God only to those who go to it in faith and expectancy,” and here as elsewhere he shows clearly his neo-orthodox sympathies. While he does not accept the Genesis account of original sin, he does believe that all men are sinful and in need of reconciliation with God. He speaks of the Atonement as the great indispensable Christian doctrine but is all too vague as to its meaning, and he regards the Resurrection as a subjective group experience. He anticipates a final Judgment, but no eternal punishment.

The author, now a professor at Park College, Missouri, has written an interesting readable book, which is definitely theistic. But the Christianity that he depicts, based as it is on human reason and experience rather than divine revelation, is at best a badly deformed type.

CHARLES H. CRAIG

Ecclesiastical Year

Resources for Sermon Preparation, by David A. MacLennan, Westminster, Philadelphia, 1957. 239 pp., $3.75.

There are 308,647 churches in the United States, and of these 39,614 belong to denominations that adhere rather closely to the traditional Christian year, with its fixed Gospel and Epistle selections. The other 269,033 use either free texts, or else follow a modified Christian year that has become more or less recognized in recent years. The traditional Christian year devotes every Sunday to some incident relating to the earthly ministry of our Lord or to his teachings. The modified church year sets apart certain days such as Universal Bible Sunday, Brotherhood Sunday, Rural Life Sunday, Mothers’ Day, Fathers’ Day, Nature Sunday, Labor Sunday, etc. It is with this latter ecclesiastical year that Dr. MacLennan’s book is concerned.

It is not a book of sermons, but rather of suggested thoughts for sermons. For example, during the Lenten season, he includes not only such subjects as “How to Keep Lent” and “How Christ Saves Us,” but “Proud of This News,” “Sky Hooks Monday through Friday,” “What’s Life All About,” “Hearing Aids” and “How’s Your E.Q.?”

In his suggested texts, which are printed in full, the author usually uses the RSV, Moffatt, Phillips or Barclay. The homiletical thoughts range from seven pages for Easter day to six lines for “Mountains of the Bible” and three lines for “A Summer Series.”

Dr. MacLennan is pastor of Brick Presbyterian Church, Rochester, N. Y., and is a teacher of homiletics at Colgate Rochester Divinity School. He delivered the 1955 Warrack Lectures on Preaching at the Universities of Glasgow and Aberdeen.

F. R. WEBBER

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment (Mark 12:30).

Of all our Saviour’s wise and happy answers to insidious or puzzling questions, this is the most exquisitely beautiful, because so unambiguous, so simple, so exactly corresponding to the form of the question, so evasive of its trifling and unprofitable element, so exhaustive and demonstrative of what was really important in it, and therefore, so unchangeably instructive and so practically useful to the end of time.

These were very familiar words to our Lord’s hearers, for all devout Jews were in the habit of repeating them every morning and evening. Deut. 6:4–9, from which our Saviour quoted, was one of the four passages which were worn as “phylacteries” (Matt. 23:5) … Because he is our God, Jehovah claims our hearts’ love. As our Creator, Preserver, Provider, and Judge, he commands us to yield to him all our heart’s affection.

From Deuteronomy—from the authentic interpretation of the letter of the Sinaitic law already contained therein, which afterwards takes the form of an exhortation to repentance, and ends with the promise of circumcision of the heart—from this book does Christ address the one greatest, all-embracing commandment.

Love To God

The reply was at once our Lord’s final triumph over error, and the very central truth of all his doctrine. Heedless of their refinements, he marks that as the first and great commandment which is the sum and root of all the rest, Love to God; created as a principle in the heart, imbuing the soul—the whole nature of the living man, formed into a sound doctrine by the mind, and carried out practically with all his strength.

W. SMITH

Did ever any prince make a law that his subjects should love him? Yet such is the condescension of divine grace, that this is made the first and great commandment of God’s law, that we love him, and that we perform all other parts of our duty to him from a principle of love. We must highly esteem him, be well pleased that there is such a Being, well pleased in all his attributes and relations to us; our desire must be toward him, our delight in him, our dependence upon him, and to him we must be entirely devoted. It must be a constant pleasure to think of him, hear from him, speak to him, and serve him.

MATTHEW HENRY

The thing enjoined by this law is most substantial,—the life and soul of all other duty, and without which all that we can do besides is but mere shadow; for whatsoever we are enjoined to do else, we must understand enjoined to be done out of love to God as the principle whence it must proceed; and, not proceeding thence, the moral goodness of it vanishes as a beam cut off from the sum: for on this—with the other, which is like unto it, and which also hangs upon this—“hang all the law and the prophets.”

JOHN HOWE

If the heart was right in the sight of God, it would be as easy to love God with all the heart, as to love him in the lowest degree; yea, it would be easier; for the soul would be happier in the perfect exercise of love, than in an imperfect exercise of this affection. Again, if God was satisfied with less than perfect love, he would be content that his rational creatures should possess less moral excellence, less of his own image, than they are capable of; yea, he would be satisfied that they should remain in a state of moral depravity; for every defect of perfect love is moral depravity—is sin, that “abominable thing which God hateth.” The total want of love to God is the essence and root of all depravity; and just so far as we fall short of that perfect love which this first commandment requires, just so far we are inwardly defiled with sin.

ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER

Total Man

God is infinitely amiable and perfect and what does he require of his creatures but that they should love him with all the soul, strength, and heart which he hath given them? Can this ever cease to be an obligation? What should make it cease? Nothing but that God should become less amiable, that his perfection should fade, his goodness be exhausted, or his greatness impaired. On the other hand, what is it that he threatens to those who withdraw their hearts from him? Is it not the loss of his favor and friendship? Can either the obligation or penalty be accused of severity? Surely in this God does nothing unbecoming a wise and righteous governor. Nay, with reverence be it said, He could not do otherwise without denying himself.

R. WATSON

Nothing should be tolerated within ourselves, in our conscious, personal life, that is not inspired, controlled, or sweetened by the love we bear our God. If this be gained, the rest must follow. Such love will overflow through all the three main channels by which our personal life pours itself abroad upon society. The mind, or intellectual activities, will obey it; the soul, or emotional and passionate nature, with its social sympathies and earthly affections, will obey it; the strength or forces of the will, by which a resolved and energetic nature imposes itself upon others, and subdues circumstances to its purposes—this, too, will do its bidding. In short, the entire organism of the individual life is to stand entirely at the service of our love for God.

J. O. DYKES

But although we see nothing in mere man but disconformity to this holy commandment; yet in Jesus Christ, who was made under the law, we observe obedience to this commandment perfectly exemplified. He obeyed both internally and externally, for “he was holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.” He never had a thought or desire which in the least deviated from this rule. And this perfect righteousness of our Mediator, was not only for our example, but for our justification, by being made over to us by imputation.

ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER

Take Christ in all his fulness, not as God merely, not as man merely; not in his life on earth only, not in his death only, not in his exaltation at God’s right hand only, but in all his fulness, the Christ of God, God and Man, our Prophet, our Priest, our King and Lord, redeeming us by his blood, sanctifying us by his Spirit; and then worship him and love him with all the heart, and with all the soul, and with all the strength; and we shall see how all evil will be barred, and all good will abound.

T. ARNOLD

Love to God is the grand leading principle of right conduct, the original source and fountain from which all Christian graces flow; from which the living waters of religion take their rise, and branch out.

B. PORTEUS

Dr. Fred Spearman, pastor of the Third Presbyterian Church of Pittsburgh, gave out as the title of a recent sermon, “The Shift in the Harvard Accent.” Unfortunately for us, we have neither heard nor read the sermon. But the theme set us affectionately reminiscing. We had a saying, in the forties, that the formula for success in politics was to go to Harvard and turn to the left. But Harvard has shifted so much that the formula for theological success may become, “Go to Harvard and turn to the right,” or, more accurately, “the neo-right.”

