Dedication ceremonies were held on the new campuses of four Protestant seminaries this fall. The services climaxed campus relocation programs for three of the schools: Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, Bethany Theological Seminary, and Northern Baptist Theological Seminary. Bethany, belonging to the Church of the Brethren, and Northern, which is American Baptist, are next-door neighbors on the plains of Illinois at Oakbrook, just west of Chicago.

Waterloo Lutheran Seminary in Waterloo, Ontario, also has a completely new facility. A $515,000 structure replaces an old building that was torn down.

The new Louisville seminary campus embraces nine buildings erected at a total cost of $4,500,000. They are situated on a thirty-acre plot overlooking Cherokee Park in Louisville. The seminary is operated jointly by the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (Southern), and the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. Two dedication services, including a service of thanksgiving, were held in October.

The Church of the Brethren dedicated its $3,000,000 Oakbrook campus on November 11. Designed for an enrollment of 250, Bethany Theological Seminary now has a complex of eleven buildings. To help pay the costs, the 1,070 Church of the Brethren congregations across the nation conducted special offerings on Sunday, November 10. Bethany is the denomination’s only theological seminary. It was founded in 1905 and until last summer was located on an acre and a half on Chicago’s Near West Side.

Northern Baptist Theological Seminary also had been located in Chicago before its move to Oakbrook. Five buildings have already been completed on the new campus, and more are to come. Present value is nearly $2,000,000. An anonymous challenge gift of $300,000 launched a development campaign which netted nearly $900,000. A three-day campus dedication ceremony was held at the end of September.

The seminary at Waterloo dates back to 1911. Out of it grew Waterloo Lutheran University, which started as a secondary school in 1914. The seminary now claims to be the major center in Canada for the training of Lutheran pastors. It has facilities for a maximum of seventy-five theological students. The dedication was held October 20.

All of the new seminary campuses are of contemporary design. Waterloo, however, has an inside courtyard with classical proportions and includes a garden and walk reminiscent of Old World monastery gardens.

Louisville Presbyterian and Bethany are fully accredited by the American Association of Theological Schools. Northern Baptist and Waterloo are understood to be applying for such accreditation.

Coffee Break

Along Melrose Avenue in Knoxville, Tennessee, stands an old mansion which has been the focal point of a major Presbyterian controversy. Situated across the street from the University of Tennessee campus, the building houses the Presbyterian Center, designed to provide a spiritual outreach for students. For thirteen years it was operated jointly by synods of the two major Presbyterian denominations. Citing “unresolved differences,” a special commission empowered by the Appalachia Synod of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. announced last month that it was withdrawing its 60-per-cent share of the support.

The center first came under fire when a Knoxville newspaper, the Journal, charged that the center was linked with the Highlander Educational and Research Center, reputedly a left-wing organization. After prolonged unfavorable publicity regarding the center the Appalachia Synod named a sixteen-member special study commission with the power to take appropriate action. The United Presbyterian Synod of Mid-South, which provided 40 per cent of the center’s operating funds, issued an unqualified endorsement of the project and its leader, the Rev. Ewell J. Reagin.

The commission’s investigation, meanwhile, took four months. The official announcement of withdrawal from the project gave no specific reasons for the action. It did specify that the action did not imply that “the director of the center has been or is disloyal to our country.”

The commission’s unanimous vote to withdraw was understood to be based on theological issues and a lack of a positive witness at the center. The members felt that the center’s approach to spiritual matters in both administration and program was not the one best calculated to honor God, bear witness for the Church, or inspire faith in the integrity and authority of the Scriptures. Many people in Knoxville thought that a coffee house run by the center was pervaded by a beatnik air with little or no positive evangelical message. When questioned by the commission as to his theological convictions, Reagin said his long ties with Presbyterianism constituted a sufficient answer (he was first ordained as a Cumberland Presbyterian clergyman, later as a United Presbyterian).

Informed of the decision by the commission of the Appalachia Synod, a spokesman for the Synod of Mid-South expressed regret and charged that the commission had “fixed new confessional demands upon this work that have not existed before.”

The center apparently will continue operations with all of its support coming from United Presbyterians. It has not yet been determined whether the Appalachia Synod will establish another center of its own for Tennessee students.

Ivy League Assignment

Evangelist Billy Graham spent two days on the campus of Princeton University and the adjacent Princeton Theological Seminary this month. He spoke several times at meetings attended by faculty members as well as students.

Graham has a number of speaking engagements during the winter, but no major crusades until next spring. He has said he will spend most of his time in the United States during the next year or two. In London, however, a group of seventy distinguished laymen led by Lord Luke met at lunch this month and passed unanimously a resolution urging Graham to hold a crusade there in 1965.

Compromise For Colleges

The fate of a $1,195,000,000 college aid bill that would provide federal grants and loans to church-related schools as well as to public institutions was in the hands of the U. S. Senate this month.

The Senate had already passed a college aid bill providing for judicial review of the constitutionality of aid to church-related colleges. A Senate-House conference threw out the provision, and the House immediately passed the compromise bill. It was then turned over to the Senate. No amendments can be made on the floor.

Bibles For Campuses

The American Bible Society is launching a new “campus ministry” to increase Scripture distribution among students. Dr. Arthur P. Whitney, a Methodist clergymen, is national secretary of the project.

Prosperity, Power, And Peril

Here is the text of President Kennedy’s 1963 Thanksgiving Proclamation:

Over three centuries ago, our forefathers in Virginia and Massachusetts, far from home in a lonely wilderness, set aside a time of thanksgiving. On the appointed day, they gave reverent thanks for their safety, for the health of their children, for the fertility of their fields, for the love which bound them together and for the faith which united them with their God.

So too when the colonies achieved their independence, our first President in the first year of his first Administration proclaimed November 26, 1789, as “a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God” and called upon the people of the new republic to “beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions … to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue … and generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.”

And so too, in the midst of America’s tragic civil war, President Lincoln proclaimed the last Thursday of November 1863 as a day to renew our gratitude for America’s “fruitful fields,” for our “national strength and vigor,” and for all our “singular deliverances and blessings.”

Much time has passed since the first colonists came to rocky shores and dark forests of an unknown continent, much time since President Washington led a young people in the experience of nationhood, much time since President Lincoln saw the American nation through the ordeal of fraternal war—and in these years our population, our plenty and our power have all grown apace. Today we are a nation of nearly two hundred million souls, stretching from coast to coast, on into the Pacific and north toward the Arctic, a nation enjoying the fruits of an ever-expanding agriculture and industry and achieving standards of living unknown in previous history. We give our humble thanks for this.

Yet, as our power has grown, so has our peril. Today we give our thanks, most of all, for the ideals of honor and faith we inherit from our forefathers—for the decency of purpose, steadfastness of resolve and strength of will, for the courage and the humility, which they possessed and which we must seek every day to emulate.

As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words but to live by them.

Let us therefore proclaim our gratitude to Providence for manifold blessings—let us be humbly thankful for inherited ideals—and let us resolve to share those blessings and those ideals with our fellow human beings throughout the world.

Now, therefore, I, John F. Kennedy, President of the United States of America in consonance with the joint resolution of the Congress approved December 26, 1941, 55 Stat. 862 (5 U.S.C. 87b), designating the fourth Thursday of November in each year as Thanksgiving Day, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 28, 1963, as a day of national thanksgiving.

On that day let us gather in sanctuaries dedicated to worship and in homes blessed by family affection to express our gratitude for the glorious gifts of God; and let us earnestly and humbly pray that He will continue to guide and sustain us in the great unfinished tasks of achieving peace, justice, and understanding among all men and nations and of ending misery and suffering wherever they exist.

One of the most difficult lessons for the Christian to learn is that his salvation rests solely on what Christ has done and not one whit on any activity in which he himself may engage.

Readily admitting that Christ is Saviour and Lord, we may still have lurking in the back of our minds the feeling that we can add something to the certainty of our position before God by what we do.

From this fallacy there comes the frenetic activity of some in assuming church responsibilities—activity which, in the minds of many, is equated with being a “good Christian.”

As a result, in the eyes of the world as a whole Christianity is equated with what men do, not with what Christ has done.

We can hear the hurried rejoinder that if Christians do not work for their Lord they are very poor Christians, and to this we enter a hearty “Amen.” The Church is plagued with Christians who do nothing, people who if they are finally prevailed upon to do something in or for the Church feel that in so doing they are being good Christians.

If we search our own minds and hearts, most of us will agree that our activities, no matter how spontaneous they may be, generate within us a feeling of self-satisfaction in which the idea of merit lurks dangerously.

It is possible that the most difficult truth for man to comprehend is that he is saved by God’s grace—through faith—and by nothing else. Obedience, resulting from faith, leads to Christian behavior, which includes how Christians act and what they do to honor their God; but behind all of this and underneath as its sure and abiding foundation is the completeness of the work of Christ in redeeming men from sin and making them righteous in God’s sight.

There are some who regard this as a dangerous doctrine; they feel that man is then left too much to his own devices and therefore may neglect his duties as a Christian.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Once a person realizes the overwhelming fact that Christ offers full pardon and redemption solely on the ground of what He has done, and not on the ground of what man himself might do, his reaction is a surge of love and gratitude and a desire to serve with all he possesses.

The weakness of the witness of the Church today stems in large measure from a failure to stress the complete and soul-satisfying work of Christ on the Cross. Because of this we find ourselves trying to produce counterfeit “christs,” people who go about “being Christians” by something they do.

In fact, the word “Christian” is one of the most misused and misunderstood in the English language. Men are often spoken of as being “great Christians” because of their humanitarian activities, their work for world peace, or other services rendered for the public good, when as a matter of fact none of these things, singly or in conjunction with the others, has anything to do with being a Christian.

Because of the selfless devotion of some Christians and their impact on the generation they have served, that which they have done has been confused with Christianity itself. But they would be the first to affirm that their work has been the fruit of their Christian faith, not its root.

We have before us a letter from a father, a man caught up in the activities of his local church to the point where he rarely has an evening at home. He writes that he had regarded such activities as an evidence of his own Christianity until one evening his little boy begged him, “Daddy, why don’t you stay home some time and play with us?”

There came over this man with a rush the realization that he had misinterpreted his Christian duties to the point of neglecting his primary duty before God as a parent.

We once were present when one woman asked another if she was a Christian. Her reply sounded like a joke, but it was pitifully revealing: “Heck yes; don’t I help with the rummage sale every Saturday morning?”

