LOVE, LOVE, LOVE

It doesn’t take long for a new word to get old. Indeed, the effort toward novelty can get very old just in itself. Take the word “dialogue.” Every time I make a false move, it seems that somebody wants to get me involved in a “dialogue.” The better word, “dialectic,” which is at least as old as Socrates, has served very well for a good many centuries. There is nothing new at stake, I suppose, except that there has been a kind of turn in the word “dialogue.” People who want a dialogue with me soon make it clear that we are not out to discover the truth but that they are out to override me. True dialectic and true dialogue are supposed to be good talk on both sides of an issue, with search being made for a higher synthesis.

Church dialogues too often have not sounded like this. Too many people have too many axes to grind, and they would just as soon grind one another as the axes. There is the delightful story of the old Scotch session member who was called upon to pray in an effort to resolve a church fight. On the way home afterward he said to his friend, “I hadn’t prayed two minutes until they knew which side I was on.”

If you want to test out a few church dialogues, see if anyone is interested in listening to the other side of the integration-segregation subject, or the fundamentalist-liberal subject, or the conservative-liberal subject. Have you had a chance recently to hear a “dialogue” between a Democrat and a Republican?

Some of the brethren are urging us for love’s sake to enter into dialogues with all kinds of people. Do they really mean what they say? A Christian love is supposed to love the unlovely or the unlovable, which is love in spite of and not on account of. This is hard. It takes considerably more than the natural man has, especially to do it without condescension.

THE AUTHORITY OF CHRIST

Hail to Samuel Turner, Jr., for his article, “Promoters of Doubt or Builders of Faith?” (May 7 issue). When will the Christian Church wake up and see the bankruptcy of liberalism in its stark nakedness?… Jesus spoke with authority, as only the incarnate Word could do; thus his apostles were bold to speak with like conviction in a “thus saith the Lord” manner. Present-day example: Agree or disagree with Billy Graham, the man or his methods, people all over the world are drawn to him like a magnet. Why? Because he speaks as one having authority, in a “thus saith the Lord,” “the Bible says,” affirmative way.… How can a minister who is supposed to be the shepherd of his flock engender faith within his people when he himself is suffering from spiritual anemia? If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for the battle?

Glendora, Calif.

The article … is timely and very much needed. Thank you for it.…

Word Publishers

Kaufman, Tex.

Director

I grew up in a conservative home. I was taught to idolize the Bible.… Then I went to school and was challenged to take my Bible down from its pedestal.… I stopped taking the Bible literally and began to take it seriously, and in the process the Christian faith became relevant.…

Fourth Methodist

Bridgeton, N.J.

Mr. Turner may do well to understand that the “promoters of doubt and disbelief” are often the better teachers, when compared to the so-called “builders of faith.” When one begins to doubt some of the syrupy, sweet-Jesus, be-goodists liberals of yesterday, then his faith may begin genuine growth.…

The Methodist Church

St. Joseph, La.

FREEDOM THROUGH COMMITMENT

In your editorial entitled “Academic Freedom and Doctrinal Commitment” (April 9 issue), you stress the duty of divinity school professors to resign when they cannot uphold the doctrinal position of the school. You also stress the duty of the school to relieve such teachers of their positions if they will not voluntarily resign. “Academic freedom,” you say, “does not include the right to subvert an institution by changing its theological position.”

You have made some regrettable errors. First, you have assumed that a theologically deviant teacher can “subvert an institution by changing its theological position.” Do you know an institution so delicately balanced that a shove from a single professor can overturn its doctrinal stance? I doubt it. What you mean to say is that the ferment among theologians today has such an appeal among thoughtful Christians that as soon as someone voices unorthodox thoughts, a host of followers spring up around him. These often include both faculty and students in seminaries. This is very threatening to the establishment (administration, trustees, and alumni). Orthodoxy is then preserved as the establishment draws its pursestrings tightly about the neck of unorthodoxy.

Theological schools are not threatened so much by academic freedom as they are by the inherent instability of the compromise between institutional needs for stability on the one hand and the urge to reinterpret ancient formulations on the other. Orthodoxy is much too eager to attribute the former to God’s gracious plan and the latter to human pride. Actually, both institutional and personal-intellectual needs are quite human, and both are frequently occasions of both God’s grace and man’s sin. The second error in the editorial is thus to suppose that the right of Christian dissent exists only where it doesn’t threaten the institution’s calm repose in traditional patterns.

The third error follows naturally: the editorial assumes that ethically both professor and school should act to remove the professor whenever he deeply disagrees with the school’s doctrinal position. Is it then agreed that the best atmosphere for a divinity school is one where job, income, and career must be bought by suppressing doubts about confessional statements? Is it agreed that the seminary should be a hothouse protecting tender clergy-sprouts until fully grown? Is it agreed that confessional conformity is the only good soil for growing new ministers? And is it agreed that the only ethical course for a teacher who loves his work, his church, and his Lord but is troubled by seventeenth-century formulations—that his only ethical course is to leave his teaching so as not to threaten the establishment’s firm control on student and faculty thinking? I hope not.

Finally, the editorial errs in espousing an administrative solution for a problem of mind and conscience. I do not pretend that school administrators have an easy way out, but I feel that a lack of congruence between the church’s confession and a teacher’s viewpoint is badly handled by administrative fiat. Theological ferment will not die so easily, and the establishment, by shoving it outside the camp, makes the same error as have all institutionalisms since the dawn of prophecy.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY misleads its readers by these errors: that a deviant teacher is the real problem; that dissent is allowable only as long as the teacher does not chew his leash; that the only ethical solution for teacher-school doctrinal conflict is amputation of the teacher; and that the current dissatisfaction with confessional forms is amenable to administrative solutions. Newtonville, Mass.

The editorial is right to the point. It is one thing to formulate a list of ways in which a seminary will prosper, and it is quite a different thing—I dare say, a critically different thing—to sit in an administrator’s office and work out a program which will insure the success of a seminary as well as insure the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

If a seminary is to defend and delineate Christian truth, it is necessary that both faculty members and the board of trustees cheerfully and without mental reservation enter into a spiritual contract—a contract which spiritually unites the faculty and the board to the theological encyclopedia which the seminary was founded to preserve.

If a particular member of the faculty rejects the doctrinal position of the seminary, as a man of honor he must choose one of two courses of action. First, he can hand in his resignation. In this way he will dissociate from the company of scholars which forms the distinctive personality of the seminary. Second, he can try to convince both the faculty and the board that his viewpoint is closer to biblical truth than that which is expressed in the seminary’s creed. If he succeeds in defending his viewpoint, the seminary, by at least a two-thirds affirmative vote, should make an appropriate change in the creed. But if he fails in this defense, he should resign from the seminary, for he is no longer a member of the doctrinal fellowship.

If he refuses to resign, however, and makes a practice of pretending that he submits to the standards of the seminary, he has disgraced his holy calling and is no longer fit to teach and preach the sacred Gospel of Jesus Christ. If other faculty members and trustees should engage in the same sort of spiritual deception, the seminary will soon exchange the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the wisdom of this world.

If the administration pays no attention to such spiritual deception, it is guilty of a flagrant dereliction of duty, for it is consciously doing away with the seminary’s sacred calling to preserve the whole counsel of God as revealed in Scripture. Indifference to one faculty member who no longer adheres to the creed without mental reservation will, if consistency runs its course, sooner or later result in an indifference to the spiritual and doctrinal state of the whole faculty. In any event, the seminary will become more excited about so-called contemporary issues than it will about the specific teaching of Scripture.

It should be made emphatically clear, however, that the creed of a seminary, unlike the Bible, is not the result of divine inspiration. This must be stressed, lest some overlook our forthright assertion that a seminary creed can be changed—assuming, of course, that the right conditions are met. The issue must be kept in perspective; and, by way of review, we suggest the following three points as ingredients of this proper perspective: (a) as long as the creed of a seminary takes a certain form, both faculty members and the board of trustees have a moral obligation to uphold the creed in this form; (b) academic liberty to investigate all points of view is granted—for example, the professor of theology has complete freedom (or better, he is academically required) to offer a course in the major religions of the world, even though the major doctrines of other religions do not harmonize with the creed of the seminary; (c) if a member of the faculty or trustees is unable to support the creed of the seminary in its existing form, he should either put forth an effort to convince his colleagues that a specific change in the creed will bring the creed into closer conformity with the infallible truths of the Bible, or he ought to have sufficient character and integrity to resign from the seminary.

All too often it is assumed that if a seminary takes its statement of faith seriously, the right to conduct research into new ideas, let alone the privilege of dealing with exegetical and theological problems in the classroom, will be endangered. The exact opposite is the case—providing, however, that we are dealing with conditions that exist (or should exist) in a mature seminary, and not with the conditions that exist in a seminary which has degenerated into a cult. It can be safely observed that whenever an entire family of faculty and trustees freely commits itself to what it believes is an accurate, creedal summary of the Gospel, all suspicion of individuals within the seminary instantly vanishes. Although complete freedom to think and to write exists, the defense and delineation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ continue to serve as the true rallying points.

Most of the above material should be self-evident, for if it is true that God has entrusted the Church with a propositional account of his will for sinful humanity (the source of this account being the Holy Bible), how could a seminary fulfill its calling unless the personnel who formed the seminary—faculty and trustees alike—were dedicated to each and every truth contained in revelation?

Prof. of Ethics and Philosophy of Religion

Fuller Theological Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

THE SELMA STORY

So many accounts [of the march to Montgomery] have been totally one-sided and have tended to lump everybody in Alabama into the one category of “violent extremist” that it has been hard on the people here to keep from being angered by them. I think our national understanding of any given local area and our mutual spirit of fellowship and oneness greatly suffer under this kind of journalism.

As I know you realize, despite all of our shortcomings in this area and especially despite the … deplorable incidents which have occurred, there is another side to the story.

Let me thank you for your endeavor to present elements of both sides of the Selma story (News, Apr. 9 issue) accurately and to be thoroughly fair in your appraisal.

Howard College

Birmingham, Ala.