In the forties, and earlier, Harvard Divinity School was a bastion of orthodox liberalism. There was no truck with this new-fangled Barthianism, except to dispose of it. It was not simply that Harvard was brooking no dialecticism, it wanted nothing to do with any theology. My former teacher and friend, Dr. Julius S. Bixler, remains to this day (though not at Harvard), an “unreconstructed liberal.” He also remains in my mind the unreconstructed image of the true liberal: genial, kindly, tolerant to the point of indifferent, urbane, learned, intellectual, refined, cultured, amused. There he was—blandly puffing on his pipe, while guest lecturer, Reinhold Niebuhr, railed against liberalism in the interests of original sin. The two men were good friends (out of the arena). Getting back to the point—Dr. Bixler was professor of theology. He may have taught a course in theology; but, if so, we never heard of it. He lectured on systematics like Karl Barth lectured on natural theology—to show that the subject had no right to exist.

The late Robert H. Pfeiffer had just come fully into his own with the publication of his famous Introduction. He was an integral part of old Harvard liberalism and radicalism. The question came up in class once, “What do you think when you read an Old Testament record of a miracle?” The answer was unhesitating and summary: “I dismiss it as non-historical.” While Dr. Pfeiffer lectured in detail on the fine points of S1 and S2, next door, Henry Joel Cadbury taught New Testament by the discussion method. Dr. Cadbury was one of the rarest of liberals—he knew a creditable amount about conservative scholarship. Warfield, Vos and Machen were respected names with him; although, so far as I know, their traditional supernaturalism made not even a beachhead in his thought. One day I asked him: “Why do you use Machen’s Origin of Paul’s Religion in the Hellenism course?” “Because it is the best statement and critique of the various interpretations of Paul of which I know.” “But you do not feel constrained by his supernaturalistic conclusion?” “No, Machen only shows that the present naturalistic interpretations of Paul are inadequate; not that all future ones need be.” Arthur Darby Nock, of famed learning, continues on and may be the “bridge” professor. A decade and a half ago he was unconcerned about grounding his religious values, which seemed rather conservative, on history. I conjecture that he is not much affected by the changing winds of doctrine.

Time would fail us to recall all of those liberal worthies of the past. But a word about the philosophy department before we say goodbye. William Ernest Hocking was most celebrated, of course, for his religious thinking. From a conservative Christian viewpoint, his theology was as relativistic as his philosophy was absolutistic. The strongest force for what conservatives hold dear was, I thought, John Wild whose strong Platonic and Thomistic strain made him congenial to orthodoxy. The late Ralph Barton Perry was a fine philosopher of the neo-critical school with a sharp sense of the distinction between historic Christianity and liberalism. He once in class referred to Unitarianism as “watered-down Christianity.” Before one seminar, when I was alone with him for a few minutes, he told me that he had himself once thought of the Presbyterian ministry. I asked what had deflected him. He had on graduation from college some formidable problems. The ministers consulted, he said, passed them off rather than answering them. Professor Perry concluded: “I thought then, as I think now, that a whole is made up of its parts. If the parts are not defensible, neither is the whole.” Thus ended that lesson.

So Harvard has indeed shifted its accent. Neo-orthodoxy appears to be dominant. Liberalism is still there, I suppose. So is everything else. Eastern Orthodoxy is represented, Roman Catholicism has a guest lecturer, Judaism has a most learned advocate in Harry Wolfson who is doing for Christianity what George Foote Moore once did for Judaism—subjecting it to friendly but penetrating critical study.

Yes, Harvard has a new theological accent, indeed. When one comes to think of that, it is rather strange that almost all theological viewpoints are represented at the new Harvard except that, to express which, the school was first founded—historic Calvinism! (It is called “scholastic Calvinism” today.) Perhaps Harvard’s new academic ecumenism may yet extend an invitation to Cornelius Van Til or Gordon Clark or Gerritt Berkouwer. If such an invitation were accepted, it would make things very interesting. And the new shot (in the arm) would surely be heard around the world.

When we went to Palestine in the summer of 1956 to begin the first archaeological excavation of the city of Gibeon, we might have anticipated our most important discovery from some hints in biblical history. While in the more than 40 times that Gibeon is mentioned, practically nothing is said about the physical features of the city, there is significantly an occasional and casual mention of the city’s water supply.

Joshua once cursed the wily inhabitants of Gibeon, those who so successfully deceived him that he made a covenant of peace with them, and “made them that days hewers of wood and drawers of water” (Josh. 9:27). Later, the scene of the famous contest between the 12 men of Joab and the 12 men of Abner is explicitly named as the “pool of Gibeon.” There the two opposing groups of contestants sat down, “the one on the one side of the pool, and the other on the other side of the pool” (2 Sam. 2:13). Centuries later, after the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the usurper Ishmael was found by Johanan “by the great waters that are in Gibeon (Jer. 41:12).

Remarkable Water System

Yet these hints that Gibeon was long and widely known for its water supply did not fully prepare us for the discovery in 1956 and 1957 of one of the most extensive water systems ever unearthed in ancient Palestine. It included a system of tunnels cut through a total distance of 389 feet of solid rock, more than 172 steps for the water carriers of Gibeon, and a pool around the edge of which is a spiral stairway which once provided the “drawers of water” with an easy access to the water level deep within the hill on which the city stood. This elaborate construction is even more impressive when one considers that it was all hewn from rock with primitive, untempered tools.

When we started digging early in the summer of 1956 at the Arab village of Al Jib, just eight miles north of Jerusalem, we were not absolutely certain that the site was that of ancient Gibeon. Biblical scholars had debated the location of Gibeon for over a century, and there was still reasonable doubt about its being at Al Jib. The expedition had been sent out by the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania and the Church Divinity School of the Pacific for purposes of gathering what information it could. The first staff consisted of seven Americans: S. E. Johnson, Jean H. Johnson, Marcia Rogers, T. H. Hall IV, R. C. Dentan, H. N. Richardson, and the writer, who served as director; and Thorir Thordarson from Iceland, and a Jordanian surveyor, Subhi Muhtadi.

The Site Of Gibeon

After weeks of monotonous work looking through fragments of broken pottery found by our 80 Arab workmen, we one day had the good fortune of finding a short Hebrew inscription on the handle of a jar which supplied the answer to decades of debate over the location of the famous biblical city. It read “Gibeon.” A few days later, there emerged from the ground another piece of pottery inscribed with the name “Hananiah,” a name which appears in Jeremiah 28:1: “Hananiah the son of Azzur the prophet, who was of Gibeon.” Now, at last, we knew exactly where we were.

During the following season, that of 1957, with a different staff (this year the director was assisted by F. V. Winnett, Asia G. Halaby, Linda Witherill, Claus Hunzinger, and again Subhi Muhtadi) we succeeded in clinching the identification even more firmly by finding 24 additional inscriptions of the name “Gibeon” and the actual names of prominent citizens of the city. Some of them bore biblical names, such as Azariah, Amariah, Nahum and Meshullam. Others were Hebrew names not mentioned in the Bible.

Why did the men of Gibeon take the trouble to place the name of their city on the handles of these pottery jars? This question was answered during our second season, when we found that these jars were made for the export of fine wine from Gibeon. The inscriptions were nothing more than labels for wine jars; the manufacturer had labelled his product with his name and address. That which had once advertised the quality of the product now provided the student of the Bible some 2,500 years later with a fixed location on the map of ancient Palestine. This discovery now makes it possible to use the biblical accounts concerning the history of Gibeon as a guide for what is found at Al Jib, and to illustrate the text of the Bible by what comes from the 16 acres of ruins of several superimposed cities at this place.

