A Question Of Audit

Six members seeking a court-ordered financial audit were expelled from the 4,000-member First Baptist Church of Fort Worth, Texas, last month. The court subsequently dismissed their suit against the church, ruling that since they were no longer members of the church they could not bring legal action against it. The court had initially restrained the pastor, the Rev. Homer G. Ritchie, from expelling the six. To avert defiance charges, Ritchie had his twin-brother associate conduct the congregational meeting in which they were removed from the rolls. The 36-year-old pastor previously was involved in controversies over his divorce from his first wife in 1959 and his remarriage this year to a 22-year-old member of his congregation. The church is affiliated with the Bible Baptist Fellowship.

Protestant Panorama

A plan for merging the Methodist and Evangelical United Brethren churches was adopted last month at the close of a two-day meeting of the commissions on church union representing the two denominations. The plan suggests calling the merged denomination “The United Methodist Church.” Consummation of the union cannot take place before 1968. Current U. S. Methodist membership is 10,234,986, while the EUB number 761,754.

A dedication service and cornerstone laying marked the opening of a new Southern Baptist college in Houston, Texas. The Houston Baptist College begins its first year with a faculty of thirty-one and about 400 students, on a 200-acre campus in the southwest section of the city.

The Japan Evangelical Lutheran Church is assigning its first overseas missionary. He is the Rev. Hiroshi Fujii, who with his wife and two children will be stationed in Sao Paulo, Brazil, where they will serve among people of Japanese origin.

Miscellany

President Kennedy’s nomination of Dr. John Austin Gronouski as Postmaster General gives the U. S. Cabinet three Roman Catholics, the most it has ever had.

The Religion and Labor Council of America announced last month that it had been granted tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The organization’s initial request that gifts to it be deductible from the donor’s income tax was denied in 1958.

U. S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk and U. N. Secretary General U Thant headed a long list of dignitaries who participated in dedication ceremonies for the new twelve-story Church Center for the United Nations in Manhattan. The structure was built by Methodists and is being “programmed” by the National Council of Churches.

A suit to bar state aid to four sectarian Maryland colleges was filed last month by the Horace Mann League. The league, represented by New York lawyer Leo Pfeffer, indicated that the suit is aimed at testing the constitutionality of government aid to parochial education and probably will end up in the United States Supreme Court.

Some 10,000 persons witnessed the open-air dedication of the $3.4 million-dollar Air-Force Academy chapel at Colorado Springs, Colorado. The seventeen-spire chapel was erected amidst continuing controversy over its high cost and ultra-modernistic architecture.

More than 2,000 public decisions for Christ were reported in Brazil during an eleven-day evangelistic crusade conducted by Dr. Torrey M. Johnson. Negro singer Jimmie McDonald was featured soloist.

A new radio station designed to broadcast the Gospel went on the air in San Salvador last month. The station is the product of a cooperative effort among evangelicals from a number of denominations and missionary boards.

Deaths

DR. FRANKLIN I. SHEEDER, 68, head of publications work for the United Church of Christ; a suicide; in New York.

THE REV. JOHN GOWDY, 93, retired Methodist bishop and former missionary to China; in Winter Park, Florida.

GUY W. PLAYFAIR, 80, general director emeritus of Sudan Interior Mission; in Toronto.

Personalia

A Southern Baptist clergyman who preached against segregation and was asked to resign his pulpit announced plans to enter the Protestant Episcopal ministry. Dr. Henry J. Stokes, Jr., left as pastor of the First Baptist Church of Macon, Georgia, last year following a request from deacons.

Standing in the pulpit of his church before a large Sunday congregation in Johannesburg, the Rev. C. F. Beyers Naude, moderator of the Southern Transvaal Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church, announced his resignation from the ministry. His decision reportedly stemmed from his opposition to racial segregation.

Dr. Leon Morris appointed principal of Ridley College, Melbourne.

Dr. Park H. Netting named academic dean and professor of church history at Pacific Christian College.

Warren Allem appointed dean of the faculty at The King’s College.

The Rev. Irvin Elligan, a Negro minister, appointed associate secretary of the Division of Christian Action of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. He will be given special responsibility in the field of human relations.

Dr. W. Harry Jellema named professor of philosophy at the newly opened Grand Valley State College, Allendale, Michigan.

The Rev. Arvid F. Carlson resigned as pastor of the Mission Covenant Church in Pasadena, California, to become minister of the First Covenant Church of San Jose, California.

Worth Quoting

“If the great truths of our faith are not worth defending, the laity cannot help but conclude they are not important enough to comprehend and believe.”—Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, professor of English Bible at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

“One should have a faith, and a very strong faith, something to lean upon through life.”—Donna Axum, Miss America of 1964.

“The defeat of segregation is not the end, and the mere destruction of discrimination does not render a people independent. For it is possible to win the battle against slavery and oppression and lose the victory of freedom.”—Dr. Joseph H. Jackson in his presidential address to the 83rd annual meeting of the National Baptist Convention, U. S. A., Inc.

For those who associate “healing” with the TV-spread image of Oral Roberts’ startling meetings, the quietly growing healing ministry in orthodox circles is just as startling.

In a four-day period last month, a cumulative total of 7,224 people attended staid services and meetings on Christian healing at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in the heart of Philadelphia.

At the services there were no collections, no overwrought music, no shouted pulpit appeals. For nearly two hours, individuals slipped out of their pews to have clergymen lay hands on their heads at the altar rail and pronounce a blessing in the stillness of the ornate sanctuary. The introductory part of the service was recited, for the most part, and the rector, Dr. Alfred W. Price, spoke with a typical liturgical sing-song.

Healing’s new locale is largely the work of the Order of St. Luke, which sponsored its Eighth International Conference on Spiritual Healing at St. Stephen’s, since Dr. Price is the group’s warden. With the new locale there’s a new clientele. Dr. Price believes Roberts is being used by God (though he says there are fakes in operation). But “middle-class people are the most neglected spiritually. Without emotionalism, we appeal to a group which wouldn’t get help in a tent.”

While Episcopalians started OSL and Presbyterians are particularly active, membership extends to most denominations, which adapt healing into their own worship forms. At the conference, twenty-eight groups were represented, from Roman Catholicism to Christian Science; they came from twenty-eight states and eight foreign countries (one from India).

The growth of the healing ministry is a grass-roots phenomenon, Dr. Price acknowledged. “The laymen are way ahead of the church leaders. This isn’t a gimmick, handed down from the hierarchy. It’s growing the right way, naturally.” Women are strong numerically, perhaps due to the churches’ tendency to schedule healing services during the day.

Within his own denomination, Dr. Price said, there is no opposition but lots of indifference and avoidance of healing from the pulpit. Many clergymen won’t touch healing because they fear failure, he asserted. But the Episcopal convention in 1964 will get an official report on the phenomenon.

The presence of twenty-five doctors in Philadelphia was particularly important, and they formed a more important part of the speaker list than a year ago.

One of these, Dr. Graham Clark, an eye surgeon at New York’s Presbyterian Hospital, told how he came to belief in healing through a scientific investigation among his patients of tissue repair after operations. Even though “the medical deities are loathe to admit there is anything they aren’t able to create or destroy,” Dr. Clark is convinced of a factor which laboratories can’t ferret out. To him, it is expressed most clearly in the “therapy of meaning” theory proposed by psychiatrist Victor Frankel after his life in German death camps. Frankel forsook Freud when he realized those who died were persons who found no meaning in their lives, not those with childhood traumas or stumblingblocks to pleasure.

OSL has resulted not only in numerous case histories of healing (figures aren’t publicized), but also in fresh interest in witnessing, prayer vigils, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. The organization avoids any alignment in the modernist-fundamentalist controversy.

But theological orientation has a subtle place anyway. Dr. Price admits a clergyman who explains away the biblical healings by Christ isn’t likely to be interested in being a healing channel himself.

If not fundamentalist, the spirit of OSL is fundamental. Dr. Mary Hitner, a Philadelphia osteopath, told one of the sessions “a full assurance of salvation is needed” and appealed to any clergymen or laymen without it not to leave the conference without repenting of their sins and being “born again.”

On the other hand, there is strong official feeling about “bad theology” on human disease. Dr. Price bemoans the hospital call based on “this is your cross to bear” or St. Paul’s “thorn in the flesh.” He calls the prayer phrase “if it be Thy will” an “escape clause.”

“It’s true that pain can be used for victory through the cross, but, per se, it’s evil,” he said. Dr. Price also emphasized he doesn’t mean to denigrate, either, the vicarious suffering a Christian must experience as he turns the other cheek, stands up for his beliefs, or feels compassion for others. But, he said:

“People shouldn’t ask, ‘What did I do to deserve this?’ We have a God of love; disease is never God’s will. Jesus never told the suffering who came to him that ‘I won’t heal you because suffering is good for your soul.’ ”

The Death Forecast

Do doctors overstep themselves when they predict time of death?

Dr. Eugene G. Laforet, surgeon at Boston University, says the medical profession has no business forecasting when a patient will die. He pointed out in the Archives of Internal Medicine that accuracy is impossible and that predictions should therefore be avoided.

For one thing, he said, miracles cannot be ruled out.

“A physical miracle involving the supernatural cure of a hopelessly ill patient is an extraordinary occurrence by definition,” Laforet declared. “Instances have been documented, however, beginning with the miracles of Christ and extending even to our own day.”

Also, he said, a patient regarded as hopeless might be saved by the unexpected discovery of a cure—or might die suddenly of a totally unrelated heart attack.

Drug-Induced ‘Religious’ Experience

Experiments with so-called consciousness-expanding drugs are said to have induced religious and mystical experiences in a high percentage of volunteer subjects.

Dr. Timothy Leary, former Harvard University psychology professor, says he has conducted these experiments at least 150 times with different subjects, and “each time I have been awed by religious revelations as shattering as the first experience.”

Leary told of the results at a dinner in Philadelphia sponsored by the Lutheran Church in America’s Board of Theological Education and held in connection with the American Psychological Association’s annual meeting.

The entire project, he said, has had about 1,000 subjects from all walks of life, with between 50 and 90 per cent reporting “intense religious experiences.”

The drugs, identified as mescaline, LSD, and psilocybin, can “pull back the veil” and permit the subject to “see for a second a fragment of the energy dance, the life power,” Leary asserted.

“We have arranged sessions for sixty-nine full-time religious professionals,” he reported, “thirty-seven of whom profess the Christian and Jewish faith and thirty-two of whom belong to Eastern religions.”

These have included, he noted, two college deans, a divinity school president, three university chaplains, an executive of a religious foundation, a prominent religious editor, and several philosophers.

“Over 75 per cent of these subjects—three out of four—reported intense mystico-religious reactions, and more than half claimed they had had the deepest spiritual experiences of their life,” he added.

While observing that there has been a great deal of opposition to these experiments, Leary said: “It is hard to see how these results can be disregarded by those who are concerned with spiritual growth and religious development.”

Transfusion By Decree

Religion and the law tangled again in the nation’s capital last month. This time the climactic scene took place at Roman Catholic-operated Georgetown University Hospital. Mrs. Jesse Jones, 25-year-old mother who is a Jehovah’s Witness, was found suffering from a hemorrhaging ulcer. Attending doctors called for a blood transfusion, but Mrs. Jones refused.