Amusing? No! You and I too often harbor similar ideas as to what it means to be a Christian. We think that because we are active in God’s service we are in some strange way transformed into Christians. But the fact remains that we become Christians by accepting what Christ has done for us—and by nothing else.

The Apostle Paul states this many times, nowhere more clearly than in these words: “He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior” (Tit. 3:5, 6, RSV).

Phillips reinforces this thought by his translation, “He saved us—not by virtue of any moral achievements of ours.” In another place Phillips translates: “But even though we were dead in our sins God was so rich in mercy that he gave us the very life of Christ (for it is, remember, by grace and not by achievement that you are saved)” (Eph. 2:4, 5). To put it another way, man’s salvation rests in believing, not achieving.

Any doctrine less than this detracts from the work of Christ and is contrary to the divine revelation. But many think of it as a dangerous doctrine, one which will lead men to “accept Christ and stop right there.” This is not the case; we repeat that we believe the Church is weak today because too many in it fail to rest solely on the finished work of Christ and go out to add something to it.

Stressing the admonition to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,” we ignore the words which immediately follow: “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12b, 13).

Why then should this stressing of the complete work of Christ be considered “dangerous”? Is it not because there is the fear that Christians might lie down on the job of being Christians? But it should be remembered that once a person realizes the overwhelming magnitude of what Christ has done for him, this divine love will constrain him to go out and serve God with everything he has.

If we just stop to realize that ours is no half-way salvation, that Christ’s death on the Cross offers no partial redemption but that God offers to all mankind complete and eternal life through the finished work of his Son—then we are in a position to go out and live for his glory and the good of our fellow man.

On the other hand, permit even an iota of reservation as to the completeness of Christ’s redemption and we find ourselves working to save ourselves, clad not in the robes of His righteousness but in the rags of the unregenerate, and beating the air in the futility of human endeavor.

The utter completeness of Christ’s work is hard to grasp; but from it proceed true Christians, and true Christian activity.

ARE YOU LISTENIN’?

On Euclid Avenue there is a diner called the Beef Snak Coffee Shoppe (très intime). I was in there late one night last week chomping away on a beef snak with onions, and nit-picking among my streams of consciousness, when happily my eye fell on a spare copy of The Metal Workers News. Late at night in East Cleveland, it seemed worthwhile to catch up on the metal workers’ game, and I really was impressed with the number of things I didn’t know a thing about. There were even pictures of men who have “made good” in terms of the standards upheld by The Metal Workers News.

I was reminded again that in Pike County, Kentucky, there is a newspaper called The Pike County News with the sub-heading, “The only newspaper in the world devoted to the best interests of Pike County.” Rumor has it that the newspaper in Bath, England, is called The Bath Observer, and I am glad to report this. Up at Ravenna, Ohio, they used to have a sign outside town that said: “The Home of the World’s Highest Flag Pole.” A good friend of mine knows of one town that advertises itself as “The Home of Jim Greengrass”; but this same friend said that he asked a youngster one time, “Isn’t this the home of Dizzy Dean?,” and this youngster said, “Who’s Dizzy Dean?” Mutatis mutandis. “The world is so full of a number of things, I’m sure we should all be as happy as kings”; and if God is even half as much interested in his creation as I am, he must have, among other possibilities, a very interesting life.

The word is around that it is time “for the Church to listen to the world,” and this I would be very happy to do if I could find out what the world is saying. “The common people heard Him gladly,” and this was one of the wonderful things about him: but it seems to me that the world is to listen to him and not the other way around. I don’t think the world has anything to tell us except that some are confused and many are lost.

EUTYCHUS II

RACIAL INTERMARRIAGE

The editorial on racial intermarriage (Oct. 11 issue) rightly asserts that “the Christian Church seems to be offering little guidance in the matter” and that “no argument can safely be drawn one way or the other.” The responsibility of the Church, however, seems to lie in this area of guidance rather than argument. The need is for positive leadership in guidance rather than negative argumentation. The dangers and pressures of the interracial marriage must be pointed out, but a greater need exists in the Church’s willingness to accept and love those whom society or ethnic groups frown upon. It is within these situations that the Church must rise to the occasion to welcome and accept those whose marital choice has left them without a racial home.…

P. DOUGLAS KINDSCHI

Chicago, Ill.

Your editorial sounded like something from the Afrikaans leadership in South Africa.

LAWRENCE VAN HEERDEN

First Baptist

Williamson, N. Y.

Though I consider myself an agnostic and do not profess a belief in any Christian faith, I wish to say that I consider that article the best exposition on the subject that I have seen or can imagine being written.

A. W. BLAIR

Peoria, Ill.

Your contention that “neighbor love is a matter of justice, of giving another his due, of fulfilling the law …” runs tragically counter to the statement of Jesus, “Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself.” Jesus’ idea of neighborly love was specifically illustrated in the story of the good Samaritan, and this amplification of neighborly love leaves no room for “legalistic love” or race-conscious pride. The same concept of love is in no way legalized or diluted by Paul’s First Corinthians arguments for the excellence of love in all human relations.

Fortunately for the presentation of Christ and his Gospel there are Christians whose love for their Negro brethren goes beyond the legal requirements of this “neighbor love” on which you have reported. I wonder if such Christians are sinning by doing more than your legal type of love requires?

CHARLES R. ATWATER

Sterling, Kan.

Most opposition to interracial marriage is voiced in such terms that it incites people believing in equal justice to advocate interracial marriage. This opposition assumes that the white race is so superior that interracial marriage degrades (or “mongrelizes”) it. They forget that “hybridization” can also produce strains superior to either parental strain.

MARCIUS E. TABER

Pentwater, Mich.

It is extremely heartbreaking to realize that we of Negro blood constitute such a problem when the subject of intermarriage is discussed. If God had made us less human and less innately able to achieve than you of the white race, we would rest content with our inferior constitution and not wonder for a moment why the subject of intermarriage with us creates such a controversy.

I agree with your article generally, but I think it betrays drastic weaknesses in an hour when the Church of our Lord Jesus should make unequivocal statements about the race problem for the sake of its own testimony to the world.… God has stated his will absolutely by stating that he created man in His own image (this includes the Negro) and made a female answering to him for marriage. In addition, nowhere in the Bible does God complicate the matter on the basis of race alone. (God forbade the intermarriage between the Jew and the Gentile to maintain the purity of the Mosaic religion.) …

The editor suggests that it may be “an act of gross lovelessness to thrust a [mulatto] child involuntarily into a scornful society.” I take issue with this argument against a racially diverse marriage for these reasons: (1) practically all children born to Negro mates are thrust out involuntarily upon a scornful society. Would the editor for that reason suggest that Negroes should not marry one another and have children? (2) Jewish children are thrust out involuntarily upon a Jew-hating society. Would the editor suggest for that reason that Jews should not marry one another and have children?

ROLAND C. WROTEN

Pine Street Baptist Church

Scranton, Pa.

Paul in saying “all one in Christ,” was speaking of grace, not race.

ESTELLE MURRAY

Leadon, Pa.

You cited the Book of Revelation and Acts 17:26 with regard to tribes, tongues, and nations. Does exegesis actually yield the concept of “race” on which American society has been leaning for the last several centuries? I think not.

In another place you say, “It is not Christianity’s mission to provide a panacea for a pagan world that seeks solution of its problems while it persists in rejecting Christ.” Perhaps they have rejected the message of grace because we have not been gracious. Perhaps the early Church had such a profound influence on the pagan world round about because of willingness to care for babies who had been left to die by unloving pagan parents. Perhaps we have gotten into the habit of retreating from the earthy problems of life.

JAMES B. WHITE

Philadelphia, Pa.

So few of those who favor integration give proper consideration to the near certainty that removal of barriers between Negro and white will result in a good deal of intermarriage. The so-called race problem is essentially a matter of cultural differences. There are genuine cultural differences between middle-class American culture and the culture of Negro Americans. Some characteristics of American Negro culture are due to their confinement to the lower socioeconomic levels, and in this respect their attitudes and behaviors are similar to those of lower-class whites. (In this connection it is well to remember that middle-class whites often discriminate against lower-class whites.) …

If, then, we manage to break the bonds of the Negroes, they will become culturally like middle-class whites, and we may expect people who are culturally similar to marry one another regardless of the minor physical hereditary differences.… There is no question but that racial intermarriage in a society which frowns upon it may have regrettable consequences for both parents and children. We must ask ourselves, however, whether we are prepared to deny the Negro his legitimate rights simply because of the … suffering of a transition period.

ROBERT B. TAYLOR

Manhattan. Kan.

The While Man’s Creed: I believe in God the White Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, who came into the world as the Saviour of the white man. I believe the white man to be the custodian of the world’s wealth and wisdom, chief governing official in all areas where humans gather, inspiration and strength of all peoples everywhere. I believe members of all other races and colors should render homage to the white man, thanking him each day for favors given, and to have no other desire than to serve him. I believe in the holy, universal white church, the communion of white saints, and the life everlasting in a white heaven. And now abideth Little Rock, Old Miss, and Birmingham, these three, but the greatest of these is Birmingham.

JOHN ROSSEL

The Federated Church of Harvey Congregational and Presbyterian

Harvey, Ill.

BAPTIST PRESS AND BILLY GRAHAM

Re “The Crowded Coliseum” (News, Sept. 27 issue) and the statement that the press service of his own denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, “practically ignores” Billy Graham:

Far from it! Baptist Press reports the numerous occasions when he speaks to some meeting or is connected with some event in the Southern Baptist Convention. Since his worldwide activities otherwise are amply covered by Associated Press, we do not try to duplicate their stories. The twenty-eight Southern Baptist state papers (circulation 1.6 million) gladly give generous space to his far-flung crusades.

W. C. FIELDS

Public Relations Secretary

Southern Baptist Convention

Nashville, Tenn.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS

It appears to me that the present administration is fast turning this country into a welfare state, whereby they seem to be leading the people into a belief that the government will do everything for them, and that there is no further need [for] God and the kind of Christianity Jesus taught; therefore, I expect that CHRISTIANITY TODAY will soon be out of business.… Keep up the high standard you now have, and may God bless you all even after the Kennedy Klan and the Supreme Court have put you all out of business.

HERBERT JENNINGS

Shreveport, La.