Vulnerable To Attack

Obviously this ancient city was most vulnerable at the point of its water supply. A city could be swiftly brought to its knees by merely cutting its inhabitants off from the spring which supplied them with water. It has long been known from the Bible (2 Chron. 32:30) and from the discovery of the famous Siloam tunnel in Jerusalem that Hezekiah was famous for the conduit which he had cut to bring water inside the walls of Jerusalem, probably during the perilous days of 701 B.C. when Sennacherib came down “like a wolf upon the fold.”

It was the same kind of peril which must have prompted the building at great cost of the ingenious water system which we uncovered at Gibeon in the summers of 1956 and 1957.

Actually there were two systems. Gibeon was built on a rocky hill rising about a hundred feet above the surrounding plain. Around the edge of this naturally defended hill the inhabitants had built a strong city wall, 26 feet thick just above the spring; but at one time the people had been accustomed to go out a small watergate and climb down the steep hill to get water from the spring below.

In time (just when, we have not as yet been able to determine) the engineers of the city devised a safer means of getting to the water which flowed from the base of the hill. They cut a tunnel through 170 feet of solid limestone from the city square within the city wall to the spring at the bottom of the hill. There, at the end of the tunnel, they carved out a cave and equipped it with a stone door which could be dropped quickly into place in time of attack. Within the cave they had a reservoir which could be reached easily and safely even when the enemy was encamped in the plain.

The tunnel was no temporary measure. It was equipped with 93 steps cut from the solid rock of the floor, and niches held oil lamps to provide light for the water carriers.

A second system, far more protected than the first and surely more costly to construct, was a further provision for civil defense. To make this additional access to water in time of siege, the dwellers within the walls had quarried straight down to a depth of 82 feet through solid rock.

In the days when there were no metal buckets, water had to be carried from wells in earthen jars. These fragile containers could not be let down with ropes, so a narrow well could not suffice for the drawers of water in ancient Gibeon.

The makers of this system first removed the rock from a large cylindrical hole, 36 feet in diameter, down to a depth of more than 30 feet; and along the edge they cut a spiral stairway for the water carriers. Then, at that point, they continued the stairs by means of a tunnel to the depth of another 49 feet until they reached water. At the bottom of 79 steps they cut a large chamber in which water could collect.

When we finally broke into the water chamber, a workman made his way into the room, which had been closed for 25 centuries, and found there the water cool and sweet. The entire construction had been filled in, perhaps at the time of the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar, and its existence had been completely overlooked until we found it below the field of one of the farmers at Al Jib.

The Gibeonites had more than earned the right to be called “drawers of water.”

We Quote:

JOSEPH R. SIZOO

Professor of Religion, George Washington University

Religion and education have been regarding one another as rivals. The hue and cry about separation of church and state means for many people education without any reference to religion. We need desperately a view of society in which education and religion are not given independent provinces. Education divorced from religion is doomed to spiritual sterility. Religion divorced from education is doomed to superstition and bigotry. Religion and education when both are honest, humble, and informed are natural allies. And education shot through with a glad awareness that the universe in which we live is the creation of a living God, makes for a far different way of appraising life from the way the secularist looks at it.…

The ministry is a lonely profession; the minister is often a lonely man. That may seem strange to lay people but it is true. He keeps silent vigil in the lonely night watches with his God and comes down storm-swathed sides of Sinai to announce thus saith the Lord. He is in the world but not of it, he is with people and yet apart from them. What Richard Watson Gilder wrote in his Ode to Grove Cleveland is true: “Lonely is the life that listens to no voice save that of duty.” Believe me, being a prophet of God is often a lonely business. Many, many times in the past I have wondered if I stood alone.… The minister of God, keeper of the pathway to the eternal stars, is always sustained and encompassed by more loyalties and friendships than he dreams.—In an address at the Awards Dinner of the Washington Pilgrimage, where he was honored as “Clergyman of the Year.”

James B. Pritchard holds the A.B. degree from Asbury College, B.D. from Drew, and Ph.D. from University of Pennsylvania. He was Professor of Old Testament literature at Crozer Theological Seminary from 1942–54, and now holds that post at Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, California. He served as annual Professor at the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem in 1950–51. His role in excavations at Gibeon has brought him wide prominence. Here he recalls the weeks of patient search and exciting discoveries.

(Part II will appear in the next issue)

No theme is more worthy than the Word, whether the Incarnate Word or the Inspired Word. And surely renewed interest in special revelation is timely and necessary for our befuddled world of thought and action. We are all aware that in this century speculative idealism has passed its prime, naturalism has gained ascendancy, and Communism incorporates into modern history a world-life view resolutely anti-supernatural. It is indeed the good providence of God that we are once again permitted, even forced to, the biblical heritage of Western culture.

Emil Brunner has said, and I think rightly, that “the fate of the Bible is the fate of Christianity.” When we interpret such expressions, we are all concerned to avoid both understatements and overstatements of the significance of the Bible. How shall we properly relate the Bible to divine revelation? This question continues to be a fundamental issue in modern theology. Karl Barth, for example, in The Doctrine of the Word of God, speaks of doing the Bible “a poor honor” by identifying revelation with the Book. On the other hand, evangelical Protestantism believes that despite the new emphasis on the Bible as “witness” to special revelation neither Barth nor Brunner nor neo-orthodox theologians generally honor Scripture as they ought. Meantime evangelicals are charged with exaggerating the role of the Bible—with making it a “paper Pope,” with worshipping it, with allowing it to crowd out the authority of God, the authority of Jesus Christ. What shall we think and say of these matters?

We dare allow only one final authority in the Christian life. We dare acknowledge the authority of no other god than the living God who made heaven and earth and man in his image. We dare acknowledge only the authority of the living God incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, the authority of the living God who regenerates and reigns in the life of believers by the Holy Spirit (“No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” 1 Cor. 12:3, RSV). Must we not also acknowledge the living God, incarnate in Jesus Christ, renewing believers by the Holy Spirit, as the authoritative source of sacred Scripture, the divine rule of faith and practice (All scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable … that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, 2 Tim. 3:16)? To affirm the authority of Scripture neither undermines nor threatens the living God as final authority in the believer’s life; but rather, like the recognition that the Spirit regenerates and rules, and that Jesus of Nazareth is Saviour and Lord, it guarantees the removal of illegitimate aspirants or pretenders to his authority.

Thrust Of Neo-Orthodoxy

To exhibit the divergent views I shall present the basic issue from two sides, noting first, that the neo-orthodox rival view fails to do justice to the status of the Bible as revelation; and second, that the evangelical view honors the revelation-status of the Bible.

The main premises of the neo-orthodox view of the Bible, as I see them, are (1) the Bible is the indispensable witness to special redemptive revelation; (2) no identity exists between the Bible, in its written form of words and sentences, and special revelation; (3) the Bible is the instrumental frame within which God personally encounters man and actualizes revelation in the form of dynamic response.

