Ideas

Future Of The American Worker

Christianity Today May 13, 1957

Future Of The American Worker

The investigation of racketeering and corruption in the labor movement raises several important questions of concern to the American worker. The immediate question is: In the event of guilt, what punishment of a union leader is proportionate to his crime? The broader question is: What legislation and enforcement are needed to prevent the repetition of such crime? The ultimate question is: Whither the labor movement?

Since no man is considered guilty in America until after trial, it is a bit premature to hang Dave Beck, even in effigy. The McClellan Committee, however, in its search for evidence of racketeering and corruption, has not lacked for serious charges, and its work is just begun. Already the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO has suspended Mr. Beck, its vice president (hence one of its most powerful officers) and president of its largest affiliate, the 1,400,000-member Brotherhood of Teamsters, an official who retreated to the Fifth Amendment with assembly-line monotony to avoid “self-incrimination” when his union deals came under scrutiny. Beck’s “million dollar public relations plan” to offset publicity of a possible $320,000 misappropriation of union funds has been blocked. On May 20 the Executive Council gives him a hearing—without benefit of Fifth Amendment, and without his being under oath—to determine if suspension should be turned into expulsion. In New York two former union officials, George Scalise and Sol Cilento, pleaded guilty to welfare racket charges in a $299,000 union fraud, and face maximum jail terms of three years.

The question of the relation between punishment and crime is an important one. In the event of misuse of union funds for personal gain, is mere dismissal from office a sufficient retribution? Is a stiff fine or a jail term proportionate punishment? Or ought union leadership to be required as well to make commensurate restitution for misappropriated assets?

If the labor movement itself does not “clean house” and insist upon punishment which fits the crime, the danger exists that reactionary legislation may hinder labor in its rightful pursuits, not simply with a view to reprisal but to discourage repetition of the offenses. Some labor leaders, on the other hand, tend to provoke such legislation when they seize the present period of union racket disclosures to propagandize against “right to work” laws, attacking them as a move to punish the unions. The fact is that the legitimacy of the closed shop has been long debated. A vote for right to work laws cannot be considered an effort to punish the unions, since its concern is to break the closed shop’s power of compulsion, which compromises the liberty of the individual worker.

The spotlight is now turned on the moral climate of the labor movement. Since neither the Senate Committee nor the AFL-CIO Executive Council has legal power to prosecute, the depth of dissatisfaction and ethical indignation in the ranks of the teamsters is being tested. It may be true that less than 5 per cent of labor union funds have been mishandled, but that is no slim bonanza. One misappropriated dollar would raise the ethical question.

Some locals have voted against contributions for Mr. Beck’s defense; others have requested his removal from office and the resignation of other leaders like Brewster and Hoffa as well. In one local, sentiment was said to run 50 to 1 against Beck. Since union members are often written off as interested only in higher wages and improved working conditions, and willing to tolerate corrupt bosses who take a generous slice of benefits if only the workers’ lot is bettered, these are hopeful signs.

But they must not be misread as an index to moral earnestness in the unions. Next to the church constituencies, the labor movement is the biggest movement in American life. Unless its moral concern is revived, the social outlook is dim. There are 1100 locals in the teamsters union alone, but only a pitiful minority show signs of moral revulsion. The vanished sense of righteous indignation on the part of the unionized American worker is, in fact, a bitter fact of our times. The union movement has not noticeably sharpened ethical sensitivities. Too many members respond to racketeering with a shrug and the reaction: “Look how well off we are!”

But there is another way of looking at this problem. The American workers have seldom aggressively participated in the union decision-making process. Except for meetings at which a strike was in prospect, or a raise in union dues, they have left the destiny of locals to their leaders. The present apathy reflects this characteristic temper of the worker.

For this indifference the union leadership is partly to blame. In the major labor conventions the leaders constitute an insuperable power bloc to which opposition has seemed futile. And in the locals many workers fear intimidation or reprisal if they challenge leaders from the floor.

But the churches too are culpable in some measure. It is true enough that many laborers avoid the Church. Some dismiss the churches as indifferent to the economic welfare of the workers, but more often they rationalize the discomfort that most unregenerate persons associate with the house of God. The fact remains, however, that the churches have too little attacked the problems of the laboring man. And where they have, labor leaders have tended to require endorsement of their own pronouncements and objectives as the evidence of economic earnestness.

The endorsement of the platform that labor has a right to organize is an example. Most denominational social action groups long ago approved “labor’s right to organize.” Yet the hesitancies of other church groups to lend ecclesiastical approval to this bare formula had some justification. There are some goals for which labor is illicitly organized; among them are the exploitation of the working man by a corrupt union boss and violence by the labor movement in its disagreements with management.

Nonetheless, if the churches include the largest grouping of American citizens, and the labor movement the next largest, there must be in many situations a generous overlapping of union member and worshipper. The lack of moral sensitivity and courage in the labor ranks indicates not only that the function of the labor movement has been conceived too narrowly in terms of higher wages, benefits, and standards, but that the churches themselves have not imparted to the worshipper as a worker the Christian view of the daily job as a divine calling. The labor unions are as much a part of the permanent structure of American society in the foreseeable future as any other grouping; it is high time that the local churches interpreted the meaning of work and the responsibilities of the economic sphere, to union and nonunion workers. For out of this conviction of ultimate spiritual responsibility can rise a new sense of moral integrity and earnestness in the workaday world.

It is easy, because of the secular current of our era, to underestimate the crucial importance of this spiritual-moral orientation of the economic life. Some observers will plead simply for a program of education emphasizing labor’s social responsibility; others will stress the necessity of additional legislation, or the enforcement of legislation already on the statute books; others will argue that the public and the worker will be best protected through a better implementation of democratic processes. There is something to be said for all these emphases, and a word of caution to be uttered in connection with them too. Important as they are, the real need today runs deeper.

The problem of the American worker today, like that of society in general, is the problem of false gods. The solution of his problem must therefore be a religious solution. He may blame the meaninglessness of work upon the monotony of the assembly lines, upon the disproportions of capitalism, or a hundred and one other things. Some of them, indeed may be contributory factors, but their rectification will not solve his problem. Deep down, the modern worker’s sense of estrangement in his job is due to his estrangement from God. He does not know the meaning of life, and hence he does not know the meaning of work.

In Great Britain, labor is more fully unionized than in the United States, yet corruption is quite foreign to labor. This should give pause to those who argue that racketeering is due to labor’s sheer bigness. What really accounts for the moral temper of the labor movement in Britain is its heritage from the days when labor unions were Christian in outlook. Britain still shares the lingering influence of the Methodist Revival on the trade union movement. A lapse in moral standards is always a reflection of spiritual defection, whereas the temperament of honesty which survives in society is to be explained by surviving spiritual supports.

Secularists may argue for the relativity of ethics, pointing out that the pattern of strict honesty and accounting pervades all aspects of British life. Those who invoke this line of argument aim to justify wrongs in the American unions as a sheer reflex of the relativity of business ethics generally. After all, they say, labor leaders are just doing what others are doing: politicians in their electoral campaign fund practices, business executives in their supplemental benefits. American corporation executives, they argue, often acquire marginal benefits, such as company airplanes and yachts; moreover, the highest paid labor executive gets $60,000 while management salaries go much higher. But labor leaders, at any rate, have condemned such benefits as immoral, whereas most management has not. A reliance on the relativistic ethics of our day will therefore hardly enhance the defenses of the labor movement. The retrogression in labor to self-justification of what it has condemned in management can only reflect on its moral earnestness.

There will be needed discussion in the days ahead over stricter enforcement of existing legislation, over the enactmnt of sterner laws, and over ways to insure the democratic process. Laws can and always will be broken in the absence of moral and spiritual integrity, but they provide at least an outward restraint and a rebuke to evil. Most crimes by which a labor leader is tempted to exploit his constituency are already prohibited by law, and the real problem is one of enforcement. But minimal codes of conduct within the unions need to be strengthened. The constitution of the Machinists union is worthy of emulation; it forbids loans of union funds to private individuals, and it requires certified public accountants to audit funds regularly, with a printed and publicly accessible statement showing each payment to every official by name, and approved by an audit committee of rotating membership from various locals. A full accounting of union welfare and pension funds and their use, with public disclosure of all transactions, will be widely demanded.

Alongside this emphasis on sterner legislation there is a growing insistence that the democratic process be strengthened within the unions. Already there is some clamor that boss control and union trusteeships be abolished; that free elections be guaranteed, with secret ballots to eliminate fear of loss of one’s job or other reprisal. In this “nod to democracy,” proper enough, three serious risks remain.

The first is the apathy of union members in regard to their union responsibilities. It is highly dubious that the labor movement can make good its claim to have involved more Americans in decision-making than any other social structure. The lack of participation reflected by society generally is compounded within the labor ranks, and this indifference allows labor leaders to take control. It was this situation in Britain, where an average of only 8 to 9 per cent of the members showed up at union elections, that provided Communists their opportunity, although small in number, to infiltrate strategic labor positions.

Another risk is that the elected union official tends to feel that the workers have given him a mandate to implement any policy that the labor leaders endorse. This pledges the conscience of workers in matters on which there has been no debate.

A third danger derives from the fact that an elected official is not necessarily the best qualified. Within the present structural setup, ostensibly democratic, the same leaders and officers are often elected and re-elected, and the rank and file seem incapable of effecting a change. There remains much to be said for appointed salaried leaders chosen on a competitive basis.

It is not democracy which guards the moral earnestness of the labor movement, but the Christian heritage which best guards the integrity of democracy and of all the social structures. Since the social problem is primarily a religious problem, it is the tragedy of our century that Christian influence upon the economic world has worn thin. In part, this deterioration came about through the liberal Protestant displacement of the gospel of personal regeneration by the social gospel; the task of the Church became that of organizing society, rather than of evangelizing it. But evangelical Protestantism was also at fault; in its concern for the purity of the gospel, it ironically gravitated toward social inactivism and neglected the exposition of Christian imperatives in labor and economics, and the state and culture.

The world of work today stands in need of Christian compass bearings. If these are concealed, the labor leader and the worker will not be challenged to grasp the significance of work as a divine vocation. And the labor movement itself will drift aimlessly, or run aground in the shallow waters of misguided ambitions. There are other ways than financial of exploiting labor. Leaders may also use it as a means of enhancing their public and political recognition through an ability to control votes. When mass movements are adrift, there is always the danger that leaders may use them simply as a political weapon, or carry them directly into politics. It is a time to cast anchor, and to be sure that the line reaches from the sphere of economic interests down to the changeless spiritual and moral world. A democracy that prizes a citizenry under God must learn to prize business and labor under God as well.

Neo-Universalism: A Threat To The Gospel

Within the Church today there is an ominous recrudescence of an old heresy, a line of reasoning that precludes eternal punishment and holds out assurance of the ultimate salvation of all mankind, regardless of whether Christ has been accepted or rejected.

Does the love of God preclude eternal punishment for the unrepentant sinner?

Are the holiness and justice of God incompatible with his love and mercy?

Shall we admit the scriptural reality of redemption from the guilt and penalty of sin and deny the scriptural reality of the dread alternative to faith in Christ?

Is the question of Job’s friend no longer relevant: “Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more purer than his maker?”

The many variants of Universalism are nothing new. Annihilationism, conditioned immortality, “second chance” and other theories have been held by individuals and groups down through the centuries.

The annihilationist believes that man is created immortal but loses immortality through sin and is therefore, by a positive act of God, deprived of immortality, his final state being devoid of consciousness and hence virtually devoid of actual existence.

A variation of this theory suggests that man has a conditioned immortality—the individual who accepts Christ gaining immortality, while the individual who rejects him ultimately ceases to exist.

In the nineteenth century a small group who advocated the theory of a second chance had a following. They believed that after death there is an intermediary state during which men may accept or reject Christ, the final state of man being determined at the judgment.

Universalism in America had its official beginning in Gloucester, Massachusetts, in 1779. Today the Universalist Church of America is comprised of about 400 congregations with a total membership of 75,000. That this group has grown so slowly reflects its lack of a vital Christian message. It seems certain that a similar blight will descend on wavering evangelical churches espousing doctrines inherent in Universalism.

It is one thing to magnify the love and mercy of God. It is an entirely different thing to do so to the exclusion of other attributes of God revealed in Scripture.

To affirm that “God is too loving and kind to damn anyone to eternal punishment” meets a responsive chord in the heart of each of us. But what it overlooks is the fact that man is already lost, that he is born in sin and that he continues to commit sin, and that the wages of sin is death. The love of God is evidenced in the sending of his Son into the world and confirmed by the sacrificial death on the Cross. The best known passage in all of the Scripture makes plain man’s lost condition and his sole basis for redemption. Even a cursory study of John 3:16 reveals these vital truths: God’s compelling love; the sending of his Son; the proffered gift of eternal life; and faith as a necessary factor.

Scripture depicts the ultimate state of the soul after death as fixed. In our Lord’s story of the rich fool, Abraham says to the one in torment: “… between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.” The final words of this dialogue as recorded by Luke are deeply significant: “… If they hear not Moses and the prophets neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Could this not be prophetic as well as declaratory?

A study of the Scriptures will also reveal that the final judgment determines the soul’s ultimate destination on the basis of that which is done in the flesh. It is never in any way made to depend on what has occurred in an intermediary state.

Why then this new (yet old) universalism? On what is it predicated? A number of factors can be mentioned, the order of their importance and their particular appeal varying with individuals.

Probably the idea of ultimate salvation for all, regardless of man’s response to Christ, most frequently stems from a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the love of God. Regarding eternal punishment wrongly as contradictory of a loving heavenly Father, it argues that there can be no such end for an unrepentant sinner.