THE WITNESS WAS WITNESSED

Mr. Farrell in his article “Outburst of Tongues: The New Penetration” (Sept. 13 issue), states that I claim “to have witnessed to foreigners in their own languages, unknown to [me] (such as Polish and Coptic Egyptian).” If my own account of speaking in tongues unknown to me were unsupported by witnesses, I would expect skepticism. Fortunately, the Egyptian who identified my tongue immediately shared what she had witnessed with three well-known Christian leaders, none of whom spoke in tongues.…

In spite of this and other corroboration, I think we would be making a great mistake to pin the validity of tongues on our being able in each instance to identify the particular language spoken. Never after Pentecost do the Scriptures identify the languages employed by the persons speaking in tongues. Paul says (1 Cor. 14:2), “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men but unto God; for no man understandeth him. Howbeit in the Spirit he speaketh mysteries.” When Paul prayed in tongues which he did “more than ye all”—he said his understanding was “unfruitful.” Once God had established that tongues are definite languages as he did at Pentecost, he apparently did not go on repeating the demonstrations. In our day people do occasionally speak under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit languages unknown to them but known to the listener. Though this is not the rule it happens often enough to confirm the fact that tongues really are articulate speech and not gibberish as some of our brethren have supposed.

I appreciate the frequent evidences in CHRISTIANITY TODAY that you have not closed your mind on this subject, and that you are making a genuine effort to distinguish between the tares and the wheat that thrive so closely together in this charismatic renewal.

HARALD BKEDESEN

First Reformed

Mount Vernon, N. Y.

60-YEAR PERSPECTIVE

As one of your new subscribers I am moved to express my great delight in the article by Paul Rees on the subject of the texture of preaching (Sept. 13 issue). In all my ministry of more than sixty years I have never read anything of more practical value to the would-be preacher. How I wish that I had been told what Mr. Rees tells me, sixty years ago! And how I envy the young men of today in their opportunity to accept and act upon such as this!

There are many voices these days speaking out in more than mere pessimism, in a sort of terror, about the absence of great preaching. A careful study of the threads that make up the texture of effective preaching would change those materially.

HENRY FRANCIS SMITH

Kennebunkport, Me.

The Bible has a fascinating history. Before the advent of the printing press it was a scarce commodity. Laboriously copied by hand in the monasteries, only a few copies were available here and there. These copies were so prized that they were often fastened into position with chains to prevent their being stolen. Once the printing press had been invented, the story changed. Now the Bible could be made available in quantities by mass production.

The printing press did not solve all the problems connected with the publication of the Word of God, however. When printing came into use, the Latin Vulgate was the chief source of religious truth. Yet hardly anyone could read Latin. And even for those who could read it the Vulgate was a problem. It contained thousands of errors, not the least of which was one that changed the thinking of Martin Luther. The Vulgate translated Jesus’ words in Matthew 4:17, “Do penance.” The KJV and the RSV translate them, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” It was from the printed Greek text of Erasmus that “Luther had learned that the original simply meant ‘be penitent.’ The literal sense was ‘change your mind.…’ This was what Luther himself called a ‘glowing’ discovery. In this crucial instance a sacrament of the church did not rest on the institution of Scripture” (Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, New York, 1950, p. 88). Men like Luther quickly discerned that if the Bible were to be brought to the people, it would have to be translated into the language of the reader, despite the intense and continuous opposition of the church.

Luther made the Bible available in the German vernacular. This was a laborious task in which he encountered innumerable problems. He wrote a letter to a friend saying: “I am all right on the birds of the night—owl, raven, horned owl, tawny owl, screech owl—and the birds of prey—vulture, kite, hawk, and sparrow hawk. I can handle the stag, roebuck, and chamois, but what in the Devil am I to do with the taragelaphus, pygargus, oryx, and camelopard (names for animals in the Vulgate)?” (ibid., pp. 327, 328).

The Bible, kept from the masses for so long but now available in more than a thousand tongues, has been, and is, a controversial book. Indeed, no book has been more widely examined and attacked. No other book has had so many books written about it. And no book has remained more solidly in the affections of men with no signs of the law of diminishing returns setting in. The enemies of the Bible have sought to eliminate it from the counsels of men and nations. They have done all they can to relegate it to the scrap heap of forgotten literature and to cause men to despise it. But the critics of the Bible die, and their works crumble to dust. The Word of God abides forever. Like the hammers of a blacksmith that beat upon the anvil without destroying it, so the critics who beat upon the Word of God disappear. Their hammers are cast away, and the anvil remains to test the hammers of men of generations yet unborn. These too will follow the example of their predecessors. Their hammers also will be broken. But the Word of God will go on forever.

In America the Bible is an open book, available to everyone. But to many Americans it is a closed book, either because they leave it unread or because they read it without applying its teaching to themselves. No greater tragedy can befall a man or a nation than that of paying homage to a book left unread and of giving lip service to a way of life not followed. By this attitude men pass judgment upon the Book; some day they will discover that the Book has passed judgment upon them.

Timely Though Ancient

One of the chief reasons why men disregard the Bible is the notion that a book as ancient as this one cannot speak to the needs of today. Men somehow think that in an age of scientific achievement, when knowledge has increased more in fifty years than in any preceding centuries, this ancient book is anachronistic. But the Bible is perennially relevant. It had a message for the first century. It has a message for the twentieth century. And it will have a message for the fortieth century, if the world lasts that long.

The main thrust of the Bible is alien to the general orientation of our day. It proclaims absolutes at a time when relativism is the prevailing philosophy in the Western world and when ultimate truth is regarded by many as ineffable. The philosophy of relativism is not new. It has been current coin among thinkers of the East for at least as long as the philosophy of absolutes has been current in the West.

This tradition of absolutes is at the heart of the Hebrew-Christian religion. If it were to disappear, there would be no hope for mankind. Certainly relativism cannot do more than assure us that nothing is permanent and eternal, that all things are subject to flux. The religion of today may be untrue tomorrow. The ethics of today may be completely reversed tomorrow. Social mores then become time-structured and subject to the changing ideas of men. The homosexuality of today may be the norm of tomorrow, the monogamy of today may yield to the polygamy of tomorrow, and the lie of today may be true tomorrow.

But once man has committed himself to the absolutes of the Hebrew-Christian tradition, the picture changes. Absolutes remain fixed principles by which man guides his course. They are true yesterday, today, and forever. They are not subject to the vicissitudes of circumstance nor superseded by the latest fancies of science and sociologists. Absolutes give man something on which he can depend and by which he can steer a straight course.

It is in the Bible that God has spoken, and he has not stuttered in his speech. His revelation need not be rewritten by every generation nor his thoughts revised and altered by the questing minds of men. His principles are enduring, but they need to be applied reasonably and intelligently to the problems we face in a world where scientific advance has outpaced spiritual perception.

Need For Modern Prophets

The great lack of our day is the failure of the Church and Christians to make known the relevancy of the Bible to current movements and problems. There is a “Thus saith the Lord” for a world which faces apocalyptic catastrophe. We need prophets neither of doom nor of gloom. Rather do we need men who know what God has said and who will speak with complete abandonment as prophets of God to the nations.

Perhaps the most vexing problem in our culture today involves the American Negro. This problem finds its best and happiest solution for all when the principles of the Bible are accepted and applied by men of good will. Everywhere men are saying that the color of one’s skin is immaterial. Everywhere the consciences of men are declaring that segregation is wrong, that it is wrong to refuse a man a seat in a train, or to deny him entrance to a restaurant, or to keep him from voting, because his skin is black. But the significant fact is that this view derives from the Bible. Therein we discover that God is no respecter of persons, that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, male nor female, bond nor free, but that all are one in Jesus Christ. This is no new truth. It is as old as the revelation of God. And we must be reminded of an additional fact—if this truth were to be considered relative instead of absolute, then the day might come when segregation could be justified. But under God’s absolutes in Scripture we may confidently affirm that prejudice based on the color of a man’s skin is wrong.

The Bible is also relevant to politics and passes judgment upon men who fall short of the moral principles that must undergird sound political life. Does God have a word for a culture? Does God have something to say to those in government? Indeed he does. As men and nations sow, so shall they reap. There are eternal moral principles that will, when broken, be paid for by the generation that has broken them or by generations as yet unborn. The history of mankind is filled with examples of men who have defied the laws of God. Always and inevitably the price of sin has had to be paid. In the ruins of the city of Pompeii, which was buried beneath the ashes spewed forth from Mount Vesuvius, there are places that defy description. They are kept locked, and the guides will permit no woman to enter and look. The obscenity and depravity equal that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Surely the cataclysm that overtook this city was a fitting climax to its sin.

The Bible also speaks to labor and capital, to unions and big business. It outlines the principles that are to undergird their relations. It forbids not only the actions of a corrupt labor leader, but also the collusion of price-fixing electrical giants. It not only prohibits featherbedding by labor; it also prohibits the employer from oppressing his employees. It declares that the laborer is worthy of his hire and should be paid a fair wage. But it also asserts that the laborer should give a fair day’s work for a fair day’s wage. There are no problems between labor and capital that cannot be settled fairly when men of good will apply the principles of Scripture to their business lives.

One must admit that the biblical principles are rarely applied to the problems mentioned, because men do not wish to be bound by them. Selfishness, pride, and the hundred other sins to which men are addicted keep them from following the second law of love, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This law of neighbor-love works when it is applied; it does not generally operate because men do not choose to obey it. Although sometimes men are not aware of the compelling principles of the Word of God, most often it is not ignorance but indisposition. Men feel that the idealism of these principles is impractical for use in everyday life and would endanger their success, and they deliberately spurn the commandments of God. In the long run, however, racists, immoral politicians, corrupt labor leaders, and unethical businessmen will reap as they have sown.

The Bible perennially speaks to men. To every age it speaks racially, politically, socially. It speaks to men in business, in school, and in the home. Its principles are as enduring and valid today as they were when first they were given by God as a part of his divine revelation.

Harold Lindsell, vice-president and professor of missions at Fuller Theological Seminary, holds the degree of Ph.D. from New York University. This essay is condensed from an address he gave at the 1963 convention of the Christian Booksellers Association in Washington.

The observation has been made that “history students seem to retain a religious affiliation more often than those in other disciplines” (Dexter Perkins and John Snell, The Education of Historians in the United States, p. 44). Whatever the reasons for this, the student of history, by retaining such affiliation in a secularistic society, runs the risk of having his objectivity as a scholar questioned. Already there has been much discussion of the problem of religious commitment and historical writing. It is a problem which bears further examination, however, not only because it relates to a significant number of historians, but because the entire Western historiographical tradition is entering a crucial phase. Thus the question may be asked, What is the role of the Christian historian in this new phase? To answer this we must know something about the nature of the new phase.

