Page 6341 – Christianity Today (2024)

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

The six-day All Christian Peace Assembly in Prague last month was climaxed with adoption of a resolution pleading for “coexistence” and “constructive co-operation” between Communist countries and those of the West.

The Czech News Agency (CTK) said the resolution, approved by 700 Protestant and Eastern Orthodox delegates from both East and West, stressed the need for disarmament and an end to nuclear weapons testing if “peace and understanding between nations” is to be achieved.

Milton Mayer, representing the American Friends Service Committee as an observer, praised the Czech Communist government for having been “so friendly, helpful and hospitable to this religious undertaking,” CTK said.

The following account traces Red efforts to “use” the peace pretext:

The Communist offensive registers its shrewdest propaganda advances in so-called Christian lands through the projection of socio-humanitarian movements which simultaneously promote social reforms and Soviet political views. The influence of Communist theory upon the Western Christian community is then expanded by enlisting the endorsement of clergymen for organizations which combine Soviet objectives with indignation over social evils.

The World Peace Council (WPC) is an outstanding example. After its founding in Poland by Communist agencies in 1949, it convened congresses in Paris and Prague. Delegates included Western clergymen of Catholic and Protestant (Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican) affiliations. Representatives of Baptist, Methodist and Quaker communities from Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary also participated. The attending churchmen set up a permanent committee (Metropolitan Nikolai, U.S.S.R.; Abbé Boulier, France; the Rev. Hewlett Johnson, Britain’s “Red Dean” of Canterbury; Bishop Arthur Moulton, United States) and issued an appeal to the world Christian community: “In the name of our Christian faith, it is our duty to affirm that no iron curtain exists for us, that different ideologies can peacefully coexist on earth; that the outcome of the class struggle, that bitter fruit of the profound injustices of the capitalist system, cannot be decided by the force which suppresses rebellion, that it can only be decided by justice, which defends the oppressed, and only on the condition that there is respect for the right of nations to decide for themselves which economic system is suitable for them.” From that time forward, the Cominform (Communist Information Bureau) has made steady gains in subtly enlisting the Christian clergy in support of world peace on the premise of “peaceful coexistence.”

The British government’s refusal to permit certain delegates to enter the United Kingdom in 1950 resulted in removal of the Second World Peace Conference to Warsaw. Attending were 72 ministers “representing” 68 denominations, including Roman Catholic clergy, from Italy, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and France.

WPC’s ruling authority is staffed by known members of the Communist party, left-wing theologians, parliamentarians, and pacifists. The council held its first session in East Berlin in February, 1951, and its program followed the Communist line without deviation. Among other points it hailed “peaceful coexistence” between the Communist and the capitalist worlds as the “golden rule of international life.” Meetings were held in Vienna in 1951, in East Berlin in 1952, in Budapest and Vienna in 1953, in East Berlin and Stockholm in 1954, and in Colombo in 1957. The council again met in 1959 in Stockholm, this time to chart a top-level reorganization. A presidential committee of 19 ardent champions of Soviet policy in social, religious, and scientific agencies in many lands was set up. Its chairman was John Desmond Bernal of Great Britain, who subsequently became acting chairman and then vice president of the council.

The council’s North American representative was Dr. James G. Endicott of the United Church of Canada, associated with WPC activities since 1950. A son of missionaries, born in China in 1898, and then himself for many years a missionary in that land, he defended Communist takeover of the Chinese mainland as agrarian reform and “the beginning of a movement that will sweep through Burma and countries as far west as Egypt.” Organizer and president of the Canadian Peace Congress, he not only “represents” North America on the presidential committee of WPC, but is president of the International Institute of Peace founded in Vienna in 1957. The institute’s main line is promotion of the Communist slant on “peaceful coexistence” and “disarmament.” The executive leadership of IIP interlocks with that of WPC and both groups champion Soviet foreign policy.

WPC has steadily wooed representatives from church and religious organizations. The “coexistence” thesis is promoted in the name of brotherhood and justice. Concealed are the essential antipathy of Marxism toward supernatural religion and the conflict of Christianity with communism. Communist leaders consider the party’s ideology superior to Christianity. Lenin referred to Marx’s saying that “religion is the opiate of the people” as “the cornerstone of the Marxist point of view in the matter of religion. Marxism has always viewed all contemporary religion and churches, all and every kind of religious organization, as agencies of bourgeois reaction, serving as a defense of exploitation and the drugging of the working class.” Stalin, a former divinity student, closed the majority of the churches from 1929 to 1943, sent church leaders to concentration camps, and was responsible for the execution of many clergymen.

Stalin decreed the reopening of the churches in 1943 on the basis of coexistence with the atheistic Communist ideology, and by the temporary tolerance of the totalitarian state. The churches have been prized as a useful instrument for promoting the Soviet “peace offensive.” Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Nikolai has ardently supported Lenin-Stalin doctrine, praised Stalin as the standard-bearer of peace, attacked the United States as a warring imperialist power, and demanded arms reduction and banning of atomic weapons in line with Soviet proposals. He has urged WPC churchmen to become missionaries to permeate church ranks and humanitarian organizations with the philosophy of “peaceful coexistence on earth.” The image of “the American aggressor” is fortified by Nikolai’s appeal especially to “the millions of American religious people” in these terms: “Constituting the vast majority of the population of the United States, you have every opportunity of compelling your administration to … adhere to the International Convention of June 17, 1925, which prohibits the use of asphyxiating gases and germs in war.” The same line has been taken by Paul Matsunov, president of the All-Union Council of Seventh-day Adventists. He has deplored “the atom and hydrogen bombs the American aggressors contemplate using in a future war,” and urged American support for WPC objectives. Similar glorifications of the peaceful pursuits of the Soviet alongside condemnations of American imperialism and aggression may be cited from the pronouncements of Jean Kiivit, archbishop of the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church; Jakob Zhidkov, chairman of the All-Union Council of Evangelical Christian Baptists and a vice president of the Baptist World Alliance (who has contrasted “the vast difference … between the peaceful construction in the U.S.S.R. and People’s Democracies and the horrifying armaments race in the U.S.A., Great Britain, and other countries connected with them”) and Alexander Karev, secretary-general of the All-Union Council.

The World Council of Churches became a special medium through which Eastern bloc churchmen dedicated to WPC sought to indoctrinate the American Christian community in the ideology of “peaceful coexistence” in the Soviet framework. WCC’s readiness to venture social, economic, and humitarian pronouncements made it a desirable forum through which to promote, if Soviet propagandists could achieve this, sympathy for temporary international objectives serviceable to advance the Communist cause. WCC is a massive organization whose Central Committee includes a great diversity of theological opinion, and there are wide differences of socio-political outlook.

WCC’s first assembly in 1948 saw strong appeals for peaceful coexistence between Christianity and communism. The pressures upon delegates supply an instructive index to Soviet strategy. Participants in a “sub-committee on communism and capitalism” were told of the “failure” of Christianity and of the “success” of communism in underdeveloped areas. The committee chairman, Dr. C. L. Patijn of The Netherlands, noted that “for many young men and women, communism seems to stand for a vision of human equality and universal brotherhood for which they were prepared by Christian influences.” The committee report tilted in favor of communism (“Communist ideology puts the emphasis upon economic justice.… Capitalism puts the emphasis upon freedom.…”). Despite sharp assembly criticism that the report offered no positive Christian alternative to communism, liberal influences preserved the direction of the report. The Rev. C. E. Douglas (United Kingdom) declared it “wrong to think that Russian commuism was anti-God.”