Another cause for this neo-universalism is man’s failure to understand the nature of sin itself. Sin is more than the commission of certain acts, and the failure to perform others. Sin is rebellion against God, an ingrained trait of character with which all men are born. Sin is infinitely deeper than maladjustment; it is broader than an unfortunate environment; it is not a matter of externalities but of the warp and woof of man’s heart and all that proceeds from it. Man is a sinner by nature and by practice and the fruits of the unregenerate life show themselves in the sins of the flesh and the sins of the spirit. Adultery and theft are sins; so are pride and jealousy. The awfulness of sin can be imagined only in the light of the price God paid to restore the sinner to fellowship with himself.

Undoubtedly one contributing cause to the increasingly popular belief in universal salvation is a false doctrine of the universal fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man. That all men are God’s children by creation is obvious. But that this relationship was broken by man’s sin is also clear from Scripture. According to our Lord’s own statement, in this state of estrangement from God man is of his father the Devil. He also affirms that unless we are born again we shall never see the Kingdom of Heaven. This works havoc with man’s pride but it offers the only adequate remedy.

Unquestionably sincere Christians are troubled about those millions who have died and are dying without ever having heard of Christ and his love. Why not leave them to a merciful Father? The Bible affirms man’s responsibility in relation to the light he has. The possibility of rational faith in God is open to men everywhere through the works of creation. In all of this there is cause for redoubled incentive for witness rather than for wishful speculation. To affirm the universal salvation of all mankind, regardless of what man may do with Christ, places one in direct opposition to the volume of biblical truth. To cast aside God’s revelation of man’s destiny in the age to come inevitably jeopardizes the revelation of his redemptive love. To presume either annihilation, a second chance or some hoped-for universal work of redemption beyond the grave disregards revealed truth and replaces it with a hypothesis which is unscriptural and desperately dangerous. A comparative study of the spread of evangelical Christianity and historic universalism will reveal an abysmal difference in the two. The former is dynamic, living and evangelistic, carrying the message of salvation to the ends of the earth. The latter is static, listless and bogged down in a false optimism on the one hand and a lack of a missionary urge on the other. To the evangelical, faith is a burning message of eternal import which must be told. To the universalist, faith is a religion of options, not of imperatives.

According to the Scripture man’s eternal destiny depends on the answer to this question: “What will ye do with the Christ?” Does man know a better way?

Prayer And The Spirit The Door To New York

The pagan city of Rome became an immediate objective for evangelization on the part of the early church. Its capture for Christianity was no doubt due in large part to the zeal, prayers, sacrifices and efforts of devoted servants of Christ. The difficulty and seeming impossibility of evangelizing pagan Rome did not deter nor discourage. Much of the progress of Christianity in middle centuries was due to the strategic capture of the center of the Roman Empire.

When the seige of Rome started by the forces of Christ, it mattered not to true believers whether Peter, Paul or Apollos led the attack as long as God gave the increase. True—some were anxious that one or the other of the leaders be given prominence and honor, but this spirit was rebuked by the apostle. The great desire of the leaders was for supporting prayer.

Important in situation as Rome but not as pagan, stands the city of New York. In the name of Christ a gideon band of evangelists strengthened with local pastors will set seige to this cosmopolitan commercial city. Modern means of communication and publicity will facilitate and provide aid in the proclamation of Gospel. But the preaching of the Gospel and the effusion of the Holy Spirit are the two main requirements to overcome the largest city in the world.

Forgetting the conquest of Rome—as the Israelites forgot the miracle of Egyptian deliverance—timid Christians cry that the giants of indifference, worldliness, and commercialism are too strong and mighty for conquest. Surely the blessing of the Lord upon the Billy Graham campaigns in London and Glasgow should provide encouraging examples of what God has done and is able and willing to perform. Faith in the power and love of God is essential to-victory.

Faith must be mingled with sincere and constant prayer. Believing and importunate prayer should constantly ascend to the throne of grace, especially for the outpouring of the Spirit of God. New York City can no more be regenerated and sanctified, without the work of the Holy Spirit, than it can be redeemed without the blood of the Son of God. The difference between a spurious revival and a genuine one is the Holy Spirit.

Man must be blotted out. Billy Graham goes forth not in his weaknesses, imperfections and mistakes but in the name of the Lord. He proclaims the Word not as an infallible prophet but as a preacher of the infallible Word. Pray that God may lead him to preach the good news of salvation. Pray that God may send the Spirit with regenerating power. Pray that God may turn New York City upside down. Pray without ceasing.

Virtues And Weaknesses Of The Fifth Amendment

The significance of the Fifth Amendment as an element in the American tradition of liberty must not be missed. The law against self-incrimination, that is that no person shall be compelled to witness against himself, has been one of the great principles of Anglo-American jurisprudence, reaching back to the Twelfth Century.

In a recent article on “The Fifth Amendment and Its Equivalent in the Halakhah” in Judaism (Winter, 1956), Norman Lamm points out that in the Hebrew laws supplementing Scripture, the disqualification of the confessant as a bona-fide witness is required and not a matter of the defendant’s personal privilege. This religious formulation overcomes the presumption of guilt which often attaches in our day to the invoking of a privilege. Whereas the Fifth Amendment took its rise out of a humanitarian reaction against the use of torture in legal trials and hence has in view primarily a negative protest against compulsion, Mr. Lamm notes that biblical connections of the idea that the accused is not to be judged by the testimony of his relatives, or of himself but by the testimony of other witnesses.

The sad fact remains, however, that in our day the Fifth Amendment has been so much invoked as a means of obstructing the due processes of law that the term “Fifth Amendment Communist” has passed into the vernacular of the times. Those who invoke the Fifth Amendment repeatedly in the face of Congressional investigations into political and economic corruption have come to be regarded, and in many cases not without good reason, as invoking a privilege in order to frustrate the cause of justice rather than to facilitate it.

There is one court of justice, however, in which the resort to the Fifth Amendment is useless. The conscience of man hails him constantly before the judgment throne of God. In that great and awful day, when all men shall stand in his presence, it will be futile to raise a point of personal privilege.

Pleading the Fifth Amendment to frustrate justice cannot avail the sinner before the judgment seat. His life, his deeds, his words are written for the Judge to behold. No legal technicality can prevent access to the book of life written by each individual.

Acquittal from the charge of guilt can only be brought about by an appeal to the perfect work and merit of one whose righteousness is imputed to all who believe. The point of personal privilege can only be raised by those who are in Christ Jesus. Not the Fifth Amendment but Jesus Christ forms the protection and accomplishes the acquittal of the sinner.

Eutychus and His Kin: May 13, 1957

FELLOWSHIP QUILT

In the bedroom at the old-fashioned home of the retired Reverend Van Dyke is a fellowship quilt of curious design. There are wheels within squares and spokes from the wheels. Or perhaps they are sun-bursts in window panes that spread across the four-poster bed.

Radiating from each center are the embroidered names of the pastor’s flock. Here the ladies of the Dorcas circle are stitched in the rays of their square. Near the center are the names of the members of the senior choir in sectors of sopranos, altos, tenors and basses. In one corner is the male chorus. There are “memory” circles, and one center is labeled “Sunday School Class #7”; others bear the names of teachers.

A curious, but not a crazy quilt. I suppose it is a more constant comforter to the kindly Reverend than any electric blanket. The young Dr. Jones who succeeded him might not appreciate such a gift. It would hardly fit the contemporary decor of the new parsonage. Judging from the Doctor’s encounter with the Martha Circle, he might find the quilt had some hot patches!

The emeritus pastor, being advanced in years, is rather sentimental. In his afternoon nap he has used the quilt as a prayer reminder. Sometimes he worked his way across so many squares that he quite forgot to doze off.

I’m not sure that such a quilt should be made for every pastor—there might be too many stitches and perhaps too much chatter in the making. Yet it would be splendid for every Christian to own one, covered with the names of the saints. Tucked under it on a chilly spring night, one might get to thinking of the Lamb’s Book of Life and of the great fabric of the spiritual Temple in which we are wrought together, not as stitches, but as living stones, in the hands of the builder of his church.

EUTYCHUS

THE WORD OF GOD

Surely for the Christian theologian Holy Scripture should be as binding as the axioms of Euclid are to the mathematician.

GORDON HOLDCROFT

Victoria, B. C.

You speak of “… an authoritative canon of revealed truth.” What is this authoritative canon?… We note the flippant way the words, The Word of God.… are being used today …

EDWARD L. HUGHES

Trenton, Mich.

Dr. Mueller (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Jan. 21) has argued vigorously and skillfully for the view that Luther essentially held to the view of the Scripture which later Lutheran and non-Lutheran theologians call “verbal” or “plenary” inspiration. My personal feeling is that just as Luther has managed to survive his Roman Catholic detractors he will probably survive his Missouri Lutheran defenders as well.

CHARLES E. CARLSTON

The Theological Seminary

University of Dubuque

Dubuque, Iowa

Shame on you for allowing such an error in your magazine as to give the wrong reference to the verse, “Holy men of God.…” in your article on “Luther’s Doctrine of Inspiration.” “2 Tim. 3:14” should read, of course, “2 Pet. 1:21,” as any Bible student can tell you.

JOHN R. SHEARS

Providence-Barrington Bible College

Providence, R. I.

It will be received warmly everywhere by all who love the unadulterated Word of God.… More power to your group in their high and holy endeavor.…

C. C. MORLAN

Arlington, Calif.

… A concentration of much of the best of conservative Christendom.… Reading CHRISTIANITY TODAY, I feel the glow of enthusiasm for the authority of the Scriptures.…

REINDEER VAN TIL

Highland, Ind.

While there is much which is very encouraging and helpful, there is one particularly distressing feature. This is the frequent use of the phrase “the Word of God” in contexts where it would appear to be intended as a substitute for the phrase “the Holy Scriptures.”

There are untold millions of us who, having received and receiving the inestimable blessing of God’s saving grace within the framework of his holy Church, have learned that when the Holy Scriptures speak of “the Word of God” they refer ultimately to no one and to nothing less than our Incarnate Lord, the second person of the most holy and glorious Trinity, The stature of your journal would be immeasurably increased in our eyes if you could assure us that it is not your policy (some contributors notwithstanding) to degrade the phrase “the Word of God” by unscriptural uses of it which make it refer to anyone or to anything less than him, by whose precious blood we are saved.

A. P. HORSFIELD

Vicar of Alberni

British Columbia

• Evangelical theology has always noted the various meanings of the term the Word of God and has distinguished the personal Logos and the spoken and written Word. But this distinction provides no basis for demeaning the authority of Scripture. Our Lord himself spoke of Scripture as God’s Word (Jn. 5:38 f.; cf. 10:35, 14:25). This regard for Scripture is preserved by the apostles, who identify what Scripture says as what God says (Rom. 1:2, Gal. 3:8, Rom. 9:17). The identification of Scripture as the Word of the speaking God is found also in Acts 4:24 f., 13:34 f. It is a New Testament presupposition that Scripture is the crystallized voice of God.—ED.

SCIENCE AND RESURRECTION

The lead article “Twentieth-Century Scientists and the Resurrection of Christ” is very startling and timely. However, I would like to have you mention that several hundred scientists, born-again, Bible believing and of course believers in his resurrection, are members of the American Scientific Affiliation of which H. Harold Hartzler, Ph.D., is President.… Many are listed in American Men of Science, etc.…

WILLIAM J. SCHEPP

The Schepp Labs.

East Paterson, N. J.

Mr. Smith’s article … states “The replies give no evidence that the scientists who deny the resurrection have carefully examined the New Testament historical records.…” Mr. Smith assumes, apparently, that scientists who accept the bodily resurrection have “carefully studied.” May it not be equally true that the scientists who accept … have not given careful study to the matter: perhaps they learned it as children in Sunday school and have given the matter no further thought. It would appear that those who reject the physical resurrection have given the matter more thought, on the whole, than those who accept it.…

… The question was concerning acceptance of the bodily resurrection, which, to me, appears to be a loaded question.… Had Mr. Smith stated his question more fairly probably many who reject a physical resurrection might have replied favorably to a spiritual resurrection.

EMERSON W. HARRIS

First Congregational Church

Detroit Lakes, Minn.

Mr. Smith seems to have been impelled to write this article by the false notion that Christianity, somehow, needs the endorsement of Who’s Who. This heretical idea is a popular one among today’s Christians. Indeed many Christians go so far as to confuse Who’s Who with the Lamb’s Book of Life … Extremely few names will be found in both these books … In fact it is everywhere apparent in the New Testament that the Holy Spirit carefully kept the Gospel from contamination of human wisdom, human accomplishment and human greatness.

As to the scientist segment of Who’s Who, these men are the Pharisees of our time … As to evangelizing them, should we not rather say of these twentieth century scientists: if they heard not of Jesus of Nazareth and the apostles, neither will they be converted though one rose from the dead.

BONNARD LEAVITT

Miami, Fla.

I cannot help but praise the Lord for the 60 non-believers in the resurrection he found through his survey of scientists. This praise is not predicated upon a lack of such belief on my part, for I am a minister in the U. S. Presbyterian Church and hold this belief without flinching. Rather I praise God that they are members of churches where I hope that they have held before them constantly the basic beliefs of Christianity.

ROBERT B. BRANNON JR.

First Presbyterian Church

Ennis, Tex.

A good service has been rendered to evangelical Christianity in the publication of the fact that only one out of five leading scientists today believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ. Such a fact both reveals our failure and defines our duty to send a communicating witness to men of science. What I like particularly about Dr. Smith’s report is that warm-hearted, kindly manner which displays itself in the judgmental parts of his article.

Might I suggest that a copy of the Easter issue be sent to the 521 scientists who were polled?… Why don’t you send them a record without comment of the pertinent New Testament passages which deal with our Lord’s resurrection? Better “evidence” one cannot find.… Our scientists need the powerful witness of the Word of God itself. Too much of modern apologetics is Wordless. Give men of science that first hand evidence with which they love to deal. Not a few would be very willing to examine such evidence.