A historical epoch is ending, an epoch which has been called “The Age of Vasco da Gama”—not because Vasco da Gama himself possessed such extraordinary significance, but because he symbolizes the most important feature of the age. Although there is no denying the variety and the splendor of “non-Western” civilizations in the past half-millennium, it is still true that this period has been one in which the Western world, having seized the initiative in making contacts beyond the limits of its own center, has expanded its horizons to encompass the entire world—at the height of its power subordinating much of that world. Through that contact and subordination the West has profoundly influenced all societies and cultures, but the “end of empire” is introducing a new phase of contact.

The Western world has experienced an internal crisis, while the peoples of the non-Western world have been assimilating forces created in the West into their own cultural traditions. I am not speaking here of a “decline of the West” in terms of a historical cycle or trying to stir up images of crumbling ruins. The point is that over the past five hundred years the West has occupied a peculiar place in world history. The concerns of Western historiography, as varied as they are, have been dependent to a great extent on this peculiar relation between West and non-West. With this relation now changing, a major task facing the Western historian is the renewal of the attempt to view world history in its totality; but before this is possible there must be increased study and broader comprehension of the history and cultures of non-Western societies.

The recognition of this need is reflected by the increased interest in the study of Asia, the Near East, and Africa. No one will pretend, however, that this study has been either intensive or extensive enough as yet. These are still “new” fields of historiography, and our “experts” are only pioneers; the patterns of procedure and interpretation are still fluid.

The role of the committed Christian in this examination is obscured by the increasing tendency to use the term “Post-Christian Era” as an appropriate historical description, even in reference to the Western world alone. Implicit in this usage is the idea that to write history from a “Christian point of view,” a practice that has long been suspect, is now anachronistic. If such is the case, then the Christian historian has no part in the “new” historiography; a man may be both a Christian and a historian, but he has to keep these roles separate. Thus it becomes necessary for our purpose to examine the term “Post-Christian Era.”

An argument sometimes employed to support this usage is an appeal to numbers. Not only in the world as a whole but even in the “Christian countries” of the West Christians are a minority (though “Christian” be only loosely defined as a practicing member of a church professing a tie with primitive Christianity). But when have Christians ever been a majority in the world? And has there not been at least a substantial minority of non-Christians in every epoch of Western history?

More striking is the argument that the Christian ethos of Western civilization is breaking down, that we are living in a world increasingly dominated by values which are a-Christian, if not anti-Christian. While the argument from numbers is superficial, this one states the real problem.

It is common to speak of Western civilization as the product of a fusion of the classical, Judeo-Christian, and Teutonic traditions. Indeed it would be idle to deny that the prevailing ethical views in the West were molded by Christianity. Further, Christianity can be cited as an instrumental force in the development of most other aspects of our culture and civilization. In the crisis of confidence that has been so apparent in the twentieth century, it is obvious, first, that the traditional morality and ethos of Western civilization are being transformed and, second, that a secularism indifferent and even alien to Christianity is flourishing. If these things are true, is it not the logical conclusion that we live in the “Post-Christian Era”?

A Man-Centered World

It is the awareness of this change that is occurring that has produced the term under discussion. It is the change itself that makes the term possible, for it is based on the man-centered orientation of the modern world. Viewed from this vantage point, Christianity is essentially an ethic, a code of behavior for men. Put in another way, Christianity is identified with the men who profess themselves Christians, and in these terms is obviously Western. Western civilization has been a Christian civilization to the extent that the Christian ethic was one of its roots and that the majority of Christians have been Westerners.

But in the first place, Christianity is not simply an ethic; and in the second place, while Western civilization has been a product of Christianity, Christianity is not coterminous with Western civilization—though there are many who believe it to be. Jesus Christ was not the founder of Western civilization, but the redeemer of mankind. It has been the great failing of Western Christians that they have sought to imprison God’s redemptive power within a human cultural framework. In its essence, Christianity is not bound to any one culture; it is a historic act of God.

When we speak of a “Post-Christian Era” what we are saying is that Western man has failed to carry the Gospel into the world as he was commanded, and that in hiding the light under a bushel he has lost sight of it himself. It is a phrase that is concerned with man, and in this sense it is undoubtedly true. The West has failed both in preaching the Word of God to all peoples, and in practicing the Word in life.

In truth there can be no “Post-Christian Era,” for God sent his only begotten Son into the world to be the one, true, holy, and living sacrifice for all men. The redemption of mankind by Christ is the central fact of history, not because it stands in a cause-and-effect relation with all other events, but because it happened once, for all time and for all men.

If the relation between Christianity and Western civilization is understood in this way, then it follows that the Christian historian is equipped particularly well to exercise a role in the “new” historiography.

For the Christian the central fact of history is the life of Jesus Christ, and especially his crucifixion and resurrection, by which man is provided with some awareness of the manner in which ultimately human history will be judged. For the Christian this central fact is framed by the knowledge that God created the world and man in his own image and that there will come a time when all men will be judged in the light of the promise offered to mankind by Christ Jesus. The Christian is provided with a view of the nature of man explicit in the doctrine of the Fall and with the conviction that God has a purpose in history, but he is not bound by theories of historical development.

There have been numerous attempts to formulate a “Christian philosophy of history,” but these attempts have been hardly more convincing than secular philosophies of history. (By “philosophy of history” is meant an attempt to define a systematic theory of historical development applicable to all times and places.) One of the strengths of Christianity is that, while acknowledging that God does have an ultimate plan, it admits the impossibilities of man’s full comprehension of that plan. At most the Christian has a “view of history.” And a most important result of this view is that it frees the historian to use a wide variety of interpretative devices to understand a given historical problem.

The Christian’S Intellectual Freedom

God has a purpose in history which the Christian identifies as the redemption of man from the consequences of the Fall. The total process by which this purpose is fulfilled composes the ultimate plan of God, but the plan is beyond our comprehension. Within the limits of God’s design, however, man is confronted by the need to formulate historical interpretations which are valid in terms of human understanding. To bind oneself to a philosophy of history that does not allow for the variety of human natures and of human cultures is to impede the use of man’s reason and thus to prevent the possibility of full human comprehension. The Christian is free to use the intellectual capacity of man to its fullest potential and in full freedom—a freedom which does imply, however, an overwhelming responsibility.

It is this freedom which gives the committed Christian a particular advantage in approaching the historiographical problem created by the ending of the “Age of Vasco da Gama.” Since he is not unalterably committed to a set interpretation of history—and note that our patterns of interpretation are themselves the products of a particular tradition—the Christian historian is free to approach the history of non-Western cultures and to examine them as entities; to view India, for example, in terms of Indian culture rather than in terms of Western “philosophical” categories.

This is not to say that the role of the Christian historian is an easy one. He too has been influenced by his environment; but by the nature of his faith he possesses a greater freedom to understand than do his fellows, a freedom limited only by the knowledge that God alone is infinite.

William J. McGill, Jr., assistant professor of history at Alma College, Alma, Michigan, has the B.A. from Trinity College, M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University.

Through my college days in France I was an agnostic. Strange as it may seem to the reader, I graduated without having ever seen a Bible. To say that the education I received proved of little help through front-line experiences as a lad of twenty in World War I would amount to quite an understatement. What use, the ill-kept ancient type of sophistry in the philosophic banter of the seminar, when your own buddy—at the time speaking to you of his mother—dies standing in front of you, a bullet in his chest? Was there a meaning to it all? The inadequacy of my views on the human situation overwhelmed me. One night a bullet got me, too. An American field ambulance saved my life and later restored the use of my left arm. After a nine-month stay at the hospital, I was discharged and resumed graduate work.

Needless to insist that the intellectual climate had changed as far as I was concerned. Reading in literature and philosophy, I found myself probing in depth for meaning. During long night watches a few yards from the German trenches, as I looked at swollen bodies dangling in the barbed wires, I had been strangely longing for …—I must say it, however queer it may sound—for a book that would understand me. But I knew of no such book. Now I would in secret prepare one for my own use. And so, as I went on reading for my courses, I would file passages that spoke to my condition, then carefully copy them in a leather-bound pocket book I would always carry with me. The quotations, which I numbered in red ink for easier reference, would lead me as it were from fear and anguish, through a variety of intervening stages, to supreme utterances of release and jubilation. The day came when I put the finishing touch to “the book that would understand me,” speak to my condition, and help me through life happenings. A beautiful, sunny day it was. I went out, sat under a tree, and opened my precious anthology. As I went on reading, however, a growing disappointment came over me. Instead of speaking to my condition, the various passages reminded me of their context, of the circumstances of my labor over their selection. Then I knew that the whole undertaking would not work, simply because it was of my own making. In a rather dejected mood, I put the little book back in my pocket.

At that very moment, my British-born wife—who, incidentally, knew nothing of the project I had been working on—appeared at the gate of the garden pushing the baby carriage. It had been a hot afternoon. She had followed the main boulevard only to find it too crowded. So she had turned to a side street which she could not name because we had only recently arrived in the town. The cobblestones had shaken the carriage so badly that she had wondered what to do. Whereupon, having spotted a patch of grass beyond a small archway, she had gone in with the baby for a period of rest. At this point in her story, she had a moment of hesitation. As she resumed her account, it turned out that the patch of grass led to an outside stone staircase which she had climbed without quite realizing what she was doing. At the top, she had seen a long room, door wide open. So she had entered. At the further end, a white-haired gentleman worked at a desk. He had not become aware of her presence. Looking around, she noticed the carving of a cross. Thus she suddenly realized that this was a church—a Huguenot church hidden away as they all are, even long after the danger of persecution has passed. The venerable-looking gentleman was the pastor. She walked to his desk and heard herself say, “Have you a Bible in French?” He smiled and handed over to her a copy which she eagerly took from his hand; then she walked out with a mixed feeling of both joy and guilt. (I should confess at this point that I had once for all made the subject of religion taboo in our home.) As she now stood in front of me, she meant to apologize. This was the way things had happened … She had no idea … But I was no longer listening:

“A Bible, you say? Where is it? Show me. I have never seen one before!”

