The Revelation of Christ’s Glory

First in a series of four articles on the Christian Hope and the Millennium

Discussions of the millennium or of any theme of biblical prophecy require a humble approach. The prophetic word is a lamp shining in the darkness until the day dawns and the full light of God’s accomplished purpose breaks upon us (2 Pet. 1:19). Prophecy is a light to keep men in the Way through the darkness of This Age until the light of Christ’s coming dispels the darkness forever. This suggests that we should not look to prophecy for pre-written history or for a blueprint of the future. Prophecy’s primary purpose is to give light for our present journey, not to satisfy our curiosity. Since we do not have the full light and our knowledge is admittedly partial (1 Cor. 13:12), we may not expect complete unity of interpretation among God’s servants in prophetic truth. Paul himself asserts that while there is indeed “one faith,” full unity of the faith has not yet been attained (Eph. 4:4, 13). Therefore, humility and charity in such study is more important than perfect agreement. Furthermore, the existence of unsolved problems should be no embarrassment to any interpretation.

Nevertheless, God’s Word does speak about the future, and we are justified, indeed, required to attempt to understand and to interpret the prophetic outlook of Scripture. Redemption is uniformly viewed as incomplete; and we must search Scripture to understand all about the completion of God’s redemptive purpose.

The problems which cluster around the question of a millennium, so far as the New Testament is concerned, are theological, not exegetical. The millenarian who accepts Augustine’s sound dictum that “the New is in the Old concealed while the Old is in the New revealed” may feel embarrassed by the paucity of New Testament teachings about this theme. Sound exegesis of Revelation 20 requires a millennial interpretation; and non-millennialists usually do not appeal so much to exegesis as to theological consistency for support of their position. They interpret such passages as Revelation 20 in a non-millenarian way because they are convinced that the totality of New Testament truth has no room for an interregnum and that there is no alternative in view of the New Testament eschatology as a whole but to interpret Revelation spiritually.

However, it is this author’s conviction that not only exegesis, but also New Testament theology, require a millennial interregnum; for the millennium is the era of the revelation of Christ’s glory.

The Two Ages

Underlying biblical theology is the structure of the two ages: This Age and the Age to Come. Unfortunately, this fact has been obscured to three centuries of English speaking Bible students because the Authorized Version incorrectly translates aion “world” instead of “age.” The two ages constitute the entire course of human existence (Matt. 12:32; Eph. 1:21). The transition between the two ages is the second coming of Christ (Matt. 24:3), resurrection (Luke 20:35), and judgment (Matt. 13:40f.). So long as This Age lasts, evil—demonic, satanic evil—will plague human history. Such influence has God, the King of the Ages (1 Tim. 1:17), permitted Satan to exercise in This Age that he is called the god of This Age (2 Cor. 4:4). This Age is evil (Gal. 1:4), characterized by sin and death.

Only in the Age to Come will God’s people enter into the full experience of what is meant by eternal life (Mark 10:30; Matt. 25:31, 46). Only in the Age to Come will the full blessing of the kingdom of God become man’s possession. For the fact is that eternal life and the kingdom of God (Mark 10:24f.) both belong to the Age to Come, not to This Age.

On the basis of this so-called antithetical structure of the two ages, it can be argued that there is no room for an interregnum between This Age and the Age to Come. The New Testament, it is said, makes the second coming of Christ the dividing point between the ages. At his coming, we shall enter into the full enjoyment of the redemptive blessings of eternal life and the kingdom of God. The coming of Christ is the center of the New Testament expectation of the future. God’s purposes will then be consummated; the Age to Come will then begin.

Facing The Difficulties

The difficulty with this apparently persuasive reasoning is that it proves too much; for in this same antithetical structure, both eternal life and the kingdom of God are exclusively future, not a present possession. Yet every Sunday School child knows that Jesus came to give men eternal life here and now; for he who believes on the Son has eternal life (John 3:36). Furthermore, the kingdom of God is something present which men enter by the new birth (John 3:3, 5); the redeemed are already in the kingdom of God’s Son (Col. 1:13).

Long ago, Professor Geerhardus Vos pointed out in his Pauline Eschatology that the great themes of redemption-justification, the Holy Spirit, as well as eternal life and the kingdom of God—are “semi-eschatological” realities. That is, although they belong to the Age to Come, they have entered into human history through the incarnation and redemptive work of Christ. The redeemed man experiences in This Age, evil as it is, a bit of the life of the Age to Come. There is, in other words, an overlapping of the ages. The redeemed live “between the times”—in two ages at once. We may taste of the powers of the coming age (Heb. 6:5) and thereby be delivered from this present evil age (Gal. 1:4), no longer being conformed to it even though we live in it (Rom. 12:2).

Professor Vos correctly sketches this relationship by two overlapping lines on different levels. Therefore, although the Age to Come is future and begins with the coming of Christ in glory, this new age has already begun with the Incarnation—the coming of Christ in humility. The two ages have come together. However, it is important to note that many passages of Scripture make no reference to this fact. The Age to Come is usually viewed as altogether future, even though it is “spiritually” present.

The millennium is a further stage in this overlapping of the ages. The Age to Come, which is now working secretly in This Age within the lives of God’s people, will manifest itself in outward glory before the final inauguration of the Age to Come. The life of the Age to Come will show itself more splendidly in this world before the final judgment falls and God brings the new heavens and the new earth.

Theological Necessity

The theological necessity for such a period is seen in 1 Corinthians 15:23–28. In the days of his flesh, Christ emptied himself, pouring himself out in humility even to the point of death. “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:7–8). He is now exalted “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name,” (Phil. 2:9) and seated at the right hand of God; but his glory does not appear to the world. This Age is still the evil age. Christ’s glory is known only to his people, but even they suffer and die. Christ’s rule is hidden from the world. He is indeed now reigning in victory and enthroned with his Father (Rev. 3:21); but the world does not know it, for his reign has not been disclosed to the world. In fact, so far as the world is concerned, his reign is in a sense potential and not realized. “As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him” (Heb. 2:8, RSV).

Yet, “he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet” (1 Cor. 15:25). His reign must become public in power and glory. The “reign of grace” must become a “reign of power.”

The Age To Come

However, the Age to Come is not the age of Christ’s reign; it is the age of the Father’s glory. First Corinthians 15:21–24 designates three stages in God’s redemptive purpose. First is the resurrection of Christ, the first fruits of the resurrection (vv. 21, 23). Then will occur the resurrection of those who are Christ’s at his coming. “After that (the literal meaning of the Greek particle) comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father” (v. 24). Here is the third stage, which is the Age to Come. Then, “the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be all in all” (vs. 28).

The Age to Come after “The End” is the age of the Father’s all-encompassing dominion. The Church age—the era between the Resurrection and the Parousia—is the age of the Son’s hidden rule. The millennium will be the age of the manifestation of Christ’s glory when the sovereignty, which he now possesses but does not manifest, and which he will give over to the Father in the Age to Come, will be manifested in glory in the world. God yet has a glorious destiny for the race which will be accomplished by the Son when he comes to reign in glory.

George Eldon Ladd has served on the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, in the New Testament field, since 1950. He spent the past year in Heidelberg, Germany, pursuing post-doctoral studies. In this first essay in the series on the Christian hope, he presents the premillennial non-dispensationalist viewpoint. John F. Walvoord, President of Dallas Theological Seminary, is to present the premillennial dispensational view; Loraine Boettner, author of Studies in Theology, the postmillennial view; and finally W. J. Grier, Irish minister and author, the amillennial view.

Cover Story

The Myth of the Golden Past

I was born in a Methodist parsonage when the present century was biting a teething ring. My dad served mountain and small-town circuits 100 miles long and eight to ten churches per circuit. He rode aboard a steed he had to buy himself from his $300 to $500 annual salaries. We raised the difference between these salaries and starvation on a few scraggly acres belonging to the parsonage range or we rented them on the halves from some “bighearted” parishioner. I have seen things from the ranks. I have been through the mill.

I have known of some well-to-do “pillar” arise in the quarterly conference and ask, “Just what is the very least you can live on, preacher?” They wanted that dividing line between life and starvation. They would settle for that. One church paying $30 a year argued that during revival meeting time they had to keep and feed both the preacher and his horse and shouldn’t be expected to pay the $2.50 a month salary. Yes, they shouted in the revivals. I still don’t know why.

Missionary or other “foreign” support was virtually nil in many of our churches. We basked behind the old argument, “There’s enough to do at home.” There always was—but we seldom got around to doing it.

In one area in which we lived there was a Christian college. Young student ministers were often sent out to nearby churches that they might earn money to stay in school. Father was giving way to one such pastor at one of his churches when an old brother arose and said, “I am tired of rocking the cradle for Morris Harvey College.” Whereupon, the treasurer of the church turned hurriedly through his ledger and replied: “Sir, according to my record you have rocked the cradle to the tune of four dollars during the past twelve months.”

Yes, we’ve always had our critics and cranks. But along with them God has placed a few level-headed, solid people to hold up the hands of the men of the cloth. I have yet to know of a church that didn’t have a few, today or yesterday. That didn’t come about by chance.

One of our ministers, who served a charge in our hills, wanted to take a circuit nearer his home area. But the congregation didn’t want to let him go, they loved him so. He was getting $470 a year. He asked them if they loved him thirty dollars worth more. They didn’t. He left. And one of the pillars who loved him so much owned a large cattle farm and cleared $9,000 a year—in 1913! He paid $30 a year into the church.

“Christian” Generosity

In another section there was one of those great revivals that you read about but seldom see. I have been through them, too. You sometimes wonder what has become of the converts by the time summer is gone. Anyway, the officers appointed an enthusiastic young convert to raise money for a $175 organ. It was a beauty. The lad rustled about among the men at the plant where he worked and got $100. He would go back and get the rest from the church easily. Three weeks later his enthusiasm had died. He had raised but $28 cash and pledges from the people among whom the revival had taken place. And many of them were in much better position financially than the unsaved men from whom the young man collected the hundred.

I could give instances like this by the dozen, but here are just two more—too unbelievable to omit.

Another old-time, sky blue revival was being held. After it was over, a young farmer went to the preacher to make a confession. He said that he made about $600 a year from his bean crop, to say nothing of his other cash crops, and had banked nearly all of it as he could get his living easily enough from the sod. He had some $9,000 in a nearby bank and was adding to it yearly. He was sitting pretty, but his conscience hurt. He and his wife agreed that they hadn’t been giving enough to the church. They were going to start doubling their portion. Instead of giving the customary fifty cents each yearly, they were going whole hog and give a dollar apiece.

Here’s the other. A lot of older people can tell you of the terrible 1917–1918 winter. We children of the parsonage would run from home to school, the store, or the church, and back again, to keep from freezing en route. The coldest day of this century was the Sunday before Christmas, 1917.

My mother and a few other women of the church had braved the elements to gather in a few dollars to add to their own for a Christmas treat for the children. Several had refused to give, including the town’s lone merchant, from whom they had to buy the candy at full price. He needed that profit to add to the $100,000 estate that was already his. Neither he nor his wife ever darkened a church door. His children went occasionally—with a penny each.

But the Sunday the treat was to be given out, the wife and three of her four children braved the 20-below zero cold to an unheated church to garner four sacks of that precious candy the head of the house had sold the good ladies of the church the day before.

Did you ever drive through the country, especially the hill country, and wonder why various church buildings were located so inconveniently? I’ll tell you. Every-time members decided to build a church, there was always some old codger who couldn’t give any money but would gladly donate the land. The rest of them took his scraggly mountainside site to save money or to keep from inheriting his wrath and his family’s for the next 40 years for turning it down. And there was always that clause in the deed: should the land ever be used for anything other than a church building, it was to revert to the heirs of the donor—for a pasture for goats.

Considering these facts, one does oftentimes wonder how there could be any revivals in those days.

I knew an old German farmer who loaded up his jolt wagon every Sunday morning and took a dozen or more of his neighbors to church. He gathered his family around him three times daily for family prayer. And he let ministers have a choice piece of bottom land free.

I knew a faithful spinster who worked untiringly with the youth, directing them in whatever affairs of religion they would take part. I knew a lady pianist who had sat on the same stool for 40 years hardly missing a Sunday. I’ve known business men and professional men of the old era plunk down many a dollar on the barrelhead that they might have spent well on their families. I knew one lady who drove seven miles round trip to and from church in an open buggy every Sunday morning, hauling her three younger children with her and letting the two older walk behind. She attended every service of a three-week revival meeting in weather that hovered around zero.

I knew an aged mother who fasted and prayed in our mountains telling God she wouldn’t eat any more until people were saved in a revival going on that had come to a stalemate in the community. The miracle happened. God didn’t let her down.

I knew a school teacher and a doctor who just about financed the parsonage at one point releasing dad from his regular duties in order that he might travel through our valley praying with the parents whose sons were leaving for army camps during World War I, and the hundreds who lay sick and dying during the influenza epidemic that followed.