Eastern bloc delegates, rather silent in the open sessions, managed to seat five persons on WCC’s Central Committee: Bishop Lajos Ordas, Lutheran clergyman known for his outspoken criticism of the Hungarian Red regime and for his defiant opposition to the Communist Party; Dr. Laszlo Pap of the Reformed Church of Hungary; Bishop Lajos Veto of Hungary; Professor Joseph Hromadka of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren; and Bishop Jan Szeruda of the Evangelical Church of the Augsburgian Confession of Poland. Bishop Fedor Ruppeldt, a Slovak clergyman, was elected in 1949.

WCC’s 1954 assembly at Evanston brought the coexistence doctrine directly to the American church community. Whereas the Amsterdam program included prominent conservative spokesmen, Evanston reflected political planning. Bishop Ordas, who had been sharply criticized in Communist organs for his stand, was omitted from the Evanston assembly. Also absent was Bishop Jan Szeruda, whom the Communists had relieved of his post and replaced by a known collaborator, Karol Kotula. Bishop Ruppeldt was reported to have “retired.” Bishop Laszlo Ravasz, chairman of the Hungarian Ecumenical Synod and a delegate to Amsterdam, whom Hungarian politicians forced to resign as the alternative to cutting off the salaries of all Reformed teachers and stopping the educational work of the Church, was absent. Baron Albert Radvanszky, supervisor general of the Evangelical Church of Hungary and an Amsterdam delegate, had been arrested. Whereas the conservative element of the Eastern church participated at Amsterdam, Evanston delegates reflected the impact of the Communist party upon the churches in the “peoples democracies.”

Re-elected at Evanston was Professor Hromadka, a supporter of the WPC from its start and an outspoken backer of the Red Hungarian government. While not claiming to be a member of the Communist party, Hromadka has consistently promoted Christian-Communist “reconciliation” for a mutual promotion of peace and order. An exile during World War II, Hromadka served as a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. After the war, he returned to Czechoslovakia and, after the Red regime took control of the nation, became head of a seminary in Prague. He refused to come to the aid of Czech Baptist leaders who were given long jail sentences because they remained loyal to their faith. In 1951 he told the World Congress of Peace Partisans in Finland: “Christians and non-Christians, Communists and non-Communists can stand together because our efforts are the same; therefore, I urge all Finnish Christians to join our work for the peaceful and generous world.” In Czechoslovakia he joined Eastern and Western European churchmen (Dr. Johnson, the “Red Dean” of Canterbury, and the Rev. John W. Darr of the United States among them) in supporting the Soviet Union and its “peace-loving efforts.” In part, the resolution read: “We are Christians, preachers of Christ’s teachings of love and peace and therefore we are for peace. This is why we are proud to declare ourselves part of the great peace camp led by the Soviet Union. We are confident that we will best serve the cause of peace if, in accord with the will of God, we devote all our priestly endeavors in helping our working people to build up socialism, the victory of which is also a guaranty of lasting peace among nations.”

In 1953 the Communist government awarded Professor Hromadka the first Czechoslovak Peace Prize and in 1954 the Order of the Republic for unique service to the cause of world communism. He served on the sponsoring committee of the Congress of Disarmament and Co-operation in 1958 in Stockholm, received the International Lenin Peace Prize, and was elected a vice president of the Czechoslovak Peace Committee. In 1959 he joined in the tenth anniversary celebration of WPC in Stockholm.

Also re-elected to WCC’s Central Committee at Evanston were Dr. Pap and Bishop Veto, both thorough supporters of the Hungarian regime. An active member both of WPC and the Hungarian National Peace Council, Veto was sharply criticized by Lutheran bishops and ministers during the 1956 Hungarian rebellion, and reportedly resigned under their pressure.

Still another elected to WCC’s Central Committee at Evanston was Bishop Jan Chabada of Czechoslovakia, who in 1951 was designated General Bishop of the Evangelical Church with the state’s consent after Peter Zatko’s deposition. A supporter of the Communist party since the revolution, when he already was a party member, Chabada has also been actively associated with WPC. He was a delegate to WPC’s 1959 Stockholm celebrations.

Other Iron Curtain country delegates at Evanston supporting the “coexistence” motif and the church peace movements were Dr. Viktor Hajek of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren, Dr. Jan Michalko of the Evangelical Church of Slovakia, Bishop Emrich Varga of the Reformed Church in Slovakia, Bishop Lazlo Dezsery of the Lutheran Church of Hungary, Bishop Albert Bereczky and Bishop John Peter of the Reformed Church of Hungary.

Of the Eastern bloc delegates, Bishop Peter had long placed his services at the Communist Party’s disposal, and was frequently named to high positions by the Hungarian Red regime. Since 1953 he has been a member of the National Assembly. At the height of the Hungarian revolution in 1956 he was labeled a “Stalinist” and resigned, but once the Communist party regained power he was named president of the Institute of Cultural Relations. In July, 1957, he became vice chairman of the National Peace Commission, and in 1958 was made First Deputy Foreign Minister and a member of the Hungarian Delegation to the thirteenth session of the United Nations. In 1959 he became a member of the “puppet” regime’s Presidential Council. He served on the planning committee for the Seventh World Youth Festival sponsored in Vienna by Communist-front organizations to enlist young people. An active member of WPC, he holds several high awards for his efforts in the peace movement.

Bishop Dezsery, too, was disallowed to preach or hold services in the Reformed Church of Hungary at the height of the peoples’ uprising. As secretary of the Hungarian Peace Committee, a national affiliate of WPC, he has actively supported the Communist peace line.

The co-ordinated objective of the Eastern bloc delegates emerged clearly when WCC debate centered on social issues. In the “Section on Social Questions,” the attempt to preserve a plea for “coexistence” with communism was barely softened to the idea of “living together.” The report singled out American foreign policy for special criticism on the ground of its anti-Communist orientation. When the bloc delegates returned to their homelands, they spoke of their “sad American experiences,” of “the horrors of American life,” and of the successes registered by “Iron Curtain churches at the Evanston Assembly.”

When WCC’s Central Committee met in Rhodes, Greece, in August, 1959, the first concern of Soviet bloc delegates was to convince Western clergymen that “Christians must learn to live with communism if they are to survive in the ‘Red world.’”

At last summer’s Central Committee meeting in Scotland, Bishop Tibor Bartha substituted for Dr. Pap and Bishop Zoltan Kaldy for Bishop Veto. Kaldy recently deplored the fact that his fellow Lutheran ministers delivered “only a few sermons which explained to the congregation the role of the church in socialism” and criticized efforts to remain apolitical.

In recent months pressures are believed to have been exerted on part of the Orthodox Church of U.S.S.R. to link up with WCC and an application has been submitted. Whether the link eventuates or not, observers expect the Eastern bloc’s promotion of the Communist-Christian coexistence theory to reach a new peak in conjunction with WCC’s Third Assembly, scheduled next November and December in New Delhi.