EARL JABAY

Summer St. Christian Reformed Church,

Passaic, N. J.

The article … is excellent. I am sorry to find, though, that half of the Episcopalian scientists queried did not believe in the bodily resurrection. The church teaches and believes it as central to the Christian Faith—without the resurrection the story of our Lord becomes just that of a wandering teacher of ethics who is sort of a Hebrew version of Socrates.…

JAMES H. DAVIS

Ascension Episcopal Church

Hinton, W. Va.

Lively Debate on NCC Membership

WORLD NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

(This special report on the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (Southern), held in Birmingham, Ala., April 25-May 1, was written by Dr. John R. Richardson, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church, Atlanta, G. Dr. Richardson is a graduate of Louisiana State University, Louisville Theological Seminary and did graduate work at the University of Edinburgh.

The most controversial subject to come before the General Assembly related to continued affiliation with the National Council of Churches.

Many southern churches are unhappy over the Council’s pronouncements about social, economic and political matters. Some believe that leaders in the Council have become “political lobbyists or partisan advocates.”

The Council was urged to avoid extreme pronouncements “which may compromise the role of the church as a witness to the Gospel above party, class or social theory.”

The majority report of the standing committee on Inter-Church Relations recommended continued membership. Dr. Joseph Garrison of Greensboro, N. C., committee chairman, told the Assembly that some charges against the Council could not be documented.

A minority report signed by 10 members of the committee recommended that “the question of our continued relationship be referred to the respective Presbyteries for advice and the result of Presbyteries’ actions relating thereto be made to the next General Assembly.” This recommendation was offered as a substitute for the majority report. It was defeated.

In other action the Assembly authorized the ad interim committee on Mass Communications to obtain the services of a qualified consultant to make fact-finding studies concerning the most effective utilization of radio and television by the church. Necessary funds were provided to carry out the project.

A record budget of nearly $9,000,000 for next year was approved—an increase of about $2,000,000 over last year’s budget.

Some 340 ministers and ruling elders registered for the pre-Assembly Conference of Evangelism, which was under the able direction of the Reverend Albert E. Dim-mock, recently elected secretary of the Division of Evangelism.

Dr. William M. Elliott Jr., pastor of Highland Park Presbyterian Church, Dallas, Texas, was elected moderator of the 97th Assembly. Dr. Elliott at present is serving the denomination as chairman of the Board of World Missions.

The Assembly launched a new program for the training of lay church workers by providing $50,000 a year to help colleges develop special training departments. These funds, to be matched by colleges participating in the program, will make $100,000 available annually. A total of 256 new lay workers must be trained each year to maintain the 1,079 positions open for personnel in the Presbyterian Church, U. S.

The ad interim committee’s report, based on a two-year study of the problem of education for lay workers, also called for a plan to certify training qualifications based on specific training in the doctrine and program of the church.

About 50 per cent of the lay workers presently employed are directors of Christian education, but they average only four years of service in the church. About 75 per cent leave church work because of marriage. The new program, by putting basic training in the colleges, will produce more lay leaders and also attract more laymen into church vocations.

Significant developments in Christian education were noted. Sunday School enrollment continues to grow more rapidly than church membership, reflecting the rapid population growth and the interest of parents in Christian education for themselves and their children.

The church also is awakening to the importance of higher education. Within the last three years colleges, schools and seminaries of the denomination have added over $26,000,000 to their capital resources. Just as significant as the support of church-related institutions is the development of campus Christian fellowship groups at 173 state colleges and universities.

Dr. Marshall C. Dendy, executive secretary of the Board of Christian Education, announced that the convention for Presbyterian Men will be held in Miami, Fla., October 10–13. Plans are being made to care for 12,000 men, who will attend to hear some of the outstanding laymen and ministers of the nation. Evangelist Billy Graham is to speak. President Eisenhower has requested his engagement secretary to reserve a date for him to address the convention, barring unforeseen emergencies.

Dr. Ben Lacy Rose, chairman of the Board of Church Extension, reported that during the last 10 years Southern Presbyterians have had a new growth of over 40 per cent. In the same period, over 600 new churches have been organized. The rate for the past 12 years has been four new churches per month.

In a stirring address to the Assembly, Dr. Rose declared, “There is before the Presbyterian Church in the Southland an opportunity such as has not existed during the last 100 years. This opportunity is seen in the fact that the South is growing by leaps and bounds. The area covered by our communion is now in the midst of an unparalleled population growth. It is estimated that in the next 26 years there shall be twice as many people in the South as in 1940. Our church has the unique opportunity to minister to thousands who are coming South.”

The report of the Board of World Missions reflected the widening scope of its overseas activities, now embracing work in Africa, Brazil, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Ecuador, Iraq and Portugal. Representing the board in these fields during 1956 were 497 missionaires and 4,138 associated national workers—evangelists, preachers, teachers, doctors, nurses, technicians and others. Together they served 4,169 out-stations or places of regular meetings; maintained 1,164 schools enrolling 54,798 students, and operated 16 hospitals in which 169,956 patients were treated.

The report characterized the year 1956 as one of the most fruitful in the 97 years of the board’s history. Additions on profession of faith showed an increase in all fields and contributions from native sources attained the record total of $1,038,306.

On the home front, notice was taken of the widespread interest in missions throughout the entire denomination, reflected in the demands for literature, speakers, and particularly in the gifts to this cause of $3,466,000—largest in the annals of the board.

Thirty-five new missionaries went to the several fields, bringing to 115 the number of reinforcements sent out over a period of two and one-half years.

Southern Presbyterians are making plans for their centennial in 1961. The theme adopted by the Assembly for this anniversary occasion was “Our Presbyterian Heritage and Mission.”

The Assembly will meet next year in the historic First Presbyterian Church of Charlotte, N. C.

Worth Quoting

“New York City! With a higher skyline than any city on the planet! With amusement enough to make every day a Roman Holiday and boredom enough to keep the world’s biggest concentration of psychiatrists busy round the clock. With culture smooth enough to please an Athenian and corruption enough to blanch a Judas! With people enough to start a nation and resentments and hatreds enough to start a war! With din in her ears and speed in her blood and sweat on her face and the ‘Unknown God’ in her nebulous longings!”—Dr. Paul S. Rees, associate evangelist of the Billy Graham team and pastor of First Covenant Church, Minneapolis.

“… more than a few people have been convinced by Billy Graham that the Christian religion has the answers.… Christianity on the Yale campus has received a tremendous boost from his presence. The only conclusion that this writer can come to is that the Reverend Billy Graham is indeed a successful evangelist at any eastern university or anywhere.”—Thomas F. Ruhm, in Ivy Magazine.

“I want to deal with one problem … the problem of corruption, racketeering, thievery, fraud, embezzlement—anything you want to call it that exists in some unions within our movement. The tradition of our movement, the importance of our movement to the American people, and if I may, to the entire free world, commands that we meet that problem head-on, without evasion and with no attempt to sweep it under the rug.”—George Meany, president of AFL-CIO.

“Standards of living in America are the highest in the world, but satisfaction in living is among the lowest in the world.”—Dr. Alan Walker, Australian Methodist.

Prayers Not Protests

A mammoth prayer meeting is scheduled for noon, May 17, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., as an effort to arouse the nation about civil rights.

Leaders estimated that the crowd would be from 40,000 to 50,000 with 15,000 ministers from every part of the nation to participate in the prayer pilgrimage.

Several persons suggested a march on the White House as a protest against President Eisenhower not speaking on the issue in the South. These suggestions were rejected. The Reverend W. J. Jernagin of Washington, Chairman of the Executive Board of the National Fraternal Council of Churches, explained, “We want prayers, not protests.”

The Social Ethic

“An idolatrous worship of organization” is developing in America, a secular magazine editor asserted in Philadelphia at the 38th annual meeting of The Associated Church Press (148 publications with circulation of 13,164,116).

William H. Whyte, Jr., assistant managing editor of Fortune and author of The Organization Man, labeled such a development “the social ethic.”

The editor said the social ethic is the primary motive today in choosing a career, joining a church, selecting a school or moving to the suburbs. He called it a fallacy to believe that “belongingness” is the primary need of man.

Instead of joining a church for a spiritual experience, the “organized man” joins it to identify himself with a social group and to have that group make decisions for him, Whyte said.

He continued:

“To some extent, the church itself is responsible for making the social ethic a quasi-religious drama. For some time the church has been sounding a note of community belongingness. In trying to drown out the call for rugged individualism, it has dropped its guard against the dangers of the social ethic.

‘Stimulating’

William B. Arthur, managing editor of Look Magazine, made the following remark in an address at the annual meeting of Associated Church Press:

“Among the ‘think’ periodicals, the new magazine CHRISTIANITY TODAY is the most stimulating.”

“It will be the people in the churches who will have to know when the time has come to make personal decisions and influence destiny. It is they who will have to determine the real moral issues involved in reinforcing the group organization by reducing the importance of the individual.”

In another convention address, Dr. Liston Pope, dean of Yale Divinity School, said the influence of religion on human affairs, in one of the world’s most critical moments, appears to be “indirect, immeasurable and, all told, rather minimal.”

“Even in the United States,” Dr. Pope said, “religious convictions make little discernible difference in American policies, though candidates for public office may refer piously to Almighty God in the closing paragraphs of their campaign speeches.”

He stressed that the extension of church membership through the general population “should not be allowed to obscure the present state of the world and its need for a redemptive gospel.”

In his talk, entided “Idols of the Intelligentsia,” Dr. Pope referred to “man-made cults” often cherished by supposedly educated and sophisticated persons—“indifference, objectivity, education, and even the great god ‘Reason,’ still dressed in his 18th century clothes.”

“Education,” he said, “is truly good,” but he asked: “Is education an adequate lamp unto our feet? Have not the best educated men been among the most forlorn? Have there not been many who moved from the exaltation of the university to the prostration of the psychiatrist’s couch?”

Delegates reaffirmed their opposition to the establishment of diplomatic relations between the United States and the Vatican.

Peter Day of Milwaukee, executive editor of The Living Church (Episcopal) was elected president of the organization. He succeeds Robert J. Cadigan of Philadelphia, editor of Presbyterian Life.

‘Danger To Faith’

In what must be considered one of the most complimentary denunciations on record, the director of the National Catholic Welfare Conference bureau of information declared that Billy Graham is “a danger to the faith of all Catholics who listen to him.”

The Rev. John E. Kelly of Washington, D. C., writing in the May issue of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, a publication confined to Roman Catholic clergymen, warned Catholics against attending Graham’s New York Crusade, reading his published works and listening to his broadcasts.

He said, however, that both clerical and lay Catholics might “well imitate Billy’s dedication, zeal and organization in his preaching of Christianity to all who fall under the spell of his partial gospel.” He also asserted that for the unchurched “Billy will be a part-way guide to heaven.”

The Catholic priest lauded Graham as a “man of prayer, humble, dedicated and devout” and also praised him for giving to “many church-going Protestants a spiritual Bible-based message which they never or only seldom hear.” He described Graham’s teachings as “false” and “incomplete.”

The priest said he issued the warning because it had been estimated that Catholic attendance at the New York rallies would be “close to if not in the five-figure bracket.”

(The only other official Roman Catholic denunciation of a Graham campaign was made last year in the Philippines, where Catholics form a large majority. Observers credited the denunciation with boosting the crowd for a single service to 40,000. More than 5,000 responded when the invitation was given to accept Jesus Christ. This was the largest response during the world tour.)

Graham Articles

George Burnham, news editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, will write special articles for an estimated 800 secular newspapers and religious publications during the entire New York Crusade of Billy Graham.

Burnham, who has covered all foreign campaigns of the evangelist, will dispatch several articles each week, taking readers behind the scenes for warm, human interest events to supplement the regular press coverage.

Because of the importance of the crusade, the articles will be provided without cost, as a public service, by CHRISTIANITY TODAY. The Chattanooga News-Free Press began this service for major Graham campaigns two years ago, when Burnham was associated with the newspaper.

Church Evangelism

“With whom are we working?”

“For what are we laboring?”

These questions, described as essential in organizing a local church for evangelism, will be asked at a pre-General Assembly meeting of the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., by Dr. Bryant M. Kirkland, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

In an address prepared for delivery at the assembly, to be held in Omaha, Nebraska, May 16–22, Dr. Kirkland says: “The answer to these questions explain why some churches are impotent.” He continues:

“The contemporary church needs to recognize afresh that it is working as a missionary community within a pagan society and secularist culture. The average church is now in a situation as comparable to that of a Christian group in Bangkok, surrounded by a dominant Buddhist culture. There are the common factors of modern facilities, relative ethics, urbane humanity, swift global communication and other universal characteristics typical of western life. Nevertheless when these are set aside, the church both in Bangkok or Boston must make its distinctive witness to the living Christ who is Saviour and Lord of all who believe. We have lost this radical thrust of Christianity into the non-Christian aspects of American life.

“Because this condition has continued, the church has another important evangelistic goal within its own membership. People formerly joined the church after they were converted. Now a high percentage join with the hope that they will be converted.

“Periodically the Church goes through this ‘half-way covenant’ stage as it did in colonial New England. Social pressures then coerced unregenerate members into the Church with the result that standards had to be relaxed for their comfort. The present popularity of the Church in our secular culture has caused the same condition. As a result there is as wide an evangelistic field within the ranges of most local churches as there is in the general community without.

“The Presbyterian New Life Handbook says, ‘There is now an impatience with a half-realized consciousness of Christ and a half-forgotten mission of the Church. There is an eager desire for a more radical and primitive Christianity.’

“The Church is called upon to distinguish early that joy of surrender to Christ is radically different from the desperate lostness of modern man, no matter how amiable he may be. When the local church senses the desolation of the lost and realizes there is a vast difference between Christianity and secularism filled with amenities, then the local programs of evangelism will be strongly motivated to overcome inertia.