Yes, there have been pillars of the church down through the ages. But the sanctity of the church of your grandfather’s day, as a whole, was no greater than that of the church today. In most instances, admittedly, they worshiped with a lot more zeal and boisterousness; but there was often no missionary spirit, no movement reaching beyond the horizon. There was little, if any, youth organization. There was only skeletal church organization in any except the urban sections as compared with our great church mechanism of the present. The machinery that keeps the church movement orderly today wouldn’t have operated 50 years ago. There was not the necessary motivation.

We didn’t have stately brick churches prominently situated. We had little frame buildings on hillsides or side streets. Go out into the rural sections of our country and you’ll see the evidence.

The Great Drama

Young man, young woman, you are living in the greatest age of church history. You have a part, a very vital part, to play in this great religious drama. Yours is one of inspiration to the older members. Yours is one of accomplishment, of opportunity, of achievement. Your voice is heard in our conferences, a thing virtually unheard of when your grandpa was young.

Collections toward the great undertakings of the church were unknown and undreamed of, even in proportion to the times, when I was in knee pants. The funds for the building of $100,000 churches, pensions for aged ministers, insurance policies for them in case they die in harness, and various other funds of the church were nonexistent or had little force if they did exist. You have had a part in building this great organization we call the church. Don’t let anybody kid you.

The children of the parsonage were not always respected as they are today. Let the old timers say what they will. The minister’s kids wore cast-off clothing and ate what wouldn’t sell in the market place. I bought the first overshoes and overcoat I ever owned with money I made by working in the coal mines. I thought those things were luxuries for the rich people, people like those who sold mother the Christmas candy, then came next day with hands outstretched wanting part of it back.

Son or daughter of the parsonage or manse, rejoice and be exceedingly glad. You are living in one of the best days in church history.

Frank W. Ball is the son of a Methodist circuit rider. His school days were spent mostly in one-room mountain schools; his high school diploma was earned through correspondence school. He works for the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad as a machinist’s helper and writes occasionally as a hobby. He is the recipient of two Freedoms Foundation awards. For almost 30 years he has been Trustee and Secretary-Treasurer of Steele Memorial Methodist Church, Barboursville, West Virginia.

Cover Story

Colonial Religious Awakenings

The Middle Colony Revival, 1720

American interest in revivals goes as far back as the first quarter of the eighteenth century and continues even to this day. Indeed American Protestant churches whether they be Presbyterian, Baptist or Methodist, have regarded the annual revival meeting as much a part of their regular work as Sunday services and midweek prayer meetings. Revival meetings are not so common as they were a generation ago, but they are still regarded as an effective method of evangelism in many denominations and local churches.

Colonial awakenings, of which there were three, constituted a single movement which swept through the colonies from Maine to Georgia. They came to be known as “The Great Awakening.” None began simultaneously; traceable connections between them are slight. Each can be considered as a separate movement.

Dutch Reformed Evangelism

Four small Dutch Reformed churches in the Raritan Valley of central New Jersey were the center of the first revival in 1720. The revival was instigated under the preaching of Theodore Jacobus Frelinghuysen. Influenced by the Pietism of Holland, Frelinghuysen preached the Spener doctrines of experimental knowledge of religion, individual conversion, and purity of Christian character. The doctrines he preached were apparently new to his rough, complacent, ritualistic-minded parishioners for they proved to be at once astounded and outraged. He organized prayer meetings with laymen helping him. Opposition mobilized, factions developed, and certain Dutch Reformed ministers in New York sought to silence him. Disaffected church members even published a 246-page book against him.

But despite opposition, Frelinghuysen’s evangelism bore glorious fruit in numerous conversions and the transformation of several communities. The year 1726 especially witnessed a remarkably large number of conversions. As word of his successful evangelism spread, Frelinghuysen was invited to preach in other communities and the revival extended beyond Raritan Valley. And to counter the opposition of his fellow ministers, he began publishing his sermons. Although he eventually gained the support of most of the Dutch ministers, opposition to Frelinghuysen continued and even divided the Dutch church for many years.

Presbyterians Aflame

When the effect of Frelinghuysen’s preaching was at its height, young Gilbert Tennent, son of a Presbyterian pastor of Neshaminy, 18 miles north of Philadelphia, was called to preach at the New Brunswick Presbyterian Church, New Jersey. Having been taught evangelical doctrines by his father, Gilbert enthusiastically joined Frelinghuysen’s efforts. With a zeal equal to, if not surpassing, that of the Dutch minister, he preached sin, retribution, repentance, faith, and conversion to the English Presbyterians that resulted in hundreds of conversions.

Meanwhile, others were preaching the Gospel elsewhere. At Neshaminy William Tennent, Gilbert’s father, opened a school in 1726, derisively called “Log College,” for the training of young men for the ministry. In time, his three other sons, William, John, and Charles, were graduated from the school and became pastors of churches in central New Jersey. Samuel Blair, another graduate and an ardent revivalist, located at Shrewsbury, New Jersey. In 1738, five evangelical ministers, three of them Log College men, established the New Brunswick Presbytery, and by that time, the revival had spread yet further. Aaron Burr, Sr., was preaching at Newark; and in the highlands of New York a group of Yale graduates, including Jonathan Dickinson, joined the evangelicals. The following year a revival began at Fagg’s Manor, Pennsylvania, where Samuel Blair had gone to preach.

Although the revival was largely Presbyterian and a blessing primarily to that church, its ministers were divided concerning it. The conservative “Old Side” ministers with a Scotch-Irish and Scottish university background, opposed and derided Log College and its imperfectly trained graduates known as “New Side.” They opposed the revival because of its fervid, extemporaneous preaching and exhortations. “Falling exercises,” regarded as evidences of conversion, were common. Whereas Old Side ministers believed them to be the work of the devil, those of the New Side believed them to be approved of God. This opposition to revival and the licensing of imperfectly trained ministers tragically divided Presbyterian ranks and created a cleavage which was not healed until 1758. Then, largely through the efforts of Gilbert Tennent, the Synod of New York (New Side) and that of Philadelphia (Old Side) united. (Belcher, op. cit., pp. 119–120; Hays, Presbyterians, pp. 91–93, 112; and Sweet, Religion in Colonial America, p. 279.)

Arrival Of Whitefield

The year of 1730, a notable one for American Christianity, witnessed the arrival of 26-year-old George Whitefield, already famous for his evangelical preaching in England. Whitefield, a Church of England priest, welcomed as colaborers Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Lutherans, Congregationalists, Dutch Reformed, and anyone else who preached individual conversion. As he crossed the Atlantic, he wrote to a clergyman friend in England: “The partition wall has for some time been broken down out of my heart, and I can truly say, whoever loves the Lord Jesus, ‘the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.’ ”

Landing at Lewes, Delaware, he began his tour in central New Jersey, where Frelinghuysen and the revivalist Presbyterians had labored successfully for more than 10 years. From the very first, people flocked to hear him, and many were converted. New Side Presbyterians welcomed him enthusiastically, and did everything in their power to assist him.

Whitefield preached doctrines coinciding with the Articles of the Church of England and those proclaimed by the revivalists. He declared all men to be sinful by nature with the condemnation of God resting upon them. Salvation from that lost condition was by the grace of God through faith. Good works, he declared, had no share in man’s justification; there was need for regeneration through the agency of the Holy Spirit.

From the very beginning of Whitefield’s tour, people came in such great numbers to hear him that the largest meeting houses could accommodate only a fraction of them. On his first visit to Philadelphia, his impact was so immense that business throughout the city was almost suspended; and on Sundays the crowds were so large that the Lord’s Supper had to be served three or four times. During his stay, not less than 26 societies for prayer were organized. Concerning his influence upon the people in Philadelphia, a local newspaper said: “The change to religion here is altogether surprising, through the influence of Whitefield; no books sell but religious, and such is the general conversation” (Belcher, George Whitefield, pp. 101–102).

After Whitefield’s visit, services of worship were held in the city twice a day for a whole year. When he left to go to New York, people in towns and rural communities along the way abandoned their occupations and fields to hear him. On the way he met Gilbert Tennent, heard him preach and commented, “Never before heard I such a searching sermon. He went to the bottom indeed, and did not ‘daub with untempered mortar.’ He convinced me, more and more, that we can preach the Gospel of Christ no further than we have experienced the power of it in our hearts” (Belcher, op. cit., pp. 119–120).

Whitefield’s success in New York was greater than that which he had enjoyed in Philadelphia. Thousands heard him and thousands more were influenced by his printed sermons. From New York, he went to New England at the invitation of a leading Congregational minister in Boston. Then, late in 1739, he took ship for Savannah, Georgia, where he founded an orphanage called Bethesda.

Of the number converted under Whitefield’s preaching, no estimate is possible, but it is certain that it ran into the thousands. Naturally his very success intensified the opposition that had existed from the beginning toward the revival movement. Whitefield said, “An opposer told me I had unhinged many good sort of people. I believe it.”

Although the impact of the revival was everywhere popular with the common people, the Old Side Presbyterian ministers continued to oppose it. Their most strenuous objection was that the revivalists, including Whitefield, deliberately promoted faintings, shoutings, “falling exercises,” commotion and wild disorder. There was no denial that these things took place, but the revivalists interpreted them as the work of God.

Pattern For The Future

This entire revival is significant, not only because it was the first in America, but because it began without previous planning on the part of Frelinghuysen, Gilbert Tennent, or anyone else, without advertising, and without fanfare of trumpets. The news that sinners were being saved, and those already Christians were being lifted to a higher plane of living aroused interest everywhere. To a people who all their lives had been accustomed to cold, lifeless preaching, with scarcely a reference to inner, personal experience with Christ, all of it was nothing short of phenomenal. In both Gospel and mode of preaching, the revivalists followed the ways of those in apostolic days. And in this they set the fundamental pattern for all revivals to come.

This is the first of two articles on the Colonial awakenings of the Eighteenth Century. Raymond W. Settle, a retired Baptist minister, devotes his time to historical research and writing on American history, particularly of religion on the frontier. Author of several books, he lives in Monte Vista, Colorado.

Cover Story

Shadow of the Almighty

“We’re going down now, pistols, gifts, novelties in our pockets, prayer in our hearts.—All for now. Your lover, Jim.”

As far as I know, these were the last words Jim wrote. He had yet four days to live. All that we know of those four days is told elsewhere. Suffice it to say that on Friday the thrill of Jim’s lifetime was given. He took an Auca by the hand. At last the twain met. Five American men, three naked savages.

Two days later, on Sunday, January 8, 1956, the men for whom Jim Elliot had prayed for six years killed him and his four companions.

w. Somerset Maugham, in Of Human Bondage, wrote, “These old folk had done nothing, and when they died it would be just as if they had never been.” Jim’s comment on this was, “God deliver me!” When he died, Jim left little of value, as the world regards values. He and I had agreed long before that we wanted no insurance. We would store our goods in heaven, share what the Lord gave us as long as we had it, and trust him literally for the future, in accord with the principles Paul set forth to the Corinthians: “It is a matter of share and share alike. At present your plenty should supply their need, and then at some future date their plenty may supply your need. In that way we share with each other, as the Scripture says,

‘He that gathered much had nothing over,

And he that gathered little had no lack.’ ”

When the children of Israel were given manna in the wilderness, they received enough for one day. They were not told to lay up for tomorrow.

So, of material things, there were few; a home in the jungle, a few well-worn clothes, books, and tools. The men who went to try to rescue the five brought back to me from Jim’s body his wrist watch, and from the Curaray beach, the blurred pages of his college prayer notebook. There was no funeral, no tombstone for a memorial (news reports of “five wooden crosses set up on the sand” were not true).

No legacy then? Was it “just as if he had never been”? “The world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” Jim left for me, in memory, and for us all, in these letters and diaries, the testimony of a man who sought nothing but the will of God, who prayed that his life would be “an exhibit to the value of knowing God.”

The interest which accrues from this legacy is yet to be realized. It is hinted at in the lives of Quechua Indians who have determined to follow Christ, persuaded by Jim’s example; in the lives of many who express to me their desire to know God as Jim did.

When I was a student at Wheaton, I asked Jim to autograph my yearbook. Instead of the usual “It’s been nice knowing you,” or some equally meaningless platitude, he wrote:

“The dust of words would smother me. 2 Timothy 2:4.” The text cited says, “No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.”

His death was the result of simple obedience to his Captain. Many thousands of men have died in obedience to their captains. The men at Gettysburg were among them. Abraham Lincoln’s great words, spoken on that battlefield, apply as well to other soldiers whose obedience to commands is not the less to be imitated:

“We cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, … who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.… It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that … we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion.”