She complied. I literally grabbed the book and rushed to my study with it. I opened it and “chanced” upon the Beatitudes! I read, and read, and read—now aloud with an undescribable warmth surging within … I could not find words to express my awe and wonder. And all of a sudden, the realization dawned upon me: This was “the book that would understand me.” I needed it so much that I had attempted to write my own—in vain. I continued to read deep into the night, mostly from the Gospels. And lo and behold, as I looked through them, the One of whom they spoke, the One who spoke and acted in them, became alive to me. The providential circumstances amid which the Book had found me now made it clear that while it seemed absurd to speak of a book understanding a man, this could be said of the Bible because its pages were animated by the Presence of the Living God and Power of his mighty Acts. To this God I prayed that night, and the God who answered was the same God of whom it was spoken in the Book. A decisive insight flashed through my whole being the following morning as I probed the first chapter of the Gospel of John.

I still proceed on the old theme of “the Book that understands me,” the main difference being that I now capitalize the B. My devotional life springs from my conversations with Holy Writ. Whenever I am confronted with difficulties, with a puzzling situation, or with a call on which more light is needed, I turn to a set of similar circumstances as presented in Scripture. Or it may be that as I read the Bible as a normal, daily practice, a passage “jumps at me” and lights up the way I must go. Whatever the case may be, I pray over the page, waiting upon Him who speaks through it in a joyful eagerness to do his will. I have learned to beware of putting too much trust in the immediate feelings that may thus be awakened in me, for I know that at such a time, first impressions may amount to mere wishful thinking. Rather, I allow life to take its course, in this way emulating the faith of the Centurion. What is it that the Lord is trying to show me as actual situations develop? Thus I learn to “read” daily happenings in the light of Scripture. The margins of my Bible are marked with dates together with brief reminders of occasions when such a passage “spoke” to me and directed me.

An unexpected result of this approach has been its effect on whatever amount of scholarship I may be credited with. Thus it has sharpened my sensitiveness to the working of the Word in the achievements of such outstanding Christians as Pascal. Some of my students have caught the vision and proceeded upon it. It profoundly moves me to see how the faltering steps I have taken in the light of Scripture have become in their case a firm, steady walk. I think, for example, of some admirable young scholars who are interpreting patterns of Christian thought and life in great writers such as Milton, Bunyan, and Shakespeare. So true it is that any real achievement generally points to an enlightened insight of youth brought to fruition by maturity.

Theological hairsplitting may well suggest to some that a dividing line should be drawn between the scholarly and the devotional approaches to the Bible. All I can say is that things have not worked out this way in my case. My experience of the Bible, unsophisticated though it has continued to be, has actually inspired and directed the best of my efforts as a liberal-arts student.

Voice For Today

Samuel, is that you …

Do you hear nighttime voices, too?

Lie down, lad, listen and obey the One

Whose torments augur judgment on my day.

The Word of hope, before I die

May come to you. Alas, tis Hophni

That I hear within the sacred door

Carousing with some drunken whore,

And Phinehas, with unctious, cadenced

Beat, intoning prayers and cheating

On the offered meat.

What need more sin to weigh?

Samuel, what does Jehovah say?

ARTHUR O. ROBERTS

Dr. Emile Cailliet held professorships in French literature at Scripps College, the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School, and Wesleyan University (Middletown, Connecticut) before going to Princeton Theological Seminary, where he was Stuart Professor of Christian Philosophy until he became emeritus professor in 1960.

The multiplication of translations of the Bible has doubtless prompted more than one bewildered reader to rephrase the Preacher’s melancholy observation, “Of the making of many Bible versions there is no end!” (Eccles. 12:12). During the past twenty years—to go no further back—at least eighteen new English renderings of the entire New Testament were issued, in addition to reprinted editions of at least eighteen earlier translations. The latter are the versions made by Alexander Campbell, E. J. Goodspeed, George Lamsa, James Moffatt, Helen E. Montgomery, James M. Pryse, Joseph Smith, Jr., Father F. A. Spencer, John Wesley, Richard F. Weymouth, and Robert Young, and a slightly modified form of The Twentieth Century New Testament, as well as the King James, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, and several Roman Catholic versions, such as the Challoner-Rheims, the Westminster, and the Confraternity versions.

The new translations of the New Testament published since 1944 include three widely used versions, namely the Revised Standard Version (1946), that by J. B. Phillips (1947–1958), and the New Testament portion of the New English Bible (1961). The other fifteen versions, which are less widely circulated, are the following: Msgr. (later Bp.) Ronald Knox’s translation of the Latin Vulgate (1944); the Berkeley Version by Gerrit Verkuyl, based chiefly on Tischendorf’s Greek text (1945); Erwin E. Stringfellow’s translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek text (two volumes, 1943–1945); George Swann’s translation o£ Westcott-Hort (1947); the Letchworth Version in Modern English translation by Thomas F. Ford and R. E. Ford (1948); the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (1950); the Sacred Name Version of the New Testament of our Messiah and Saviour Yashua, attributed to A. B. Traina (1950); the Authentic Version prepared by an anonymous translator (1951); the Plain English rendering of C. K. Williams (1952); the translation from Souter’s Oxford Greek text by George Albert Moore (Col., USA, Retired), described as “new, independent, individual” and limited to 250 copies (1953–1954); the Roman Catholic rendering by J. A. Kleist and J. L. Lilly from Bover’s Greek text (1954); the Authentic New Testament translated by Hugh J. Schonfield (1955); Kenneth E. Wuest’s Expanded Translation (three volumes, 1956–1959); Frances E. Siewart’s Amplified New Testament (1958); and the New Testament in the Language of Today translated by William F. Beck of the Missouri-Lutheran Church (1963).

It is appropriate that, on the eve of Bible Sunday, the relative merits of several of the more widely circulated English versions of the New Testament be compared and evaluated. But first it will be necessary to consider why new translations are needed.

The Need For Revisions

The recurring need for new translations of the Bible arises from several circumstances, the three most compelling being (a) advances made in lower (or textual) criticism of the New Testament manuscripts, (b) the acquisition of more precise information about Greek lexicography and syntax, and (c) changes in the use of the English language. Of these the first is obviously the most basic, for without applying textual criticism one does not know which of several divergent manuscript readings of a given passage deserves to be regarded as the original text.

In 1611 the only Greek text available to the King James translators was the so-called Textus Receptus. This was the corrupt form which the Greek Testament had taken after having been copied and recopied for a thousand or more years, with the accumulated modifications introduced by scribes over the centuries. Fortunately for the Bible translator today, during the past one hundred years literally scores of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages) have come to light; these texts are much older than the Textus Receptus and therefore are usually more reliable, being much less contaminated through repeated recopying.

Notable advances have also been made in knowledge of the meaning of the Koine dialect of the Greek language, in which the books of the New Testament were written. The discovery during the past half century of tens of thousands of Greek papyri preserving everyday documents in the language of the common people has enabled scholars to enrich our lexicons of New Testament Greek and to clarify many puzzling points of New Testament grammar.

Besides the significant gains in these two areas, another consideration is that the English language itself is changing, as to both the meaning of words and their usage. For example, though the word “let” meant “to hinder” in Shakespeare’s day, it has an entirely different meaning in twentieth-century parlance; therefore the King James rendering of Second Thessalonians 2:7 now conveys precisely the opposite of Paul’s meaning. Again, in older English “prevent” meant “to precede,” and thus the 1611 version could properly translate Psalm 119:11, “I prevented the dawning of the morning.” Today this rendering makes the Psalmist appear somewhat ridiculous.

For these reasons, therefore, it is necessary that new English translations of the Bible be made in the interest of accurately presenting the Word of God in the words of man. In response to the invitation of the editors of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, the following paragraphs attempt to assess the strengths and weaknesses of four widely used English versions of the New Testament.

The King James Version

In Great Britain it is customary to refer to the 1611 version of the Bible as the Authorized Version. There is no evidence, however, that the version was ever officially authorized by the Crown or by Convocation. If, on the other hand, its authorization could be proved, it still could not properly lay claim to being the Authorized Version, for several other English versions of the Bible have also been authorized. For this reason it is more appropriate to refer to the 1611 version as the King James Version, for it was James VI of Scotland (who as the successor to Queen Elizabeth in 1603 became James I of England) who appointed a committee of nearly fifty of the best biblical scholars of the day to revise the then current edition of the Bishop’s Bible, first issued in 1568.

In the amazingly short time of two years and nine months this committee of revisers produced what is generally acknowledged to be “a well of purest English undefiled.” Published at a time when the English language was still young, vigorous, and malleable, the version is characterized by majestic rhythm and splendid cadences that are unmatched. Such an opportunity comes perhaps only once in a nation’s annals, and the translators’ performance matched the times. In short, they created what is certainly a literary masterpiece.

Curiously enough, the King James Version at first had to overcome opposition in certain quarters. Hugh Broughton, one of the most learned as well as most disputatious scholars of his day, had not been appointed to the committee of translators. At the appearance of the revision, therefore, it is not surprising that Broughton published a book denouncing it as an incompetent and heretical work. “I had rather be rent in peces with wild horses,” he declared, “than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poore Churches.” When the Pilgrims came over to the shores of New England in 1620, they brought with them copies of the Geneva version of 1560, for the 1611 version was too modern for their liking. In fact, the popularity of the Geneva version was so great that it continued to be printed until 1644 and was the version used by William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and other prominent literary men of the period. Eventually, however, the intrinsic merits of the King James Version became more and more widely appreciated, and quite apart from any official authorization it came to be popularly regarded as the English Bible.

The Revised Standard Version

For the reasons mentioned earlier, the need for a new English version of the Bible began to be more and more apparent. The Revised Version of 1881–1884, issued in this country as the American Standard Version of 1901, was altogether too wooden and literalistic a rendering to be commended to general use. In the words of Charles H. Spurgeon, it was “strong in Greek, and weak in English.” In order, therefore, to conserve more of the melody of the English of the King James Version, while at the same time taking into account the advances made in biblical scholarship, the International Council of Religious Education voted in 1937 to authorize a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. Two panels of translators, representing a variety of denominations, were appointed, with Dr. Luther A. Weigle, dean of Yale Divinity School, as chairman. The New Testament panel completed its work first, and the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament appeared in 1946. When the Old Testament was added in 1952, about eighty changes were made in the text of the New Testament.