Instability Of Liberalism

This view brought welcome relief to the problems that harassed Protestant liberalism for half a century. Remember that Wellhausen’s post-evolutionary criticism had narrowed the traditional confidence in the infallibility of Scripture by excluding matters of science and history. The Bible was then considered reliable only in matters of faith and practice. Next, William Newton Clarke’s The Use of the Scriptures in Theology (1905) yielded biblical theology and ethics to the critics as well as biblical science and history, but reserved “Christian theology,” or the teaching of Jesus Christ, as reliable. British scholars took a further step. Since science and history were involved in Jesus’ endorsement of creation, the patriarchs, Moses and the Law, English critics more and more accepted only the theological and moral teaching of Jesus. Contemporaries swiftly erased even this remainder, asserting Jesus’ theological fallibility. Actual belief in Satan and demons was intolerable to the critical mind, and must therefore invalidate his theological integrity, while the feigned belief in them (as a concession to the times) would invalidate his moral integrity. Had not Jesus represented his whole ministry as the conquest of Satan and invoked his exorcism of demons to prove his supernatural mission? The critics could only infer his limited knowledge even of theological and moral truths. The Chicago school of “empirical theologians” argued that respect for the scientific method in theology disallows in toto any defense of Jesus’ absoluteness and infallibility. Harry Emerson Fosdick’s The Modern Use of the Bible (1924) championed only “abidingly valid” experiences in Jesus’ life that could be normatively relived by us. Gerald Birney Smith took the final plunge in Current Christian Thinking (1928): We are to gain inspiration from Jesus, but it is our own experience that determines doctrine and a valid outlook on life.

This history of concession and retreat had one pervading theme, namely, that the Bible differs from other so-called sacred books only in degree; it contains the highest religious and ethical insights gleaned from universal divine revelation. Liberalism moved from the fallibility of the Bible to the fallibility of the God-man to the fallibility of the indwelling Spirit to the fallibility of everything except, perhaps, of contemporary criticism! The resulting confusion and chaos were therefore a propitious time for a view which recognized that the perplexing problem of religious knowledge could not be solved in so narrow, so artificial a framework. If that new view, moreover, could dissolve the need for identifying the Bible in part or whole as the Word of God—thus rising above the fatiguing and exasperating game of epistemological “blind man’s bluff”—it could attract the liberal theologian and critic even while it disputed him.

Neo-Orthodoxy’S New Look

Neo-orthodoxy sets out with a new look at controlling ideas of the nature and activity of God. It rejects liberalism’s metaphysics of extreme divine immanence and accepts instead a reactionary doctrine of extreme divine transcendence. Furthermore, neo-orthodoxy rejects the post-Hegelian epistemology of extreme monistic realism that virtually identifies God’s knowledge with man’s knowledge. But its doctrine of subjectivity perpetuates the error of epistemological dualism, bridging the tension between eternity and time not conceptually but dialectically and/or existentially in dynamic faith-response. Gordon H. Clark traces this development of modern counter-thrust to the excesses of Hegelian rationalism in his book Thales to Dewey. He discloses the generous philosophical rather than biblical indebtedness of recent theories of God and revelation. One could say of the contemporary theology of revelation that its vocabulary is the vocabulary of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but its plot is the plot of Kant and Kierkegaard, of Ebner and Buber.

Our immediate concern, however, is the role of the Bible in the new theology of the Word of God. Assuredly, the current interest in special revelation has stimulated fresh exploration of the Bible. As opposed to the old liberalism, neo-orthodoxy no longer gears Scripture to a naturalistic, evolutionary development of religious experience, nor demeans the Bible as a human interpretation of a universal divine activity. Instead, the Book’s theological message is an authentic witness to God’s unique self-disclosure in Jesus Christ.

Evading The Biblical Witness

Precisely this profession of neo-orthodoxy, however, to honor the Bible as a witness to special divine revelation, is an Achilles’ heel. For the witness of the Bible does not conform to the dialectical and non-rational exposition of revelation affirmed by the contemporary theology of the Word of God. Because of this divergence, neo-orthodoxy ultimately must choose one of two alternatives: either the new theology must abandon its merely formal appeal to the Scriptures as witness to special divine revelation, or neo-orthodoxy must dissolve its antithetical exposition of revelation and reason.

If the inspiration and revelation-status of the Scriptures as depicted by neo-orthodox writers is set alongside the witness of the biblical writers, their conflict becomes apparent at once. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, translator of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics, has long observed that whereas Barth emphasizes the “inspiringness” of Scripture, that is, its dynamic potency in religious experience, the Bible itself moves beyond this claim to assert the very “inspiredness” of the writings. The decisive reference here, of course, is 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God.…” This passage identifies Scripture itself as “God-breathed”; the writings themselves, as an end-product, are a unique product of divine activity. The divergence of crisis theology from the biblical witness is even more apparent in neo-orthodoxy’s claim that divine revelation does not assume the form of concepts and words. This assertion runs so directly counter to the specific claim of the biblical writers that Emil Brunner, uneasy in the presence of the repetitious Old Testament formula “Thus saith the Lord …,” concessively called this prophetic ascription of words and statements to Deity “an Old Testament level of revelation” (Revelation and Reason, p. 122, n. 9).

One of Brunner’s students, Paul King Jewett, has long since pointed out that to admit such propositions as revelation, whether low or high, breaks down the assumption that revelation is conceptually and verbally inexpressible, and unwittingly surrenders the thesis that divine revelation must take a form that impinges dialectically upon the mind of man. Not alone do the Old Testament prophets provide a biblical basis for identifying the inspired spoken and written word with the very Word of God; this selfsame identification is made by the New Testament apostles as well. Paul wrote that the Thessalonian converts “received the word of God which you heard from us … not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God” (1 Thess. 2:13, RSV). Peter declared that “no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:21, RSV). The writer to the Hebrews repeatedly ascribes to God what the prophets had spoken. One senses their uniform readiness to regard the sacred teaching as sharing the authority of divine revelation.

Certainly both the evangelists and apostles distinguish Jesus of Nazareth as the supreme and final revelation of God. Matthew records Peter’s confession that he truly is the Christ, the Son of the living God (16:16). John writes that “no one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known” (1:18, RSV). Paul finds the climax of the gospel in redemption personally secured by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:1–4). But the New Testament writers never make this staggering fact of God’s personal relevation in the flesh by Jesus Christ the occasion for depriving the inspired utterances of the sacred writers of a direct identity with divine revelation. In thus honoring the prophetic word as the veritable Word of God (cf. Paul’s characterization of the Old Testament as “the oracles of God” in Romans 3:2), the disciples and apostles had the sacred example of their Master and Lord; he spoke of himself indeed as the one “the Father consecrated and sent into the world,” yet he spoke at the same time of those “to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken)” (John 10:35).

Besides this validation of the divine authority of Scripture, Jesus’ followers heard him ascribe absolute significance to his own words and commands uttered in their hearing. The dialectical theory, if true, would preclude any direct identification with divine revelation of the spoken words of Jesus, no less than of prophets and apostles. In line with its presuppositions neo-orthodoxy distinguishes constantly between the Word of God as revelation and the “pointers” to revelation or assertedly fallible human ideas and words. But this distinction will not bear the scrutiny of Jesus’ teaching. For Jesus held men responsible not only for hearing his “word” (John 5:24), but for Moses’ “writings” and his own “words” (5:47). Indeed, he specifically identifies his own words and commands with the Father’s word: “The words that I say unto you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.… He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me.… If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.… If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love” (John 14:10, 24; 15:7, 10, RSV).

Integrity Of Theology

All this may seem like a needless revival of marginal concerns in circles throbbing to modernist traditions. But the very integrity of theology is at stake. As a theology that professes to honor the biblical witness to revelation, neo-orthodoxy must face the fact that it does not really derive its doctrine of revelation from the witness of Scripture; it does not have an authentically biblical concern for the fundamentals of that doctrine.