Dean of Religion

Surely it is not too much to ask that our dedicated Northern brother ministers leave judgment and condemnation to the Father of us all. Surely we are not over-stepping our bounds by asking that the cup of bitterness not be pressed on us by those whose prayers we most need. The bitterest pain of all is that inflicted by dedicated, good, but uninformed men in the same service of the same Lord and Master of all.…

Notasulga. Ala.

HYMNALS ARE NOT YET TILLICHIAN

Milton Hunnex, who is a member of this congregation, has raised a significant point for the ongoing Honest to God exchanges when he points out that Bishop John Robinson makes little room for “the notion of God’s initiative” (Mar. 26 issue). Professor Hunnex contends that the bishop’s use of Tillich’s definition of God as “ground of being” has introduced a concept which has its origin outside the Christian community at large. He also asserts that it does not coincide with the God to whom the body of Christian believers respond in joy and thanksgiving.

My question is this: Has not Professor Hunnex himself illustrated the very problem with which Tillich and Robinson are concerned—how the Gospel is to be communicated? Let me illustrate my question by pointing out that the word initiative, for which Professor Hunnex contends, is certainly not a New Testament term. Nor is it the normal word used by the Christian community to describe God’s action for man. That word is grace.

Doubtless, as a professor of philosophy, Dr. Hunnex finds the concept of “initiative” congenial to his own thought patterns. I will not deny him the privilege and right to use the word. But to insist that Robinson has turned theology into anthropology because the bishop’s statements are “about the quality of human life” rather than about “the mighty act of God” is certainly to ignore the valid use of analogical thought patterns in both homiletical and theological endeavors.

How do the words—New Testament or otherwise—in which the Gospel is expressed become meaningful to the ones to whom they are addressed? Professor Hunnex, for all his implicit exposition of the common language point of view, has not yet answered that! Rather, he has illustrated that there is a language that is common to certain theologians and philosophers.

Indeed, the closing sentence of his article raises the whole difficulty in a most acute form. There Professor Hunnex approvingly quotes the words of Luther that God is “an abyss of eternal love.” But the word abyss has been derived from the Greek of the LXX where it translates the Hebrew tehom, the primeval waters of creation (Gen. 1:2, “deep” in AV and RSV). Is not the “deep” much closer to what Tillich calls groundthan to what Hunnex means by initiative?

Jason Lee Memorial Methodist Church

Salem, Ore.

The New Testament concept of grace most assuredly does include the idea of initiative, and it was for this very reason that I made so much of it. Robinson’s exegesis so reconstructed it that I was left wondering whether he does in fact include it or, for that matter, could include it in his doctrine of grace.

That the God who speaks in Christ and to whom the Christian responds and who is the agent of his salvation is also a ground of being or any several possible philosophical descriptions is not denied. What is denied is the saving relevance of this communication. Saving communication has to do with the God who is in Christ—not philosophical animadversions. (Cf. Russell’s knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description.)

I am quite familiar with philosophical descriptions of God in most of their important historical forms but like the great Catholic philosopher St. Thomas find them to be of no saving significance.

It is precisely because the idea of God who is other than Person is not meaningful to the worshiping and witnessing community of historic Christianity that an ordinary language analytical philosopher would find the personal language game the almost exclusive language game of Christians. Virtually the entire biblical tradition as well as historic greats like Irenaeus, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and John Wesley together with the bulk of the Christian community have spoken of and responded to God as Person. To speak of a reality that is personal yet not person is like speaking of the smile of the Cheshire cat that doesn’t exist. To speak of a “quality of human life” rather than an objective God is not to speak analogously, as the Rev. Mr. Hall wants to say. It is to speak idolatrously.

Hall asks: How do words become meaningful? What he wants to ask I believe is: What makes language ordinary? I assume that it is not the psychological question that concerns him, since that is not the issue here. The answer is simply “use.” Personal language still characterizes the language of the worshiping and witnessing Christian community as it always has in the past. If Tillichian language gets into use, then Hall will have his point. But he can’t claim as evidence that which has not yet occurred, i.e., a believing, worshiping, praising, etc., Christian community using Tillichian language. Not even his revised hymnal is remotely Tillichian.

Hall’s concluding etymology of the word “abyss” is quite beside the point for the reason that what I said was that God is “a Person who is … [also] ‘an abyss of eternal love,’ ” i.e., “a Person whose love is limitless.” This is what Luther meant at any rate.

Salem, Ore.

THE ORIGINAL UNSWITCHABLES

When I suggested to our ushers the advice of Mr. Koopman (“Our Madison Avenue Church,” Apr. 23 issue): “It’s what’s up front that counts,” they told me that our people would “rather fight than switch.”

Holland, Mich.

Did Jesus mean to found a Church, or visible society of believers, in the world; and, if he did, what was his purpose in founding it? By some it is contended that Jesus did not contemplate any such separate society of his disciples. He expected an immediate end of the world, and aimed only at individual conversions. This, however, is at variance with the whole tenor of the Gospels. Apart from direct mention of a “Church” (ecclesia, Matt. 16:18; 18:17—passages which the objectors would expunge), it seems plain that Jesus did regard it as part of his vocation to found a “Kingdom” in this world (Matt. 13—parables of sower, tares, and so on; John 18:36, 37), anticipated its growth and enlargement (Mark 4:26–32) and the gathering of men of all nations into it (Matt. 8:11, 21:43; John 12:32), predicted for it troubles and persecutions, with mingling of good and evil, and apostasies (Matt. 10:13; 24:4–14, etc.)—the dispensation to be ended by his “Parousia,” or return in glory (Matt. 24:25, etc.).

In consonance with this conception, Jesus is found choosing and training twelve apostles (Matt. 10:13; 12:41, 42, etc.), giving them directions and rules for discipline (Matt. 18:15–20), appointing sacraments (Matt. 26:26–29, etc., the Lord’s Supper; 28:19, Baptism: cf. 1 Cor. 11:23 ff.), promising the Spirit to his waiting disciples (Luke 24:49; John 15:7–15; cf. Acts 2), giving commission to evangelize the world (Matt. 28:19, 20; cf. 24:14; Mark 16:15), promising to be with his people to the end (Matt. 18:20; 28:20). He is a householder who will leave stewards in charge in his absence (Matt. 24:42–51, etc.). How, indeed, could the work of Christ be saved from losing itself in the world except by some form of society in which his adherents were bound together for fellowship, testimony, and labor for his cause?

The function which the Church is to discharge in the world is already implied in what has been said of Christ’s object in creating it. “Church” and “Kingdom” are not precisely the same, for the “Kingdom” is a name for God’s rule in all departments of human life (family, society, business, state, and so on). But the Church is still the one society which visibly represents God’s Kingdom in the world, and it exists for the ends of this Kingdom.

The Church, founded by Christ, and launched into the world, after consecration by the Spirit, through the preaching of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, had a wonderful history of suffering and success. From the Jews, who as a people shut their hearts against its message, its spread, at first mainly through Paul’s labors among the Gentiles, and by the close of the Apostolic Age had established itself in most of the great centers of Greek and Roman civilization. Persecutions, terrible in cruelty, had overtaken it (cf. Rev. 2:10–13; 7:13, 14); but this baptism of blood had only purified its ranks and aided its increase.

It was a difficult situation in which the Church found itself when bereft of the teaching and guidance of Christ’s apostles. The Church had spread widely and had struck its roots deeply into society. But it was helpless and unprotected—a flock of sheep in the midst of wolves (Matt. 10:16; Acts 10:29). The voices of a Paul, a Peter, a James, had long been silent; the Apostle John alone lingered on till near the end of the first century. Its new leaders—many of them, as Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, noble, devoted men—were far inferior to the apostles in gifts and spiritual power. Heresies had developed, as the Epistles show (cf. 1 Cor. 15:12; Col. 2:8, 18; 1 Tim. 1:19, 20; 6:3, 4; 2 Tim. 2:16–18; 3:6–8; 4:3, 4; 1 John 2:18; 4:1–3). Manifold corruptions had found their way into the churches (2 Tim. 3:1–5; 2 Pet. 2; Jude; Rev. 2:20, etc.).

It added to the difficulty that at this stage the Church was destitute of most of the aids it afterwards possessed for coping with opposition and error. Its organization was as yet comparatively simple. There was no formal creed, no recognized canon of Scripture, no council to which appeal could be made. In this condition it had to encounter the brunt of fierce pagan persecutions and, what was even more formidable, the inrush of Gnostic heresy, which threatened to sweep away the whole historic faith in a flood of allegorizings and Oriental speculations.

One of the most interesting things in the study of early Christianity is to observe how the Church met the difficulties which thus gathered thickly around it. Assailed, persecuted, defamed, one thing it had to do was to create an apology—defense; and here learned men who had been drawn into its ranks put skillful pens at its service in refuting calumny and exposing the irrationalities of paganism. A yet nobler apology was written in the tears and blood of the Christians themselves, and in the examples of beautiful and holy lives they set before the eyes of the heathen. The new spirit of self-denying love which Christianity breathed into the world awoke wonder from its very strangeness in that ancient society.—JAMES ORR

It is easy to acknowledge corporate sins and ask for their forgiveness because such acknowledgment often involves no more than judging our brothers. Acknowledging personal sins is a different matter. Repentance no longer seems a major concern of preaching or of the Church. In fact, repentance, in the biblical sense, is almost a lost word, even though it was central in the message of the early Church.

Repentance is a change of mind that has many aspects.

It is a recognition of self in the light of God’s revelation. Job had this experience and out of it cried: “I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees thee; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes” (Job 42:5, 6, RSV). The Bible repeatedly tells us that God hates pride, for it stems from man’s failure to evaluate himself rightfully by God’s standards.

Repentance is an admission of sins in the light of God’s righteousness, a righteousness revealed in the written Word and in the person of God’s sinless Son. Like the lepers of old we should cry, “Unclean, unclean,” as we sense something of the holiness of God.

Repentance is an admission of offense against God’s holy laws. All men stand guilty before the courts of heaven, for none has failed to break the laws of the Kingdom and of the King. Such admission of guilt is the first step to cleansing and forgiveness. Repentance is in truth a recognition of our sinful state.