“The key to successful employment of available programs of local evangelism is a ‘situational’ knowledge of individual people. Once the major assumptions above have been assimilated, it becomes a process of witnessing about the new life in Christ by individuals to individuals.

Night Of Prayer

Scores of churches across America will hold all-night prayer meetings on Wednesday, May 15, to support the opening of Billy Graham’s Crusade in New York’s Madison Square Garden.

The Rev. Armin Gesswein, coordinator for national prayer support through the National Association of Evangelicals, said a night of prayer is planned for at least one central point in each of the 10 major districts of the New York area on Tuesday, May 14.

“Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen wrote concerning the six times in life when people’s hearts are tender. It is through these gates that they can be reached for Christ.

“Young people respond during the three progressive opportunities of growth: when they are fashioning their basic personalities, when they are getting married, when they are having their children. Mature people respond to the three deep experiences of life: when one first begins to taste limitations or failure, when someone dear passes away, when a person knows his own sunset to be at hand.

“A remarkable demonstration of these principles into a city situation has been described by Reverend Tom Allan, field organizer of the ‘Tell Scotland’ movement, in his book, The Face of My Parish. The four phases of this mission included: (1) visitation by laymen of 1,854 homes within 10 days; (2) person-to-person follow-up and witnessing with literature; (3) the organization of Bible and catechism study classes to answer the questions of the new group, and (4) the formation of small groups for spiritual fellowship and closely knitted mutual care.

“The phenomenal result of this work led to a new conviction that what we need is ‘more missionary parishes rather than more parish missions.’ When the love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit come upon the leaders of any local church and they face their challenge of whom they are seeking and what they are trying to do, then they can carry out the many tested plans for local church evangelism which range from personal visitation, through fellowship evangelism, to educational evangelism and preaching evangelism all united in an articulated plan.

“Canon Bryan Green summarized the problem in The Practice of Evangelism when he said that evangelism is not a group of Christians sitting down calmly to draw up a blueprint but rather a thinking, praying, struggling group discovering an adaptation of some well-tried method which is baptized afresh by the Spirit who is guiding them.

Literature Council

A Churchmen’s Council for Decent Literature has been formed in Washington, D. C., to consider a national effort toward stemming the flood of pornographic magazines.

O. K. Armstrong of Springfield, Mo., prominent Baptist layman and a member of the editorial staff of Reader’s Digest, was named chairman of the national advisory committee which will lay plans for a permanent organization to coordinate Protestant effort in the field.

Dr. Clyde W. Taylor, of Washington D. C., secretary of national affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, was named secretary-treasurer.

The committee will comprise 15 members. Five are to be chosen by denominations affiliated with the National Council of Churches, five by denominations affiliated with the NAE, and five to represent denominations not affiliated with either organization.

Middle East

Turmoil In Jordan

The control of civilian traffic, long a world woe, almost touched off a world war last month in Jordan.

On April 7 King Hussein was informed by the Chief of Police that a strong force of Arab Legion tanks was moving into Amman. When asked why, leftist Premier Nabulsi said they were needed to control regular traffic.

King Hussein soon learned, however, that the movement had a far more sinister meaning. He was quoted as saying it was a communist-inspired plot to assassinate or dethrone him.

The Nabulsi government was attempting to form closer ties with Russia.

On April 10, the king said he demanded Nabulsi’s resignation. In the next three days, he asserted the leftist and nationalist parties controlled by Nabulsi and his allies blocked all attempts at getting a new cabinet formed.

Hussein promised a fight to the finish. He proclaimed martial law and formed a new government.

The United States, terming the independence and integrity of Jordan as “vital,” ordered the Sixth Fleet back to the eastern Mediterranean so suddenly that 150 sailors were left happily stranded on leave in Paris.

It appeared, at presstime, that Hussein was explosively successful in turning back the communist-inspired effort.

Many Christian observers are of the opinion that the problem in the Middle East runs deeper than the threat from the north and the instability of Arab governments. They believe the problem of the Middle East is the problem of Jerusalem—a religious problem, primarily, superimposed on the politico-economic troubles.

Islam, Jews and Roman Catholics are striving to control Jerusalem.

There are few “believers” in the Protestant evangelical, or New Testament sense.

People: Words And Events

Utter Confusion—Parishioners of Bible Missionary Baptist Church in Rocky Mount, N. C., can be excused for being a little confused at a recent service. One clergyman gave the sermon, another walked out of the church with about half the congregation, and a third picketed the building with placards of Bible verses. The picketing was done by the Rev. Samuel H. W. Johnston Jr., who was ousted as pastor by the trustees and barred from the building by court order. His father walked off with part of the congregation when he found another minister in the pulpit. The court order was obtained after Johnston announced a meeting at which he was going to “reveal the sins of certain members of the church.” He later resigned, effective June 1, but refused the trustees’ offer to leave immediately with $700 salary through that date. At presstime, no sins of the congregation had been publicly declared.

Sacred Building—The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that a parsonage is not a sacred building. It reversed a Circuit Court judge in Sarasota, who denied a liquor license to a place of business within 500 feet of a parsonage. The Supreme Court said that a parsonage, except for the “goodness” of its occupant, doesn’t differ from any other residence, because it is used for secular, not religious, purposes.

Conversion Center—In another reversal of a judge’s decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court directed that a charter be issued to Conversion Center, Inc., of Havertown. The judge refused a charter because he said the group proposed to concentrate on the “evangelization and conversion of adherents of the Roman Catholic faith.…” Majority opinion of the Supreme Court said the incorporators indicated they wanted to be “straightforward and honest” in stating their aims and that the work of the Center would be carried on peacefully.”

Gusher for Church—Toddie Lee Wynne, oilman of Dallas, Texas, has turned over $2,000,000 to the Texas Presbyterian Foundation. The gift represented a tithe of an estimated $20,000,000 Wynne made when he sold his petroleum company interests. Members of the Wynne family have practiced tithing for many years.

Prison Probe—Chaplains at California State Prison are involved in an investigation of a manuscript smuggling from “death row.” One clergymen has taken a lie detector test, but another said he would “resent any mechanical means calculated to test my credibility.”

Different Reason—Scott Young, writing in the Toronto Globe and Mail, offers a new explanation as to why churches are filled at Christmas and Easter. The pulpit is for preaching, he says, and people who attend on these days are pretty sure they are going to hear sermons on Christianity.

Funeral Fight—Too many persons have lavish funerals their families can’t afford, the Reverend Steen Whiteside told the Eugene (Oregon) Ministerial Association. The Episcopal minister drives a Ford and said he can see no reason when he dies “to park my carcass in a Cadillac.”

Record Crime Year—J. Edgar Hoover, FBI director, has disclosed that 1956 was the worst year on record for crime. Offenses known to police numbered 2,563,150, more than 300,000 over 1955. A total of 6,970 Americans were murdered. Direct property loss from robberies, burglaries and theft totaled $440 million.

Digest—Dr. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, cancels 14-day April–May visit to U. S. because of illness.… Dr. Albert Schweitzer, famed medical missionary, calls for “the end of further experiments with atom bombs.” … Estimated 9,000 delegates and visitors to attend 50th annual meeting of American Baptist Convention in Philadelphia May 29–June 4.… California Supreme Court, in 4–3 decision, upholds constitutionality of state law requiring loyalty oath from churches and veterans as condition for tax exemption.… Dr. H. E. Mumma, Ohio Methodist minister, to exchange pulpit this summer with Dr. C. E. Williams, American Church, Paris.

Theology

Bible Book of the Month: John 14:16, 17

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you (John 14:16, 17).

Our Lord’s prayers as Intercessor, are not to be regarded as in kind precisely like ours. We as sinners confess our offences, and pray for pardon through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. But his prayers are to be regarded, as declarative of his sovereign will and pleasure in regard to his people, who have been given to him in the covenant of redemption, and over whom he has thrown the robe of his own righteousness.—JOHN J. OWEN.

Two promises, like heavenly merchant-vessels, brought salvation to our world. The first promise brought the Messiah into the world in the flesh; the second, in the Spirit—the first, to be crucified; the second, to crucify the sins of his people—the first, to empty himself; the second, to fill the believer with heavenly gifts and graces—the first, to sanctify himself as a sin-offering upon the altar; the second, to give repentance and pardon as a Prince and a Saviour.—CHRISTIAN EVANS.

Another Comforter

The Spirit is said to be ‘another’ Advocate, not because he differs in essence from the Lord, who is also and will remain an Advocate of the disciples (1 John 2:1), but because there are differences between his activity and that of the Lord. The Lord’s work in the days of his flesh, for example, was visible and for a time only; the Spirit’s work is invisible and permanent.—R. H. LIGHTFOOT.

The fact that the Lord here called the Holy Spirit “another Comforter” also proves him to be a person, and a Divine person. It is striking to observe that in this verse we have mentioned each of the three persons of the blessed Trinity: “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter.”—ARTHUR W. PINK.

In our present modern English Comforter has a very narrower range of meaning than its etymology would give it, and than probably it had when it was first used in an English translation. Comforter means, a great deal more than consoler, though we have narrowed it to that signification almost exclusively. It means not only one who administers sweet whispers of consolation in sorrow, but one who by his presence makes strong.—ALEXANDER MACLAREN.

The literal etymological meaning of the word is, “One-called to be beside another.” The word is used in classical Greek, and a word of similar etymology, from which our word “advocate” is derived, is used in classical Latin writers to denote a person who patronizes another in a judicial cause, and who appears in support of him. It was the custom, before the ancient tribunals, for the parties to appear in court, attended by one or more of their most powerful and influential friends, who were called paracletes—the Greek term—or advocates—the Latin term. They were persons who, prompted by affection, were disposed to stand by their friend; and persons, in whose knowledge, wisdom, and truth, the individual having the cause had confidence.—JOHN BROWN.

Spirit Of Truth

He is the Spirit of truth, not as if he brought new truth. To suppose that he does so, opens the door to all manner of fanaticism, but the truth, the revelation of which is all summed and finished in the person and work of Jesus Christ, is the weapon by which the divine Spirit works all his conquests, the staff on which he makes us lean and be strong.—ALEXANDER MACLAREN.

The Spirit comforts his people by means of the truth revealed in his Word, enabling them to understand its import, to feel its power, and especially to apply it, in the exercise of an appropriating faith, to the case of their own souls.… The believer’s comfort is often, for a time, weak and fluctuating, just because his views of divine truth are dim and indistinct; but as these become, under the teaching of the Spirit, more clear and comprehensive, his comfort also becomes more settled and stable.—ROBERT BUCHANAN.

He applies the truth to the conscience, and makes the guilty read their own sentence of condemnation by the light of the fires of Sinai; and then he shows them the atoning blood, and prompts them to pray for pardon. The Holy Spirit on earth awakens sinners, convinces them of sin, draws them to the throne of grace, and breathes into them intense prayers for pardon. He renews them, and purifies them, and makes them temples of his grace, and heirs of glory. He opens the blind eyes, and unstops the deaf ears, and makes the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb to sing.—CHRISTIAN EVANS.

World Cannot Receive

The unbelieving are unsusceptible to the Spirit, because the capacity of inward vision (of experimental perception) of the Spirit is wanting to them; He is to them something unknown and foreign, so that they have no subjective point of attachment for receiving Him.—H. A. W. MEYER.

The meaning must needs be this, till men have some experience of the work of the Spirit upon their hearts; till he hath been a sanctifier in them, and caused them to believe, they cannot receive him as Comforter. Why? Because there is not matter wherewithal to comfort them; they must first be in the state of grace before they can be comforted by being in the state of grace.—THOMAS GOODWIN.

He is an advocate for the church, in, with, and against the world. Such an advocate is one that undertaketh the protection and defence of another as to any cause wherein he is engaged. The cause where in the disciples of Christ are engaged in and against the world is the truth of the gospel, the power and kingdom of their Lord and Master. This they testify unto; this is opposed by the world; and this, under various forms, appearances, and pretences, is that which they suffer reproaches and persecutions for in every generation. In this cause the Holy Spirit is their advocate, justifying Jesus Christ and the gospel against the world.—JOHN OWEN.

Abides Forever

The Holy Spirit does not dwell in our hearts as we dwell in our house, independent of it, walking through it, shortly to leave it; but he so inheres in and cleaves to us that, tho we were thrown into the hottest crucible, he and we could not be separated. The fiercest fire could not dissolve the union. Even the body is called the temple of the Holy Spirit; and tho at death he may leave it at least in part, to bring it again to greater glory in the resurrection, yet as far as our inward man is concerned, he never departs from us. In that sense he is with us forever.—ABRAHAM KUYPER.

With whom the Spirit abides, and while he abides with them, they cannot utterly forsake God nor be forsaken of him; for they who have the Spirit of God are the children of God: but God hath promised that his Spirit shall abide with believers for ever.—JOHN OWEN.

Books

Book Briefs: May 13, 1957

Atonement By-Passed

The Theology of the Sacraments, by D. M. Baillie. Scribners, New York, 1957. $3.00.

These kindly and facile lectures by the late D. M. Baillie on The Theology of the Sacraments have a deceptively earnest air that almost covers the gaping lacks in content. A theological study of the sacraments is much needed at this present time, but it seems incredible that a book can be offered on the subject which by-passes the events and the meaning of the events celebrated and commemorated in the sacraments.