The new theology may disparage identification of the Bible in whole or in part with revelation as a kind of bibliolatry, as dishonoring to the idea of revelation, or as injurious to faith. Yet several facts remain clear. The new theology cannot find support for its anxieties over the evil implications of the traditional view in the biblical witness itself. The Bible nowhere protests nor cautions against identifying Scripture with revelation, but rather approves and supports this turn. Whoever evades these verities in constructing a doctrine of revelation, however vocal his plea for biblical theology, shows greater concern to baptize biblical criticism with an orthodox justification than to confirm the central features of the scriptural view.

The neo-orthodox rejection of the Bible as revelation rests actually on rationalism rather than on reverence. To expel Scripture from the orbit of revelation itself to the sphere of witness, and subsequently to ignore that witness in forging a doctrine of revelation, reveals speculative rather than scriptural and spiritual motives. The devout considerations by which neo-orthodoxy ventures to support its maneuver are unpersuasive. A radical skepticism in metaphysics, a relational theology still tainted with the philosophical influence of Kant and Schleiermacher, determine its elaboration of divine revelation.

Editor Carl F. H. Henry’s address was delivered at Union Theological Seminary in New York City recently under auspices of the Student Forum Committee. An evangelical symposium on the same theme will be published later this year by Baker Book House. Dr. Henry is serving as general editor of the project, which will include chapters by distinguished scholars chosen from the major denominations in many lands.

The Church of Jesus Christ is in the world for a divine and blessed purpose. The Lord himself stated this purpose in the words, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” The divine purpose and function of the Church on earth is to bring Christ to people and people to Christ. The Lord builds his Kingdom through those in his Kingdom. His Church is extended by those who are the Church. Always the Lord depends upon his people to be “laborers together with him” in making known the “good tidings of great joy.”

We may speak of immediate and ultimate objectives of evangelism. The ultimate objective must always be the new birth of which the Saviour spoke to Nicodemus when he said, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” This purpose is variously stated in the Scriptures. It means bringing the unconverted, regardless of age or race or condition in life, into a blessed relation with their God and Saviour. No one is born a Christian. We become God’s people by the divine miracle of regeneration. The Christian’s final objective in all his missionary activities will always be to labor together with God in saving people from hell and for heaven. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).

Great and incomparable are the benefits and blessings that come to mankind through the missionary activities of God’s people and through the sanctifying work of the Holy Ghost. In this manner sinful man, dead in trespasses and sin, is made spiritually alive, brought to a living, active, saving faith in Christ, absolved from all guilt and sin, and is clothed in the perfect righteousness of Christ. Thus, he has bestowed upon him the peace of God which passeth understanding, is enabled to live godly and to be rich in good works, is given victory over self, Satan, death and hell, and made an heir of life eternal in the mansions of the Father. Great is our salvation!

Individual Approach Essential

The accomplishment of these ultimate and glorious ends involves intermediate steps. The individual to be won for Christ must be encountered. Biblical evangelism is retail, not wholesale, work. People must be brought face to face with their sin and lost condition, with the Christ who redeemed them, and with the great issues of life, death, and eternity. A study of the person-to-person evangelism recorded in the Gospels and the Acts is both instructive and rewarding (outstanding examples are John 1:43–51; 3; 4; Acts 8:26–40 and 16:25–40).

In a general way those living without Christ and without hope in this world may be divided into two groups: the self-righteous and indifferent, and those troubled and disturbed. In meeting the needs of the first group, the immediate objective must be to create in people a sense of guilt, to arouse them from false security, to bring them to agonize in face of the Law, and then in love and concern, to bring them to faith in Christ the Saviour from sin. Until the individual knows his lost condition, he will not be interested in the divine remedy. Those troubled by a sense of guilt must, in the second group, be assured and comforted with the unconditional Gospel promise that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses from all sin.

An understanding knowledge of the individual and a correct diagnosis of his religious thinking and spiritual condition are essential. These requirements are attained by careful observation and, in many cases, patient and sympathetic listening. Of equal importance is the wisdom of “rightly dividing the word of truth,” and of knowing when and how to apply Law and Gospel.

The Old as well as the New Testament portrays the Lord’s deep concern for the salvation of all mankind. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life (John 3:16). “The Lord is … not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). This same genuine passion for souls characterizes the apostles. Peter and John said, “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.” Paul, so deeply concerned for his mission and responsibility, exclaims, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.” The loveless indifference of Cain, expressed with the question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is entirely foreign to all Christian thinking and conduct.

This attitude of concern for the lost is basic in true biblical evangelism. It is an awareness of one’s obligation and duty as an ambassador of the King of kings. It makes and keeps Christians, both laity and clergy, sensitive to and conscious of their purpose in this world and of their high calling in Christ Jesus. In this concern the apostle Paul said, “Woe unto me, if I preach not the gospel of Christ.”

The Pastor As Shepherd

A study of the New Testament reveals the strategic importance of the local congregation in the whole structure of the Church, particularly in the work of evangelism. And the God-ordained, God-given leader is always the pastor. The pastor of the congregation is a keeper and shepherd of the souls already in the Church. “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseer, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). And he is also the God-chosen leader in the congregation’s mission and evangelism work. To be such requires a true shepherd heart. First, he himself must be a winner of souls. Secondly, he must lead, train and equip his parishioners in true biblical evangelism.

The Christian pastor will give this twofold mission his constant attention and prayerful devotion. His position and responsibility has no parallel. In the faithful discharge of it he will often be afflicted with a feeling of inadequacy. But the Saviour’s promise to his ambassadors still stands, “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me … (Acts 1:8).

In serving his Lord and his Church as a winner of souls, the Christian pastor has the apostle Paul as his great example. Paul’s supreme purpose was that he “might by all means save some” (1 Cor. 9:22). The apostle’s farewell address to the congregation at Ephesus, recorded in Acts 20:17–38, reveals how self-sacrificingly he labored in the accomplishment of his evangelism purpose.

The pastor who would be successful in bringing people into the kingdom of God must himself know what it means to be saved by the grace of God. And he will be very conscious of his unique and high calling in Christ Jesus, he will love Christ and will have a compassion for souls. His knowledge that he is but an instrument of the Holy Spirit will give him strength, patience and humility. In public and in private he will speak convincingly and with clarity of the Christ of the Scriptures. He will seek to lead people to an understanding of salvation by divine grace through faith in Christ. He will make personal calls, and thereby build the Kingdom “house to house.” And still, he will guard against cold professionalism, for “where professionalism reigns spirituality wanes.” Finally, he will pray for himself as he thinks of his great responsibility and the apostle’s words “who is sufficient unto these things?”; and he will pray for those whom he is to lead to Christ and into heaven.

The pastor’s daily schedule of work should allow time for personal soul winning. The larger the congregation, the less time there will be for seeking out those “not yet in the fold.” But if he devotes the morning hours to necessary study, and the afternoons and some evenings to making calls, he will, in addition to the visits among his parishioners, have time to make mission calls. The most profitable and necessary visits are with the husbands and fathers, and he will find many doors open to him. Personal soul winning is one of the richest experiences of the Christian ministry, and the pastor will learn to know people and develop a sympathetic understanding of problems and creeds.

The Pastor As Leader

The other important function of the pastor as leader in biblical evangelism is to enlist his congregation in this service of God. Ephesians 4:12 makes the outfitting, the equipping, the guiding and teaching of people for the work of evangelism an important function of the ministry. The hands of God’s people receive from God that they might dispense to the world. This follows the Saviour’s own pattern. When the Lord had added Philip to his disciples, Philip went to Nathanael and said, “We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph” (John 1:45). The apostle Paul was not only an ardent winner of souls himself; he constantly enlisted and trained those whom he brought to Christ to witness for Christ.

The missionary potential in the apostolic age was in the whole church. Also today it is in the whole congregation, both clergy and laity. It has well been said that the Church is “off center” when the pastor does it all, and it is “off center” when the people do it all.

