CHRISTIANITY TODAYis pleased to present an interview with Dr. William F. Albright, distinguished archaeologist and biblical scholar who served as Professor of Semitic Languages at Johns Hopkins University from 1929 to his retirement in 1958. He has written a number of outstanding books, among them From the Stone Age to Christianity, and has contributed one way or another to almost a thousand volumes. Currently he has curtailed nearly all lecturing and teaching to fulfill a program of publications which includes over a dozen volumes and many shorter efforts.

Dr. Albright’s critical position is broadly liberal, but he has a strong conservative orientation on many issues. This epousal of conservative views as well as his rejection of extreme liberal views creates wide evangelical interest in his convictions.

Many of the evangelical movement’s younger Old Testament scholars have pursued doctoral studies under Dr. Albright’s teaching. In addressing the following questions to Dr. Albright, the editors of CHRISTIANITY TODAY reflect inquiries suggested by a number of Old Testament scholars, among them Dr. Oswald T. Allis, Dr. Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Dr. Clyde T. Francisco, Dr. David W. Kerr, Dr. Meredith G. Kline, Dr. Charles F. Pfeiffer, Dr. Kyle M. Yates, Dr. G. Douglas Young, and Dr. Edward J. Young.—ED.

Q. Where do you locate yourself in the contemporary theological spectrum?

A. My position remains in the middle—equally far from extreme conservatives and from extreme liberals. I am still growing more conservative on questions of date and authorship, historical background, and so forth, having moved considerably farther to the right, but I am even more strongly “liberal” on general problems of the history of theology, the use of evidence, the impossibility of man’s being able to formulate ultimate theological doctrines in human language.

Q. According to some reports you have become even more conservative since the Spring of 1961. What is the significance of these reports?

A. With respect to biblical tradition, this is quite true. In the Spring of 1961 I worked out details of my Goldenson Lecture on Samuel (published by the Hebrew Union College); that summer I completed my reconstruction of the background of Abraham; and during the past year I have made great progress on a more conservative approach to Job. These are only major examples of what I have been doing in both Old Testament and New Testament, especially in the latter, where my views tend to be more conservative than those of many professed conservatives in matters of date and authorship.

Q. What archaeological discoveries of recent times do you consider most significant?

A. Ugarit (Ras Shamrah) for early Hebrew literature and its date; Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) for all branches of biblical study (especially for early dating of New Testament books); Chenoboskion (Nag Hammadeh) for pre-Gnostic content of New Testament books.

Q. What do think of Dr. Cyrus H. Gordon’s contention that there is conclusive linguistic evidence of a parent culture common to both Hebrew and Greek civilizations and that this discovery is more important than the finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

A. Gordon’s work is often useful in appraising elements common to Northeast-Mediterranean cultures in the second millennium B.C. These common elements may be detected by archaeological and literary comparisons, but practically never by linguistic methods as such. I cannot accept any of his three successive decipherments of Linear A nor his explanations of early place and personal names in the Greek area as Semitic. The value of the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical research is far greater than that of any other archaeological find or research based thereon.

Q. Do you stand by your conviction that, contrary to the liberal Protestant view of the past generation, every book of the New Testament could have been written by some contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, rather than in the second century?

A. Rephrasing the question, I should answer that, in my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between about 50 and 75 A.D.).

Q. In the article on “Return to Biblical Theology” (The Christian Century, Nov. 19, 1958), you stated: “Until 1 was twenty-one I had never met anyone whom I knew to be Jewish, but after nearly half a century of friendly association I am in some ways more at home in Jewish circles than anywhere else.” Now some persons, pointing to the basic difference in attitude of Jew and Christian toward the divine messiahship of Jesus, have found this statement puzzling. In what ways are you more at home in Jewish circles than anywhere else?

A. The attitude of Jews toward education and culture tends to be more intelligent than that of Christians; Jews also tend to have a keener feeling for moral and social problems. Christ said of spiritually insensitive people who flaunt his name, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work inquity.”

Q. You have somewhere remarked that Protestantism can be held in balance only by recognizing the permanent values in Catholicism and Judaism. Briefly what are these values, and do they imply that Judaism and Catholicism are on a parity with Protestantism?

A. Jews tend to have keener ethical and social conscience. Catholics tend to show greater reverence and greater humility. I am a convinced Protestant of Methodist background.

Q. You have stood out among modern scholars in emphasizing the confirmation archaeology gives to the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. Would you view a reference in the biblical narratives as presumptive evidence of historical facticity?

A. Certainly. In many cases, however, archaeological confirmation or illustration is necessary before we can understand the historical meaning of biblical narratives or allusions.

Q. What major problems remain by way of apparent conflict between the Bible and present archaeological data?

A. Major remaining problems mostly involve clarification of complex oral and/or written transmission of biblical texts.

Q. Is it the fact that carbon 14 is inaccurate for dating bones? Has carbon dating been tested by applying it to objects known to come from the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty (ca. 1500B.C.)?

A. Carbon 14 is almost totally useless in dating bones, which contain a minimum of carbon. We now have many thousands of carbon dates from all over the world, but dating material by inscriptions is nearly always more accurate than use of radiocarbon.

Q. Are there instances in which you are convinced that the biblical writers erred in matters of detail?

A. The question is not clear. Commentators have erred in detail; so have translators, copyists, ancient compilers of written texts, and collectors of oral tradition. Before them, “errors” were made in the process of transmitting oral and written tradition. In my opinion no national literature in the world has suffered so little as Israelite from these multiple sources of error. I am always surprised anew by what Nelson Glueck calls “the incredible historical memory of Israel.”

Q. Many Old Testament scholars still accept the results of source analysis (J, E, P, D, and so on). In what way has archaeology changed the attitude of biblical scholars from that which prevailed in the late nineteenth century?

A. Everybody admits the existence of different genres of literature in the Pentateuch: the narratives containing, more or less alternatively, the divine names Yahweh and Elohim; the priestly descriptions of buildings, rituals, and cultic regulations in Exodus-Leviticus; the “Second Law” in Deuteronomy. The Pentateuch is mostly in the same “dialect”—the literary language of Southern Israel between the tenth and the early sixth century B.C. (as we know positively from inscriptions). The spelling of our Hebrew text was gradually fixed between about 500 B.C. and A.D. 900 (after vowel points had been added). The study of the Dead Sea Scrolls has dealt a crushing blow to the minute critical analysis of the early books of the Bible that has prevailed since Wellhausen, by proving that there were different early recensions of the text and that the Masoretic text is too derivative to provide a basis for such minute “analysis.”

Q. What permanent significance do you attach to the Genesis creation narratives?

A. The narratives of Genesis 1–11 come from the hallowed past of the Hebrew people; they were sacred from the remotest times, and they acquired new meaning in biblical days under the Mosaic dispensation, which demythologized where necessary and added new spiritual meaning. I do not think that these narratives will ever lose their unequalled importance for a Christian picture of God in creation and history.

Q. In what respect may we term the stories of the patriarchs in Genesis historical?

A. See the first chapters of my Harper Torchbook, The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra, appearing in January, 1963. I maintain that the same approach holds for the phases not specifically included in my treatment. Briefly, I think that the patriarchal narratives were handed down, in general, by word of mouth in verse form, which might be preserved for centuries because of its fixed style and musical setting. Some oral tradition was undoubtedly transmitted in prose, and some very ancient written documents presumably were known. Oral tradition is subject to its own regularities of behavior, which make it more flexible and more easily dramatized than written tradition. It is thus far better suited to become the vehicle of basic religious instruction. The process of compiling prose narratives from poetic sources was at its height in the tenth century B.C.

Q. Scholars of evangelical persuasion are interested in the sense in which you view the Bible as the Word of God, and whether this view has scriptural sanction.

A. Certainly the Bible is the Word of God—but not in a magical sense; it cannot be used for divination cr for esoteric purposes, as is so often the case. The Bible contains the creative and prophetic revelation of God, but to understand its meaning, the most penetrating and comprehensive study has always been and still is needed. In the Bible itself the terms which are rendered “word” in English have a very wide range of meanings, which we have no right to disregard. Lighthearted acceptance of any one dogma about the meaning of “verbal inspiration” is dangerous in the extreme.

Q. Do you think that Israel became a nation under Mosaic monotheism with a covenant at Sinai, or rather agree with Martin Noth who thinks the first national covenant was made at Shechem?

A. I accept the tradition of the Book of Exodus. Moses, not Joshua, was the founder of Israel.

Q. Many passages in Isaiah 40–66 denounce idolatry as a current evil in Israel (for example, 44:9–20; 51:4–7; 65:2, 3; 66:17). How can these be reconciled with a theory of post-Exilic authorship, since idolatry admittedly was never reintroduced into Judah after the Restoration (as witness Ezra, Nehemiah and Malachi by implication)?

A. I do not think that anything in Isaiah 40–66 is later than the sixth century.

Q. Will you elaborate the implications, as you now see them, of your statement in December, 1955, that certain Qumran manuscripts “preserve textual elements going directly back to the original Deuteronomic Samuel, compiled toward the end of the seventh century B.C.”?

A. I agree with Martin Noth that Deuteronomy-II Kings (excluding Ruth) were compiled from older materials by an anonymous editor, whom I date (except for the last chapters of II Kings) in the reign of Josiah (ca. 640–609 B.C.). Many earlier conservative scholars dated the compilation of Judges-II Kings at about that time. The contents are, in the main, much older.

Q. Questions of lower criticism aside, when it comes to a criterion by which to judge of the accuracy and trustworthiness of the biblical record, do you recognize as final the authority of Scripture or do you consider yourself in respect to the principle of authority still in the school of Wellhausen?

A. “Authority of Scripture” is a valid theological principle, whereas the “School of Wellhausen” is only one of many ideological systems built on arbitrary philosophical postulates and baseless historical presuppositions.

Q. Do we have reason to expect future contributions from archaeology to be as significant for biblical scholarship as those in the past?

A. They should become more important all the time, since we are only beginning to utilize past discoveries adequately, and future discoveries may be as extraordinary as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Q. To guide and stimulate young scholars, will you suggest some of the most urgent archaeological tasks before us today?

A. More and better scientific excavation, and more and better scholarship in interpreting finds.

Q. How can a young theological student become a member of a “digging team”?

A. By attending schools where there is a live archaeological interest and distinguishing himself in his study or in useful skills. He can also help raise money for an expedition.

Q. What is your general evaluation of neoorthodoxy as a theological emphasis?

A. Neoorthodoxy is so generous in its tolerance of philosophical approaches that I should hesitate to affiliate myself with any form of it. Personally I am a rational empiricist in my general approach to history. Many “neoorthodox” theologians support some form of Gnosticism or Neo-Platonism.

Q. Some evangelical interpreters are unsure of your attitude toward the historical character of supernatural events related in the Bible, in part because of statements in From the Stone Age to Christianity in which you assert that “in the presence of authentic mysteries” the historian’s duty is “to stop and not attempt to cross the threshold into a world where he has no right of citizenship” (1957 ed., p. 390); that “the historian … has no right to pass judgment on (the) historicity” of Jesus’ virgin birth and resurrection; and that “the historian, qua historian, must stop at the threshold, unable to enter the shrine of the Christian mysteria without removing his shoes …” (ibid., p. 399). Are you doubtful of the factuality and historicity of the supernatural birth and bodily resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth? Do you relegate these events to super-history or do you regard them as unique historical events?

A. I still subscribe to this position as an empirical historian. Theological truth is no less true because it is not the kind of truth that an archaeologist can validate.

Q. Do you consider yourself an orthodox Christian trinitarian?

A. Yes, but this does not mean that I pretend to understand the ultimate mysteries of divine being. One must, furthermore, never forget that “Person” of the Trinity has been authoritatively described by a number of different key words since apostolic times.

Q. What in general is your view of prophecy and miracles?

A. I believe in prophecy and miracles, but refuse to accept any confining theological definition of either. I believe that both continue to this day and that both are relative to the human scene in which they appear. Not all prophecy in the Bible can be validated, though the standard of validation is far higher than anything we find today. Some miracles of the Bible would not be considered as such today, and most miracles of today pass unnoticed. But the fact of prophecy and the fact of miracles are central to a living Christian faith, whatever may be thought of alleged individual miracles, ancient or modern. I believe in both prophecy and miracles as essential to Christian faith. What we mean by these terms changes constantly. Scientific medical triumphs of today were miracles once. I should not label every supposed prophecy and miracle of the Bible by this name, nor do I believe that prophecy and miracles came to an end with the canon. On the contrary’, God is just as active in history, in the life of the individual human being, and in the world of nature as ever.

Q. How do you view the Bible alongside the other literature of the world religions?

A. The Bible, as the revelation of God, remains absolutely unique, but we must not despise non-biblical religions or refuse to profit from their example.

END

Before the opening of the Vatican Council, Roman Catholics were heard to say that while we must not think of the council as a natural occurrence, neither ought we to view it as supernatural. One wonders, perhaps, why anyone would be tempted to think of the council as something supernatural. But then we must remember that Protestants, as do Roman Catholics, frequently offer the prayer Veni Creator Spiritus before church assemblies. Does this prayer for the coming of the Spirit not suggest an expectation of something supernatural?

When the Roman Catholic says that the council is not to be thought of supernaturally, he means to say that a council is not to be put in the category of miracle, of mystic vision, or of the purely vertical dimension. The work of the Spirit, he insists, manifests itself in and through the human, the natural. One must not, writes Roman Catholic theologian E. Schillenbeekcx, have romantic, lyrical notions about the council.

The council is part and parcel of all that is human, relative, non-absolute, and non-final. Conciliar decisions rise from a collective consciousness that is tempered by the age. The worldwide episcopate reaches out for the Word of God as the source of power and light for our thinking and doing. But the council, Schillenbeekcx insists, will not transcend the theological efforts and accomplishments of our day. It will be moving on the plane of the doctrinal work of the past 20 years. The Holy Spirit will be present, indeed, but he will be working in the context of the limited and imperfect terms of our human situation. Schillenbeekcx reflects genuine sobriety and good sense.

This leads us to the question of the Veni Creator Spiritus and its relation to what we may call the unexpected or surprising elements of Church experience. We Protestants do pray for the coming of the Spirit in our midst. And after we pray we go about our work as human beings, using our limited judgment and employing political means. All sorts of very human considerations are involved in the work for which we pray the involvement of the Creator Spirit.

Doctrinal decisions of Protestant synods always reflect the theological thought and achievements of a given day. They do not come to synods de novo, without preparation and conditioning beforehand. What, then, do we intend when we pray, Veni Creator Spiritus? Is the Spirit limited to the prevailing conditions within the Church at that particular time? Or are our human thoughts suddenly intruded upon and sent into a new channel by the supernatural work of the Spirit? Are we really open to the possibility of the unexpected, the surprising activity of the Spirit?

In correspondence Dr. Schillenbeekcx emphasized the fact that Roman Catholics must be open to the possibility of surprises in the council. But he added that we must acknowledge as well the limited, human context in which the Spirit would be at work. The council must not be expecting miracles, he insisted. Thus he suggests that prayer for the Spirit must involve a readiness for the unusual, but not an insistence on the miraculous.