With regard to baptism, Baillie is aware only in passing “that in New Testament thought baptism was closely connected with the death and resurrection of Christ” (p. 74), and that “in the Patristic Age circumcision was regarded as having foreshadowed baptism as the ‘seal’ of God’s people” (p–83 ftnote). Almost nothing more is said. He neglects, moreover, all mention of baptism as a sign of regeneration, its relation to regeneration, its significance in terms of the atonement, and, beyond a bare citation of the Westminster standards, any account of the significance of baptism in relation to the doctrine of the covenant. As a result, to say that baptism has from the beginning meant “incorporation into the new Israel, the Body of Christ which is the Church” (p. 79), is merely to say that it constitutes the ritual of initiation into membership without any regard for the meaning of that fact. That it involves cleansing and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is true enough, but these results are understandable only in terms of what baptism is in itself, and the manner in which we relate the covenant and regeneration to baptism will condition our concept of cleansing and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

Baillie’s theological waywardness is even more apparent in his treatment of the Lord’s Table. Here he deserts completely the Protestant, and especially the Reformed, faith by separating the doctrine of the table from the death and resurrection, i.e. the atonement, and interpreting it in terms of the incarnation (p.58). In view of Baillie’s disregard for the doctrines of propitiation and substitution, it is not surprising that the atonement is bypassed. By relating both sacraments to the incarnation, it follows inevitably that instead of creation and redemption, immanence and incarnation become the orbit of his theology, an orientation which destroys the biblical sense of the incarnation. The consequence of such thought has always been the concept of a sacramental universe (pp. 42 ff.), with immanence swallowing up the transcendence of God. Such a view regards the sacraments then as a continuation of the incarnation rather than a setting forth of the death and resurrection, of atonement, preservation, sanctification and union. Thus Baillie is drawn to this Roman, Orthodox and Anglo-Catholic view (pp. 61 ff.) of the sacraments. Although, under the impact of Newbigin’s thinking, he rejects this extension view without surrendering it, he cannot adequately replace it with a Protestant view but must speak of a continuity or “extension of the incarnation wholly dependent on the Word and the Spirit” (p. 66). The tie, thus, with the incarnation is made tenuous but not broken. Inevitably, such thinking must be faced with the problem of the Real Presence, and Baillie is, although irresolutely. He has no awareness of the very different conceptions of the Real Presence that develop from immanence and incarnation theology as opposed to the Real Presence of a high doctrine of the atonement. Calvin’s belief in the Real Presence is based on the atonement and transcendence, not on immanence, and in the Calvinist tradition there is a greater sense of the corporateness of communion, as Brilioth has seen and Baillie notes. This greater emphasis on fellowship and corporateness is due to the drawing together of the redeemed in Christ, whereas the Roman concept draws the participants closer to creation and its drama of life and infusion.

Moreover, the concept of a sacramental universe, seemingly so respectful of nature, actually implies that nature is something which must at least be overcome or supplanted by grace, whereas nature is rather restored as nature by grace. Nature, even fallen nature, witnesses to God and gives Him glory; even the wrath of man praises Him. There is no need to make nature over into sacrament, thus robbing both nature and sacrament of meaning.

It is not surprising that Baillie, when he does finally speak of Calvary as sacrifice, regards it as “an eternal sacrifice” (p. 116) and then confuses Christ’s present intercessory work as priest with sacrifice and calls it “a continual offering of himself to God on behalf of men” (p. 117). When the one act of Calvary lacks full validity, the Roman doctrine of the continuing sacrifice of the mass and Baillie’s “eternal sacrifice” become necessary.

In his brief article, “Philosophers and Theologians on the Freedom of the Will,” Baillie has a happy grasp of certain aspects of the question, as he deals, for example, with “the paradox of hedonism,” i.e., that “the quest of happiness defeats itself,” and then draws attention to the similar “ ‘paradox of moralism,’ the fact that the quest of goodness defeats itself. It is not precisely by trying to make ourselves into good men that we become good men.” Moralism defeats itself and produces Phariseeism, while “the best kind of living, or the finest type of character, does not come through sheer volitional effort to realize the ideal, but in a more indirect way, as the fruit of a life of faith in God” (pp. 136 f.).

R. J. RUSHDOONY

Approaching Footsteps

When Christ Comes Again, by Jac. J. Muller. Marshall, Morgan & Scott, London. 7s.6d.

The author grips our attention at the outset when he says that those who have received grace spiritually to diagnose the present age “cannot fail to hear in the mighty upheavals” of our time “the approaching footsteps of the returning Saviour” (p. 13). But in discussing the Signs of the Times he wisely eschews the dogmatism of those who place the end immediately ahead.

Discussing the rise and dominion of the antichrist, he says this will be the most outstanding sign of the approaching return of Christ. Precursors of the antichrist have appeared, but the antichrist is yet to appear out of the midst of the universal falling away—“an individual of unique personality—a genius with almost supernatural gifts and talents—a superman—the perfected product of a culture and civilization devoid of God—a prodigy among men by reason of which he will exert his powerful deceiving influence” (p. 29). Dr. Muller indicates three portents in our present-day world from which a godless dictator may arise (p. 32).

Christ’s visible coming on the clouds of heaven will terminate the history of this sinful world, delivering His people out of the great tribulation and ushering in the judgment of mankind and the transformation of the earth. Dr. Muller rejects both pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. He characterises the optimism of the latter as “evolutionary optimism”. This seems rather hard on post-millennialists like Dr. B. B. Warfield.

In the chapter on the Resurrection, Dr. Muller states that “the expectation of all the peoples of the world” looks for the resurrection of the body and life everlasting (p. 43). Later he reverts to the witness of the human heart (p. 77). But the human heart is more inclined to suppress the truth than publish it. Dr. Muller only turns aside momentarily; he speedily has recourse to the real basis of belief in the resurrection—the explicit testimony of the Bible. Dealing with the nature of the resurrection body, he shows himself a sound expositor.

A pleasing feature of the three chapters on the Judgment, Hell, and Heaven is that Dr. Muller appears not only as a faithful interpreter of Scripture, but as an earnest evangelist.

In the last chapter—on “The New Earth”—the tree of life bearing twelvefold fruit (Rev. 22:2) is not understood as merely spiritual, but also as conveying an indication of the glorified state of nature. The saints will enjoy both material and spiritual blessings on the new earth; heaven and earth will intermingle, and God will fill both with His glory.

This is a fine book from the pen of an able theologian. It has passed through many reprints in its original Afrikaans. May this English translation have like success!

W. J. GRIER.

Touchy Problem

One Marriage Two Faiths, by James H. S. Bossard and Eleanor S. Boll. Ronald Press, New York, 1957. $3.50.

Professor Bossard needs no introduction to the sociological world. He is the author of numerous works in this field and his co-author in this book has worked closely with him for a number of years. The purpose of this volume is to answer the innumerable questions and problems of men and women who are puzzled about interfaith marriages. The answers to these questions are based upon case histories for a quarter of a century or more which involves information from parents, relatives, children and grandchildren as well as from the couples themselves. This methodology, of course, gives an authoritative ring to the whole study.

Few young people contemplating marriage have understood the real meaning of interfaith marriages. Rarely do they stop to think that interfaith marriage involves the union of two distinctive personalities, two differing ways of thinking and living in life’s most intimate relationship. These differences manifest themselves in attitudes and actions at every level of experience especially in the patterns of sexual behavior.

The authors go on to point out that not only religious differences but national variations within the religious group and social class differences can pose real problems in marital adjustment.

As for the prevalence of mixed marriages we have no adequate data. Available sources consist of special restricted studies which, when combined, give us only a relatively reliable answer. These data indicate that marriage across religious lines is large and is increasing in volume. Studies made of Lutheran mixed marriages indicate that from 1936 to 1950 Lutherans have been increasingly marrying outside of their church. At present more than 58 percent marry into other communions.

A chapter is devoted to the churches and mixed marriage. From the inception of Christianity the church has frowned upon interfaith marriages. The Roman Catholic position is fairly well known. This church has sought to secure its control over marriage between a Catholic and a non-catholic by the use of the Antenuptial Contract and Promises instrument. Selected Protestant attitudes and policies indicate that the major denominations in the United States are opposed to interfaith marriages, especially with Roman Catholics and Jews. Reasons given for opposition to mixed marriages are as follows: (1) they are a threat to the membership strength; (2) they interfere with religious observances; (3) most churches look upon marriage and the family as a special province of their interest and control; and (4) mixed marriages are a threat to family unity and stability as well as the general cultural heritage of the church. It is interesting to note that lay people in the church are not as strong in their opposition to mixed marriages as the clergy.

All persons contemplating an interfaith marriage should study carefully chapters six through eight which deal with the husband-wife, parent-child relationships and solutions which have worked in interfaith marriage adjustments. Young people who are deeply in love feel that they can iron out all of their marital problems by intellectualizing. But if the records of this book are accurate, they indicate “that parental feeling supersede romantic love and individualism” (p. 114). When a baby comes both parents feel protective and possessive about it. Both families try to raise the child and as a result he is tom in choosing his religion and philosophy of life between two sides of the family. This results not only in “taking sides” with the family but in inner conflict for the child. Nor does the matter end here. The divisiveness extends to brothers and sisters as well as parents and tends to divide them into opposing camps. This is the basic tragedy of many interfaith marriages.

Professor Bossard is too wise to offer simple and naive solutions to interfaith marriages. But on the basis of case studies he discovered that mixed marriages sometimes work out successfully when the following principles are followed: (1) where one of the mates accepts the religious culture of the other; (2) when the couple withdraws from most social contacts and live in relative social isolation; (3) when each one goes his own way with relative freedom; (4) when couples agree that there shall be no children in their families; (5) when both have a common bond of indifference to the church and what it stands for; and (6) when there is a compromise between intelligent persons who both give and take on the issues involved in a mixed marriage. Professor Bossard hastens to add, however, that the above observations gleaned from case histories are used to illustrate, not to indicate finality of judgment.

This book tackles a touchy problem with real insight and frankness. It is based upon the solid facts of sociological research. Ministers, social workers and marriage counselors will find it invaluable in helping young people to choose wisely a mate. The book admirably supplements, from a sociological point of view, the more religious approach to the problem of interfaith marriages by Dr. James A. Pike in his book If You Marry Outside of Your Faith.

H. HENLEE BARNETTE

Advanced Liberalism

Beginnings in Theology, by Jack Finegan. Association Press, New York, 1956. $3.00.

The writer of this book is Professor of New Testament Literature and Interpretation, in the Pacific School of Religion, Berkeley, California and is a minister in the Disciples of Christ Church.

The viewpoint presented is that of advanced liberalism. There is but little reference to or scant sympathy for the great historic doctrines of the Christian faith as these have been held by practically all branches of the church until comparatively recent times. Such doctrines as the full inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the fall of man and his redemption through the sacrificial death of Christ on Calvary are scarcely mentioned. For the most part these are simply passed over.

The fall of man, recorded in Genesis three, is referred to as, “a poetic story of early beginnings” (p. 48), designed to teach than man is no mere automaton, not governed by habit and instinct as are the animals but rather a free agent able to make final choices. We believe, however, that the fall was an actual, historical event. Our belief is strengthened to the point of certainty when in the New Testament salvation is declared to be through Christ on precisely the same representative principle as was the fall in Adam (Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22).

The theory of evolution is advanced as the explanation of man’s origin. We are told that in the course of time “man stood up on his two feet, and attained an erect posture, and was able to see farther and to have his hands set free” (p. 81) and so attained a position higher than that of the animals.

But the evolutionists always have a difficult time fitting Jesus Christ into their scheme. His appearance in the course of history nearly two thousand years ago, when the world still was quite primitive and backward, rather than at the end of history where, according to their theory, he logically belongs, has always been an embarrassing problem. But when he is held to be only the fairest flower of humanity, rather than deity incarnate in the historic sense of that term, the problem is not so difficult. That is the writer’s solution, and on three different occasions we are told that “Jesus Christ stands at the height of human development” (pp. 79, 81, 87).

In a chapter entitled, “Christ and the Other Religions,” the writer rejects the view that Christianity alone can be classed as true and the other religions false. Rather, much truth and much good is said to exist in the various religions. The philosophy of the Greeks is likened to Judaism as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (p. 103). Other religions, we are told, are not primarily false but only immature, and the religion of Christ is described as “the religion of maturity,” the ideal, which is to be held up so that all may come to mature manhood. This, of course, ignores the fact that the pagan religions have utterly failed to find a cure for sin, and that nations and civilizations under their influence for centuries or even millenniums have virtually stagnated, while only where Christianity has gone has there been real progress. So great has been the contrast that it does not seem possible that any informed person should hesitate to declare that Christianity is true and the others false.

The incarnation of Christ is discussed. But the term is used in a sense quite foreign to that in which it has been used in traditional theology, which is, that Christ, the second person of the Trinity, came to earth, took upon himself human nature and so was both God and man, one person in two natures. Rather it is here made to mean: (1) that Christ was a real historical character, as contrasted with the mythological characters in the religions of the Philistines, Greeks, and Egyptians (i.e., Baal, Demeter, and Osiris); and (2) that the teaching of Jesus is for everybody, that is, universal in its application, rather than restricted within narrow boundaries and intended only for limited groups, as was that of Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc.

This kind of reasoning should hardly pass a theology. It offers no adequate explanation as to why such a death as Christ died on Calvary was necessary, or how his death can be of any particular benefit to us other than as a vague example of unselfish service. The Scriptures represent Christ as going to the cross purposefully and voluntarily. No mere man in his right mind would offer himself for crucifixion merely to make an impression on his fellow men. Such action would amount to suicide, and would produce revulsion and disgust, not admiration. Unless the suffering of Christ was designed to make atonement for sin, it can have no special value for us. Furthermore, the claims that he made concerning himself—in regard to his deity, and his coming again to be the judge of all mankind—cannot be fitted into the liberal view. We are forced to the conclusion that either he was God in human flesh, or he was not good; either he is our Lord and Master to be worshipped, or he was an imposter. Liberalism has never been able to solve these problems. They are not solved in this book.

LORAINE BOETTNER.