It is more, though, than an admission of guilt—it is sorrow for having come short of God’s glory and for wallowing in the mire of sin.

Repentance is an acknowledgment of the vast chasm between the holy God and one’s sinful self. Until this difference is recognized and admitted, there can be no ground for reconciliation, for the One who reconciles never forces himself on the unrepentant and self-righteous.

Repentance is that stirring of mind and heart to the point where we admit the need of outside help. It is an attitude of admitted weakness combined with faith in the power of Christ’s redemptive work.

Repentance is the fruit of godly sorrow. The Apostle Paul makes clear the distinction between godly sorrow and that of the world: “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death” (2 Cor. 7:10). What a difference! One results in salvation, the other in death.

Repentance causes us to throw ourselves on the mercy of God. It is an acknowledgment that without him we are lost and undone, that we deserve the punishment of separation which sin entails. In other words, repentance is an admission that our condition would be hopeless were it not for the love and mercy of the One who has the power to cleanse and forgive. It is the sinner’s plea for pardon.

Repentance involves man’s eternal destiny. It looks to Jesus, the door through which man passes from darkness to light, from death to life, from sorrow to joy, from separation to fellowship, from guilt to forgiveness.

Repentance is the great leveler. Pointing his finger at the hypocritical chief priests and elders, our Lord said: “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe” (Matt. 21:31c, 32). The all-important thing about these social outcasts of whom Jesus spoke was their response to John’s demand for repentance and faith. The same is true for men today. There must be a sense of need because of conviction of sin, a repentance, a turning toward the One against whom we have sinned, and the faith that he can and will cleanse and forgive. The high and the low, the great and the small—all stand on level ground at the foot of the Cross.

Repentance requires humility, one of man’s most difficult experiences. We are born with varying degrees of conceit, self-assurance, and confidence in our ability to overcome problems. It is not easy to admit that we are helpless or that we have been wrong. Nor is it easy to renounce pride in our ability to work things out. “God be merciful to me, a sinner” does not come easily from our lips until in some measure we see ourselves as God sees us.

In repentance there is an element of godly fear, not because God is a tyant but because he is omniscient and holy. Speaking to the church in Thyatira, the risen Lord said: “… all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve” (Rev. 2:23). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews says: “Before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13). Such exposure should cause a godly fear that begets a willingness to admit our offenses against a holy God.

Repentance has its opposite—the unrepentant heart. An unwillingness to repent is an offense against God that insures disaster. Writing to the Christians in Rome, Paul says: “Or do you presume upon the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not know that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed” (Rom. 2:4, 5). The Scriptures are indeed explicit about the fate of unrepentant sinners: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might” (2 Thess. 1:9).

It is not unreasonable that patients seeking admission to a hospital do so through the admitting office. Nor is it unreasonable that men should enter the state of salvation through the way of repentance. The unrepentant heart is an insuperable barrier to God’s grace and mercy. Two thieves hung on crosses on either side of our Lord. One repented and that very day entered into paradise. The other refused to repent and went out into the darkness of eternal night.

Lack of repentance is more than a state of mind; it is resistance to revealed truth, to the love and mercy of God, and a rejection of the warning so clearly given. In the Book of the Revelation we read: “The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands nor give up worshiping demons and idols …, nor did they repent of their murders or their sorceries or their immorality or their thefts” (Rev. 9:20, 21).

At the Cross we see God’s estimate of sin. There we find offered full atonement to all who will repent and believe. Because of the vital importance of repentance as a chain in the link leading men into a new life in Christ, there should be a renewed emphasis on it throughout the Church.

One work of the Holy Spirit that insures man’s acceptance is “repentance to God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” Therein lies our hope.

Sermons in Stones—and in Peanuts

The Gospel According to Peanuts by Robert L. Short (John Knox, 1965, 127 pp., $1.50), is reviewed by J.D. Douglas, British editorial director, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

In flagrant disregard of the national interest, this book has been sent for review across the Atlantic, where millions of Britons incredibly are living out their lives in invincible ignorance of Peanuts. Perhaps Charlie Brown is too much one of the American family to be regarded objectively; more likely, no American scholar would lightly undertake a review sure to be the subject of merciless scrutiny in the higher academic echelons.

The volume itself is an audacious project. Let no one imagine it will afford joy unalloyed, for there is a plot to trick the unsuspecting reader. The author has done us all a grave disservice by insinuating outrageous intellectual demands into the area of harmless diversion. With a tireless facility for seeing sermons in stones, Mr. Short (a Methodist minister) finds it veritable child’s play to contrive a biblical connection even for “Good grief!” (2 Cor. 7:10). Not surprisingly, the impression is sometimes received that he takes out of a cartoon something which its creator had not put in, and which no ordinary reader would comprehend without the sort of help Philip gave the Ethiopian eunuch. If periodically my belief is going to be “rudely clobbered” (I quote Linus), the clobbering might be efficacious; but every time I pick up Peanuts from now on I’ll be scrabbling around for theological profundity—and this is not what I read it for. Here, in fact, in most blatant form, is religion being “allowed to invade the sphere of private life.” It comes as a relief near the end to be assured that not every Peanuts cartoon is loaded with moral insight and spiritual uplift. Of one thing we can be sure: if such be present, Mr. Short will nail it.

Having betrayed both my appalling prejudice and my paucity of intellect, I confess to having come back to this little book again and again with the kind of respectful admiration one generally gives to a pioneer in his field. Short says rightly that art provides its own unique vocabulary. It can penetrate mental blocks, overcome prejudices, confront us with reality, suggest new questions, and offer a basis of conversation where a direct Christian approach couldn’t. Some people will resent having Peanuts explained, perhaps because of its “calculated trap for meditation” (p. 16), but most will see how pertinent it is to Paul’s “by all means” category. It fulfills Bishop Westcott’s condition that the place and office of art in religion must be ministerial, must point beyond the immediate effect. No one will dispute Mr. Schulz’s success in (I quote from Dr. Nathan Scott’s foreword) “turning a remarkably penetrating searchlight on the anxieties and evasions and duplicities that make up our common lot.” In his determination to illustrate this, Short here reproduces more than eighty cartoons. They are reinforced by J. D. Salinger, Irenaeus, Cardinal Newman, Luther, Kafka, and (of course) Beethoven, among the dozens of personalities conscripted into the service of this book, who help us toward that art of “reading between the lines” which so baffles the resourceful Lucy. The result is precisely what the publishers claim: a modern-day handbook of the Christian faith, illustrated with Peanuts.

Charles Schulz himself says that “all kinds of people in religious work have written to thank me for preaching my own way through the strips. That is one of the things that keep me going.” Not least is this book significant for showing what we owe to Schulz. Let’s keep him going!

J.D. DOUGLAS

Essay In Church Definition

Ecumenics: The Science of the Church Universal, by John A. Mackay (Prentice-Hall, 1964, 294 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Everett L. Cattell, president, Malone College, Canton, Ohio.

John A. Mackay has a distinguished record in many fields, but none has received more of the outpouring of his brilliant talents than the movement to unity among Christians. Dr. Mackay, former president of Princeton Theological Seminary, occupied the Chair of Ecumenics from 1937 to 1959. Because of this and because of the subtitle of the book, “The Science of the Church Universal,” one naturally expects this to be a textbook. Such an expectation is hardly borne out, however. The style of the book is more that of the spoken word and is therefore somewhat given to redundancy. Instead of a textbook, what we really have is the crystallized fruit of the “author’s struggle over four decades to grapple with the ecumenical concept and its significance.” It would not be amiss to say that this book is essentially an essay in church definition.

Dr. Mackay comes down squarely on the side of a spiritual apprehension of the Church as the community of Christ. “People in whom Christ is a living Presence and through whom He works, constitute the soul of the worldwide community of faith. These Christ-possessed men and women give true churchly reality to Christian congregations, denominations, and traditions as structured expressions of Christ’s Church Universal.” Not only must the community of Christ be thought of as worldwide; it must also be “missionary.” “The Church, to be ‘in very deed the Church,’ must be ‘missionary by conviction and commitment and must make abundantly clear that it is so by the policy and program it adopts.” Hence “the theme of this book: The Church Universal as a world missionary Community.”

The author gives a very helpful exposition of the biblical images of the church: The New Israel, the Flock of God, the Building, the Bride, and the Body. To these are added the biblical image of the Road and the Church as a Fellowship of the Road.

The principal bulk of the book is then given to a discussion of four major functions of the Church: worshiping, prophetic, redemptive, and unitive. Each is treated first with a positive and scriptural exposition, and then that position is set over against present realities. The worshiping function is set against a very enlightening exposition of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant forms of worship. The prophetic function is to give illumination to God’s way in the midst of the world’s darkness, e.g., in the face of Communism and secularism. The redemptive function is treated over against a critique of the effectiveness of the modern missionary movement as a mediator of redemption. In connection with evangelistic method there is an excellent discussion of two principles. One is the incarnational principle, which calls for the embodiment of truth. The other is called “the right to be heard,” a right gained by meeting men with excellence on their own secular ground and thus winning their attention to the Gospel. The unitive function of the Church is viewed against a survey of the spectrum of divergence among Christians and a survey of movements and means toward unity in our day.

The book closes with a chapter on the churches’ relations with the world.

It is difficult to evaluate this book. Ecumenism is an emotional subject today. Those who are caught up in the movement with enthusiasm and especially those who love this distinguished author (as we all do) will simply be thrilled. Those who oppose the movement will probably not even read it. Can anyone be truly objective in evaluating the book? To me it seems parts of the book are platitudinous. In the midst of this there are some excellent insights, a few of them fresh. I found some of the descriptions and criticisms of the Orthodox and Roman positions really instructive. My own bias will probably be shown by the fact that I missed any extended treatment of the vast block of conservative evangelicals who stand apart from the ecumenical movement, although Dr. Mackay does mention approvingly the work of Young Life, Billy Graham, and World Vision.