We tend to pray for the Spirit too casually. Recall the Reformation and its surprising effect upon the Church of West Europe. There were plenty of human, fallible, limited factors at work there. The Reformation was not a miraculous event. There were preparations for it long before the event. Think of Luther hard at work on the Book of Romans in 1515. Everything did not happen at once, in a sudden, miraculous way. Yet there was a charismatic factor at work.

The Church always experiences both the vertical and horizontal dimensions in its own life. And when we pray for the coming of the Spirit we ought to be open to his coming and ready for whatever he may do. We must be sure not to limit his work by our own definitions of what he must do. We must surely avoid party loyalties which we feel cannot be changed by him. He who prays for the coming of the Spirit must see to it that he stands at the window of anticipation.

Human factors, the psychological and sociological, are unavoidable elements within Church life. But what we must beware of is the tendency to allow these to confine and strait-jacket the work of the Spirit of God. Aware that the Spirit works within and through the human side of Church life, we must be doubly guarded against letting the human side control and determine the possibilities of the Spirit’s activity. When we do the latter, sometimes unwittingly, we are working on the assumption that nothing can really happen through the Spirit. Pentecost then becomes merely an interesting historical incident. We stop believing that the Church is created and re-created by the Spirit in and through human conditions. The coming of the Spirit is not a miracle. When we pray for his coming, we must be sitting on the edge of expectation, believing with St. Paul that “he is able to do abundantly above all that we ask or think.”

It is worthwhile to listen to Catholic voices as they speak about their expectations for the present council. They remind us of the presence of both vertical and horizontal dimensions in the Church.

Within Roman Catholic circles today a great deal of emphasis is being put on the fact that the Church is a congregation of sinners. More than ever, theological spokesmen are calling attention to this reality. We hear it from Hans Urs von Balthasar (Basel), from Karl Rahner (Innsbruck), and from Hans Küng (Tübingen), as from others. With this emphasis in the background, prayer for the coming of the Spirit gets a new tone.

While I write this, the Vatican Council has been at work for less than a month. No one can prophesy anything at this stage. But all believers and the entire Church must recognize the tremendous importance of praying for the Spirit.

The prayer for the Holy Spirit is a prayer that embraces the entire Church, the Vatican Council as well as the “churches” in their unholy divisions. Veni Creator Spiritus! Let us pray it anew. Let us watch for the new winds of the Spirit.

SO YOU QUIT the ministry.

You said you weren’t giving up your faith in Jesus Christ. Not that. It was people’s indifference to your message of the Gospel that made you decide. They liked to have you “pass the time of day,” but when you followed up with deeper spiritual truths, they seemed to “hasten you to the door.” The “banker” even said you’d better “ease up or you’d have to leave.”

After prayer and serious thought and talking it over with your wife, you finally decided to quit. I don’t blame you. You’ve expressed what many earnest servants of Christ have experienced not only in the “east” but in the west and north and south as well. Many a minister has been on the verge of asking: “Shall I quit?”

But, young man, don’t quit! Discouragement is hard for anybody to take, and the minister is no exception. I know. I’ve been discouraged many times myself. So has every other minister. The obstacles are real, the disappointments enough to break any man.

When you and I accepted Christ’s call to the ministry, we claimed the glorious truth that Christ is “King of kings and Lord of lords.” And indeed, Christ will triumph! What’s more, his triumph applies to us—our “faith is the victory that overcomes the world”!

We also accepted the assignment to “take up our cross and follow him.” In “taking up our cross,” as you intimated, we didn’t expect everything to be easy.

It’s between these two—the victories of faith and the seeming defeats of cross-bearing—that we labor and minister in the Gospel, meeting both discouragement and joy. We cannot give up! His victory is bound to prove true, even though the path to that victory will often be the way of the cross.

You must not quit—you are one with us and we are one with you both in our disappointments and in our victories. We may not be a blazing success in the world’s eyes. But Jesus Christ is going to have his victory—and until that day comes is using us toward that end.

What we do for Christ does have an effect! Last Sunday I saw a young couple in church whose home several years ago almost broke apart in divorce. Often it seemed as if hardheartedness, selfishness, pride would win, as if prayer had no effect. But today that young couple would gladly witness to what Christ has done in their home. In the months I ministered to that problem I was often tempted to quit. Suppose I had?

The Lord has probably used you to help more people than you realize. And “those faithful few” you talk about. Your ministry to and through them may be more effective than you think. I remember a young couple both of whose children died at birth. How we prayed together through both times of sorrow! How very real was the comfort of Christ! One day while I was calling on a new couple to interest them in Christ and the church, the phone rang. Who do you think were wanting to come over? Yes, the young couple who in their times of sorrow had experienced the comfort of Christ wanted to share it with someone else.

When you speak of Christ people take you far more seriously than you suspect. When a news editor on the Denver Post confessed faith in Christ, I learned a printer had been quietly witnessing for Christ by his life. That converted news editor now works for a newspaper in Honolulu, and both he and his wife teach Bible school classes.

Even those who oppose your message of Christ or those who do not respond may yet discover their spiritual need. I remember a young woman whose very first words when I called on her were: “I don’t believe in religion for myself. I just want my child to go to Sunday school.” Some time later she said: “When I brought my little girl to your church, everybody seemed so happy!” Those words betrayed a wistfulness, an unspoken yearning for some of that happiness. I remember another person who waited 17 years before accepting Christ. Young man, we can’t quit. We’ve got to keep on. Someone may respond to our witness for Christ in the coming weeks and months.

One oft-learned lesson helps me meet these “dark moments of the soul”: looking to people brings disappointment, but looking to Christ restores the sense of purpose. To keep thinking about how people disappoint me would make it easy to give up. Aware of this, however, if I replace these thoughts with thoughts of Christ and set my mind “on things above” I regain the sense of his purpose for me. Things like “the banker telling us we may have to leave” fall into proper perspective when we see the crucified Christ calling us to “take up our cross and follow him.” Our twisted emotions untangle and line up once again with his purpose.

If people were a “finished product,” you and I wouldn’t need to bring them the Gospel of Christ. We wouldn’t be needed to bear the message of his mercy and forgiveness and strength and newness of life. But they’re not a “finished product.” For that very reason we must keep on for Christ. Man’s sin is not the barrier before which to capitulate; it’s the battlefront where we attack with the Gospel. People are by nature unresponsive to the Gospel, prayerless and powerless: this is the way people are. This is where we, too, begin—needing Christ. But we don’t quit where we start. That is the very place to go on!

When I urge you not to quit, I’m thinking of other young ministers, too, who will face these same disappointments in their service for Christ. Of the 30 young ministers or missionaries who have gone out from our church in recent years, some are facing galling opposition and lack of response this very hour in Africa, in Thailand, in rural towns of the west, in city churches. Will they quit?

A team of four young ministerial students served in our church last summer. The joy and confidence of their faith was a blessing to all of us. But in time these young men will face the same kinds of people and the same kinds of churches that you and I have faced.

Two of my sons are preparing for the ministry. I know they, too, will have to face what you have gone through in recent months. There will come a day when they will want to quit. So I’m telling them just what I’m saying to you: don’t quit! Keep on with Christ! The world needs the Gospel which you proclaim. And Christ needs you to proclaim it.—The Rev. ROBERT S. LUTZ, Minister, Corona Presbyterian Church, Denver, Colorado.

Toward A Strong Finish

“If there are two places in the sermon,” remarks the Archbishop of York, “which call for more care than others, they are the beginning and the ending.”

Agreed! After unanimous consent has been gained on this point, one other point too enjoys virtually complete support from students of the preaching task: the desirability of giving to both introductions and conclusions the spice of variety.

But now, granted that endings are crucially important and that the form of them should not be so repetitious as to lose all suspense or surprise, what are the possibilities from which the preacher can choose?

“There are four approved methods,” is the over-precise dictum of one author who normally speaks with fine discretion. With less stress on mathematical exactitude, let us think of some of the options at the preacher’s command:

1. There is the “built in” conclusion. It belongs to the sermon whose outline has been so carefully and convincingly developed that when the final point is presented, it rounds off the whole, creating a kind of natural climax.

2. There is the “recapitulation” conclusion. The word is not attractive, nor (too often) is the practice which it represents. Merely to go back over the main points in bare reiteration is hardly enough. This negative judgment, however, must not be too austere. It depends on who is doing it and how impressively it is done. What some men do with excellent taste and memorable finesse is to cast the “recap” in fresh language. When this is skillfully done, a latecomer, arriving for the final two or three minutes of the sermon, might easily catch the whole idea and burden of the message. Those who have been with the preacher from the start have the truth sharpened for them into what should be a compelling clarity.

3. The “illustration” conclusion is another option. If the sermon has had in it a minimum element of the pictorial and a maximum of the logical and the didactic, the “story” ending is particularly appropriate. It should, however, be made to pass three tests: (a) Is it in good taste? (b) Is it simple? (c) Is it convincing? If, for example, it is (in the preacher’s view) drawn from science, let him be sure that it will not be challenged by the knowledgeable man of science who may be sitting in his congregation.

4. There is, moreover, the “poetry” conclusion. It may be a verse or two of a hymn or something gleaned from the broader field of the muses. As a rule, it should be brief. It should be quoted well. Better not resort to verse in this solemn moment unless you are in love with poetry, have a sensitive regard for its rhythms and nuances, and can make it live in the understanding and emotions of your listeners. These requirements met, however, this can be a way of finishing that is not likely to be forgotten. More than 30 years have done little to fade the vividness of a ringing finale I once heard given by M. S. Rice of Detroit to a Holy Week sermon on the text, “Behold, the world is gone after him.” The unrestrainable triumph of Christ was sent hurtling home to all of us on the rhythmic chariot of Henry Milman’s hymn-poem, “Ride On, Ride On in Majesty!”

5. The “application” conclusion is yet another of the possibilities open to us. In any sermon, regardless of homiletical type, the relatedness of truth to life should never be far from the preacher’s mind. Nevertheless, there are times when the preacher’s message has duty for its target and action for its aim in a way so direct and demanding that it would be unforgivable not to show “wherein” and not to deal with “how to.” Give the steps. Reduce the general to the specific. Name the action (or actions) that should be taken, beginning now. Press the point in lovingly relentless thrust to the will. Your role as expositor and illustrator has given way to your role as exhorter.

6. We should not omit the “peroration” finish. This is the penchant of the oratorically inclined. Usually it is a combination of elevated voice, invigorated gesture, heightened drama, and cascading eloquence. Is it good or bad? Effective or offensive? If it is “worked up,” synthetic, over-strained, it is always objectionable, sometimes ridiculous. Urged the late and great Sangster of London: “Do not perorate. The custom must be dropped, not mainly because it is old-fashioned, but because the emotion is faked.” Grant the term of reference—“faked”—and Sangster’s conclusion is inescapable. But what if the emotion is not fictitious? If the preacher is “to the manor born,” if eloquence is his endowment and he has it under dedicated discipline, the crescendo style of ending may be his way of carrying out Philip Doddridge’s advice to ministers: “Be sure to close handsomely.”

Whatever the category may be into which the conclusion falls, the preacher who plies well his holy craft will want to keep in mind a few simple rules:

1. Rarely, if ever, announce your conclusion. Announcement is superfluous: move into it!

2. If you do announce it, don’t repeat it three minutes later since, as is now obvious, you were not really concluding when you said you were. It is this pulpit nonsense that has spawned the wag’s definition of an optimist: “A man who reaches for his hat when the preacher says, ‘Now in conclusion.’ ”

3. Avoid conclusions that appear ready-made, “tacked on,” or trite. There should be a living, organic connection between the “body” of the sermon and the manner in which we dismiss it to the trust of the people. A strong, carefully worded final sentence is worth a dozen vaguely trite references to “the Spirit of Christ.”

4. End on a high note! Solemn as eternity or radiant as the Resurrection, never mind: finish high up against the heart of God!

PAUL S. REES

Lord, it is good for us to be here; if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles (Matt. 17:4b).

The topic comes from a well-known English book, which shows that the thoughts of the cloister become corrupt unless they are corrected by the experience of life amid the crowd. The structure follows the little-used order of thesis—antithesis—synthesis. Try it, if only for a change.

I. The Blessing of the Cloister Hour. It is good to be in Christ’s presence and to see his glory. To be under his influence and be able to live at the highest and best. To be moved by holy thought and stirred by pure desire. What an ideal for every hour of worship! With others to behold the transfigured Christ!

II. The Curse of the Cloister Life. This curse lies heavy on the history of Christendom. Today, also, devout folk keep attending conferences for the deepening of the spiritual life, with no opportunity to face human need, or to use their spiritual muscles. As before the Reformation, we need to beware lest we tarry in the cloister and keep away from the crowd.

III. The Spirit of the Cloister amid the Crowd. To be healthful, sane, and pure, a Christian life is to be lived not in the cloister but in the crowd. We follow the One who knew the cloister hour, but whose heart loved the crowd. His years on earth were a constant keeping of the cloister spirit in the midst of the crowd.

For Christ Peter would have built a tabernacle on a secluded hill. But our Lord soon came down from his time of transfiguration to the crowd around the demoniac lad, to the crowd that later went up to Calvary on the way of weeping, to the crowd in the midst of whom he died. From the Mount of Transfiguration he came down to the crowd and to the cross.

Who follows in his train, both to the cloister and to the cross?—From The Secret of the Lord, n.d., pp. 216–28.

SERMONS ABRIDGED BY DR. ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

WILLIAM M. CLOW,With Christ in Cloister and Crowd; MARIANO DI GANGI,A Christian Crusade in Our City; FRANK E. GABELEIN,The Christian Dynamic; and DR. BLACKWOOD’SThe Cost of Being a Christian.

… The hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord (Acts 11:21; read vv. 19–21).

Sometimes we wonder at the failure of the early Church to evangelize the whole earth. If so, we condemn ourselves. Many a congregation has no missionary vision. Even when we show concern about missions overseas, we do little as witnesses in the area around the home church. But today, as in Antioch of old, there are exceptions. Let us look at a Christian crusade, one described for us on the biblical page.

I. The Proclamation of Christ. After the martyrdom of Stephen, believers who had to leave Jerusalem took with them their Christianity. In Antioch those Jewish Christians broke through the walls of nationalism and preached Christ to Gentiles. Today in our city we should do the same. Here we have but one message: the Lord Jesus. This Jesus is the merciful Saviour; let no one despair! Jesus is likewise the sovereign Lord; let no one presume!

II. The Response of Faith. Those Christian refugees in Antioch met with a response of faith. As in our city today, many had given themselves over to the pursuit of pleasure, much of it sinful. But the Gospel proved to be the power of God unto salvation. For these new Christians in Antioch, conversion meant a revolutionary change of direction. The citizens were noted for scurrility. Their religion was influenced by superstition, and degraded by orgiastic worship of the river-god. But once again the Gospel proved to be the power of God unto salvation. So must we feel persuaded that the believing reception of the Word here can turn many from self to the Saviour and Lord.

III. The Secret of Effectiveness. What brought the people of Antioch to faith and obedience? Not only the clergy, but the whole people of God as witnesses for Christ. Ever working through them was “the hand of the Lord.” This truth may crucify our pride, and thus increase our zeal. So let us preach the Gospel from the pulpit, and commend it to others by our daily example, in the lively hope that the Lord will bless our witness and make it fruitful, because “our sufficiency is of God.” Thus saith the Lord: (here quote Matt. 28:18–20).—Pastor, Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia.

“… I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power [literally, “the dynamic”] of God unto salvation to every one that believeth …” (Rom. 1:16).

Our subject brings us to the center of Christianity, and confronts us with the power that makes it go. What is the power that the Apostle proclaims as the dynamic of God unto salvation? About this dynamic of God no one needs to be in any doubt. The Bible makes perfectly plain that the dynamic of God is the Gospel. We stand, therefore, on ground that is familiar to many of us. And yet is it not strange that people these days are willing to try every solution for the problems of life except plain, downright Christianity? What then is the Gospel?

I. The Gospel Centers in Christ, the most important Person who has ever lived. Not only because of what he did 1900 years ago, but because of what he is doing now, with his life-changing, transforming power. Today he still has power to transform; whether in the slums of our cities or among respectable, educated sinners, he is changing the weak and the erring into strong children of God to whom he gives life more abundant.

II. The Gospel Centers in the Cross, and in the Resurrection. There alone is rock-bottom Christian truth. No one who has experienced the joy of release from the bondage of sin and guilt can ever think of these events as other than all-powerful, life-changing facts. Thousands of men have died as martyrs; only Christ has ever claimed to die for the sins of others, and today he is not dead. He alone has brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel.

“And now,” writes Arnold Toynbee, “as we stand and gaze with our eyes fixed upon the farther shore, a single Figure fills the whole horizon. There is the Saviour. ‘The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand; he shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied.’ ” At the center of the New Testament, as at the center of the whole Bible, and of the entire Christian faith, is this fact of the crucified and risen, living and transforming Christ.

Now I close with a simple invitation to acceptance of this Saviour. After all, Christian preaching is proclaiming the Gospel for a personal decision. Believe me, Christ is still effective to meet the deepest needs of human life. But there is a condition. The dynamic of God operates through only one channel. In the words of our text, the Gospel is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” The only channel is belief, trust, personal commitment to Jesus Christ.

John G. Paton, pioneer missionary to the New Hebrides in the Pacific, was hard put to find a word for “believe,” in the sense of trust, in the language of the South Sea Islanders, for whom he was translating the New Testament. Finally he found the solution, by thus translating the answer of Paul and Silas to the question of the Philippian jailer, “What must I do to be saved?”: “Lean your whole weight upon the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.” That is all, but that is enough, and vastly more.—A college baccalaureate sermon.

… If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me (Luke 9:23).

The cost of being a Christian! That sounds strange! “Jesus paid it all; all to him I owe.” Herein lies the heart of all that we believe. But still it costs for a man to live as a Christian. Much as our Lord wishes everyone here to accept him as Saviour, he would have no person make such a decision without first counting the cost. Being a Christian—

I. Begins with an Act of Decision, a decision often hard to make. In the Greek the word translated “will” stands out strongly. It points to a decision that goes far to determine a man’s character here and his destiny. The “will” means the entire personality in action. Whenever the future pilgrim hears the voice of Jesus, it calls for the response, “I will!”

Sometimes we think of being a Christian in terms of knowing, or else feeling. Surely both factors enter largely into Christian experience. But knowledge and emotion should lead to the sort of action we call “will.” For the noblest example on the human level, think of a marriage ceremony. In the light of what she knows, in the joy of what she feels, the maiden whispers to the minister, “I will.” By faith lift all of this up to the highest level (Eph. 5:25) and see how much it costs to become a Christian.

II. A Spirit of Unselfishness. Deny yourself, not merely shreds and patches of things that money can secure. Why do we whittle down what the Lord requires? In “self-denial” we often give up pennies, and snatches of time. Here, as often elsewhere, our Lord wishes you to give up yourself, having your own way. “Not my will, but thine, be done.” Herein lies much of the difficulty, as well as the fascination, in being a Christian. For a series of examples, read Schweitzer’s Out of My Life and Thought.

III. A Habit of Sacrifice. In Africa David Livingstone used to declare that he never had made a sacrifice. He used the term only about his Lord. Another Scotsman, W. M. Clow, insists that many a church member confuses his cross with a burden, or a thorn in the flesh. A burden, perhaps a debt honestly incurred, you bear until you can pay it off. A thorn in the flesh you accept if no surgeon can remove it. But, on the human level, a cross means something hard, perhaps loathsome, apparently impossible, which you accept every morning, and then bear all the day, for Christ’s dear sake. Often the cross of the believer has to do with some cantankerous person in the home. Could that person, perchance, be you? Being such a Christian issues in—

IV. A Life of Service. This may seem anti-climactic, but so is most of life. Read the text. Christian warfare leads to a battle once in a while, but for many a God-like warrior life consists of a succession of pale gray days, and dull drab nights, with seldom a vision from the sky. This is why the devil most often gets a good man down.

In view of all these facts, my friend, are you a Christian? “Yes,” you reply, “but not much of a Christian.” If so, take this text as a sort of a guiding star. Follow the Lord, and let Him transform you into one who pays the full price and so becomes more and more like his Lord.

A Theology That Walks The Earth

Evangelical Theology: An Introduction, by Karl Barth, translated by Grover Foley (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963, 224 pp., $4), is reviewed by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

For his final lectures as professor of dogmatics at Basel, Karl Barth gave a special series of 17 addresses as an introduction to theology. (Subsequently he delivered the first five of these at Chicago and Princeton on his American tour, and he has contributed a special American foreword to the English translation of the whole work.)

In these lectures Barth has deliberately avoided giving yet another synopsis of the Church Dogmatics. Instead, he has gathered together in more compendious form his thinking concerning the nature, theme, and practice of theology itself. Students familiar with the Dogmatics will recognize many things that they have read before. Indeed, it is an astonishing fact that in this fundamental field Barth has changed little during the past 30 years. On the other hand, what has previously been scattered is here brought into a single volume and presented as the mature thinking of one who has devoted the last four decades, and more than half of his own life, to active dogmatic work.

On the 17 addresses, the first is an introductory “Commentary” in which Barth explains why he is undertaking to introduce evangelical theology. In the first main section he then discusses the place of theology, with successive lectures on the Word, the witnesses, the community, and the Spirit. He then moves on to a second section on theological existence, which he considers from the successive standpoints of wonder, concern, commitment, and faith. The third section deals with the threat to theology in the three forms of solitude, doubt, and temptation, with a final lecture on hope. The last section is devoted to theological work, which is discussed in terms of prayer, study, service, and love.

For the purposes of a critical assessment of Barth’s theology nothing very new is to be gleaned from these lectures. The main dogmatic elements are to be found in the first section. Here Barth insists again on the objectivity which will be sought by evangelical theology (i.e., as distinct from Roman Catholic and liberal) in relation to God as its theme. Theology is a true science not when it imitates the sciences which deal with creation, but when it is content to be good theological science, with a logic which derives from the Logos. This leads us at once to the familiar threefold structure of authority as Barth understands it. The primary authority is the Word itself, i.e., the divine self-revelation. This is the Word which God has spoken, speaks, and will speak in the history of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the history of Israel. The secondary authority is the immediate and normative witness to this Word in the Old and New Testaments, which are the work of prophets and apostles whom God specifically “ordained, appointed and elected” for this purpose. The subsidiary authority is the dependent testimony of the Church, and especially of its theology, in the canon, the creeds and confessions, and the fathers. In relation to all these fields strong emphasis is laid on the work of the Holy Spirit as the divine “spiration.” Theology in particular needs this moving of the Holy Spirit if it is truly to be the logic of the divine Logos attested in the written word. In face of constant attempts either to resist the Spirit or to control him, Barth believes that theology must always pray: Veni, Creator Spiritus.

The valuable points in this presentation are evident. In contrast to earlier trends in his work, he rejects the concept of the Wholly Other and insists on the high and necessary place of logic in theology. He also sets his face firmly against any form of subjectivism as an ultimate theological principle, while recognizing that theology must accept its distinction from other sciences by virtue of the distinctive nature of its “object,” i.e., God. The Christological concentration and the regard for the active nature of revelation are healthy in themselves, as is also the judicious attitude to indirect and relative authorities in the Church. No one can reasonably quarrel with the emphasis on the ministry of the Holy Spirit, especially in relation to theological endeavor, and Barth’s mention of the special divine appointment of the biblical witnesses will be noted with satisfaction.

Nevertheless, the place of Scripture remains the area of greatest difficulty. Barth does not touch on inerrancy or inspiration in this series, nor do we meet with his concept of saga except in an incidental reference to the creation stories. To this degree, the work is less controversial than earlier writings, though it also does nothing to meet earlier objections. In terms of the material before us, we may ask whether the concept of witnesses is really adequate in itself to describe all that the Scriptures are. Do they not have a far more direct role in the divine act of revelation? While their words are witness, are they not witness in forms other than that of mere testimony? Does not the divine work itself come in and through them even in their original setting? Furthermore, if we rightly stress the ministry of the Spirit, should we not plainly recognize that the Spirit who rested on Christ, and who now illumines Scripture and guides theology and preaching, was no less active in the biblical authors and in their specific work of composition? Is there really such rivalry between the incarnate and the written word, between the Spirit and the letter, that we can exalt Christ and the Holy Ghost only by relative depreciation of the Bible? To be sure, the primacy of Christ and the sovereignty of the Spirit are to be maintained. Even on Barth’s view, however, Scripture is a decisive link in the chain of divine self-revelation. God ordained that there should be this witness, and the Holy Spirit uses it as the absolute norm of faith and practice. Is it not essential, then, that there should be a strong statement here, not in opposition to Christ, or the Spirit, or even human proclamation, but in honor of Christ, in responsibility to the Spirit, and for the sake of pure proclamation?

When we turn to the wider themes of the attitudes, problems, and actions of the theologian, we enter a less debatable sphere in which one need not agree with all Barth’s dicta to catch the wise and reverent spirit of the whole. Here is a high understanding indeed of theology, the theologian, and the theological task. Humility, devotion, and wholehearted commitment are required. There must be a readiness to withstand isolation from without, doubt from within, and the possibility of divine withdrawal from above. None may dare to undertake this task, nor may he continue in it, unless he is prepared to engage unceasingly in prayer, not merely in the sense of an attitude, but in definite acts of Sabbath refreshment. The study demanded is not to be for pragmatic reasons such as earning degrees, nor can it be regarded as a purely temporary engagement. Theology is a ministry: it is service to God, for in theology, too, God is to be praised in the beauty of holiness; it is also service to fellow-Christians for upbuilding in knowledge and greater effectiveness in proclamation; and finally it is service to the world. Above all, theology also is a walk in the Spirit, so that the theologian must be a man of faith, hope, and love.

In face of a presentation and confession of this kind, it would be impertinent to praise and churlish to condemn. In objective evangelical theology, pursued in loyalty to the biblical testimony and to orthodox tradition, we shall come to many conclusions different from Barth’s. But it is to be wished that we may do so with the same high conception of our task, with the same spirit of reverence, humility, and prayer, and with the same ultimate desire that the Gospel may be prospered, that the brethren may be edified, and that God may be glorified.

GEOFFREY W. BROMILEY

For Whetter Appetites

Open Your Bible to the New Testament Letters, by Sherwood Eliot Wirt (Revell, 1962, 128 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by J. B. Phillips, translator of The New Testament in Modern English.

I have long held that while the scholar is well catered to in his study of the New Testament, the ordinary intelligent man is not. Unlike the expert, he is not only daunted by the apparent complexity of the material before him, but he does not usually know where to turn for help. Dr. Wirt’s book, Open Your Bible, can hardly fail to serve many as a lively and stimulating introduction to the New Testament Letters. The style is racy but never irreverent, and an excellent example of how to communicate the Gospel with infectious enthusiasm. It is almost entirely free from religious jargon.

Scholars may wince a bit at the brash certainty with which the author tells us when, where, and why each letter was written and at such sentences as, “When Christ circumcises you, he cuts off not your skin but your sin!” (p. 66). But, taken all in all, this is an exciting book and a true appetite-whetter for the Word of God.

J. B. PHILLIPS

How Shall They Hear?

The Outsider and the Word of God, by James E. Sellers (Abingdon, 1961, 240 pp., $4), is reviewed by David E. Kucharsky, News Editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Praise waits for him who dares investigate how the Gospel ought to be communicated, even if he winds up in a dilemma.

Why does a person respond to the Gospel? Is it the result of the working of the Holy Spirit, or of a persuasive presentation of the message? Or is it a combination of these and other factors?

The problem is so complex, and becomes increasingly more so with the introduction of new forms of communication, that any serious observations are welcome.

Reading for Perspective

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S REVIEW EDITORS CALL ATTENTION TO THESE NEW TITLES:

★ The Teaching Office in the Reformed Tradition, by Robert W. Henderson (Westminster, $6.50). A historical survey of what happened to “Calvin’s” ecclesiastical teaching office in Scottish and American Presbyterianism.

★ The Reformation: A Rediscovery of Grace, by William Childs Robinson (Eerdmans, $5). With an eye on ecumenical dreams of union with non-Reformed churches, the author uncovers the centralities of Reformation theology.

★ The Silent Past, by Ivar Lissner (Putnam’s, $6.95). A fascinating panorama of peoples and cultures that have vanished from the earth and left behind only tantalizing hints of their ways of life.

Sellers, with newspaper and religious publishing-house experience as well as a professional theological background, never does tell us precisely what the Christian ought to communicate. Perhaps that is the chief shortcoming of his work—a work which relies on Tillichisms to the point of boredom.

The book might have been more valuable had more comprehensive data been brought into play. Strangely enough, Billy Graham, easily the most effective communicator of the Christian message in the twentieth century, is rebuked for allegedly improper use of symbolism. The author stacks sketchy data to minimize the long-range effect of Graham’s ministry.

Yet, for all these defects, the book uncovers important obstacles to the communication of the Christian message—obstacles of which every believer ought to be aware. Sellers will have served a good purpose if his book does nothing more than excite further exploration into a field in which reliable guidelines have yet to be drawn.

DAVID E. KUCHARSKY

Conscience Shocker

The Long Shadow of Little Rock, a Memoir by Daisy Bates (David McKay, 1962, 234 pp., $4.75), is reviewed by T. B. Maston, Professor of Christian Ethics, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, Texas.

Little Rock a few years ago cast a shadow that reached to the ends of the earth. Daisy Bates, as president of the Arkansas branch of the NAACP, was a leading participant in the tragic occurrences of those days.

Although this book is primarily autobiographical, many will be particularly challenged by the courage, stability, and strength of character revealed by “the Little Rock Nine”—the nine Negro teen-agers whose enrollment at Central High School touched off the Little Rock episode. They, their parents, many other Negroes (including Mr. and Mrs. Bates), and some white people paid a terrific price for their part in the struggle for desegregation of the Little Rock schools.

This is a well-told story, although it might have been developed in such a way as to avoid some repetition and confusion. It is also possible that more credit should have been given to certain white people, ministers and others, who took a courageous stand and paid the price for it, but who at the same time maintained enough rapport with the white community to be an effective factor in the easing of the tension and in the final solution of the problem—if a final solution has been found. Some will regret, as does Eleanor Roosevelt in the Foreword, that the author reveals so much bitterness, although this is understandable in the light of her childhood experiences—her mother was raped and killed by three white men—and the tragic events of Little Rock. Many of us will agree with Mrs. Roosevelt that “the book should shock the conscience of America” (p. xv). It should be read by both white people and Negroes, both segregationists and desegregationists.

T. B. MASTON

Exciting

Christian Faith and the Contemporary Arts, edited by Finley Eversole, with a foreword by Robert Penn Warren (Abingdon, 1962, 255 pp., $5), is reviewed by James Daane, Editorial Associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Every present-day church sensitive to its times and its mission is exploring and experimenting with the baffling and exciting possibilities which the new art forms and media of communication present for breaking through to the spirit of modern man and confronting him with the claims of the Christian faith. And every large denomination is also somewhat troubled by attempts within its own walls to introduce jazz into its liturgy and an almost beatnik kind of drama in the hope of speaking the Christian message to its youth in terms it can understand.

This book deals with this very contemporary form of the old question concerning the compatibility of Christianity and culture. It is written by 28 artists, writers, movie critics, playwrights, cartoonists, and the like, who each contribute an original, short essay on some facet of the field. Articles discuss Christianity and the traditional art forms of literature, painting, sculpture, music, the dance, church architecture, as well as the uniquely contemporary art forms of the motion picture, television, and the cartoon and comic strip. The delightful analysis of the existential mythology of Charlie Brown and his one-block world, in an essay entitled “Demythologizing Peanuts,” is worth the price of the book. Contributors include Amos N. Wilder, James T. Miller, Stanley Romaine Hopper, Tom F. Driver, and Jim Crane.

The book is written not for experts but for anyone interested in modern culture and in the ways that modern communication media can be used to grip the spirit of today’s man and gain a hearing for the Christian message. For such people it is an exciting book. Theologians—who perhaps most need the book—will discover the old problem emerging in contemporary form because of the manner in which some writers conceive of Christianity as Revelation and of culture as revelation. Sixteen illustrations offer evidence that art can “chill us with irony and wash us with beauty and preserve us in a selfhood that many things in our culture conspire to destroy.”

JAMES DAANE

Five Ways To Show

Ways of Thinking About God, by Edward Sillem (Sheed & Ward, 1962, 190 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Henry Hamann, former President and Professor of Theology, Lutheran Seminar, Adelaide, Australia.

This book may be described as a work in Christian apologetics inasmuch as it deals with the demonstration, by arguments drawn from reason, of the existence of God in the theistic sense, as well as with the need of divine revelation; more specifically, it discusses the teachings of Thomas Aquinas on these subjects. The author is at pains to defend Thomas against those Thomist philosophers whose views on the great Schoolman’s teaching rest upon too narrow or exclusive an interpretation of the famous “Five Ways”—the five ways of proving God’s existence—in the Summa Theologiae. He speaks of “the enigma of the Five Ways” because of the context in which they occur, their Aristotelian origin and form, their extreme brevity, and their comparative inconclusiveness. St. Thomas, he insists, while convinced that God’s existence can be established by human reason, was not “philosophizing as a philosopher but theologizing as a theologian,” so that the Five Ways represent merely a preparatory stage in his argument, designed to show what pagan philosophy, unaided by divine revelation, could conclude about God. Dr. Sillem seems to have proved his contention; but then Thomas is partly responsible for being misunderstood because of his conception of theology as a “subalternate science” and his invention of a “new metaphysics” through which reason, enlightened by faith, engages in speculative thinking about God’s Being.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the book is the last and longest chapter, in which the author summons his hero, as a sort of Thomas Redivivus, into a conference with Kant and more recent philosophers to expound his Five Ways, in order to show where they should be extended or amended for the purpose of meeting modern conditions and to cross swords with those modern writers who attempt to nullify the theistic arguments by raising logical difficulties about “necessity” and “causality.” The writer does not touch the question whether some efforts to establish a “reasoned theism” have biblical sanction (Rom. 1:19 ff., 2:14, 15); and his emphasis upon metaphysical thinking, however necessary for Aquinas as well as for contemporary formal treatises, fails to take into account the intellectual limitations of the ordinary mortal. Traces of Roman Catholic teaching naturally appear in this work by Father Sillem, and there seems to be a leaning toward some mild form of theistic evolution (p. 182); but atheistic pleas based upon the presence of natural and moral evil in the world are well countered. Students of Thomas Aquinas will welcome this volume, and all minds occupied with the natural knowledge of God will find much food for thought. Unfortunately the plan and arrangement of the book have caused some duplication and repetition. A few printer’s errors will be easily recognized.

HENRY HAMANN

First Of Ten

The Encyclopedia of Christianity, Volume I, Edwin H. Palmer, General Editor (Encyclopedia of Christianity, Inc., Princeton, N.J., 1962, 661 pp., $13.50), is reviewed by William Childs Robinson, Professor of Ecclesiastical History, Church Polity, and Apologetics, Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Ga.

As its name indicates, this work deals with the biblical, historical, religious, and ethical concerns of Christianity as seen from the standpoint of conservative scholarship. This first volume of a projected series of ten takes us through the A’s and into the B’s. William L. Lane contributes an exhaustive article, running more than a hundred columns, on apocrypha. For J. G. Vos, the Bible is the written Word of God. Gregg Singer finds in Bernard of Clairvaux that faith is “a voluntary and certain foretaste of truth not yet unveiled.” E. J. Young interprets the biblical account of Abraham as straightforward history. Treating of Abelard, Gordon Clark finds that the universals precede the particulars in the mind of God, exist in the particulars in things, and follow them in our minds. The main line of development in the doctrine and beliefs of the Baptists is Calvinistic.

Of course, in such a voluminous undertaking there are details which arouse questions in the mind of a reviewer. The description of Arndt and Gingerich’s lexicon as a translation of the German one by W. Bauer seems to need further qualification. In the treatment of Abba, one misses the implications brought out by Jeremias that this term is drawn from a little child’s familiar address to his father. Cornelius Van Til uses 27 columns to continue his antithetical interpretation of Karl Barth.

On the other hand, we appreciate A. Freundt’s fine review of the life and work of Francis Beattie of Columbia and Louisville Seminaries. Again, Richard Baxter’s piety and character outstripped his theology. For him, “That man who has anything in the world so dear to him that he cannot spare it for Christ, if He call for it, is no true Christian.”

WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON

Fascinating History

The Reformation in England, Volume I, by J. FI. Merle d’Aubigné (Banner of Truth Trust, 1962, 476 pp., 15s.), is reviewed by Philip H. Buss, lay tutor at the London College of Divinity, England.

Originally published in 1853 and a best-seller, this first of two volumes covers the history of the Christian faith in the British Isles up to the death of Cardinal Wolsey in 1530, and the emergence of the Roman See as the chief scourge of pure British Gospel Christianity. The highlights are the word-pictures of Wycliffe and Tyndale, the exciting story of the spread of the newly-translated Scriptures in England, and the agonizingly suspenseful narrative of Henry VIII awaiting permission to divorce Catherine of Aragon. The whole reads swiftly and arrestingly and displays an intense interest in people and life.

The book comes from a time in which the Roman-Protestant controversy was waged more heatedly than today, when there is more than one knock on Vatican doors. The publishers would probably recommend this to be read alongside reports from the present Vatican Council, hoping that we will hand on our dearly bought evangelical heritage unimpaired. It stands as a rebuke to all who bleed Church history of its fascination and relevance.

PHILIP H. BUSS

Book Briefs

The Layman’s Bible Commentary, edited by Balmer H Kelly, Donald G. Miller, and Arnold B. Rhodes. Volume 8: Ezra–Job, by Balmer H. Kelly; Volume 15: Micah–Malachi, by James H. Gailey, Jr.; Volume 17: Mark, by Paul S. Minear; Volume 24: Hebrews–II Peter, by John Wick Bowman (John Knox; 1962; 152, 144, 136, 176 pp.; $2 each, four or more $1.75 each). Four more volumes in the Southern Presbyterian Church’s commentary. Readable, helpful, lucid, and sometimes questionable.

In the Midst, by G. Don Gilmore (Eerdmans, 1962, 100 pp., $2.50). A call for renewal of the Church, not by gimmicks and pot-luck suppers, but through recovery in depth of the power of Christ so that the Church may again “turn the world upside down.”

The Conscience of a King, by Margaret Stanley-Wrench (Hawthorn, 1962, 186 pp., $2.95). The life story of the great Sir Thomas More, man of God and conscience of King Henry VIII, who said no to the king’s divorce and thereby pronounced his own death sentence. Actual dialogue of More and his contemporaries used where possible.

Decisive Battles of the Bible, by Edward Longstreth (Lippincott, 1962, 191 pp., $4.50). An unusual book recording the military history of Israel.

The Young Minister, by John B. Wilder (Zondervan, 1962, 120 pp., $1.95). Practical advice on many practical matters for young ministers.

Is Religion Enough?, by George F. Tittmann (Seabury, 1962, 177 pp., $4). In language clean and crisp and with a style that jogs the reader, the author seeks to contrast the true meaning of the Gospel with mere popular pseudo-religiousness.

A Protestant Believes, by Ralph Beryl Nesbitt (distributed by The American Tract Society, Oradell, N. J., 1962, 126 pp., $1). A portrait of evangelical Protestant faith as it covers doctrine and the history of the Church. Written for laymen. Lucid exposition.

The Orthodox Church, by John Meyendorff (Pantheon, 1962, 244 pp., $2.50). Orthodox theologians relate the past story of the Orthodox Church and the role of this church of 100,000,000 in the differences existing between East and West. Highly informative.

Paperbacks

The Reformation of the 16th Century, by Charles Beard (University of Michigan Press, 1962, 478 pp., $2.95; also cloth-bound, $4.40). The Hibbert Lectures for 1883, by a nineteenth-century English Unitarian who, in accord with his own sympathies, stressed the humanistic rather than the more definitely theological aspects of the Reformers’ work.

The Reformation and Its Significance Today, by Joseph C. McLelland (Westminster, 1962, 238 pp., $2.25). This thought-provoking work sets forth the thesis that the Church is always in need of reform because of its nature as a living organism following in the steps of a living Lord.

John: A Brief Commentary, by Everett F. Harrison (Moody, 1962, 128 pp., $.39). Laying illustration and application aside, Harrison sets forth the basic thought of the fourth Gospel with clarity and brevity.

Karl Marx: The Story of His Life, by Franz Mehring (University of Michigan Press, 1962, 608 pp., $2.95). Long regarded as one of the best sympathetic treatments of the life of Marx. First printed in 1918.

A Little Exercise for Young Theologians, by Helmut Thielicke (Eerdmans, 1962, 41 pp., $.95). Thielicke warns of the dangers of theological study to those (seminarians, for example) still in their theological puberty.

The Nature and Purpose of the Gospels, by R. V. G. Tasker (John Knox, 1962, 112 pp., $1.50). Seventh edition of the work of an evangelical able to communicate scholarship to those who claim to be merely students.

How To Publicize Church Activities, by William J. Barrows, Jr. (Revell, 1962, 62 pp., $1). How to make the most of newsletters, bulletins, newspapers, radio, and television for church publicity.

AN EXTRAORDINARY WIDOW’S MITE—What does a thriving debt-free church do with a windfall of $342,625? A 74-year-old widow left the sum to Bethel Baptist Church of Toronto with the proviso that half be spent on the local church and half be given to missions. The congregation will decide what to do with the money at its annual meeting this month. Meanwhile, the Rev. Roy Cook is worried: “I don’t want the money to be a bane on the church. People sometimes think because a church is endowed there’s no reason to give.” “Christian living,” he adds, “shrinks along with their giving.”

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION—U. S. churchgoers are so busy with their leisure that Vacation Bible Schools find it ever more difficult to recruit workers for the full two-week stint. Because of this Gospel Light Publications is begrudgingly adding to its 1963 line a five-day curriculum, which it says is the first ever ofered. “Frankly,” said an official, “we are heavily in favor of the ten-day school, but unmistakable trends show that our new five-day course will help many churches with their problems.”

Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (United Presbyterian) and University of Pittsburgh are expanding their cooperative education programs, raising new speculation of a possible merger. Seminary officials, however, deny a merger move, although they foresee further expansion of specialized cooperative ministries.

Assemblies of God plan total separation of their two schools in Springfield, Missouri, Central Bible Institute and Evangel College. The Rev. J. Robert Ashcroft, now a joint president, will retain his office with Evangel, which is seeking regional accreditation, and a new president will be selected for Central.

California Baptist Theological Seminary, American Baptist school at Covina, won accreditation last month from the American Association of Theological Schools.

John Brown University, interdenominational school in Siloam Springs, Arkansas, is embarking on a ten-year development program costing $3,510,000.

PROTESTANT PANORAMA—A demand that the independent Valley Presbyterian Church of North Hollywood, California, cease using the term “Presbyterian” in its advertising was lodged by Los Angeles Presbytery of United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.

Mass evangelistic assault on Wellington, New Zealand, this month is the first of several planned for 1963 by Churches of Christ, spearheaded by Central Avenue Church of Christ in Valdosta, Georgia. Thirty-five Americans and two tons of literature were imported for the month-long effort.

World Mission Board of American Lutheran Church ordered a program cutback, blames 1962 convention for not providing sufficient appropriations. Forty-five volunteers are ready, the board says, but it now appears that no new missionaries can be sent in 1963.

Baylor University President Abner V. McCall ordered cancellation of “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” because of the play’s profane language. McCall cited numerous complaints in his directive to the drama department at Baylor, largest Southern Baptist school. Cancellation order won unanimous endorsement from Texas Baptist Executive Board.

PERSONALIA—The Rev. John M. Burgess, first Negro Episcopal bishop to have jurisdiction over white congregations, consecrated last month as suffragan bishop of the Diocese of Massachusetts.

Bishop O. T. Jones elected senior bishop of the Church of God in Christ at the Negro group’s national convocation in Memphis.

The Rev. John C. Harper, rector of St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church, Bedford, New York, appointed rector of St. John’s Episcopal Church, world-famous “Church of the Presidents” on Lafayette Square in Washington.

Veteran Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., says he will retire as minister of the 11,000-member Abyssinian Baptist Church, Harlem, next December 1.

Dr. Homer L. Payne appointed director of Belgian Gospel Mission.

Bishop Otto Dibelius will continue for the time being as head of the Evangelical Church of Berlin and Brandenburg, which in separate synods in East and West Berlin has not been able to agree on a successor.

Dr. Hudson T. Armerding appointed provost at Wheaton College.

The Rev. Joseph Wenninger appointed president of Simpson Bible College.

MISCELLANY—Two freshman coeds perished in a dormitory fire at Central (South Carolina) Wesleyan College.

Two children were injured by a bomb thrown in front of a Negro church used for pro-integration meetings in Birmingham, Alabama.

In a survey of 845 members of the Luther League of America, 87 per cent confessed that they had cheated in high school examinations. The survey was compiled by the Rev. Ralph R. Helierich, editor of Time Out, official organ of the league, which is a youth auxiliary of the Lutheran Church in America.

Evangelist Billy Graham addressed thousands at a noon rally in the Pentagon concourse last month. Films of the meeting, which also featured the U. S. Army Chorus, will be made available for showings at American military bases throughout the world.

A spokesman for the Yugoslav Embassy in Washington says there is no prospect for reopening religious bookstores in Belgrade. The shops, including one operated by the British and Foreign Bible Society, were shut down under a law which prohibits distribution of foreign publications except by Yugoslav firms registered with the government.

A spokesman for Church World Service, which is conducting a campaign for blankets for homeless Algerians, says there are still some 600,000 persons without them. About 40,000 had been distributed by December 10 as the winter began to set in.

WORTH QUOTING—“Fearful and unprepared we have assumed lordship over the life and death of the whole world of all living things. The danger and the glory and the choice rest finally in man. The test of his perfection is at hand. Having taken God-like powers, we must seek in ourselves for the responsibility and the wisdom we once prayed some deity might have.”—Novelist John Steinbeck, in accepting the 1962 Nobel Prize for literature.

“Despite all the reservations which we have in regard to the Roman Catholic Church, the improvement of relations between this church and ourselves, as expressed in the invitation and sending of observers to the Second Vatican Council, should fill us all with joy and thankfulness. Let us hope that the matter will not rest with this beginning, but that one day a genuine doctrinal discussion may become possible between the two churches concerning the commission laid upon us both to witness to the truth in Christ.”—Dr. Kurt Schmidt-Clausen, executive secretary of the Lutheran World Federation.

Deaths

DR. ROY A. BURKHART, 67, nationally known author, pastor emeritus of First Community Church of Columbus, Ohio, and organizer and first president of World Neighbors; in Columbus.

DR. ASA J. FERRY, 82, well known Presbyterian minister who had served churches in Philadelphia, Chicago, and Wichita, Kansas; in Asheville, North Carolina.

JACK SHULER, 44, evangelist; in Van Nuys, California. He was a son of Dr. Bob Shuler, retired Methodist minister who for many years served Trinity Methodist Church, Los Angeles. Evangelical Press Service said the young Shuler’s death was attributed to bronchiectasis.

REV. H. J. KUIPER, 76, for more than 25 years editor of The Banner, official organ of the Christian Reformed Church; in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

The percentage of the American population that belongs to churches and synagogues has declined for the first time in almost a century, according to statistics in the 1963 Yearbook of American Churches published by the National Council of Churches.

The decline, only two-tenths of one per cent, came as no surprise, however, inasmuch as the post-war church membership boom has been leveling off in recent years.

Total church and synagogue membership for 1961 was reported as 116,109,929, or 63.4 per cent of the total population, as compared to the 1960 percentage of 63.6.

Two of the top ten U. S. Protestant denominations showed net losses for 1961. United Presbyterians reported 3,242,479 members compared with 3,259,011 the previous year, and the Protestant Episcopal Church was down from 3,444,265 to 3,269,325.

Records of church membership since 1850 show that a percentage decrease occurred only once before, in 1870, when the drop (in a 10-year period) was from 23 to 18 per cent.

Another factor which indicates a leveling off is that for the first time since World War II percentage gains in membership have fallen below the estimated population increase. The 1961 membership increase of 1,660,712 amounted to a 1.4 per cent rise as compared to an estimated population gain of 1.6 per cent.

Although both Protestants and Roman Catholics reported an increase in membership, their percentages of the total population showed a decline. Both were reduced by two-tenths of one per cent.

Of the 258 religious bodies supplying membership figures, 228 were Protestant with a total membership of 64,434,966. This was a gain of 766,131 or 1.2 per cent over 1960.

Protestant churches also reported a loss of 3.1 per cent of the total Sunday school enrollment.

Compilers of the yearbook (members of the NCC’s Bureau of Research and Survey) stress that church statistics must be examined with the foreknowledge that not all churches reporting employ the same recording system. Some include infants and all family members while others record only those received into membership by baptism. The new yearbook carries statistics furnished by 258 religious bodies of all faiths, one less than reported in 1960 and three more than in 1959.

NEWS / A fornightly report of developments in religion

PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONAL TOTALS

Catholic membership was given as 42,876,665, an increase of 771,765 or 1.9 per cent over last year’s total.

Membership in Jewish congregations showed a decline for the second time in two years. The 1961 total was 5,365,000 compared with 5,367,000 in 1960, and 5,500,000 in 1959.

Eastern Orthodox Churches reported 2,800,401 members, an increase of 101,738. The Old Catholic Church, Polish National Catholic Church, and the Armenian Church of North America had a combined membership of 572,897, almost 17,000 less than in 1960.

The 31 member communions of the National Council of Churches reported a total membership of 40,318,430, a slight increase over last year’s figure of 40,185,813.

The yearbook listed the total number of ordained persons in 236 reporting bodies as 381,252. The total number of pastors having charges was given as 247,009.

The total number of local churches reported was 319,670, compared with 318,697 for the previous year.

Some 228 religious bodies reported 286,661 Sunday or Sabbath schools in 1961, with 3,715,221 teachers and officers and a total enrollment of 44,434,291.

Meanwhile, figures contained in the newly-released 1962 World Mission Map of the Catholic Students’ Mission Crusade show that Catholics throughout the world total some 558,221,000; about 18.2 per cent of the global population.

The total is a numerical increase of nearly eight million over the previous year, but represents a percentage decline of about one-tenth of one per cent.

The students’ map statistics are widely recognized as the most authoritative source of Roman Catholic population figures.

Already somewhat lean statistics covering large areas of Christendom are beginning to prompt concern. At a meeting of denominational leaders in Nashville last month Executive Secretary James L. Sullivan of the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board posed the question:

“We have been emphasizing the functions and planning projects, but where are the people?”

Preliminary statistical reports indicated that Southern Baptists, leaders in Sunday school enrollment totals in the United States, increased only 54,000 in membership during the 1961–62 associational year. This apparently was the lowest numerical increase since the mid-1940s.

Preliminary data was said to indicate that Southern Baptist Training Union enrollment increased during 1961–62, but that it too failed to make an annual increase similar to previous years.

Methodists outnumber members of any other religious affiliation in the 88th Congress, which convenes January 9. A total of 102 lawmakers—78 in the House and 24 in the Senate—list themselves as Methodists.

Roman Catholics, who were the most numerous in the 87th Congress, are second this year with 88 in the House and 11 in the Senate for a total of 99.

Here is the current makeup of Congress according to religious affiliation (Senators are italicized):

Methodist

Abele (R.-Ohio)

Abernethy (D.-Miss.)

Adair (R.-Ind.)

Albert (D.-Okla.)

Arends (R.-Ill.)

Aspinall (D.-Colo.)

Avery (R.-Kan.)

Ayres (R.-Ohio)

Bass (D.-Tenn.)

Bayh (D.-Ind.)

Belcher (R.-Okla.)

Bible (D.-Nev.)

Boggs(R.-Del.)

Brademas (D.-Ind.)

Brooks (D.-Tex.)

Broomfield (R.-Mich.)

Brotzman (R.-Colo.)

Brown (R.-Ohio)

Burkhalter (D.-Calif.)

Cameron (D.-Calif.)

Collier (R.-Ill.)

Colmer (D.-Miss.)

Corman (D.-Calif.)

Cramer (R.-Fla.)

Denton (D.-Ind.)

Devine (R.-Ohio)

Dole (R.-Kan.)

Dowdy (D.-Tex.)

Eastland (D.-Miss.)

Elliott (D.-Ala.)

Engle (D.-Calif.)

Flynt (D.-Ga.)

Foreman (R.-Tex.)

Fulton (D.-Tenn.)

Grant (D.-Ala.)

Haley (D.-Fla.)

Halleck (R.-Ind.)

Hardy (D.-Va.)

Hawkins (D.-Calif.)

Herlong (D.-Fla.)

Hickenlooper (R.-Iowa)

Hill (D.-Ala.)

Holland (D.-Fla.)

Inouye (D.-Hawaii)

Jennings (D.-Va.)

Jonas (R.-N.C.)

Jones (D.-Ala.)

Jordan, B. E. (D.-N.C.)

Jordan, L. B. (R.-Idaho)

Kilburn (R.-N.Y.)

Kilgore (D.-Tex.)

Kornegay (D.-N.C.)

Long (D.-La.)

Mahon (D.-Tex.)

McGovern (D.-S.D.)

McLoskey (R.-Il)

Meader (R.-Mic.)

Mechem (R.-N.M.)

Metcalf (D.-Mont.)

Mills (D.-Ark.)

Moore (R.-W. Va.)

Morgan (D.-i a.)

Mundt (R.-S.D.)

Murray (D.-Tenn.)

Nelson (D.-Wisc.)

Olsen (D.-Mont.)

Pilcher (D.-Ga.)

Pool (D.-Tex.)

Quillen (R.-Tenn.)

Randall (D.-Mo.)

Rhodes (R.-Ariz.)

Rich (R.-Ohio)

Roberts (D.-Tex.)

Robison (R.-N.Y.)

Rogers (D.-Fla.)

Russell (D.-Ga.)

Schenck (R.-Ohio)

Shriver (R.-Kan.)

Sheppard (D.-Calif.)

Sikes (D.-Fla.)

Skubitz (R.-Kan.)

Smathers (D.-Fla.)

Mrs. Smith (R.-Maine)

Smith, H. A. (R.-Calif.)

Smith, N. (D.-Iowa)

Sparkman (D.-Ala.)

Staggers (D.-W. Va.)

Steed (D.-Okla.)

Stubblefield (D.-Ky.)

Talcott (R.-Calif.)

Thomas (D.-Tex.)

Thornberry (D.-Tex.)

Tower (R.-Tex.)

Trimble (D.-Ark.)

Tupper (R.-Maine)

Vinson (D.-Ga.)

Waggonner (D.-La.)

Wallhauser (R.-N.J.)

Wharton (R.-N.Y.)

Whitener (D.-N.C.)

Williams (R.-Del.)

Young (D.-Ohio)

Roman Catholic

Addabbo (D.-N.Y.)

Barrett (D.-Pa.)

Bates (R.-Mass.)

Becker (R.-N.Y.)

Bennett (R.-Mich.)

Blatnik (D.-Minn.)

Boggs (D.-La.)

Boland (D.-Mass.)

Buckley (D.-N.Y.)

Burke (D.-Mass.)

Byrne (D.-Pa.)

Byrnes (R.-Wis.)

Cahill (R.-N.J.)

Carey (D.-N.Y.)

Clancy (R.-Ohio)

Conte (R.-Mass.)

Daddario (D.-Conn.)

Daniels (D.-N.J.)

Delaney (D.-N.Y.)

Dent (D.-Pa.)

Derwinski (R.-Ill.)

Dingell (D.-Mich.)

Dodd (D.-Conn.)

Donohue (D.-Mass.)

Dulski (D.-N.Y.)

Fallon (D.-Md.)

Feighan (D.-Ohio)

Finnegan (D.-Ill.)

Fino (R.-N.Y.)

Flood (D.-Pa.)

Fogarty (D.-R.I.)

Gallagher (D.-N.J.)

Giaimo (D.-Conn.)

Gonzalez (D.-Tex.)

Grabowski (D.-Conn.)

Green (D.-Pa.)

Grover (R.-N.Y.)

Hart (D.-Mich.)

Healey (D.-N.Y.)

Hebert (D.-La.)

Hoffman (R.-Ill.)

Holland (D.-Pa.)

Mrs. Kelly (D.-N.Y.)

Kennedy (D.-Mass.)

Keogh (D.-N.Y.)

King (R.-N.Y.)

Kirwan (D.-Ohio)

Kluczynski (D.-Ill.)

Lausche (D.-Ohio)

Leggett (D.-Calif.)

Lesinski (D.-Mich.)

Libonati (D.-Ill.)

Macdonald (D.-Mass.)

Madden (D.-Ind.)

Mansfield (D.-Mont.)

McCarthy (D.-Minn.)

McCormack (D.-Mass.)

McDade (R.-Pa.)

McIntyre (D.-N.H.)

McNamara (D.-Mich.)

Miller (R.-Iowa)

Miller, G. P. (D.-Calif.)

Miller, W. E. (R.-N.Y.)

Minish (D.-N.J.)

Monagan (D.-Conn.)

Montoya (D.-N.M.)

Murphy, J. M. (D.-N.Y.)

Murphy, W. T. (D.-Ill.)

Muskie (D.-Maine)

Nedzi (D.-Mich.)

O’Brien, L. W. (D.-N.Y.)

O’Brien, T. J. (D.-Ill.)

O’Hara, B. (D.-Ill.)

O’Hara, J.G. (D.-Mich.)

O’Konski (R.-Wis.)

Onge (D.-Conn.)

O’Neill (D.-Mass.)

Pastore (D.-R.I.)

Patten (D.-N.J.)

Philbin (D.-Mass.)

Price (D.-Ill.)

Pucinski (D.-Ill.)

Rodino (D.-N.J.)

Rooney (D.-N.Y.)

Rostenkowski (D.-Ill.)

Roybal (D.-Calif.)

Ryan, H. M. (D.-Mich.)

Ryan, W. F. (D.-N.Y.)

Shelley (D.-Calif.)

Sickles (D.-Md.)

St. Germain (D.-R.I.)

Mrs. Sullivan (D.-Mo.)

Thompson, F. (D.-N.J.)

Thompson, T.A. (D.-La.)

Vanik (D.-Ohio)

White (D.-Idaho)

Willis (D.-La.)

Young (D.-Tex.)

Zablocki (D.-Wis.)

Presbyterian

Anderson (D.-N.M.)

Auchincloss (R.-N.J.)

Baker (R.-Tenn.)

Baldwin (R.-Calif.)

Barry (R.-N.Y.)

Bell (R.-Calif.)

Bolton (R.-Ohio)

Bow (R.-Ohio)

Brock (R.-Tenn.)

Bromwell (R.-Iowa)

Case (R.-N.J.)

Chelf (D.-Ky.)

Church (D.-Idaho)

Clark (D.-Pa.)

Corbett (R.-Pa.)

Curtis (R.-Neb.)

Dague (R.-Pa.)

Davis (D.-Ga.)

Derounian (R.-N.Y.)

Edmondson (D.-Okla.)

Ellender (D.-La.)

Ervin (D.-N.C.)

Fountain (D.-N.C.)

Fulton (R.-Pa.)

Fuqua (D.-Fla.)

Gibbons (D.-Fla.)

Glenn (R.-N.J.)

Gross (R.-Iowa)

Gubser (R.-Calif.)

Harsha (R.-Ohio)

Harvey (R.-Mich.)

Hays (D.-Ohio)

Hemphill (D.-S.C.)

Henderson (D.-N.C.)

Hoeven (R.-Iowa)

Horan (R.-Wash.)

Horton (R.-N.Y.)

Jackson (D.-Wash.)

Jarman (D.-Okla.)

Johnson (D.-Calif.)

Karth (D.-Minn.)

Keating (R.-N.Y.)

Knox (R.-Mich.)

Kyl (R.-Iowa)

Laird (R.-Wis.)

Lindsay (R.-N.Y.)

Long (D.-Md.)

MacGregor (R.-Minn.)

Marsh (D.-Va.)

Martin (R.-Neb.)

Matthews (D.-Fla.)

McCulloch (R.-Ohio)

McDowell (D.-Del.)

McGee (R.-Wyo.)

Milliken (R.-Pa.)

Morris (D.-N.M.)

Norblad (R.-Ore.)

Pearson (R.-Kan.)

Pillion (R.-N.Y.)

Poff (R.-Va.)

Purcell (D.-Tex.)

Reid, O. (R.-N.Y.)

Mrs. Reid, C. (R.-Ill.)

Rumsfeld (R.-Ill.)

Scott (D.-N.C.)

Secrest (D.-Ohio)

Slack (D.-W.Va.)

Springer (R.-Ill.)

Stennis (D.-Miss.)

Stephens (D.-Ga.)

Stinson (R.-Wash.)

Stratton (D.-N.Y.)

Thomson (R.-Wis.)

Ullman (D.-Ore.)

Utt (R.-Calif.)

Weaver (R.-Pa.)

Weltner (D.-Ga.)

Westland (R.-Wash.)

Whalley (R.-Pa.)

Whitten (D.-Miss.)

Wright (D.-Tex.)

Baptist

Abbitt (D.-Va.)

Andrews (D.-Ala.)

Ashbrook (R.-Ohio)

Ashmore (D.-S.C.)

Beckworth (D.-Tex.)

Broyhill (R.-N.C.)

Byrd (D.-W. Va.)

Cannon (D.-Mo.)

Carlson (R.-Kan.)

Chenoweth (R.-Colo.)

Cooley (D.-N.C.)

Cooper (R.-Ky.)

Davis (D.-Tenn.)

Diggs (D.-Mich.)

Dorn (D.-S.C.)

Forrester (D.-Ga.)

Gary (D.-Va.)

Gathings (D.-Ark.)

Gore (D.-Tenn.)

Gray (D.-Ill.)

Hagan (D.-Ga.)

Hall (R.-Mo.)

Harris (D.-Ark.)

Ichord (D.-Mo.)

Johnston (D.-S.C.)

Kefauver (D.-Tenn.)

Kerr (D.-Okla.)

Landrum (D.-Ga.)

Lennon (D.-N.C.)

Lipscomb (R.-Calif.)

Long (D.-La.)

Long (D.-Mo.)

McClellan (D.-Ark.)

McIntire (R.-Maine)

McMillan (D.-S.C.)

Natcher (D.-Ky.)

Nix (D.-Pa.)

Passman (D.-La.)

Patman (D.-Tex.)

Pepper (D.-Fla.)

Perkins (D.-Ky.)

Powell (D.-N.Y.)

Rains (D.-Ala.)

Randolph (D.-W. Va.)

Riehlman (R.-N.Y.)

Roberts (D.-Ala.)

Robertson (D.-Va.)

Rogers (D.-Colo.)

Schwengel (R.-Iowa)

Shipley (D.-Ill.)

Siler (R.-Ky.)

Talmadge (D.-Ga.)

Taylor (D.-N.C.)

Teague, C. M. (R.-Calif.)

Teague, O. E. (D.-Tex.)

Thurmond (D.-S.C.)

Tuck (D.-Va.)

Tuten (D.-Ga.)

Williams (D.-Miss.)

Wilson, B. (R.-Calif.)

Wilson, C. (D.-Calif.)

Wilson, E. (R.-Ind.)

Winstead (D.-Miss.)

Yarborough (D.-Tex.)

Episcopal

Allott (R.-Colo.)

Ashley (D.-Ohio)

Beall (R.-Md.)

Betts (R.-Ohio)

Bolling (D.-Mo.)

Bolton (R.-Ohio)

Bonner (D.-N.C.)

Brewster (D.-Md.)

Brown (D.-Calif.)

Byrd (D.-Va.)

Cohelan (D.-Calif.)

Cunningham (R.-Nebr.)

Curtin (R.-Pa.)

Deerlin (D.-Calif.)

Dominick (R.-Colo.)

Downing (D.-Va.)

Ellsworth (R.-Kan.)

Frelinghuysen (R.-N.J.)

Ford (R.-Mich.)

Gavin (R.-Pa.)

Goldwater (R.-Ariz.)

Goodell (R.-N.Y.)

Hayden (D.-Ariz.)

Karsten (D.-Mo.)

Mrs. Kee (D.-W. Va.)

Hanna (D.-Calif.)

Hechler (D.-W. Va.)

Hosmer (R.-Calif.)

Huddleston (D.-Ala.)

King (D.-Calif.)

Kuchel (R.-Calif.)

Kunkel (R.-Pa.)

Lankford (D.-Md.)

Mailliard (R.-Calif.)

Mathias (R.-Md.)

Matsunaga (D.-Hawaii)

Mrs. May (R.-Wash.)

McFall (D.-Calif.)

Monroney (D.-Okla.)

Moorhead (D.-Pa.)

Morrison (D.-La.)

Morton (R.-Ky.)

Morton (R.-Md.)

Pell (D.-R.I.)

Pelly (R.-Wash.)

Proxmire (D.-Wis.)

Reifel (R.-S.D.)

Reuss (D.-Wis.)

Rivers, L. M. (D.-S.C.)

Rivers, R.J. (D.-Alaska)

Rogers (D.-Tex.)

Roosevelt (D.-Calif.)

Schneebeli (R.-Pa.)

Scott (R.-Pa.)

Selden (D.-Ala.)

Short (R.-N.D.)

Simpson (R.-Wyo.)

Smith (D.-Va.)

Mrs. St. George (R.-N.Y.)

Symington (D.-Mo.)

Thompson, (D.-Tex.)

Widnall (R.-N.J.)

Watson (D.-S.C.)

Wydler (R.-N.Y.)

Congregational Christian

Battin (R.-Mont.)

Berry (R.-S.D.)

Burdick (D.-N.D.)

Cotton (R.-N.H.)

Doyle (D.-Calif.)

Findley (R.-Ill.)

Fong (R.-Hawaii)

Fraser (D.-Minn.)

Griffin (R.-Mich.)

Gurney (R.-Fla.)

Humphrey (D.-Minn.)

Johansen (R.-Mich.)

Keith (R.-Mass.)

Morse (D.-Ore.)

Morse (R.-Mass.)

Mosher (R.-Ohio)

Osmers (R.-N.J.)

Pike (D.-N.Y.)

Prouty (R.-Vt.)

Schadeberg (R.-Wis.)

Sibal (R.-Conn.)

Stafford (R.-Vt.)

Wyman (R.-N.H.)

Younger (R.-Calif.)

‘Protestant’

Aiken (R.-Vt.)

Baring (D.-Nev.)

Bartlett (D.-Alaska)

Casey (D.-Tex.)

Chamberlain (R.-Mich.)

Cleveland (R.-N.H.)

Duncan (D.-Ore.)

Mrs. Dwyer (R.-N.J.)

Fascell (D.-Fla.)

Gill (D.-Hawaii)

Mrs. Griffiths (D.-Mich.)

Hagen (D.-Calif.)

McClory (R.-Ill.)

Minshall (R.-Ohio)

Moss (D.-Calif.)

Ostertag (R.-N.Y.)

Pirnie (R.-N.Y.)

Snyder (R.-Ky.)

Taft (R.-Ohio)

Van Pelt (R.-Wis.)

Lutheran

Beermann (R.-Nebr.)

Broyhill (R.-Va.)

Bruce (R.-Ind.)

Hartke (D.-Ind.)

Jensen (R.-Iowa)

Johnson (D.-Wis.)

Langen (R.-Minn.)

Magnuson (D.-Wash.)

Martin (R.-Calif.)

Nelsen (R.-Minn.)

Nygaard (R.-N.D.)

Olson (D.-Minn.)

Quie (R.-Minn.)

Rhodes (D.-Pa.)

Senner (D.-Ariz.)

Tollefson (R.-Wash.)

Walter (D.-Pa.)

Disciples Of Christ

Alger (R.-Tex.)

Bennett (D.-Fla.)

Fulbright (D.-Ark.)

Mrs. Green (D.-Ore.)

Harvey (R.-Ind.)

Holifield (D.-Calif.)

Hull (D.-Mo.)

Jones (D.-Mo.)

Latta (R.-Ohio)

Roudebush (R.-Ind.)

Watts (D.-Ky.)

Wickersham (D.-Okla.)

Jewish

Celler (D.-N.Y.)

Farbstein (D.-N.Y.);

Firedel (D.-Md.)

Gilbert (D.-N.Y.)

Halpern (R.-N.Y.)

Javits (R.-N.Y.)

Joelson (D.-N.J.)

Multer (D.-N.Y.)

Ribicoff (D.-Conn.)

Rosenthal (D.-N.Y.)

Toll (D.-Pa.)

Unitarian

Clark (D.-Pa.)

Curtis (R.-Mo.)

Edwards (D.-Calif.)

Gruening (D.-Alaska)

Harrison (R.-Wyo.)

Hruska (R.-Neb.)

Neuberger (D.-Ore.)

Saltonstall (R.-Mass.)

Staebler (D.-Mich.)

Williams (D.-N.J.)

Latter Day Saints

Bennett (R.-Utah)

Burton (R.-Utah)

Cannon (D.-Nev.)

Harding (D.-Idaho)

Lloyd (R.-Utah)

Moss (D.-Utah)

Udall (D.-Ariz.)

Young (R.-N.D.)

Others

APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN: Michel (R.-Ill.); BRETHREN IN CHRIST: Roush (D.-Ind.); CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST: Dawson (D.-Ill.), Mrs. Hansen (D.-Wash.), Hutchinson (R.-Mich.); CHURCHES OF CHRIST: Burleson (D.-Tex.), Evins (D.-Tenn.), Fisher (D.-Tex.), Sisk (D.-Calif.); CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN: Everett (D.-Tenn.); EVANGELICAL AND RE-FORMED: Garmatz (D.-Md.), Saylor (R.-Pa.); EVANGELICAL FREE: Anderson (R.-Ill.), Cederberg (R.-Mich.); EVANGELICAL UNITED BRETHREN: Goodling (R.-Pa.); REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA: Dirksen (R.-Ill.); SCHWENKFELDER: Schweiker (R.-Pa.); SOCIETY OF FRIENDS: Bray (R.-Ind.), Douglas (D.-Ill.); UNIVERSALIST: Poage (D.-Tex.); NOT LISTED: Kastenmeier (D.-Wis.); Martin (R.-Mass.).

Governors’ Lineup

Eleven U. S. state governors list a Methodist affiliation or preference as of the beginning of 1963. Nine governors are Roman Catholics, eight are Baptists, seven are Presbyterians, and another seven are Episcopalians. Here is a complete breakdown:

Methodist: Anderson (R.-Kan.), Bryant (D.-Fla.), Clement (D.-Tenn.), Connally (D.-Tex.), Fannin (R.-Ariz.), Hughes (D.-Iowa), Russell (D.-S.C.), Sanford (D.-N.C.), Smylie (R.-Idaho), Tawes (D.-Md.), Wallace (D-Ala.).

Catholics: Brown (D.-Calif.), Burns (D. Hawaii), Campbell (D.-N. M.), Dempsey (D.-Conn.), Egan (D.-Alaska), Hughes (D.-N.J.), King (D.-N.FL), Reynolds (D.-Wis.), Rossellini (D.-Wash.).

Baptist: Barnett (D.-Miss.), Combs (D.-Ky.), Davis (D.-La.), Faubus (D.-Ark.), Hatfield (R.-Ore.), Rockefeller (R.-N.Y.), Sanders (D.-Ga.), Sawyer (D.-Nev.).

Presbyterians: Babcock (D.-Mont.), Barron (D.-W. Va.), Bellmon (R.-Okla.), Dalton (D.-Mo.), Guy (D. N.D.), Rhodes (R.-Ohio), Scranton (R.-Pa.).

Episcopalians: Carvel (D.-Del.), Chafee (R.-R. I.), Hansen (R.-Wyo.), Harrison (D.-Va.), Hoff (D.-Vt.), Morrison (D.-Neb.), Peabody (D.-Mass.).

Congregational Christian: Kerner (D.-Ill.), Reed (R.-Maine).

Latter Day Saints: Clyde (D.-Utah.), Romney (R.-Mich.).

Lutheran: Anderson (R.-Minn.), Gubbrud (R.-S. D.).

Disciples of Christ: Welsh (D.-Ind.).

United Church of Christ: Love (R.-Colo.).

The Battle Begins

With the convening of the 88th Congress, controversy over possible federal aid to religious schools promises to flare up again.

A general aid-to-education bill was defeated in 1961, and a college aid bill was rejected in 1962. In each case, a religious issue was involved.

The Kennedy administration, nonetheless, is still determined to see a bill enacted for aid to education. The strategy is not yet certain, but first reports suggested that one approach being considered would give federal planning grants to states to enable them to determine their own elementary and secondary school needs. In this way the states would have to wrestle with the problems of separation of church and state and would keep the major responsibility for decisions out of Washington.

The Court Rests

The U. S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Kentucky’s Sunday closing law last month. A one-sentence order dismissing the appeal of three store owners cited want of a substantial federal question. Justice William O. Douglas, who takes the most extreme view of church-state separation of any member of the court, filed a dissenting opinion.

In another ruling, the court agreed to hear a South Carolina court opinion that a Seventh-day Adventist properly was denied unemployment benefits for refusing to work on Saturdays.

Still being weighed by the highest court in the land were several all-important cases on the constitutionality of Bible reading and prayers in public schools.

Surplus Favoritism?

Chester B. Lund, supervisor of the federal government’s surplus disposal program, was quoted last month as saying that the transfer of U. S. acreage and buildings to church bodies has not resulted, as charged by some, in favoritism to the Roman Catholic Church.

Lund’s contention was promptly disputed by Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State. A POAU statement referred to the “downright dishonesty of Mr. Lund’s information.”

Lund, in an interview in New York, said disposal of surplus properties to church groups over the past 18 years is tabulated this way:

Roman Catholic: Receipt of real estate with an original value of $11,775,274. The property was appraised at a “fair present value” of $8,849,632. Discounts of up to 100 per cent, Lund said, brought total payments up to $133,227.

Protestant: Receipt of real estate and buildings with an original value of $25,211,632. The property was appraised

at a “fair present value” of $8,375,192. The sum actually paid after discounts were applied amounted to $398,662.

Lund gave the figures to the New York Herald-Tribune. In discussing the amount of property released to church bodies, he said that the Catholics are ahead, with Baptists and Methodists not far behind.

Methodists, it was reported, received the largest single property transfer in the 18-year history of the federal program when the government turned over a General Electric defense plant having an original value of $8,088,143. Actual payment was $11,561.

POAU said the General Electric plant went to Syracuse University, which is Methodist-related somewhat peripherally. “On such a basis,” POAU added, “many of the so-called Protestant donations turn out to be donations to private, nonsectarian colleges which have only a nominal church tie.”

Since 1944, when U. S. surplus disposal began, 527 transactions involving sale or grant of property to religious bodies have been recorded. Lund, a Lutheran and one-time deacon, said Catholics were involved in 209. Seventh-day Adventists were second with 125.

Ncc Housekeeping

Encouraging frigid temperatures in Louisville, Kentucky, last month, the policy-making General Board of the National Council of Churches seemed quite content to remain indoors for housekeeping chores. Lack of a big issue for the two-day meeting doubtless accounted in part for absence of out-of-town secular-press reporters (though regular coverage given these thrice-yearly meetings is generally slight compared to that accorded major denominational conventions), but the sessions highlighted the fact that through the year the Second Vatican Council has siphoned funds from newspaper travel-expense money which ordinarily would have gone to covering Protestant meetings. In the rivalry for the travel dollar, the Protestants should do better in 1963.

Some General Board difference of opinion was sparked by presentation of a preliminary report of a special committee which is restudying the National Council’s structure and function, to which end the Rockefeller Brothers Fund has provided $100,000. One NCC official indicated that greater centralization is envisaged, with more General Board control over the various council units. The hope is that the denominations will thus send the best-equipped sort of delegates to the General Board. A Methodist layman objected to what he termed “this strong move” toward centralization and warned that the NCC could lose members over it, with a consequent “weakening of the ecumenical movement.”

General Board deliberation on this subject is planned for its next meeting, to take place in February at Denver.

NCC General Secretary Roy G. Ross reported that council staff members, at the request of the General Constituent Membership Committee, “have developed personal ties with leaders of a number of those denominations which are not members of the Council but whose boards are members of some of the Council’s divisions. These ties are resulting in a growing interest in full Council membership.”

Dr. Ross also noted embarrassment among leaders of NCC member churches over “wide differences of conviction” on church-state relations as dramatized by the Supreme Court decision on the New York State Regents’ prayer. He pointed to the irony in NCC inability “to be definitive in stating any common position on behalf of our member churches” even though special study has been carried on since 1953. He said the NCC will be poorly prepared to face questions arising from new Supreme Court decisions until the NCC conference on church-state relations to be held in 1964.

Louisville actions of the General Board included:

• Approval of a net budget of $15,329,270 in 1963.

• Allocation of $33,000 toward the development of a Protestant center at the New York World’s Fair of 1964 and 1965.

• Election as head of the Washington, D. C., office of the Council, Dr. Vernon L. Ferwerda, now director of U.N.-U.S. interpretation in NCC’s Department of International Affairs.

Board members also heard plans for a three-week visit to this country in February by some 20 church leaders from the Soviet Union. This will return a visit to Russia last summer by 11 NCC representatives. Plans call for the Russian churchmen to visit the February General Board meeting in Denver. F. F.

Presbyterian Precedent?

When the Gunton-Temple Memorial Presbyterian Church leaves Washington, D. C., for a suburban Maryland location, it will leave behind $50,000 somewhat reluctantly.

The bequest was ordered by the Presbytery of Washington as a condition of its approval of relocation plans. Members of the church argued that the sum of $90,000 originally attached to relocation approval would hamper establishment of the church elsewhere. Others argued that the church had an obligation to its old locale.

The 80-year-old congregation, which currently has a total membership of 291, reportedly will receive $360,000 for its old property, which is being sold to a Negro Baptist group.

There was no debate over the advisability of the move itself. The $50,000 will go toward helping other Presbyterian churches in the area as well as toward interdenominational projects deemed worthy.

Belated Review

Not even a work of “dignified mediocrity,” says writer T. S. Eliot, referring to the language of the New English Bible (New Testament), whose world sales are pushing the five million mark. Eliot declares that from a panel representing the most distinguished modern scholars has come “something which astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial and the pedantic,” causing us to ask in alarm, “What is happening to the English language?”

The 74-year-old Nobel prizewinner, writing in London’s Sunday Telegraph, went on to give examples. He was especially critical of “Do not feed your pearls to pigs,” which he concluded was not only undignified and gauche, but also made the figure of speech ludicrous. “There is all the difference in the world,” he suggests, “between saying that pigs do not appreciate the value of pearls, and saying, what the youngest and most illiterate among us know, that they cannot be nourished on pearls.” Some passages of the new version he finds lack clarity: it is, for example, small comfort to be told, “How blest are those who know that they are poor.” He deals with a number of other infelicities, and recommends for further reading a leaflet published by the Trinitarian Bible Society which gives “a useful list of specimens of bad taste.”

Turning to the translators’ introduction, Eliot points out that “no attempt is made to substantiate the assertion that the rate of change of English usage has accelerated, or to inform us in what respects English usage is changing.” The writers evidently had not considered that change could sometimes be for the worse, and “it is as much our business to attempt to arrest deterioration and combat corruption of our language, as to accept change.” After discussing the difference between public and private use of the NEB, he suggests that when read in church it will be just as difficult to grasp as, and will not have the verbal beauty of, the King James Version. The conclusion of his article will make the fur and hair fly. While approving the stress on classical scholarship, he nevertheless adds: “It would also be good if those who have authority to translate a dead language could show understanding and appreciation of their own.”

Bells And Smells

Parliament’s relationship with the Church of England came up in the House of Commons last month. A motion introduced by an Irish farmer, John Maginnis, was believed to be pointed toward a recent letter to Parliament dispatched by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who called for revision of Canon Law and the Prayer Book (see “Uneasiness in the Camp,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY News, November 23, 1962).

The motion read: “That this House is mindful of the fact that the majority of the people of this country adhere to the Christian religion and that the Church of England is by law established; and is concerned that the relationship between Parliament and Church shall, in the interests of both, be effectively maintained.”

There was, of course, more in this than met the eye. Maginnis himself made it clearer: because of the Established Church’s many privileges in England, he thought it right that the supremacy of Parliament should be effectively maintained. “We must get back to the Bible and the teachings of the Holy Scriptures,” he added. “We must get back to the teaching of justification by faith and everything embodied in our great, historic Church of England.”

The Commons debate touched upon widespread deviations from the Book of Common Prayer, and Maginnis suggested that such irregularities have produced serious tensions in the church. Cited was a list of 48 churches in the diocese of London alone where masses were advertised as part of the service. Maginnis also noted that the Bishop of Southwark, Dr. Mervyn Stockwood, had celebrated a “Solemn Pontifical High Mass.” Maginnis charged that the Church of England was in a state of anarchy, and proposed the establishment of a royal commission to investigate.

Mr. Chuter Ede, a former Home Secretary, said he saw no sign that the majority of the people of Britain adhered to the Christian religion, and deplored a system which tied a church for expressions of doctrine to decisions of the House of Commons. Mr. Iain Macleod, Leader of the House, stating that charges of illegality in Church of England services were completely valid, agreed that it was wise to postpone discussion of details until the House discussed an Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure early in 1963. Mr. John Cordle, a prominent evangelical, pointed out that many laymen disliked the way in which the Communion service was “monkeyed around” by some clergy. Parishioners were subjected to “bells and smells”—and there were times when it was impossible to follow the service from the Prayer Book.

This can be regarded as a dry run in anticipation of the future full-scale debate on kindred topics. Although the participants handled a provocative subject in a surprisingly quiet and reasonable manner, the fact that the motion passed unopposed might well set episcopal hearts beating faster at the thought of things to come.

J. D. D.

Word From Rome

How serious was the recent illness of Pope John XXIII?

“Alarmist news” reports in certain journals are “completely unfounded,” Professor Antonio Gasbarrini, the pontiff’s personal physician, declared in a Vatican City interview.

Later, an official of Osservatore Romano, Vatican City newspaper, was quoted as saying that “there is every reason to hope that the Pope does not have cancer, but rather a weakening of the blood vessels of the stomach.”

Meanwhile, Osservatore Romano also disclosed two weeks after the close of the first session of the Second Vatican Council that the council fathers had voted to allow certain changes in the Mass. Bishops with the approval of the Holy See may now change many parts of the Mass from Latin into the language spoken by the people. The council voted to let such bodies as national and regional bishops conferences decide whether the change should be made. Also provided by the action of the council fathers on December 7, the day before they recessed, is adaptation of the Mass to the culture and traditions of some areas.

Anti-Christian Law

Seventeen United Presbyterian and Reformed missionaries from the United States have been ordered by the Sudanese government to leave that Moslem country under its new anti-Christian missionary law. Six already have left the country and the remaining 11 must quit their posts by January 19.

The Sudan law requires that every missionary society or missionary be licensed annually to carry on any activity. Under this law, church schools have been confiscated, resident missionaries expelled or arrested, and contact restricted between Christian clergymen and the people.

Other provisions of the law state that Christian children may not be baptized without permission of police or village chiefs.

Wherever it is found, self-sufficiency is man’s supreme folly. When Christians attempt to go in their own wisdom and strength this is, in fact, a denial of their faith.

The world is full of people who are groping, longing, hungry, and anxious for something which they have never found but the need for which is a gnawing reality.

Basic to this is the completeness of man’s need. In no vital area is man sufficient in himself. He needs strength, wisdom, guidance, help, and victory which he can never supply from his own resources. “For without me ye can do nothing,” is always valid.

It is because of this that men and nations find themselves adrift today—with weakness instead of strength, foolishness instead of wisdom, groping instead of guidance, helplessness where help is desperately needed, and defeat instead of victory.

In God’s wisdom the dilemma of man is met only as he realizes the completeness of his need. Where pride intervenes, the door is closed. Where there is ignorance, this ignorance must be dispelled by the truth of the Gospel. Where there is unbelief, this must be supplanted by faith.

The more a Christian matures, the more he understands the completeness of his own need. This is revealed by the Holy Spirit, creating a dependence which God honors in the fulfilling of his promises.

This has been experienced by many Christians to the end that peace came to their hearts in a new way while at the same time God revealed the completeness of his faithfulness.

There are times when we are overwhelmed by the multiplicity of issues which defy solution. Personal problems become baffling in their complications; loved ones are confronted with adverse developments; friends become prey to the devices of Satan; the world in which we live becomes so confused that there seems no solution to its problems.

At times like this the Christian often lives like a beggar in the midst of plenty, like an orphan in the presence and power of his Heavenly Father, like an ignorant fool in the wisdom which comes from above.

When he becomes excited and goes out in his own wisdom to solve his problems or those of others, he but complicates the situation for all concerned.

There are times when God wants his children to stand still and see the wonder of his solutions. Such was true when the children of Israel found themselves pursued by the Egyptians. To them Moses said: “Fear not, stand firm, and see the salvation of the Lord, which he will work for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today, you shall never see again. The Lord will fight for you, and you have only to be still” (Exod. 14:13, 14).

The Psalmist knew man’s propensity to become despondent when confronted with what seem to be unsurmountable odds. In Psalm 37 David writes of the apparent triumph of evil men and counsels God’s children not to fret because of that which they see, nor to be envious of sin’s temporary ascendancy.

At such a time the Christian is to put his trust in the Lord, knowing that in so doing he is trusting the One who has not only the answer but also the final word.

We are further admonished to “take delight in the Lord,” for it is in times of man’s extremity that He stretches forth his mighty arm to save.

Then the Psalmist gives us this telling advice: “Commit your way to the Lord.” How faithful are we in doing this? Do we not too often try to work out the solutions to our problems without reference to the only One who can really solve them for us?

To “be still before the Lord, and wait patiently for him” is an exercise of faith too few of us exhibit. It is so hard to be still in the presence of God, so much easier to be up and doing. Even in our prayers we are so busy talking to God that sometimes he has no chance to speak to us. Indeed we often try to cover up our own failures by an increasing amount of talk—thinking that we can divert God from our true state!

“Wait for the Lord, and keep his way,” is David’s further advice. For many of us waiting is not easy. We want to have the answer, see the solution, right now—and if God does not give it in our way and when we demand it, we soon notice our frustration mounting.

In our failure to admit the completeness of our need in everything and the completeness of God’s provision for every need, we sin against him and bring misery to our own souls.

We need to practice introspection, to examine our own hearts and lives, to pray that the Holy Spirit will show us ourselves as God sees us, in order that we may realize how barren and empty we really are—how great the void which can be filled only by the living Christ. When this occurs the first great battle has been won. Just as illness drives the sufferer to the physician, so the sinfulness and barrenness of man’s soul when it is stripped naked of ignorance or pretense, drive him to the Great Physician who has the cure for sin and the love to apply it.

Yes, the completeness of man’s need is matched only by the completeness of God’s provision.

On the one hand this is the offer of God’s redeeming, keeping, and providing love in Jesus Christ. On the other it is a case of man’s appropriating to himself that which God is offering. Instead of striving to achieve, man comes to rest in that which Christ has achieved for him.

The writer would like to bear personal testimony to the fact that many times in his life he has experienced an overwhelming sense of frustration, need, and weakness only to see God undertake, fulfilling his promises in ways which could only strengthen faith and make his presence and power a reality more precious than anything this world can offer.

We think of an occasion when there was such a multiplicity of problems in which so many people and enterprises were involved that we felt completely helpless—and we were. At that particular time there came over us an overwhelming sense of relief as we realized that all of these could be turned over to our Lord without going into any of them in detail. We simply turned them over to him in faith and knew he would solve each of them in his own way, in his own time, and for his own glory.

The objective result was a blessing for all concerned. The subjective effect was one of unspeakable relief—of peace where there had been strife, hope where there had been uncertainty, surrender where there had been striving, and praise where there had been confusion.

The lesson for us all is this: our need is complete, but his provision is equally complete.

A most crucial question of contemporary theology probes the ground for orthodox trinitarian doctrine. According to historic Christianity, trinitarianism characterizes not only God’s manifestations of himself to man, but God as he is in himself.

For much anti-metaphysical modern thought, however, nothing can be known in itself, let alone the infinite God! Men can know God’s mighty acts, but not God per se. Propositional revelation of God’s very nature is banished from its venerable theological throne; revelation in act or event has usurped exclusive rights to the kingdom of contemporary theology.

Assuming that revelation is in act not assertion, can theologians avoid the ancient heresy of modalism? Modalists (Sabellians) in the early Church alleged the three Persons were merely ways in which God revealed himself to men, not distinctions within God’s own essence. It is questionable if those whose principle of authority is non-propositional can claim more. Henry P. VanDusen observes, “The crucial question in all speculative thought about the Trinity is precisely this: whether it is legitimate, indeed necessary, to recognize as true of the inmost reality of the Divine Being distinctions which are indisputably real within our experience of the Divine Being” (Theology Today [October, 1958], p. 378).

Two heroic attempts have been made to establish an ontological trinitarianism from a basis of revelation as act. Upon that ground Leonard Hodgson, the distinguished Anglican theologian, reasons inductively or synthetically to the doctrine of the Trinity, and upon that ground Karl Barth reasons analytically to trinitarianism. Can either synthetic or analytic reasoning from temporal events (albeit revelatory) lead us to truth about the very nature of the eternal God?

Leonard Hodgson’s Induction

“I have rejected as unprofitable,” Leonard Hodgson writes in The Doctrine of the Trinity (Nisbet, 1943), a view of the Bible “as giving revelation in the form of propositions concerning the inner mysteries of the Godhead” (p. 229). The starting point of Hodgson’s trinitarianism is the given data of Christ’s “birth, ministry, crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension” (p. 25) as well as Pentecost and the presently observable “new life of communion with God into which Christians have been taken” (p. 138). Hodgson then seeks a “postulate,” or “adequate account,” for the facts of Christ, Pentecost, and Christian experience. The doctrine of the Trinity turns out to be the best “philosophical-theological attempt to grasp what must be the nature of the God who makes Himself known in this way” (p. 139).

While many agree that God cannot be totally other than he condescends to reveal himself to man to be, Dr. Hodgson has given no reasons in support of this conclusion. From a purely experiential point of view a modalistic hypothesis accounts for all the data as consistently as Hodgson’s postulate. Sabellius, for example, maintained that God in relation to creation is Father; God in relation to Jesus Christ is Son; and God in relation to the Church is Holy Spirit. According to Sabellius the three persons are not modes of the eternal Being, but merely modes of divine revelation in time. Does not the merely functional trinity of Sabellius account for the data to which Hodgson appeals? On what ground, then, does Hodgson prefer the ontological to the modalistic hypothesis? His experiential evidence does not require it, and he has ruled out propositional revelation concerning the nature of God. Since no other basis is provided, his conclusion concerning “what must be the nature of the God who makes Himself known in this way” seems to be without foundation.

We here question the necessity of Hodgson’s argument, not its possibility. If in fact we did not have scriptural assertion concerning the God who acts in human history, Hodgson’s case would be usefully employed, although tentative indeed. Granting the decisiveness of the apostolic interpretations of Christ and Christian experience, which Hodgson seems to do, then why question the trustworthiness of their written assertions? So far as he hesitates to grant authority to propositional revelation of the nature of the God who acts in Christ and Christian experience, he weakens his case for trinitarianism, and fails to provide adequate ground for escaping modalism.

While Karl Barth in his Church Dogmatics also rejects propositional revelation, he seeks to avoid the problems of inductive reasoning by alleging that “analysis” of revelatory acts yields trinitarian dogma (Church Dogmatics I, pp. 351, 358). The doctrine, according to a follower of Barth, Claude Welch (In This Name, Scribner’s, 1952), “is not an inductive conclusion from scientia, but an arche, a pre-supposition of thought which is given to men in the new logos in Christ” (p. 245). Consideration of revelatory acts involves the immediate implication of the unity and threefoldness of the revealing God. For example, when Peter confesses “Jesus Christ is Lord,” the Lord God is revealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. In revelation Barth discovers the “Revealer, Revelation, and Revealedness” (I, 1, p. 361), or “veiling, unveiling, and impartation” (I, 1, p. 431). This threefoldness, Welch insists, is not merely modalistic, but “is in the structure or pattern of the one of God in Christ and therefore the structure of all divine activity and of the Being of God” (op. cit., p. 223). Whereas Hodgson rejects all statements about relations among the persons of the Trinity as unfounded, Welch condemns such an injustice to the Fathers who accepted the Bible as revelation and were not “altogether misled in this matter of the doctrine of relations” (p. 205).

Karl Barth’s Analysis

Does Barth’s analysis achieve the astounding feat of beginning with an event in history and necessarily concluding with a triune doctrine of God in Himself? Maurice Wiles’s expression of “Some Reflections on the Origins of the Doctrine of the Trinity” in The Journal of Theological Studies, sharpens the issue:

We are not starting with the assumption of a revealed trinitarian doctrine of God and then looking at the manner of God’s self-revealing activity in the world to see if it can appropriately be understood in a way which corresponds to the already known trinitarian nature of God. We are, on the contrary, seeking to look at the activity of God to see if it is of such unquestionably threefold character that we are forced, in order to explain it rationally, to postulate a threefold character in God himself (VIII [April 1957], p. 93).

Wiles, who rejects the Bible as propositional revelation because “it appears to conflict with the whole idea of the nature of revelation to which Biblical criticism has led us” (p. 104), also rejects the formulations of Barth and Welch. In his judgment:

For all the advocacy of Karl Barth, it seems impossible seriously to maintain that the statement about revelation is something that requires a trinitarian explanation. The whole argument sounds suspiciously like a later rationalization to support a doctrine really based on … [propositional revelation] and now in search of a new foundation” (p. 105).

Why, for example, does not Welch supply some reasons for the following assumption: “We must reaffirm the judgment that God in himself cannot be other than God in his revelation” (op. cit., p. 219)? This is precisely the point to be substantiated in answering modalism. Sabellius regarded not only human words but also temporal acts insufficient media for revealing the nature of God. For the ancient modalist the acts of Christ and experiences of the Holy Spirit were accommodations of the Eternal to time; the hidden God remained unknown. Barth, on the other hand, is certain that the acts of God in human experience must reveal God per se, but agrees with Sabellius that the scriptural words cannot convey truth concerning the divine essence. On what basis can Barth maintain that human propositions alter divine truth while incarnate acts do not? Are we to believe that God cannot reveal propositions true of his own nature, but Barth can analyze events in a way that must be true of the divine nature? Without propositional revelation what reason have we for following Barth rather than Sabellius? It is not enough for Welch to “reaffirm” the ungrounded assertion that “God in Himself cannot be other than God in His revelation.” The assertion may be true enough; it is its basis that we here challenge.

Furthermore, why does Barth stop with a threefold analysis of the event of revelation? Wiles is willing to follow the analytic approach where it leads, and it leads to a startling conclusion. “Our Trinity of revelation is an arbitrary analysis of the activity of God, which though of value in Christian thought and devotion is not of essential significance” (op. cit., p. 104). Wiles admits that this view is revolutionary, but “no more so than the break-away from the idea of propositional revelation of which it appears to be the logical conclusion” (p. 106). As the thought continues, the completed orthodox doctrine of the Trinity can logically be known only on the basis of propositional revelation about the inner mysteries of the Godhead. Remove that foundation and the necessity (not the desirability or value) of trinitarian thought is removed. With D. M. Edwards, Wiles is led on to this conclusion: “The modern mind … cannot see any necessity of thought for fixing on the number three, neither less nor more.… No convincing reason can be given why, in view of the rich manifoldness of divine functions and activities, the number of hypostases may not be increased indefinitely” (p. 106).

The observed weaknesses in the kingdom of non-propositional revelation lead to a reconsideration of richer view of authority including both act and proposition.

Lowry’s Fallible Propositions

Dr. Charles W. Lowry, former professor at Virginia Theological Seminary, in The Trinity and Christian Devotion (Harper, 1946) judges that the most serious difficulty facing theories of revelation exclusively as act, is the biblical data itself. Examining such assertions as: “God is love,” “God is Spirit,” “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter,” “Upon this rock I will build my church,” and “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” Lowry says, “It is not easy to see how the formula of revelation given simply in act or event covers the ground. I believe accordingly, that there is no alternative to positing, in the full light of modern criticism, a special inspiration of Holy Scripture” (pp. 64 f.). Lowry goes so far as to say, “The Bible remains, when all is said and done, the greatest miracle of all time. It is in actuality the Word of God, since it is only through its witness, record and interpretation that we confront and are confronted by the deeds and speech of the living God” (p. 78).

Nevertheless, Dr. Lowry adds, “The Bible is human and fallible as well as Divine and authoritative” (p. 66). But if that be the case, trinitarianism is not supported with any degree of necessity. The very propositions which imply the doctrine may be in error. A Bible with propositional revelations which may be untrue is incapable of conclusively sustaining ontological trinitarianism.

Lowry admits the undue tension of his position that the Bible is both fallible and divinely authoritative:

The working out of the dialectical problem set us by this dual character of the Holy Scriptures is not easy. It is not easy for the common man. It is probably still harder for theologians and scholars. But it is a task that has to be accepted and worked at with energy (ibid.).

Until Dr. Lowry can resolve the problem of biblical criticism in some measure, and recognize propositions certified by verbal inspiration, he will not have secure ground upon which to defend his belief that the Trinity is necessary to Christian faith and devotion.

Orthodoxy’s Infallible Propositions

In view of the inconclusiveness of the inductive, analytic, and fallible propositional bases for trinitarianism, either the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity must be regarded as unnecessary to Christianity or the doctrine must be founded upon propositional revelation and verbal inspiration. On any basis short of this it seems impossible to make assured assertions concerning the inner nature of God. Upon the ground of certified cognitive truths Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, who did not ignore the incarnate acts of God, have structured their doctrine of the Trinity. They may not have used the explicit terms propositional and verbal, but they employed the concepts those words express. For example, Augustine’s first goal in his classic De Trinitate is to “demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, whether the [trinitarian] faith be so” (I, 2, 4). On that authority, orthodox theologians maintained, God in himself is triune. They did not claim fully to comprehend the Trinity, but the incomprehensibility of God did not imply irrationality. Admittedly their limited knowledge of God’s nature was indirect (1 Cor. 13:12) in being mediated through linguistic and visible signs, but it was not therefore untrue.

Can we, today, in view of biblical criticism continue the allegedly uncritical position of orthodoxy’s stalwarts? Men enlightened in modern critical procedures and results do defend a trustworthy propositional revelation in conjunction with revelation in mighty acts, or as one of the greatest of these acts. Since we cannot here present anything like a full statement of the case, we mention Bernard Ramm, Special Revelation and the Word of God (Eerdmans, 1961); Paul Jewett, Emil Brunner’s Concept of Revelation (James Clark, 1954); and Carl F. H. Henry (ed.), Revelation and the Bible (Baker, 1958).

Furthermore, in the full light of modern criticism Frederick C. Grant concludes that the historic view of Scripture is the biblical view of itself. In the New Testament, Grant observes, “it is every where taken for granted that Scripture is trustworthy, infallible and inerrant.… No New Testament writer would ever dream of questioning a statement contained in the Old Testament” (Introduction to New Testament Thought, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950, p. 75). Biblically, God reveals himself not only in events, but in words and assertions (1 Sam. 3:21; Dan. 2:28; Matt. 16:17; 11:25; Rom. 16:25; Gal. 1:12). Our Lord himself accepted the Old Testament as true in its assertions of fact and reality (Matt. 5:17, 18; John 5:46, 47; 10:35). The Apostles shared the view of their Master (2 Tim. 3:15, 16; 2 Pet. 1:19–21; 3:16; 2 John 9). As Professor Ned Stonehouse said, “Apart from clarity and unity in understanding the Lordship of Christ as coming to expression in the Holy Scriptures, there can be no theological wholeness and no lasting assurance of advancement in theological education” (CHRISTIANITY TODAY [Feb. 16, 1959], p. 36). The truth of that dictum is vividly illustrated in relation to the basis of trinitarian doctrine. Apart from its culmination in propositional communiques the whole revelation process remains ambiguous concerning the triune nature of God.

It is not only biblical criticism which shatters confidence in inspired assertions; phenomenalistic philosophy also challenges scriptural authority. It is evident to twentieth-century eyes that the biblical authors expressed their own interpretations of events from their personal perspectives. Can we then claim any measure of objectivity even for biblically based knowledge? Are we not limited to a complete relativism and phenomenalism? In his Language and Religion (Philosophical Library, 1957) Ben F. Kimpel shows that “a distinction must be made between knowledge which consists of interpretations and knowledge which is exclusively of interpretations” (p. 39). The latter is phenomenalism. On that position no metaphysical truth of the Trinity could be attained, even with the assistance of Scripture. However, on the former alternative, realities other than one’s own experiences are knowable. Kimpel argues, “Neither Kant, nor anyone else, has made it ‘fully clear’ that knowledge is only of phenomena” (pp. 39, 40). Rather, “In knowing the meaning of an informed affirmation about a reality, one would then be informed of two realities—a subject’s interpretation; and a reality about which his interpretations inform him” (p. 40). On the ground of inspiration we need not deny interpretive aspects of scriptural assertions concerning redemptive acts and the God who performed them. We simply suggest that the superintendence of the Holy Spirit kept the biblical interpreters of revelatory events from error of thought, fact, or judgment. Their assertions concerning the triune nature of God are not merely interpretations; they are true interpretations of what is the case. According to Scripture an eternal Being exists independently of projections of human thought. Futhermore, Scripture makes clear that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct within the Godhead.

Where do the Scriptures teach ontological trinitarianism? The trinitarian distinctions are regarded eternal (a) from those passages which speak of the existence of the Word from eternity with the Father (John 1:1, 2; Phil. 2:6); (b) from passages asserting or implying Christ’s preexistence (John 8:58; 1:18; Col. 1:15–17; Rev. 22:13, 14); (c) from passages implying fellowship between the Father and the Son before the foundation of the world (John 17:5, 24); (d) from passages asserting the creation of the world by Christ (John 1:13; Heb. 1:2, 10); (e) from passages asserting or implying the eternity of the Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:2; Psa. 33:6; Heb. 9:14). (See A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology [Judson Press, 1907, p. 326]. Additional biblical documentation may be found in E. H. Bickersteth, The Trinity [Kregel, 1959], and G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the Trinity [Oliver and Boyd, 1953].)

Barabbas

Possessor of the name

We usually see fit

To link with yet

Another word: acquit.

Peter: deny.

Judas, but a way

To more than amply

Call to mind: betray.

Barabbas: he chosen

In place of Christ;

His freedom rather

Highly priced.

And Jesus? To Barabbas

Here was no whim Of doctrine. Here was fact:

Christ in place of him.

FRED MOECKEL

Does it seem obscurantist to accept such ontological assertions? Acceptance of them is not limited to those who neglect evidence. No less a scholar than William Adams Brown would remind us of the metaphysical implications of the Scriptures:

In the quiet of the study or the classroom it is easy to speak of banishing metaphysical terms from theology, but in practice it is impossible. To do this would involve not simply the rewriting of our theological systems, but of our hymns, our liturgies, even of the Bible itself. The doctrine of the Trinity in its completeness may be a product of the fourth century, but its beginnings go back to the very threshold of Christianity and the men who laid its foundations are not Origen and Athanasius, but the apostle Paul and the fourth evangelist. The Christ of the New Testament is not simply the man of Nazareth, but the pre-incarnate Logos, the Word that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. Either we must be prepared to break with historic Christianity altogether and banish large parts of the New Testament from their place in our public worship, or else we must be able to give some rational account of the metaphysical element in early Christian theology and its present significance for the church (Christian Theology in Outline, Scribner’s, 1916, pp. 158–59).

If to be true to the New Testament we can and must speak metaphysically, that is, of God as he is in himself, then we either believe what the Bible implies concerning the triune nature of God or we deny its ontological trustworthiness. It is here maintained that because of the Holy Spirit’s guidance we may trust without qualification not only the biblical writers’ descriptions of events but also their assertions concerning the triune nature of the God who redeems and renews sinners. It is furthermore argued that such inspired assertion is the only basis on which conclusively to answer modalistic trinitarianism.

GORDON R. LEWIS

Associate Professor of Theology

Conservative Baptist Theological Seminary

Denver, Colorado