Hebrew Literature

The Wisdom of the Torah, by Dagobert D. Runes (editor). Philosophical, New York.

This book deals with the Hebrew Bible in toto and not with the commonly accepted idea of the first five books as the Torah.

One or two short paragraphs are devoted to the background of the men whose writings the author has used.

The book is arranged around the themes of ballad, poem, parable, elegy, vision, lament, ethic, and aphorism.

The value of this book is in its anthological nature. Dr. Runes has drawn together into one volume the choicest types of Hebrew literature. An evening spent reading this book will help one to define in one’s own thinking the various types of Hebrew wisdom evident in the Torah.

FRED E. YOUNG

Theology

Review of Current Religious Thought: May 13, 1957

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes

South Africa is attracting much critical attention nowadays because of the racial tensions which exist within her territories. Having spent no less than twenty-two years in that country, I am not unfamiliar with the problems with which its leaders are faced—problems which are probably more complicated and perplexing than those demanding solution in any other part of the world. Indeed, the racial puzzle is such that, contrary to the facile assumptions and presumptions of some who offer advice or criticism from an uninvolved distance, it cannot be unravelled overnight.

It has become a popular pastime with long-distance mud-slingers to besmirch the name of the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa. This seems to me a particularly reprehensible occupation, especially when Christians engage in it. Almost invariably it reveals ignorance and prejudice. The strong and virile Calvinism of the Dutch Reformed Church seems to arouse the passions of some to whom it is uncongenial, and the odium theologicum seizes the opportainty to rear its ugly head. There are, beyond doubt, elements in the Dutch Reformed Church at which an accusing finger may be pointed. But that is true without exception of every Church in Christendom; and if the whole is to be condemned because of the deficiencies of a part, who then shall be able to stand?

A considerable and understanding article on “The Dilemma of the Dutch Reformed Churches in South Africa” by the Rev. Leonard Heap appears in the April issue of The Congregational Quarterly. (There are, in fact, three Dutch Reformed denominations in South Africa, hence the plural in his title—though, as he points out, it is customary and convenient to speak of the Dutch Reformed Church.) It is certainly worthy of note that a South African Congregationalist minister, who pretends to no particular predilection for the Calvinistic theology, should write of the Dutch Reformed Church, which he is able to observe at close quarters, that “there is probably no Church in the world which demands a higher level of academic training for its ministry”, that “of all the major denominations in South Africa there is none which is more passionately enthusiastic in its evangelical witness”, and that it shows “great enthusiasm for missionary enterprise”. He goes on to speak of “the abundant flow of young men from the churches and from the Afrikaans universities offering themselves as missionaries and of the many laymen who “give themselves unstintingly to part-time mission work amongst both white and black”.

Father Trevor Huddlestone, who since his return to England from South Africa has become something of a national figure as a champion of the South African native and whose recent book Nought For Your Comfort immediately became a best-seller, has given so onesided a picture of the South African scene and is so obsessed with denunciation, that he can hardly fail to defeat his own well-intentioned purposes by helping to produce a situation of exasperation rather than of balanced reasonableness. It would seem that he has eyes only for what is bad in South Africa and not for what is good—and there are good things being done, even for the native in South Africa. Of Father Huddlestone Mr. Heap writes that he “failed to enter into and understand sympathetically the whole picture of spiritual conditioning, temptation, dilemma and struggle which is taking place in our country.” Criticism is, as he observes, “necessary and desirable, but criticism which is devoid of human understanding is worse than futile, it is even unChristian”.

In his significant book Die Kleur-Krisis en die Weste (of which, I believe, an English translation is available) Dr. Ben Marais of Pretoria University expresses the opinion that color-prejudice, a comparatively late phenomenon in European history, is to be explained as a fruit of slavery. He emphasizes that racial separateness (apartheid) cannot be demonstrated as a scriptural principle but only separateness from sin, the separateness of believers from unbelievers. The oneness of all believers in Christ cuts across and transcends (although it does not necessarily abolish) racial and social distinctions. “I can think”, he says, “of few things more greatly in conflict with the spirit of the New Testament than an absolute apartheid which would, on whatever ground, sunder groups of fellow-believers into two different worlds without any real communication or vital fellowship in love and faith. This was never the historical policy of our Church, and I hope and believe that it never will be our policy. Where separation is desirable and necessary … we must constantly seek in one way or another to give open expression to our oneness in Christ. One Lord has died for us, one Leader goes before us, and we are bound to each other by one love and one faith. We may not be shut off from each other in two entirely separate worlds!” (p. 298)

If anyone thinks that the leaders of the Dutch Reformed Church are incapable of self-criticism, let him read the little book Whither—South Africa? by Dr. B. B. Keet of Stellenbosch University (who, like Dr. Ben Marais, is a theological professor and a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church). A more candid, courageous and relevant essay in self-criticism will not be found anywhere. Indeed, self-criticism is, according to Dr. Keet, “a necessary condition in establishing good human relations; if that is lacking, there can be no improvement” (p. 89). He calls for recognition of the fact “that color, after all, is not of fundamental importance in human relations; that the war we have to wage is not between white and black, but between civilization and barbarism, or, if you will, between Christianity and heathenism”; and that accordingly the only antithesis which makes sense is “that between good and evil, justice and injustice, one which concerns both black and white, and in which they can fight shoulder to shoulder” (pp. 14 f.). Again, he wisely writes: “The fear motive cannot, of course, be unconditionally condemned. The danger that so-called white civilization may be at the mercy of a barbarian or semi-barbarian majority is not an imaginary one. But barbarism must not be identified with color, or the loss of our white skin be represented as the greatest evil that we have to guard against” (pp. 47 f.). It is his concluding judgment that “white leadership in South Africa has a wonderful opportunity, unique of its kind, to point out a way along which the world can move towards sound Christian human relations” (p. 96).

It has long been my conviction that, from the religious point of view at least, the shape of things to come in South Africa rests with the Dutch Reformed Church more than with any other group. If I am right, then this great Church needs encouragement and constructive understanding from without, as well as challenge. The way forward for them and for all of us must be that of true and manifest brotherhood with fellow-believers “of all nations and peoples and tongues” who have “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb”.

Cover Story

The Pathos of Religious Liberalism

Ned B. Stonehouse

It was Adolph Harnack, brilliant exponent of liberal theology and penetrating observer of the historic scene about the turn of the century, who declared that “there is something touching in the anxiety which everyone shows to rediscover himself, together with his own point of view and his own circle of interest, in this Jesus Christ, or at least to get a share in him.” This phenomenon has been no less evident in the half century since Harnack thus expressed himself in his memorable lectures on the essence of Christianity. Few indeed have been those who have read the Gospels with serious attention and have not been sympathetically drawn to the portrait of Jesus Christ there drawn. There is genuine pathos, however, in the observation that many a modern inquirer in his quest of Jesus, finding the Jesus of the Gospels unacceptable, more or less unconsciously refashions the portrait to conform Jesus to his own presuppositions or predilections.

Although Harnack himself spoke so self-assuredly regarding his understanding of Jesus, it was not long before criticism had exposed the subjuctivity of his reconstruction and had effectively shown that he had been guilty of presenting a radical modernization of Jesus. In seeking to maintain the thesis that “the gospel of Jesus proclaimed that it had to do with the Father only, and not with the Son,” and in interpreting Jesus’ messianic claims and his eschatological teaching as merely formal or peripheral and ultimately as expendable, Harnack came to be recognized as arbitrarily eliminating that which was uncongenial to his modern spirit. Nevertheless, in terms of his own perspective, he was captivated by the history and personality of Jesus. For he thought of Jesus not only as a teacher but as one who was connected with the gospel as “its personal realization and its strength.” Christianity to him was not a question of a doctrine—not even the teaching of Jesus—being handed down, but rather of a life “again and again kindled afresh,” as one came under the impact of Jesus’ personality.

It may also be recalled that Wilhelm Herrmann, Harnack’s peer as a spokesman for liberal Christianity, was perhaps even more emphatic in interpreting religion in Christ-centered terms. If one supposed that the liberal theology conceived of Jesus merely as a moral teacher and example, and that accordingly the religion of the liberal was devoid of fervor and power, he would be bound to undergo a revolutionary change of judgment if he came really to know Herrmann. Thus, at any rate, J. Gresham Machen, as he sat under Herrmann in 1905, was completely overwhelmed at the evidence of his religious earnestness as expressed in terms of “absolute confidence” in and “absolute joyful subjection” to Jesus. Such occupation with the figure of Jesus Christ and such confidence and devotion, however, did not serve to establish Herrmann’s theology on a sure foundation. His view also was soon recognized as essentially a modernization of Jesus. But there is a heightening of pathos as one contemplates the sincerity of his mistaken response to the testimony of the Gospels regarding Jesus.

Invoking The Spirit Of Jesus

Among those who struck powerful blows that shattered the portrait of the liberal Jesus was Albert Schweitzer. The very elements which Harnack had found most uncongenial, namely, the messianic and eschatological teaching, and which had, as Schweitzer says, “ingenuously and covertly” been rejected, Schweitzer declared to be the central and dominating features of Jesus’ life and thought. Although Schweitzer’s interpretation suffers from one-sidedness and other basic defects, he must be credited with an epochal contribution toward the understanding of the witness of the gospel. As the result of the impact of his views it would seem that no serious student of the Gospels can ever contend again for an essentially non-eschatological understanding of Jesus. But an even greater pathos can be found in Schweitzer’s evaluation of Jesus than in the older Liberalism. For no longer is it one of a more or less artless kind. It is now a self-conscious pathos in the presence of tragedy of gigantic proportions. This is so because the Jesus whom Schweitzer searches out, though he is described as an “imperious ruler” and as possessing the “volcanic force of an incalculable personality,” was a mere man who was completely disillusioned on the cross. Moreover, subsequent history is regarded as having demonstrated that Jesus was completely in error with regard to his most basic thoughts regarding his life and destiny. Although Schweitzer wrote a doctoral dissertation to defend the sanity of Jesus, his own interpretation of Jesus’ self-consciousness appears to place too great a burden upon him for any healthy person to endure. The end of the story, as Schweitzer depicts it, is therefore utterly pathetic.

But the extent of the pathos in Schweitzer’s construction is even now not fully measured. For it is touching to observe how Schweitzer, having radically rejected the eschatology of Jesus and the Jesus of eschatology, nevertheless is not able to let him go. And in spite of his judgments upon the liberal theology he himself ends up by being a liberal! Now, however, this occurs without the benefit of the liberals’ appeal to “the historical Jesus.” And Schweitzer is not less arbitrary than the liberal when he likewise insists that it is possible to set aside the eschatological as husk and to retain as kernel something that has little or nothing to do with Jesus’ own dominant ideas. And so Schweitzer, in spite of his recognition that the liberal Jesus is an historical illusion, and in the face of his own judgment that the Jesus of history as he understands him is altogether unworthy of trust, makes the claim that “the spirit of Jesus” is on the side of liberalism. Like David F. Strauss before him he discounts the significance of the historical by regarding it as constituting only the outward form in which with considerable variation essential religious truth comes to expression. And so declaring “that it is not Jesus as historically known, but Jesus as spiritually arisen within men,” he sets out to develop his ethical mysticism.

Can one conceive of greater pathos than that which confronts us here? According to Schweitzer’s view, the more fully that we come to a genuine knowledge of Jesus as he lived on earth, the more impossible it becomes to accept his central self-appraisal. Nevertheless, in spite of his being persona non grata as he appeared in history, we are told that we need not be discouraged. Indeed, we may be basically indifferent to the results of our study of what the Gospels have to say concerning him, and yet we are to suppose that we may come to genuine knowledge and experience of “his spirit.”

The Pendulum Of Criticism

Speaking rather broadly of certain dominant trends of gospel criticism, we may observe that this basic characteristic is evident again and again. There has indeed been some genuine progress in interpretation, not only as it concerns eschatology, but also as it relates to the broader impact which the Gospels as a whole make upon us. Schweitzer’s extreme views have been corrected and modified by subsequent criticism as far as most New Testament scholars are concerned. His one-sided futurism in particular has been largely abandoned in favor of a more comprehensive estimate of the manifestation of the kingdom of God and of the scope of the ministry of the Son of Man. There has developed, moreover, a greater awareness that the Gospels are concerned with the single theme of God’s decisive action in Christ for man’s salvation, that this action finds climactic expression in the cross and the resurrection, and that, accordingly, the message of the Gospels resists dissection of kernel and husk after the manner of the liberals. Thus, also the unity of the New Testament, particularly in its central concern with salvation history, is substantially discerned and acknowledged.

To a significant extent, however, exegetical gain has spelled historical and religious loss. For it is especially the more radical critics who, having recognized that the Gospels proclaim a message of supernatural salvation through Jesus Christ, but disallowing that this could have been Jesus’ own conception of his ministry, regard the Gospels as essentially dogmatic constructions rather than historical memoirs. And so the Christian community, whether in Palestine or in the Hellenistic world beyond, has been held mainly responsible for the origin of the Christian message. By this approach, Jesus Christ becomes a vague and misty figure in the background, about whom we have little or no certain knowledge.

Among recent New Testament scholars Rudolf Bultmann is perhaps the most representative of these latter tendencies. As the result of his application of the method of form criticism, only a few remnants of the Gospel tradition are regarded as applicable to the Jesus of history. Bultmann has even said that he would have no quarrel with anyone who might wish to place “Jesus” in quotation marks as a designation for the historical phenomenon back of the Christian church. In the most recent phase of his thought, which is concerned with the Christian proclamation, he is indeed substantially faithful in expounding that proclamation in terms of the supernatural action of a pre-existent divine being who appeared on earth as a man. But he is compelled, in virtue of his estimate of technological progress and man’s understanding of his own nature (as “a self-subsistent unity immune from the interference of supernatural powers”), to regard this proclamation together with the view of the world that it presupposes as hopelessly obsolete.