In Acts and in the Epistles, we find the pattern for Christian evangelism. A part of that pattern is the important place of the local church in the spreading of the Gospel. “New Testament local churches were nerve centers of evangelism, and in this respect constitute a pattern for local churches” (Whitesell, Basic New Testament Evangelism, p. 133).

To the local congregations of Christians have the mysteries of God and means of grace, by Word and sacrament, been entrusted. These means are to be faithfully employed for the saving of people and the edification of the saints. A general church body, synod, district, commission and board can make plans, develop programs, and pass resolutions—all of which may be necessary and important. But God’s kingdom is extended only in the measure in which pastors and people of local congregations separately and together evangelize. The local parish is the front line where those who are faithful wage and win the spiritual battle.

The greatest missionary responsibility and opportunity in our country is where there are Christian congregations with a well-equipped physical plant surrounded with people who are unchurched or who are in churches but not in a blessed relationship with Christ. All too often congregations fail to reach people in the number and measure in which they could and should be reached and brought under the sanctifying influence of the Gospel. A congregation functions best as a divine agency in the building of God’s kingdom when on Sundays and on weekdays, through clergy and laity, the unconverted are confronted with the convicting power of the law of God, with the faith-generating power of the Gospel, and with the great issues of God’s plan of salvation. Where an effective evangelism program on the congregational level is developed and energetically pursued, many of the problems that have a tendency to plague the church and disrupt its effectiveness will disappear.

Program And Aims

As long as Christian congregations are within easy reach of people who are not affiliated with a Christian church and of people who are affiliated with a church but are not in a state of grace, the congregation has a mission field and is in need of an evangelism program.

Such a program should bring information, instruction and inspiration to the members of the church. Christian people need to be kept informed and aware of their soul-winning responsibilities and opportunities. The part of the program designed to reach the unsaved and unconverted must be definite. Various methods and organizational procedures may be developed and followed, but these should be the definite aims:

1. Contact—People must be individually and personally contacted by the members of the family of God.

2. Concentration—By this we mean, “staying with it.” It takes more than one or two efforts to bring in an individual. The teaching of biblical evangelism is an on-going process. It takes time to learn to walk with God. Christians should not become impatient, but clearly, repeatedly and humbly testify and speak the great truth of God’s plan of salvation.

3. Conversion—The great objective of all mission activity and personal evangelism must always be conversion and sanctification of the sinner. “This is the will of God, even your sanctification” (1 Thess. 4:3).

4. Conservation—Soul keeping is an essential part of soul winning. Integration and assimilation of people into the family of God is essential for the development of Christian faith and life. Having brought people under the influence of the Gospel, the church must keep them under the sanctifying power of the means of grace.

A congregational evangelism program with these four essentials will occupy a high priority in the work of the church. Individual members, officers, committees, and organizations can move in one direction. The one great purpose of the whole congregation is the reaching out to immortal souls, purchased and redeemed by the blood of Christ, to make them heirs of life eternal. Christians, laity and clergy, are “laborers together with God.” A congregation that has a biblical evangelism program, has a program that works. Its next concern is simply to work the program.

When an individual knows Christ as his Saviour, knows the nature and purpose of the means of grace, and has become convinced that the doctrines of the Church are in full accord with the Word of God, he should be encouraged to confess his faith and be received into fellowship with the Church. The one essential book for the teaching of religion is the Bible, and it is of utmost importance that the holy truths therein be presented with warmth, with Christian conviction and faith, in terms and phrases which people understand, and related to the needs of man in this life and to his eternal salvation.

The establishment of new congregations is an important part of the Church’s mission and expansion program. The mobility of the American people (30 million change their addresses each year), the growing population, the development of urban and suburban communities, and the many areas and communities which are still under-churched make necessary the establishment of congregations. The church must be where the people are. Where people move and live, the church must follow. And every time a new Christian congregation is born, the whole Church of God should rejoice. Generally too few, rather than too many, congregations are ever established.

In pursuing their high calling as witnesses for Christ, God’s people will pray much and often. They will pray for the gift of the Holy Spirit, for wisdom, and patience and grace. They will pray for one another in the performance of their evangelism responsibilities and privileges. They will pray for individual souls to be brought to Christ.

Arthur H. Haake is Chairman of the Board for Home Missions of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, of which Board he has been a member the last eight years. He is a graduate of Concordia Seminary, served as Pastor in British Columbia from 1930–1941, and in California since 1943 pastoring the West Portal Lutheran Church, San Francisco. The present article is an abridgment of a chapter of a new book on Pastoral Theology to be published by Concordia, St. Louis.

Here is your assignment for next Sunday. Write a paragraph entitled, I saw. Make it prose or poetry or both. Do not write what you think or feel; put down only what you see, for your imagination, you know, is joined to your eyes.

Now, before I tell you of the material that came to me the next week from our group of villagers and church people, let me give a little of the background of the experiment.

From the pulpit of my church, I had announced one morning a special class to study “Basic Ideas of Calvinism.” The class was to be held for a period of nine weeks at the end of which some kind of exam would be given. Of course, an “exam” frightened many; but surprisingly enough, several were willing to accept the challenge on being assured that the study would be worth their time and effort and not be above their heads. Where would we meet? There being no suitable place in the church building, we agreed to hold our class in the basement of the manse.

On the morning of the first session, 27 appeared, a rather evenly mixed group of men and women, each a little apprehensive as to what to expect. I opened the class by reading the beautiful passage of Isaiah 40. Then we turned to the study at hand and carefully proceeded to trace and discard the more popular and inadequate notions of Calvinistic belief. After a while we began to see in it a God-sized religion, the very thing we needed in our age. We discovered that the sovereign decrees of God included all the free acts of men and were thus the only answer to fatalism. “Let God be God” was the word in every realm—truth, science, art, and morality.

God And Creation

We learned, too, of God’s immensity, how he is everywhere present in the whole of his being (not thinned out as some might define omnipresence), and how “Coram Deo” meant that man stands each moment before the face of almighty God. Man cannot hide from the omnipresent God.

Next came the concept of creation, the fact that all things reveal God, and “all reality is revelational” (this was from Dr. Van Til). Could we see God in nature? Yes and no. Nature reveals God, but only as clothing blown against the body of man.

Our wonder increased as we remembered that man was to think God’s thoughts after him. These thoughts could be followed in nature, in political philosophy, in international affairs, in science, education, culture and the arts, music, plumbing, child problems and human relationships of many kinds. In truth, we could say that Newton calculating the heavenly bodies, a truck driver performing his job well, and a man climbing the hill called Calvary were, in each case thinking God’s thoughts after him. But for the most part, we were reminded that our minds could only function on these things like geiger counters—they could register when approaching a thought of God’s, but never fully grasp it nor hold on to it. This was especially true, some said, when listening to great music.

God And Culture

We went on to a discussion of Christianity and culture. With Richard Niebuhr we found that Christ was not the product of culture, as the liberals have thought; nor was Christ outside culture as Rome has taught; nor was Christ against culture as some fundamentalists have insisted; rather the Son of God was a transformer of culture. And by “culture” we were not talking of “polish” or “sophistication”—the art of holding a teacup and the like.

The culture we knew in our particular area, for instance, was agriculture, so we started there. Agriculture meant the cultivation of fields, the acquiring from them the total, latent potential. But culture in regard to refinement of tastes also demanded the same sort of treatment.