The Christian Peace Conference originated in Prague at a meeting of Czechoslovakian clergymen, December 3–5, 1957, when delegates specially discussed “problems of peace and war from the Christian standpoint.” CPC agreed to convene “outstanding Christian churches” irrespective of confession or nationality” for the attainment of ends which in the last analysis are also those of the churches—the cessation of arming and the assurance of peace.” CPC gathered in Prague June 1–4, 1958, with delegates coming primarily from Eastern bloc churches. They elected Dr. Hajek, who had been a delegate at Evanston, as CPC chairman; Bohuslav Popisíl of Prague (now deceased), secretary; and a four-man working and initiating committee consisting of Dr. Hromadka, Dr. Heinrich Vogel, professor in Humboldt University of East Berlin (a CPC supporter from its beginnings and an outspoken critic of Bishop Otto Dibelius); Bishop Veto, and B. Popisíl in addition to the foregoing, the following were elected to a Continuing Committee: Bishop Bartha; Dr. Emil Fuchs of Leipzig, East Germany; Alfred Hermann, Episcopal vicar from Roumania; Dr. Chabada; Alexander Karev of the Soviet Union; Archbishop Jaan J. Kiivit, Evangelical Bishop of Lithuania; Dr. Miklos Palfy of Budapest; Dr. Lev Nikolaevich Pariyski of Leningrad; Professor Wantula of Warsaw; Bishop Miroslav Navek of Prague, and Dr. Hans Joachim Iwan of Bonn. The latter two participated the following month in the WPC Stockholm conference.

Discussing the relation of CPC to WCC, Dr. Hromadka was critical of the WCC along these lines: “In Amsterdam, Evanston and at other conferences much that is decisive was said. But the need of today requires an even more decisive word.… We can perhaps contribute to the end that the Ecumene will say that strong, creative, prevailing and decisive word in the near future.…” Bishop Iwan of Leipzig (now deceased) called upon Christians everywhere to accept “the coexistence of ideologies.” He declared it “a profound sin” not to want to live in one world with people who pay homage to the socialist idea, with people for whom Marx and Lenin have become the signpost for the order of their life.… If we do not want to, then we cannot do any work for peace.”

CPC’s enlarged Continuing Committee met in Warsaw November 5–8, 1959, to carry forward its “church peace offensive.” Plans were projected for this year’s All-Christian Peace Assembly. Hungarian Protestant Bishop Szamoskozi, reportedly the successor to retired Albert Bereczky, then told the press that CPC “has been winning growing support from Protestant Churches both in the East and in the West.… The fact that a big ecclesiastical delegation came from West Germany to take part in the Warsaw discussions is further proof of the success of our efforts.… Conditions are now favorable for convening a big Christian Peace Conference, which could without doubt help our movement to win its aims.” These aims he stipulated as “general disarmament, the cessation of nuclear and hydrogen weapons tests, and the realization of the policy of peaceful coexistence.”

At a meeting of CPC’s theological commission in Debrecen in April, 1960, even more aggressive support was evident for the premise of ideological coexistence: “… We regard the cessation of all nuclear-weapon tests as the first effective and positive step towards universal and total disarmament. We are convinced that war must be eliminated once and for all as a means of settling international differences.…”

Moscow Radio in its foreign language broadcasts subsequently opened a propaganda drive to urge world religious leaders to participate in the All Christian Peace Assembly.

Ideas

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

The problem of identity seems to be an increasing one in the ranks of the clergy of America today. Who is the minister? What is he actually trying to do? Is he just an ordinary “joe” trying to get along? Is he a professional “do-gooder” with a Messianic complex? Where does he fit into the age of space?

It may be remembered that 17 years ago the United States government released a master list of all occupations in the nation that were essential to the war effort. There was not a preacher, parson, minister, clergyman, D.R.E., D.C.E., or even a church janitor in the entire list. (The nearest miss was a “pulpit man” in a steel mill.) The government was not discriminating against the ministers; it would probably say it was being realistic. Certainly it was reflecting a feeling, prevalent today on both sides of the Iron Curtain, that the ministry is irrelevant to the real needs of our time.

The heart of the problem, says Dean Froyd of Colgate-Rochester Divinity School, is the minister’s “struggle to be himself.” If he seems to be “waffling” in the world scene today, it is due to the fact that he cannot quite pinpoint himself on the map.

“At the beginning of our ministry,” Froyd told the American Baptists, “most of us probably felt we knew who we were. We started out with what we felt to be a fairly clear image of ourselves, not only as individuals and as Christians but also as persons called to the ministry of Jesus Christ. We felt we could plant our feet on confident ground and say, ‘This is me, this is where I stand.’”

But today, he says, “for many, the ground on which they once stood is gone, vanished from under their feet.” And he adds that in spite of the resultant frustration, tension, and conflict, many ministers just go on living in it, so that “our lives look like an unorganized brush pile.”

Whether or not Dean Froyd is right, during the next few years we can look for an increasing concentration by the social sciences on the minister, his tensions and his frustrations. To the young psychosocial researcher the minister seems such a delightful anachronism living in a world dominated by the scientific Zeitgeist.

Because of the increasing scientific interest in clergymen, Roy Burkhart’s therapy sessions with ministers around the country, described in this issue, make significant reading. Multiplied a hundredfold, they tell us how important it is for the minister to find himself and his true vocation under God. Surely the welfare of the Church depends upon a clarification of the position and purpose of the Christian ministry in our day.

We believe that the real answers to these problems have already been given, and that the direction to be taken is not so much learning as remembering. When at the close of his life A. B. Simpson was asked by a young minister for some word of advice, he replied, “Stick to your original vision.” If Dean Froyd’s analysis is correct, then the path for the minister today means in many cases a retracing of steps. It is not impossible; men have been doing it since the days of Jonah. At the risk of appearing hopelessly out-of-date ourselves, we dare to suggest that the minister will never find himself until he sets about his Father’s business, which is the gathering of souls into His Kingdom.

The pastor who is leading others Sunday by Sunday and week by week into the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ is not torn by conflict and frustration. He has his problems, but they are overmatched by the positive effect that he knows he is having on the lives of others. Why did Jesus tell the story of the “ninety and nine,” if it was not to point out the importance of the lost sheep to the shepherd? At the end of the day a minister can feel exhausted by the commitments he has been forced to keep, but if he can point to one interview that helped turn a soul from darkness to light, from sin to deliverance, from Satan to Jesus Christ, he counts that day good.

The minister is God’s man to do God’s work in God’s time, by God’s method, in order to bring men into the fullness of God’s salvation and to keep them there. This is who he is, and this is what he does. The man who honors God is never irrelevant; he becomes irrelevant only when he abandons his exalted relationship and tries to put the Church in open competition with the programs of men. If this be pious cant—and we don’t think it is—make the most of it.

LABOR AND MANAGEMENT IN NCC ECONOMIC DECISIONS

Criticism of bias in the Department of the Church and Economic Life is deplored by some spokesmen for the National Council of Churches who insist that representation of labor and management is balanced.

Not counting 21 participants from other National Council agencies, the 1961–63 Department membership lists 36 clergy or church-related and 12 seminary-related personnel, 15 educators (mainly economists), 16 labor and 12 management spokesmen. There is an imbalance of clergy and laity; of denominations (30 of the 114 members are Methodists); of geographical distribution (14 members from the District of Columbia, 28 states unrepresented).

Do clergy participants actually vote the convictions of their constituencies, or register their own views, or whose? When former Congressman Byron L. Johnson of Colorado supported the minimum wage bill as representative of the Department of the Church and Economic Life, he told the House subcommittee on Education and Labor that “the views I am presenting were adopted by official representatives of the Council’s constituent communions.” Is this the fact?