Lincoln and those who were present at that ceremony viewed once again the ground whereon the men struggled—common green fields of Pennsylvania, but fraught with new significance. As I read again Jim’s own words, put down in battered notebooks during the common routine of life, they become, for me, fraught with new meaning. To them I can add nothing.

“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” (1949)

“One treasure, a single eye, and a sole master.” (1948)

“God, I pray Thee, light these idle sticks of my life and may I burn for Thee. Consume my life, my God, for it is Thine. I seek not a long life, but a full one, like you, Lord Jesus.” (1948)

“Father, take my life, yea, my blood if Thou wilt, and consume it with Thine enveloping fire. I would not save it, for it is not mine to save. Have it Lord, have it all. Pour out my life as an oblation for the world. Blood is only of value as it flows before Thine altar.” (1948)

“Saturate me with the oil of the Spirit that I may be aflame. But flame is often short-lived. Canst thou bear this, my soul? Short life? In me there dwells the spirit of the Great Short-Lived, whose zeal for God’s house consumed Him. ‘Make me Thy fuel, Flame of God.’ ” (1948)

“Are we willing to build with a trowel in one hand, while the other grasps a sword?” (1948)

“Taking all, Thou givest full measure of Thyself,

With all things else eternal,

Things unlike the mouldy pelf by earth possessed.”

“Father, if Thou wilt let me go to South America to labor with Thee and to die, I pray that Thou wilt let me go soon. Nevertheless, not my will.” (1948) “How few, how short these hours my heart must beat—then on into the real world where the unseen becomes important.” (1948)

Of the coffin: “A swallowing up by Life. For this I am most anxious.” (1948)

“Ah, how many Marahs have been sweetened by a simple, satisfying glimpse of the Tree and the Love which underwent its worst conflict there. Yet, the Cross is the tree that sweetens the waters. (1949)

“As your life is in His hands, so are the days of your life. But don’t let the sands of time get into the eye of your vision to reach those who sit in darkness. They simply must hear. Wives, houses, practices, education, must learn to be disciplined by this rule: ‘Let the dead attend to the affairs of the already dead, go thou and attend the affairs of the dying.’ ”(1948)

“Overcome anything in the confidence of your union with Him, so that contemplating trial, enduring persecution or loneliness, you may know the blessedness of the ‘joy set before,’ for ‘We are … the sheep of his pasture. Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise.’ And what are sheep doing going into the gate? What is their purpose inside those courts? To bleat melodies and enjoy the company of the flock? No. Those sheep were headed for the altar. Their pasture feeding had been for one purpose: to test them and fatten them for bloody sacrifice. Give Him thanks, then, that you have been counted worthy of His altars. Enter into the work with praise.” (1949)

To his mother when his brother Bert sailed for Peru:

“Remember—and I don’t mean to sound pedantic or impudent as if I knew all the costs—remember that we have bargained with Him who bore a Cross, and in His ministry to those disciples His emphasis was upon sacrifice, not of worldly goods so much as upon family ties. Let nothing turn us from the truth that God has determined that we become strong under fire, after the pattern of the Son. Nothing else will do.

O Prince of Glory, who dost bring

Thy sons to glory through the Cross,

Let us not shrink from suffering,

Reproach or loss.’ ” (1949)

“I must not think it strange if God takes in youth those whom I would have kept on earth till they were older. God is peopling Eternity, and I must not restrict Him to old men and women.” (1950)

“Granted, fate and tragedy, aimlessness and just-missing-by-a-hair are part of human experience, but they are not all, and I’m not sure they are a major part, even in the lives of men who know no Designer or design. For me, I have seen a Keener Force yet, the force of Ultimate Good working through seemed ill. Not that there is rosiness, ever; there is genuine ill, struggle, dark-handed, unreasoning fate, mistakes, ‘if-onlys’ and all the Hardyisms you can muster. But in them, I am beginning to discover a Plan greater than any could imagine.” (1951)

“The principle of getting by spending is illustrated by the actions of God:

‘He had yet one, a beloved Son,’

‘He giveth not the Spirit by measure.’

‘He spared not His own Son.’

‘He emptied Himself.’

“Only I know that my own life is full. It is time to die, for I have had all that a young man can have, at least all that this young man can have. I am ready to meet Jesus.” (December, 1951)

“Gave myself for Auca work more definitely than ever, asking for spiritual valor, plain and miraculous guidance.…” (May, 1952)

“Give me a faith that will take sufficient quiver out of me so that I may sing. Over the Aucas, Father, I want to sing!” (July, 1952)

“I know that my hopes and plans for myself could not be any better than He has arranged and fulfilled them. Thus may we all find it, and know the truth of the word which says, ‘He will be our guide even unto death.’ ”

The story of Ecuador’s five missionary martyrs is known in Christian communities around the world. It has been told in a classic way by Elisabeth Elliot, one of the missionary widows, in the moving epic Through Gates of Splendor. In a second work, Shadow of the Almighty, the Life and Testament of Jim Elliot, to be published September 3 by Harper & Brothers, Mrs. Elliot gives the world an intimate biography of her late husband. In this issue we print the Epilogue of Shadow of the Almighty with the permission of Harper’s.

Cover Story

A Fresh Look at the Hypothesis of Evolution

Christianity Today September 1, 1958

The theory of evolution, as initiated by the publication of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, has had a profound impact on the fortunes of Christianity. Since next year, 1959, is the centenary of that publication, it is appropriate for us at this time to audit our books and evaluate the contemporary situation.

Darwin on the voyage of the Beagle had noticed the similarities and the differences between the foxes on the mainland and the foxes on a distant island. They were so similar that a genetic relationship could not be denied, but they were also so different that they constituted a new species. From this and similar observations Darwin concluded that these species could not be explained by special creation but must have evolved from common ancestors.

The idea of evolution was then applied to man. Homo sapiens could not be regarded as a special creation, but must have evolved from some lower form of life. Such attraction did the idea of evolution exert on the minds of scholars that they soon extended it to the astronomical cosmos on the one hand and sociological and historical phenomena on the other. And thus there arose evolutionary accounts of religion and the history of the Hebrews.

At many points the conflict with Christianity was obvious. The evolution of religion from animism or fetishism and the history of the Hebrews that makes monotheism a very late development entirely contradicted the Bible and made special revelation impossible. Within biology, the assertion that man has evolved from lower species conflicted with the biblical account of the creation of Adam and especially of Eve. Evolution was made to rule out the existence of God altogether. For example, Corliss Lamont (Humanism as a Philosophy, 1949, p. 102) says, “Biology has conclusively shown that man and all other forms of life were the result, not of a supernatural act of creation by God, but of an infinitely long process of evolution … which started with the lowly amoeba and those even simpler things marking the transition from inanimate matter to life.… Mind, in short, appeared at the present apex of the evolutionary process and not at the beginning.” Since, further, these ideas became immensely popular, orthodox Christianity was faced with a conflict of major proportions.

First Reactions

Faced with this attack on the inspiration of the Scriptures, with this denial of creation, and in some instances faced with a blatant atheism, the Christians reacted vigorously. That their reaction was not always wise is hardly surprising. In many disputes first reactions often miss the point. For ages, from Aristotle in antiquity to Linnaeus in the eighteenth century, the scientists had taught the fixity of existing species. The Christians trusted the scientists and carelessly assumed that the existing species were the several kinds which God originally created. They did not consider the possibility that the kinds of Genesis might be what modern biologists call families or perhaps orders. Thus they failed to recognize that the existing species are many more in number than the special acts of creation listed in the first chapter of Genesis. (Indeed the special acts of creation are fewer than the contemporary status of biology seems to require; but more of this later.)

Because then the Christians were trapped into defending Linnaeus rather than the Bible, they often made regrettable blunders. And as is usual in free-for-all altercations the opponents publicized one’s blunders in order to distract attention from whatever is of worth. Considerable time has passed by now—a full century—and there may be some interest in observing what remains on the field of battle.

For a great many people, however, there is no point in viewing the scene of battle, if such a viewing is supposed to show some remaining balance between the two forces. The popular opinion is that evolution won a sweeping victory and the Bible was decisively defeated.

“Since Darwin’s day,” says Richard Swan Lull, professor of paleontology at Yale University (Organic Evolution, 1947, p. 15)—“Since Darwin’s day evolution has been more and more generally accepted, until now in the minds of informed thinking men there is no doubt that it is the only logical way whereby the creation (i.e. biology) can be interpreted and understood.”

William Howells of the University of Wisconsin (Mankind So Far, 1944, p. 5) says, “The ‘theory of evolution’ is an overworked term, in its popular usage, and unfortunate besides, because it implies that, after all, there may be something dubious about it. Evolution is a fact, like digestion.… The phrase is doubtless the expression of a die-hard prejudice.”

However, this is not the whole story. Even those who insist that evolution is a fact beyond doubt betray certain hesitancies. Howells himself admits that “there is also the mystery of how and why evolution takes place at all.… Nor is it known just why evolution occurs or exactly what guides its steps.” Professor Lull also admits, “We are not so sure, however, as to the modus operandi.” And J. Arthur Thomson makes an astounding statement:

“Many of the genealogical trees which Haeckel was so fond of drawing have fallen to pieces. Who can say anything, except in a general way, regarding the ancestry of birds or even Vertebrates? The Origin of Species was published in 1859, but who today has attained clearness in regard to the origin of any single species?”

Even Dobzhansky, who, in opposition to Thomson, would claim that he has attained clarity in regard to the origin of many species, admits, with respect to the human species, that “we have only the most fragmentary information concerning the stages through which the process has passed” (Evolution, Genetics, and Man, 1955, p. 319).

If thus Dobzhansky admits less than Thomson, Howells is even more dogmatic than Dobzhansky, for Howells asserts that the human line can in fact be traced back to the fishes (op. cit. p. 5).

Here then are various claims and admissions. What is their significance? Perhaps after all there is some reason for reviewing the debris of battle.

An attempt to evaluate such concessions as these may begin with some more material from J. Arthur Thompson. Professor Thompson is a convinced evolutionist. In his volume Concerning Evolution (pp. 44–48) he treats very seriously the idea that life originated from non-living matter. He even suggests that this process is still going on. We may believe it is still going on because we are not sure that it is not going on. But if perchance life is not now originating from inanimate matter, perhaps the sun’s rays and the earth’s atmosphere were quite different long ago and produced results then which they cannot produce now.

Dobzhansky also, as well as Thomson, seems to accept the notion that life originated from non-living matter. He admits at first that this is only a conjecture, and that it is highly improbable; but then he concludes that “a highly improbable event may, however, take place somewhere in the universe. Such a ‘lucky hit’ happened to occur on a small planet, earth” (op. cit. p. 19). Thus he states the spontaneous generation of life as a fact.

In anticipation of the discussion of the philosophy of science that is to follow, something needs to be said here with respect to the origin of life from non-living matter. Is there any evidence of this? Is there sufficient evidence to assert point blank that it happened? It is a mere tautology to say that if certain conditions obtained in the past, certain effects could have occurred. But the important question is not: Could such and such have happened, if the conditions were right. The important question is: Were the conditions right and did such and such things actually happen?

Now, if the evolutionist must be so dogmatic on the origin of life, how can he afford to repudiate Haeckel’s genealogical trees or admit doubt as to the origin of species?

The explanation, as Thomson gives it, is as follows: “Uncertainty in regard to the factors cannot be said to affect the validity of the model concept of evolution, and it is entirely unfair to use confessions of ignorance in regard to the factors as if they implied doubt in regard to the fact.… There is not the slightest reason for jettisoning the modal formula because we are still very ignorant in regard to the detailed steps and factors in the process” (op. cit. p. 100).

Similarly Professor Lull, after admitting that “We are not so sure, however, as to the modus operandi,” adds immediately “but we may rest assured that the process has been in accordance with great natural laws, some of which are as yet unknown, perhaps unknowable” (Organic Evolution, p. 15).

A Lesson From Physics

The point I now wish to examine is whether or not a sound philosophy of science will permit us to rest assured with a theory whose factors are unknown and perhaps unknowable. If we examine scientific methods as practiced by the physicists, their superiority in ideals of caution, accuracy, and rigor will become obvious. The theory, or better, the theories of light can serve as a well-known example.

Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727) believed that light consists of small particles or corpuscles. This he believed chiefly on the basis that the corpuscular theory best explains the rectilinear propagation of light. In addition to this hypothesis, there also existed in Newton’s day a theory that considered light to be a wave motion of a fluid medium; but it took some juggling to make this theory suitable for rectilinear propagation. Newton did not approve of the juggling.