But what did Christianity have to do with the “arts,” specifically? Now we were in deep water. A few folks dropped from the group at this point. We read a little of Wordsworth, “Pied Beauty” by Hopkins and “Go Down Death” by James Weldon Johnson, and after reading these, we were bent on more. That God should choose to reveal himself in poetry as well as prose gave us a fresh appreciation of the Bible. We reread the Sermon on the Mount and found it rhythmic like the waves of the ocean. The prophecies of Amos, the herdsman, came to us in words of haunting beauty, and the words of Isaiah rolled forth in rich musical sound. Even Moses in the law had his own majestic cadence. Beauties in the Bible of which we had never dreamed were revealed. But what was beauty anyway? Looking in Aquinas we pulled out the threefold definition: “unity, proportion, and gloritas.” That third word we could not define, but everybody claimed he knew what it was. Gloritas in anything was the glory of God appearing in wondrously mysterious fashion. And we also found that we were to believe in the beauty of holiness—this did not mean, of course, a holiness of beauty, nor a worship of art for its own sake.

The Gift Of Poetry

Still, we had not touched upon man’s imagination. Here was a new trail to blaze. We found that few writers had speculated upon the human creative gifts, those God-given powers of forming images of truths not fully present to the senses. We came to realize that souls must pass beyond the understanding derived merely from demonstration, or go unsatisfied; that the wider and deeper harmonies and stimuli come from imagination. God does not always present truth in propositional form. The prophets of old had been men whose imagination and vision mirrored the truth. The poetic imagery of David in the “green pastures,” the overflowing cup, the “valley of the shadow,” and others proved this.

But a word of caution! Imagination was not merely fancy or daydreaming. Its purpose was rather to serve a man’s convictions, and hold a healthy lens to his eyes. It could be a film on which eye objects were registered; and the more sensitive film was, the richer one’s life became. There was no need, then, to go on a journey to find the wonderful. Every square inch of the universe shouted with glory. One had only to stand still and behold it.

Challenge And Response

“So,” I said to the group at the close of one of these sessions, “write on what you see. And when I read your work next Sunday, what you have observed may be a startling revelation to us all.”

Something happened in our people that week, something that will be a part of their lives forever. I should repeat, my class of adults were very ordinary people. Some had gone through high school, and some had not; a few had gone a little beyond, but it did not matter. Men and women totally unused to writing struggled to describe and put into order some of the things they saw. And the result was, they found themselves creating from the most common of objects thoughts that were new and wonderful.

For instance, one farmer, looking at two dead birds lying upon a sink drain board, marveled at the design of their feathers and the way in which the soft colors were reflected in the light. It was winter and a housewife, who had hung out her wash after snowfall, saw in a new way the difference between God’s whiteness and man’s. Another wrote of her walk to church, and of the snow that fell on her sleeve in hexagon designs. She headed her paragraph “God’s Design.” And a truck-driver told of arriving home to find his wife fairly excited over a tree in the back yard holding new-fallen snow in “its upreaching arms.”

To be sure, each paper showed struggle. There was nothing of genius, perfection, or polish about any of them. But they did show, indeed, a genuine freshness of vision and understanding.

The experiment was a revelation. Permit just one illustration of a paragraph written by a plumber:

Winter’S Night

I watched the powdery snow fall from out the black vault of night into the streetlight’s peaked arch;

I saw the slotted shadow of the picket fence lie over the deepening snow;

I saw dead dry weeds stand stiffly in the shadow, historians of last year’s negligence, prophets of another June;

I saw the sentinel trees with their empty arms outstretched;

I saw light and dark, silhouettes and shadow,

houses with dark roofs merged into night,

flat snow-powdered roofs ready for baker’s dough.

A barren willow with snow encrusted limbs became a giant fountain spray from out my ermine lawn.

Preacher In The Red

GETTING THE BIRD

I had just started my sermon when a bird flew the length of the church. A few minutes later it flew back again. I proceeded only to have the bird repeat the performance. At last it decided that it would not stay still even for a few minutes. Up and down the church it flew and I had to stop. I saw it flutter to a tall window and I called out to a man sitting nearby: “Mr. H … that window opens.” He got up, opened it and the bird flew out. I tried to pick up the threads of my sermon and brought it to a conclusion. Then I announced the last hymn, “Pleasant are Thy Courts Above.” I did not dare look at the congregation as we sang the second verse:—

“Happy birds that sing and fly

Round thy altars, O Most High.”

—The Rev. PETER TADMAN, Saint Andrew’s Church, Sidcup, Kent, England.

Robert K. Churchill is Pastor of Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Cedar Grove, Wisconsin. A graduate of the University of Wisconsin and Westminster Theological Seminary, he pursued further studies at Marquette University and Berkeley Divinity School. He is a Westminster Seminary trustee.

The subject of the final punishment of reprobates is fraught with inexpressible sadness. Some who are moved no doubt by a generous impulse, have sought to eliminate it altogether by holding to a belief of the ultimate salvation of all rational creatures (Universalism). Others have attempted to relax the torments of the damned by limiting their duration or by urging the view that reprobates vanish into nonexistence (conditionalism or annihilationism). Still others feel that the whole topic is in bad taste and that it is wise to pass it under silence altogether.

Yet on this theme the Bible speaks very plainly, and what the Bible says the evangelical believer unhesitatingly accepts and proclaims.

The Nature Of Hell

On this topic the Scriptures use various forms of language, destined no doubt to convey a cumulative impression.

1. Separation from God. “Depart from me” (Matt. 7:23; 25:41), “these shall go away” (Matt. 25:46), and cast him out (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30; Luke 13:28), “outer darkness” (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30), “without are the dogs” etc. (Rev. 22:15), far “from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:9)—all these phrases describe separation from God. In the same way in which life can be described as the knowledge, presence and fellowship of God (John 17:3), death and hell can be summed up as separation from him by whom we were created, for whose service we were made, and outside of whom there is nothing for man but utter futility and hopeless frustration.

2. Destruction and death (2 Thess. 1:9; Matt. 10:28; Rev. 20:14). This form of language does not so much imply in Scripture cessation of existence as complete deprivation of some element essential to normal existence. Physical death does not mean that body or soul vanishes away, but rather that an abnormal sepation takes place which severs their natural relationship until God’s appointed time. Spiritual death, or “the second death” (Rev. 20:14; 21:8), does not mean that the soul or personality lapses into non-being, but rather that it is ultimately and finally deprived of that presence of God and fellowship with him which is the chief end of man and the essential condition of worthwhile existence. To be bereft of it is to perish (John 3:16), to be reduced to utter insignificance, to sink into abysmal futility. Even everyday language can illustrate this: an automobile is adjudged a total wreck not only when its constituent parts are melted or vanished, but also when they have been so damaged and distorted that the car has become completely unserviceable. Some such conception is perhaps latent in the word Gehenna (Matt. 5:22; 10:28; 18:9; 23:33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47), the refuse heap of Jerusalem, where rubbish was burned.

3. Fire. Fire is most beneficial to man when kept under control and at a safe distance; otherwise it may develop as a terrible scourge. As a recent writer puts it:

Its touch is so sharp as to afford, in itself, a shield against its own destructive effects. At the moment of assault, it is as though a whole series of alarm bells jangled furiously in every part of our nervous system, even before the mind has fully grasped what is taking place. It is pain that can neither be ignored nor forgotten, like many of the lesser things that trouble us, because of its imperious and urgent claim upon the attention. And it is in such suffering as this that the lost must live, and forever (Walter Jewell, The Fact of Hell, p. 13).