She was supported by her husband, who said their sect believed the Bible forbade anyone to “feed” on blood (Lev. 17:14; Acts 15:28, 29).

By the time hospital authorities hastily consulted their attorneys, Mrs. Jones, a Negro who left her seven-month-old child in the care of friends, had already lost two-thirds of her blood and was given only a few hours to live. The attorneys, believing Mrs. Jones had no right to commit suicide and that the state has a right to intervene to prevent it, promptly sought an order from the U. S. District Court. When the order was denied, an immediate appeal was made to Judge J. Skelly Wright of the U. S. Circuit Court. Judge Wright rushed to the hospital where he conferred with Mr. Jones, who affirmed his disapproval of any blood transfusions for his wife. But Jones added that if the court ordered transfusions his responsibility would end. Judge Wright then conferred with the several doctors, who unanimously and strongly recommended transfusions, saying that with them Mrs. Jones would have a good chance of survival.

Judge Wright next conferred with the patient, who confirmed her opposition. He then asked whether she would refuse transfusions if the court ordered them. “She indicated, as best I could make out,” reports Judge Wright, “that it would not then be her responsibility.”

The Very Rev. Edward B. Bunn, president of Georgetown University, appeared on the scene and attempted to convince Mr. Jones that the Bible passages in question did not prohibit blood transfusions, but to no avail.

Judge Wright finally decided to sign the order allowing the hospital to transfuse “to save the patient’s life.” Following the transfusions Mrs. Jones’s condition steadily improved until doctors could pronounce her out of danger.

Dallas Wallace, overseer of Washington’s Jehovah’s Witnesses, stated that during World War II his sect—whose members are also conscientious objectors—adopted this principle of refusing to “feed” on blood, directly or indirectly, whether animal or human. He acknowledged that since then this interpretation has given rise to “hundreds” of cases among the sect’s million followers worldwide. Of these cases some resulted in death. A very recent one, in California, involved a nine-year-old vainly pleading with his father, who subsequently died rather than accept the transfusion.

Wallace believes this is the first time a court has issued an order in a case involving adults all of whom objected to the transfusion.

Judge Wright in his written order admitted unawareness of precise legal precedent for his action, but cited “persuasive analogies.” Many years ago the U. S. Supreme Court had said that a wife who religiously believed it her duty to burn herself on the funeral pyre of her husband may be prevented by the courts from so doing.

Introduction of judicial rulings into the arena of religion and medicine involves significant questions. Would a sectarian hospital be obligated to abide by court rulings which violate the hospital’s moral code?

The Washington Evening Star was highly critical. It editorialized: “Each person in a free society should have the right to exercise his convictions as long as they do not harm other people. The action … by Georgetown University Hospital officials and Judge Wright was an infringement of this basic right of individual choice.”

I am convinced that no liberty is more essential to the continued vitality of the free society which our Constitution guarantees than is the religious liberty protected by the Free Exercise Clause explicit in the First Amendment and imbedded in the Fourteenth.

—Potter Stewart

The lone dissenter in the Supreme Court’s disavowal of public school devotions, Justice Potter Stewart scolded his brethren on the bench for according to the Establishment Clause “a meaning which neither the words, the history, nor the intention of the authors of that specific constitutional provision even remotely suggests.” He predicted “many situations where legitimate claims under the Free Exercise Clause will run into head-on collision with the Court’s insensitive and sterile construction of the Establishment Clause.”

True to Stewart’s forecast, the two clauses collided head-on in thousands of classrooms all over the country this month. The result was largely compliance with the court’s decision that “the practices at issue and the laws requiring them are unconstitutional.” But there were still many schools where prayers and Bible reading echoed down the corridors during opening exercises.

At least eleven states have issued official statements allowing devotional exercises to continue or leaving the decision to local jurisdictions: New Hampshire, Idaho, Delaware, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Alabama (where Bible reading is mandatory).

Defiance in the South was not surprising in view of that area’s uncomfortable position following other Supreme Court decisions during the past decade. The measure of official opposition in the North had not been predicted.

The first legal action to halt defiance of the Supreme Court decision came in Hawthorne, New Jersey, where the state attorney general filed suit against a school board which voted retention of devotions.

In Tallahassee, Florida, the State Supreme Court is hearing new arguments prior to reconsidering whether a 1925 Bible reading law is constitutional. The reconsideration had been ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court. The state attorney general’s brief argued that it would be just as unconstitutional to prohibit voluntary religious exercises in the school as it would be to require them.

“Moments of meditation” are being used in some states as a substitute for prayer. In a few, “inspirational” material taken from history or literature has been added to the school day. There are differences of opinion as to whether it is proper to recite a stanza of the National Anthem, which recognizes trust in God (Illinois Governor Otto Koerner vetoed a bill that would have permitted public school teachers to lead daily recitations of the four stanzas).

Here and there local school boards defied both the U. S. Supreme Court and state educational directives. At least a dozen school boards in central Pennsylvania voted to retain devotional exercises.

At Fort Mitchell, Kentucky, students gathered off campus before the opening bell and had a brief Bible reading and prayer session. A group of churches in Montpelier, Vermont, began holding ten-minute worship services each morning for public school students. In Newport, Kentucky, some students staged a protest demonstration “because adults haven’t put up a fight.”

The lack of a more serious battle baffles some observers. Reaction to the Board of Regents’ decision in 1962 had been considerably more intense, despite the fact that the issue in that case was much narrower and more explicit. Why church leaders and the public at large took the broader 1963 decision more calmly deserves nomination for the mystery of the year.

According to established procedure, all U. S. courts decide cases by interpretation of existing law. It is fair to assume, however, that the Supreme Court kept a sensitive ear tuned to public opinion during its study of public school devotions. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in his printed opinion on the case announced and distributed June 17, 1963, quoted “the policy statement recently drafted by the National Council of the Churches of Christ.” The statement, attributed to a story which appeared in the Washington Post May 25, actually was a committee draft prepared for presentation to the NCC General Board during the first week in June, but released to the press beforehand. The proposed pronouncement produced the most intense board debate in years. Much of the statement, including that portion quoted by Brennan, had to be revised considerably prior to passage.

Brennan, to support his contention that “the notion of a ‘common core’ litany or supplication offends many deeply devout worshippers who do not find clearly sectarian practices objectionable,” quoted the following from the committee draft: “… neither true religion nor good education is dependent upon the devotional use of the Bible in the public school program.… Apart from the constitutional questions involved, attempts to establish a ‘common core’ of religious beliefs to be taught in public schools for the purpose of indoctrination are unrealistic and unwise. Major faith groups have not agreed on a formulation of religious beliefs common to all. Even if they had done so, such a body of religious doctrine would tend to become a substitute for the more demanding commitments of historic faiths.”

The corresponding section in the board-approved pronouncement read as follows: “… neither true religion nor good education is dependent upon the devotional use of the Bible in the public school program.… While both our tradition and the present temper of our nation reflect a preponderant belief in God as our Source and our Destiny, nevertheless attempts to establish a ‘common core’ of religious beliefs to be taught in public schools have usually proven unrealistic and unwise. Major faith groups have not agreed on a formulation of religious beliefs common to all. Even if they had done so, such a body of religious doctrine would tend to become a substitute for the more demanding commitments of historic faiths.”

In the churches, grass-roots action has contrasted in some cases rather sharply with advice from top ecclesiastical echelons. The Washington (D. C.) Presbytery of the United Presbyterian Church, for instance, “took exception” by a vote of 70 to 67 to the General Assembly’s stand against public school devotions. A resolution by the presbytery stated that “the loss of the reading of the Bible and the use of prayer in our public schools appears to be a concession to forces opposed to the Church of Jesus Christ.”

Court Calendar

Seven cases involving obscenity—three from California and one each from Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and New York—are up for review before the U. S. Supreme Court as it reconvenes this month. One of the California cases concerns Henry Miller’s Tropic of Cancer, declared obscene in a trial in which Dr. Raymond Lindquist, senior minister of Hollywood’s First Presbyterian Church, and the Rev. Clarence E. Crowther, senior Episcopal chaplain at the University of California at Los Angeles, testified against the novel.

Other cases scheduled to be heard include a conviction for unlawful assembly of ten Negro and white clergy “Freedom Riders” (see News, May 10 issue).

Freedom of religion is the issue in the case of a Minnesota woman, Mrs. Owen Jenison, who refused to serve on a jury and was held in contempt. Mrs. Jenison cites Matthew 7:1 (“Judge not, that ye be not judged”) as grounds for her refusal.

A Sunday blue law case before the court contests the conviction of an Ohio businessman.

Canada: Two Nations Or One?

A series of bombings in Quebec during the past year has marked an upsurge of French Canadian nationalism unknown since 1837. One man died, another was permanently maimed, and the entire province underwent a siege of fear before tough action by police quelled the violence—at least for the time being.

The violence has been blamed on an extremist group, Le Front Libre de Quebec (FLQ), but their cause is shared by many others who insist on a peaceful course. The cause is to revise the operation of the confederation so that in both theory and practice Canadians will recognize that their country really consists of two nations, French and English, more or less independent of each other.

In one sense this feeling of nationalism and separation has emerged only recently. The basis for the feeling, however, has never been very far below the surface. The departure of the late Premier Maurice Duplessis from the Quebec political scene in 1959 seems to have sparked the movement, for no one equally provincial and French Canadian has appeared to take his place, nor has anyone succeeded in gaining such control over the French Canadian’s thinking since his death. However, politicians of both the Union National Party (to which Duplessis belonged) and the Liberal Party have exploited the demands of nationalism to win votes and force the federal government to grant Quebec special concessions on such matters as taxation.

Principal cause of the rise of nationalism would seem to be the French Canadian’s frustration and humiliation at the fact that Quebec has fallen under control of Anglo-American capital and Anglo-Canadian administration. Canadians who do not know Quebec have tended to disregard French Canadian feelings and outlook, and many local companies depending upon Ontario or U. S. capital have often disregarded the French, and sometimes even the English Canadians of Quebec, in appointments to the highest positions. Furthermore, discriminatory treatment accorded to French Canadians in other provinces has hardly helped to strengthen the bonds of Anglo-French cooperation.

There have been some mitigating reasons for this, the most important being education. The educational system in Quebec is divided into two main confessional sections, Roman Catholic and (nominal) Protestant. The Roman Catholic tendency to stress religion, the classics, and the like has not encouraged technical training at highest scientific levels in science, engineering, and administration. This has caused problems for the French Canadian, as have his rather conservative ideas on investment.

Repeatedly the question has arisen: Is this nationalism fostered by the Roman Catholic Church? There is no simple answer.

Recently a national magazine, MacLean’s, published in both its French and English editions an account of an allegedly ecclesiastically inspired secret movement, L’Ordre de Jacques Cartier, whose objective was said to be the stimulation of French-Canadian nationalism and even separation from the rest of Canada. Some of those named have since publicly denied any connection with the order.

At the same time one must recognize that some of the Roman Catholic clergy, often trained under Abbé Groulx, a strong nationalist at the Université de Montréal, are vigorously anti-British. On the other hand, ever since the Quebec Act of 1772, the clergy have generally stood by the British connection as one of their bulwarks against the American concept of separation of church and state. More concrete evidence is necessary, therefore, before one may say that the movement is ecclesiastically motivated.