Now, the corpuscular theory implies that the speed of light in water is greater than the speed of light in air. On the other hand, the wave theory of light implies that the speed of light in air is greater than the speed of light in water. Unfortunately there was no method, throughout the eighteenth century, by which the speed of light could be experimentally measured. That is to say, the factors, to use Professor Thomson’s language, were unknown and unverifiable. But instead of blindly declaring one of these theories a fact despite the ignorance of the factors, the best scientific reaction during the first half of the nineteenth century was a search for some method of discovering the factors. Eventually a method was invented and in 1850 Léon Foucault performed the experiment. By this experiment Foucault determined that the speed of light is greater in air than in water.

At this point Foucault showed a scientific caution that might still be emulated. He might have concluded that his experiment had demonstrated the wave theory. But he actually concluded that his experiment had refuted the corpuscular theory. The experiment makes the wave theory possible, and since no other theory had been suggested, scientists would naturally use the wave theory. Yet other theories then undreamed of might later be invented. These later theories might be better. Hence Foucault concluded only that the corpuscular theory is false and the wave theory is possible. And this conclusion came by attention to the mechanics, the modus operandi, the factors in the case.

However, even Foucault’s caution was too bold. In 1902 another important experiment was conducted. If light is a wave motion, the intensity of light gradually diminishes as the source becomes more and more distant. This diminishing continuously approaches zero. But if light is corpuscular, another implication follows. Suppose a metal plate is slowly made to recede from a source of light. If light is corpuscular, fewer and fewer particles hit the plate. At a given distance only one particle will hit the plate. Beyond that distance the intensity will be zero. That is to say, instead of the intensity decreasing continuously to zero, it will decrease to one and then suddenly drop to zero. The experiment showed that the intensity actually drops suddenly from one to zero. Therefore light cannot be a wave motion; it must be corpuscular in spite of Foucault’s experiment which showed it could not be corpuscular. What is worse, this result is in contradiction to the fundamental laws of the electromagnetic field.

Unknown Factors

Proper scientific ideals require the scientist to consider the possibility of alternate hypotheses. He can never accept any hypothesis as final and beyond doubt. The results of science are never “assured”; they are tentative and subject to constant revision. It is even possible, as in this case of light, that the theories discarded a century ago may return to favor in a somewhat altered form. And most pertinently for the present discussion on evolution, it must be insisted that the acceptance of a theory whose factors are unknown is extremely bad science, especially when one considers that these same factors may even be unknowable.

At this point the evolutionists will undoubtedly reply that the propagation of light is a fact whether or not we know its factors. To this I wish to make a shorter and a longer answer.

First, the propagation of light is ordinarily regarded as a fact because and only because of very careful attention to the factors. For centuries light was considered to be a non-propagated force, like gravitation, because no one was able to detect and measure its speed. It was indeed in Newton’s own lifetime that Roemer (1676) observed the differences in time between the near and far eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites and concluded that light has a finite velocity. Once again the acceptance of the theory came with a careful attention to the detailed factors.

To the assertion that evolution is a fact, I draw attention to the ambiguity of the term evolution itself. Evolution has two or more distinctly different meanings. The statement that evolution is a fact depends on this ambiguity. Dobzhansky (Genetics and the Origin of Species, 1951, p. 11) defines evolution in four clauses, the first two of which are pertinent to this argument. “The theory of evolution asserts that (1) the beings now living have descended from different beings which lived in the past.” This means nothing more than that we all had parents. If this is all that evolution means, and Howells also defines it merely as “descent with modification,” that is, if the word simply means that nature exhibits changes, or that different breeds of dogs and foxes have come into being, then for all colloquial purposes we can very well admit that evolution is a fact. But such a view of evolution was not what Christians were protesting against when they attacked evolution; nor was it the view that the evolutionists were propagating when they provoked the protest against their claims.

But if, on the other hand, the term evolution designates an atheistic, non-supernatural, spontaneous development of simple life from inanimate matter and the rise of all present forms of life through a slow and gradual development from that simplest form, the declaration that evolution is a fact would lose its plausibility. Yet this is the view that is propagated. Dobzhansky does not put it into his definition, but in other places he asserts, as we have seen, that life actually sprang from inorganic matter. He rejects vitalism, rules out all teleology, and accepts the mechanistic hypothesis. He says explicitly that “the diversity [among organisms] has not arisen from a whim or caprice [or as we should say, from the sovereign choice and purpose] of some deity” (Evolution, Genetics, and Man, pp. 20–21; Genetics and the Origin of Species, p. 3). This is evolution; but who could with intellectual honesty claim that this atheistic view is a fact better substantiated than former tentative theories of light? (An evolutionist who explicitly accepts mechanism cannot with good grace complain of being held to the standards of mechanistic science.)

If a fair survey of the field of battle is to be made, the evolutionist must not be allowed to use one theory, a detailed mechanistic and atheistic theory, for his attack, and a different theory, a vague and general theory, for his defense. To ridicule Christians for denying observed change when in fact they are denying atheistic naturalism is a technique of propaganda, not science. Nor is it calm judgment to accuse Christians of denying actually observed changes when in fact they are questioning unobserved alleged changes and pointing out the limits of the evidence.

Although Dobzhansky denies divine providence without acknowledging his denial in the definition of evolution, his other clauses are more definite than the vague statement of clause one. He adds, “(2) the evolutionary changes were more or less gradual, so that if we could assemble all the individuals which have ever inhabited the earth, a fairly continuous array of forms would emerge.”

Since this notion of a gradual change and a continuous array is a part of the definition, this too must be a fact, if evolution is a fact. If “at present, an informed and reasonable person can hardly doubt the validity of the evolution theory,” and if “the very rare exceptions prove only that some people have emotional biases” (ibid. p. 11), then doubt as to the continuity of the array is also subject to these strictures.

Expression Of Doubts

What then are we to make of the doubts indicated in the following quotation from Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (pp. 6, 7)? After stating that he “cannot agree with the viewpoint of the textbooks that the problem of evolution has been solved,” he continues, “This viewpoint … must take it for granted … that all possible differences, including the most complicated adaptations, have been slowly built up by the accumulation of such mutations. We shall try to show that this viewpoint does not suffice to explain the facts … I may challenge the adherents of the strictly Darwinian view … to try to explain the evolution of the following features by accumulation and selection of small mutants: hair in mammals, feathers in birds, segmentation of arthropods and vertebrates, the transformation of the gill arches in phylogeny including the aortic arches, muscles, nerves, etc.”

Later (p. 210) he says, “Thus we have been forced to assume large evolutionary steps … involving the whole system of the organism.” He mentions another scientist “who says that the change from one species to another must be in one or, at most, a few large steps, changing many or all characters of the plant at once.”

Now, if there is no continuous array of forms, and if the appearance of a new species occurs in one large step, involving the whole system of the organisms, then, however Goldschmidt himself might prefer it, and I am not implying that he would put it this way, it would seem that biology is much closer to the view of special creation than original evolutionists like Haeckel and Huxley would find comfortable. It was for such reasons as these that I said above that the special acts of creation listed in Genesis are much fewer than the actual status of biology seems to require.

In conversation a botanist friend of mine expressed the conclusion that quite aside from animals it was impossible to believe that all plants had evolved from a single original form. Before geology had made as much progress as it now has, it was possible to hope, my friend said, that the gaps would be filled up by later discoveries; but now the examination of strata has been so extensive that a discovery of the many necessary intermediate forms seems quite unlikely.

Theory Without Evidence

What can be said of the outcome of this century-old battle? It is true that the defenders of divine creation made a number of unfortunate blunders; but it is also true that the evolutionary theory has not emerged unscathed. The evolution that Christianity attacked, the theory that brings life out of matter without divine intervention, is still a theory without evidence and not a fact with which science may rest assured.

Perhaps the evolutionists have not retreated under the pressure of theological attack; but the weight of scientific evidence itself, the detailed factors, the insoluble problems, and above all the rigor of a sound philosophy of science have forced admissions that may be said at least to border on special creation. And this is no doubt as much as can be expected from purely scientific methodology.

WE QUOTE:

OSWALD SPENGLER

German Philosopher (1880–1936)

There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, would represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely “transitional” types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.—Decline of the West, Vol. II, Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1932, p. 32.

Gordon Haddon Clark is Professor of Philosophy at Butler University in Indianapolis. From his pen have come such significant works as Thales to Dewey, A Christian View of Men and Things, and Readings in Ethics (co-authored with T. V. Smith). This address was delivered recently at the Southern Presbyterian Conference on Reformed Theological Thought, and it is here used simultaneously with its appearance in the current issue of The Southern Presbyterian Journal.

Religion in the Public Schools

The thorny question of religion in public schools, now tottering insecurely between secular and sectarian pressures, is prompting the National Council of Churches to construct a new proclamation of concern and a new program of action. Some 50 representatives of 25 ecumenically-identified denominations and 11 state councils of churches, including many NCC staff members and a few observers, descended on Chicago for three intensive July days to draft an unpublished preliminary statement by the Committee on Religion and Public Education. After another plenary session a year hence, church councils and member denominations will be asked to approve the document for public release in 1960. It handles more than 50 controversial issues, from teaching of religion and moral and spiritual values in public schools to use of public funds for bus transportation and textbooks in private schools.

Although NCC has issued previous proclamations at top level, constituent churches have often deviated from the announced official policy regarding public schools, especially at the local level, and even some major NCC committees—now numbering more than 70—have spoken obliquely if not diversely on the same issues. Spokesmen have increasingly voiced a need to transcend these “contradictions, confusions, frustrations,” and to “find a type of expression acceptable to everyone.” If differences are to be reconciled, these leaders acknowledge, “Protestants must do some homework.”

A Vexing Issue

Since the closing years of World War II, mounting emphasis on a religious understanding of life has repeatedly raised the question of the place of religion in public education. “What Protestants think” became a vexing and uncertain issue when court cases tested the validity of week-day religious education which National Education Association leaders seemed to regard more and more as a deviation and annoyance. Secular agencies, like the American Council on Education, issued their own documents on the role of religious influences in public education. Meanwhile the tempo of criticism of public schools accelerated; Roman Catholics, interested in their national system of parochial schools, and Protestant evangelicals, whether interested or disinterested in private schools, struck hard at the dominant note of humanism in the educational philosophy of the day and the calculated avoidance of the priorities of revealed religious truth.

Earlier NCC statements, however brief, have frequently touched fundamental issues. In 1953 the movement appointed its Committee on Religion and Public Education, adding as executive leader Dr. R. L. Hunt, a school administrator formerly on the faculty of Peabody College, Nashville.

The 1953 Proclamation

In its 1953 proclamation NCC affirmed: “The home and the Church must assume their primary roles as teachers of religion.… No agency of the state, including the school, can safely or wisely be entrusted with this task. At the same time, we believe that the public school has a responsibility with respect to the religious foundations of our national culture. It can declare, as the state itself declares, that the nation subsists under the governance of God and that it is not morally autonomous. It can acknowledge, furthermore, that human ethical and moral values have their ground and sanction in God. The school can do much in teaching about religion, in adequately affirming that religion has been and is an essential factor in our cultural heritage. The school can bear witness to its appreciation of the place of religion by the personal characters of those who teach in its classrooms. No impairment of the separation of Church and State is involved in the assumption of such responsibilities.… The Committee believes that as the people of our American communities … explore the rightful and proper place of religion (in the schools), they will be wise to avoid reliance upon legislative compulsion. Religious testimony and religious exercise especially are significant to the extent that they are free and voluntary.”

This statement advanced in some respects beyond the 1952 message of NCC’s General Assembly. That message had urged that pupils of American schools be made aware of “the heritage of faith upon which this nation was established, and which has been the most transforming influence in western culture”; it recommended “some constitutional … provision … for the inculcation of the principles of religion, whether within or outside the precincts of the school, … within the regular schedule of a pupil’s working day”; it supported “the reverent reading of selections from the Bible in public school assemblies or classes”; and it affirmed that “on no account must an educational system which is permeated by the philosophy of secularism, something quite different from religious neutrality, be allowed to gain control of our public schools.” At the same time, the 1952 message had only a negative reference to parochial schools (“the solution … lies in loyal support of our public schools, and in increasing their awareness of God, rather than in state support of parochial schools”) and it seemed over-eager to defend public schools against criticism (“It is unfair to say that where religion is not taught in a public school, that school is secular or godless. The moral and cultural atmosphere … and the attitude, the viewpoints, and the character of the teachers can be religious and exert a religious influence, without religion necessarily being taught as a subject”). Both this negative disposition toward private schools and over-defense of public schools subsequently became points of controversy within NCC circles through growing pressure for debate on the extent to which the Protestant theological position actually requires support for a system of common schools. Most significant, however, was the failure of the 1952 message to include an emphasis on the propriety of teaching national dependence upon God (which goes beyond making pupils “aware of the heritage of faith.…”) and on an exclusively theistic grounding and sanctioning of moral values.

Herculean Task

While the NCC faces a herculean task in formulating practical strategy, difficulties on the theoretical plane are no less formidable, especially in the crucial areas of teaching about religion and moral and spiritual values. NEA statements had cast weight mainly on the humanist side of the controversy, and against supernaturalism. It was to be expected, therefore, that NCC’s theistic grounding of values, in 1953, would provoke criticism, not only among schoolmen, but from humanistic churchmen, some of them vocal members of denominational committees on social action. The latest NCC pronouncement, a resolution of its General Board adopted Dec. 1, 1955, was somewhat more obscure in the matter of values. It gave unapologetic support to teaching “that our moral and ethical values rest upon religious grounds and sanctions.” But that was no clear-cut victory for theism since naturalism in the form of humanism often parades as religion.

When the Committee on Religion and Publication sought an index to NCC opinion on 44 issues in its “Preliminary Document No. 1,” the responses from 30 of its own members fluctuated from enthusiasm to hostility on six of the tentative statements; from enthusiasm to opposition on 20 items; and from enthusiasm to indifference on seven others. Committee members proposed 11 additional related subjects for discussion. This background material armed NCC committee members in Chicago’s Pick-Congress Hotel last month. Divided into five subcommittees, each group worked through an assigned portion of the preliminary document with an eye on consensus of conviction and points of correlation. While NCC policy excludes staff members from a vote, the extent to which staff activity participated (either as proxy for non-staff denominational representatives or as representing other NCC committees) was as curious as the insistence that any final draft would be cleared with councils of churches as well as with member denominations. Observers from non-affiliated agencies were allowed full participation other than voting privileges.

Complicating Motivation

NCC’s search for a statement that “reconciles our differences, incorporates our best thinking, and presents an authoritative Protestant view” is complicated by multiple motivations. It sets out, avowedly, to speak within an acknowledgment of “Jesus Christ as divine Lord and Saviour” through which the ecumenical movement links together Protestant, Eastern Orthodox and some Catholic and Anglican churches varying in theology, churchmanship and theories of action. The transition from the authority of Christ as Lord, to the particular positions taken on pressing issues, is not an easy one. A “hidden agenda” seems to shadow many discussions: assuming that “the thing to be done” includes preserving public schools under any circumstances, impeding Roman Catholic maneuvers for larger benefits from tax funds, avoiding a forthrightly theological pronouncement as trespassing the prerogatives of member denominations, accepting without question previous NCC commitments (the 1954 General Board statement favored “federal contributions to education … applied exclusively to the aid of tax-supported public schools” and staff members have interpreted this in support of federal aid for school construction), and a solicitous awareness of practical difficulties of local school superintendents. Beyond all this, NCC pronouncements involve the desired adjustment, in the interest of unanimity, of as many agreements and differences as possible, with staff consultants, state and local councils of churches, and constituent denominations all engaged in the dialogue. Given this context, the problem of addressing to member churches, in the hope of wider public approval, a statement which is authentically Protestant, is no easy task.

Worth Quoting

“Baptists and other evangelicals in Spain continue to suffer many disabilities and face many difficulties in their work. One situation, that of civil marriage, is even worse than when I visited there in 1956. There has been no violent persecution such as I reported after a recent visit to Colombia, but persecution of Protestants in Spain is more subtle and persistent.”—Dr. Theodore F. Adams, president of Baptist World Alliance, after a trip through Spain.

“Ours is a declining culture sagging out of orbit, a civilization sinking like a meteor in the night, a generation that has lost its reason for being.”—Editor Carl F. H. Henry of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, in remarks to Christian Business Men’s Committee of Washington,

D. C., on “The Place of Christ in a Disheveled World.”

Growing Pressures

There are growing pressures for the avoidance of direct theological statements and for a merely functional approach to religion and values, along the line of the Church Federation of Greater Chicago policy statement on “The Relation of the Churches in the Public Schools and The Place of Religion in Education.” But others insist that a theological position is unavoidable and inevitable. Dr. Gerald W. Knopp of NCC’s Division of Christian Education has reminded the Committee that its present draft takes lower ground than the exclusively theistic sanctioning of values in past NCC statements. “We had best reaffirm … or come off that limb deliberately,” he admonished.

Facing the framers of the declaration, guided by a newly proposed Department of Religion and Public Education of NCC, is the staggering task of consistency of conviction as much as fidelity to consensus. A holding operation may content itself with a view to consequences, but a strong strategic position will require a firm stand on principles.

C. F. H. H.

Review of Current Religious Thought: August 18, 1958

In Hans Urs von Balthasar’s fine book about the French writer George Bermanos, we find an instructive discussion of Bermanos’ attitude to the Roman Catholic Church, of which Bermanos was a member. His attitude was at once reverent and critical. This is not to say that Bermanos was reverent toward certain things in the church and critical of others. The relationship between his reverence and criticism goes deeper than this. The criticism grew out of the reverence, and the reverence was a critical reverence. Though the Protestant sees the possibility of criticism differently because he views the Church differently, he, too, may have the same two-pronged attitude toward the Church.

The Church is surely no stranger to criticism. Nor is criticism as such a rejection of the Church. Simple conformity within the Church rises from a failure to appreciate the human character of the Church. The Gospel offers little support for conformity. Just as it was possible for Paul to criticize Peter when he was convinced Peter was wrong (Gal. 2:11), so is it possible for us today to criticize the Church on all its fronts. The Church can be in danger. Antichrist can take his seat in the temple of God (2 Thess. 2:4). He who has uncritical reverence for the Church simply because it is the Church renders the Church poor service.

But criticism can flow from an impure spring. Critics can level their charges at the Church from a bastion of their own dissatisfaction and lovelessness. When they do, such critics do not speak as living members of the Church. Whenever the critic of the Church speaks his criticism from a distance, without love, without regret and without emotion, without a willingness to suffer and strive along with the Church, he betrays his estrangement from the Church and its mystery.

In this regard, we can learn something from Roman Catholic Bermanos. He did not hold back criticism of his church. But his critique was not thrown at his church from a distance. It was a critique of love. As he criticized he also confessed that he could not live for five minutes without the church. “Should I ever be forced outside of the church,” he said, “I would turn about and come back, on bare feet, ready to submit to whatever would be laid upon me.” Typical Roman Catholic submissiveness, one may retort. But we must be careful here. We must not forget the necessary and unbreakable relation between criticism and love.

We can criticize the Church truly only when we love it truly. There is no contradiction between true criticism and true love. It is just where love for the Church is strong that there is a yearning for the Church to be manifest as spotless, for the Church to be the light in a dark world. The prophets spoke this way to Zion: “For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake will I not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth” (Isa. 62:1). Watchmen were set on the walls of Jerusalem who were not to hold their peace until “he make Jerusalem a praise in the earth” (Isa. 62:6–7).

This is the touchstone of all criticism—the willingness of the critic to accept his own responsibility, to take his stance as a living member of the Church. One does not have to close his eyes to the failures and mistakes of the Church. He ought to look them squarely in the face, look at them with the eyes of love, and then speak out about them. The man who loves the Church feels no pressure to be a conformist, a yes man to all that occurs in the Church. He who loves the Church lives in longing for the final mystery, the mystery of the spotless congregation. In his longing, he is moved to criticism whenever the true wealth of the Church—in faith or in life—is threatened. Anyone who has had a share in the vision of the Body of Christ on earth cannot rest until its spotless character, its true wealth is manifest. He is a watchman on the walls of Zion, ready to call out at every threat. But when he speaks in warning tones, he speaks with the voice of earnest love.

If it is ever true, it is surely true here that love is not blind. This is why reverence and criticism of the Church are not two attitudes that balance each other off, as though the man who is both reverent and critical is on one hand reverent and on the other hand critical. Reverence and criticism are two aspects of one attitude, two aspects that penetrate each other and are never balanced off against each other. Therefore, every critique leveled from a behind-the-lines position is judged. Every critique that does not arise from within the dangers and the agony of the Church is unworthy and unconstructive. It is fruitless because it is loveless.

There is a difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant view of the Church. But we can nonetheless learn something from Bermanos as we read of his criticism of and yet his passionate love for his church. For, in spite of the faults of the Church, there is a mystery within it. It is the mystery of sacrifice and resurrection, the mystery of love and mercy. It is a rich mystery. And its wealth lies in our hands. How can we ever count the sins that the Church has committed and still commits? What a darkness falls over its path in the course of its centuries! Yet, we do not turn our backs to the Church.

Every cloud that falls over the Church is a summons to new responsibility. The darker it becomes in the Church, the more earnestly we strive for the light. We do this with finger pointed in disturbed criticism and judgment; but the disturbance is the disturbance of love. To divorce criticism of the Church from love and prayer for the Church is to lose hold of the mystery of the Church. This is the warning for all criticism of the Church!

Bible Book of the Month

It will be readily conceded that the times in which Hosea lived called for a prophet from the Lord. From the high peak of prosperity achieved under Jeroboam II, Samaria had rampaged downhill to suicidal destruction. Few would have believed that after Jeroboam’s death the northern kingdom would have only 27 years of nationhood left. That is the measure of the speed with which spiritual apostacy and moral degeneracy can compass the death of a nation. A debauched aristocracy, a degenerate priesthood, a debased people, constituted an apostate nation that grew prematurely old and died by its own hand (7:9, 4:1–11).

Background And Date

Hosea was contemporary with Amos, Isaiah and Micah (cf. Hos. 1:1; Amos 1:1; Isa. 1:1; Mic. 1:1), and like Amos he witnessed in Samaria, the northern part of the divided kingdom. The spontaneity with which he depicts the contemporary situation in Samaria, and the accuracy of the details, suggest that he was a native of the north. The name Ephraim occurs nearly 40 times. The numerous place names met with are all of locations in Samaria.

When Hosea began to prophesy in Ephraim it is safe to assume that Jeroboam II still ruled the country. At least the dynasty to which he belonged (the House of Jehu) still survived. In 1:4, its overthrow, which took place six months after Jeroboam II died, is foretold but not fulfilled. A hint of the amazing prosperity that Jeroboam’s rule brought to Samaria occurs in 2:5, 8f. The king died in 749 B.C., so that the early part of Hosea’s writings (1–3) probably concern events that took place within a period a few years before that date.

The second part of Hosea’s ministry was fulfilled in a completely different ethos. There are many hints of the chaotic conditions that prevailed following Jeroboam’s death. However, Samaria had not yet fallen to the Assyrian Sargon II (13:16). Indeed, Hosea betrays no knowledge even of the disasters that befell Israel during the reign of Tiglathpileser III, predecessor of Shalmaneser V, whom Sargon succeeded. The darkening gloom that heralded Samaria’s bloody end is descending like a pall upon the doomed nation, but Gilead in Transjordania is still part of Ephraim (6:8), and the ruthlessly efficient Assyrian war machine is not yet in operation against her (5:13, 12:1). In fact, the situation is powerfully reminiscent of Menahem’s rule in Samaria (2 Kings 15:13–22), the king who “reigned” by permission of the Assyrian emperor, his overlord. Since Menahem died in 734 B.C., probably Hosea’s ministry was completed prior to that date.

Contents

The book of Hosea falls into two main sections: chapters 1–3 and 4–14. The first divides fairly easily into five parts: (1) 1:1–9, describes Hosea’s relations with Gomer his wife, and by means of symbolic names given to the prophet’s children foreshadows Samaria’s doom; (2) 1:10–2:1, provides hope of a reversal of this doom; (3) 2:2–13, returns to the disaster foreshadowed in the first section; (4) 2:14–23, supplies fresh promises of a restoration; (5) 3:1–5, suggests that Hosea’s treatment of the wayward Gomer points to the means by which Samaria may be restored.

The second section is less easily divided but there appear to be three main parts in it: (1) Chapters 4–8, which exposes generally the horrifying state of Samaria’s moral life; chapter 4 describes Israel’s national sins, for which the priests must share responsibility; chapters 5–7 show the extent to which Ephraim’s life is riddled with the dry-rot of sin, while chapter 8 specifies the actual sins which plague the nation; (2) 9–11:11, describes the entail of judgment that such sinfulness necessitates; (3) 11:12; 12; 13, reviews some of the salient features of Israel’s past history, while chapter 14 promises a limited restoration to a chastened and repentant residue.

Hosea’S Relations With Gomer

Chapters 1–3 are easily systematized because they revolve around a common center. In this first section the prophet is preoccupied primarily with the chesedh (grace) of Jahweh and the faithfulness of Ephraim. This stemmed from the harrowing experience that came to him in his own home. The interpretation of this event is the crux of the first part of the book because it seems to raise a serious moral problem.

The most widely accepted interpretation is based on the conviction that Hosea’s account of his marital relations with Gomer is factual. He married Gomer and she bore him three children. The first, a son, was named Jezreel signifying the judgment of Jehu’s house (1:3–5); the second child, a daughter, was called Uncompassionated signifying the close of Israel’s day of grace (1:6f.); the third, a son, was named Not-my-people signifying that Israel was no longer Jahweh’s people.

In the course of their married life Gomer’s infidelities came to light. Hosea and Gomer separated but she persisted in her immoral habits. So complete became her eventual degradation that she was put up for sale as a slave. At the Lord’s behest Hosea redeemed her and restored her to his home, though not as his wife. Sexual relations were to be resumed only after a probationary period had proved that she was cured of her waywardness.

It is important to note that Hosea restored Gomer to his home after he saw that the Lord would restore Israel, while Gomer’s unfaithfulness was discovered before Hosea gained insight into Israel’s apostasy. The significance of this is that while the prophet’s domestic tragedy preceded his understanding of God’s sorrow over Israel, it was the Lord who set the example of forgiveness. Hosea saw God’s sorrow in the light of his own, but he saw how to forgive Gomer when he saw the Lord’s willingness to forgive Israel. Human grace is the reflex of divine grace.

But the acceptance of Hosea’s account of his domestic sorrow as factual seems to involve a moral problem. In Chapter 1:2, Jahweh says to Hosea: “Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms!” This command marks the opening of Hosea’s prophetic ministry. But is it conceivable that the Holy One of Israel would lay such a command upon one of his prophets? A number of scholars deny this and resolve the problem by describing Hosea’s account of his domestic tragedy as an allegory. The stark realism of the prophet’s story, however, does not suggest that he was using allegorical language, and in any case the allegorist still has to explain why Hosea used an immoral subject in the alleged allegory.

Another attempt to solve the dilemma is the suggestion that Hosea knew that Gomer was a prostitute before he married her, and that the marriage was the prophet’s endeavor to lift Gomer from her degradation in response to the Lord’s command in verse 2 of chapter 1. But this solution accounts neither for Hosea’s view that Israel was chaste at the time of her betrothal with Jahweh and only corrupted herself subsequently, nor for his understanding of his own tragedy.

If the phrase “wife of whoredoms” (1:2) is applied to Gomer to describe not what she was but what she became after Hosea married her, then the difficulty disappears. Hosea’s children are described as “children of whoredoms” (1:2), but they were yet unborn. This would free us from imputing to God a command that would at once outrage the prophet’s moral sense, and render impossible the fulfilment of part of his mission, namely the condemnation of the nation’s immoral practices.

It also enables us to establish the necessary connection between Hosea’s personal experience and his teaching. The former was the medium through which the latter was communicated. Out of that harrowing experience there came to the prophet an understanding of the heinous nature of Israel’s idolatry. She was committing adultery (1:2) when she worshiped the Canaanite Baal (2:5, 8). And since Jahweh was the Holy One, he could neither condone nor ignore such infidelity. Judgment in the form of exile (3:4) became inevitable. But this would not be Jahweh’s final word to Israel, his unfaithful bride. Her return home was certain (3:5) when the fiery furnace of exile would have welded her into a unity (1:11), and purged away the dross of her idolatrous cravings. Men would then know her as the Lord’s betrothed (2:19).

Additional Teachings In Hosea

The second part of the book of Hosea, chapters 4:14, has no cohesive principle similar to that which unifies the first three chapters; but there are one or two important truths set forth in this second section. These must necessarily be presented in summarized form.

1. In chapters 4–6 the prophet again turns his attention to the religious life of Samaria. There are several factors to notice here.

(a) He describes her worship at the high places as harlotry (4:13), and for two reasons: gross immorality characterized it (4:14 f.), and it represented national apostasy from Jahweh. The local Baalim were Israel’s paramours.

(b) Now what Hosea underscores is that this revolting behavior was the result of the people’s ignorance. And this lack of knowledge was the outcome of a deliberate policy of the priesthood. When Hosea speaks of knowledge at this point he does not mean knowledge that is an abstract entity. He has in mind a knowledge of God that is practical. A knowledge that reveals to a man his duty toward the Lord and that impels him to a response of obedience.

(c) It was this kind of knowledge that the priests, of set purpose, withheld from the people (4:6). Within this deliberately induced vacuum they fostered sensuous passions in the people, which they craftily guaranteed could and would be sated at the high places. This deliberate policy pursued by the priests was motivated by the determination to gain mean advantages over the people (4:8).

(d) This policy finally bore baneful fruit in the nation’s life. The time came when Hosea could say that there was neither truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of Jahweh in Ephraim (4:1). And as the insensate people plunged deeper into the morass of an immorality that was both religious and ethical, their foolish hearts became increasingly dark (4:10 f.), until Hosea’s famous dictum became proverbial: ‘Like people, like priest’ (4:9).

(e) Turning to the great world powers for help in her dilemma (5:13, 7:11, 8:9, 12:1) proved unavailing. It was only added evidence that Israel was a sick nation. It bespoke an apostate condition because the absence of trust in Jahweh which this policy revealed indicated alienation from God in heart as well as mind. Hosea knew of only one remedy for this cancerous growth that was eating into Samaria’s vitals—judgment, and the return of a chastened people to their God. Then they would know, if they continued to follow on to know the Lord (6:1–3).

2. Hosea’s teaching on the covenant relation between Jahweh and Israel is also important. In this field his main burden is that the nation has wantonly severed this covenant bond (5:7, 6:7, 8:1).

(a) He understood it in terms of filial relations (11:1). But whereas in the neighboring nations this relation between deity and people was understood in terms of a physical relationship, in Israel the bond with Jahweh was spiritual and ethical.

(b) This covenant relation between Jahweh and Ephraim was morally conditioned because it was a bond of chesedh. The bond, therefore, could be maintained only by the worship and behavior of a people who loved mercy, holiness, justice, truth and a right knowledge of Jahweh. But in fact Israel’s life was the complete antithesis of this ideal.

(c) The prophet saw from his own experience of Gomer’s infidelity what Israel’s unfaithfulness must have meant to Jahweh. It was when his own love was so heartlessly trampled underfoot by Gomer, and his character and purpose were so cruelly misinterpreted, that insights into the heart of God flashed into his distraught mind.

(d) It was this, too, that showed him the inevitability of judgment (13:16). But this would not mean the cessation of Jahweh’s chesedh for Ephraim (11:8, 13:14). Through the gloom of impending judgment Hosea saw gleams heralding the dawn of a new day (5:15–6:6, 11:9–11, 14:4–9).

3. Attention should also be drawn to Hosea’s concept of religion. This stemmed from his doctrine of God.

(a) Whereas Amos had conceived Jahweh to be a God whose chief concern was the Law and its observance, Hosea believed Jahweh to be essentially a God of grace (11:1–4). God’s grace could not merely match law, it was greater than law. God’s grace could pronounce judgment upon the people who had a broken law on their conscience and at the same time promise redemption.

(b) Now having seen that Jahweh was essentially grace and spirit, Hosea could teach that religion was of the heart (6:6). Religion was an inward thing of the spirit. This insight was inevitable when one has due regard to the elemental thing in Israel’s faith, namely Jahweh’s elective grace in redeeming her from Egypt, and the ethical nature of the covenant bond into which she entered with Jahweh at Sinai. For Hosea, Israel’s religion was pre-eminently inward and ethical, spiritual and moral.

(c) Hence, Hosea viewed exile not as the end but as the beginning. It would only serve to make plain what was inherent in his view of Israel’s faith, namely that behind the outward religion, behind temple, sacrifice, priesthood and ceremonial, was the essential inward religion. The invisible “required” the visible accompaniment for the benefit of its adherents, but Hosea saw that the invisible had qualities and ideals that no visible ceremonial could finally embody. Hosea saw the truth which a Greater than he was one day to formulate: “God is a Spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24).

Brief Bibliography

From fairly extensive literature on Hosea the following may be said to be representative: John Calvin, Commentaries, Minor Prophets (Edinburgh, 1846, Vol. 1); Keil & Delitzsch, Commentaries on the Old Testament, Minor Prophets (Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1954, Vol. 1); C. Von Orelli, The Twelve Minor Prophets (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1897); G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Prophets in The Expositor’s Bible (Funk & Wagnalls, 1900); W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea in The International Critical Commentary (T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 4th Impression 1953); A. C. Welch, Kings and Prophets of Israel (Philosophical Library, New York, 1952, pp. 130–184); H. Wh. Robinson, The Cross of Hosea (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia).

J. G. S. S. THOMSON

Professor of Old Testament

Columbia Theological Seminary

Book Briefs: August 18, 1958

Enriching Worship

Leading in Public Prayer, by Andrew W. Blackwood, Abingdon, 1958. 205 pp., $3.00.

The name of Andrew Blackwood is practically a byword among contemporary preachers. In addition to having taught homiletics to a generation of divinity students at four theological seminaries, he is the author of a wide variety of books covering this and kindred subjects. His writings have never been technical, but are designed for use by the average parish minister. Without exception they have received a warm welcome from clergymen of all denominations.

This volume is equal to its predecessors. Its purpose is to assist the minister of the “free church” tradition in enriching his worship services by instructing him in the art of public prayer. Dr. Blackwood discusses the essential elements of Christian prayer: adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication (which includes petition and intercession), and submission, and insists that no service of worship is complete which omits any one of them. He argues convincingly for the division of public prayer according to this progressive order, greater congregational participation, brevity, and concreteness rather than abstraction. He suggests ways of varying the emphasis in the prayers at different services according to the diverse needs of the people, thereby emancipating the services from monotony and attracting more worshipers. The book includes a check list of faults in public prayer, a bibliography, and an index.

Dr. Blackwood approves the use of the historic prayers of the Church and those by masters of this discipline. With this we agree, but we question his logic. For while he endorses this practice, he apparently disapproves the use of other men’s sermons. He claims that the borrowing of prayers is not plagiarism, and advises the man who has qualms about the practice to read word-for-word the borrowed prayers, but to shut his eyes when voicing his own. That is a rationalization. And if the unacknowledged borrowing of prayers is not plagiarism, what makes the unacknowledged borrowing of sermons plagiarism? Is it fundamentally a question of length? If so, then we are enmeshed in a casuistry which matches that of the Jesuits.

RICHARD ALLEN BODEY

Compelling Subject

Words and Images, by E. L. Mascall, Ronald, 1957. 132 pp., $3.50.

This is both an interesting and disappointing book. It is interesting, first, because the author’s style is attractive. Second, and more important, the subject is compelling: the logical positivist theory of language versus a Roman Catholic view of words and images which, though based on sensory experience, convey non-conceptual and unverifiable truth.

Yet the book is disappointing, for the theory defended is not comprehensively explained. A reader new to the subject might indeed have his interest stimulated, but he would be many times perplexed. The author excuses his omissions on the ground that he or his friends have given the arguments in other volumes.

The excuse, however, is not altogether sufficient. In the space of a few lines the author dismisses the view that perception is inferential: Brand Blanshard in The Nature of Thought spent 100 pages of careful argument to show that it is. Then the author proceeds to assert that the intellect grasps the real thing in a direct but mediate activity (pp. 33 and 34). How apprehension can be direct without being immediate, he does not explain.

There is a more serious omission. If the author wishes to reject logical positivism—and most of his reasons here are quite sound (perhaps there is one doubtful accusation of ambiguity on page 13)—he should show more clearly that it is possible to defend the meaningfulness of theological propositions while retaining the sensory origin of language. “All the language that we have in which to talk about him [God] has been devised in order to describe and discuss the finite objects of our sense-experience” (p. 101). Does this not concede too much to the logical positivists right at the start? Can this position be rescued by a puzzling hint of a primitive language that antedates the distinction between the material and the spiritual? And is mystic imagery of any help?

It would be unreasonable to require a man to write a 700-page volume when he wants only to talk for 150 pages. But is it unreasonable in this case to wish that the number of assertions were few enough to allow for moderate explanation and for some genuine argument?

GORDON H. CLARK

Benevolent Government

Commonism, by Pik Kum Chau, Exposition Press, 1957. 256 pp., $3.00.

One does not like to be critical of such a sincere effort to provide a Christian answer to Communism. It is true that good will is essential to the solution of our problems, and that Christians need to respond to the challenge to live on the level of Christian love. It is true that the disciples in Acts 2:44 had all things in common, but this was not an effort to establish a permanent economic system. It was a temporary system of relief (Acts 2:45; 4:34–35), and it was not practiced in churches outside Jerusalem. If it had been, there could have been no weekly contribution wherein individuals gave, as they purposed and as they had been prospered (1 Cor. 16:1–2). If all sold their lands and houses when they came into Christ (Acts 2:45; 4:34), soon many would be on relief with no one to relieve them. Dr. Chau did not advocate this, but rather a double tithe and special offerings, so although he took the title of his book from Acts 2:44 he did not advocate the having all things common.

Dr. Chau recognizes the right of private ownership, which is also stated by Peter in Acts 5:4, but I am afraid that the type of government which he suggests would destroy private ownership and freedom. For he not only advocates a government which would be the “father” of the people looking after all their needs, but also an international government with sufficient force to enforce its will (pp. 174–178) and with a Religious Affairs Committee which would endeavor to establish a federation of religion and have the direction of universal evangelistic movements (pp. 182–184).

As with many others, Dr. Chau is misled by the pleasant but deceptive sound of the slogan: “Each person contributing according to his ability; each person receiving according to his needs.” This is in reality the formula of dictatorship since there must be a government with dictatorial powers to decide what my ability is and what my needs are. This would necessitate the Planners, the varying Plans, the Police to enforce the plans and the people who would be the Planned. I know of no planners who are wise enough, intelligent enough, informed sufficiently, or good enough to be entrusted with the political, economic and spiritual power suggested.

In my opinion, Ivor Thomas in The Socialist Tragedy shows a better understanding of human nature.

We agree with Dr. Chau that Christians need to have a stewardship concept and to use their material goods in harmony with the will of God.

JAMES D. BALES

Pavlovian Ideas

Battle for the Mind, by William Sargant, Doubleday, 1957. 263 pp., $4.50.

The author’s subtitle, “A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing,” hardly prepares the reader for the congeries of animal and human phenomena here assembled. With only the Pavlovian concept of the conditioned reflex to justify their juxtaposition, the author has ranged through history and across geography to collect copious quotations from Saul of Tarsus to Billy Graham and from ancient Greece to communist China.

Sargant is a British psychiatrist who has written a previous book on physical methods of treatment in mental illness. From this constricted viewpoint he undertakes what he calls “a limited mechanistic approach” to the subject of political and religious conversion.

The author begins by recounting in the introduction his own conversion to belief in the “experimental neuroses” of Pavlov, and continues by describing in detail the Russian scientist’s work with conditioned reflexes in dogs. A second chapter endeavors to establish the existence of identical phenomena in human beings. In the remainder of the book, the author assumes the truth of this proposition and proceeds to use the Pavlovian terminology in analyzing his collected descriptions of religious and political conversion phenomena. He is justifiably defensive about this extrapolative transfer of dog behavior to human beings, which oversimplifies psychological problems and treatment, at times to the point of naivete.

Sargant cites the work of Jonathan Edwards, George Fox, Charles Finney and George Whitefield in support of his contention that evangelistic methods are primarily assaults on the brain—not even psychological, but physiological. His severest attacks are reserved for John Wesley. The choice of excerpts is slanted and the treatment of Wesley overly aggressive, denigrative and studded with gratuitous interpolations.

This global compilation that binds Christian conversion, psychoanalysis, voodoo, police grilling, snake-handling, witchcraft and communist interrogation in the same bundle proves one thing—that its author’s indoctrination in Pavlovian ideas has been a complete success.

ORVILLE S. WALTERS

Biblical Significance of Mideast Turmoil

Christianity in the World Today

This summer’s developments in the Mideast captured the attention of the godly and godless the world over. The crisis held its greatest meaning, however, for evangelical Christians, who know that world history began near the eastern shore of the Mediterranean—and may well end there!

Current events in the Mideast have great significance if only because of this fact, that ancient Bible lands which originally supplied the setting for the decisive events of sacred history are once again providing the scene for potentially momentous happenings. In back of the mind of most informed individuals is the question: “Will this struggle degenerate into a nuclear war, heaping unparalleled destruction upon the earth?” Yet the true Christian aspects of the turmoil transcend in importance even the alarm over whether troop movements, bloody riots, and nationalistic political realignments will eventually trigger a third global conflict.

Evaluations Will Take Time

Precise determinations as to how the 1958 Mideast strife affects the Christian outlook may well be a long time coming. Few theologians, if any, were immediately willing to venture specific appraisals. By early this month the only representative church statement relating to the Mideast came from Dr. O. Frederick Nolde, director of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, a joint agency of the World Council of Churches and the International Missionary Council. Nolde drafted the statement with five other ecumenical leaders “inspired by queries from Christian leaders all over the United States.” The 10-point statement made no attempt to deal with particulars. Aside from an assertion that “it is not essential to Western interests that the governments of the Middle East be ‘pro-Western,’ ” the remarks were non-committal on any new course of action. For example: “We in the churches should both support the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of Middle Eastern nations and promote alertness to the extent to which the response of national governments falls below the needs and aspirations of their own people.”

Doubtless, though, theologians of many persuasions will become increasingly vocal as political realignments jell and sides are chosen. These may be some of the concerns which will guide thinking:

The welfare of Protestants caught in the struggle. Up through the first week of this month, there were no reports of any Protestant missionaries in the Mideast having been harmed or mistreated in the uprisings.

The effect political realignments will have on the work of the Gospel in Mideast lands. The facts are that present evangelical impact in the areas where Christianity had its roots amounts to little more than a drop in the bucket. Moslem domination could eliminate even this small impact, but concerted efforts against Christian advance at this stage can hardly be expected.

Lebanon Is Half And Half

Maronite Roman Catholics compose an overwhelming majority of the Christians who make Lebanon half-Christian, half-Moslem. President-elect Faud Shehab, like President Camille Chamoun, is a Maronite. The Shehab family, originally Moslem, reportedly became Maronite about the middle of the eighteenth century. Shehab has relatives among the Moslems and the Druses, a sect of Islam. A Moslem cousin, Khaled Shehab, once was premier. (Maronite Patriarch Paul Meouchi is the cousin of ex-President Bishara el-Khoury, whom Chamoun forced from office by coup d’etat in 1952.)

In Iraq, only about five per cent of the population can be considered Christian, using the term in its broadest sense. There are 210,000 Latin and Eastern Rite Catholics, plus some 90,000 Eastern Orthodox and about 2,000 Protestants. Modern Protestant efforts in Iraq date back only about 50 years.

The Moslem character of both Iraq and Jordan had focused on the Hashemite royal family, which is said to number Mohammed among its ancestors.

Correlation of modern Mideast geographical features with those of biblical times. Perhaps the most prominent biblical site associated with Iraq is the Garden of Eden. Almost directly north of Baghdad, near the Tigris River, lay the remains of the world’s oldest known village. In southeast Iraq stands the oldest temple known to man.

Lebanon’s most prominent biblical cities are Tyre and Saida, or Sidon, the latter having been the uppermost limit of Canaan. Both cities are mentioned many times through the Old and New Testaments.

Do present phenomena represent fulfilled biblical prophecy? Most prophecy discussions these days center on Israel, which in the early weeks of the 1958 Mideast crisis was a silent neighbor. Not until early August did the Jews become significantly involved. Almost immediately after the United States recognized the new government of Iraq, Israel said it was refusing to let British transport planes cut across its borders. The move cut off air supplies for British troops in Jordan. Some observers felt the Israel refusal was the result of Soviet pressure; others thought the little country was merely trying to assert its independence. Many scholars say Israel is the country to watch.

The issues in the Mideast struggles were, from the beginning, largely political and economic. Religious ramifications were overlooked. Chiefs of states showed no alertness to the lessons of Mideast history. Policies were being predicated on vulnerable issues which failed to penetrate deeply into human nature. Still to be explored was the possibility of solutions on a theistic level. Yet to be realized, seemingly, was the fact that the principals are theists, and that this might provide a common ground for reconciliation. (The first Baghdad radio announcements following the coup began: “With the aid of God Almighty and the support of the people and the armed services, we have liberated …” King Hussein said he was guiding his country “with God’s help.”)

Was anyone about to come up with the answer? Republican Senator H. Alexander Smith of New Jersey said that only a return to God can restore America’s “moral leadership” in these distressing times.

Speaking on the floor of the Senate, Smith said that “the times call for a renewal of our faith and a new dedication to re-establish the moral leadership of a free America in the world.”

The “distressing world problems of today remind me that throughout our history, in times of national crisis, America has affirmed through its leaders that ‘God governs in the affairs of men,’ ” he said.

In quoting from Benjamin Franklin, Smith stressed that the spiritual heritage of the founding fathers “springs from the Declaration of Independence and its statement of basic moral and religious principles, which are rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition of human dignity and equality under God.”

Staff Additions

Dr. James DeForest Murch, for the past 13 years editor of United Evangelical Action, becomes managing editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, September 1.

On August 25, Clair C. Burcaw, New York textile sales executive, will become general business manager.

The new appointments were made under a staff expansion program which also provides for a full-time advertising manager, a post that will be filled by Charles Claus, who has been business and advertising manager.

Murch will fill the post vacant since April, 1957, when Larry Ward resigned as managing editor to join World Vision.

Murch holds the A.B. from Ohio University and the M.A. from the University of Cincinnati, plus an honoray doctorate from Northwest Christian College.

Prior to his association with United Evangelical Action, official organ of the National Association of Evangelicals, he was editorial secretary of Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati.

An ordained Disciples of Christ minister, Murch is a past president of National Religious Broadcasters, National Sunday School Association, and Cincinnati Bible Seminary. He was also vice president of the World Christian Endeavor Union.

Murch has written a number of books, among them Cooperation Without Compromise, Studies in Christian Living, Christian Ministers Manual, Christian Education and the Local Church, and God Still Lives.

Burcaw, aside from wide business experience, especially in the textile field, is also an active Christian layman.

Preventive Legislation

“A reduction of 50 per cent in the problem of the drinking driver would mean the saving of more than 7,500 lives per year.”

Can the number of drinking drivers be cut in half? “I certainly think so … in a couple of years,” said William N. Plymat, president of Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company (which sells policies exclusively to non-drinkers).

Plymat proposed the means in talks to summer conferences of the National Committee for the Prevention of Alcoholism. His plan: Equip patrol cars with kits to detect alcohol on the breath of drivers; institute programs of surprise highway checks; deal with habitual offenders through a point system.

For God, Country

Who would ever have thought that Americans could win the average Russian’s heart by displaying superiority in a particular field? Yet the Soviet public has been captivated by visitors from the United States. And, even more remarkable, the Americans apparently getting the most attention in Moscow are outstanding lay Christians.

Take Brooks Hays, U. S. Congressman and Southern Baptist Convention president who was overwhelmed at his reception in Moscow’s First Baptist Church, or Van Cliburn, young Baptist musician who sang in the New York Crusade choir last summer, then went on to become a hero in the Russian capital by winning an international piano competition, not to mention American churchmen acclaimed enthusiastically in visits to the Soviet Union.

Last month, a 23-year-old California Negro won more attention than perhaps all the rest by performing a feat that the chief Russian track coach called “the greatest to occur in the world in any sport.” Rafer Johnson, who remembers October 29, 1953, as the spiritual turning point in his life, broke the world’s decathlon record in nine events and was promptly labeled by United Press International as the “greatest all-around athlete in history.”

Recognition of Johnson’s superlative athletic prowess came at a track and field meet between Americans and Russians at Moscow’s Lenin Stadium. He was reportedly mobbed by enthusiastic Russians after piling up 8302 points—288 more than the old record for the 10-event test.

Johnson joined the Kingsburg, California, Mission Covenant Church shortly after his conversion at a Youth for Christ banquet. Now a student at the University of California at Los Angeles, he works with Campus Crusade for Christ.

The American Tract Society in New York, in a new illustrated tract about Johnson, quotes him as saying:

“The championships and college teams will soon be forgotten, and the lights will go out; but the Christian team will live and the light will never dim, but will burn on and on.”

Church And State

Danger! Precedent! Such is the cry of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which this summer voiced misgivings over such potential pace-setters as these:

—An order from the New York commissioner of hospitals forbidding a doctor to prescribe a contraceptive device for a Protestant woman. (“This is exactly the sort of thing that many people have come to fear in the prospect of a Roman Catholic candidate for president—that if elected he would use his official position to further a sectarian program rather than the best interests of all citizens of all faiths,” said POAU Associate Director C. Stanley Lowell. Replied a Catholic spokesman, “The issue at hand is whether the money of taxpayers, among whom are Catholics who believe that birth control violates natural and divine law, should be used for contraceptive fittings in public hospitals.)

—An Internal Revenue Service regulation exempting from federal taxation business activities conducted by religious orders “with sacerdotal functions.”

—Proposed excise tax exemptions in favor of sectarian educational institutions.

—Congressional bills which would subsidize school travel in the District of Columbia.

Rebuilding A Faculty

Trustees at Louisville’s Southern Baptist Theological Seminary have reinstated one of thirteen professors dismissed June 12 in a dispute with the administration.

Reinstatement of Dr. J. J. Owens, Old Testament professor and the only one of the thirteen to respond to a special trustee committee’s negotiation invitation, was made retroactive to the date of his dismissal.

It was announced that the other 12, if still unemployed, will receive salaries through January 31, “to assure that no financial hardship will be suffered.”

Since the dismissals, the seminary has added to its faculty Dr. Joseph A. Callaway of Furman University and C. Allyn Russell, teaching fellow at Boston University School of Theology.

Dr. Clyde T. Francisco, Old Testament professor, who was to have resigned his position to teach in Fort Worth, has decided to stay.

Minister Shortage

The interdenominational Ministers’ Council of Tuskegee, Alabama, “in an effort to face the problem of the dire shortage of ministers,” appointed a committee to study the matter and make recommendations.

Among the committee’s conclusions: “If the church is to face adequately the issues of our time, and if the influence of the Christian gospel is to be felt as these issues are resolved, it is essential that the “call” to Christian service be answered more often than it has been in recent years.”

Hostility Hit

Dr. John C. Bennett, dean of the faculty at Union Theological Seminary, suggest that Christians should take a less “rigid” attitude in their opposition to Communism.

He told some 450 delegates from 22 countries attending the eighth assembly of the International Congregational Council in Hartford, Connecticut, that perhaps it is time “to emphasize less than has been our practice opposition to communism and to stop the continuous expressions of national and religious hostility to Communists and Communist nations.”

Urging Christian churches to be “more sophisticated” about communism, Bennett said, however, they should not be misled by its “propaganda and its illusions.”

“They should not take so rigid an attitude that they cannot see that second generation Communists in Russia may become concerned chiefly about building their own country, that they may become less fanatical believers in their ideology and less a threat to the freedom of their neighbors.”

Bennett said he believed Christian churches in the West and in countries most vulnerable to communism “should continue to emphasize the conflicts between Christianity and communism.”

However, he continued, the churches should show more understanding toward the Russian fears of attack. These fears, he added, are “part a matter of dogma but are greatly strengthened by Western emphasis upon bases that surround the Soviet Union and by continuous expressions of hostility against that country.”

Other various meetings around the world produced these developments:

At New York City—Jehovah’s Witnesses from all over the world gathered at Yankee Stadium and the Polo Grounds in the biggest convention, religious or otherwise, that New York has ever seen. More than 150,000 delegates impressed New Yorkers with their orderliness. More than 250,000 persons attended closing meetings. Witnesses set a record of their own in the mass baptism of 7,136 converts at Orchard Beach in The Bronx. (The men wore white T-shirts and swimming trunks, the women one-piece bathing suits with straps.)

At Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England—A joint interim statement by representatives of the Church of England and the Methodist Church on closer relations between the two denominations brought sharp debate at the annual meeting of the Methodist Conference of Great Britain. The statement summarizing conversations held during the last two years suggested that unification of the ministries of the two churches might be accomplished by the Methodist Church’s acceptance of the historic episcopate.

At Silver Bay, New York—Pointing out that “there never has been a more difficult age than this for the church to carry out its mission,” Dr. Charles T. Leber told the annual NCC-sponsored Silver Bay Conference on the Christian World Mission that a “non-violent Christian revolution” is needed to shake up the complacency of Americans with regard to race, corruption, and the “worship” of material advances. Leber is general secretary of the Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.

At Edmonton, Alberta—The 32nd triennial General Conference of the North American Baptist Church decided to put the denomination’s two educational institutions under one board of education.

At Frankfurt, Germany—The 13th World Christian Endeavor Convention, with 12,000 youth in attendance, resolved to increase social action activities.

At Louisville, Kentucky—The national convention of Gideons International was told that hotel and motel rooms in 46 states are completely “Bibled.” The 18,000-member Christian businessmen’s group is in its 50th year of Bible distribution ministry.

Canada

New Texts

In 1957, Dr. Lewis S. Beattie, formerly Ontario’s superintendent of secondary education, was appointed chairman of the Inter-Church Committee on Religious Education in province schools. Since then he has been working on a plan for promoting religious education in elementary and secondary schools. Cooperation came from principals of teachers’ colleges and ministers who teach religious education.

Part of the plan is the publication of new guide books aimed at centering on the life of Jesus Christ and presenting his personality as portrayed by the Gospel writers. Committee members were hoping to have some of the books ready for the resumption of classes this fall.

Beattie undertook the work because he said he felt that excluding religion from school curricula has often given the impression that religion is unimportant or unworthy of a place alongside other school subjects.

—T.W.H.

Royal Worship

Touring Princess Margaret worshiped at St. George’s in the Pines Anglican Church during a stopover at Banff, Alberta. The rector, the Rev. George A. S. Hollywood, said afterward:

“There is no doubt in my mind that the Princess is a sincere Christian.”

“She was sitting very close to me during the matins service,” he added, “joining in heartily in the hymns, many of which she sang from memory, and responding well in … the service.”

J.N.

South America

Auca Episode

What has happened to Dr. Robert Tremblay, the Montreal doctor who went into the Ecuadorian jungles to deal with savage Aucas? (See CHRISTIANITY TODAY, June 23, 1958.)

Last month, a group of Quechua Indians went down the Curaray River to check on Tremblay. Just below “Palm Beach,” where five American missionaries were slain, the Indians found the jungle house where he had set up headquarters. They said the house had been ransacked with furnishings strewn about outside. No sign of Tremblay.

Several days later, a Missionary Aviation Fellowship plane made a pass over the house confirming that “stuff was strewn all over the place outside.”

Said pilot Hobey Lowrance: “We found that all the (Auca) houses at four locations had been burned. And no people appeared.”

Missionaries who know the Aucas thus feared the worst, for after a killing these Indians customarily burn their houses and hide for a time. All the indications, however, were circumstantial.

Europe

Showdown Series

Continuing clergy arrests notwithstanding, church-state showdowns cropped up liberally behind the Iron Curtain this summer.

First the Hungarian government, in a roundabout way, ousted Bishop Lajos Ordass as head of the Southern District of the Hungarian Lutheran Church. The state, which claims the right to approve all key church appointments, said it has never recognized the resignation of Bishop Laszlo Dezsery in favor of Ordass, a staunch anti-Communist who took up the post during the 1956 Hungarian revolt. Dezsery is now reported to have also disclaimed the office.

Then the scene switched to Warsaw, where Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski, Roman Catholic Primate of Poland, became the key figure in another church-state clash. Anti-state feelings among Catholics were stirred when Communist police raided a monastery and claimed to have seized literature which ridiculed the state. The question of whether the church or the state should distribute relief supplies from American Catholics added fuel to the controversy. Dr. Jerzy Sztachelski, minister of state for religious affairs, blamed Wyszynski for all the trouble, charging that the cardinal has been “inflaming relations between the church and the Polish state” ever since he visited the Vatican last year. A special church-state commission stepped in to try and ease the tensions.

Meanwhile, in East Berlin, an agreement was reported to have been established between the Soviet Zone government and Evangelical churches in East Germany to eliminate “disturbing factors” in church-state relations.

Forecast: Swedish Schism

A split within the Swedish state church looms if the country’s Lutheran hierarchy fails to veto a parliament-approved bill allowing ordination of women.

Last month 600 pastors and laymen led by Bishop Bo Giertz formed an organization to discourage the move for female clergy.

The bishop flatly predicted a split if the Lutheran Church Convocation allows the legislation to become effective. The convocation, which will meet in extraordinary session this fall, holds a veto power over bills affecting it.

—P. L.

End Of The Road?

The Free Church of Scotland’s official Monthly Record takes a dim view of a current move for closer ties between the Church of Scotland and the Church of England.

Proposed inter-communion, as suggested in a report referred by the Church of Scotland General Assembly to constituent presbyteries, “does not appear to have any doctrinal foundation,” the Monthly Record says.

“What is there to prevent both sides, here and now, from recognizing each other as brothers in Christ, working, each in his own domain, for the upbuilding of the Kingdom of Christ?” the publication asked. “Nothing, save empty, childish Episcopal pretensions!”

“But the long-term policy envisaged in the report … opens the door wide, not only to the Greek and Russian churches, but to Rome itself. And if this be the price we are asked to pay for a meager recognition by Anglicanism, can anyone doubt the cost of recognition at the hands of the Supreme Pontiff …? It would be, as it has always been, full and unconditional surrender. It is well, then, to recognize now that this is the end of the road we as Presbyterians are asked to launch out on.”

New Zealand

Broad Appraisal

Stirrings of new life mark the present religious situation in New Zealand. These movements sometimes interpret themselves, and frequently dissipate themselves, in such by-products as tithing campaigns.

Heretical sects have taken full advantage of easy money. With a background of national prosperity and disciplined giving characteristic of such groups, they have embarked upon building projects which have proved, in some cases, effective advertising. Notable is the huge and costly Mormon installation at Hamilton.

Exotic forms of Christianity have always exercised a fascination over the Maori people, and the Mormons in particular are presenting, and will increasingly present, a sharp challenge to the orthodox denominations which work with the native race. Personal evangelism by both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is reaching such proportions that churches can no longer rely on the common sense and rudimentary Bible knowledge of their rank and file to fortify those marked down by the door-to-door proselytizers. Some churches are realizing the need for clear and specific teaching to meet the challenge.

Add to this the general turning towards simple evangelism. An invitation has gone forth with wide backing to Billy Graham to visit New Zealand, which has never known a powerful religious revival. A party led by Dr. J. Edwin Orr found some response last year, but much cold conservatism and suspicion of evangelism. The representative nature of the invitation to Graham is expected to go far to break this down.

Orthodox scholarship, so reprehensively lagging a generation ago, is on its feet, and its results are beginning to penetrate the church. An evangelical renaissance is generally apparent. Revival, in short, seems nearer than New Zealand has ever seen it.

—E.M.B.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Archbishop Michael, 66, head of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in North and South America and a co-president of the World Council of Churches, in New York … Dr. Frank C. Goodman, 80, pioneer in religious broadcasting and one-time executive secretary of the National Religious Radio Department of the Federal Council of Churches, at Amityville, New York … Dr. O. W. Taylor, 73, Baptist and retired pastor, historian, and editor, in Nashville, Tennessee … the Rev. Clyde E. Heflin, 70, retired Presbyterian missionary-educator in the Philippines, in Wooster, Ohio … Miss Rose Ida Paden, 62, nurse-missionary to Chile, in Duarte, California.

Elections: To the board of trustees of Fuller Theological Seminary, Billy Graham … as president of the board of trustees of the Methodist Theological School in Ohio, Bishop Hazen G. Werner … as president of California Baptist College, Loyed R. Simmons … as moderator of the North American Baptist Church, Dr. John Wobig.

Appointments: As stated clerk and treasurer of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, U. S., Dr. James A. Millard, Jr. (accepted earlier call), effective July 25, 1959 … as treasurer of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, Martin E. Strieter … as president of Honolulu Christian College, Robert C. Loveless … as president of San Francisco Baptist Seminary, Dr. John R. Dunkin … as faculty members at Fuller Theological Seminary, Dr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley and Dr. Robert K. Bower … as associate executive secretary of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, Gary Demarest … as circulation manager and news editor of the Pentecostal Evangel, the Rev. Harold Mintle … as secretary of the U. S. A. division, Council of the Evolution Protest Movement, Professor L. V. Cleveland.

Resignations: As chairman of the Board of Bishops of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, Dr. Ira D. Warner … as director of religious programming at Voice of America, the Rev. Jay Moore, to assist the production department of Good News Productions.

Award: In recognition of “outstanding contribution to evangelical Christianity,” Winona Lake School of Theology Alumni recognized Dr. S. A. Witner, past president, as outstanding alumnus of the year 1958.

Grants: To Wake Forest College, $6,400 from the Atomic Energy Commission for a nuclear research project … to Duke University, $10,000 from Lilly Endowment, Inc., for religion fellowships.

Expansion: Costing $1,275,000, planned by Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois.

Digest: Dr.J. Edwin Orr has accepted an invitation from the United Churches Committee in Ireland (composed of official nominees from Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist and other church bodies) to conduct a series of teaching missions next spring … C. S. Lewis says he hopes to visit the United States, but “my duties at Cambridge will make it impossible for several years to come.” … Trips from major eastern cities are being arranged to Billy Graham’s crusade in Charlotte, North Carolina, which begins September 21 … Dr. Charles E. Fuller is inaugurating a simultaneous radio-mail “Explore and Discover” Bible study plan … Some part of the Bible has been published in 1127 languages and dialects, according to the American Bible Society … The Baptist seminary in Oslo, Norway, has a new set of buildings … The Peoples Church in Toronto reports a new high in missionary giving—$300,500 at this year’s missionary convention … Dr. and Mrs. Harold B. Kuhn were staff workers at a teen-agers convention held by the U. S. Army Chaplaincy Corps, European Command, at Berchtesgaden, Germany, last month … The Rev. Avery Dulles, son of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, is reportedly planning to finish theological studies in Rome. He has been studying at a Jesuit school near Muenster, Germany.… James Glisson, Baptist student-pastor, was granted a full pardon by Tennessee Governor Frank Clement after having been held in contempt of court for refusing to divulge information given him in confidence during counseling sessions.

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