In certain basic respects Bultmann’s position, however, is like that of Schweitzer. For Bultmann, too, the life of Jesus was a merely human life which ended in the tragedy of crucifixion although he had envisioned the dawning of a new world through supernatural intervention in history. Bultmann is more skeptical regarding the testimony of the Gospels to Jesus than was Schweitzer, for he does not even allow that Jesus thought of himself as the Messiah. But this difference is after all only one of degree so far as the significance of the life of Jesus upon earth is concerned. As noted above, Schweitzer, in spite of his tragic estimate of the Jesus of history, with startling boldness proceeds to reinterpret his life and spirit in liberal terms. And Bultmann, in spite of even more radical judgments upon the life of Jesus, also becomes involved in the effort to separate the kernel from the husk in his judgments concerning Jesus and the Gospel. For example, in dealing with the message of Jesus, he acknowledges that Jesus thought of the kingdom of God in supernatural terms and awaited its manifestation in world-shaking events such as the coming of the Son of Man, the resurrection of the dead, judgment and the end of the world. Nevertheless, Bultmann has the temerity to insist that these features of “contemporary mythology” do not express Jesus’ “real meaning”! “The real significance of the kingdom of God for the message of Jesus,” Bultmann declares, “lies in any case not in the dramatic events associated with its coming … it does not interest Jesus at all as a condition, but rather as the transcendent event, which signifies for man the great either—or, which compels man to decision.” It may be observed, therefore, that as to both method and results, in basic respects Bultmann’s position does not differ essentially from that of the liberal.

In similar fashion, as Bultmann is concerned particularly with the apostolic proclamation, he places an unbearable strain on our credulity when he outrightly insists that the Gospel is mythical and yet makes the claim that by a process of de-mythologizing one may discover “the real meaning of the New Testament.” As far as history is concerned, the cross is merely the tragic end of a great man, and the resurrection itself is not an event of past history. Nevertheless, the cross and the resurrection are viewed as forming “a single, indivisible cosmic event” which we may experience as an event in the word of preaching as we acknowledge that by the grace of God we understand our existence in terms of being crucified and risen with Christ.

Considering how profoundly skeptical Bultmann is concerning the possibility of knowledge of the historical Jesus and his scornful repudiation of the Christian kerygma as that comes to us in the New Testament, we might expect that he would let Jesus go and frankly espouse a Christless religion or philosophy. Yet he does not do that. And it remains significant that, in spite of the centrifugal forces which drive him away from Jesus Christ, there remains an impact of Christian tradition which somewhat restrains this outward course.

There are, to be sure, many other scholars whose approach to Jesus and the gospel is far less skeptical and negative than that of Bultmann. Among such scholars a higher estimate of the trustworthiness of the gospel tradition prevails; and hence the Christian community is assigned a less creative or transforming influence. Nevertheless, among modern students of the New Testament generally we find the characteristic liberal failure to see the New Testament message as a unity or to accept it in its entirety. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this tendency is found in the fate of eschatology. For one of the most striking features of present-day thought about the New Testament is that, speaking generally, the clearer the apprehension of the inclusion of distinctively eschatological features in that message, the greater the insistence upon discounting or minimizing them. The latter may be done by “interpreting” them in terms of timelessness, as not only Bultmann but also Lohmeyer, Barth, and others have done. Or a similar result may be achieved by the approach of C. H. Dodd who, by interpretation and criticism, develops the formula of “realized eschatology.”

The defining of the gospel in Christocentric terms or in terms of salvation history is a highly salutary emphasis compared with that of the older Liberalism. Nevertheless, when the entire testimony of Scripture is not acknowledged as authoritative when Christ is not received in all the fullness of the testimony that the Scriptures contain. When his eschatological message is affirmed and denied at the same time, there may indeed be a poignant wrestling with the historical and personal problem of Jesus Christ and his meaning for us. But the element of pathos remains as long as men do not come to the place where with all their hearts they receive and embrace Jesus Christ as the Scriptures present him to us.

For the evangelical, the recognition of this factor should provide no basis whatever for conceit or complacency. First of all, he will be constrained to search his own mind and heart to see whether he has come fully to the place where he no longer sits in judgment upon Christ but rather is characterized by wholehearted commitment and submission to him. And then he will be deeply moved, as he contemplates with tears the pathos conspicuous in much of present-day religious faith, to rededicate himself to the ministry of reconciliation, a ministry which points men first of all to the manner in which in Christ God was reconciling the world unto himself and then beseeches them in Christ’s name to be reconciled unto God.

We Quote:

JOHN KNOX

Professor, Union Theological Seminary

The preacher’s message must be derived, not from current events or current literature or current trends of one sort or another, not from the pholosophers, the statesmen, or the poets, not even, in the last resort, from the preacher’s own experience or reflection, but from the Scriptures. There is, of course, nothing really new about this. That it needs to be said again, and with fresh emphasis, means only that preaching has departed in this respect from its own tradition.—In The Integrity of Preaching, p. 9.

Ned B. Stonehouse is Professor of New Testament and Dean of the Faculty, Westminster Theological Seminary. He is Editor of the New International Commentary on the New Testament and author of Paul Before the Areopagus.

Cover Story

The Headship of Christ

William Childs Robinson

The Headship of Christ is a biblical truth that has come to a fuller recognition in the Reformation and in the Reformed Church. All Christians profess Christ as the heavenly head of the Church. But clericalism in Roman Catholicism and its counterpart in other denominations, places the word of the church on a level with the word of her Lord. True Protestantism subordinates the decisions of the church to the voice of the Lord. For the evangelical, the church is the servant of the Lord, not his confidential adviser. The Headship of Christ carries the implication that the risen Redeemer, whose gracious presence brings forgiveness and spiritual life, is the sole King and the only Lawgiver in Zion.

Historical Setting

The high watermark of the Reformation was Luther’s act of hurling into the flames the canon law of the Roman Church, December 10, 1520. The lawyers stood aghast, for that law had ruled Europe for a millennium. Luther likewise realized the gravity of his act. He told his students that to continue to follow him would mean martyrdom for them as it would for him. But he also reminded them that since they now knew the Gospel, to forsake it meant Hell. Thus the authority of the Roman Curia was cast down; the word of the Saviour was to be the only rule in the Church of the Gospel.

Luther, in his way, took up the tradition of Wycliffe and the Hussites, even as in turn his glorious testimony was carried more completely into the government and worship of the Church by Zwingli, Calvin, Knox and the Scottish Kirk. Our Reformed heritage holds that the Holy Scriptures, as the mouth of the Lord, contain all that is necessary for Christian faith, life and worship.

The Evangelicals in Scotland sought a warrant from the Divine Writ for everything introduced into the government and worship of the Kirk. The Episcopalians and the Erastians acknowledged the mystical Headship of Christ over the individual believer, but the Presbyterians and the Evangelicals insisted, in addition to this mystical Headship, upon the juridical Headship, or Kingship, of Christ over his corporate people. For them the Bible was the ultimate constitution and the only lawbook for the Church.

The Biblical Basis

In his earthly ministry, our Lord affirmed his authority to forgive sins, to cast out demons, to set forth doctrine, to give eternal life, to execute judgment, to lay down his own life and to take it again. After his Resurrection, Jesus declared that all authority had been given unto him in heaven and on earth. At Pentecost, Peter pointed to him exalted to God’s right hand, as Lord and Christ, occupying there the throne of which David’s throne in old Jerusalem was the type. As a result of the work of Christ, Satan fell as lightning from heaven. In place of the adversary, there is now at God’s right hand the mediator, the prince and Savior who gives repentance and the remission of sins. “Now is come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ; for the accuser of his brethren is cast out” (Rev. 12:10). As a result of his life and death of obedience, Christ was given by the Father the name which is above every name, his own name of Lord. God has placed all things under his feet and given him in this plenitude of lordship to fill his body, the Church, with all things needful for her blessing and her ministries.

The Church is pervaded by his presence, animated by his spirit, filled with his life, energies and grace, governed by his authority and used as his instrument for bringing men into his all-embracing act of salvation. He is the sole head of the Church, which receives from him what he himself possesses and is endowed by him with all that she requires for the realization of her vocation.

Application To Life

Features of the application have already been indicated in this treatment. Fundamental in the thinking of our Scottish forebears was their conception of the proper attitude of a loyal heart to our gracious Savior and king. A loyal spirit cannot brook the thought that our King of Grace is niggardly in the provisions he has made for his people. Accordingly, the way of plenty and of progress in the church is the narrow way of the sole headship and kingship of the Lord Jesus Christ.

For one thing, the sole headship and kingship of Christ is placed over against any allegiance owed by the Church to any state. In 1638, the Kirk of Scotland unfurled a blue banner with the legend “For Christ’s Crown and Covenant.” Marshaled under this banner, the Kirk repelled the efforts of King Charles to force upon her officers a worship not warranted in the Word. In 1752, the Rev. Thomas Gillespie refused to share in the installation of Andrew Richardson at Inverkeithing because he was appointed by the patron against the will of the parishioners. In 1833, Dr. Thomas Chalmers led the Free Kirk out of a state control that enforced patronage. In the United States in 1861, the commissioners of the Southern Presbyteries organized what is now the Presbyterian Church in the United States as a protest against the effort to tie the allegiance of all Presbyterians to President Lincoln and the Federal government. In addition to the Southern organization, protest was filed against the 1861 loyalty resolutions by a minority in the Old School Assembly led by Dr. Charles Hodge. Moreover, the 1953 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America recognized that its majority action in 1861 was in error.

Calvin sets forth two governments, Church and State, each ordained by God, neither subject to the other. The Christian is subject to the one as a believer, to the other as a citizen. Under the sole Kingship of Christ, the Church is subject neither to the Roman Pope, nor to the British King, nor to the American President, nor to a German Fuhrer nor to any communist dictator.

A Specific Commission

Second, the Church recognizes the Headship of Christ in seeking to do only those things which he has commissioned her to do. As she receives Christ’s righteousness by his saving presence, so also the Holy Spirit makes her his instrument to preach his word, mortify the flesh and manifest his love to men. The Church is not in the world to find problems to solve or issues on which to pass resolutions. She has her gospel given her by God, the proclamation of Christ as prophet, as priest and as king, the testimony to the grace of his coming in humiliation and the glory of his coming in power. She is commissioned to offer the Gospel of free salvation through his atonement, to expound the word to his body, to be the pillar and ground of the truth, to carry the evangel to all nations. It is not her business to carry out every good thing that needs doing in the governmental, international, economic, social or political structure of the world.

Sufficiency Of Scripture

Third, the Headship of Christ proclaims the Holy Scriptures as the unique and sufficient rule of faith, of practice and of worship. The Church is not merely to give pious advice, neither is she a lawmaking body. She is a court to declare, rather than a legislature to make, laws. She is to declare, administer and enforce the law of Christ given in the word. Without a scriptural warrant she can make no requirement binding the consciences of men. Those who seek to legislate on their own authority are reminded that it is a man-sized job to get people to live according to the Bible—without adding to it. We can err in interpreting and applying Scripture; we multiply error when we first make our own laws and then use the Church of God to enforce them. Accordingly, nothing ought to be regarded as a matter of offense or as a cause for discipline in the Church except that which can be shown to be contrary to the word of God.

The King’s Orders

Fourth, the Headship of Christ is recognized in the effort to conform worship and government to those things the king has provided in his word. The injunction against worshipping graven images is united with and to some extent hidden under the First Commandment in the Roman Catholic and Lutheran numbering but is given full force as the Second Commandment in the Reformed faith. With this emphasis, the Reformed Church has sought to introduce into God’s worship only those things provided in his word. Pictures have pedagogical value, but God has not ordained them to be used as aids in his worship. We would tread the courts of the Most High only in the ways of his ordering. The Good Book is also the book of common worship, the book of etiquette instructing us in how we ought to conduct ourselves in the court of the King of Kings.

Similarly, the question of what officers the Church ought to have, and whether they are to men or women, is first of all a question of the ordering of the King. The Church is not in the first place a democracy, but a theocracy (1 Cor. 12:28), a Christocracy (Eph. 4:11), a pneumatocracy (Acts 20:28). Thus the election of officers in a congregation is not democracy’s right to choose whom she would as her spokesmen; but God’s trusting the priesthood of believers to elect those men who have the marks he has laid down for their respective offices.

Finally, the Headship of Christ means that the officers of his ordaining receive their positions, empowering gifts, authority and equipment from the Lord Jesus, and to him they are primarily responsible. The ministers and elders in the Church are the representatives of the people, but they are also the delegates of Christ.

They are not lords over God’s heritage, but servants of him who came not to be served but to serve and to give his life a ransom for many. The chosen rulers are those whom he has called, equipped with his Holy Spirit, and given to the Church to minister to her. They can minister effectively only as the Holy Spirit mediates to them and through them the living Christ with his saving work. And he does this not by making Christ or his Church subservient to the plans of men, but by calling us into his program and using us for the promotion of his kingdom of grace.

William Childs Robinson has been Professor of Historical Theology at Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Ga., since 1926. He is the author of numerous works, including Christ the Hope of Glory, Who Say Ye That I Am and Christ the Bread of Life. He holds a Th.D. degree from Harvard University and has studied abroad at the University of Basel.

Cover Story

Do We Want a Giant Church?

Gilbert M. Savery

As a Protestant layman I have come to the firm belief A that ecumenicity of spirit and purpose is more to be desired than organic union of our American churches. I assume that Protestant pastors and laymen are equally concerned about organizational changes that occur as church mergers take place.

If our ecumenical movement does not lead us in this direction of spiritual ecumenicity, I think Protestantism will lose much of its richest heritage. The over-all aim of Protestants, it seems to me, is to unite on the very highest levels, ideologically, and to be able to present a unified voice on major social, economic and political issues facing our nation.