One reason for doubting the church’s dominance is that while some of the “separatistes” show themselves loyal sons of the Roman church, others take a rather anticlerical position. La Mouvement Laïque, fighting for a non-confessional educational system, seems to have connections with some of the four separatist groups. In fact, in one of the Quebec universities, so the story goes, the motto of the nationalists is: “Get the priests first and then the English.” This would hardly appeal to the clerical authorities.

What are the effects of this development? Politicians may be opening a Pandora’s box. The federal government has appointed a Royal Commission on Bi-culturalism to study the problems and suggest remedies for the real inequities. At the same time, some English-speaking Quebecers, both individuals and corporations, doubtful of the future, are beginning to liquidate their assets and move their money to other places. Not long ago a business leader in Montreal said privately that some European and American investors had begun to do likewise. Even some Eskimos in the far north, who have recently been handed over to the provincial government’s care, reportedly plan to move west from Quebec.

What lies ahead? At the present moment separatism would seem to be weak. Nationalism, however, is strong, and unless dealt with adequately might well turn to separatism. This means that both English-speaking Canadians and American investors must awake to the situation as it now exists. If they do not, the outcome may well be the distintegration of Canada as a nation, with Quebec going its own way. What would be the result for Protestantism is anybody’s guess, but one needs little imagination to prophesy that it would find its road being made very rough and difficult.

W.S.R.

Prayer Or Meditation?

The Japanese government’s first ceremony in remembrance of the country’s war dead was carried out amidst some confusion as to its religious significance. In reply to one Christian churchman’s protest, a government spokesman had said that “the mokuto of this ceremony is not to be done as a religious rite.” Some Christians were unconvinced, however, and continued to insist that mokuto means a religious act of prayer. Their pleas to substitute mokuso (silent meditation) for mokuto went unheeded.

Government officials who spoke at the ceremony, held at Hibiya Park adjacent to the emperor’s residence in Tokyo, used a typical Buddhistic phrase, meifuku o inoru, meaning to pray for the repose of the souls of the dead. Mrs. Kayo Katsumata, representative of the war-bereaved families, ended her address with, “Souls in heaven, sleep peacefully,” as if she were talking to living persons.

25 religious scholars cite important advances and losses in twentieth century

CHRISTIANITY TODAYannually poses a significant question to twenty-five religious scholars and publishes replies in its anniversary number. Here is this year’s query and the response:

What twentieth-century development represents the greatest gain for Christianity? What development represents the greatest loss?

STUART BARTON BABBAGE, visiting professor, Columbia Theological Seminary: “The greatest gain: The revival of biblical theology within the Protestant churches and the establishment of the Biblical Institute within the Roman church. The greatest loss: The intellectual failure of the churches to answer the questions posed by behavioristic psychology and to rebut the philosophy of logical positivism.”

ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD, professor emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary: “The greatest gain has come through the growth and influence of ‘the newer churches’ or ‘conservative evangelicals,’ not least in missions overseas. The greatest loss, I think, has come through the increase of secularism, by which I mean trying to get along without God.”

EMILE CAILLIET, professor emeritus, Princeton Theological Seminary: “Almighty God knows of no such thing as favorable or unfavorable developments. He is the great Unconditioned.”

GORDON H. CLARK, professor, Butler University: “It appears to me that the great disaster which has overtaken Christianity in the recent past is the immense power regained by the papacy. I do not know of any greatest advance of Christianity.”

OSCAR CULLMANN, professor, University of Basel: “The greatest gain is the fact that Protestant theology in our century emphasizes the Bible, yet not in such a way as to become nearsighted, but rather properly universal in its outlook. This biblical emphasis (1) lays the foundation for action by the Church in the world and (2) advances the cause of ecumenical harmony among all Christian churches. The greatest loss and the greatest danger for Christianity is the influence of mass thought-patterns and mass psychology on theology and the Church. This influence shows itself in a false universalism: theology is enslaved by the latest theological and philosophical fashions, by theological slogans, by theological demagoguery. Special schools of thought arise, as well as personality cults centered on famous theologians (1 Cor. 1:12!). Today such dangers exist especially in theological circles in Germany and unfortunately are also spreading throughout America.”

FRANK E. GAEBELEIN, co-editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY: “It could well be that the renaissance of evangelical scholarship, evident both in the number and in the quality of books by conservative scholars, is the greatest gain for Christianity. On the other hand, the greatest loss may be the creeping skepticism regarding the infallibility of the written Word of God. Long a characteristic of liberalism, this crumbling of faith in the full reliability of Scripture is now moving toward evangelicalism.”

JOHN H. GERSTNER, professor, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary: “The resurgence, however limited, of evangelical scholarship is Christianity’s most basic gain. Always less spectacular than other expressions of the faith, literature forms the indispensable basis of expression and the test of its authenticity. Where there is no vision (of the scholars), the people (and the preachers) perish. Possibly the greatest loss for Christianity is in the realm of strict doctrine and consistent discipline. The resultant ‘easy-believism’ leads to inert nominalism which is more of a disaster to true Christianity than Communism, Romanism, secularism, and sectarianism combined.”

CARL F. H. HENRY, editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY: “In this age of secularism, scientism, and naturalism, the largest gain of Christianity has been the continuing spiritual conversion of men and women from all walks of life. The largest loss, and this in the churches themselves, has been modernism’s erosion of confidence in the Bible and in the Christian revelation of a supernatural God.”

W. BOYD HUNT, professor, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary: “The greatest gain for Christianity in the twentieth century is the renewal of biblical theology, with the attendant recovery of the primary authority of biblical categories for faith. The greatest loss has been the compromise of evangelistic thrust through the identification of institutional Christianity with limited nationalistic and provincial perspectives which deny Christ’s sovereign lordship of life and short-circuit the renewal of the church by the Holy Spirit.”

W. HARRY JELLEMA, professor, Grand Valley State College: “What is important is not the changes and developments as such (e.g., the waning of nineteenth-century liberalism; the staggering advances in scientific knowledge; the population explosion; the awakening of the Dark Continent; etc.). ‘Gains and losses’ are measured by the reaction of Christians to the new challenges and opportunities.”

HAROLD B. KUHN, professor, Asbury Theological Seminary: “Of great positive significance for evangelical Christianity has been the appearance of such phenomena as the Graham crusades and projects like CHRISTIANITY TODAY. On the negative side, one views with genuine concern the extension of the work of the judicial branch of our federal government into the religious affairs of the nation. This concern stems not so much from any specific decision rendered, as in the expanding areas in which the Supreme Court is assuming jurisdiction for itself. Disturbing also is the seemingly exaggerated sensitivity of the Supreme Court to expressions from small minority groups, some of whom express no significant affirmative religious concern.”

ADDISON H. LEITCH, professor, Tarkio College: “The accessibility of the whole world to the Gospel is the greatest gain for Christianity in our century. This same accessibility allows ease of movement for evil also, but the Gospel can be and is being preached in the whole world. The greatest loss has been the time and energy and cost of endless committees and commissions working towards a feasible, physical world church.”

CHARLES MALIK, professor, American University of Beirut: “The ecumenical movement with the push it was given by Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council is probably the development of the twentieth century which represents the greatest gain for Christianity. The greatest loss has been the spread of atheistic materialism spearheaded by Marxism-Leninism-international Communism.”

LEON MORRIS, principal, Tyndale House: “I see the question of gain and loss in terms of the fundamental facts that God has chosen to reveal himself to man and that the record of this revelation is in the Bible. The greatest gain of this century in my judgment is the recent growth of interest in the Bible and its teaching as shown in the appearance of translations, commentaries, and works on biblical theology. The greatest loss is that too often this insight is neglected. Christian men stand in judgment on the Bible using human criteria to select what is divine, instead of submitting themselves humbly to what God says.”

J. THEODORE MUELLER, professor, Concordia Seminary: “The greatest gain for Christianity in our century is represented no doubt by the remarkable revival of conservative Christianity with its emphasis on the inerrant Scriptures and Christ’s vicarious atonement; the amazing spread of the Bible at home and abroad; the witnessing to the Gospel by radio and television as by the Lutheran Hour and others; the successful testimony by Dr. Graham and CHRISTIANITY TODAY; the ardent spread of the Gospel by Christian missions; in short, by the fulfillment of the Lord’s prophecy: ‘This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come’ (Matt. 24:14). Christianity’s greatest loss is represented by the terrifying spread of unbelief and atheism in both Communistic and so-called Christian countries. But also this loss agrees with our Lord’s prophecy in Matthew 24:3–13.”

KENNETH L. PIKE, professor, University of Michigan: “Gained: in evangelistic breadth—international proclamation of the claim of Christ; in cultural depth—one or more academic disciplines, especially linguistics, re-savored with the salt of wide evangelical contributions (and concomitant tribal Bible translation) after a bleak century of divorce of research scholarship from the evangelical thrust. Lost: in evangelism—the open door to China; in culture—the reputation earned as leaders in service to the poor, the masses, the blacks.”

BERNARD RAMM, professor, California Baptist Theological Seminary: “I think the most unusual development of the twentieth century is the serious, scholarly study of the Bible by the Roman Catholic scholars according to the finest principles of Protestant exegesis. The greatest loss remains the one billion of people under Godless Communistic rulership.”

W. STANFORD REID, professor, McGill University: “To my mind the development of mass media of communication represents both the greatest gain and the greatest loss to Christianity. It’s the old story of something having a high potential for good and at the same time by perversion a high potential for evil. By the new mass media we can reach people as we have never been able to before with the Gospel, but at the same time other forces can use the same media and the same techniques for perverting and misleading. Consequently, it would seem that the Church must awaken to its present situation and endeavor to use that which God has given to it for the extension of his Kingdom.”

WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON, professor, Columbia Theological Seminary: “Externally, Christianity has grown on the foreign field, and at the same time has lost control of a large section of Christendom to Communism. Internally, she has regained her hold on the mighty acts of God in Christ Jesus, and lost by loosening her grasp on the Bible as God’s inspired interpretation of these acts.”

ANDREW K. RULE, professor emeritus, Louisville Presbyterian Seminary: “Within Christendom two things of very great importance have occurred in the twentieth century, both involving gains and at least potential losses; and I find myself unable to choose which is the greater. One is the rebuff to naturalism, which damaged the Christian proclamation through the so-called liberal theology, but which has now lost its sting through the regression of scientism and a more positive, believing approach to the Bible and to authentic Christian theology—that is the gain; but this has not yet penetrated to the level of college and high school teaching or to the common life of educated people so that secularism is still rampant—that is the loss. The other is the ecumenical spirit, which could be the greatest gain to Christianity in this century. But with it has gone a certain seeking of the common measure, indifference to great theological questions which still divide us, a feeling that the distinctive emphases of the various denominations are to be eliminated, and the development of a massive machinery that swamps the warm, personal relations that used to characterize the smaller de-dominational units. If that prevails, it will perhaps be our greatest loss.”

HERMAN SASSE, professor, Immanuel Theological Seminary of Adelaide, Australia: “The church historian will always be hesitant to answer such questions. Ancient Neoplatonism was equally helpful to paganism and to Christianity. It helped pagan superstition to survive, and it brought the greatest minds of that time, e.g. St. Augustine, into the Church. The fall of the Roman Empire terminated the history of the Church in Asia and opened the great history of Christian Europe. So it may be with the great developments of our century. The rise and the fall of the Church, the growth and the decay of the Christian faith are solely in the hands of him ‘that openeth and no man shutteth; and shutteth and no man openeth.’ ”

DR. WILBUR M. SMITH, professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School: “Perhaps the most significant phenomenon in the Church just now is the widespread renewed interest in the entire subject of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which must, necessarily, lead to a reexamination of the teaching of the Holy Scriptures on this too-long-ignored theme. One of the major losses to the Church of Christ at this time is the silence of the authorities of our great denominations, in refusing to take any official action of condemnation and repudiation of literature published within their respective communions, in which the basic doctrines of the faith are denied.”

JAMES S. STEWART, moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland: “Positive: The new climate of understanding among Christians, created by the wind of the Spirit. Negative: The madness of the nuclear death race among the nations.”

MERRILL C. TENNEY, dean, Graduate School, Wheaton College: “The greatest gain for Christianity in the twentieth century lies in the rise of evangelistic movements such as the Billy Graham campaign, Youth for Christ, Young Life, and Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, and the increased development of the younger churches abroad. These have stimulated new interests and have brought many to the Lord. The greatest loss lies in the increasing secularization of the institutional church, the weakening of firm confidence in the reliability of the biblical revelation, and a decline in personal dedication and holiness in the professedly evangelical church.”

CORNELIUS VAN TIL, professor, Westminster Theological Seminary: “There is no one ‘twentieth-century development’ that I can think of as marking greater gain than others for Christianity. But I do think that the various aspects of the work of the World Council of Churches should indicate its existence to be ‘the greatest loss.’ Through the council’s effort human tradition is rapidly replacing the Word of God as final authority for truth and practice.”

Lessons In Love

What does a Christian father say when his only child has been killed in the racist-inspired bombing of a Sunday school?

One such father, Chris McNair, whose eleven-year-old daughter Denise was one of four Sunday school girls killed in Birmingham’s all-Negro Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, had this comment:

“While I would like to see the culprits … brought to justice, I believe their chief need is for repentance and Christian forgiveness. God has given man the intelligence to build a true democracy, and now it’s up to us to pray that the Spirit of Christ will move the hearts of people to act wisely. I firmly believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has the answer to our problems.”

The father, who operates a photographic studio in Birmingham, serves as Sunday school superintendent at St. Paul Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod). The daughter and mother, however, held membership in the Baptist church.

The lesson for the day was on the subject, “The Love That Forgives.” The memory text to be learned by the students was Matthew 5:44: “But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”

Denise and three fourteen-year-old girls left the classroom to go to the bathroom. The bomb explosion brought down the walls and ceiling. It was one of the worst acts of violence against an organized religious activity in U. S. history.

Zealots In The Holy Land

On Tuesday afternoon, September 12, simultaneous raids were carried out against Christian schools in Israel’s three principal cities—Jerusalem, Haifa, and Tel Aviv-Jaffa. The attacks, attributed to ultra-orthodox religious students, were regarded as the most violent and carefully organized in the country’s fifteen-year history. Police arrested 104 of the religious zealots in Jerusalem, nine in Haifa, and seven in Jaffa. Government officials denounced the students’ methods, but implied endorsement of their motive: a campaign against all Christian missionary activity.

Screaming insults and blowing the shofar, attackers invaded a Scottish Presbyterian school in Jaffa, smashing tables and chairs and breaking windows. The headmistress said they beat up the smaller pupils and slapped and jostled the teachers. Attending the school are children from diplomatic and business families; about half the pupils are believed to be Israelis.

Melkite Rite Archbishop George Hakim, head of the largest Christian community in Israel, was visiting the school in Jaffa when the youths stormed in. He told newsmen he had been “molested and grossly insulted” during the assault.

In Jerusalem, the zealots broke into the outer courtyard by a Catholic convent and school. Dozens had to be carted away by police. Police also dispersed a mob at a Finnish Protestant school in Jerusalem, which had been the scene of a similar attack last January.

Earlier this summer, orthodox students stoned buses carrying tourists from Mandlebaum Gate on the Sabbath and clubbed a cripple with his own crutches for driving in a “forbidden” area on the Sabbath. One of the buses stoned was carrying a group of Baptist young people who were returning from the Baptist World Youth Conference in Beirut, Lebanon.

Following the incidents, the youth group thought to be responsible distributed pamphlets titled:

“The Cross Completes What the Swastika Left Unfinished.”

Israel’s attitude toward Christians promises to gain more world attention in coming months. While the population largely condemns violence, Christian-Jewish relations show some signs of deteriorating. The widely publicized case of Father Daniel, Jewish-born Carmelite monk who tried to obtain Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, indicated the government’s unwillingness to recognize as a Jew anyone who in its view has become an “apostate.” Father Daniel was given Israeli citizenship a few weeks ago, but not under the Law of Return, which would have recognized him as a Jew.

A Senate For Catholicism?

Opening of the Vatican Council’s second session was accompanied by increasing speculation that the council will go on indefinitely as a continuing legislative body.

Father Edward Duff, S. J., special correspondent for Religious News Service, in an introductory dispatch from Vatican City, cited the following:

“Paul-Emile Cardinal Leger of Montreal has remarked that the council will never come to an end in the sense that the needs of the church and the facility of modern travel make possible regular meetings, every few years at least, of the representative archbishops and bishops from different parts of the world in extended consultation in Rome with the Pope.”

The current session was originally projected to run until the first week in December. A third session probably will not convene until next fall at the very earliest.

The first session of the council adjourned without a conclusive vote on a single item of its agenda. At the rate of the discussions of the first session, it is estimated that it would have taken the council thirty-two years to get through the agenda, the schemata, submitted to it.

The first topic announced for discussion at the second session was “the nature of the church.” A corresponding schema taken up at the first session had been referred back for basic revision.

The visit of Metropolitan Nicodim of the Russian Orthodox Church to Pope Paul VI early last month and his gesture of leaving flowers at the grave of John XXIII after reciting a prayer from the Orthodox ritual foreshadowed the assignment of representatives of the Russian church.

The pacifism which was rampant following World War II is not dead, although it is not so openly or vigorously espoused as it was during those days when in colleges, church papers, and retreats young people were requested to sign papers expressing their unwillingness to engage in war for any reason whatsoever.

The events leading up to our participation in the last shooting wars caused many ardent pacifists to reverse their thinking, and to admit openly that they had done so.

But now, with the growing emphasis on humanitarianism, often substituted for or confused with Christianity, there is quiet but growing renewal of propaganda for pacifism, a movement which only too often distorts history and brings forth arguments as fallacious as those of the 1930s.

Present-day pacifism does not stem from any one source, but the ultimate effect is the same. The theologies of many pacifists are as far apart as belief and disbelief can be, but the aims are for all practical purposes identical.

Techniques include using the opportunity afforded by young people’s gatherings to present the claims of the pacifistic approach, only too often in a way to take full advantage of the ignorance, idealism, and unpreparedness of those indoctrinated.

The writer has within a space of ten days come into direct contact with two types of extreme pacifism, the one based on an essentially non-Christian philosophy, humanitarian at best, and the other centered in interpretations of Scripture where the matter of the Christian conscience predominates.

There are wide differences of reasoning between the pacifism of the theological liberal and that of the evangelical Christian, but the effects on the individual are alarmingly similar.

For four hundred years the Mennonites, first in Europe and now in America, have consistently been pacifists, or conscientious objectors. The Friends have the same history, although the theological orientation of the two groups is dissimilar.

But not all of the conscientious objectors come from these groups. Some are found among those who are in chronic revolt against society as a whole; but there now seem to be a growing number whose basic philosophy of life centers in considerations having to do with man’s immediate welfare.

The thesis that “all wars are wrong” is exploited by all pacifists alike. Some amazing philosophical structures based on a dubious hypothesis have emerged.

Today, faced with the possibility of thermonuclear warfare, the cry has been raised, “Better Red than dead.” The “ban-the-bomb movement” in England is not a minor manifestation. One has but to see in person or on television the mob actions of this group to realize that here is no minor disturbance. Many people, young and old, often led by clergymen, engage in blocking traffic and in wild demonstrating which ends in their arrest and reprimand.

The proximity of England to Russia has something to do with this, but the matter goes far deeper. There is often a disillusionment with government leadership; but most important of all, many of these people have lost or have never had a Christian philosophy of life itself.

We recently heard some genuinely Christian men affirm that they would rather subject their wives and children to the uncertainties of physical attacks on their persons or to the slavery of Communism than engage in either physical resistance to an assailant or the horrors of a possible thermonuclear war.

In all of these cases there was often omitted the possibility of a third option. The reduction of a situation to two alternatives can lead to extreme statements. Nevertheless, the philosophy here stated is a dismal one—life above all else.

Had our ancestors not valued liberty and honor more than life itself we would not be here today, enjoying the blessings which are ours.

Men and nations have always found strength and protection in their willingness to defend the right at any cost. Once there is expressed, or implied, an unwillingness to stand for the things men have in the past held as most dear, a potential menace becomes an overwhelming probability.

Never has the world been confronted with a power and ruthlessness such as is exhibited by world Communism today. Let down the guard, remove the deterrents, adopt a policy of nonresistance, and the vestiges of freedom will disappear from all the earth.

Basic to the pacifist philosophy is a substitution of personal opinion for corporate responsibility as a citizen. Some interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify dissociating themselves from obligation to the nation. Others arrive at the same conclusion by a frank rejection of the Scriptures. One denies that there are relevant principles in the Bible, the other the authority of the Scriptures; but to a ruthless enemy, this offers the invitation of unpreparedness regardless of theological motivation or lack of it.

The writer believes a Christian’s attitude to war must be determined not by consequences but by principles; not by one’s personal revulsion to physical combat but by duty and responsibility; not by utopian idealism but by the realities of the world in which we live.

Admit the premise that “there are no just wars” and you are forced to deny the right of our police to deter criminals. Admit that there is no compelling difference between a war of aggression and conquest and one of defense or liberation and the way is opened for violence at the will of lawless men and nations. Argue our Lord’s injunction in the Sermon on the Mount to “turn the other cheek” without his own interpretation in John 18:23—“If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?”—and you have confused the issue.

The Church as well as the state recognizes the rights of conscientious objectors. They have never been a real menace to national security because of their relatively small number as well as the signal service many have rendered in noncombatant capacities.

But the political pacifist, who bases his pacifism on other than religious grounds, can, more easily than even he realizes, slip into the area of disloyalty to his country. Most dangerous of all is the political pacifist who hides his refusal to take up arms for his country behind a facade of religious conviction.

At the moment we do not believe pacifism is a national menace of large proportions. But, from isolated instances which have come to our attention, we believe there is a concerted effort to indoctrinate many of our young people with a dangerous philosophy under the guise of “being Christian,” “social responsibility,” “brotherhood,” or other beguiling terms.

Parents will be wise to find out just what their boys and girls are being taught in youth groups within their churches. Patriotism is not Christianity; neither is disloyalty, no matter in how attractive a guise it may appear.

THEREIN LIE CONTENT

Since I am just recently back from a vacation situation in which there was a professional song leader and gamester who tried to get me to “participate” and to enjoy just lots of “togetherness,” I am unhappily reminded afresh of all the people who have tried so hard to entertain me or, even worse, to get me to entertain myself. I don’t blame these leaders of fun, mind you. I just report that they never lead me into much fun.