Are NCC’s committeemen for industry as truly representative as those for labor? The Department includes 16 labor leaders and 12 from industry, mostly of liberal economic views. Several management members rarely show up as representatives, yet their names are retained year after year, and no effective alternates are named. The small committee turnover each triennium creates the image of a self-perpetuating committee.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (which supports Right to Work) and its 50 state Farm Bureau organizations (at least 45 of these support Right to Work) are curiously “represented” by the Ohio Farm Bureau, which sponsors the views of organized labor, and whose president opposes Right to Work. Many management “representatives” seem regularly to take positions diametrically opposed to those registered by recognized management organizations. The Right to Work issue is a prime example. Virtually every management association holding a position on this question favors Right to Work. Yet only four persons in the Department supported Right to Work when it was last considered in October, 1959, and defeated 24–4 with no abstentions.

The Department of the Church and Economic Life was helped into existence by a substantial gift from United Auto Workers (Walter Reuther and his brother Victor were early appointed committeemen), and it has received $100,000 from the Philip Murray Foundation and at least $1,000 from Sidney Hillman Foundation.

I Believe …

Christian scholars need to challenge the behaviorists and logical positivists who would reduce religious-metaphysical language to nonsense.

Not every theological counterclaim is a satisfactory alternative, however. To say that all language (religious language especially, some would say) is merely symbolic and nonliteral is a particularly objectionable concession, even if some clergymen propose to “rescue” significance for spiritual realities this way. In fact, so naturalistic a theory of linguistics (postulating the sensory origin of all religious ideas) underlies this concession that many outright unbelievers could and would gladly join with apostates in pious recitation or intonation of the historic creeds. Basic Christian doctrines are no intellectual stumbling block to anybody who believes that—interpreted as religious poetry or music—these tenets need not be regarded as literally true.

Judged by biblical criteria, such verbal legerdemain is simply evasion and deceit. Indignation over such a maneuver, however, presupposes—and rightly, we think—the conviction that divinely-revealed truths are integral to the Christian religion. On the other hand, those who deny that affirmations about the supernatural are to be taken literally are in effect attacking the very possibility of objectively true or false theological beliefs.

DO MODERN BIBLES HANDLE DOCTRINAL PASSAGES LOOSELY?

In his recent work on The English Bible, F. F. Bruce recalls that Bible translator James Moffatt once found himself billed for a public lecture by the announcement: “Author of Bible to Lecture Tonight.”

The twentieth century is expending vast energy in Bible paraphrasing, revision, and translation. More efforts are yet to appear—by individuals, by interdenominational agencies, by interfaith groups. Some will make a durable contribution to the life of the Church; each will doubtless be accompanied by astonishingly clever propaganda.

Despite America’s “religion-in-life boom,” religious instruction here as elsewhere is at a low level. Many persons consciously allow the King James Bible little more daily significance than the Latin Bible held at the end of the Middle Ages. But some persons are pleasantly surprised to discover the Bible in the English of daily conversation, and this is doubtless noteworthy.

If modern Bibles have one besetting weakness it is their tendency to careless handling of theological and doctrinal passages. Is it great gain for the Church if, along with vivid narration of Paul’s adventures in Acts, or an elucidating translation of Hebrews, the theological idea of propitiation is needlessly clouded? The Reformation interest in a Bible in the language of the people was theological as well as devotional. The Church will be spiritually renewed in our day only if the Bible becomes theologically alive and significant.

Henry Stob

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

The God Christians believe in is the Lord of all. He is the Creator of the world, and also its Sustainer. What he once made he now controls and continuously renews.

People who believe in this God are not much troubled about miracles, for they see the effects of supernatural power in everything around them. They see each thing, not as a mere part or product of some greater thing called nature, which God once fashioned and then left to run “on its own” according to its immanent constitution; they see each thing as God’s present work, reflecting his uninterrupted agency (Job 26:7–14). Everything is for them a “sign” of God, one of his “mighty deeds.” Each is marvelous in their eyes, a “wonder,” fit to evoke astonishment and praise.

What we call miracles are in the New Testament called “signs” (semeia), “mighty works” (dunameis), and “wonders” (terata). But what we call non-miraculous or natural events are in the Bible also viewed as signs and mighty works and wonders. In the biblical view, God is behind everything, the usual and the unusual, the common and the strange; and he is behind them equally. According to the Psalmists and the Prophets, the rain is God’s doing, and also the drought. So too are the movements of the planets and the tides. God “performs” all these, and more. Nothing is outside his jurisdiction; nothing moves except at his command. In everything that has being he witnesses to himself and to his power. Each is a “sign” he leaves of his presence and concern. All indicate that he “doeth great things and unsearchable …” (Job 5:9).

The Sovereignty of God. It would be premature to conclude from this that in the Christian view “all is miracle,” but it would be right to say that in this view nature is no stranger to God’s hand. Nature feels God’s impulses constantly. It is always suffering his “invasions.” Its processes but trace the contours of his will. Nature is pliable in his hands.

The reason is, of course, that God is Sovereign. He is Lord, and he is free—also in relation to nature. He traces his own paths through all that he has made; indeed these tracings constitute what we call nature’s “rule.” The “laws of nature” which we formulate are nothing but our transcripts of God’s “customary ways.” They are not prior to, but after, God; they record his habits. They “hold” because God is wont to travel the same way; but they do not bind him. God is free to plant his steps precisely where he will, and sometimes he plants them on unaccustomed ways. He does this, we may be sure, to serve some holy purpose. Perhaps he does it on occasion just to testify that he is free, and so “reveal his glory.”

However this may be, he traces his own path always. Sometimes these paths seem very strange to us, as when he causes iron to float, or a virgin to give birth, or bread to multiply. With all our science we could never have predicted he would take these courses; and after he took them we can find no sufficient reason in the preceding causal nexus for his doing so. Strange events of this sort are beyond our science; they are miracles. Yet in another sense they are not so strange. In them God merely celebrates the freedom which is always his but which in “ordinary” events is obscured by their scientific comprehensibility, that is, by their amenableness to the explanatory techniques we have developed precisely in response to events of like ordinariness.

Science builds itself up on observed constancies. In terms of our discussion this is but to say that it grows by observing and recording the general pattern of divine behavior, by noting God’s “custom.” This custom gives science its stability and worth, and its predictive usefulness. It is quite unwarranted to suppose, however, that science can now turn about and demand that things behave in certain ways, that God keep to the accustomed paths and act according to the scientist’s prescription. Science has no authority to prescribe. It does its work well only when it remains descriptive, when it follows after God as a reporter. Empiricism in science is therefore eminently Christian, if for no other reason than that it leaves God free, free to do great things which transcend our little systems and transgress the limits of our proud “a priories.”

Rejection of Monism. Because Christianity both allows and professes miracles, it repudiates all rationalistic naturalisms which, denying God, think that nature is “the all” and that miracle is impossible. But it also repudiates the more religious forms of monism: primitivism and pantheism—in both the miraculous seems to be given prominence.

In primitive religion or animism there are many gods or spirits, and they have power (mana) which they exercise in unpredictable ways. The animistic world is therefore full of mystery and apparent miracle; almost anything can happen at any moment. There is, of course, no real affinity between this view of things and that of Christianity. Animism is basically a monistic naturalism; the gods are nature spirits. Nature suffers no control here from outside itself; it is “on its own.” There is no supernatural, hence there is no miracle but only chaos. There is no nonnatural principle of order, hence there is no science but only magic. This inter-connection is worth observing. Miracles are possible only in a determinate universe, the kind of universe that makes science possible. Conversely, science is possible only in a universe that is under the control of an intelligent Creator, the kind of universe in which miracle is possible.

Extremes always meet, and that is why when “everything is God,” as in pantheism, we have a universe quite like that in which “everything is nature.” There is no real supernatural in either case. It is not surprising, therefore, that sophisticated pantheism exhibits the same ambiguity in respect of miracles that primitive animism does. On the one hand, there can be no miracles, for, since everything is God, there is no nature in which the miracle can occur; without nature miracle simply cannot be domiciled. On the other hand, there can be nothing but miracle, for, since everything is God, all agency is, not merely ultimately but immediately and pervasively, divine; all is miracle. Here miracle is either nonexistent or only “the religious name for event,” and thus all-encompassing. But if miracles are everywhere, they have lost all meaning. The two assertions of pantheism reduce therefore to the same thing: there are no miracles. In the grey twilight of this, and of every other monism, all real distinctions have evaporated, including the one at the very heart of Christianity: the distinction between the Creator and the creation. In consequence of this, all talk of miracles becomes meaningless.

Rejection of Extreme Dualism. The emphasis in all of the foregoing has been on God—on the true God of biblical revelation and on the spurious gods of primitivism and pantheism. But the universe contains more than God. There is beside him another thing called nature, and no account of miracle can be acceptable which does not give this second thing its due.

On the existence of nature the scientist quite understandably insists. A wise scientist will acknowledge God, and if he is also Christian he will acknowledge miracle, but he will not therefore part with nature; it is for him a datum, the very precondition of his vocation. He will, moreover, want to keep a certain kind of nature, the kind that is consonant with the scientific methods his success has vindicated. He will demand an impersonal, objectively existing nature with stable characteristics, open to observation, amenable to analysis, and operating in ways susceptible of mathematical formulation.

Because deism, without denying a transcendent God, supplies just such a nature, some Christians have been tempted to embrace this metaphysic. In its highest forms it seems to satisfy both the religious and the scientific needs of man. On the one hand there is God, eternal and all-wise, who is the Maker and Sustainer of a world which by its order and design points unceasingly to its intelligent Creator. On the other hand there is nature, possessing a fixed constitution and operating according to immanent and unalterable laws open to discovery and utilization. It would appear that within this scheme the worshiper and the investigator can both find room. It is not so, however. Here, as in monism, what is lacking is precisely miracle. It is excluded by an excess of dualism. Except at the point of origin, nature is isolated from God. Even when divine sustenance is acknowledged, it is conceived as merely general and external; providence never penetrates the world. Nature is constitutionally invulnerable; it can suffer no invasion. All that happens in it is exhaustively interpretable in terms of its own fixed properties.

Because of its intolerance of miracles, deism has not been able to win the allegiance of biblically-informed Christians. Yet some Christians, when they posited miracles, thought of them as modifications of a nature deistically conceived. They conceived of nature as a vast interlocked system of things and events ruled by increated laws. Into this nature God sometimes entered to do miracles, but he did so only by “breaking” the laws he had once posited and by “disrupting” the order he had once established. This semi-deistic view of things is hardly Christian.

Of this even its advocates seem to be vaguely aware, for when Heisenberg enunciated the principle of indeterminacy many of them hailed the discovery with relief. It appears that before this time they were ill at ease with their implied suggestion that God sometimes repented of the cosmic arrangements he had made; they did not like to think that God by miracles disrupted the natural order he had once deliberately fixed. Now, however, there seemed to open up an avenue of escape from their distress. With Heisenberg a new “looseness,” a kind of “lawlessness,” was discovered in micro-nature, and this seemed to provide God with unobstructed access to macro-nature. A “god of the gaps” was accordingly conceived, a God whose miraculous power could be ushered into the world through the interstices of the atom. Passing through the lawless regions between sub-atomic particles, God’s power became available for the performance of “mighty deeds,” and yet it left every law unbroken, and his original arrangements quite intact.

Apart from the question whether Heisenberg’s principle really posits “objective lawlessness” within the atom, it is highly precarious to base a Christian apologetic upon an isolated, even if important, “scientific” discovery. What is required is a view of God and nature framed in positive dependence on the Bible and elaborated in organic relation to the total scientific enterprise as this appears in the perspective of Christian theism.

Nature as Dynamic Process. Nature is often likened to a book, even in Christian creeds. The figure is not meaningless, but it is misleading. Nature is hardly a completed manuscript in which each word is statically interlocked with every other, a manuscript to which the scientist goes simply in order to parse unalterable sentences. Nature is rather a dynamic process resembling a discourse now being spoken, and revealing at every turn the meanings and intentions of a living Speaker. What the Speaker says is not dictated by some necessity from outside; he speaks freely. No doubt his discourse is self-consistent, on which account nature may be contemplated as a harmonious whole. But the concept of the whole is not some lever man can manipulate to exclude supposedly inconsistent things like miracles. Miracles, in the Christian view, are in the whole called nature, and they help to constitute it. They are parts of the total discourse. They do not rupture nature; they complete and perfect it.

This becomes very evident when it is observed that nature is but a part of a still larger whole—the grand divine plan for all the cosmos. It pleased God to effect in nature some deeds which are crucial in this plan—the miracles of the Incarnation and the Resurrection, which all other miracles only anticipate or reflect. To suppose that these “destroy” nature is utterly to misconceive them. They “save” nature because they redeem the whole of which nature is a part. They are not illusory events; nor are they real by accident only; they are the very clues to nature as to all else; they state the theme of the grand discourse of which nature is a chapter otherwise unintelligible.

So far as natural things go, there is no disposition in Christianity to deny that they are there, that they have recognizable qualities, and that a record of their behavior can be set down and utilized for prediction. Christianity insists only that these things were made by God, that they are still available to him, and that all they are and do reflect his sovereign purposes. As Calvin says: “… respecting things inanimate … though they are naturally endued with their peculiar properties, yet they exert not their power any further than as they are directed by the present hand of God. They are, therefore, no other than instruments into which God infuses as much efficacy as he pleases, bending and turning them to any action, according to his will” (Institutes, I.xvi.2).

Conclusion. To acknowledge miracle, and to appreciate science, nothing is required but to profess the God of Scripture and to accept the nature He has made and ceaselessly controls.

Bibliography: J. Calvin, Institutes, I.xvi; R. Hooykaas, Natural Law and Divine Miracle; J. Kallas, The Significance of the Synoptic Miracles; C. S. Lewis, Miracles; A. Richardson, The Miracle Stories of the Gospels.

Professor of Apologetics and Ethics

Calvin Theological Seminary

Grand Rapids, Michigan

- More fromHenry Stob

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

WHAT GOD NEEDS

To speak of God needing anything may sound blasphemous but with all reverence it can truly be said that God needs men of certain quality of soul and spirit.

God needs men of faith.

From beginning to end the Bible makes it plain that God can only use men of faith, men who enjoy the substance of things hoped for and who possess the evidence of things not seen.

Living as we do in the much vaunted age of reason when men are trained to evaluate evidence and accept only what is scientifically provable, we do not find a simple faith in God and all his works easy, nor do many desire it.

But the Bible plainly states that without faith it is impossible to please God, and he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he rewards those who diligently seek him.

The faith which God requires of man is a total faith, a faith which believes in him regardless of all else. Such a faith is difficult in days of sophistication when the world and its influences cry out against accepting things merely on God’s Word.

This is nevertheless a rewarding faith because it is anchored in belief in the sovereignty as well as the love of God. It is an anchor for the soul in the midst of an uncertain and shifting world situation, an anchor which reaches into the eternal while we yet live in the temporal.

This faith is centered in the divine revelation and accepts at face value the scriptural statements having to do with the eternal verities; it is belief without question in the finality of the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and a looking to him not only as the author of our salvation but also the giver and perfecter of our faith.

God needs men who are obedient.

Faith and obedience cannot be separated for faith in God’s revelation requires an obedience to that which is revealed.

Obedience is the very foundation of a Christian’s life, and man is not left in doubt as to what God requires of him. Discipleship means an unquestioning “Yes” to our Lord. It means the voluntary renunciation of self and the taking up of the cross which is the burden of every Christian. Now the cross for the Christian does not constitute the vicissitudes of life or some special “thorn in the flesh” but is the voluntary crucifixion of self in order that Christ may live in and through him.

As one grows in faith and in willingness to surrender everything, the will of God becomes increasingly clear, not only for immediate tasks but for whatever the future may hold, and obedience to the heavenly vision validates our faith.

SIX POINTED QUESTIONS

CHRISTIANITY TODAY has already reflected Barth’s trenchant criticisms of Bultmann’s theology (see Mar. 27 issue). In this current issue we publish questions directed to Barth by three American evangelical theologians alert to some strategic turns in Barth’s own theology. The basic anxiety of these scholars is whether Barth’s exposition of the Christian faith, rightly understood, involves at decisive points a compromise of biblical theology which, in turn, readily opens the door for Bultmann’s counterthrust. The questions here addressed to the distinguished Basel theologian, in the earnest hope of his succinct reply as a contributory to the clarification of the contemporary theological debate, have been submitted at the invitation of CHRISTANITY TODAY by Dr. Gordon H. Clark, professor of philosophy in Butler University, Indianapolis; Dr. Fred H. Klooster, associate professor of systematic theology in Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids; and Dr. Cornelius Van Til, professor of apologetics in Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia.

Dr. Clark’s questions:

1. Was it reasonable for Paul to endure suffering in his ministry (or is it reasonable for us) if all are in Christ and will perhaps be saved anyhow, and if, as Professor Barth says, Feuerbach and secular science are already in the Church?

2. In Professor Barth’s Anselm Fides Quaerens Intellectum (English translation, p. 70) we are told that we can never see clearly whether any statement of any theologian is on one or other side of the border between divine simplicity and incredible deception. Does not this make theology—Barth’s included—a waste of time? Does this not make Bultmann’s theology as acceptable as Barth’s?

Dr. Klooster’s questions:

3. On Geschichte and Historie (a) Has this distinction a biblical basis? (b) How does one distinguish Geschichte which may be the object of Historie from that which may not? (c) Are there two kinds of Geschichte, and if so how do they differ? (d) Could the Cross and the Resurrection be Geschichte even if proved most improbable to Historie? (e) Are the Cross and Resurrection datable in the sense of the creeds and orthodox confessions? or only (f) as those who receive them are datable?

4. On humiliation and exaltation, (a) If these are not successive, can the Cross and Resurrection be datable? (b) If they are not successive, is the Resurrection a “new” event only in a nonchronological sense? (c) Is the Resurrection a true past event, or a timeless event manifested and preached in time?

Dr. Van Til’s questions:

5. If resurrection is an object of expectation as well as recollection (Die kirchliche Dogmatik, I/2, p. 128), (a) does this refer to Christ’s resurrection? If so (b) in what sense is it a datable, objective, past event?

6. If the Cross and Resurrection as Geschichte are the basis of salvation for all, (a) is this consistent with the orthodox view of their nature as past events? Or (b) is there a connection between this view and the orthodox lack of appreciation for a “biblical universalism, so that the view must be altered in the interests of “biblical universalism”?

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

FILLER

Russia may be ahead of us in space, but American research has not been idle. From a great laboratory comes the discovery of the century: non-food has been found at last! In a special report, Life magazine describes it as a “tasteless, odorless, harmless white cousin of common sawdust.” It contains no nutrition and no calories.

The new Life is dedicated to winning the cold war and creating a better America. I don’t see how non-food will help to win the cold war—I can’t picture sending shipments of it in SPARE packages to the overweight millions of the world. I’ve studied the pictures of rioting South American peasants in the same issue of Life, and I don’t believe they are calorie-conscious in the same way that we are.

Non-food is plainly our dish, the ideal diet for the flabby American. It was first created in a food blender as a kind of cellulose milkshake. In powder form it can be used in almost every kind of mix. Breads and spreads, soup and candy: our vast commercial kitchens are hitting the sawdust trail. “Let them eat cake!” is the cry of freedom for our overstuffed citizens. No moderation or weight-watching will be necessary: a man can become an emaciated ascetic on five full meals a day. Pile on the meringue: if it’s cellulose, the snowy spire won’t droop. Perhaps non-food cookies won’t even crumble.

I can’t wait for this weightless diet. Ever since I gave up chewing gum (it sticks to my plate) I have fought a losing battle of the bulge.

Pastor Peterson, predictably, does not share my enthusiasm. He thinks we should eat for nourishment, and stop eating before we are full. “Would you return thanks for a non-food dinner? Do you plan to give your children all the cellulose candy they can eat?” In his day, only dolls and toy animals were stuffed with sawdust.

If filler could be kept in the kitchen, the pastor would not protest, however. Filler in the pulpit is his particular peeve. “Padded sermons are no more deceptive than padded shoulders,” he says. “But today’s discovery is the ‘comforter’ sermon: all padding and no shape.”

If the prodigal son had filled his belly with those cellulose husks, he would have remained hungry—and lost.

EUTYCHUS

THE COMMUNIST ISSUE

I believe that article by Harold John Ockenga, “The Communist Issue Today” (May 22 issue), is the finest on that subject that I have read.

JAMES T. MACRES

Pauma Valley, Calif.

So Dr. Ockenga has been captured by American nationalism! A perusal of his address … certainly gives one the impression that the vertical dimension of Scripture has been replaced by the lateral dimension of the State Department’s current foreign policy. It is most uncongenial for me, a missionary, to challenge a missionary promoter of the stature of Dr. Ockenga. But where in this address is there the missionary perspective?

… Even at missionary conferences the literature for sale and chit-chat among Christians has revolved more often than not around Schwarz and Welch, “Operation Abolition” and Castro. While it is granted that one dare not shirk political responsibility, the Christian needs to guard against becoming absorbed in politics. Yet in America today the reproach of the Cross, with its top priority of evangelism at home and missions overseas, is being eclipsed by a worldly preoccupation with a Crossless nationalism.

Has it not occurred to our evangelical leaders that the Antichrist, when he finally appears, may probably gain his prominence, influence, and the adulation of the Western world because he is the great, successful Anti-Communist?… Let us not forget that even the Plymouth Brethren (along with not a few other evangelical groups) helped bring Hitler to power in Germany! Captured by nationalism—indeed!

ARTHUR F. GLASSER

Home Director for North America

China Inland Mission

Overseas Missionary Fellowship

Philadelphia, Pa.

It is alarming to me that men can believe so completely in the power of the Cross to give victory over sin, and then repudiate that Cross by saying we will take the way of violence.…

I believe communism is very bad; I also believe in the gospel of Christ enough to be convinced that it is stronger than communism. It is my prayer that more evangelical Christians will join the ranks of those who believe in the power of non-violent resistance.

MILLARD G. WILSON

First Church of the Brethren

Lansing, Mich.

This is the best, all-inclusive article on this subject I’ve ever read …; it should be widely publicized and gotten into the hands of the people.

MRS. BURNICE B. HOLMES

Inglewood, Calif.

We now live in an era of some type of quasi-Christian capitalism. Thus we answer the Marxian menace by holding high the Cross, which we have allowed to be molded into one huge, ugly dollar sign.… Christianity in America seems to be a mere facade for economic exploitation and “progress”.… One would suggest that Marxism is a threat because we continue to give more and more adoration to the dollar and its acquisition.

R. CLINTON TAPLIN

Nanuet, N. Y.

As clear and forceful a statement as I have ever read.

ALBERT J. ANTHONY

Honeoye Falls, N. Y.

Our attention has been drawn to the May 22 issue … which quotes this statement by Dr. William Sanford LaSor: “I am waiting to see whether the American Civil Liberties Union will now rise to the defense of Robert Welch and the members of the John Birch Society” (News).… The ACLU did rise to the defense of the civil liberties of the John Birch Society by opposing any governmental investigation into the Society. We believe that the government has no right to probe the private political opinions of individuals or groups regardless of the nature of the individual or groups involved.…

ALAN REITMAN

Associate Director American Civil Liberties Union

New York, N. Y.

In your May 22 issue … an editorial includes the following words: “We have no sympathy with wild generalizations, whether made by the McIntires.…”

I assume you are referring to Dr. Carl McIntire, President of the International Council of Christian Churches. I had the privilege recently of hearing Dr. McIntire speak to about 200 Church leaders and workers on the subject of “Communism in the Churches.” It was a masterful presentation, fully documented and about as far removed from “wild generalizations” as a public address can be.

GEORGE M. BOWMAN

Editor

Baptist News

Scarborough, Ont.

He’s giving more facts to the general listening public regarding the church and world situations than any other one person that can daily be heard on the radio.

ROBERT J. REYNHOUT

Calvary Baptist Church

Muskegon, Mich.

WHERE IT ISN’T

Your editorial “Where Is Evangelical Initiative?” (May 22 issue) has been on my mind for several days.… Perhaps we should consider where evangelical initiative is not found.… [It] is not found: in the “practical” sermon, which attempts to stir to action rather than to fill hearts with that vigor which is found only at the root of firm Christian doctrine; … in the adult Bible class where vital biblical discussion is reduced to a drowsy hum; … in the prayer meeting … where the loudest voice is that of an embarrassing silence; … in those “Bible helps” that make all the deep things of Scripture so simple and easy that the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit is largely displaced; … in the quick proof-text answers to problems of Christian doctrine and practice which perplex the heart in every age; … in those Christian homes where the parents are so busy doing the Lord’s work outside the home that there is little or no time to spend with those to whom the Lord has joined us; … among Christian people who equate acquaintance with friendship and programs with fellowship; and where Bible verses are memorized to win prizes.

RICHARD E. MULLER

Utica, N. Y.

The alleged failure of the Church to deal with world crises, the subordinate position of the ministry in the minds of some “thinkers,” even “my passion for the world and lost souls” are not scriptural factors in finding my life’s work.

The Apostle Paul with one or two partners was used of God to spearhead evangelical initiative in an unrivalled missionary campaign.… His submission enabled God to direct a program that turned the world upside down. The God of Paul still lives today and is waiting to call, prepare and then send 18,000 additional missionaries to over a billion people who have never heard of Christ.

H. K. DANCY

Scarborough, Ont.

BID FROM MUSCOVY

Concerning “Russian Orthodox Bid for WCC Membership” (May 22 issue), I find no real problem with such a membership inclusion in the WCC since that body seems so devoid of standards that inclusion apparently is the only absolute. That testimony before duly constituted governmental committees has indicated a more than subversive character to some of the leaders of this “Holy Synod” is of little moment to the leaders of the WCC.… The problem which is posed by such further inclusion in this world philosophical forum is “How can those groups claiming to be orthodox and (pardon the expression) fundamental continue to contribute to such an amalgamation?”

H. FRED NOFER

Prof. of N.T. Literature and Exegesis

Lutheran Brethren Schools

Fergus Falls, Minn.

ISLAM

Your magazine, I observe, consistently refers to those who base their religious faith in the Koran as “Mohammedans.” Justification for this is to be found, no doubt, in current dictionaries and in the fact that the term is used in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, especially as an adjective to describe art and architecture of the Near East variety. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this use of the term is unwarranted and is repugnant to those who look to Muhammad as their primary prophet.

The term originally grew from the analogy with our word “Christian,” a description that was, at first, one of ridicule. But there is this difference: in the case of “Christian” it is implied and firmly accepted by those who now gladly use the term that Christ was indeed divine and worthy in his own right to be heard, followed and obeyed. The case of Muhammad is quite different. It was one of his main objectives to retain his strictly human character and to appear merely as a vehicle for what he considered to be divine truth. The perpetual reminder of undiluted monotheism is the daily affirmations that “there is no other God but Allah.”

The correct collective term for this religion is Islam. As applied to individuals or to cultural products the correct term is Muslim (sometimes Anglicized as Moslem). Thus one should say “the Muslim faith or Muslim mosques,” etc. Apart from questions of exactitude it would seem our duty not to use a word that is irritating to those described. We ought not to injure the feelings or wound the sensitivities of those who happen not to adhere to our faith. It seems to me that your journal might well be among those which should seek to re-introduce correct terminology.

DOUGLAS J. WILSON

Montreal, Que.

MORAL CRISIS IN THE WEST

May I offer a few suggestions to help improve the present deplorable situation?

1. The home and the Church should begin to teach children, at an early age, the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and its moral principles, including the Ten Commandments and the even higher moral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, as well as decent modern standards of dress. Sex education must be related at all times to these absolute moral values, and the dangers of premarital petting stressed.

2. Misconduct in children and adolescents should be punished, not excused.

3. Adults should set a good example.

4. Children should be encouraged to enjoy their childhood and not be pushed prematurely into dating. Social activities involving both boys and girls should be better supervised.

5. I do not advocate censorship of indecent entertainment (unless it should get too objectionable), but I do think that Christians should simply refuse to patronize it. Conversely, wholesome entertainment and true art should be encouraged.

If there is not a return to Christian morals soon, our Western civilization will go the way of the ancient Roman Empire, but it is not only our civilization that is at stake. It is also our immortal souls.

ELEANOR L. LONG, M.D.

Washington, D. C.

