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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Love To God

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

W. SMITH

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

MATTHEW HENRY

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

JOHN HOWE

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

ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER

Total Man

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

R. WATSON

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

J. O. DYKES

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

ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER

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

T. ARNOLD

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

B. PORTEUS

Hellish Procedure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L. NELSON BELL

A Rationalistic Defence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. OLIVER BUSWELL, JR.

Theistic Idealism

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

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

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

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

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

CARL F. H. HENRY

Misunderstanding

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

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

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

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

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

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

W. S. REID

Unified Insight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WILLIAM HENDRIKSEN

Teaching Children

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

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

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

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

ERNEST F. KEVAN

Neo-Orthodox Sympathies

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

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

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

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

CHARLES H. CRAIG

Ecclesiastical Year

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

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

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

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

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

F. R. WEBBER

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

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

Seeking The Answer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Discovery

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

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

“Will They Last?”

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

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

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

F.F.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPIVAK: Then what are we talking about, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thrust Of Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. E. W.

Canada

Note To Americans

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

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

Other Dominion developments:

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

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

South America

Auca Explorer

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

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

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

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

Europe

Needed: Scholarship

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

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

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

S. W. M.

Worth Quoting

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

Middle East

Turkish Trends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hospital Fire

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

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

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

Rabbi Seat

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

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

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

Hope For Childless

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

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

Asia

New Ministers

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

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

S. H. M.

Honor Statue

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

The university has 4000 students.

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

S. H. M.

Missionary Morale Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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