I used to tease my youngsters. After breakfast, say on a bright Saturday morning, I would say to them, “Where are you going?,” and they would say, “Out to play.” And I would say, “Play what?” “Well, just play,” they would say, which is exactly what they did. If you have play in you, it shouldn’t be very hard to go out to play. Something is bound to turn up; but if you don’t have play in you, someone else can’t put it into you. Out of the heart are the issues of life, and a merry heart does good like a medicine.

A recent writer has suggested that we do our own brand of whistling in the dark these days by “inventing imperatives.” We tell each other brave things like “don’t worry.” As far as I can tell I have never worried on purpose; but, on the other hand, I have never been able to quit worrying by telling myself that I just won’t worry. My worries arise from deeps some of which I can’t analyze. Then they tell me that a great many things would be different if I would “just start the day happily.” Or maybe “have sunshine in your heart.” I am tempted to a loud guffaw over such advice. Not having the good things in me I try to produce them synthetically, and it never quite comes off. When people tell me to count to ten before I lose my temper, they don’t seem to understand me. If I have really lost my temper, I can’t count!

The plain fact is that the kind of person I really am keeps pumping up to the surface in spite of everything. The question then is how do I get at the sources? “Renew a right spirit within me.” I don’t think I can touch the well-springs of my own life, but He can. Anything less is a superficial fake.

EUTYCHUS II

ANTIDOTE AND APPLAUSE

For an antidote to Professor Seerveld’s ill-founded polemic (“What Makes a College Christian?,” Aug. 30 issue), let me simply direct your readers’ attention to such constructive works as Faith and Knowledge by John Hick, Language and Christian Belief by John Wilson, and even to my own Language, Logic and God and (with Kent Bendall) Exploring the Logic of Faith.

FREDERICK FERRE

Chairman, Philosophy and Religion Dept.

Dickinson College

Carlisle, Pa.

Mr. Seerveld (“An American Bathtub”) has been intemperate in trying to indict philosophy on the basis of charges that are too general.

Canoga Park, Calif.

FRED C. PATTERSON

I am so greatly pleased with the first issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY since becoming a subscriber that I cannot resist the impulse to tell you so.

Calvin Seerveld’s two articles in particular deserve appreciation for the clarity and good sense of the answer to the question as to what makes a college Christian. They strongly appeal to me because it was my privilege to “sit on the same log” with a great teacher who used to say that it is the duty of a college to “make my boy discriminating,” e.g., as to the difference between right and wrong.

HENRY FRANCIS SMITH

Kennebunkport, Me.

CHALLENGE SHORT OF PRAYER

I agree with almost every assertion made in your profound editorial statement, “Religion in the Public Schools” (Aug. 30 issue).

The point of disagreement is that I do not believe that voluntary religion will wither in a secular climate of public affairs. Quite the contrary, a secular state where the government maintains an official neutrality toward all religion is the surest guarantee of religious freedom and vitality. Religion will, and should, enter the public life through the public performance of religiously informed persons rather than through superficial, rote, public manifestations of religiosity. There is a danger, in fact, that when a religious rite becomes incorporated into the state machinery, it loses its religious significance and becomes part of the secularized state religion.

On the other hand, I agree with you that state neutrality toward religion must be “wholesome neutrality.” Neutrality should not be defined in such a way that it becomes hostility to religion. Thus, for example, I would agree that an intensified effort ought now be made to assure a public school curriculum: that will inform all children regarding that aspect of religious truth which is part of our heritage in Western civilization; that will also clarify, for our young, the values, choices, and sanctions that are available to them in our society and challenge them to make ethical decisions in accordance with their profoundest ideals.

Certainly, at the minimum, the theistic affirmations that are part of the historic documents of American political life should be understood by all citizens whether they accept these affirmations or reject them.

In a word, I am saying that the public school, as a state agency, ought not to pray. The state can, however, through its public schools, inform and challenge the heart and the mind. This function properly belongs to the school.

RABBI ARTHUR GILBERT

The National Conference of Christians and Jews, Inc.

New York, N. Y.

JERICHO’S FALL PLUS SOUND EFFECTS

Had “Some Comments on Bible Teaching” by Lucile Long Strayer (Aug. 30 issue) appeared in The Christian Century, we should have rejoiced. But if addressing evangelicals, she shows a lamentable ignorance of current Sunday school literature in the evangelical orientation. Our preschool children, for instance, not only hear the story of the fall of Jericho, but are urged to play it with noise and movement. The trend to more “meat” in content both in the secular and in the liberal religious fields today finds evangelical literature right where it has been all along, offering solid Bible study to all ages.…

Who are these adults who know so little about the Bible? Has anyone compared information among adults from liberal and from evangelical Sunday school backgrounds? True, the ignorant ones may be evangelicals; if so, surely other factors than curricula are at fault. As long as evangelicals consent to the necessity of public school teachers having many hours of educational method and content, while a teacher of the Bible needs nothing but an hour on Saturday night to teach a Book which comes from a different culture, and which is not written at a child’s level, we can hardly expect biblically literate products from our Sunday schools.

MARY E. LEBAR

Prof. of Christian Education

Wheaton College

Wheaton, Ill.

IN ONE PIECE, EVEN

I read the article “Give Me Back My Child” (Aug. 30 issue) with interest, but I was disappointed with the conclusion. The distressing situation which the author described is certainly true and calls for action. However, it seems to me that the writer is guilty of two errors. The first is that he acknowledges the biblical principle of parental responsibility in educating a child but he is not ready to return to that principle in educating his own child. The second error is that he seeks to defend the public school as not being “Godless.” I admire his loyalty to the position of his denomination but I fail to see how he can uphold that stand especially in the light of what he has written himself in the article. The public school system in the main is not Christian, it is not neutral, but it is anti-Christian. It is the expression of the spirit of the world. Therefore, it seems to me that the only logical conclusion to the matter is the private Christian day school which as an extension of the home can impart the faith of the home. Then the author will have his child back and in one piece also.

NORMAN B. HAAN

Volga Christian Reformed Church

Volga, S. D.

AMPLIFICATION DESIRED

Your article “The Fourth ‘R’ ” by Dr. Joseph M. Hopkins (Aug. 30 issue) is one of the finest I have ever read by any Protestant on present-day trends in religion. I wish every Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Orthodox would read it, especially leaders in government and public and state education. Dr. Hopkins’ suggestions should be given thoughtful and serious study.

SAMUEL H. SAYRE

Kingston Parish (Episcopal)

Mathews, Va.

If public schools are to teach religion as the fourth “R,” what religion is it to be—Catholic, Protestant, Jewish?… No, religious instruction can only be the province of the home and the church.

Pasadena, Calif.

WILLIAM G. WIRTH

We are at an impasse: the kind of education our children should have is exactly what the state cannot legitimately provide. Why do we hesitate to come to the logical conclusion, that it is our responsibility to provide the kind of schools that can dispense a spiritually founded education?

As one who has fought the battle, I am aware of the arguments con. There is first the rallying cry of our obligation to defend the public schools. At the risk of being branded a bolshevik, an anarchist, or a lunatic, I ask: Whose obligation? The appeal is often made to Matthew 22:21, where Jesus told the Pharisees to “Render … unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Overlooking for the moment the dubious applicability of this verse on exegetical grounds to our problem, is there anything in Scripture or in theology which hints that education is one of things “which are Caesar’s”? The claim that education is a function of the state came entirely from the side of the state, and that quite recently. But we have been so brainwashed by the notion that we accept it as of the order of nature. The state may have sound arguments, from a secular point of view, to support its claims to the right to maintain schools. But wherein are we permitted to suppose that these … take priority over the God-given responsibility of parents?

Then there is the argument of cost. Of course it costs money to build and operate schools. But I do not find any warrant in Scripture for the idea that we can fulfill any of our spiritual and moral duties at little cost, least of all such a crucially important one as that of educating our children. Obedience to God in any sphere costs—and more than mere money. Obedience that costs less than my all is incomplete obedience.

Finally, there is the argument that goes like this: “What will happen to children in the public schools without the witness of the Christian children? And what will happen to the Christian child if he is sheltered from the reality of a world hostile to his God?” On the basis of my experience with three children who are at least as interested in evangelism as the average Christian child, I can testify that the opportunity to witness in school is much less than is supposed, while the opportunity to witness out of school is much greater than is supposed. When our children were in a Christian school, their witness was just as vital and effective as it is now that they are in a public school, if not more so. And as for the “hothouse” argument, I accept it. I purposely and designedly would provide for my children a measure of protection, until they are of age to exercise a greater measure of discernment, discretion, and judgment than they are at present capable of. We are not facing the facts if we exaggerate the capacity of our children to discriminate in assimilating what is taught in school, including what is taught implicitly, which is not inconsiderable, and when we minimize the impact of a secular approach to the universe upon an impressionable child.

Hartford, Conn.

CHARLES R. TABER

PLEA FOR AMPLIFICATION

I want to heartily endorse the article “The Non-Conformists” by James J. Short (Aug. 2 issue).

This article should be published in Editor and Publisher, it should appear as “Speaking Out” in the Saturday Evening Post, it should be in the trade journals of the movie and television industries. It should appear as pungent letters to the editors in our metropolitan papers, and magazines with national coverage. It should be sent to the professors of literature in our great universities and colleges. It should be in the publications of our education associations. It should be delivered as a speech after dinner to the half-drunk crowd attending various professional or business organizations.

H. GLENN STEPHENS

Director

United Presbyterian Center

Frenchburg, Ky.

James J. Short … is correct in his suggestion that there remains in society an uncelebrated core of morally upright people. Several of his comments or observations seem to be rather extreme, however. For example, he observes that Sinclair Lewis in Elmer Gantry “personifies gospel evangelists by … a religious charlatan who profits from his preaching and fornicates from his profits.” Is it not possible that Lewis was not also attacking the gullibility of certain kinds of congregations as well as the morals of his preacher? Furthermore, is Lewis really saying that all evangelists are like this, or is he simply telling the story of one such charlatan? Mr. Short also mentions that Dickens was “religiously oriented and did not attack people in this regard” (for holding high moral principles). Any biography of Dickens’ life will suggest that the novelist himself had his favorites among the women.

While it is true that people who like to think of themselves as part of the core of non-conformists Mr. Short describes may find certain aspects of modern literature decadent, they should continue to read it, not only to understand better modern man’s needs of redemption, but also for the insights books like Ulysses, Sons and Lovers, and A Farewell to Arms give us into human behavior.

KENNETH E. WILLIAMS

Ashbourne Presbyterian Church

Elkins Park, Pa.

ONTOLOGICAL SHOCK ABSORBED

Addison H. Leitch’s postscript to your August 30 issue reminds me of an incident that took place several years ago in our seminary. As seminarians we liked to discourse learnedly (we thought) for hours on end about such high-sounding terms as “existentialism,” “ontological shock,” “points of contact,” “ideological encounter,” and other wordy terms vaguely defined. In our midst that year was a Canadian Lutheran pastor, fresh from the wilds of Saskatchewan, who was writing the thesis for his S.T.M. degree. One day he listened to one of our lengthy learned debates, saying nothing until we paused for collective theological breath. Then he quietly asked:

“How does it happen?—there are scores of pastors in our parishes today who have never heard about existentialism and ontology, and who couldn’t care less if someone told them. How, then, have they survived as effective pastors? Yet that’s exactly what they have all been for twenty, thirty, or even forty years.”