The Big And The Dictatorial

The trick is to accomplish this worthy goal without pushing the layman aside—to have all the advantages of the “one voice” idea without damaging the individual’s relationship to his God and to his church. The problem revolves, in part, around the task of becoming big without becoming dictatorial; of becoming part of a greater whole and still retaining effective, independent self-expression.

We were discussing this at home one evening. In our town the daily newspapers carry rather complete reports of the annual church meetings: elections of officers, fixing of budgets, reports of progress and outlines of goals ahead. My father, for more than 40 years a clergyman, noted that the bishop of the Catholic diocese had announced his appointments to the diocesan boards. This encompassed many parishes and symbolized in one act the authoritarian character of a “one voice” church. How different from the democratic actions of the various Protestant groups who had elected their officers and outlined their own plans in free discussion.

There probably is no great ground swell toward organic union. There may not be a popular demand at the grass roots for further mergers of our American denominations. But we all know that the forces of ecumenicity (of which we ourselves may proudly be a part) are at work. It is timely, therefore, to ask questions about the nature of the unity that may be contemplated. The man in the pew and the man in the pulpit have a stake in the decisions that are to be made.

The Dictates From On High

Who will run united Protestantism? Will it be democratically governed? What role will laymen play? How important and how effective will be the voices of individual churches? How rigid will be the dictates from on high? In short, will control be vested in the hands of only a few men?

Let me illustrate the importance of these questions in regard to a specific problem raised by organic merger of two denominations. About ten years ago my denomination (United Brethren in Christ) united with another (Evangelical) in a merger supported with equal enthusiasm, I would say, by clergy and laymen alike. It was a logical development. There were no great creedal differences, and historically the two churches had traveled parallel paths.

I know, as everyone close to such mergers knows, that compromises must often be made in the interests of unity. In this instance one of the things which underwent re-examination was the united denomination’s policies and programs for higher education. Two seminaries now operate instead of three. One college has been closed in an attempt at economy and efficiency. Although many factors were involved in the decision to close the one school (through merger with another), the important fact is that its board of trustees repeatedly voted to replace a building destroyed by fire and to continue operation of the school on an expanded basis while, at the same time, the general church board controlling the funds for the colleges insisted that it be closed. This insistence was made effective by the board’s cutting off denominational grants essential to the school’s survival.

It can be argued, and with some cogency, that this was merely a matter of judgment. With this I do not disagree. But the important point here is that the centralized body exercised the final judgment over the repeated protests of the local governing body.

Laymen are concerned about such things. It is obvious that because of their daily work, laymen cannot generally spend as much time with commissions, boards or committees on a national level or even on a state level, as they can with their local churches. The same is true of the average small parish pastor. It is my contention, then, that organic union and centralization of authority do indeed represent a genuine threat to Protestantism.

Drifting Toward Control

To me, it appears there is likely to be a drift toward high-level ecclesiastical control of church business and policy.

That this potential shift to increased concentration of power is present concerns those within and outside the church because of the very considerable effect that church thought and action have on the nation’s economic and political life—to say nothing of their effect on the development of the spiritual man.

Dr. Elton Trueblood sees this as an age of growing importance for the layman. But it is my observation that the lay movement and the ecclesiastically engineered church mergers are not nicely meshed so that the church will move “like a mighty army.”

Layman’s Point Of View

Looking at the problem from the layman’s point of view, it seems to me that it is basic in Protestantism that we retain every particle of democracy we can as we move toward a union of faith and action.

It should be emphasized, as I see it, that almost all Christendom is working toward the union of Christ’s Church in accordance with varying interpretations of the universally accepted belief that Christ is its Head. Therefore, discussion turns not upon the desirability of unity but, rather, on how it should be accomplished and of what it should consist.

Our councils of churches, at various levels, are finding common fields of action. This is greatly to be desired. It is perhaps a natural consequence that one after another our great Protestant bodies are exploring the idea of organic union and often achieving it. However, in church government, as in civil government, it is axiomatic that the larger the governing unit, the smaller the voice of the individual.

The net effect of larger denominations is to remove laymen still farther from the points where decisions are made, leaving the higher eschelon clergy in more powerful control of church policy, creed and government. This I oppose.

Would it be heretical to suggest that in a large measure the Church as Christ wanted it may already be established in the hearts and minds of Christian believers and that organic union is not an essential to its fulfillment?

It has been said (perhaps too often) that democracy and Christianity have much in common. They both stress initiative, provide freedom of expression, emphasize equality of opportunity and are based on the inherent value of the individual. I am not eager to say that the Christian faith can operate only in the political and economic framework of democracy. But I do say that the layman can best practice his religion in an atmosphere of freedom and that this is one of the great reasons America has achieved a place of world leadership, imperfect though this may be.

Thus I believe that the layman plays an important role in God’s plan. Possibly Christ would be distressed were he to see the multiplicity of methods, creeds and rituals used in worshipping him. But he might overlook the mere mechanics of man’s approach to him if he saw the pathway clear for each man to find his way to worship God. There are almost 250 Protestant denominations in the United States today. And yet, even with the vehicle of representative government provided by many of them, the layman has little voice in state, national or world church administration.

Without Organic Union?

If the end we seek in promoting ecumenicity is spiritual unity, can it not be achieved without organic union? Or, if there are forces promoting religious regimentation, can they achieve it more effectively by any means other than organic union?

Should the ecumenical movement result only in the building of church giants or one giant Protestant church, we might some day face the threat of a Protestant hierarchy having in it the seeds of regimentation and unyielding authoritarianism.

A Fellowship Of The Spirit

The ecumenical movement, in my opinion, will serve both God and man best if it develops as a fellowship of the spirit. A centralization of religious organization and thought is as dangerous to Protestantism as similar trends are to democracy in the realm of civil government.

It is not to be supposed that leaders of contemplated or effected church mergers are guilty of willful designs against a democratic Protestantism. I prefer to believe that all church mergers are motivated by the highest of Christian ethical standards, and perhaps they are, but there is the omnipresent danger of spiritual democracy being sacrificed on the altar of organizational bigness.

The long-range dangers are real enough, however, to be of genuine concern to clerics and laymen alike who are charged equally with the burden of carrying out the Christian mission. Anything less than this cooperative spirit is unworthy of the Protestant tradition and unworthy, too, of Christ who had to enlist imperfect men of his age to do his work.

An active Christian layman, Gilbert M. Savery has been news editor of the Lincoln Evening Journal in Nebraska for 13 years, and formerly edited its church page. He works at close range with the Nebraska Council of Churches, and is an active member of his home church in Lincoln, Southminster Evangelical United Brethren Church.

Cover Story

The Man from Outer Space

James M. Guthrie

And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice (John 10:16).

I had never taken much interest in speculation concerning space ships, space men, flying saucers and such. And yet the moment that the man appeared at my study door I knew that he was not of the earth. It was not that he differed greatly from earth men in physical characteristics. There was nothing grotesque or frightening about his appearance. He was a superb physical specimen. It was the radiance about his face which convinced me that here was a visitor from another planet. He possessed that quality which the medieval artists sought to portray when they painted halos on the saints.

His first words confirmed my deduction. “Excuse me, sir,” he said, “I am from outer space. My car is in the field west of the church.” His “car” proved to be a flying saucer surprisingly similar to the type portrayed in current fiction.

“I am a free-lance journalist,” he went on, “working on a feature. I want to visit some of the places on earth where people have not heard of Christ. Perhaps you will be so kind as to be my guide?”

“Do YOU know about Christ?” I asked.

“Oh, yes,” he replied. “There is but one God of the universe. He revealed himself to our planet just as he did to Earth by sending his only begotten Son as our Savior. Everything about his incarnation was just the same as it was at Bethlehem. The remainder of the story is the same also; the Savior died for our sins and arose again. The only difference is that our people have accepted what Christ has done. The first disciples were faithful in their witness, and others since then have been just as faithful. It was not long until all of the kingdoms of our planet became the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, and he is today enthroned in every heart. Oh, yes; we know about Christ!”

He paused, and I reflected that this brief statement made many things plain. This was the secret of the radiance of his personality. All of his fellows would have that same glow. This too was the explanation of their advanced state of intellectual development, their superiority in the field of science as evidenced in their conquest of the space barrier. With everyone serving Christ their energies would not have been devastated in war or ravaged by poverty and disease.

My guest was speaking again. “Our people have difficulty in conceiving of life where Christ is not known. If you will accompany me as my guide to a few such places I will be obliged.”

In a few moments we were in his car, as he called it, and were hurtling through space. As we went my companion told me something of his way of life, and I realized that compared with ours his should be spelled with a capital “L.” He was enjoying what Jesus had envisioned when he said, “I am come that you might have life, and that you might have it more abundantly.” I saw that the glorious prophecies of Isaiah had been literally fulfilled upon his planet: “The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together”; “They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord”; “The whole earth shall be full of his glory.”

We touched down first in Japan. A missionary friend took us to a remote mountain community of 10,000 persons not one of whom is a professing Christian. A huge Shinto shrine dominates the town. The shrine is served by more than 200 priests who preside at the mechanical rituals which have little or no religious significance. While the people here were outwardly cheerful there was an air of depressing hopelessness which made us sad. I thought that the community was a good example of a place where Christ was unknown, but my friend from outer space did not agree. “It is true that these people do not know Christ, never having heard his name; but,” he said, “even this remote community in a heathen land is not untouched by Christian civilization. The hospital, although pitifully inadequate, would not be here had Christ not come to earth. The schools reflect an inspiration which Shintoism failed to produce in 2000 years. These are byproducts of western civilization, which is itself a byproduct of Christianity.”

So I guided him to the fastness of inner Mongolia to an area so remote that I could have believed myself on another planet. I explained to my friend that it was reported that not even the Communists had yet penetrated to this region. He looked at me strangely and made a remark which haunts me still. “Even the Communists, did you say? Am I to infer that the Communists excel the Christians in missionary zeal and enterprise?” Well, we would not find any westernizing influence here. The people were so primitive that I was fearful what our reception might be. To my relief we were received with grave courtesy and kindness. I was astounded to discover that a few of the people could converse with us. A long time ago a white man had come to them and lived among them. He had given them a book, and had taught a few of them his language that they might read the book. This they were still doing. They brought the book to us, an ancient copy of the Holy Bible! There was no temple, or shrine or church in that place; only a Bible. Distorted as their understanding of the book was it was a light in the darkness, and they were walking in it. All of the darkness of that vast continent had not put out that tiny light.

My friend from outer space was deeply impressed by what we had discovered, but still we had not found a place untouched by Christian influence.

I took him next to India. He felt that I was wasting his time in taking him there. “You have had missionaries at work in India for well over 100 years,” he said. “They labored unhampered under the benevolent encouragement of the British government. Surely you have made an impression upon the people of this land.” When I reported that after more than a century of missionary labors less than one percent of the people of India are nominally Christian he was incredulous.

We flew low over the great plains of that huge subcontinent and observed thousands of villages many of which I knew had never heard of Christ. I told my friend how India is a land of contrasts and of inconsistencies; that abject poverty and immense wealth exist side by side. The religion of India is largely Hindu. The Hindus believe that life is sacred. They believe that life is so sacred that nothing is to be killed. A holy man will permit a louse or a flea to drive him half crazy rather than take its life. They do not destroy vermin or harmful bacteria or tubercular cattle or rabid animals. Life is too sacred to destroy so they stand by in apparent indifference as millions of human beings die of famine or of plague.

My friend was deeply shocked. “And you have not given them Christ?” he said, accusingly.

“Oh, but we have tried!” I protested.

“Have you indeed?” he asked coldly. “Have you given yourselves to Christ in complete commitment and abandonment of self that the lost might be won to him, or have you only given a little of your gold?”

In the heart of Africa we saw other people who had never heard of Christ. The darkness in which these tribes dwell is appalling. These animists live in abject fear of evil spirits and are under the domination of cruel witch doctors who exploit their superstition. As we observed their bondage to fear we recalled how Jesus had said, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Yet here we were nineteen centuries later among people none of whom as yet had been given the truth of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Suddenly the man from outer space was seized with fury. He fairly seethed, and I was taken with surprise that such a man as he was capable of such wrath. He had discovered that the penetration of commercial interests was greater than the penetration of the Gospel. We found Standard Oil and Coca-Cola where there was no chapel and no good news of salvation.

“I can’t believe it!” he cried. “My people will never believe that Christians with the means to make Christ known, and the opportunity, would be less enterprising and less determined than are commercial interests in marketing their product. Is it nothing to you Christians in America that these live and die in darkness?”

At last we were headed back over the Atlantic. It had been a harrowing experience for me because of my friend’s accusing observations. They were painfully true.

He asked to see our greatest city. We found it frantic with preparations for Christmas. We mingled with the surging crowds of Christmas shoppers; shoving, elbowing people with faces hard or haggard. We heard muttered curses. My friend again became agitated as he had in central Africa. I guided him to the sanctuary of the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church where we were sheltered from the press.

“What has this to do with Christmas?” he demanded. “How did this madness ever become a part of your commemoration of the birth of the Savior?”

I was at a loss for an answer. I did not tell him that there in New York City, U.S.A., we were in the midst of the greatest concentration of lost souls to be found anywhere this side of Hell.

We were silent as we sped home, and he bid me an almost silent good-by. I am certain that he was glad to get away.

I am haunted by the sadness of his eyes—almost pity it was, as he looked at me and then looked at the church behind me, its cross topped spire beautiful against the evening sky.

I wondered what sort of a story he would write.

And then I found myself back at my desk, the words of my Sunday’s sermon text before me: “All authority has been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always even unto the end of the world.”

James M. Guthrie, D.D., is pastor of Westminster United Presbyterian Church, Marion, Indiana.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube