Admit Red China?

No more critical issue faces American leaders in the days ahead than the one of admission of Communist China into the United Nations. As in all major phases of international relationships, Christianity itself has a deep interest in the moral overtones of this issue. It seems apparent that the self-interest of the United States would not be served by permitting our defense barriers to fall back to the Pacific Coast states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The previous administration as well as the present one, on the basis of the judgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determined that our own security would be jeopardized by any weakening of the defense line running from Japan and Korea to Formosa to the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand in the south and to Okinawa in the north.

The economic life of Korea and Japan is dependent on sea lanes into Southeast Asia, and unfriendly control of these waters would determine to a considerable extent the political life of the inhabitants of those countries. The recent war with Japan demonstrated how closely a military offensive can come to the continental limits of the United States through a lapse in our defensive guard in the Pacific. Every American should ask himself whether he wants to take this risk again as a probable consequence of recognition of Communist China.

The Record In Korea

An argument has been submitted at times that the United States should lodge its future security with the United Nations and depend on that organization’s collective security forces for protection against any hostile actions from the Far East. However, the lessons of recent history are a cold reminder of the unswerving objectives of world Communism, which in the ten years since the end of World War II in 1945 has taken over 600 million once-free people behind the Communist Iron Curtain. Americans will not, I believe, soon forget that the present Chinese Communist regime is the same regime that committed aggression in Korea in violation of a United Nations indictment and was responsible for inflicting 140,000 casualties on us, including 35,000 dead. The United Nations record in Korea was not effective collective security in a military action wherein the United States furnished 90 per cent of its manpower and only 17 out of 60 United Nations members supplied any manpower at all.

The Record In China

Turning to the interests of Asia itself, this country is staunchly committed against the principles of colonialism. Chou En-lai, Peiping’s premier and foreign minister, has asserted publicly and frequently that Asia must be for the Asians while at the same time he builds his military forces and war-making potential through the receipts of supplies from Communist Russia. In other words, what is intended is Asia for the Communists. Since actions speak with the force of conviction, the record of Communist China in Asia to date shows the following: (1) brutal persecution of religious and missionary organizations on the mainland; (2) colonialization of North Korea and the deliberate violation of the United Nations armistice negotiated in that country; (3) inciting and supplying Communist aggressive activities in Viet-Nam and Communist guerillas in Malaya, Burma, and Indonesia; (4) institution of blood purges of the Chinese people, which have been estimated by our Assistant Secretary of State, Walter S. Robertson, as resulting in approximately 15 million deaths. What can the people of Asia expect in the future from this record?

Foreign Policy And Freedom

The foreign and defense policies of this country need to be the people’s business. The decisions made in the months ahead may well determine whether we have a free world of free men. There is no easy solution to the unpleasant facts of today, which we must meet as other generations have had to meet the critical issues of their time.

The United States has provided the world with the greatest exposition of liberty and protection of the rights of man the world has known to date. Our foreign policy should manifest no less an ideal. The recognition of Communist China would subvert the principle long adhered to in this country—the dignity of free men. It would amount to a Far Eastern Munich. To bring our relationships with Communist China up to the time of this writing, an American military plane has recently been shot down with a loss of 16 lives.

We must not forget that Communism is a worldwide conspiracy against freedom and independence and that the objective of the men in the Kremlin was pointed out many years ago in Lenin’s statement that “the Road to Paris is through Peking.” The remaining free peoples of Asia are watching the actions taken by our government, and any compromise of moral principles in this area by the United States would move our defense barriers and influence back to the Pacific Coast for generations to come.

The Record In Russia

There appears to be little reason to expect that the recognition of Communist China would be productive of any greater performance than has resulted from the recognition of the Communist government of Russia in 1933. When that government was recognized by this country, certain pledges leading toward peaceable relations were made and soon broken.

Since all Communists are committed to the destruction of persons and institutions that stand in the way of world domination by Communism, there is no legitimate reason to hope that Communist China would pursue a different mode of operation.

Since foreign policy should be based on the concrete, not on the abstract, perhaps it will be illuminating to look at the question of recognition of Communist China from, first, the point of view of our own self-interest and, second, the interests of Asia.

Diplomatic Recognition?

Another closely related problem is that of affording diplomatic recognition to Red China. Although it may seem ironic, it is nevertheless true that the British government has not yet received recognition from Peiping even though she accorded recognition to Communist China on January 6, 1950, over six years ago. It is understood that the main obstacle to full reciprocity is the insistence by the Chinese Communists that Britain give full support to the seating of Chinese Communists in the United Nations, and that she sever all ties with the government of the Republic of China on Formosa.

If we show the same courage and common sense that motivated the men who sat at Philadelphia and gave us first our Declaration of Independence and later our Constitution, there are none of our great domestic problems we cannot solve and there is no foreign foe we need ever fear.

The Hon. William F. Knowland is minority leader of the United States Senate and was United Nations delegate to the United Nations session in November.

- More from William F. Knowland

Cover Story

The Integrity of the Nations

Ernest C. Manning

Never in the long history of national and international affairs have the nations of this earth faced a situation comparable to that which prevails in this twentieth century.

Because this is true, it is axiomatic that those whose decisions determine national policy and govern international relationships have a responsibility without parallel in previous generations. Never before was there an age or a situation in which so much hinged on the wisdom of national leadership and on the integrity of nations whose influence in world affairs can tip the scales for either good or ill.

To appreciate the magnitude of this new individual and national responsibility, we must take cognizance of the two major factors responsible for creating the present set of circumstances.

The Extension of Science

The first is the cumulative knowledge man has acquired in the fields of physical science. In ancient times peoples and nations were separated one from the other by the natural barriers of time and space. What happened in one area of the globe was unknown to those of other areas until long afterward, if ever. As long as the barriers of time and distance remained unbridged, what the people of one tribe or nation did or how they lived or what they thought made little or no difference to the people beyond the limited sphere of their influence and interests.

Even after the more attractive land surfaces became populated and the people of those areas were thrown into closer association, the oceans remained effective barriers between continents. When conflicts did arise, they were limited in scope and the destruction occasioned by an entire war, fought with bows and arrows and spears, was insignificant compared to the devastation wrought by one modern bomb.

With the onward march of time all this has changed. Scientific knowledge has pyramided with the passing years until in this twentieth century we witness not only the amazing results of this accumulated knowledge but an acceleration in the rate of progress in the fields of physical science that staggers the imagination when we try to contemplate what the future holds.

The new set of circumstances, which the application of this scientific knowledge has produced in world affairs, has become a matter of gravest international concern. Gone are the ancient natural barriers of distance, time, and space. Modern methods of transportation and communication have reduced this once big world to a small orb on which peoples and nations, once far removed from each other’s influence, now are thrown together in a close and inescapable association fraught with new problems and unprecedented dangers

World news encircles the globe in a matter of seconds. Modern air transportation ignores oceans and brings each nation within quick and easy access of all others. Guided missiles probe the secrets of the stratosphere and herald an age in which no area of the globe is beyond the reach of any modern nation bent on the destruction of another.

Over all is the shadow of a mushroom cloud that has become the symbol of the atomic age and of man’s ability to release destructive forces so great that the annihilation of civilization at last has been brought within the realm of possibility.

In this new set of circumstances, the decisions, the actions, and even the philosophy of the people of each nation are of vital concern to all others. The position and integrity of each nation are no longer matters of mere national import but have become of fundamental importance to civilization as a whole.

The Accumulation of Depravity

The second factor responsible for the existing situation in human affairs is of even greater significance but unfortunately is less readily acknowledged and accepted. It has to do with human nature itself. To many it is repugnant to be told that in this twentieth century mankind is reaping not only the results of his accumulated scientific knowledge but also the accumulative consequences of six thousand years of human depravity. Nevertheless, the fact is irrefutable and must be acknowledged and faced before we can hope to make realistic progress toward a solution of the problems it presents.

The biblical record of the event through which man acquired a nature prone to evil is clear and definite. God had created the original parents of the human race in His own image and righteousness and placed them in the Edenic paradise to enjoy fellowship and communion with their Creator and the glories of the earth which He had prepared to be their home. Of their own free will, they chose to violate God’s expressed will and through their fall not only become separated from God by their sin but were rendered sinful by nature, which condition by the universal law of heredity they transmitted to their descendants. The consequences of their spiritual death and of the sinful nature they and their descendants acquired through their fall have pyramided with each successive generation until in this twentieth century they have reached crisis proportions on a world-wide scale.

Need of Spiritual Renewal

Whether we like it or not, the fact is that beneath and behind every individual problem and every national and international problem in the field of human relationships lies the bigger basic problem of man’s severed relationship with God and of the evil tendencies of the fallen nature of what the Bible describes as the “natural man.” Every effort toward moral reformation is a tacit acknowledgment that there is something fundamentally wrong with human nature. All religion, pagan or otherwise, stems from man’s inherent consciousness of his separation from God. The very word “religion” is made up of the prefix “re” meaning “again” or “to return to a previous state” and the root “ligio” implying “to bend or to turn back.” The word “religion,” therefore, presupposes that man has become separated from God and is in need of a way by which he again can turn back to his original state.

Unfortunately, in analyzing our problems, we are prone to focus our attention on the effect rather than the cause. We view with consternation innumerable acts of selfishness and deception and violence on the part of men, and acts of subterfuge and aggression on the part of nations, and we conclude that such actions should and can be prevented by physical deterrents. Our conclusions would be different if we would look beneath the surface and recognize the basic evil tendencies in human nature that are responsible for evil thoughts, evil desires, and evil philosophies that in turn express themselves in the individual and national and international attitudes and actions we deplore.

Summary of Present Situation

Taking these fundamental facts into account, we may summarize the situation presently confronting men and nations under three conclusions:

First, man’s accumulated knowledge in the fields of physical science has created a new set of world circumstances in which peoples and nations no longer are separated by the natural barriers of time and space and in which man possesses powers of destruction so devastating that any nation aggressively inclined is a threat to the security and even the survival of other nations.

Second, these new physical circumstances are reasons for international tensions and concern not because they are dangerous in themselves but because of the evil tendencies inherent in human nature, which cause both individuals and nations to incline to evil rather than to good.

Third, integrity requires that individuals and nations face and acknowledge the facts responsible for the growing crisis in human affairs and then act rightly and decisively in accordance with what those facts dictate.

Defense and Cold War

Most observers will agree that at the present time national leadership in most nations is on the defensive and is concentrated on two aspects of preparedness. The first is the field of military defense. Almost without exception, nations are strengthening their military defenses against any eventuality while keeping a watchful eye on those nations whom they have reason to believe are a threat to their security.

At the same time, all nations who exercise any influence in world affairs are engaged in a grim war of nerves in the field of international diplomacy where each is maneuvering to gain a more advantageous position. In this so-called “cold” war, all nations participating are subjected to the constant pressures of expediency.

So important have military and psychological and political advantages become in the present global struggle that frequently they are gained at the price of national integrity. The national concern has shifted from what is right to what is expedient. The question no longer is, what does national integrity dictate, but what will best improve the nation’s position from a military standpoint or psychologically, or be to its political advantage in the grim struggle to guarantee its national security and survival?

Compromise Of Integrity

If such advantage can be gained without the sacrifice of national integrity or the violation of principles, once regarded as inviolate, everyone is pleased, but if the advantage cannot be gained without violation of those fundamentals which constitute our national standards and ideals, too often expediency wins on the grounds that the end justifies the course adopted.

It is encouraging rather than surprising that an increasing number of people are asking privately and publicly where this line of reasoning will lead us if followed to its ultimate end. There is a growing conviction that the time has come when individuals and nations should make an honest reappraisal of the whole problem of human relationships in the field of international affairs.

Present Course Inadequate

As a starting point, we must try to define clearly the present course, which is to do everything humanly possible to avert world conflict and the catastrophe of a global war in an age when war means possible annihilation.

To that end, nations desirous of preserving peace are feverishly building up more and more military might as a deterrent to would-be aggressors.

They are working ceaselessly to ease world tensions through the channels of international diplomacy and seeking to neutralize disruptive propaganda and create a better understanding between nations by the free exchange of factual information and by mutual aid and other gestures of good will.

The United Nations Organization has been established to provide a world forum at which it was hoped disputes between nations could be resolved around the conference table and united action taken to curb aggression on the part of those refusing to substitute reason for force.

Realism requires us to acknowledge that the results of all these far-reaching efforts make two conclusions inescapable.

The first is that all these efforts have at best resulted in a deferment of a world crisis rather than a solution to the basic problems with which we are faced. The world situation as it appears on the surface fluctuates from week to week and year to year but beneath the surface, despite all the efforts that have been made, the human attitudes and philosophies responsible for the existing international tensions have undergone no fundamental change nor is there any reason to believe that they will be changed by further efforts along the same line.

Divine Intervention Needed

We, therefore, are forced to a second conclusion. If the existing situation is to be changed and a world crisis averted rather than merely deferred, some entirely new factor potent enough to be effective must be discovered and introduced into individual and national and international affairs.

Such a factor is available to all men and nations if they are prepared to recognize and accept it and meet the requirements of its effective application. That factor is the divine intervention of God.

Surely such a statement should not sound fantastic to the people of nations that are professedly Christian. The fact that many dismiss it as absurd and impractical is evidence of how wide has become the gap between our professed Christianity and our knowledge of God’s sovereign grace and power from the standpoint of personal, spiritual experience. The time has come when not only our individual peace and security but national and international peace and security hinge primarily on our willingness to restore realism to our Christian profession.

God’S Concern with Nations

The testimony of Holy Writ is explicit. The God of the Bible is not one of a number of competing deities. He is supreme, the only true God, eternal and self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient and immutable, and indescribably holy. The magnitude of His love and mercy and divine grace is beyond the measure of our finite minds.

It is the testimony of Scripture that “by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” He is concerned with the present welfare as well as with the eternal destiny of men. That He is concerned with the affairs of nations is evidenced by the declaration of Scripture that He “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: for in him we live and move and have our being.”

Provision for Man’s Recovery

The greatest proof of God’s concern for mankind is the divine provision he has made for man’s recovery from the position into which he fell through his willful violation of God’s expressed will. God has provided not only a way by which men can be delivered from the cumulative consequences of human depravity but a supernatural spiritual new birth through which men are enabled to become possessors of a new spiritual nature that delights in good rather than evil.

To that end, God sent his pre-existent Son, Jesus Christ, into the world to become a substitute sin bearer in the place of guilty men. “God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through him might be saved.” It is the record of infallible Scripture that Christ bore the sins of all mankind in His body on the Cross and that He shed His divine blood in atonement for the sins of the world. Through His substitutionary death and vicarious atonement, He satisfied every demand of the eternal laws of divine justice and opened the way for guilty men to be granted divine forgiveness and restored to eternal fellowship and communion with God.

Twentieth-Century Tragedy

It is a world tragedy in this age, when all the evidence points to man’s utter hopelessness apart from divine intervention, that man’s concept of Christianity has become so distorted that multitudes, even in so-called Christian lands, have no knowledge of the fundamental difference between supernatural spiritual regeneration and a mere religious profession or mental assent to a religious philosophy of life that they mistakenly think entitles them to call themselves Christian.

The supernatural spiritual new birth, which is the heart of true biblical Christianity and the starting point of all genuine spiritual life, is something much greater than any mere religious philosophy of life. It is the divine intervention of God into the life of an individual resulting in a personal, spiritual experience that not only restores him to fellowship and communion with God but creates within him a new spiritual nature that changes his entire attitude of mind and outlook on life. Men in ignorance and spiritual blindness may scoff at the idea of the lives and thoughts and attitudes of men being altered and lifted to a new and higher plane by a literal spiritual “conversion,” but the fact remains that not in all this world is there a material power or earthly influence known to man that can remotely compare with the transforming power which genuine supernatural spiritual regeneration exerts in the souls and minds and lives of those thus born again from above.

Urgency of Individual Decision

It is the good news of the Christian Gospel that this divine regeneration is available to all men who will receive it as a gift from God. It is not bestowed on the grounds of merit but of grace. It is an integral part of a present and eternal redemption purchased for mankind by Jesus Christ through His death on the Cross in man’s stead. Man cannot appropriate it through reformation or profession or earn it by good works. It can be his only by receiving the living Christ into his heart and life as his personal Saviour and divine Lord. In the words of Scripture, “As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believed on his name.”

The Scriptures emphasize the individual and personal nature of man’s acceptance of Jesus Christ and of the spiritual new birth that accompanies a genuine acceptance. God’s mercy and forgiveness and redemption are not extended to mankind collectively but to each individual. Each is held personally accountable to God for his acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ. In the life of each individual who receives Him as Saviour and Lord, the supernatural spiritual new birth is a sacred personal experience. This divine recognition of each individual is in striking contrast to the doctrines of collectivism so widely advocated and accepted in this twentieth century. It underscores the fundamental difference between God’s approach and man’s approach to the issues responsible for the developing world crisis. It indicates the key to the solution of our problems.

Myth of Collective Security

Nations have become imbued with the philosophy of man-made collective security. The individual has been relegated to a less and less significant position as man’s approach to the problems of life has become more and more universal in scope. We have come at last to the place where, having expanded our collective human efforts to the greatest dimensions to which they can be enlarged, we stand amid the growing evidences of our failure to solve the real problems confronting us and ask where we should go from here.

In the light of our experience and the eternal facts of life revealed in Holy Writ, it is folly to continue further on our present course.

It remains to be seen if men and nations will recognize before it is too late that there can be no effective solution apart from the divine intervention of an omnipotent and merciful God.

That divine intervention comes through the spiritual regeneration of individual men and women. If sought and accepted by individuals, it will reflect itself in the attitudes and actions of nations. This is the road down which the solution to our problems can be found.

God and Modern Gomorrah

It is not a matter of all men being converted before the impact of God’s divine intervention will be felt in national and international affairs. God delights in mercy and He is the same today as when He was willing to spare the entire civilization of Sodom and Gomorrah if even ten righteous were found within their borders.

The immediate need is twofold. The first is for individual men and women to respond to the invitation of God’s grace and yield themselves unreservedly to Jesus Christ. The second is for professing Christian nations to restore realism to their profession by placing allegiance to Almighty God ahead of human judgment, and obedience to His divine council ahead of surrender to the pressures of expediency. When this is done, the dubious rationalizing now so frequently employed to justify surrender to such pressures will give place to firm new standards of national integrity based on the absolutes of divine revelation and the immutable principles of eternal truth.

The Hon. Earnest C. Manning, LL.D., is premier of Alberta, Canada, since 1943 and president and conductor of Canada’s “Back to the Bible Hour.”

- More from Ernest C. Manning

We Quote: October 29, 1956

BERNARD W. WISHY

Instructor in History, Columbia College, and Editor of the forthcoming work, A PROLOGUE TO POLITICS ESSAYS OF JOHN STUART MILL

Twentieth-Century life certainly seems to confirm the opinion that our times are characterized by a revolt against traditional standards of decency and the possibilities of creative intelligence. Deliberate brutality, enslavement and murder, gas ovens with six million dead, and slave labor camps with fifteen million degraded human beings color our political life and imaginations. Our political vocabulary is apocalyptic: “total war”, “unconditional surrender”, “massive retaliation”, “agonizing reappraisal”, “meeting at the summit.” (“Is There a Revolt Against Reason?,” in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. LXXI, No. 2 [June, 1956], p. 244).

ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

Professor of Preaching, School of Theology, Temple University

Here I rest my case, with the plea that the reader lay the matter before the Lord in prayer. For the sake of Christ and His Kingdom, for the sake of the home church and community, for the sake of your own growth and happiness, give yourself to the mastery and preaching of Christian doctrine.—in Doctrinal Preaching for Today, p. 208 (published 1956).

D. M. MACKINNON

Contributor to a series of studies by members of the Anglican Communion

… For Christians, the methods whereby war is waged today raise problems which must be faced.… In the light of the revelation of the divine love, … we must ask ourselves whether in this hour we are not compelled, be the consequences what they may, to say no to such things as the napalm and the atomic bombs. If we repudiate the morality of the Kremlin, it must not be simply in order to embrace that of the Pentagon.—in Christian Faith and Communist Life (London, MacMillan & Co. Ltd., 1953).

CHARLES W. LOWRY

Chairman, Foundation for Religious Action in the Social and Civil Order

When the Congress of Vienna in 1815 issued its Treaty Document, it inserted … the words: ‘In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity.’ It went on to assert the encompassing and uniting reality of Christian brotherhood. Since then, Europe has changed, drastically and catastrophically What country today would invoke in an official document the name and being of God? Yet … the Supreme Court of the United States, in a momentous decision, said: ‘Our institutions presuppose the existence of a Divine Being.’ The State Papers of the United States, from the Declaration of Independence and the addresses of George Washington down through Abraham Lincoln and up to the present, mark her as unique among s modern nations in public adherence to religion.—in an address on “The State of Christian Civilization Today” in Florence, Italy, as United States delegate to the International Convention on Peace and Christian Civilization.

Steadfast Taper

Luci Deck Shaw

“His candle shined upon my head.…” (Job 28:3).

His candle shines upon my head.He trims the wick and guards the flame,And though the darkness creeps in closeThe steadfast taper shines the same.

The flower of flame sways in the air.Wine-fingers snatch and try to snuffThe stalk His careful hands protect.The light shines through; it is enough.

His candle shines on me in love.(Protective circle in the gloom.)And through the dreadful night I knowThat He is with me in the room.

Throughout the weary waiting-timeThe liquid flame shines thin and pure,When tiredness dims my faith, I lookAnd see His light, and I am sure.

- More from Luci Deck Shaw

Ideas

Vision of Sovereignty a Remedy for Tensions

A Christianity Today Editorial

We are prone to forget that God sees all time and eternity at once.

PHOTOCREO Michal Bednarek / Shutterstock

The uncertainties and conflicts of national and international tensions are in themselves no excuse for the pessimist or the cynic in Christian circles. Nor are they a legitimate excuse for man to lay impatient hands on the ark of the universe to steady it. We are prone to forget that God sees all time and eternity at once.

We need a new vision of the sovereign God, of a sovereignty which is universal, unlimited and immutable. Neither chance, the follies of man, nor the malice of Satan can determine the sequence of events and their issues. God has not abdicated; He is on His throne and He still causes the wrath of man to praise Him. He is aware of world disorder and He has provided its cure. To the Church He has committed the Gospel and it is still the power of salvation to all who believe. To understand the content of that Gospel and to make that content known is the impelling duty of the individual Christian and of the Church.

- More from A Christianity Today Editorial

Ideas

Evangelism and the Sacred Book

A Christianity Today Editorial

Contributor

Karl Barth and Billy Graham are both rescuing the Bible from Liberalism. But their views on Scripture differ dramatically.

The names of Karl Barth and of Billy Graham ought not, perhaps, to be mentioned in the same sentence, unless one is prepared to stay for the afternoon.

Their gifts and callings are diverse—the one a skilled theologian, the other a skilled evangelist. Their influence is equally dissimilar, that of the one mainly academic, and of the other mainly popular. Barth is today doubtless at the very apex of his career, while Graham’s star very probably is still rising.

Nonetheless, both names are indelibly inscribed upon the role of distinguished Christian leaders in the twentieth century. In some respects, moreover, their ministries reflect superficial points of contact. Barth has had an impact upon theological thought throughout much of the Western world through the translation of his writings; Graham has had an evangelistic access to the Orient as well as to the Continent through the translation of his preaching. Even to contrast their ministries in terms of the technical versus the simple is to exaggerate their basic differences. Barth’s influence has extended beyond the classroom to the pew, and Graham’s call to decision among university students has been as effective as among the less sophisticated. Barth has delivered a series of Gifford Lectures; Graham has fulfilled a week’s preaching mission at Cambridge. And what theologian today does not covet a broad ministry to the market place? Is not the New Testament ideal (we do not imply the flawlessness of Barth’s theology nor of Graham’s evangelism) the theologian-evangelist, whom the apostle Paul supremely exemplifies?

However varied their talents and influences, both Barth and Graham have come to symbolize a religious springtime after the long, cold winter of Liberalism. They stand as giants of our generation protesting against the liberal reduction of the Bible to the category of sacred literature generally. The Hebrew-Christian Scriptures differ uniquely from all other religious writings in their witness to special revelation; they cannot, therefore, be classified under general divine revelation. In stressing this fact, the “theology of the Word of God” and the evangelism of “the Bible says” are in formal agreement, and share in the rebellion against the classic liberal distrust of the special revelation claim that is everywhere implicit in the Bible.

Yet whoever sees no essential difference between the views of the Bible represented by Barth and the theology of crisis, on the one hand, and by Graham and the theology of the evangelicals, on the other, stands in need of theological lenses.

The difference is understated when the one position is lampooned as returning to the “precritical” and “prescientific” view which disregards “the new knowledge of the Bible.” To explain the difference by saying that the evangelical view waves aside those indubitable gains which objective scientific criticism can bring is an oversimplification. There will be convenient occasions to speak of such gains without concealing the sad predicament of twentieth-century biblical scholarship.

Mr. Graham has not, indeed, centered his preaching, nor his writing, in the perspectives of modern higher criticism. Wisely enough, he has left the discussion of critical problems to those whose lives have been dedicated to criticism. And, be it plainly admitted, the critics today face herculean problems, which call for more than expert skill. They bear the burdensome task of letting their profession down easily from a growing series of discredited verdicts—among them the impossibility of Mosaic writings, the nonhistoricity of the Hittites, the priority of the prophets over the Law, the non-supernatural Jesus, the Greek rather than Hebrew background of the New Testament, the second-century dating of John’s Gospel, and so forth. They now find scholarship as imposing as that of Dr. William F. Albright in support of the thesis that the composition of no New Testament book need be dated later than A.D. 80, that is, after the lifetime of contemporaries of Jesus of Nazareth. The reconciliation of competitive critical theories is no easy task, and it is no wonder a mere evangelist would prefer to bequeath its exacting requirements to the specialists. For what so often has been proclaimed, with evangelistic fervor, as an assured result of critical science, has turned out all too often to be a transient dogma of a biased critic.

The Church may rejoice that an emphasis on the New Testament evangel is finding its way once again into pulpits from which it was long absent. In this proclamation of the evangel there is often a considerable similarity between those who hold the high view of the Bible and those who shy away from it. Whoever preaches the Gospel must lean heavily on the warnings of Jesus about sin and its connection with the wrath of God and the judgment to come, no less than upon His assurances of the gracious forgiveness and the welcome awaiting sinners who come to the Father “in Christ’s name.” The omission of either of these elements is destructive of the Gospel. But the Gospel is far more definite than this; the simplest New Testament statement of it includes the substitutionary death of Christ for sinners and His bodily resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-4). It is at this point of the sharper definition of the Gospel that the difference between evangelical and sub-evangelical preaching comes more clearly into view.

The danger in a pragmatic age is that the success of evangelism may institute an era of respect for evangelism in which the evangel itself is foggy and mist-thin. Much of this resurgent emphasis today is hesitantly biblical in mood. It is especially uncomfortable in the presence of the well-worn Graham formula: “The Bible says.” In fact, in some places, the twentieth-century phenomenon of an evangelist without an evangel has appeared in the aftermath of a Graham campaign.

A half-hearted confidence in the reliability and authority of Scripture faces the opportunities of evangelism with self-defeating uncertainties. Shall the evangelist preach the wrath of God? The apostles did. The propitiatory atonement? The apostles did. The final doom of the wicked? The apostles did. The formula “the Bible says” covers all the articles of faith. If we are to hear only what a given evangelist or theologian tolerates, however impassioned his intonation of whatever Scripture escapes his censorship, the fact that the Bible appropriates certain of his theses is no more significant than its repudiation of certain others. The public exhortation on Sunday to heed what “the Bible says” in a given passage does not mean much in the mouth of a professor who on Wednesday is confiding to divinity students that they had best disregard what it says in the next verse. The same verdict holds for the evangelist who strikes one note in the invitation and another in the ministerial meeting.

This leads us on to an important difference between the modern “theology of the Word of God” and the evangelism of the Bible. The Graham article in this issue employs the phrase “biblical authority.” It does not rush to draw a line between what God says and what the Bible says. It does not locate what God says in the misty flats above the Bible, above its written propositions and words. It picks up, with life-and-death urgency, the confident identification of special divine revelation with a specific message, and in this characteristic it stands in the company of prophets and apostles and of the Lord Jesus. The hearers of the Sermon on the Mount were reminded that they would be judged by specific principles and words: “Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man…” (Matt. 7: 24). It is in the course of precisely this identification that lightning strikes from heaven in Graham meetings.

Doubtless some will think that Mr. Graham sketches the picture in too broad strokes. Others will rally to his side, proclaiming the high view of the Bible to be not alone a key factor in evangelism but a watershed of theological conviction. However his readers may divide, nobody has a profounder right than Mr. Graham to a hearing on the subject of the authority of the Bible in evangelistic preaching. He has earned that right theoretically, by his devout study of the Word, and pragmatically, by his passionate proclamation of it to an age of theological unbelief, in which he has unsheathed the Book once again as a two-edged sword. His ministry supplies the theological enterprise with a graphic reminder that the mysteries of higher criticism are unnecessary for grasping the essence of the biblical message—as devout Christians in apostolic and in Reformation times did—and also that the simple believer often stands closer to the heart of the Gospel than the sophisticated critic. This is not because Christianity is against scholarship, but because scholarship often places itself in needless opposition to Christianity. Those who have invested much of a lifetime propounding now-discredited theories supply eloquent witness that the essence of the Gospel did not first become available through some new and modern gnosis, but can be confidently located in what was plainly accessible to the earliest century of faith.

By a true intuition, shaped by confidence in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, the evangelical movement and Mr. Graham cling fast to the Gospel, and to what most of the new theology still misses, namely, that Jesus of Nazareth is the high point of special divine revelation, and that the Christian revelation disallows the relegation of Scripture to a twilight zone in which its authoritative note disappears.

- More from Billy Graham

Cover Story

The Primary Task of the Church

Addison H. Leitch

Why bringing men and women into a saving relationship to God through Jesus Christ beats any other emphasis.

Glen Scott / Flickr

The Church can be understood best at two points in its history: at the time reflected in the book of Acts and the Epistles, and at the time of the Reformation.

It is more difficult for us to project ourselves into the experience of the early Church because of our inability to duplicate certain advantages they had, namely, the immediate experience and authority of those who had known our Lord in the flesh and the unique outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. We are closer to the experience of Luther and the other Reformers because their Christian experience was partially the result of the mediation of the Bible, the history and customs of the medieval church community, and the drag of all the accretions of the human upon the divine institution. An examination of Luther’s experience as a member of the church is helpful, therefore, as a starting place for our own understanding.

The Bible invoked against Rome

In the providence of God, Luther, a devoted and disciplined monk of the Augustinian Order, was called upon to lecture from the Bible. Also in the providence of God, he was led to lecture from three sources, all of which forced him to decision over against Rome. He lectured on the Psalms, Galatians, and Romans; and both in the study and in the classroom the logic of his material led him eventually to see that he was justified by faith alone, that Christ was the only Mediator between him and his God, and that neither he nor his salvation needed the trappings and ceremonies of the Romanist hierarchy. Luther’s experience was highly individualistic. He found himself in a saving relationship to God through Jesus Christ, and this experience of salvation with its accompanying assurance was not the result of nor had it been nurtured by any external organization”. It was over against such an organization that Luther had now to say, “Here I stand.”

The Church basically spiritual

But an individual standing alone is not a church, and Luther knew it. Who or what then was the Church? How could it be created? Where was it to be found? If a man could break away from the Church because what was then called the Church was not the Church, just where is the body of which Christ is the Head? Pioneering his way through such problems, Luther came to see at last that there must be others who were “in Christ” as he was. Therefore, those in Christ were in one another. Communion with God through Christ meant communion with one another. What later Bucer was first to term “the invisible Church” was the only church of which Luther could call himself a member. This “invisible Church” was henceforce inescapable in Luther’s understanding. In spite of the fact that Luther was forced by later circumstances to say something authoritative about the “visible church,” and in spite of the fact that Calvin also found it necessary to expand his description of the visible church to over one hundred pages in the Institutio, the Reformers could never define the Church in such a way as to eliminate this basic necessity in the believer’s experience of oneness with the living God through Christ. There was no church anywhere without a core of those who had experienced Christ, who were one with Him and therefore one in Him.

Primary task to win the lost

In the Reformed tradition, therefore, it is the primary task of the Church to bring men and women into this saving relationship with Jesus Christ. No part of our program, no emphasis on liturgy or philanthropy, and no delight in our rapid numerical growth have any meaning apart from this primary emphasis. The interesting and amazing complexity of our church life today has no meaning unless and until this is done. The primary task of the church is to make Christians out of people. And a man is a Christian when he has accepted Christ as his Saviour, when he is in a saving relationship to God through Christ; anything else and anything less is vain and futile “religious” exercise. Professor Paul Vieth of Yale, in his approach to Christian education, says that the task of Christian education “is to confront with and control by” the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This is true. First, a man is confronted by Christ and His Gospel, he is forced to decision by this encounter, he becomes by this commitment a new man in Christ; he becomes thereby a living unit in the body, a building block in the construction, a part of the Body of Christ.

Ministry of Word and Spirit

Luther further discovered for us that this new relationship with God and with one another was mediated through the Scriptures which in turn were applied to us by the ministry of the Holy Spirit. For the Scriptures to be taught, therefore, the “invisible Church” had to become visible. It had to take form. It had to meet at a certain place and at a certain time; there had to be organization so that things would be done decently and in order. Certain notae of the church appeared— the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the sacraments—and then the “right” preaching of the Word and the “right” administration of the sacraments. Men were to be brought to Christ by the audible word and by the visible word. The emphasis on preaching in the Reformed tradition is firmly set in the necessity of the Word and the Spirit as the only means of bringing men to Christ. The Reformers believed in the power of the Word, in the ministry of the Spirit. The task of the preacher is to set the Word before the people. Fundamentally we are to let the Word speak, expound it, interpret it, bear witness regarding its power in our lives and the lives of others. What we have lost sight of most, I suppose, in our day, is that this Word itself has power. Sow the seed, get it out; in the providence of God that Word shall not return void.

The visible church, therefore, becomes a means, and only a means, of getting the Word out. It soon happened in Luther’s day, as in our own, that there were at least three kinds of people in any given congregation: those still unconverted by the Word, those ready only for milk, those ready for meat. The church had to be organized, and needs to be organized now, of course, to answer all these needs. Many evangelists, rightly concerned for conversion, fail to see that after certain people have been roundly and soundly converted, it is time to move on to something else. There must be the clear confrontation with the Gospel calling for life decision and commitment, but there must also be building up in the faith. We are to convert sinners and also edify saints. It is Vieth again saying “confront with” and then “control by” the Gospel.

World task of the Church

In obedience to the Great Commission the Church must also move out from its own center of operations to ever wider areas of operation. No group, however small or however pure they may think themselves to be, can be released from the pressing requirements of world mission. This again means organization and planning- some teachers, some evangelists.

If we analyze our situation, we can see what this means in the growth and complexity of the church.

It is vain to believe that all this organization has meaning apart from the primary task of evangelization; but it is naive to believe that the work of evangelization can be carried out without care in organization. Whatever the drag of organization and the temptation to lose the primary task of the Church in the wheels and gears of a great denominational enterprise, we do not understand the necessities of our task unless we see the unfortunate necessity of visible organization. The cry for the simple Gospel, or the cry for the simple program of the Great Teacher and His handful of followers, is easily understood as a yearning of the heart, but it is a misunderstanding of what our task will constantly require of us. The early Church was still very young when it had to have a Council at Jerusalem. Paul never mentions his expense account, but he had one. And there must have been some kind of certified accountancy for the collection for the saints in Jerusalem.

Simple Gospel, complex organization

The primary task of the church is to bring men and women into a saving relationship to God through Jesus Christ. Now see what happens. A man in communion with Christ finds himself in a communion; those in Christ are in one another. Out of this communion, because men are physical as well as spiritual, there arises a community, a visible group of people gathered around one center of commitment and loyalty. It is a part of the requirements of this visible group that they evangelize others and in time bring them into this same fellowship. The community grows, it breaks up into congregations, there are synods and assemblies, there are programs of mission and philanthropy; there are building programs, financial drives, magazines and editorial policies, theological seminaries and boards of trustees.

It is deadly for a church to grow from the outside in; but when it grows spiritually and dynamically from the inside out, all these externals are necessities, not unfortunate excrescences on the living organism. The simple Gospel makes a complex organization; it is a part of the task of the Church to keep all these physical expressions under the power of the Spirit.

The Gospel and social activity

When the communion becomes a community, necessities laid on the Church become almost endless. At the time of my theological training there was much talk about the personal gospel as against the social gospel. Now we know what we should have immediately recognized then, that there is only one Gospel, but that it includes both sides.

There is no salvation by way of the social gospel, but only in the individual’s call to Christ. But there is no such thing as an asocial Christian. His commitment to Christ immediately and by necessity has social implications. The salvation of the man is the salvation of the whole man, and the whole man is a man engaged in business or trade; he is an employer or an employee; he is an economic man, a political man.

What can be said of individuals must also be said of congregations of individuals. Commitment to Christ means that a man is changed in all his relationships; a church made up of committed members has something to say also to the total life of men. Only men saved by grace can work to save society, but men saved by grace cannot escape the necessity of working redemptively upon society.

It is surprising how easily we can see the place of the church community in terms of social reform in some directions but not in others. The Church stands usually against liquor and the liquor “interests,” that is, the business of liquor. The church community is always against organized vice, against narcotics. In the past the Church as such took a stand against slavery and felt called upon to speak out against child labor even when such speaking hurt profits. We accept these victories over injustice in former days as assumptions of the position of the Church in our own day; it is harder to see in our contemporary scene just what it is that the Church is called upon to do.

Sins of contemporary society

Nevertheless we have tasks in relation to the sins of contemporary society. We must not confuse our difficulty in knowing just what to do with the necessity to do something, to take a position, to bear our witness. Evangelicals commonly draw back from such responsibilities because the primary task for them is the preaching of the Gospel of salvation. Very well. Now what are these saved people to do in the society in which they live? If the church community can support their efforts by speaking out on organized vice, why cannot the organized church community speak out for the moral obligations of capital on the one hand and labor on the other? Although it is not within the province of the Church to determine what may constitute “just wages,” it should expect them to be paid. The Church may be unqualified to determine what comprises “feather bedding,” but it should expect labor as well as capital to deal honestly and justly.

It helps to think of it this way: If through the instrumentality of my preaching on a Sunday morning a man is led to conversion, what shall I tell him that his new Christianity involves when he calls upon me in my study on Monday morning? I can’t tell him everything, I am sure. But I can challenge him with the position of the Church on his marital relationships, his use of liquor, what he does with his leisure time. I cannot advise him on political parties, but I can discuss good citizenship. I can talk to him about his “calling” in his daily task, but can I tell him anything about whether he is right or wrong to continue to pay dues in his labor union? These are touchy questions because they are contemporary ones. But questions of right and wrong are of the stuff of life in any day, and the Church bears its witness today. There is no such thing as a social gospel; conversely, there is no such thing as an asocial Christian. A man is to be confronted with and then controlled by the Gospel in every relationship. The Church should be ready to help the members of the Christian community in all such relationships. Calvin’s church in Geneva, for example, set up controls in the markets and established a weaving industry for the unemployed.

Christian impact on culture

Saved men should also have an impact on culture. Great periods in the history of the church have meant great art and architecture, great music, new laws, educational institutions, in short, a new way of life. Whether we will or not, a dominant religion will create a way of life; the question is, which religion? Will it be Secularism? or Materialism? or the dialectic of Communism? The Christianity of the Puritans poured into American life what Van Wyck Brooks was led to call The Flowering of New England. The iron core of Calvinism is still felt by way of the children of Convenanters, Beggars, and Hugenots, and the end is not yet. How we dress, our manner of speech, the pictures we like, the television programs we allow, the places we spend our leisure and how we spend it there; all these are expressions of the reality of what is supposed to happen first and happen truly: a man’s commitment to Christ. He is a “new creature,” and “Behold, all things are become new.” A different culture has always been the necessary corollary of essential Christianity. We should expect Christianity to make a difference in all life around us; the leaven leavens the whole loaf. We see this taking place on the foreign mission field; can we understand our total mission here at home?

The primary task of the Church, therefore, is to bring men into a saving relationship to God through Christ. This is done by Word and Spirit. Men thus saved must be given the nourishment to grow in Christ; this is Christian education. Such men in communion form the communities which make constant redemptive impact on the world around them. Thus the things of heaven are brought to bear upon the things of earth and the day is hastened when “every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess” Christ’s Lordship.

Addison H. Leitch, Ph.D., Litt.D., is president of Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary.

- More from Addison H. Leitch

Ideas

Why ‘Christianity Today’?

A Christianity Today Editorial

The vision that has animated this magazine from the beginning.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY has its origin in a deepfelt desire to express historical Christianity to the present generation. Neglected, slighted, misrepresented—evangelical Christianity needs a clear voice, to speak with conviction and love, and to state its true position and its relevance to the world crisis. A generation has grown up unaware of the basic truths of the Christian faith taught in the Scriptures and expressed in the creeds of the historic evangelical churches.

Theological Liberalism has failed to meet the moral and spiritual needs of the people. Neither the man on the street nor the intellectual is today much attracted by its preaching and theology. All too frequently, it finds itself adrift in speculation that neither solves the problem of the individual nor of the society of which he is a part.

For the preacher, an unending source of wisdom and power lies in a return to truly biblical preaching. For the layman, this same Book will prove to be light on the pathway of life, the record of the One Who alone meets our needs for now and for eternity.

Christianity Today is confident that the answer to the theological confusion existing in the world is found in Christ and the Scriptures. There is evidence that more and more people are rediscovering the Word of God as their source of authority and power. Many of these searchers for the truth are unaware of the existence of an increasing group of evangelical scholars throughout the world. Through the pages of Christianity Today these men will expound and defend the basic truths of the Christian faith in terms of reverent scholarship and of practical application to the needs of the present generation.

Those who direct the editorial policy of Christianity Today unreservedly accept the complete reliability and authority of the written Word of God. It is their conviction that the Scriptures teach the doctrine of plenary inspiration. This doctrine has been misrepresented and misunderstood. To state the biblical concept of inspiration will be one of the aims of this magazine.

The content of historic Christianity will be presented and defended. Among the distinctive doctrines to be stressed are those of God, Christ, man, salvation, and the last things. The best modern scholarship recognizes the bearing of doctrine on moral and spiritual life. This emphasis will find encouragement in the pages of Christianity Today.

True ecumenicity will be fostered by setting forth the New Testament teaching of the unity of believers in Jesus Christ. External organic unity is not likely to succeed unless the unity engendered by the Holy Spirit prevails. A unity that endures must have as its spiritual basis a like faith, an authentic hope, and the renewing power of Christian love.

National stability and survival depend upon enduring spiritual and moral qualities. Revival as the answer to national problems may seem to be an oversimplified solution to a distressingly complex situation. Nevertheless statesmen as well as theologians realize that the basic solution to the world crisis is theological. Christianity Today will stress the impact of evangelism on life and will encourage it.

Christianity Today will apply the biblical revelation to the contemporary social crisis, by presenting the implications of the total Gospel message for every area of life. This, Fundamentalism has often failed to do. Christian laymen. are becoming increasingly aware that the answer to the many problems of political, industrial, and social life is a theological one. They are looking to the Christian Church for guidance, and they are looking for a demonstration of the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a transforming and vital force. We have the conviction that consecrated and gifted evangelical scholarship can provide concrete proof and strategic answers.

Christianity Today takes cognizance of the dissolving effect of modern scientific theory upon religion. To counteract this tendency, it will set forth the unity of the Divine revelation in nature and Scripture.

Three years in a theological seminary is not sufficient to prepare a student fully for the ministry. Christianity Today will seek to supplement seminary training with sermonic helps, pastoral advice, and book reviews, by leading ministers and scholars.

The interpretation of the news becomes more and more important in the present world situation. Correspondents conversant with local conditions have been enlisted in the United States and abroad. Through their reports Christianity Today will seek to provide its readers with a comprehensive and relevant view of religious movements and life throughout the world.

While affirming the great emphases of the historic creeds, this magazine will seek to avoid controversial denominational differences. It does not intend to concern itself with personalities or with purely internal problems and conflicts of the various denominations. If significant enough, these will be objectively reported.

Into an era of unparalleled problems and opportunities for the Church comes Christianity Today with the firm conviction that the historic evangelical faith is vital for the life of the Church and of the nations. We believe that the Gospel is still the power of God unto salvation for all who believe; that the basic needs of the social order must meet their solution first in the redemption of the individual; that the church and the individual Christian do have a vital responsibility to be both salt and light in a decaying and darkening world.

Believing that a great host of true Christians, whose faith has been impaired, are today earnestly seeking for a faith to live by and a message to proclaim, Christianity Today dedicates itself to the presentation of the reasonableness and effectiveness of the Christian evangel. This we undertake with sincere Christian love for those who may differ with us, and with whom we may be compelled to differ, and with the assurance in our hearts that God's Holy Spirit alone can activate any vital witness for Him.

- More from A Christianity Today Editorial

Theology

The Gospel of Matthew

J. Marcellus Kik

An eye-witness received special grace and guidance from the Holy Spirit to give a faithful account of information received from other sources.

The Gospel of Matthew is a treasure house stored with a wealth of sermon material. Yet for many preachers the door to this treasury has been locked by Higher Critical scholars. But such was not the intent of those scholars. Their purpose was to clarify the teachings of the various books of the Bible, and Higher Criticism is indeed invaluable as an aid in the sphere of Biblical introduction, where it has a legitimate and important function. But as a result of the use of what sometimes proves to be only a critic’s imagination, the tendency has been to confuse rather than to clarify the text for the preacher.

What is in the mind of the present-day preacher as he takes a text from Matthew’s Gospel? One steeped in the lore of Higher Criticism immediately faces a number of questions. Is the text a translation from a document originally written in Aramaic? Does it come from Mark or from the hypothetical document Q? Or is its source some other unknown document? Or does it come from oral tradition? Does it show church or Hellenistic influence? Is it the work of the first or the second century? Is it the work of the original author, a redactor, or an editor? Is it legend, tradition, or history?

Caught in the maze of such questions; the preacher does not go to his pulpit and declare of the text, “Thus saith the Lord.” Indeed, to avoid insincerity he may turn away from the Bible as the source of sermon material and tum instead to current events, modem literature, social problems, or church programs.

But today something is happening in the realm of scholarship. Now one may dare to question long-venerated hypotheses without being accused of obscurantism. A prominent New Testament scholar, Dr. Vincent Taylor, in writing about a number of hypotheses under question says, “The celebrated Q Hypothesis is a case in point. In recent years it has been assailed by several scholars, including Abbot B. C. Butler, of Downside, in his Originality of St. Matthew (1951), and Dr. Austin Farrer, of Oxford, in A Study in St. Mark (1951). Its substance has been replaced by several Roman Catholic scholars of first rank, who prefer to think that the original sayings-source was an Aramaic Matthew used in the later Gospels” (The Expository Times, September, 1955). Other scholars, such as Professor J. H. Ropes, have questioned the very existence of the Q document.

As every scholar knows, the hypothetical Q document has entered into the warp and woof of almost every New Testament Introduction. The abandonment of this hypothesis will have the effect of making them obsolete. In the light of the recent assault on the Q hypothesis one may echo what Professor A. M. Hunter wrote concerning the “Proto-Luke Hypothesis,” “So twenty-five years after its propounding, this hypothesis remains hypothetical.”

A working hypothesis

A working hypothesis for the study of the Gospel of Matthew is this: The Gospel of Matthew was written by an eye-witness who received special grace and guidance from the Holy Spirit to give a faithful account of the things heard and seen and of information received from other sources.

The history of Higher Criticism reveals one discarded hypothesis after another. This is due to speculation in the absence of objective evidence. Generally, certain hypotheses have been adopted because they have been accepted by distinguished scholars. But, generation after generation, the subjective reasoning of scholars has been proved erroneous. Although desiring to give credit for constructive work, one cannot help questioning whether the influence of Higher Criticism on the study of the Bible is out of proportion to the lasting contributions it has made to the science of exegesis.

Uniqueness of Matthew

It is no accident that the Gospel of Matthew stands at the beginning of the New Testament, for Matthew forms the connecting link between the Old Testament and the New. More than any other Gospel, it concerns itself with Old Testament prophecy. There are over sixty references to the old dispensation. Frequently one finds such expressions as “that it might be fulfilled” and “thus it is written by the prophet.” This is in contrast to the absence of such expressions in Mark and Luke.

The Jewish constituency was foremost in the mind of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. This is seen incidentally in that he presupposes the reader will know the geography of Palestine and its customs, manners, and ceremonies. For instance, in the matter of washing the hands before eating bread, Matthew takes for granted that the readers are acquainted with that custom (Matt. 15: 1,2); but Mark feels that he should explain to his readers that this was the tradition among the Jews (Mark 7:3). Even more from the general content of the Gospel, we can sense that Matthew had Jewish readers in view. He wanted the Jews to see that Jesus was the long-promised Messiah who had come to establish the kingdom of heaven upon earth. But, alas, as Matthew so vividly portrays, the Jews would not recognize Jesus as the Saviour of Israel.

The conflict between the true conception of the Messiah and His kingdom and the false conception held by contemporary Judaism might be termed the plot of the Gospel. With increasing crescendo the Jewish leaders are warned and also denounced for their false views. This emphasis begins in the third chapter with John the Baptist warning the Pharisees and Sadducees that the axe was laid at the root of the tree and denouncing them as a generation of vipers. In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus warns against the false righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. He distinguishes between the true meaning of the Old Testament teachings and the false accretions of the elders. In the eighth chapter Christ prophesies that “the children of the Kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.” This is followed by such expressions as “O generation of vipers” (12:34), “ye hypocrites” (15:7), “blind leaders of the blind” (15: 14). A dramatic climax is reached with the denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees in chapter 23.

The increasing enmity of the religious leaders may be gathered from these statements: “This man blasphemeth” (9:3); “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?” (9: 11); “He casteth out devils through the prince of devils” (9:34); “Behold a man gluttonous, and a wine bibber” (11:19); “By what authority doest thou these things?” (21:23); “He is guilty of death” (26:66). This enmity is climaxed by the terrible cry, “Let Him be crucified.”

Though the apostle wrote with the Jews in mind, the note of universality is not missing. Matthew alone presents the story of the Magi, the first representatives of the Gentiles. He records the wonderful faith of the Roman centurion and the prophecy in connection with it: “Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.” No doubt with sad heart he records another prophecy of Jesus: “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” The great ecumenical reach of the Gospel is seen in the recording of the Great Commission: “Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations” (ASV).

The following is a broad outline of the Gospel: (1) Introduction, chapters 1, 2; (2) Christ’s entrance into his public ministry, chapters 3-4: 12; (3) Galilean ministry, chapters 5: 12-18: 35; (4) Judea and Jerusalem, chapters 19, 20; (5) Passion Week, chapters 21-27; (6) Resurrection and Ascension, chapter 28.

Tools for exposition

For the study of each book of the Bible a minister should have at least three or four good commentaries. Because of its clear exegesis and homiletical aids the commentary by Dr. John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, although first published in 1886, is still superior. A good example of the lexico-grammatical method of exegesis is H. A. W. Meyer, Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew (1875). One must be on guard against some of his conclusions; nevertheless his commentary is valuable. He is prone to assign needlessly a role to legend, e.g., the story of the Magi. Another standard work is Alfred Plummer’s An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (1909). Plummer does not give a verse-by-verse exposition. Rather, he treats each incident of discourse as a unit which is helpful.

Other commentaries of value are those of Calvin, Simeon, and Lenski. Calvin has rightly been called the prince of exegetes, and all later commentaries benefit from his work. In 1820 a work by Charles Simeon appeared under the title Expository Outlines on the Whole Bible. This work has recently been reprinted. The preacher who desires practical helps and outlines will find this book of great aid. Another recommended work is by a Lutheran scholar, R. C. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (1931).

The Church has been enriched with the labours of learned men in the field of exposition. Neglect of the fruits of their work can only impoverish the pulpit. A diligent use of the commentaries suggested above will enable the preacher to be like the householder described in Matthew 13: 52, “who bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.”

J. Marcellus Kik is associate editor of Christianity Today.

- More from J. Marcellus Kik

Cover Story

Changing Climate of European Theology

G. C. Berkouwer

We have been placed by God in an extremely exciting time—an era charged with tension.

ArTono/Shutterstock

In the past thirty or forty years drastic changes have taken place in European theology. These theological changes are visible against a complex background; and to take account of their background is to be reminded again that theological development is interwoven with history. The theological climate of a given time is always profoundly influenced by historical events. In times of prosperity and calm, theology takes on an optimistic color; in other times catastrophe throws a shadow over theology. Theology, in the sense of believing reflection on the truth of the Christian faith, does not stand unmoved within the events of a given area. It is constantly taken up, in thesis and antithesis, in struggle and confrontation, into the situation of the times.

Temper of the times

In the nature of the case, there is always a real danger that a theologian may fit his theology to the mentality of a given era and thus capitulate to it. This has often occurred, as appears from the modernistic theology of the nineteenth century, which, under pressure of the natural science popular at the time, sacrificed decisive points of the ancient confession of the Church to the current Zeitgeist. When this happens, a time in history is no longer viewed in the light of the Word of God, but rather the Word of God is interpreted out of the presuppositions of a given epoch. Thus, the Gospel is assimilated to the mind of the time. And finally, it is no longer the Gospel, but the temper of the times that speaks with authority.

Post-evolutionary hypnosis

It is clear that theology in Europe today has arisen out of the crises of many catastrophic events that are still vividly alive in our memory. These events are concentrated around the two world wars and all that is intimately associated with them. I do not refer only to the problems that arose directly from them, such as the problem of the state, the question of the demonizing of life, and the problem of Israel, all of which have stirred up lively discussions in Europe during the past ten years. I refer primarily to the crisis in the optimistic, evolutionistic thought of the nineteenth century.

In the previous century we were hypnotized by the idea of the progress of humanity as it was spurred on by the development of the sciences. Fascinated by the optimistic notion of the imminent evolution of the Kingdom of God, we were blinded to actual threats to our existence that were even then arising. People gave up belief in the reality of demonic powers (as in the reality of angels), and they spoke seldom about the corruption of the human heart and the corresponding judgment of a holy God. What was formerly called corruption was then seen as the “not yet” of human development. The coming of the living Lord into history, paled in the light of the development of culture within history.

Secularizing of theology

The theology of the nineteenth century mirrored in many respects the optimism and evolutionism of the era. Books of dogmatics appeared in which eschatology was given only a passing notice and the message of the coming of Christ was scarcely heard. Correspondingly, the ancient dogmas of the church went through a profound crisis. Sharp critique was directed against the doctrines of the two natures of Christ, the confession of the Trinity, and redemption through the blood of Christ. In all of this we encounter what was actually a radical secularizing of theology; the scandal of the Gospel was disappearing. This development proceeded into the beginning of the twentieth century; even then, hearts were still full of faith in the promise of the future. The expectation was translated by voices who said that the new century would be the age of the soul or the century of the child. The developments of the century then past appeared to guarantee this future.

The waves of pessimism

These expectations were unfulfilled. Our century is the opposite of an age of peace. One sometimes wonders whether this hard and uncompassionate century has any room at all for the innocent child and whether in spite of the rise of the science of psychology—it is not precisely the soul of man that is lost. One wonders whether the proverb about the sickness of heart caused by deferred hope (Prov. 13:12) has not become a reality in our time.

A wave of pessimism rolled over Europe after the First World War. Spengler’s The Decline of the West reflected the bitter disappointment of Europe after the intense expectations of the nineteenth century. This disappointment is reflected in the literature as well as in the theology and philosophy of the postwar era. It was sensed increasingly that human development was not so obvious as had been imagined and that immense threats haunted the horizon of human existence in spite of and within its cultural and technical enrichment.

Recovery of the vertical

These threats, with the insecurities and fears they caused, were mirrored in theology. The break with the optimistic past was executed toward the end of the First World War. We think of the rise of dialectic theology with its onslaught against the optimism of the past and against the tendency to identify religio-socialistic ideals with the Kingdom of God. This movement called men to a respect for the majestic judgment of God, for His wrath (of which nineteenth-century theology knew scarcely anything), for the inescapable crises in the entire human situation—in culture, and in morality and religion as ways for man to get to God. Salvation for man was recognized as possible only through Divine forgiveness, only through the justification of the ungodly. The horizontal line of evolution gave way to the vertical line of God’s grace and judgment. This mode of thinking called attention so insistently once again to the eschata, the end, that we can justly speak of the eschatological theology of the twentieth century. In this the emphasis was laid on the unfathomable majesty, the unapproachable holiness of God, on His hiddenness, His grace and judgment. (In 1917 Rudolph Otto had written his celebrated The Idea of the Holy, which by 1925 had had its thirteenth printing.) The corollary of this was also set down, the nothingness of the creature in his lostness and rebellion against God. Eschatology—not now in the sense of a distant future event—became real and existential, a present actuality in the dynamic and in the tension of the coming of God into history.

Shift of perspective

This effected a profound shift in the thinking of theologians about the relationship between God and man. The distance between God and man came sharply into focus (“God is in heaven, and thou upon earth,” Eccles. 5:2), and the accent fell on the fact that only in recognizing this distance could the light of grace and the experience of comfort be captured. Man had been placed in the center of things by nineteenth-century theology; dialectic theology attacked this vehemently and set God in the center. Appeal was made for a theocentric theology. Schleiermacher, with his optimism, his Christology and his eschatology, was a favorite target of men such as Barth and Brunner. For Schleiermacher’s Christology did not recognize God in Christ and his eschatology had no place for a real coming of God into history.

This initial attack on nineteenth-century theology has proceeded in a line of development that, it seems to me, has been unbroken. The same questions put then are still acute. They are concentrated about the central questions of the Church’s confession and, in connection with it, about the nature of the last things. We see clearly that the struggle which began with eschatological questions still is centered there. More than ever, problems concerning the significance of the Kingdom of God are the order of the day. The extreme alternatives are still the view that would have the Kingdom as our task and the eschatological view that sees it exclusively as a future act of God. For us, the consciousness that the New Testament knows nothing of such a dilemma and, on the contrary, warns us against one-sidedness, becomes ever clearer as we observe the theological struggles or Europe.

A stubborn resistance

This remarkable development in theology does not mean that the influence of the theology of the last century is completely broken and that it has permanently disappeared from the stage. The resistance to the Church’s confession was too stubborn to be drowned so quickly. It should not surprise us that we still encounter attacks on the apostolic confession, with its virgin birth, resurrection, and ascension statements, nor that the fierce critique of the Christological confession of Chalcedon is carried through into the twentieth century.

In this connection it is important to note the strong influence of the German New Testament scholar, Rudolph Bultmann. Bultmann was part of the dialectic circle at first, but later came into sharp conflict with Barth in regard to the foundations of theology. The most striking element of Bultmann’s theology is that, with his program of “demythologizing” of the New Testament, he continues the critical line of the liberal nineteenth-century theology. This is manifest in his teaching that the New Testament has come to us clothed in the mythical view of the world common to the time of the New Testament, a view which has become impossible for modern man to accept. The Incarnation, the virgin birth, the resurrection and the return of Christ on the clouds of heaven are all inextricable parts of this mythical world picture. Modern man cannot accept the naive New Testament world picture, and therefore, cannot accept these mythical forms in which the New Testament presents the Gospel. It was Bultmann’s conviction that theology must make it clear to modern man that Christianity did not stand or fall with its Biblical, mythical setting and that theology must not put an unnecessary stumbling block before modern man by maintaining the antiquated mythical setting of the Gospel.

Dispute over basic concerns

In all this, we are not dealing with a struggle that was played off as a competition within the quiet libraries of theologians. It hit the Church in its vitals of faith. The Church could not observe this development from a balcony; she was brought into it with her entire confession and with her preaching. We see more and more that the struggle around orthodoxy, which took such fierce form in the nineteenth century, is not a thing that belongs only to the past. In the overwhelming flood of theological literature of the postwar era of the forties and fifties, we can see the struggle increasing in intensity. In Europe (we limit ourselves to this continent, although the same tensions are observable in other areas of the world) the struggle still centers around the same basic questions raised by the modernism that has influenced theology for a century now. In this struggle, as observed in Bultmann’s theology, the foundations of the whole Christian faith, and therewith the absoluteness of Christianity, are affected; and the Church of Jesus Christ is directly involved.

As we are impressed with this fact, we realize that our strategy cannot be that of a retreat to an intellectual no man’s land where we can withhold ourselves from genuine scholarly involvement. It is this approach which, if pursued, could do such a journal as CHRISTIANITY TODAY great harm. We would then be giving the impression that we are afraid of scholarship and, moreover, that we have reason to fear it. This is the position of fear. We must take the position of honest scholarship which is bound by the Word of God and which does not retreat with the Word but rather enters the struggle with faith, unafraid.

We have been placed by God in an extremely exciting time, an era charged with tension. The struggle is being played off on almost every theological field, in the Biblical as well as the dogmatic arena. If we insist on carrying on the battle, it is not because we are bound by conservatism. On the contrary, when we see the Biblical studies of our own day, we are impressed with the fact that there are treasures in the Gospel we have not yet touched. We carry on the battle because we realize that the Word of God has riches we have not yet grasped. We need think only of the great theological word book of the New Testament now being published in Germany (Theologisches Wortenbuch zum Neuen Testament, G. Kittel, ed.), which is having an enormous influence on European theological study, to see evidence that the Word of God is powerful through all heterodoxy. If I see it correctly, there is a special calling for true Christian theology implicit in today’s theological climate. We can be faithful to this calling only as we are seized by the Gospel of Christ and are willing to give ourselves wholly to an understanding of and obedience to the Scriptures.

Love and dogmatic debate

Naturally, there is danger of sterility and intellectualism, as there always has been in orthodoxy. But there is also another possibility. I think of John, the apostle of love. He lived in a time when a hard battle had to be fought for the reality of Christ come in the flesh. As he pursued the battle, he was the apostle of love; but in and from love he waged a hard and moving fight, not hesitating in his situation to point up the temptation and threat of the Antichrist. Evidently the strength of love did not disqualify the beloved apostle for pitched battle. I see in this the program for “orthodoxy,” or, if you will, for CHRISTIANITY TODAY, in the changed and still changing theological climate of our time. Orthodoxy has often been accused of being loveless and conservative for conservatism’s sake, possessed with an antiquated mentality without consciousness or feeling for the changed times. Whatever justice this charge may at times have had, it will be our continued calling to come to a unity of life, without unbearable tension between faith and science, and without conflict between love and orthodoxy.

The earnestness of life

In the midst of the continuing battle over the confession of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, redemption through the blood of Christ (and, in the background, the authority of the Scriptures), we shall have to understand that, in all the changed and changing times, there is one question which shall never be relegated to the sidelines. It is the question that, when Christ first asked it, stirred up a crisis: “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am? … But whom say ye that I am?” We may not allow ourselves to forget that after Peter confessed His Lord, the Lord gave a benediction. In our theological reflection too, we must remember this benediction. In theology, we do not deal with an intellectual joust, but with the very earnestness of life itself. It is in this earnestness that we must make our theological decision as to the offense of the cross, an offense that remains the same in every changed situation.

Natural understanding, regardless of the time, seeks other ways than the way of the Cross. Hence, in all changes of climate, there is also a prevailing continuity. The calling of the Church and of theology is to enter the struggle in order to serve with the Gospel, the Gospel that is not according to man. If we in common responsibility use the phrase CHRISTIANITY TODAY it must not be as an empty motto; but as a program and a perspective, a task that, without fear, we willingly take on. We shall not think too highly of our own strength or of our own thinking. We shall be comforted and led by the Word of God that is applicable here: “Cast thy bread upon the waters; for thou shalt find it after many days.”

G. C. Berkouwer, Ph.D., is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free University of Amsterdam and author of Studies in Dogmatics, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, etc.

- More from G. C. Berkouwer

Share

The Record In Korea

The Record In China

Foreign Policy And Freedom

The Record In Russia

Diplomatic Recognition?

Share

Share

The Extension of Science

The Accumulation of Depravity

Need of Spiritual Renewal

Summary of Present Situation

Defense and Cold War

Compromise Of Integrity

Present Course Inadequate

Divine Intervention Needed

God’S Concern with Nations

Provision for Man’s Recovery

Twentieth-Century Tragedy

Urgency of Individual Decision

Myth of Collective Security

God and Modern Gomorrah

Share

Share

BERNARD W. WISHY

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

Share

The Bible invoked against Rome

The Church basically spiritual

Primary task to win the lost

Ministry of Word and Spirit

World task of the Church

Simple Gospel, complex organization

The Gospel and social activity

Sins of contemporary society

Christian impact on culture

Share

Share

Share

Share

A working hypothesis

Uniqueness of Matthew

Tools for exposition

Share

Share

Temper of the times

Post-evolutionary hypnosis

Secularizing of theology

The waves of pessimism

Recovery of the vertical

Shift of perspective

A stubborn resistance

Dispute over basic concerns

Love and dogmatic debate

The earnestness of life

Share