The work of the revisers has been both praised and denounced, depending on the point of view of the one passing judgment. Some complained that the committee had gone too far in altering the language of the King James Version, while others thought it was too conservative and timid in introducing changes. Charges of modernism were leveled against the revisers because, for example, the phrase “through his blood” was no longer included in Colossians 1:14. In this case it was overlooked that the words are not present in the oldest and best manuscripts, that they got into the Textus Receptus by scribal conflation with the parallel passage in Ephesians 1:7, and that already in 1901, the American Standard Version had eliminated the spurious words.

Since the RSV has been widely available for a good number of years and has been adopted by many denominations in the United States and Canada, space need not be taken here to quote sample passages. Today many would agree with the evaluation given by a reviewer of the RSV writing in The Scotsman of Edinburgh: the review concluded, “In general it may be claimed, whatever criticism may be directed to this or that minor detail of text or diction, that here we have the most significant and adequate of existing revisions, the one most tenacious in its style and form of the tradition of the English Bible.”

The Phillips Version

It was during the Second World War amid the London blitz that an Anglican parish minister of scholarly bent began a new translation of the New Testament. The first section, entitled Letters to Young Churches, appeared in 1947 and instantly became a best seller. It was dedicated to the task of conveying to the modern reader the full import of the original in an “easy-to-read” style. To attain this end the translator, according to Phillips, must be “free to expand or explain” the text. By following this policy, Phillips has produced what is better described as a paraphrase than a strict translation. At the same time, however, his vivid style and imaginative use of modern idiom have helped to transform the New Testament for many readers from a “foreign” and rather tedious book into a vibrant, contemporary document. Breaking through the thick crust of traditional terminology, Phillips’ rendering has enabled many a modern pagan to hear afresh the living oracles of God.

The chief criticisms to be leveled against Phillips relate to the Greek text underlying his rendering, and his tendency to over-modernize the language of the New Testament. Though he does not specify which edition of the Greek text he followed, it appears that in numerous passages he used the medieval Textus Receptus rather than a critically established text, such as that of Nestle or Westcott and Hort. Such deliberate obscurantism in textual criticism is hard to defend.

The other criticism, that of over-modernization, will be differently evaluated by various readers. Some will not be offended that in the American edition of Phillips Mark is made to refer to a “nickle” (12:42) and John to a “quarter” (Rev. 6:6), or that Jesus speaks of “ten dollars” and “a hundred dollars” and “fifty dollars” (Luke 19:13, 16, 18). One must ask, however, whether it is legitimate to transform the “holy kiss” into a “handshake,” usually a “handshake all round” (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14). The statement, “whom I delivered to Satan” (1 Tim. 1:20) becomes in Phillips’ words, “I had to expel them from the Church.”

Here and there Phillips’ paraphrastic rendering alters the theology of the original. For example, the Johannine doctrine of the Incarnation is modified by inserting the word “Man” in such passages as “Somewhere among you stands a Man you do not know” (John 1:26) and “This is really the Man Who will save the world” (John 4:42). (In the 1958 edition the latter reads, “This must be the man who will save the world.”) In neither passage does the Greek contain the word for “man.” The divine predestination involved in the last phrase of First Peter 2:8 (King James, “Whereunto also they were appointed,” RSV, “as they were destined to do”) becomes merely “a foregone conclusion.” The present writer does not suggest that Phillips deliberately set out to modify the doctrinal implications of these passages. At the same time, it is obvious that, whether intentionally or not, the theological point of view of the original has been altered.

The New English Bible

It was in 1946, the same year that the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published, that plans were initiated for making a British rendering of the Bible “in the language of the present day.” (It may be mentioned that participation of British scholars in the making of the RSV was invited, but owing to the war and other circumstances this proved impracticable.) Unlike the RSV, which preserves cadences of “Biblical English” from the Tyndale and King James tradition, the new rendering was to be not a revision but a totally fresh translation into “timeless English.”

The philosophy of translation that underlies the New English Bible differs from that of both the King James and the Revised Version of 1881. The translators of the latter two sought to render each word in the original with an equivalent word in English, and to distinguish words added for the sake of English idiom by printing them in italics. In contrast, the committee under the leadership of Professor C. H. Dodd undertook to translate concepts and whole clauses, rather than individual words, by English equivalents. Instead of a literal translation, this procedure results in what may be called a literary or, at times, paraphrastic rendering. The point may be illustrated by comparing Matthew 25:26 in several versions. The King James reads, “Thou wicked and slothful servant.” Phillips also keeps the two adjectives and a literal rendering of the Greek noun: “You’re a wicked, lazy servant!” The New English Bible, however, makes no attempt to render word for word, but conveys the idea with the pungent, “You lazy rascal!”

Judging from what the British translators produced, the style which they followed seems to involve a preference for (1) short sentences, (2) simple rather than complex sentence structure, (3) variety rather than repetition, and (4) contemporaneity of diction. It will probably be agreed among English stylists (despite the adverse criticisms of such notable literary figures as T. S. Eliot and Robert Graves) that the over-all impression made by the new version is good. Its sentences are clean and vigorous; there is a directness and a virility in both language and style, particularly apparent in the narrative sections of the Gospels.

On the other hand, the manifest intention of avoiding anything that might smack of repetition or of consistency in rendering a Greek word or phrase by the same English each time it appears means that in parallel passages the reader cannot trust the English text to indicate faithfully the degree of likeness and difference. For example, in Matthew’s Gospel Bar-Abbas appears, whereas in the other Gospels he is called Barabbas. In two Gospels “a cock crew,” in two “the cock crew.” In John’s Gospel the NEB has four ways of rendering the characteristic phrase of Jesus, “Amen, amen, I say to you” (KJV, “Verily, verily …”).

It is regrettable that occasionally a preconceived idea seems to be imposed on the text. For example, the Greek word ekklesia means “church” or “congregation.” It is not by accident that in Acts the NEB reserves the translation “church” for the Jerusalem ekklesia, whereas every ekklesia outside Jerusalem is a “congregation.” As a result there are no “churches” in Acts, only congregations. The same kind of stereotyping appears in the Epistles, where likewise there are no “churches,” only “the church,” and where the plural ekklesiai is translated “congregations” or by a variety of other renderings.

The translators of the new version have not hesitated to encroach upon the domain of the commentator by employing paraphrastic expansions when they believed that a literal rendering would be less satisfactory. Thus, in First John 2:15–17 the word kosmos, which means literally “world,” is rendered “godless world.” “In Asia” (Rev. 1:4) becomes “in the province of Asia.” “Tongues” (1 Cor. 13:8) is interpreted as “tongues of ecstasy.” “Angel” becomes “guardian angel” in Matthew 18:10 and Acts 12:15.

The net result of having aimed for a literary rather than a literal translation is summed up by the principal reviewer of the NEB in The Times Literary Supplement (London; March 24, 1961), who concludes with the judgment: “If one’s sole concern is with what the New Testament writers mean, it [the new version] is excellent. It is otherwise if one wants to find out what the documents really say.”

So far, only the New Testament of the NEB has been published, and it is obviously premature to attempt anything more than a provisional assessment of the version’s worth as whole. The phenomenal sales of the first printings suggest that a great many more people in Great Britain and America are reading the Word of God because of the appearance of the NEB than otherwise would, and for this one must be profoundly grateful. At the same time, it is surely not being unmindful of the honest and diligent labors of the NEB panel of translators to observe, with Professor H. F. D. Sparks of Oriel College, Oxford, that “whatever its merits as literature may be, not only its declared aim to be ‘contemporary’ in its English, but also its manifest concern to avoid at all costs any trace of literalism in its renderings, make it a far less satisfactory basis for serious study of the Bible than either the RV or the RSV” (Hastings’ one-volume Dictionary of the Bible, revised edition, 1963, p. 259).

Conclusion

What should be the attitude of the average church member toward these and other English versions of the Bible? Doubtless the multiplicity of translations causes a certain confusion in the minds of many as to what the true Word of God is in any given passage. But this uncertainty is unavoidable, for to provide a translation that is absolutely satisfactory in every detail is impossible. Even if such a translation could be produced for one generation, it would cease to satisfy the next generation because of inevitable change in the English language.

Certainly it is advantageous to use, along with the version on which one was nurtured, several others that can serve as guides in passages that either are perplexing or have become stale through one’s familiarity with traditional phraseology.

As indicated in the opening paragraphs above, numerous versions of the Bible are available today. Some are definitely partisan or eccentric. One example of each may be cited. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduces anti-Trinitarian theology at crucial points (for example, “the Word was a god” [John 1:1] and “by means of him [Christ] all other things were created” [Col. 1:16], where the word “other” is an indefensible addition unsupported by the Greek). The Amplified New Testament seems to many readers to be a strange way in which to handle a piece of literature. At frequent intervals the “translator” inserts in brackets a variety of English synonyms and comments, from which the reader is to choose.

What of the future? Obviously no one in his senses would desire to stifle the work of honest scholarship, inspired by a sincere desire to put the living oracles of God in still clearer and more adequate English form. At the same time, the multiplication of new versions sponsored by rival publishers with an eye solely on economic profit is far from being desirable.

The wide variety of renderings already on the market rightly leads many persons to conclude that the need for additional translations is diminishing. What is needed, rather, is the “translation” of the Word of God into the daily lives of those who profess to be followers of the living Word!

Bruce M. Metzger is professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. His most recent book, entitled Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism, was awarded a $1,000 prize by the Christian Research Foundation.

This symposium presents the testimonies of seven Christians regarding their personal use of the Bible. What they have written comes out of their commitment to Christ and their use of the book that makes him known. It also illustrates the kind of witness that many thousands of our readers and many millions of other Christians throughout the world would gladly bear, if given a like opportunity.

The uses of the Bible are varied. Ministers go to it for sermons, theologians study its doctrines, textual and historical critics deal with its manuscripts and authorship, and students of literature read it for its beauty of expression. But behind the many uses of the Bible there is one that Christians, regardless of their special interests, neglect at peril of their souls’ health. That is the personal use of Scripture. Because the living God speaks to man in its pages and because Christians need to listen to what their Creator and Redeemer says to them, the day-by-day use of the Bible is as indispensable to the Christian life as prayer.

What makes the Word of God a living force in this as in any age is what the individual does with it. “The Bible,” said Matthew Henry, “is a letter God has sent to us.” And the personal use of the Bible is the opening and reading of that “letter” coupled with the determination by God’s grace to do what it says.