EVERETT L. CATTELL

Listening With One Ear

Proclaiming the Word, by Ronald E. Sleeth (Abingdon, 1964, 144 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by Carl Kromminga, associate professor of practical theology, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

This book challenges the Protestant minister to engage in biblical preaching. “Biblical preaching is the proclamation of the kerygma (either explicitly or implicitly) through the exposition of specific scriptural material directed to contemporary life” (p. 42). The author rightly insists that the usual sermon addressed to the congregation should have roots in a thorough exegesis of a specific portion of the Bible, recognize the larger biblical context of the passage, honor the theological meaning underlying the passage, clarify the relation between the passage and the kerygma, and demonstrate its present-day relevance.

The author makes a worthy attempt to unite the techniques of expository and life-situation preaching. In doing this, he gives us a refreshing chapter on the importance of doctrine in preaching. He uses sample outlines and quotations from published sermons to illustrate his theoretical statements. After he has stated and developed his main thesis, he discusses the proper way to preach in controversy and describes the values for preaching to be found in modern literature.

This stimulating discussion of biblical preaching is marred by the author’s rather uncritical acceptance of the “dynamic” view of the Word advanced by many Protestant theologians today. The Bible is not the Word of God; the Word is in the Bible. When we existentially confront the faith-words of the biblical writers, those words become God’s personal Word to us. This view of the Bible is said to recognize the Bible as the Word of God “in the highest sense possible.” At the same time, it allows us to welcome the higher critic’s investigation of the Bible.

The author does not tell us how we can accept those “findings” of higher criticism that contradict what the biblical writers claim to be historic fact and how we can at the same time interpret God’s saving action in history in a way that fully agrees with the biblical interpretation of that action. Biblical events and ideas cannot be separated in a way that allows us to keep the whole “idea” while we discard the event in the sense in which the biblical writers obviously understood “event.” Theology, in the strict sense of the term, is at stake here. The God who opened the sea for Israel to pass through is not the same God as the “God” who “somehow” in the dim and distant past led a motley band of Semites from Egypt to Palestine. Sleeth rightly insists on preaching that grows out of careful exegesis. It is also apparent that he really would reject much radical criticism of the Bible. But exegesis based on a hermeneutic that wants to hear God speak while it listens to a higher criticism that denies what God says can only furnish material for a sermon which cannot truly be called “proclamation of the Word of God.”

However, Proclaiming the Word has value as a corrective for preachers who think that only topical preaching can be relevant. It can also serve to remind preachers committed to the expository method that true preaching is preaching consciously designed to meet genuine human needs.

CARL KROMMINGA

As Seen From The End

Jesus and the Kingdom: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism, by George Eldon Ladd (Harper and Row, 1964, 367 pp., $3), is reviewed by Herman C. Waetjen, assistant professor of New Testament, San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo, California.

The purpose of this book is to establish the thesis “that before the eschatological appearing of God’s Kingdom at the end of the age, God’s Kingdom has become dynamically active among men in Jesus’ person and mission.” This is acknowledged to be “the heart of his [Jesus’] proclamation and the key to his entire mission” (p. 135). For Professor Ladd it is the grand theme that not only unites the various aspects of Jesus’ teaching but also provides the vital link between that teaching and the beginnings of the Christian Church.

Here is an important and exhaustive study that exhibits both intensive and sweeping scholarship. It is a synthesis that pulls together many diverse and opposed strands of biblical investigation of eschatology. At the same time, as the subtitle indicates, it is also a biblical theology that presents the possibility of unifying all theological thought in the New Testament around and in a single motif. Thus the book ranks with Alan Richardson’s An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament and Floyd V. Filson’s Jesus Christ the Risen Lord. For Professor Ladd this single motif is the eschatological teaching of Jesus on the Kingdom of God.

The introduction, entitled “The Promise,” sketches the continuing debate on eschatology from Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer down to the present time. This is followed by a survey of the Old Testament prophets and inter-testamental apocalyptic in order to supply the necessary background for Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom. The major part of the book is devoted to the theme of “Fulfillment.” John the Baptizer announces the imminence of the Kingdom. Jesus follows to proclaim “fulfillment without consummation.” The Kingdom that Jesus preaches and brings is defined as both a rule and a realm, but primarily a rule. As such it is a present as well as a future reality. In both the words and the deeds of Jesus, God’s rule is dynamically at work in the world. This is validated by Jesus’ pronouncements of forgiveness, his miracles of exorcism, and his parables.

In this connection it is strange that so little is said of Jesus’ works of healing and restoration. It is even stranger that nothing is said of the death and resurrection of Jesus. This appears to have no place in the eschatological teaching of Jesus on the Kingdom of God despite the fact that the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus’ threefold prediction of his death and resurrection in direct relation to Peter’s messianic confession and the transfiguration. The reader is left to ponder unresolved questions: How are Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom, his death and resurrection, and the beginnings of the Church connected? Is the New Testament’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom the complete and fully developed eschatology of biblical realism? Is Professor Ladd opting for the Jesus of history rather than the Christ of faith? The book, of course, is not intended to deal with that problem. But Jesus’ teaching on the Kingdom is nevertheless abstracted from his death and resurrection. And, according to the New Testament, his death and resurrection are just the eschatological event that inaugurated “the fulfillment without consummation.” When the Church and its origins are considered, as they are here, the central event of the New Testament cannot be excluded.

The last two chapters of the book deal with “Consummation.” “The Consummation of the Kingdom” presents Jesus’ teaching on the future aspects of God’s rule, and “The Abiding Values for Theology” comments on the manner in which this Kingdom of God theology can be translated for the present day and age.

The author has read, selected, abridged, and prepared an enormous amount of material for this book. As a result, there are many helpful summaries of various scholars’ positions. Sometimes, however, the reduction is too drastic, and confusion easily arises. And at least once a scholar is inaccurately quoted. Professor Ladd asserts on page 53 that “Frost is convinced that Amos does not announce a day rising out of history but an eschatology involving a cataclysmic irruption into history which will bring history to its end” (pp. 53 f.). Actually Frost says that the “simple hope of an improvement in the national fortunes was reversed by the message of coming judgment.…” But “both the Better Age hope and the prophetic Doom oracles are concerned with an event arising out of the ordinary processes of history and are not strictly eschatological; they envisaged an End, but not the End, an event not the eschaton” (p. 237).

There are also places where a little more qualification could prevent needless misunderstanding or where more precision might strengthen the author’s conclusions. For example, Isaiah 65:17 speaks of a new universe to be created that will replace the old. Professor Ladd comments, “This is no new thought but is the summation of a whole aspect of prophetic theology” (p. 56). Does this mean that all of the prophets—pre-exilic, exilic, and post-exilic—held to essentially the same eschatological conceptions? And when Hosea (4:3) declares that “the land mourns and all who dwell in it languish …,” he is speaking not of the world, as Professor Ladd interprets (p. 56), but merely of the territory of Israel.

Nevertheless, this is a book which every minister, theological student, and interested layman concerned about biblical theology should own. Its treatment is comprehensive, its bibliography extensive, and its price low. Most important, it presents the message of the New Testament writers, perhaps best summarized by the Apostle Paul in First Corinthians 15:25, 26: “For he [Jesus] must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.”

HERMAN C. WAETJEN

Clear And Uncluttered

Christianity in the United States, by Earle E. Cairns (Moody, 1964, 192 pp., $.75, is reviewed by William Nigel Kerr, professor of church history, Gordon Divinity School, Wenham, Massachusetts.

Here is a book that successfully meets the need for which it was designed. Much work has been done in American church history; yet only recently is a genuine sense of religious heritage beginning to pervade our thinking. Often attempts to give historic authority to doctrine and polity have led to the assumption, especially in conservative groups, that there has been no alteration in religious forms. This volume will disabuse the reader of such ideas for, although written from the perspective of a “faith which was once for all delivered to the saints,” it sees the Church ever changing in an ever-changing world.

American Christianity is divided into three main periods: “American Religion in the Colonial Era” (1607–1775), “The Rise and Decline of Ecclesiastical Nationalism” (1776–1876), and “From Schism and Idealism to Absolutism and Ecumenicalisin” (1877 to the present). In each division Dr. Cairns is true to his purpose, “to link information and interpretation in an organization that puts the American Church in its secular setting so that students may have a brief, accurate account of the origins and development of American Christianity.” He avoids the twin extremes of extricating the Church from society as though it existed on an elevated platform and viewing the Church as merely a phase of natural societal development with nothing supernatural in its character.

This book, though a survey or handbook, has considerable scope. It is by no means merely an “evangelical” history of Puritanism, revivalism, and separationism. The author takes into account and weighs with fairness the effects of political and social phenomena. He shows the Church changing as a result of a tumultuous Civil War, reshaped by immigration and mass migration, alerted, alarmed, and sometimes disarmed by the rapid alteration of the intellectual climate. The reader sees the richly varied life of the churches and the creativity of religious leaders both within and outside the European strands that form the main structure. Some special treatment is given to cults peculiarly American.

Upon completing the book, one is surprised first at the extent of material covered and secondly at the unclutteredness and clarity of the volume. The book is compact, yet avoids sketchiness. It stimulates the reader’s desire for more knowledge: this is abetted by a two-page annotated and sectionalized bibliography of significant reference works, collections of source materials, and historical interpretations. At the close of each chapter useful bibliographies appear with special references to applicable pages in C. E. Olmstead’s History of Religion in the United States (1960) and W. W. Sweet’s The Story of Religion in America (1950).

Dr. Cairns has given us an excellent study book for church and school. For the novice it is a superior “first book” in American Christianity. For both pastor and people it provides an orientation to the conditions of American Christianity that can help to give a new relevance to the witness of the Gospel.

WILLIAM NIGEL KERR

Prophecy’S Changing Face

The Interpretation of Prophecy, by Patrick Fairbairn (Banner of Truth Trust, 1964, 532 pp., 23s.), is reviewed by Stephen S. Short, evangelist, Weston-super-Mare, England.