In scriptural language, no other descriptive terms have been used as commonly as fire: “the devouring fire … everlasting burnings” (Isa. 33:14), fire unquenchable (Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:43–48; Luke 3:17), “everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41), “the lake of fire” (Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; 21:8), “he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone” (Rev. 14:10). The story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31), although descriptive of the intermediate state between death and the final resurrection, is also significant here (cf. v. 24, see also Matt. 5:22; 13:42, 50; 18:8, 9; 2 Thess. 1:8; Jude 7, 23). From the frequency of this form of language, many have concluded that fire of a physical kind burns the resurrected body of the reprobates. While this is not strictly impossible, it appears unlikely to us for the following reasons: a. the idea of a physical fire is in conflict with some other scriptural expressions descriptive of hell (outer darkness, etc.); b. it seems ill-suited to resurrected bodies insofar as we may know them; c. the imagery of fire in a vivid form is used with reference to the rich man, who was presumably disembodied (Luke 16:19–31); d. fire is prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41; Rev. 20:10, etc.) who are probably incorporeal beings. The spiritual fire, however, which consumes and sears the soul is probably more terrifying and excruciating than physical burning.

4. Darkness. “Outer darkness” (Matt. 8:12; 24:13; 25:30), “everlasting chains under darkness” (Jude 6), “the blackness of darkness forever” (Jude 13). Since God is light and the source of every light, it is not surprising that separation from him implies the night of the soul.

5. The bottomless pit. This expression, found only in Revelation (9:1, 2, 11), may also refer to hell. It indicates a condition where all footing has been lost and where the soul sinks endlessly away from God.

6. The worm that dies not (Isa. 66:24; Matt. 24:46, 48). This may well refer to the gnawing pains of self-inflicted misery eating away at the vitals of the soul.

7. Anguish, torment (Rom. 2:9; Luke 16:23–28; Rev. 14:10, 11; 20:10). These emphasize the conscious suffering of the damned. So does the word punishment (kolasis) used by Jesus (Matt. 25:46) as well as the passages where our Lord speaks of weeping, wailing, or gnashing of teeth (Matt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30; Luke 13:28).

8. A final form of biblical language may be noted in those verses which speak of the damned as being under the wrath of God (Jer. 17:4; John 3:36; Rom. 2:5, 8; 9:22; Heb. 10:27; Rev. 14:10), or subject to everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2). Those who are in this condition are lost (Mark 8:26; Luke 9:25) and damned (John 5:29; 2 Peter 3:7).

When all these terms are taken together, in spite of their remarkable sobriety, their cumulative effect is more pungent than the luxurious imagination of a literary genius like Dante. In fact, both the variety and the restraint in expression suggest that there is a depth of sadness in the misery of the lost which our minds are unable to plumb in this life. In the presence of this biblical restraint, it is unfortunate that many unwarranted and unworthy conceptions are commonly received. For instance, that the reprobates will be actively tormented by demons in hell, and that there are even pictures which represent the devil and his cohorts armed with huge pitchforks and finding great delight in plunging men and women into boiling cauldrons find no support whatever in Scripture. These are ideas due probably to the unfortunate influence of Moslem thought or uninspired Jewish speculation.

The testimony of Scripture is very plain that the terrors of hell are endless. This appears from the fact that frequently the adjective everlasting (ordinarily aionios in Greek) is used: “everlasting chains” (Jude 6), “everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2), everlasting destruction (1 Thess. 1:9), everlasting fire or burnings (Isa. 33:14; Matt. 18:8; 25:41; Jude 7), “everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46). Furthermore, the expression for ever, or even for ever and ever, is repeatedly found (Jer. 17:4; Rev. 14:11; 19:3; 20:10). Now it has been suggested that the word aionios means “of the ages” and does not imply eternity. But this interpretation appears very precarious, for the Bible mentions only two ages—the present age, limited by individual death or by the coming of Jesus Christ, and the age to come, for which it never assigns any limit. In fact, among some 66 occurrences of aionios in the New Testament, some 51 cases apply to the eternal felicity of the redeemed, where it is conceded by all that no limitation of time applies. It is very unlikely that the same term, when used of the lost, should be understood to admit of such limitation, especially since both are sometimes found together in the same immediate context (Matt. 25:46).

Further evidence along the same line may be derived from the expressions, fire unquenchable (Isa. 66:24; Matt. 3:12; Luke 3:17) or “that never shall be quenched” (Mark 9:43, 45), the worm that dieth not (Isa. 66:24; Mark 9:44, 46, 48), “the wrath of God abideth on him” (John 3:36).

In the presence of such evidence, it is not surprising to find that the overwhelming majority in Christendom has understood the Bible to teach the doctrine of endless conscious punishment.

Alternative Views

There has been, however, almost in all ages since Origen a fringe of Christians advocating universal salvation. But apart from the evidence thus far adduced in the present article, they face immense difficulties with the passages relating to the unpardonable sin (Matt. 12:32; Heb. 6:4–6; 1 John 5:16, 17), with the “impassable gulf” mentioned in Luke 16:26, with the statement of Jesus “Whither I go, ye cannot come” (John 8:21), with his remark about Judas—“It had been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matt. 26:24), not to speak of the constant note of Scripture that this life’s decisions have everlasting and irrevocable consequences. In spite of its good intentions, Universalism cuts the heart of the urgency of the Gospel and of the missionary task of the Church.

Conditional immortality or annihilationism may be viewed as less dangerous, although here also considerable exegetical difficulties arise, as the summary review of the biblical data given above may well indicate.

But, it is urged, the doctrine of endless conscious punishment is in conflict with God’s justice, love and wisdom:

1. With his justice, because it would not be equitable to punish a finite fault with an infinite penalty. To such an objection we reply with Anselm of Canterbury, “You have not yet considered the true gravity of sin.” While sin is committed by finite beings in the course of a life limited in time, it is an offense against the infinite God. It is a part of the terror of hell that there will be no repentance there, but a continued obdurate rebellion against God, endlessly worthy of his wrath.

2. With his love, because a God of love could never permit any of his creatures to remain in a state of endless suffering. But the love of God expresses itself supremely towards the elect, not towards the reprobates, who have rejected his laws and his love. Furthermore, we cannot forget that it is those who have transmitted to us the most impressive revelation of God’s love who also speak most about hell. The New Testament has much more to say about it than the Old, John in the book of Revelation says much more than the other New Testament writers, and our Lord Jesus Christ speaks of it by far the most of all!

3. With his wisdom, for it would be unwise of God to allow a dark comer to subsist eternally in his universe. Here, confessedly, we deal with a difficult problem, and it is only a slight alleviation to note that hell may well be a comparatively insignificant place in the total orb of God’s eternal order. It is difficult for us to perceive rationally the wisdom of God in permitting sin at all. But if we have such a problem with the origin of sin, why should we expect to have a ready answer in regard to its destiny?

Somehow the practice has been rather common, even among evangelicals, to speak lightly and in jest concerning the sufferings of hell. On the part of those who do not believe the biblical doctrine, this may perhaps be excused, although it is surely not in good taste. But those who do believe in hell should certainly refrain at all times from joking about the misery of the lost, a subject which cannot be humorous in the slightest degree to Christians with a heart, and which should bring tears to our eyes rather than smiles to our faces.

Admittedly, the doctrine of hell is the darkest subject on the pages of Scripture, but it provides the necessary background to an understanding of the true gravity of sin, of the magnitude of the human soul, of the depth of Christ’s redeeming work, of the power of divine grace which plucks man out of the abyss like firebrands, of the urgency of the Gospel call, and of the supreme importance of the ministry of preaching and of missions. It is an integral and vital element of our Christian faith.

Roger Nicole holds the M.A. degree from the Sorbonne (Paris), Th.D. from Gordon Divinity School, and is a candidate for the Ph.D. at Harvard Divinity School. He is Professor of Theology at Gordon Divinity School in New England, and former President of Evangelical Theological Society.