Each of the contributors to this symposium was asked to tell in several hundred words something of what the Bible means to him and how he uses it. The statements are in each case preceded by a brief identification of the writer.

Martin J. Buerger

Professor Buerger, formerly chairman of the faculty at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and now director of the School for Advanced Studies at the institute, is a world-renowned scientist in the fields of crystallography and mineralogy.

What one’s personal use of the Bible is depends on what he thinks of the Bible. If one regards it as the Scripture inspired by God, it then becomes not just another piece of literature but a unique piece of literature, worthy of more than casual attention. I take this view.

The Bible is the literature from which man has learned of God. If one accepts the idea of God at all, this is the place to get authentic information about him. All other sources are either at best tradition, or at worst man’s own philosophy backed by his limited imagination.

If one had a perfect mind, it would be sufficient to read this biblical literature once. Mine is far from perfect. I find that I can read almost any brief piece of literature twice, and the second time grasp some new facet of meaning which I missed in the first reading. This phenomenon appears in multiplied form in reading the Bible. I have read it many times, and continue to do so regularly. I believe that I understand its broad theme, yet on each new reading features appear which I had missed on earlier readings.

If one had a perfect memory, then the precepts of the Bible, once grasped, would last indefinitely. Mine is far from perfect. I find the Bible worth reading again and again to remind me of many things that I already know, but that are forced into the back of my mind by the daily traffic of new impressions. I need to be reminded, for example, that God expects me to use his absolute standards as my model, but that, even when I fall short of these, he does not reject me, but accepts me because, in accordance with his instructions, I accept Christ as my substitute. I can always seem to remember the substitute part very well, but I find it important to be reminded again and again of God’s absolute standard. I find it important to be reminded that, of those to whom much is given, much is required (Luke 12:48). Surely this applies to me as if it were underlined; yet I tend to forget it.

So, because of my finite mind, I benefit by reading the Bible; consequently I do this regularly. But I find that regular Bible reading has another benefit. It puts me in a frame of mind for prayer. Accordingly, it is my practice to do my regular Bible reading early in the morning, and then address God in prayer. Surely there is no consistency in professing that one believes in God and yet not taking advantage of his standing invitation to make requests of him. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him” (James 5:5). What scientist can afford to ignore this biblical invitation to understanding? Not I.

Billy Graham

Dr. Graham has unquestionably proclaimed the Gospel to more people than any other preacher in Christian history. And few men in the ministry have traveled more widely and have been more constantly busy than he.

Among us preachers there is a tendency to read the Bible for ammunition, and it is indeed the great source-book for our preaching. But it is much more. It is strength and it is sustenance.

Through the years of experience I have learned that it is far better to miss breakfast than to forego a session with His Word. Not that Bible reading is some kind of religious fetish which brings good fortune, but that I myself lack decisiveness and purpose and guidance when I neglect what is more important than my necessary food.

For many years I have made it a practice to read five Psalms and one chapter of Proverbs every day. The Psalms show me how to relate my life to God. They teach me the art of praise. They show me how to worship—how to dwell “in the secret place of the most High” (Ps. 91:1).

The Book of Proverbs shows us how to relate our own lives to our fellow men. The first verse of Scripture I ever memorized was taught me by my mother from the Book of Proverbs: “In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths” (3:6). These twelve words formed the foundation for the faith which later transformed my life.

I find that unhurried meditation on the Word of God is of great value. When in the morning I read a chapter and meditate upon it, the Holy Spirit brings new shades of meaning which are thrilling and illuminating. Sometimes His Word makes such an impact on me that I have to put the Bible down and get up and walk around for a few moments to catch my breath.

If the Bible does not inspire us in the privacy of our rooms, then we can be assured that our messages will not move those who listen to us preach. If it does not reach our hearts, it will never reach their hearts. If it does not stir us, it will never stir the hearers.

Our day at home begins with Bible reading and prayer. I know it is old-fashioned, but so are breathing, eating, and sleeping. The people who help us around the house join the family, and together we read a portion of God’s Word, meditate upon it, make a comment, and then have prayer.

On my desk are many things—a telephone, a dictating machine, a pen, and a Bible, among other things. They are on my desk because they work. The Bible is the one indispensable item. If ever I get to the place where the Bible becomes to me a book without meaning, without power, and without the ability to reprove and rebuke my own heart, then my ministry will be over, for the Bible has been far more than my necessary food.

Mark O. Hatfield

The Hon. Mark O. Hatfield is Governor of the State of Oregon. Before entering political life, he was dean of students and associate professor of political science at Willamette University, Salem, Oregon.

God is not a mysterious Being who has isolated himself completely from us. He has taken the initiative to communicate with us in a way we can understand. He has given us the Bible, which is so readily available to us for reading, studying, exploring, discussing, and teaching. In the Bible we learn who God is and what he desires of man. Christ established the pattern for our relation with God, with our neighbors, and with society. He makes his own power available to us for a more abundant life.

I do not regard the Bible as a bedtime story to prepare me for a restful night. Nor is it simply an order of worship to be used on Sunday mornings. Since it is the source of God’s truth, we need to be saturated with it. We need to delve into it systematically, with enthusiasm, with curiosity, and with willingness to apply God’s will as it unfolds to us. Often I need the peace and refreshment of the Book of Psalms. On other occasions, I need the assurance of God’s unfailing, unchanging, eternal, and personal love for me as it is wonderfully revealed in passage after passage of the New Testament.

It is through the message of the Bible that we meet Jesus Christ, and become committed to him. Then naturally and increasingly our selfish motives and actions are revealed to us. We seek God’s forgiveness and move to a higher plane of living. This constant interaction with God, through the Scriptures, is the only way to maintain a healthy Christian life.

Charles R. Landon

Major General Landon, USAF (Ret.), served with distinction in the armed forces for many years following his graduation from the United States Military Academy at West Point. Prior to his retirement he was director of Statistical Services of the United States Air Force.

The Bible is the Word of God. It contains the Creator’s own account of the beginning of the universe, the origin of man, his fall from grace, and the means of his redemption, and an outline of the course of human history. True, some of this may be in the briefest summary form, but careful, thorough study reveals sufficient detail, not found anywhere else, to place otherwise divergent modern trends and events in proper perspective. Most important, the Bible is the only source of knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

We are in the midst of a headlong race into Godless materialism, in which very articulate proponents of one “ism” or another tell us that the people are no longer satisfied by or with the “myths” of biblical teaching, that the world has outgrown the old values and standards, that new ones must be devised more in keeping with the times—standards and values and mores which will meet modern man’s need for purpose in his life and for self-determination to help him find his place in the world. The Scriptures, as in Second Peter 2:2, tell us that this situation will arise, and in such passages as Matthew 22:37–39; Matthew 6:33, and Micah 6:8, they tell us the remedy for it.

The Bible tells me that I must be right with God before I try to do anything else. It may not be difficult to act justly and love mercy, but to walk humbly with my God takes a great deal more than lip service.

Personally I look to the Bible for indications of what a Christian’s attitude should be toward the social and political questions of the day, for one must view and act on these as an individual rather than merely as a member of an organized church. Here again it seems to me that Micah 6:8 and Matthew 22:39 are the guide, and that walking humbly is the key. How to apply these is the problem. It is one’s personal relation to God which counts, and when this is what the Lord wants it to be—yieldedness to him—everything else falls into place, whether the world is noticeably affected or not.

I am not an expert Bible student, but I do know Christ as my personal Saviour; and although I do not consider myself a good example of a born-again Christian, I have been a church member for some fifty years. I know that the Bible is true in all respects and is the foundation of the Christian faith. I read and study it not only to see its almost incredible application to all history and the problems of today, but primarily to learn what I can of my salvation, which the Lord Jesus provided when he died for my sins on Calvary.

Carl G. Morlock

Dr. Morlock is professor of clinical medicine in the Mayo Foundation, Graduate School, University of Minnesota, and is a consultant in internal medicine at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.

I find the Bible a limitless source of encouragement and inspiration. It affords a verbal assurance of God’s plan on behalf of my eternal destiny. It reminds me of my responsibility for correct attitudes toward God and my fellow man.

I have never been satisfied to think of the Bible as simply containing God’s word, or as a record of man’s yearning after heavenly things. I accept it in its entirety as God’s Holy Word and approach it in expectation of meeting him on virtually every page. Because of this, I find certain parts of it speaking to me in a special way even though all portions are not equally meaningful. Problem areas in this wonderful Book have not been stumbling blocks, because I have found that, as enlightenment comes, these have an exquisite way of fitting into the mosaic of the biblical message.

What is the biblical message to me? It is that I am a needy soul and can find rest only in the security of God’s presence; that God has made this possible through an unique act on his part; and that my position is assured by an act of faith alone. Recognition of my personal frailties makes me glad that my assurance is based on Someone outside myself and is not dependent upon personal merit.

I try to set aside some portion of each day for Bible reading and prayer. When, however, the press of work crowds out time that should be given to these matters, I find that my personal life suffers.

Though a panoramic view of the Bible is necessary and has been helpful to me, its message becomes of greatest value when I take particular portions and find what relation they bear to other areas of the Book. I then discover that all the authors basically have a similar theme to present. The Bible becomes a cohesive unit. Answers to daily problems come from the Book itself. It begins to speak as the voice of God, and its study becomes an ever fresh experience.

Though my assurance of a right relation to God is all important, I recognize also a deep responsibility to live a consistent holy life. As an increasing familiarity with its message becomes my daily experience, I appreciate the Bible more and more as a secure guide for living in a world which seems to be ever more uncertain of what is the best in human conduct.

Robert M. Page

Dr. Page is director of research at the United States Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D. C. He is a widely known authority in the field of radar and electronics.

My first approach to the Bible was one of learning its contents, from which I was given faith in God’s plan of salvation in acceptance of atonement through his Son, Jesus Christ.

In later years it became necessary to reconcile alleged incompatibilities between Scripture and my chosen profession in scientific research for military purposes. My own studies of the Bible, stimulated by other men’s expressed ideas, both pro and con, and my personal experience, led me to conclude that: (1) biblical paradoxes are comparable to scientific paradoxes in their challenge to human understanding, and (2) the dimensions of nature are not the sum total of all the dimensions of reality, which must include a world of mind and spirit at present beyond the grasp of science.

Answers to my prayers, together with the military consequences of my scientific research, have convinced me that I was placed in my profession by the will of God for purposes known to him, and only speculated on by me.