EDWARD A. JOHNSON

St. Peter’s Evangelical Lutheran Community Church

Hay Springs, Neb.

The writer is a firm believer in a well-trained ministry, but since graduating from theological school thirty years ago he has had time to do a considerable amount of reading as well as attending theological discussions and listening to the “wise men from the East.” However, the theologian seems to be engaged in a lost cause.

On Continental Europe and the British Isles the minister must have four or five degrees or he is regarded as an ignoramus. Does this fact account for the poor church attendance and the little or no influence of the Church in the life of the people?

A few years ago the writer attended the meeting of the Baptist World Alliance. One of the speakers spoke on “Jesus Christ: Our High Priest.” A person with only an eighth-grade education could have understood every word which he spoke. His name: George Truett.

Eagle, Idaho

MERRILL C. SKAUC

A STUDENT’S REJOINDER

As a student of Dr. Stagg, and having read both his books closely, I feel that Dr. Tenney did not read the latest book [New Testament Theology] closely enough (Book Reviews, May 24 issue).

In my opinion, Dr. Stagg is more neo-orthodox than conservative. As Dr. Tenney points out, Dr. Stagg is ambiguous in discussing inspiration. I believe that he is purposely ambiguous about a number of things. He teaches a Pelagian doctrine of sin. Compare chapter 2 with pages 334 and 335 on this. He teaches the wholistic view of man. He suggests a modalistic Trinity on page 39, which is in fact what he teaches.

In chapters 4 and 5 he makes even more serious errors. A careful study of his teaching on the Atonement will reveal that it is wholly subjective. There is no objective Atonement to be found in his teaching. There is a total lack of what Leonard Hodgson describes as “something accomplished, something done.” He rejects the substitutionary death of Christ.

D. WAYNE EVANS

New Zion Baptist

Monticello, Miss.

LEST WE FORGET

It is a small thing to add two letters of the alphabet to one’s personal and business correspondence and to have one’s children, as an act of devotion and commemoration, place upon their school papers on the dateline the letters A.D. (Anno Domini, the year of our Lord). This is but a renewal of the proper form. Thus we daily publish and commemorate the birth of our Redeemer, Saviour, and Lord.

With the days of the week named and still called by the names of pagan gods and the months honoring Janus, a two-faced god, and Mars, the god of war, and others—where … is the Prince of Peace?

Let us recall the words of Kipling:

Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet;

Lest we forget, lest we forget.

As Dr. Rene de Visme Williamson, professor of government at Louisiana State University, writes in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Feb. 15 issue): “Even the pagan world must reckon all history as before or after Christ. So must each individual reckon his own personal life as before or after Christ’s birth in his own life.”

Jacksonville, Fla.

ROBERT MANLEY

That man is a fallen creature in need of salvation is acknowledged by Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. It is also agreed that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. This may appear to be an all-important area of agreement, but unfortunately Roman Catholicism must be charged with having distorted the biblical doctrine of salvation to such an extent that in fundamental respects it has departed from the pure Gospel of the New Testament. This is a serious charge to make against an ecclesiastical system; but it is made in a spirit of charity, not contentiousness, and in the hope that Roman Catholic friends will be prepared, as befits Christians, to reconsider their position in the light of the teaching of Holy Scripture.

In the first place, Rome teaches that the fall of man involved only the loss of original righteousness, which is explained as a gift added to man after his creation; this loss therefore leaves him in the state in which he was created—a purely natural state, and a supposedly neutral state, in which he is predisposed neither to good nor to evil. This in turn permits man the ability to incline himself either to good or to evil and to cooperate with God in the achievement of his salvation.

Thus we find the Council of Trent both pronouncing an anathema on all who teach that man is justified by faith alone, and declaring that man must cooperate in obtaining the grace of justification, that his justification may be increased by good works which he performs, and that a man once justified can lose his justification.

These official Roman Catholic pronouncements are still in force today and are aimed directly against the Reformed doctrine, consciously formulated from the apostolic teaching of the New Testament, that a man is justified only by faith in the perfect atoning work of Christ, and not at all by any works of his own doing (cf. Eph. 2:8 f.; Rom. 3:28; 5:1; 11:6; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 3:5); that in Christ his justification is full and complete, and therefore cannot be added to; and that, as it is entirely the work of Almighty God, it cannot fail or be lost (cf. Col. 2:9 f.; 1 Cor. 1:30; Phil. 1:6; John 10:28 f.). The Reformers, none the less, laid great stress on the importance of good works—not, however, in any sense as a cause or root of justification, but as the necessary effect or fruit of the faith which justifies.

The teaching of Roman Catholicism follows from that church’s conception of fallen man as being, as far as his will is concerned, in a state of neutrality, so that he has the faculty of preparing himself and contributing to his own salvation. The Reformers learned from Scripture, however, that man is not morally neutral, but rather that his will is in bondage to sin and hostilely opposed to the will of God. The wonderful thing about God’s grace in Christ is that it is freely bestowed on man when by sin he has made himself God’s enemy and has no strength to help himself (cf. Rom. 5:6, 8 ff.). The complete powerlessness of man to contribute anything towards his salvation is nowhere more graphically stated than in Ephesians 3:1 ff., where the Apostle Paul describes the state of fallen man as a condition of being dead in trespasses and sins.

Man’s eternal security in Christ rests squarely on his justification’s being entirely the work of God’s grace. To give man even a small part in the achievement of his own justification is to place him in a position of uncertainty. It is to rob him of the full assurance of his salvation which is every believer’s birthright (Rom. 8:15 f.; 2 Tim. 2:19). This fundamental insecurity is reflected in the elaborate sacerdotal system of the conveyance of grace of Roman Catholicism, in its penances, indulgences, and purgatorial perspective, which can flourish only where man is uncertain of his ultimate justification before God because his spiritual status is jeopardized through defections and sins committed after his baptism. The Reformed reply to this is that the New Testament knows only one means of atonement for sin, only one purgatory for the cleansing away of defilement, and that is the blood of Jesus Christ shed on the Cross, which cleanses the believer from all sin (cf. 1 John 1:7 ff.; Heb. 10:18).

The Roman Catholic teaching means, further, that justification and sanctification become hopelessly confused. The voluntary endurance of severe penances, affliction of the body with painful indignities, repetition of prayers, and withdrawal from the world, which together constitute the high road of holiness for the Roman Catholic who can travel it, are in reality a way of preoccupation with one’s acceptance (= justification) before God. The hope all along is to gain favor with God by what one does to oneself and for oneself.

The Treasury Of Merits

The assumption of the neutrality of the “natural” man lends itself to yet another elaboration, namely, that a man may even perform good works over and above what is necessary for his own acceptance and thereby accumulate a reserve of surplus merit. These are known as works of supererogation, and the credit balance thus built up in “the bank of merit” is then made available in the form of indulgences to the common run of church members, whose spiritual accounts are “in the red.” Application of this concept of superfluous merit has in the past provided a lucrative source of revenue for the papal coffers. It was rightly denounced by the Reformers as a dreadful corruption of the Christian Gospel, doing despite to the perfect adequacy of Christ, whose work alone is meritorious for our salvation, and showing an astonishing disregard for the admonition of Christ himself that even if one were to perform all that God demands of him, yet he should still describe himself as an unprofitable servant (Luke 17:10).

If a man may thus amass surplus merit which others may draw upon, it is not surprising to find the Roman Catholic Church encouraging its members to pray to apostles and saints for assistance (hagiolatry), and if to human creatures, then to super-human creatures also (angelolatry). Once again, all this is contrary to the clear teaching of the New Testament. It is God alone whom we can worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24). Thus when Cornelius wished to worship an apostle, Peter forbade him (Acts 10:25 f.), and when the Apostle John was about to worship an angel, he was told by the angel: “See thou do it not … worship God” (Rev. 22:8).

The Worship Of Mary

It is, however, in the cult of Mary (mariolatry) that this extension of worship reaches its fullest expression. Mary has been exalted to a position which in effect is on a par with that of Christ. Adored as “the Queen of Heaven,” she has virtually ousted the Holy Spirit from the Trinity. The title “Mother of God” (Theotokos), which was applied to her at the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) in preference to the title “Mother of Christ” (Christotokos), has been effectively manipulated by those who have promoted the cult of Mary over the centuries. In more recent times the cult has been immensely strengthened by the official ex cathedra papal definitions of the dogmas of the immaculate conception (1854) and the bodily assumption of Mary (1950). Neither of these dogmas receives any support in Holy Scripture, and until the respective dates of their definition they were both hotly disputed within the Roman Catholic Church. Now, however, all Roman Catholics are bound to believe them for the salvation of their souls.

For centuries, it is true, extravagant claims have been made for Mary; but, bolstered by the definitions of 1854 and 1950, these claims have been hardened into official dogmas. They have been supported, moreover, by a series of papal pronouncements. In 1891, for example, Pope Leo XIII declared that “as no one can come to the Most High Father except through the Son, so, generally, no one can come to Christ except through Mary.” Pope Benedict XV affirmed in 1918 that Mary had redeemed the human race in cooperation with Christ. In 1946, on the occasion of the crowning of Mary’s statue at Fatima, Pope Pius XII made the unequivocal statement: “Mary is indeed worthy to receive honor and might and glory. She is exalted to hypostatic union with the Blessed Trinity.… her kingdom is as great as her Son’s and God’s.” The phenomenal growth, too, of the cult of Mary at places like Lourdes in France and Fatima in Portugal has not been without strong encouragement from the highest quarters—so much so that there is wide expectation that the next papal dogma to be defined infallibly ex cathedra will be that of Mary’s co-redeemership with Christ.

This, in any case, is the logical outworking of the Roman Catholic doctrine of salvation. If fallen man is neutrally disposed, so that he both can and must cooperate in his own salvation, then man as well as God has a saving capacity; and, this being so, it is reasonable that one human being (Mary), who is supposed to have been without taint of sin, should become the exponent of all man’s potentialities by being exalted to the status of Christ’s fellow redeemer and fellow mediator, and even to the height of consubstantiality with God.

It is regrettable that it should be necessary to point out that Mary, though highly favored of God (Luke 1:28), was a sinful human creature in need of salvation with the rest of mankind (hence her description of God as her Saviour, Luke 1:47), and that to ascribe to her the glory which is due to Christ alone (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5 f.; Phil. 2:5–11; Rev. 5:9, 12 f.) is both blasphemous and destructive of the Gospel.

Prospects Of Vatican Ii

What, finally, may be said of the Vatican Council, shortly to be resumed under the new pope, which is so largely concerned with the question of Christian unity? We welcome every opportunity for frank and charitable discussion with our Roman Catholic friends on the subject of the vital doctrine of our salvation in Christ, especially in humble attentiveness to the testimony of God’s holy Word.