Of the three classical prophetical viewpoints, the one least in vogue today is postmillennialism. During the nineteenth century, however, it was held by some eminent evangelical scholars, among whom was Patrick Fairbairn. After his secession from the Church of Scotland at the Disruption of 1843, Fairbairn became professor of theology in the Free Church College at Aberdeen. then principal at the Free Church College at Glasgow, moderator of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, and a member of the panel entrusted with the production of the Old Testament of the Revised Version of the Bible.

This book was first published in 1856 and was revised in 1865; and now, a century later, it has been reprinted, prefaced by a biographical sketch of Fairbairn by Charles Walker. The prophetical position presented in this volume is not that which Fairbairn held originally. In 1840, in a thesis he wrote under the title, “The Future Prospect of the Jews,” he had contended for a literal interpretation of the “Israel prophecies” of the Old Testament; that he later abandoned this view is shown by the chapter in the present book entitled, “The Prophetical Future of the Jews.”

Although certain of Fairbairn’s conclusions will not carry conviction with all (e.g., “the first resurrection” denoting “the mighty revival and spread of living godliness destined to characterize the latter days”), nobody could read this book without being immensely benefited. Its general plan is to elucidate, in the first 200 pages, the principles of prophetical interpretation, and then to apply those principles to the biblical prophecies, particularly those in Daniel and Revelation.

STEPHEN S. SHORT

Book Briefs

Pascal’s Recovery of Man’s Wholeness, by Albert N. Wells (John Knox, 1965, 176 pp., $4.25). Pascal saw human existence as a series of three ascending levels which rightly related make for a “whole man.”

Handbook of Effective Church Letters, by Stewart Harral (Abingdon, 1965, 208 pp., $3.50). For ministers who want to write not only acceptable but effective letters.

Dante’s Inferno: As Told for Young People, by Joseph Tusiani (Ivan Obolensky, 1965, 90 pp., $4). A narrative that makes the Inferno intelligible to high school students.

The Other Side of the Coin: An American Perspective on the Arab-Israeli Conflict, by Alfred M. Lilienthal (Devin-Adair, 1965, 420 pp., $6.50). A critique of the “Israel First” approach of the United States government in its Near East affairs.

Freedom and Faith: New Approaches to Christian Education, by J. Gordon Chamberlin (Westminster, 1965, 156 pp., $3.95).

Why Wait Till Marriage?, by Evelyn Millis Duvall (Association, 1965, 128 pp., $2.95). Hard-headed and reasoned arguments for maintaining the mystery of our sexual beings until the time for its proper revelation. An unusually good book.

A Still Small Voice, by E. F. Engelbert (Eerdmans, 1964, 216 pp„ $3.50). Don’t let the title, the name of the church, or the theology of the jacket fool you. The pastor of the Martini Lutheran Church of Baltimore presents medium-size sermons that are long on evangelical biblical content.

The Church Tomorrow, by George H. Tavard (Herder and Herder, 1965, 190 pp., $3.95). A series of essays on various aspects of the renewal of the Roman Catholic Church; they indicate that the word “reform” should also become an accepted and much used word in Catholicism.

German Existentialism, by Martin Heidegger (Philosophical Library, 1965, 58 pp., $2.75). A small collection of speeches in a slender volume that shows how Heidegger made his philosophy play footsie with Nazism. Grossly overpriced.

Ceremony and Celebration, by Paul H. D. Lang (Concordia, 1965, 191 pp., $4.25). An evangelical guide for Christian practice in corporate worship.

The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary, edited by Albert J. Nevins, M.M. (Grossett and Dunlap, 1965, 710 pp., $9.95). Explanations rather than definitions of more than 10,000 Catholic words and terms.

The Pill and Birth Regulation, edited by Leo Pyle (Helicon, 1964, 225 pp., $3.95). The Catholic debate, including statements, articles, and letters from the Pope, bishops, priests, and married and unmarried laity.

The Seventh Solitude: Man’s Isolation in Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche, by Ralph Harper (Johns Hopkins, 1965, 154 pp., $4.50).

A Christian Natural Theology, by John B. Cobb, Jr. (Westminster, 1965, 288 pp., $6.50). Against secular cosmology erosive of Christian faith, the associate professor of systematic theology at Southern California School of Theology projects a natural theology built on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead.

The Political Ideas of Pierre Viret, by Robert Dean Linder (Librairie Droz [Geneva, Switzerland], 1964, 218 pp., 7f.). The value of Viret’s political ideas derives from the fact he was one of Calvin’s closest associates.

The Encyclopedia of the Bible, edited by P. A. Marijnen (Prentice-Hall, 1965, 250 pp., $5.50). Compiled by a team of Protestant and Roman Catholic Dutch theologians in the conservative tradition. The material is well translated into clear, tight English. The coverage is limited and appears to follow no pattern (“Tübingen School” included, but not “election” or “predestination”). Original date of publication not given.

Hymn of the Universe, by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Harper and Row, 1965, 158 pp., $3). Chiefly mystical psalm-like writings.

The Structure of Luke and Acts, by A. Q. Morton and G. H. C. MacGregor (Harper and Row, 1964, 155 pp., $3.50). Morton used a computer to prove that a number of Pauline letters were not written by Paul. Someone else took a writing of Morton and by the same method proved it was not written by Morton. Now we get a book which contends that the structure and content of Luke and Acts were in part determined by the size of the papyrus rolls on which they were written. One wonders what the Bible would have been like if the biblical writers could only have rolled paper the way we can.

Paperbacks

Memoirs: A Story of Renewal in the Denmark of Kierkegaard and Grundtvig, by Vilhelm Beck (Fortress, 1965, 192 pp., $2.25). The memoirs of a younger contemporary of N. F. S. Grundtvig and Sören Kierkegaard throw light on these men and the conflicts that raged between them. For the student of the melancholy, great Dane.

Christ’s Church: Evangelical, Catholic, and Reformed, by Bela Vassady (Eerdmans, 1965, 173 pp., $1.95). One of the few theological discussions and evaluations of the so-called Blake proposal; the author is a Reformed, Hungarian-trained theologian who is sympathetic to the ecumenical movement but not to the point of losing all critical powers. A valuable contribution in an important but almost deserted field.

The Mind of Kierkegaard, by James Collins (Regnery, 1965, 308 pp., $1.45). First published in 1953.

Music Activities for Retarded Children: A Handbook for Teachers and Parents, by David R. Ginglend and Winifred E. Stiles (Abingdon, 1965, 140 pp., $3.50).

Babylon by Choice, by Martin E. Marty (Friendship, 1965, 64 pp., $.75). Marty describes the urbane, secularistic, explosively changing city to which the Church must bring its mission. Good reading.

Fraternal Appeal to the American Churches, by Samuel Simon Schmucker (Fortress, 1965, 229 pp., $2.25). Although the author died in 1873, his book reveals a rare concern for both doctrinal orthodoxy and the unity of the Church. It is a book for those few who today share that concern. The chapter on the nature of the primitive Church’s union is particularly valuable.

The Crying Heart, by Clara Bernice Miller (Moody, 1965, 351 pp., $1.29). A warm story reflecting Amish life.

New Theology No. 2, edited by Martin E. Marty and Dean G. Peerman (Macmillan, 1965, 316 pp., $1.95). Lively debate, new research, analytical reportage, and hard thinking characterize these eighteen recent articles.

The Lord from Heaven, by Leon Morris (Eerdmans, 1964, 112 pp., $1.45). A study of the New Testament teaching on the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ.

The Law and the Elements of the World, by A. J. Bandstra (Eerdmans, 1965, 209 pp., $4). A distinguished doctoral dissertation supporting the thesis that the Pauline phrase “the elements of the world” refers to the powers of the law and the flesh as operative before, and outside of, Christ.

Christianity in a Divided Europe, by Hanns Lilje (Fortress, 1965, 41 pp., $.75). An informative essay that reveals the pains of the author’s heart.

Maker of Heaven and Earth, by Langdon Gilkey (Doubleday, 1965, 381 pp., $1.45). A clear presentation of the mythical understanding of creation, in which the concepts of analogy, revelation, and paradox are combined into one mode of speech about God. But the presentation is dark at the crucial point where creation is a divine historical act through which God speaks to man. First published in 1959.

The man in the pulpit is expected to set the pattern in refinement and good taste. A certain prospective pastor was invited to preach before a pastorless congregation. At the close of the morning service, the pulpit committee was enthusiastically ready to recommend that a call be extended. But in the evening service one ill-chosen illustration became the minister’s undoing. The illustration was relevant and clever, but it so offended good taste that the pulpit committee decided to look further for a pastor.

One breach of good taste may shake the confidence of a congregation; and when worshipers are made to blush, the preacher has lost something in the esteem of the audience that he cannot afford to lose. But even when biblical truth is presented in the utmost tact and good taste, there is danger of offending persons whose conduct is involved, or who are particularly sensitive to the discussion of certain themes.

There is nothing new about the problems of preachers who need to bring Scripture to bear upon imperfections and delinquencies of which they are aware. The miser may not appreciate a sermon on giving; the “cocktail Christian” may not relish a sermon on the text, “Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink …” (Hab. 2:15); the pleasure-seeker may not wish to hear about the “separated life.” And so the minister must, by dedicated living, “adorn the doctrine of God” and, by tactful presentation, make the truth as palatable as possible. If he aims to declare “all the counsel of God,” he will not neglect truths that are difficult to express in good taste.

In dealing with difficult problems, the preacher needs to be ever mindful of the Golden Rule. The man in the pew may be willing to receive spiritual help, but he wants his feelings to be respected. Expository preaching (as distinguished from topical preaching) has the decisive advantage of providing the most natural and least offensive approach. The Scriptures abound in relevant material for any situation, and the hearer can see that his quarrel is not with the preacher but with the Word of God.

A major problem of our generation is immorality. Obviously, legislation is not the answer. Decency can not be legislated into the hearts of people. Neither does the widespread demand for sex education in the public schools provide the answer. Among the youth of our sex-ridden generation, there are those who clamor for adult privileges but have no comprehension of adult responsibilities. And among adults there are those whose concern is not for moral purity but for an escape from the consequences of immorality. No previous generation has had so much sex information or such low moral standards. And further instruction, without godly motivation, might accomplish nothing more than to stimulate curiosity and experimentation.

What can the church and the minister do about the problem? How can biblical standards of purity be established, with biblical motivations? The sex education most needed is the plain teaching of the Word of God: “Keep thyself pure” (1 Tim. 5:22). The Ten Commandments are quite unambiguous, and in the Scriptures there are more than one hundred additional pronouncements against immorality. It is plain that immorality does not spring from ignorance or the inability to distinguish between right and wrong. The child who is old enough to transgress is fully aware of the wrongness of what he is doing. And missionaries who have worked with the most primitive savages report that these aborigines have moral standards strongly suggestive of the Seventh Commandment. What is the needed message? “Thus saith the Lord!” This is the way to build convictions that will fortify the soul against the appalling immorality of our times.

Let pastors, teachers, and parents pray for wisdom and grace to deal with the problems that seem too delicate to mention. And let them remember that these matters need not be spelled out in such detail as to be offensive to refinement and good taste. Some things can safely be left to the imagination, and the intelligence of the audience must not be underestimated.

The following sermon was preached by the Rev. Richard K. Kennedy at the East Union United Presbyterian Church of Cheswick, Pennsylvania.

Its structure is in the basic homiletical pattern, in that the introduction leads naturally to the proposition, and the body of the sermon is an elaboration of the two biblical guidelines indicated in the proposition. The strength of the sermon lies in its biblical soundness as well as its timeliness in the present era of moral decline and ambiguity.—Charles W. Koller

Text: “So glorify God in your body.”

—1 Corinthians 6:20

A recent article in a news magazine of wide circulation stated that “there is an illusion abroad in the land that sex is the most important thing in life and that life can be built on sex alone.” Some wag has said the same thing in another way: “Sex is not the only important thing in the world, but it’s way ahead of whatever is in second place.”

These are just two ways of expressing the fact that a very important part of life has to do with the relations between the sexes and with all the implications and complications of the sex drive itself. It is, of course, a delicate subject, and we have to measure our words when talking about it publicly. Yet it is a necessary subject, and the Church does no service to its people by maintaining a silence about it. Certainly the Bible has much to say about it. It gives direct commandments about our attitude toward sex and tells about people who became, as we say, “involved.”

In the sixth chapter of First Corinthians, the Apostle Paul was writing to a church that had caused him all kinds of concern. A part of that concern had to do with the sexual immorality of some of its people. In order to set their thinking straight, Paul wrote to them about the proper attitude toward the relations between the sexes. Certain guidelines given here and in other places in the Bible make it possible for us to understand what our attitude should be and what actions should grow out of our attitude. We find, here and in other places, a Christian view of sex.

I

The first thing that we see in the Bible about this fact of life is that it is a gift of God. Almost at the very beginning of the Bible, we find it written that “God created man in his own image … male and female created he them.” And, just a little later, that thought of God appears: “It is not good that man should live alone.” God could have chosen any way to create us. He could have made us simply some higher form of the amoeba or paramecium, those cells that reproduce simply by dividing one cell into two. He could have created the world with a kind of continuing creation going on within it, with new human beings created every year by his divine power, and without even the existence of the reproductive system as we know it. But we were created as people of one sex or the other. And we were created with that drive in us which leads to the reproduction of the human race. The fact of sex is a gift of God.

Children get to the place—all too soon, most parents think—where they enjoy the company of children of the opposite sex. For a while, all girls are “creeps” to the boys, and the girls return the compliment by thinking, and by saying without hesitation, that all boys are “stupid.” Then boys and girls begin to mix in groups. The next step is individual dating. This is all a normal pattern for the development of the young people of our country.

In most other countries, courtship is carried on under the Watchful eye of the parents of both parties. Dating is regulated, or at least confined to those whom the parents consider to be of satisfactory standing in the community. But in the United States, young people are given freedom to roam and are able to have the family car frequently. The result is that they carry on their courting with very little supervision and often with very little direction from parents as to either behavior or the choice of persons.

Following courtship or a series of courtships, there is the engagement, and then marriage. And the position of the Church, which is the position of the Bible, is that all this is given to us to be enjoyed. No matter what the culture, no matter what the rules are about the mixing of the sexes and the courting of a wife, the Church takes the position that, within that framework, it is possible for the people involved to find the pleasure that God intends them to have.

The physical part of married life involves the giving of two people to each other. It involves surrender, and it brings two people close together emotionally and spiritually. It is significant that children come into this world as the result of an act of love. And a part of the enjoyment of all that is involved in the physical relationship between man and wife is the knowledge that this is the act by which children are created. So sex is to be enjoyed within marriage simply for itself, for the deepening relationship between husband and wife, and for the creation of children. It is a God-given fact of life, a God-given part of life, and it has been given to us in order to make life more full. Through its expression, we may “glorify God in the body.” And to glorify God is to enjoy life.

II

But the second thing we see in the Christian attitude toward sex is that it is to be controlled. As with everything else that is worthwhile, discipline is necessary to fulfillment. A national magazine is the authority for the statement that “the vast majority of men and at least half the women” now have before marriage the physical relations that are supposed to be reserved for marriage. Some standards have slipped so low that now (and again the same magazine is the authority for this) many people consider a woman “pure” if her sexual experience before marriage has been confined to only her husband-to-be and one or two “steadies.” And no one knows how many people—even in our own neighborhood—are at this moment being unfaithful to their husbands or wives. It is obvious that we need to take a new look at the self-discipline on which happiness in this area is based.

The Church controls the expression of the sex drive partly through its insistence on monogamy, the marriage of one man to one woman “so long as they both shall live.” It has certain regulations about the remarriage of divorced persons, and the basis of those regulations is the protection of the institution of marriage. If the Church were to make it easy to be married again after a divorce, then it not only would be ignoring the clear teaching of the Bible but would also be cheapening marriage and treating it disrespectfully. By being strict about remarriage, the Church is saying that marriage is a solemn, sacred thing and that the physical aspects of it are to be respected.

The purity of our thoughts in this part of life is abused by the advertising in many of our magazines. In the issue following the one that dealt with the relaxing of our standards, the same magazine had at least half a dozen advertisements that used the very techniques about which the writers had been concerned the week before. Sex is used to sell everything from hair tonic to trips to Europe. And some magazines are apparently given over completely to this abuse of God’s gift to us of sex. Such magazines are found on many magazine racks, and it is perfectly obvious from their covers and their subtitles that they are playing on this same theme. So there are those who feed this urge and then wonder why pressures build up, pressures that are extremely hard to deal with and that leave them feeling nervous and upset, or else lead them to do things they would not want the world to know about. They tease themselves with certain jokes and certain movies and certain magazines and some of the feminine fashions, and then wonder why they cannot control themselves.

Not only that, but there are those who glamourize what has come to be known as “serial polygamy.” A movie star gets married and then married again and then again and again, and yet remains popular because of her beauty. There is even, I suppose, some delight among her fans in the thought that they are almost sharing her sin. It all seems so exciting. And those who find this kind of adultery in their favorite movie star exciting begin to wish for some excitement themselves. No matter how old they are, they begin to imagine themselves as glamour girls or glamour boys and become involved in shameful things. Glamourizing evil leads only to more evil.

Furthermore, we encourage our children to grow up too fast. They get put into situations in which they develop adult desires, and they have the ability to express these desires but do not have the maturity to control them. They start dating very young and start going steady very young. When a girl starts going steady with a boy, she feels that she should do more than hold his hand because he is, after all, her boyfriend. When that doesn’t last and there is another steady boyfriend, the new one is, of course, much more serious in her eyes, so she feels that she needs to express herself a little more freely than she did with the first one. So it goes through several boyfriends. Thus she may be deeply involved while she is still very young.

In spite of signs of outward rebellion at our discipline, our children really want to have some control. They are confused by the situations we often allow them to get into, and they want to know where they stand. There was a time when a girl let her boyfriend know that it was time for him to go when her father started dropping shoes on the floor upstairs or when he slammed a door or two. But do you know what has happened in our time? We now have all-night parties, and we need to recognize why they began. They began because parents said that, if they didn’t provide them, their children would stay out all night and they wouldn’t know where the children were. Well, who was making the rules and enforcing them, the parents or the children? The all-night party began as an admission of failure by parents to control their children. And this all fits into the pattern of our theme today, because self-discipline, which begins with enforced discipline by the parents, is necessary if young people are going to be able to control this problem.

There is a question that is related to all this and that needs to be answered: “What shall I tell my children, not just about the facts of life but about their relationship to other people of the opposite sex?” Very simply, this can be said to them: “Relax and enjoy life. Try not to let yourself become too involved with one person at least until you are settled in a job or are a junior or senior in college. Teen-age marriages fail much more often than those involving people in their twenties. So relax. Enjoy your youth.” This, too, can be said: “Sex is a wonderful thing, but don’t do the right thing at the wrong time. Save your best for marriage.” And this can be said: “Sex is not an end in itself. It is an expression of love, a full expression of full love. And you can fully express this kind of love for another person only within the framework of marriage.”

There are times when our sexual desires can be fully expressed, and that within the framework of God’s law. There are also times when those desires must be suppressed. We all need to admit that sex is a part of life; but if we have such desires and cannot rightly give expression to them, we can do what is called sublimating them. That is, we can take the power of this drive and use it in acceptable channels: nursing, teaching children, showing sympathy and concern to those who have special need. But, whatever we do, we are to deal with sex as followers of Jesus Christ, enjoying what God has given us by controlling it in his name and by his power.

The Apostle Paul speaks of glorifying God in our bodies. Sex is not the most important thing in life, nor can a life be built on it alone. But it is a fine, beautiful, wonderful thing. Yet it is that only when we use it as God intended. When, in this regard, we pattern ourselves after Christ, we shall find that abundance of life which Christ promises to those who follow him. Therefore, in the words of this morning’s text: “Glorify God in your body.”

Internal Revenue Service officials have a low opinion of unexplained charity deductions on income tax returns.

Just how low became apparent last month when the New York district tax commissioner, Harold All, disclosed that his office is using a guideline of $78 for unsubstantiated charity donations, $52 of which is allowed for church donations.

The New York Times reported that one “high corporate official” emerged “ashen-faced” from his interview with the IRS, during which his unsubstantiated $4,500 charity deduction was cut to $78.

Mr. All was also quoted as indicating that a taxpayer who could not get a statement from his pastor vouching for regular church attendance might not be allowed even the $52 deduction.

Reaction to the recently announced policy was mixed. “What an evaluation of God and compassion,” wrote one angry citizen. “I don’t think an agency of my government has any business, even by inference, telling the American people what a ‘guideline’ contribution to church and charity is.”

The “off-the-cuff reaction” of Dr. Edward L. R. Elson, pastor of the National Presbyterian Church in Washington, D. C., was that “personal experience and the experience of others indicate that the amount allowed is far too low.”

“I’m sure I’d take several hundred dollars on that,” he said.

A letter writer to the Times said. “It appears that the Internal Revenue Service—or at least the North Atlantic area—is trying to discourage any form of contribution other than by check.”

On the other hand, reported the Times, the guideline “may be welcomed by many taxpayers who have listened in silent vexation to tales of major unsubstantiated charity deductions by others.”

(Deductions may be substantiated by receipts, canceled checks, and “other records” such as appraisals on donated property and recorded envelope contributions.)

It was also reported that several ministers who spoke up after the announcement said they believed the $52 limit to be fair.¹IRS officials indicated that most contributions of people who give systematically would be deductible anyway, since charitable organizations make it “the usual practice to issue receipts for donations.… In short, substantial contributions in cash for which no receipt is given are the exception rather than the rule.”

Out of the controversy emerged these facts, confirmed in a telephone interview with IRS headquarters in Washington:

—The “new” policy is not really new; it was initiated without publicity last year in the New York tax district.

—The guideline applies only if the return is examined.

—It applies only to certain areas (the IRS reported that it does not have records on which areas these are; each district office is given latitude to develop policies that fit its locality).

—Generally the ceiling on charity deductions—30 per cent of the taxpayer’s income, no matter how much proof he has—still applies.

After ten days of varying press reports, the IRS issued a guide to the guideline that said in part: “What the [New York] guideline actually means … is that when a return is audited and the taxpayer cannot furnish documentary support of his claimed deduction for contributions, the auditor is authorized to allow a deduction for contributions up to $78 on a joint return of husband and wife provided that the taxpayer’s oral statements are credible. This is neither an automatic allowance nor a rigid limit. If, in the auditor’s judgement, the taxpayer’s oral statement does not support a deduction of $78, a lesser amount will be recommended. If, on the other hand, the auditor concludes that more than $78 should be allowed, a larger deduction can be recommended for approval.”

An IRS spokesman indicated that cash giving by vacation visitors would not present churches with additional bookkeeping burdens under the recently disclosed guidelines. He also expressed a vote of confidence that may or may not warm the heart of churchgoers everywhere.

“We believe that most taxpayers are basically honest,” said the spokesman, “and if he has been in the habit of giving regularly so much to his church back home, we would not burden him, the pastor of the host church or its board of trustees with this kind of record keeping.”

Time, Labor, And Old Clothes

When a Roman Catholic church in Ontario burned down some time ago, parishioners sought to restore the loss by helping to rebuild the church and running bingo games. The church gave them receipts for their services, and the parishioners used them to make deductions on their income tax returns.

The Canadian Revenue Department at first rejected the receipts. It cited a 1962 ruling that outlaws as deductions the following categories of donations: Those going to charitable organizations outside Canada and to individuals; those listing value of services rendered; value of merchandise where its costs have been charged as a business expense; old clothes, furniture, etc.; amounts paid at card parties, bingo games, and lotteries, even if they are held for a church or charity.

Later, however, the Revenue Minister, E. J. Benson, reportedly told the Member of Parliament who represents the area where the parishioners live that the department would accept the receipts. The amounts involved were small, and the department ultimately did accept them.

Evidently someone in the church acted to meet the department halfway, for a revenue investigator was reportedly assured that such receipts would never again be issued by the church for donations of time and labor.

The department said that it is determined to stick to its 1962 ruling.

A U. S. Internal Revenue spokesman said that United States laws are similar to the Canadian riding. But the IRS will accept deductions for property donations to charity, including old clothes, “to the extent of their fair market value,” he said.

Is Anybody Listening?

Are resolutions of church assemblies influential in Congress?

Marie H. Walling of the Register-Leader of the Unitarian Universalist Association went to Washington to seek the answer.

Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr., a Democrat from New Jersey, and Congressman Thomas C. Curtis, a Republican from Missouri, stated flatly that resolutions of religious groups have little effect on them.

“Unless they can come up with some new argument I haven’t heard,” Curtis was quoted as saying, “I think I am probably better informed than the populace on most issues, and therefore better able to make a judgment.”

Miss Walling observed that “it would appear from similar opinions of other Congressmen that general resolutions are not tremendously effective in influencing the thinking of United States legislators.” She added, however, that they are “definitely” effective in other ways.

Williams told Miss Walling that “resolutions from ‘on high’ don’t mean much to legislators. They may not be truly reflective of what people are thinking, but only the position of the organization.”

However, when a resolution supports the Senator, it may mean a lot. “If I can roll out the support of church groups for my position,” added Williams, “both in committee and on the floor of the Senate, I find it the sharpest arrow in my quiver.”

From Dallas To Washington

President Johnson named a prominent Southern Baptist clergyman to the five-member Equal Opportunity Commission created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Dr. Luther Holcomb, executive director of the Greater Dallas Council of Churches, has been chairman of the Texas Advisory Council to the U. S. Civil Rights Commission for the last three years. Holcomb, 53, is a native of Yazoo City, Mississippi, and a graduate of the University of Oklahoma. He prepared for the ministry at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville.

The new commission will supervise administration of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which makes it an unlawful practice for any employer, employment agency, or labor union to engage in discriminatory practices because of race, religion, or national origin.

The commission, to be headed by Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jr., will investigate complaints and “attempt by conference, conciliation, and persuasion to eliminate any unlawful practices and, where voluntary compliance is unobtainable, to certify the fact to the Attorney General for institution of legal action.”

Turkey And The Patriarchate

As Roman Catholics claim that Peter established the bishopric of Rome, the Greek Orthodox take his brother Andrew as founder of their church. Colorful as has been the history of the latter, it has never been long free of trials. Even today trouble dogs its representative in Istanbul, where ever since 1453 the patriarchate has existed under the aegis of a government that is not Christian and does not regard with any friendly eye a system that allegedly combines Christian tenets with Greek nationalism.

Until 1922, when the Greek armies were defeated at Smyrna, the Ecumenical Patriarchate had under its jurisdiction at least three million Greeks scattered throughout Asia Minor and Thrace (i.e., Turkey in Europe). When the Greeks finally left Asia Minor, however, the number decreased sharply to 250,000, confined to Istanbul and two Aegean islands. The drain continued through successive decades, and by this year only 35,000 of them remained.

Engaged chiefly in commercial pursuits, these Greeks were rarely discriminated against until 1954. When the Cyprus trouble flared up, they were regarded somehow as guilty by association. The illogic in the Turkish lumping together of all Greeks is seen in a traditional distinction made by the Turks themselves. They call Greece Yunanistan, and the Greeks in Greece Yunan (from Ionian), but Greeks in Istanbul, Cyprus, or elsewhere they designate Rum—i.e., descendants of the Roman Empire that was smashed in 1453. This is a significant point, for the Turks thus look upon the patriarchate as linked with a long-vanquished foe.

During the first Cyprus crisis, violent retaliation on September 6, 1955, against the Greeks in Istanbul and other Turkish cities caused to Greek property an amount of damage probably equivalent to the total wealth of Cyprus. Thousands of Greeks left Turkey after this. International arbitration brought some years of peace until the notorious Greek atrocities against Turkish Cypriot women and children in a Nicosia suburb at Christmas, 1963.

Thereafter in Turkey the authorities expelled a substantial number of Greek residents, some at forty-eight hours’ notice. Similar treatment was meted out to two bishops of the Holy Synod who, unlike the other deportees, had Turkish citizenship. This was taken away. Greece would not accept these two, who are now in the United States. All this was done supposedly for reasons of security, and the Turks denied that events in Cyprus had influenced them. Thousands of Turkish-citizen Greeks were meanwhile leaving the country voluntarily for Greece. The Turks showed no change of heart when the patriarchate as a gesture made some donations toward a fund for Turkish Cypriot refugees made homeless by Greek action in Cyprus. (CHRISTIANITY TODAYS reporter last month visited a refugee camp there in which nearly 3,000 people are crowded together, most of them in tents supplied by the British Army.)

The Plaza Report on Cyprus this year sorely disappointed the Turks, and they rejected the Ecuadorian diplomat as U. N. mediator. Thereafter the situation rapidly deteriorated. The Turkish press began to insinuate that the Istanbul patriarchate was an agency of Greek nationalism rather than a religious center, and called for official re-evaluation of its position. Despite initial protests, the Patriarch Athenagoras permitted and even actively helped government officials to examine his books. Their findings have not yet been made known.

While the Turkish authorities still tend to deny it, the Turkish press leaves readers in no doubt that the destiny of the patriarchate and the remaining Greek element in Turkey is closely bound up with developments in Cyprus, where some 26,000 Turks are said to have been dislodged from their homes. The Istanbul daily Aksam of April 19 introduced a new note when in a front-page editorial it suggested that the patriarchate was supported with American dollars and serves the Orthodox in the United States rather than those of Greece. It predicted that expulsion of the patriarchate would mean the withdrawal of American aid to Turkey and, moreover, that “a dreadful propaganda against us will start in the Western world.” The whole thing, it continued would be worked up as a Christian-Muslim issue. That point was taken up also by the Turkish Prime Minister, Suat Urgüplü, who said that the days of the Crusades were long past, and that to bring up old religious conflicts now that Europe and the world were trying their best to unite rather than divide was a grievous error.

Included in the patriarchate’s jurisdiction are four bishoprics within Turkey, fifty-two schools in Istanbul, and the Greek Orthodox theological college on the island of Chalki.

J. D. DOUGLAS

The Cuenco Bill

A church-state controversy is lending drama to the quadricentennial of the “Christianization of the Philippines.”

The Philippine House of Representatives approved overwhelmingly a bill that would authorize religious instruction in the public schools. A Senate committee then began discussing the constitutionality of the measure.

Among those who voted for the bill in the House were the three Muslim representatives; the others were Roman Catholics. The only two Protestant members of the House voted against it.

Proponents argue that religious instruction would be an effective way to tackle “the alarming problem of criminality and juvenile delinquency” in the Philippines. The sponsor of the bill, Representative Miguel Cuenco, said that the teaching of religion to “school children in their formative … years should be strengthened.”

Critics of the bill say it would tend to undermine the Constitutional provision for separation of church and state. The opposition includes the Religious Liberty Association of the Philippines, composed of local and national civic leaders who have pledged to defend the country’s religious liberty above their individual religious sympathies.

The principal argument of this group is a clause in the Constitution reading:

“No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces or to any penal institution, orphanage, or leprosarium.”

Below the constitutional level, the rules and directives seem to conflict. A section of the “Revised Administrative Code” enjoins public school teachers from teaching religion or conducting religious exercises. But in 1955, after the death of former president Manuel L. Quezon, who was a defender of church-state separation, a “Department Order” was issued making religious instruction part of the school curriculum in public schools. Some critics of the present bill view it as a move to buttress the Department Order, issued after systematic prodding by the Catholic hierarchy.

In the Senate hearings, Dr. Enrique Sobrepeña, executive secretary of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, eloquently described the advantage the bill would give to the religion whose leaders could recruit the largest number of public school teachers. Catholics totaled 83.8 of the total population in the 1960 census.

The Cucnco bill provides that “public school teachers may voluntarily teach religion upon being designated in writing as a teacher of religion by priest or minister in the school building …, and the teaching hours of religion of such public school teachers shall not be deducted from their normal regular teaching load. However, no pupil shall be required by a public school teacher to attend and receive the religious instruction herein permitted.”

The National Council of Churches in the Philippines, composed of the Aglipayan Church and seven Protestant denominations, opposes the measure, saying that it violates the spirit of the ecumenical movement launched by the late Pope John XXIII.

The fate of the measure may depend on whether it is acted upon now or held over until next year. If the Senate does anything with the bill this year, it will probably pass it, according to CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S Philippines correspondent, Eustaquio Ramientos, who says: “It is doubtful whether there is a single Catholic senator in the Philippines who is willing to risk his political future by opposing the stand of the Catholic hierarchy on the religious instruction bill, this year being an election year.…” On the other hand, “shelving the bill until next year would at least give the oppositionists … more time to entrench.… There is not much expectation among evangelicals in the country that the President of the Philippines would veto the measure, he being a protege of the Philippines’ Cardinal Rufino Santos.”

Evangelicals in the Philippines are also aroused by the news that the country’s top Catholic journalists, in collaboration with leading Catholic churchmen, plan to start a national Catholic daily newspaper. The Philippine press is now regarded as one of the freest in the world; the metropolitan newspapers have given full coverage of the opposition to the religious instruction bill. However, as would be expected in a predominantly Catholic country, Catholic press representation and patronage is considerable.

B. E. Junkins reflects on his departure from, and subsequent return to, the ministry (see opposite page). David L. McKenna (page 5) shows how our changing world demands innovations in the presentation of the Gospel. N. Gene Carlson (page 9) pleads for expository preaching and shows its superiority. The weakness of the American pulpit is analyzed in an editorial (page 24).

The race problem in the United States, which promises little let-up in the months and years to come, may ultimately cause some major ecclesiastical realignments. It is already registering a serious impact, with a seemingly growing number of local church disputes attributable in some measure to differences over the Negro’s role in society. This spring saw several such disputes erupt into open dissention.

In the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights, a United Church of Christ pastor said he was forced to resign his pulpit because he had “dared to welcome into the membership of the church a Negro family.” The Rev. Milton D. Jones, pastor of the 275-member Immanuel Church since 1954, announced that he will resign, effective July 15, and will go to an integrated church in Cincinnati.

Some officials of the United Church of Christ, however, apparently sought to dispute the pastor’s argument. Dr. S. Garry Oniki, executive coordinator of the United Church’s Committee for Racial Justice Now, said in a statement: “We have found that the Shaker Heights church has an open membership policy for all persons regardless of race or nationality. We do not find that any member of this church has raised the issue of race with regard to church membership or church attendance.”

In Savannah, Georgia, the congregation of St. John’s Episcopal Church voted, 700 to 45, to withdraw from the Protestant Episcopal Church rather than admit Negroes to its regular worship services. Balloting was held at a meeting during which the Rev. Ernest Risley, rector, said he was renouncing the ministry.

The church vote was taken as a rejection of the Episcopal Church canon forbidding racial discrimination, but Mr. Risley, a clergyman for thirty-seven years, went a step further. In a letter to Bishop Albert Rhett Stuart of South Georgia, the rector said he could not remain loyal to the church when it “permits to go unchallenged doctrinal teaching denying the Virgin Birth and the Trinity.” His letter also said the church was “embarking upon new canonical requirements which I sincerely believe cannot lead to anything but heartbreak and sorrow.” Risley had said previously that he would resign the Episcopal ministry rather than admit Negroes to regular worship services.

In Texas, Dr. K. Owen White resigned as pastor of the 3,600-member First Baptist Church of Houston to take an executive post with the Southern Baptist General Convention of California. Just prior to the announcement of his resignation, the congregation voted 206 to 182 not to accept Negro members. White, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said he was disappointed in the outcome of the vote but insisted that it was not a factor in his leaving.

The Methodist Judicial Council, meanwhile, postponed a hearing on the question whether the General Conference or jurisdictional conferences have ultimate authority in regional desegregation procedure. The Judicial Council, which is the supreme court of Methodism, ruled for the postponement on a request by jurisdictional representatives, who acted in turn on a request from the Council of Bishops.

Voting is now under way on a resolution which if adopted will pave the way for transfer of Methodist annual conferences in five southwestern states from the racially constituted Central Jurisdiction to the geographical South Central Jurisdiction. Ballots are being cast by ministers and lay members of all annual conferences in the two jurisdictions. A two-thirds majority of total votes cast in each jurisdiction will be required for passage.

In Philadelphia, meanwhile, St. Thomas Protestant Episcopal Church changed its charter to allow Caucasians to hold voting membership in the congregation and to serve on its vestry. The vote at the church’s annual meeting was unanimous. The church, oldest Negro Episcopal Congregation in the nation, has since 1796 had the restriction excluding Caucasians from voting membership or vestry service.

Protestant Panorama

The American Lutheran Church will launch a program of general advertising in Sunday newspapers this fall. The ad messages, said a spokesman, “will focus on basic Christian truths, expressed in clear and colorful language without a distinctively denominational emphasis.”

The Assemblies of God are conducting a nationwide Christian literature drive to explain their doctrinal position on the work of the Holy Spirit. A special World’s Fair issue of the Assemblies’ weekly Pentecostal Evangel will be made available in quantity for community distribution.

Miscellany

The new government of Zambia invited the Africa Evangelical Fellowship to staff and to assume control of a high school for girls in the North-West Province. It is expected to open in 1966. By 1970 an enrollment of 400 is anticipated. Some eighteen missionary teachers will be needed.

Groundbreaking ceremonies were held May 16 for a $4,000,000 retirement center in Kansas City to be known as Temple Towers. The ten-story structure will adjoin the Temple Baptist Church and will be sponsored by the Temple Foundation of Kansas City. Dr. Rutherford L. Decker, pastor of the church, is president of the foundation.

Riverside Church of New York City won the George Foster Peabody Award for its four-year-old FM broadcasting station. The award is administered by the University of Georgia’s School of Journalism.

The school board in North Haledon, N. J., voted last month to drop a proposal that would have provided for ten minutes of “voluntary” daily prayers in the borough’s schools. Dr. Frederick M. Raubinger, State Commissioner of Education, said the plan was unconstitutional.

Moody Bible Institute filed an application with the Federal Communications Commission requesting an increase to 100,000 watts in the power of its station WMBI-FM in Chicago. The power increase would make the station, which presently operates on 20,000 watts, one of the most powerful FM stations in the Midwest.

Christian Education

Azusa College and Los Angeles Pacific College, both of which have an Arminian-Wesleyan orientation, will be merged. The new school will open on the present Azusa College campus (in the eastern part of the Los Angeles metropolitan area) in September. It will be known as Azusa Pacific College. Six Arminian-Wesleyan denominations will cooperate in supporting the school.

A $19,000,000 program involving the virtual rebuilding of Union Theological Seminary in Richmond was unveiled last month. First construction is scheduled to get under way next summer.

More than 500 students assembled in Frankfurt, Germany, for a missionary convention organized by groups related to the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students. The convention opened in a historic building which housed a Dominican monastery in pre-Reformation days.

Personalia

William P. Thompson, lawyer from Wichita, Kansas, was elected moderator of the United Presbyterian General Assembly.

Dr. Roy Pearson was elevated from dean to president of Andover-New ton Theological Seminary. He will succeed Dr. Herbert Gezork, who is retiring, on September 1. Andover-Newton is related to the United Church of Christ and the American Baptist Convention. Pearson is a UCC minister.

Dr. Raymond L. Strong, a United Presbyterian, was named president of the ecumenically oriented Evangelical Seminary of Puerto Rico. Strong served for seven years as a professor of New Testament at a Protestant seminary in Cuba.

Dr. William S. Litterick, president of Keuka College, is resigning to become president of the Educational Records Bureau. Keuka, a four-year liberal arts college for women, is affiliated with American Baptists.

Dr. Jesse Jai McNeil will leave the faculty of California Baptist Theological Seminary to become head of the Department of Christian Education at Bishop College in Dallas.

Dr. V. Raymond Edman, chancellor of Wheaton College, was elected editor of the Alliance Witness, official journal of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.