There have been in my life, as in most people’s lives, times of unusual stress and trouble. At such times I have found solace in the Psalms, and only those who have needed, sought, and found such solace will appreciate what this means.

For maintaining emotional balance and stable sailing on life’s restless sea, few things can excel reading the Bible aloud in the home. That was practiced faithfully in my childhood home, and it is the practice in my home today.

Herbert J. Taylor

Mr. Taylor is chairman of the board of Club Aluminum Products Company, La Grange Park, Illinois. In 1954–1955 he was president of Rotary International. He is the author of “The Four Way Test” used by Rotary Clubs throughout the world.

My Bible is the most precious treasure I have other than the love of God, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the living Christ, my Saviour. Its words constantly influence my thoughts, words, and deeds in my relations with others in my home, in business, and in all other areas of life. I have learned through years of experience the complete truth of these profound words of God found in Isaiah 55:11—“My word … shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” I am praying that some day I may completely understand the power and authority of that wonderful statement and fully appreciate the great blessing God has given to us in his Word.

In the spring of 1947 I was led to memorize the Sermon on the Mount, the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of Matthew. Since that time I have been repeating this message from Christ our Lord every day, because I believe its contains a summary of Christ’s commandments for our daily living. Because I recognized the great blessings I was receiving from the influence for good of the Sermon on the Mount on my thoughts, words, and deeds, I continued to memorize and repeat daily other chapters. I have surely found that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word” (Rom. 10:17). I have discovered that there is no better way to obtain complete peace of mind and have one’s faith greatly strengthened than by faithfulness in feeding on God’s Word.

Sin is the source of all our problems, frustrations, and fears, and in the precious Bible I find the remedy for sin and the peace that passes understanding for my time of sorrow.

In John 15:7 we find these words of Christ our Lord: “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” I have come to have a deep and abiding faith in these words, as through the years God has heard and answered my prayers regarding problems in my home, in business, in the work of the church, and in social life. I daily praise and thank God for the tremendous blessing of his wonderful abiding word—the Bible.

“We are not here just to promote programs and to push professional interests. We hope to reproduce here the basic experience at Pentecost out of which the New Testament Church arose when they were all together in one place with one accord.” So spoke Dr. Robert W. Burns, president of the International Convention of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ), on opening night of the annual assembly held last month in Miami Beach. There was indeed the distant sound of a rushing mighty wind, yet it came not from heaven but out of Cuba. Her name was Flora, and she served only to keep attendance down to 6,500.

But Disciples who came to Miami Beach were seeking means to hurl back a tide which seemed to be running against them. Founded on the nineteenth-century American frontier with a view toward unifying Christians everywhere, their body now seemed fractured, racked by uncertainty now on its founding principles, its early momentum slowed to a walk. After a year of travel to the borders of the “brotherhood” (Disciples historically have resisted the fact that they have become a denomination, though they now more readily admit it), President Burns was deeply concerned and talked in terms of sickness and pitiful failure. He cited a 1 per cent gain in world membership during the past decade as compared to 19 per cent for Protestantism as a whole. Spot checks of the 1963 reports indicate a membership drop larger than last year’s net loss of 14,500. “Our evangelism has not lagged for lack of adequate plans,” he said, “but because too many of us lack a deep concern for the salvation of our neighbors’ souls.” And pointing to his audience, he asked: “How long since you were the means through which God added a soul to the church? How long since you even tried?”

Dr. Burns spoke also of division among Disciples: this was later underscored theologically by Glenn Routt, theologian of Texas Christian University, who spoke as a member of a panel of scholars authorized seven years ago to re-examine Disciple “beliefs and doctrines in the light of modern scholarship.” The study has resulted in three volumes entitled: Reformation of Tradition, Reconstruction of Theology, and Revival of the Churches.

Dr. Routt reviewed the early formulation of Disciple tradition, the liberal reformulation of it, and the consequent dislocation as both confronted the modern Protestant theological renaissance. The early Disciples who followed Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone emphasized the restoration of the New Testament order as the constitution of the Church. Today many Disciple scholars repudiate the idea that the New Testament is a constitution for the Church.

Originally church unity was to come locally through dissolution of denominational loyalties; today the emphasis is on ecumenical conferences composed of denominational delegates. In the beginning creeds were repudiated and theology devalued; now that theology has become a major Christian preoccupation, growing though still small numbers of Disciples see the desirability of affirmations of faith. Baptism by immersion was once a major emphasis; today it represents an “ecumenical stumblingblock,” and Disciples are described as “confused and apologetic” on the subject.

“Disciples’ thought,” said Routt, “seems to be moving toward a ‘kind of synthesis’ of the best perspectives of the Disciple fathers and those of classical Protestant Christianity” along lines of “the new biblical theology, one that avoids both biblical literalism and rationalism.” Not all Disciples are prepared for this journey from the teachings of their fathers. The existence of the conservative and rigidly congregational Churches of Christ is well known. They divided from the Disciples early in this century, partly over Disciple introduction of instrumental music in church services, and now number some two million. Less well known is a serious and widening breach among the 1,800,000 Disciples in the United States and Canada. A host of theologically conservative Disciples, adhering to the original Disciple distinctives, participate in their own separate North American Christian Convention. Having become virtually another denomination, this convention showed its virility last spring when with the National Christian Education Convention it attracted nearly 10,000 conventioneers to Long Beach, California.

Many of the churches represented there no longer report facts and figures to the International Convention, citing theological liberalism in the older body as a prime factor. Several strong race resolutions passed at this year’s Miami Beach assembly have given rise to predictions of further defections in the South to the more conservative convention.

But a more important factor for further transfers of convention loyalties was established by last month’s assembly. It voted for the decisive step on the road to restructure of the International Convention, a process representing a movement in the opposite direction from the Disciples’ traditional policy of congregational autonomy. This confessedly would allow more freedom in the Disciples’ “whole-hearted participation in the ecumenical movement,” and pave the way for possibility of merger with the United Church of Christ or with the other five denominations participating in the Consultation on Church Union originally proposed by Presbyterian Eugene Carson Blake. For ironically enough, the original ecumenical plea of the early Disciples proves more of a hindrance than a help in the current ecumenical move toward church mergers, and Disciple leaders declare that it proved a failure in respect to attaining its goal of church unity. They speak in private of a willingness to sacrifice the churches which will leave the convention over the issue of restructure. This is seen as the necessary price for the greater aim of unhampered participation in future merger talks. They expect restructure to take some seven years.

Elected convention president for the coming year was Dr. W. A. Welsh, pastor of East Dallas Christian Church in Dallas, Texas. At forty-six one of the youngest of convention presidents, he preached his first sermon at the age of eleven. He is a member of the commission on restructure and of the Unity Commission of the Council on Christian Unity. In his latter capacity he participates in the Consultation on Church Union and in conversations with the United Church of Christ.

Dr. A. Dale Fiers of Indianapolis, Indiana, president of the Disciples’ United Christian Missionary Society, was named to a six-year term as the convention’s executive secretary, its highest elective office. He succeeds Dr. Gaines M. Cook, who retires next June after seventeen years in the office. Honored at a special reception, Dr. Cook looked at the “unfinished task of evangelism” and said: “We must sustain each other. This is no time for negative criticisms. Year Book statistics provide a fairly accurate picture of where we stand in evangelism. We have all written these statistics. Let’s face them. Discouragement is least worthy of our response.”

Restructuring The Ncc

A sweeping reorganization of the thirteen-year-old National Council of Churches moved another step toward completion last month at a special meeting of the council’s policy-making General Board in New York City.

Last June the board recommended adoption of a revised constitution for consideration by the NCC General Assembly, to convene in Philadelphia next month. Inasmuch as it is the proposed constitution which empowers the board to “adopt and amend the Council’s bylaws,” the board this time could only approve the “substance and basis” of new bylaws and the proposed new council structure, which it did with relatively little debate. The assembly is then to review the new bylaws and structure, leaving the final wording and completed reorganization plan to be submitted to the board for adoption at a meeting the following June.

The new constitution and bylaws clarify responsibilities of member communions for council policy and work, and re-align the council’s major operating units. A new division of ecumenical development has been added, and provision made for establishment of temporary emergency program units such as the present Commission on Religion and Race.

Centralization of authority over the various NCC agencies is projected. Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, the former president of Union Seminary, had previously objected to an “intense preoccupation with authority” and spoke of a “hierarchical strait-jacket.” Neither he nor several other leading board members were at this special meeting, attendance being below normal. Council leaders respond that the aim of reorganization is to “simplify” the NCC, though one official indicated that the aim was to get more board members on the various agencies, thus to get them more involved and financially responsible.

The nation’s racial problem was a major concern on the General Board’s agenda. Members listened to a report of the board’s emergency Commission on Religion and Race which somberly declared that little progress had been recorded in public accommodations, voting rights, or housing. It called for “the wisest Christian counsel and most generous churchly resources for the healing of our social ills.” “We have been long on the pronouncement of moral ideals and very short on experimentation and risk.”

The report warned: “In certain parts of the country fanatical white supremacists have stepped up their hard-core resistance to Negro civil rights. The parallels between this situation and conditions which prevailed in Germany when the Nazis took over are frightening in the extreme. There exists now clear evidence that these ‘master race’ believers control state governments and employ both a gestapo and extra-legal mob action to enforce their will. What is more shocking, in some cities they are able to compel churches and ministers to preach an heretical doctrine of man, which condones segregation and distorts the Christian faith. Both Negroes and whites who do not submit to this view are subject to harrassment and threats to their lives.”

The General Board was plainly displeased with Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s strategy of accepting a weakening of a House subcommittee’s civil rights bill for the purpose of getting Congressional approval for it. The board overwhelmingly voted full support of a bill which would include all the elements set forth in the testimony of NCC representatives on Capitol Hill, “a bill covering all the areas specified in the bill as it was reported out of the House committee.”

In other action, the board:

• Elected as NCC associate general secretary the Rev. Dr. David R. Hunter, who since 1952 has been director of the Department of Christian Education of the Protestant Episcopal Church’s National Council.

• Took first steps toward establishing a department of the arts designed to “foster and strengthen relationships” between the Christian faith and “all areas” of the fine arts.

A week earlier the National Council had created a new department of “the church and public school relations” to meet a growing need for “some recognizable and unified establishment in the [NCC] to deal as a unit with our increasing relationships and involvements with public schools.”

FRANK FARRELL