But, in the first place, Dr. Hans Küng, whose writings have been so enthusiastically received in Protestant circles, has made it clear that his church’s “dogmatic definitions express the truth with infallible accuracy and are in this sense unalterable” (The Council and Reunion, 1961, p. 163); secondly, Cardinal Bea, president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity instituted by the late Pope John XXIII, has asserted categorically that reunion, as far as Rome is concerned, must mean “submission in matters of Doctrine and Discipline” under “the supreme pastor, the successor of St. Peter, the Bishop of Rome,” and, with reference to the World Council of Churches, that “the Catholic Church cannot, as has often been asked and desired, become a member of this organization, which has a completely different character from the structure given by Christ Himself to the Church He founded” (Christian Unity: A Catholic View, 1962, pp. 63, 68 f.); and, thirdly, the new Catholic Dictionary of Theology (Vol. I, 1962), now in process of production, has declared, with particular reference to Anglicanism, that reunion can only entail acceptance of “the supremacy of the Holy See and the doctrinal definitions of 1854, 1870, and 1950, together with those of the Council of Trent,” and that any amalgamation of the Church of Rome with the Church of England or the Anglican communion is, “as anyone with the smallest knowledge of these matters knows to be the case, inconceivable.”

On these terms, reunion is inconceivable for those who hold the evangelical doctrines of Holy Scripture.

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes is editor of The Churchman, Anglican theological quarterly. He holds the M.A and D.Litt. degrees from the University of Cape Town and the B.D. from the University of Londan. Vice-president of the International Association for Reformed Faith and Action, he edits its International Reformed Bulletin.

For Roman Catholicism, Holy Scripture is a primary source of revelation. As Trent puts it, saving truth and moral teaching “are contained in written books.” These are the books of the Old and New Testament, which are venerated, “since one God is the author of both.” A highly respected and authoritative Scripture is thus the basis of Christian preaching and teaching.

How important and authoritative this source is may be seen even more fully from the declarations of the Vatican Council of 1870 and subsequent statements. Thus the books of the Old and New Testaments must be “accepted as sacred and canonical in their entirety, with all their parts.” “They contain revelation without error.” “They were written as a result of the prompting of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such they were entrusted to the Church.” Anathema is pronounced on all who deny that they were divinely inspired (Vatican Council I).

In answer to modern critical and theological developments, Roman Catholicism has maintained this high view of Scripture. While there may have been errors in copying, it is wrong “either to limit inspiration to certain parts … or to concede that the divine author has erred.” It is also impossible to restrict inspiration “to matters of faith and morals” (Providentissimus Deus, 1893). Nor are the historical passages to be construed in terms of relative rather than absolute truth. Even if fallible men were used as instruments, “God stimulated and moved them to write and so assisted them in their writing that they properly understood and willed to write faithfully and express suitably with infallible truthfulness all that he ordered.” The divine writings are thus “free from all error” (Spiritus Paraclitus, 1920).

In respect of the positive statements of Roman Catholicism concerning Holy Scripture, classical orthodoxy can have no quarrel. Here is a sure foundation of theological and evangelistic truth. Here is a source from which sound preaching and teaching may draw for the evangelizing of sinners and the edifying of saints. If Roman Catholicism were to stop at this point, or to relate all else strictly to this foundation, a giant step would be taken towards the ecumenical healing of the Church.

Unfortunately, however, Roman Catholicism does not stop at these basic statements. It proceeds to a series of minor and major additional statements which involve at least the serious possibility of modification or restriction of the primary thesis. It is true that today there are powerful forces in the Roman Catholic world which are seeking in some degree to prevent such modification or restriction. It is also true, however, that the qualifying statements naturally tend in this direction.

First, the definition of the canon of Scripture is expanded to include the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. Although the Jews saw a distinction between the canonical and the apocryphal books, and although Jerome himself was aware of this distinction, the Council of Trent goes its own way, anathematizing “anyone who does not accept these books as sacred and canonical in their entirety, with all their parts”; and this decision is endorsed by the Vatican Council of 1870. At many points this enlargement of the canon makes little difference. But from the standpoint of the sources of revelation it has three serious implications. First, these sources are widened in principle. Again, a decision of the Church imposes this extension on the Christian world. And finally, there are practical effects at a few significant points, for example, in respect of the support of prayers for the dead from the apocryphal books.

Secondly, the Latin translation usually known as the Vulgate is exalted to a position of virtual parity with the Greek and Hebrew originals. The Tridentine statement is not absolute in this respect, but it is far-reaching. “The ancient Vulgate … should be considered the authentic edition in public readings, disputations, preaching, and explanations; and no one should presume or dare to reject it under any pretext whatever.” This position has been defended as recently as 1943 in the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This encyclical admits that the Vulgate’s authenticity is “juridical” rather than “critical.” It allows consultation of the originals, and even vernacular translations from them. But it insists that the Vulgate is “free from all error in matters of faith and morals,” and that “it can be safely quoted without the least fear of erring.” The admission that the Vulgate’s authority is in some sense relative rather than absolute lessens the dangers inherent in the Tridentine decision. Nevertheless, the elevation of a particular translation even to this eminence carries with it a serious qualification of Holy Scripture as the pure source of revelation. For the possibility arises that matters of faith or morals may be grounded merely upon the Vulgate without any possibility of its correction by the original Greek and Hebrew. For practical purposes many translations, the King James for example, are often used in this way. But it is rather another matter to give to the practical use codified definition as a principle.

Thirdly, and rather more seriously, the Roman Catholic world adds to its acceptance of Scripture not merely certain qualifications in respect of Scripture, but also the endorsement of a second source of revelation, namely, unwritten tradition. Saving truth and moral teaching are also contained, says Trent, “in the unwritten traditions that the apostles received from Christ himself, or that were handed on … from the apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” The council “accepts and venerates traditions” “with the same sense of devotion and reverence” as it does the written Scriptures. Thus a second source of revelation is set alongside the Old and New Testaments.

How Relate Scripture And Tradition?

Now it is true that no precise definition has been given either of unwritten tradition or of its relation to Scripture. This was an unfulfilled task of the Vatican Council of 1870, and it is one of the most important and contentious issues of the Second Vatican Council. There are those who would bring spoken tradition and written Scripture into the closest possible relation, as though the one were merely the oral form of the other. In this case, no possibility of qualification by addition arises, for Scripture remains a constant check upon living proclamation. The evangelical emphasis on the importance of preaching might well be fitted into some such understanding.

The more traditional view, however, is rather different, and far more dangerous. On this interpretation unwritten traditions are apostolic truths and precepts which were never committed to writing, but which are equally authoritative with what is written. Thus the Church might teach and practice many things which cannot be substantiated from Scripture. If challenged, as at the Reformation, it counters the argument from Scripture by an appeal to unwritten tradition. “Biblical” and “apostolic” are not necessarily coterminous. Thus the Bible loses its unique position as the one absolute authority and criterion in the Church. Tradition is not merely another aspect of the one source of revelation. It is a second source in the stricter sense. Or rather, the apostolic preaching is the one source. And this has come down to us in the complementary forms of Scripture on the one side and tradition on the other. Hence many things may be defended as authentically apostolic even though there is no sanction for them in Scripture. On this reading, the control of Holy Scripture is very largely undermined.

Finally, Holy Scripture is subjected to the authoritative interpretation of the Church itself. It is the office of holy Mother Church “to judge about the true sense and interpretation of Sacred Scripture” (Trent). “In matters of faith and morals, that sense … is to be considered as true which holy Mother Church has held, and now holds.” “No one is allowed to interpret Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense nor contrary to the unanimous agreement of the Fathers” (Vatican Council I). In other words, the infallible Scripture is accompanied by an infallible interpretation, which is vested in the Church in its teaching office.

In the modern period this appeal to the authority of the Church has tended to become more important for Roman Catholics than the sixteenth-century appeal to tradition. It is expressed in the teaching of Newman that the Church progressively brings out what is implicit in Scripture, so that the relation of modern dogma to Scripture is that of the grown tree to the seed. It finds even more important statement in the work of theologians like Scheeben, which identifies the Church with living tradition, and which leads to the express definition of the Church’s infallibility in 1870, namely, that “the [Church’s] prerogative of infallibility … embraces … everything that, although not in itself revealed, is necessary for safeguarding the revealed word, for certainly and definitively proposing and explaining it for belief, or for legitimately asserting and defending it against the errors of men.” It reaches its logical climax in the argument that, by virtue of its primacy, the Holy See enjoys supreme power of teaching, and that the Son of God has thus deigned to join the prerogative of infallibility to the highest pastoral office (Vatican Council I).

At every level this exaltation of the teaching office represents a serious invasion of the true source of revelation. While the absolute authority of Scripture is still maintained, it is also shackled. True Scripture is identical with Roman Catholic interpretation, or with the implications which Roman Catholicism finds in Scripture. No appeal is possible to Scripture itself in relation to the pronouncements of the teaching office. The infallible Church becomes in truth the mistress of infallible Scripture. Apostolic truth is scriptural, but that is scriptural which the teaching office rightly or wrongly declares to be so. There is no possibility of openness to the Word of God. There is no possibility of the Word of God exercising its free sovereignty.

Yet Roman Catholicism still pursues the study of Holy Scripture. In spite of every shackle, the Bible maintains its independent entity. The theoretical impossibility of its lordship can still be refuted by the practical demonstration. Indeed, the truly significant fact in the modern Roman Catholic world is that biblical study has begun to pose afresh both questions and possibilities that seemed to have been closed forever at the Council of Trent. Perhaps the ultimately decisive issue at the Second Vatican Council is whether Holy Scripture will emerge again as the one authentic and apostolic source of revelation in spite of the qualifications of the past. If it does not, there can be no question of real rapprochement with Roman Catholicism. If it does—and we hope and pray that it may—then the outlook is bright for a true and powerful moving of the Word and Spirit over a far wider front in our generation.

Geoffrey W. Bromiley is professor of church history and historical theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena. He holds the M.A. from Cambridge University, the Ph.D. and D.Litt. from the University of Edinburgh. Formerly vice-principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol, he is the translator of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics.

It belongs to the nature of Christian theology that all of its questions have a practical, vital character. In the trinitarian and Christological controversies which accompanied the decline of the ancient world, the issue was: what did it mean that God had entered the world to redeem it. The doctrinal discussions of the age of the Reformation centered on the vital question of how man can stand in the divine judgment toward which all human life is moving. Thus a very practical question also stands behind the theological debates which in this “century of the church” dominate the theology of all Christendom: If we all confess the only holy Church, what do we mean by that and what does the reality of this Church mean to an age in which the entire social life of mankind is undergoing unprecedented revolutionary changes?

What is the Church? Every branch of Christendom has to give its answer, and none of the answers so far given can claim finality. This is shown by the remarkable fact that even the elaborate doctrinal system of the Roman Catholic Church to this day does not contain a dogmatic statement on the nature of the Church. Up to the beginning of the sixteenth century all Christendom was satisfied with the clause of the Nicene Creed: “I believe one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” The churches of the East have never gone beyond this. They have left the exposition of this article to the theologians. But none of their theories have become dogma.

It was the Reformation which caused the first dogmatic statements on what the Church of Christ is. When the Reformers found themselves excommunicated by the pope, they had to show that this condemnation did not exclude them from the Church which is confessed by the creed. The pertinent articles of the great confessions from Augsburg to Westminster are attempts to say in an official and binding way what, according to Holy Scripture, the Church is. With their imperfections and limitations, and despite obvious errors contained in some of them, they express some insights which even Rome had to accept, as was done in the Catechismus Romanus, published after the Council of Trent. However, what this catechetical handbook (for use by the priest in his exposition of the creed) says about the Church is not regarded as dogma, for Trent had not spoken on this matter.

It was not until 1870 that ecclesiology became an object of dogmatic decisions in the Roman church. A draft of a “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ” was put before the First Vatican Council. Written opinions of the bishops were solicited and given. They yet remain important contributions to a Catholic ecclesiology. But the schema as a whole could not be discussed. Only a section of the doctrine of the Church, the dogma of the papacy, could be finalized and proclaimed at the last possible moment—on the eighteenth of July, the day before the outbreak of the Franco-German War—as the “First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ” (Pastor aeternus).

Starting Point Of The Doctrine

It was not only lack of time, however, that made solution of the ecclesiological problem impossible at that point in history. The schema had met with the severest criticism by the most learned bishops. Their main objection was directed against the starting point of the proposed doctrine, the description of the Church as the mystical body of Christ. This was an innovation. If the Catechismus Romanus, in this case in harmony with the confessions of the Reformation, defined the Church from the meaning of the word ecclesia as “assembly, congregation, people of God,” it followed the theological tradition of the entire Church. The Greek fathers had always started from the meaning of the word ekklesia, which they found in their Greek Old Testament as “assembly, people of God.” The Latin fathers had followed their example. In Augustine’s theology the idea of the mystical body of Christ plays a great role. But wherever he defines the Church, he starts from the meaning “congregation.” Nowhere does he identify the visible Church with the body of Christ. The language of the liturgy corresponds to the usage of the theologians. The liturgy always represents an early stage of doctrine—the Roman Mass, for example, contains neither an invocation of Mary nor the doctrine of transubstantiation, and speaks in the solemn oration more than fifty times of the Church as the “family” or the “people” (plebs, populus) of God, while the word “body” occurs only once.

In 1870, A New Method

How then is it to be explained that the schema proposed in 1870 abandoned the old method and began the doctrine of the Church with the concept of the Church as the mystical body of Christ? This was the result of a development that had taken place in modern Catholicism. To the question “What is the church?,” Bossuet already had given the famous answer: “The Church is Jesus Christ, however Jesus Christ, spread abroad and communicated.” This idea was taken up by J. A. Möhler, whose books The Unity in the Church (1825) and Symbolics (1832) inaugurated the rediscovery of the Catholic concept of the Church after the Age of Enlightenment. Möhler, who influenced the Tractarians, such as Newman, as well as Russian thinkers like Chomjakow, developed his understanding of the Church as an organism in which the Spirit of Christ is embodied, under the influence both of German Protestant thinkers (Hegel and especially Schleiermacher) and of the sociology of Romanticism, which understood the great phenomena of the social life as living organisms. He established definitely the idea of the Church as “Christ living on in history,” or, as it was later put by the Anglicans, “the continuation of the Incarnation.” It was under his influence that by the middle of the century Catholic theologians began to accept that understanding of the Church as the mystical body of Christ which we find at the First Vatican Council. While rejected by most of the bishops who put in their written opinions, it became more and more accepted not only by modern Catholic theology (e.g., see Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism), but also by Anglicans and many Protestants who under the influence of the ecumenical movement have adopted at least the terminology without realizing its meaning and sensing its perils.

How dangerous this idea of the Church is becomes obvious from the encyclical Mystici Corporis, which Pius XII issued in 1943 and which was regarded as the first step toward the future solution of the ecclesiological problem. Its first part, which deals with “The Church as the Mystical Body of Christ,” describes the Church as a body, as the Body of Christ, and as the Mystical Body. As a body, the Church must be not only one and undivided, but also something concrete and visible. The word from Leo XIII’s Satis cognitum is quoted: “By the very fact of being a body the Church is visible.” Who belongs to this body of the Church? “Only those are to be accounted really members of the Church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith and have not cut themselves off from the Structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority.” “Schism, heresy, or apostasy are such (sins) of their very nature that they sever a man from the Body of the Church; but not every sin, even the most grievous, is of such a kind.…”

This visible society is the body of Christ. Christ as the Head rules his body partly by invisible and extraordinary government, partly “visibly and ordinarily through His Vicar on earth and, in the dioceses, through the bishops.” “That Christ and His Vicar constitute only one Head was solemnly taught by Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Boniface VIII, in his apostolic letter Unam Sanctam.…” But the name “body of Christ” means more than that Christ is the Head; “it also means that He so upholds the Church, and so, after a certain manner, lives in the Church that she may be said to be another Christ.” As scriptural proof for this identity of Christ and the Church are adduced First Corinthians 12:12 and the words addressed by the Lord to Paul: “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” The Church is called “mystical Body” to distinguish the social body of the Church from Christ’s physical body which is now in heaven and lies hidden beneath the eucharistic veils. The expression at the same time distinguishes the Church from any body of the natural order, whether physical or moral. The Church is a society of the supernatural order. “The Mystical Body of Christ is like Christ Himself … who is not complete if we consider Him only in His visible humanity … or … His invisible divinity, but is one from and in both natures” (quotation from Leo XIII, Satis cognitum). From this it follows that the Church itself is sinless—although this word is not used—even though among its members there exists “the lamentable tendency of individuals towards evil, a tendency which the divine Founder suffers to exist even in the higher members of His mystical Body for the testing of the virtue of both flock and pastors and for the greater merit of Christian faith in all.” The Church herself is holy. “She cannot be blamed if some of her members are sick or wounded. It is in their name that she prays daily to God: ‘Forgive us our trespasses,’ applying herself with motherly and valiant heart to their spiritual healing.”

Union Yet Diversity

In a later chapter the encyclical calls to mind that the Apostle, “though he combines Christ and His mystical Body in a marvellous union, yet contrasts the one with the other, as Bridegroom with Bride.” This is said against a false understanding of the union of Christ and his members which, while attributing divine properties to human beings, makes Christ our Lord subject to error and human frailty. There is also a strong emphasis on the necessity of the sacrament of penance and of the constant petition for forgiveness of the venial sins. It would be emphasized today even more than in Mystici Corporis that all members of the Church, including the Vicar of Christ, need forgiveness. But the Church as such is sinless, as was Mary, who is the type of the Church. This follows from the doctrine of the Church as another Christ.

There are other consequences. What is the place of ecclesiology in the system of dogmatics? Partly at least it would belong in Christology, where Aquinas deals with it (Summa Th., III, q. 8, “Of the Grace of Christ as the Head of the Church”). There is a remarkable tendency in modern Catholic dogmatics to deal with the doctrine of the Church in the introduction to “Fundamental Theology” in connection with “the sources of Revelation”; for example, in the Summa of the Spanish Jesuits the treatise “Of the Church of Christ,” which also contains the doctrine on tradition, is followed by the treatise “Of Holy Scripture.” Nowhere else in the four volumes is the Church treated. The practical reasons given by modern dogmaticians for this method reveal the final consequences of the modern concept of the Church as another Christ. If it is true not only that the Church is to interpret Holy Scripture with infallible authority, but also, as we are told today, that tradition is not a second source of revelation but rather the exercise of the function of interpreting the Scriptures by the Church, then the Church becomes, in the last analysis, a source of revelation. Not tradition, but rather the Church is the source of a dogma like that of the assumption of Mary. The attempt made by the present council to restore the authority of the Scriptures by subordinating tradition to them amounts actually to the elevation of the Church to a source, and perhaps the main source, of revelation. The title of Tavard’s book, Holy Writ or Holy Church, is characteristic, in a way which the author certainly did not have in mind, of the real situation of Christianity today.

Decision Too Momentous For Hurry

It is a decision of immeasurable importance which the Second Vatican Council will have to make in the “Second Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ,” and we can only hope that it will not be made in a hurry. Will the council follow the lead of Mystici Corporis, or will it listen to the objections raised by learned and loyal Catholic theologians? Promising attempts are being made to overcome the traditional narrowness in defining the relation between the Roman church and the “schismatics” and “heretics,” who are now regarded as “separated brethren” because they have received the indelible character of children of God in their baptism and because their defection from the true Church was not an act of their own will and, consequently, not their personal sin. The broadmindedness with which today “baptism by desire” is ascribed to pagans of good will who live according to the natural light of reason seems to us, who have learned from our Reformers to take seriously the First Commandment, to abolish the biblical concept of the Church of Christ. Does not the lack of certainty about the borders of the Church indicate that any definition of the Church must be preceded by a thorough reexamination of traditional Catholic ecclesiology?

Such reexamination should begin from the fact that so many bishops of the First Vatican Council rejected the doctrine of the Church which started from the concept of the body of Christ. St. Paul’s profound thoughts on the body of Christ—the one body in Christ, the body of Christ, the body whose head is Christ—defy any attempt to rationalize and systematize them. A false rationalization is this sentence: “By the very fact of being a body the Church is visible.” One of the roots of Paul’s doctrine of the Church as the body of Christ is certainly to be found in the Eucharist. Should not the concept of the sacramental body which is received by each communicant in its entirety shed light on the fact that the smallest congregation in one place is not less the body of Christ than is the sum total of all believers? If then the expression “body of Christ” hints at the deep mystery of the relationship between Christ and his Church but does not define it, the theologically legitimate way of defining the Church is to use the original meaning of ekklesia as the congregation of the believers, the people of God. Should not modern Catholic theology also in this doctrine return to a new biblical approach? And does not this biblical approach help us, in a better way than any sociology can, to understand the divine-human character of the Church?

The Church And The Last Things

The Church is the people of God “in these last days,” at the end of the world. The Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost “in the last days” (Acts 2:17). Hence the Church has its place in the Creeds of the Third Article, which deals with the last things: the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, the life everlasting. This is the place of ecclesiology in Christian dogmatics. In this sense Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews have understood the Church as the people of God, freed from the bondage of the old aeon, on their way through the desert of this world into the promised land of the new aeon, the new Jerusalem where Christians have their citizenship (Phil. 3:20; Heb. 13:14; cf. Heb. 11–13 and 1 Cor. 10:1 ff.). This understanding of the Church alone can explain what the holiness of the Church is. It is the holiness of the people of God—sinful men, and yet accepted by God as his own, justified by faith in Christ. This is the Church which prays not only vicariously for some of its weak members, but for all its members and, therefore, for itself daily: “Forgive us our trespasses”—and which lives by this forgiveness.

Is this understanding of the Church impossible in Roman Catholicism? We must leave it to our Catholic brethren to answer this question. But we want to point out that at least once a year the Roman liturgy shows this understanding of the Church. It is on Good Friday, when the Church stands under the cross of Christ and the Improperia are sung—the reproaches of God against his ungrateful people that has crucified its Saviour—based on Micah 6:3, 4 and other Old Testament passages: “My people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied thee? Testify against me. For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.…” After each of the reproaches against the old people of God, the Church as the new Israel gives the answer in the Trisagion, sung in Latin and Greek: “Holy God, Holy Strong one, Holy Immortal one, have mercy upon us.” Here the Church identifies itself with the people that has crucified the Redeemer and lives by his merciful forgiveness.

Will Rome ever be able to return to this biblical concept of the Church? But perhaps we had better first ask ourselves whether we have kept it.

Hermann Sasse teaches at Immanuel Theological Seminary in Adelaide, Australia. He was formerly professor of church history at the University of Erlangen and active in the World Conference on Faith and Order.