STORY OF AN EX-LIBERAL

Converted to Christ and called to the sacred ministry through confirmation classes, and the spiritual power of the biblically-centered Book of Common Prayer, I quickly drifted to “liberal” Christianity. Dazzled by the S.C.M.’s “Christiandity,” I was so busy making Christianity relevant to politics, science, culture, that I had only the haziest idea of what we were making relevant. At theological college I was initially fascinated by the intellectual jigsaw puzzles of dissecting J. E. D. & P. and Q. L. & M., of deciding which of Jesus’ sayings were “genuine,” which of the Epistles were Pauline, and which “non-Pauline.” My positive theology was so vague that the Principal pronounced upon my first sermon, “Could well have been preached by a liberal Jew.” We maintained an attitude of intellectual superiority to “Evangelicalism.” The Evangelicals I had met in Australia had maintained a ‘wowser’ ethic with a nauseatingly priggish self-righteousness. Their worship seemed individualistic and emotional, drowning the gospel in sentimental tears. Their members seemed so absorbed in sect activities that they took no active beneficent interest in the community. Within my own Church, I found them negative, critical, disloyal members. Their attitude to Church history and tradition assumed that the Holy Spirit had slept for 17 centuries, except for a brief awakening to cause the Reformation.

So I was a smug liberal, intoxicated with intellectual superiority. But one day the question fatal to “liberalism” was forced upon me: “so what?????” I had been studying Vincent Taylor’s commentary on St. Mark, and some laborious work disentangling the truly Pauline parts of the Pastoral Epistles. It was, for Cambridge, a hot afternoon, so I took a stroll around the “backs” relaxing in enjoying the soft summer greens. Alone, my mind was still occupied with my studies; then the thought flashed “What positive interpretation of the Bible for yourself or for your future flock have those two learned books given you?” I faced the futility of such studies. At that time the new College chaplain was urging us for a while to put aside the commentaries, and read and reread the books of the Bible and let them make their impression, and work out for ourselves their doctrine. He spoke of the “almost magical power of the Bible.” From him I learned to read the books of the Bible both in large hunks, and verse analysis comparing text with text, and since then I have aimed to be reading one book of the Bible working steadily through it, and then going on to the next.

I served my first curacy in Lancashire under an Anglo-Catholic vicar. Bibles were handed out to the congregation arriving for Evensong (a most unusual happening in the Church of England), and the Vicar taught his people to read their Bibles. “This is the Word of God. He speaks directly to you through the words of the Bible. You must read, listen and obey.” And his was an evangelistic parish. A great mission planned and prayed towards for many years doubled the congregation, and it stayed doubled. He presented Jesus Christ and worked hard to bring his flock to know and serve Him. There I learned a new respect for the Evangelicals. Our Bishop combined a pastoral concern for his clergy and people with an evangelical concern and leadership, encouraging and often initiating and leading evangelistic missions. At that time I holidayed with the Lee Abbey Community in Devon, an evangelical community endeavouring to draw people to Christ by sharing in their corporate life, and also by undertaking missions. Their zeal in studying and obeying the Word made a great impression on me, and also that they were loyal to their Church and sufficiently sure of their own position to engage in frank, charitable fellowship and discussion with those of “High” and “Broad” outlook within the Church of England.

Returning to Australia, with a zeal for the Word and for evangelism, I found in my parish there, a normal, conventional Anglican parish, that the faithful were waiting and willing for both. A large number of lay men and women were prepared to undertake planned visitation evangelism to draw families into the life and worship of the Church, and these visitors were prepared to be trained and to pray hard to do this work. Further, they asked for Bible study, stipulating that they did not want vague discussion groups, but solid exposition. We studied in detail St. Mark and Philippians. I had expected questions “Did Jesus really say just that?” or “Did it really happen like that?” but the group were prepared to make sense of the text as it stood, and ask the deeper questions on the doctrinal issues and the practical challenge to our life and conduct.

Such is the story of my second conversion, to evangelicalism—to know the power of the Word of God and the call to proclaim the gospel and call men to Christ. One sustaining help through that conversion has been CHRISTIANITY TODAY which presented the evangelical message with learning, breadth, and intellectual competence and integrity. Now, what a joy to “sit under” the Word of God as it speaks to my soul, to my parish situation, as it gives me the words I must speak to my congregation next Sunday—truly the living words of the living God.

JOHN ABRAHAM

The Anglican Rectory

Wongan Hills, Western Australia

ONE OF MANY LETTERS

I have just finished reading “Were You There?” by L. Nelson Bell (May 22 issue). It is superb, and I wish to give my testimony to the wonderful helpfulness of the devotional articles which you publish from his pen. Mr. Bell speaks the language of one who walks and talks and dwells with the living Christ Jesus.

JAMES A. GORDON

San Diego, Calif.

APPLAUSE WELL DESERVED

Re your news item “20 Years of USO” (April 24 issue): Having been connected with Salvation Army Services to the Armed Forces, either directly or indirectly, since my first assignment to USO in 1941, I have on numerous occasions registered my personal protest, as well as forwarding to National Headquarters, that of both enlisted and officer personnel, including chaplains, on the smutty and low quality of USO show performances.

Let me assure you and your readers that I have on numerous occasions stepped to the stage and stopped a performance or an M.C. because of smutty material and only permitted the entertainment to proceed if it was kept clean, and, I do mean clean! Such action on my part usually results in a big round of applause by servicemen present indicating their approval.…

As director of a local USO Club, I am responsible, first, to the Operating Agency, which in this case is The Salvation Army, to direct and conduct this operation in harmony with the basic spiritual and religious as well as service philosophy of the agency and, second, to develop and maintain a well-balanced program in harmony with National USO policy, aimed at definitely meeting “the spiritual, religious, social, recreational, welfare and educational needs of those in the armed forces.”

JOHN HUNTER

United Service Organizations, Inc. Dir.

Los Angeles, Calif.

A SPIRITUAL SYMBOL

A nation disintegrates when it forsakes its spiritual symbols. History has proven over and over again, that that nation or social order falls apart when it forgets and neglects the symbols of her religious, moral and spiritual life.… Symbols represent the unity, the resourcefulness, the power, the drive, the determination, the patriotism, the values, yes, even the gods the people worship.

The strongest, most virtuous symbol of America’s strength, unity, morality, and religion is the observance of the Lord’s Day … as a time for all people to recognize God’s sovereignty and to worship Him. Observance of the Lord’s Day in a spiritual manner is a symbol of America’s spiritual strength. Failure to observe a day of spiritual “re-creation” is evidence of America’s decadence and dissolution.

In light of the history of Israel and the various civilizations which are familiar only to archaeologists, it is evident that people neglected their symbols when they pursued too diligently their personal interests.

In America, anything that detracts from a day set aside for the worship of Almighty God weakens the moral fiber of our nation and contributes as much to our degeneracy and final dissolution as do the atheistic teachings of Communistic Russia. A Lord’s Day, Sunday, used exclusively for fun, worldliness, so-called recreation, is just as demoralizing, and conducive to atheism as the teachings of the most rabid, God-hating, Christ-denouncing, religious-symbol-destroying Communist.

The selfish, money-loving business man who opens his business house on Sunday on the pretext that he is serving people who cannot shop at any other time is as much an enemy of America as any foreign agent.… He is destroying the very heartbeat of America’s moral life.

People who love America, even though denying any religious faith or affiliation, should support the symbols of America’s strength by a strict observance of one day of divine worship, recognition of God’s sovereign power, out of every seven. They and their brethren who believe in Christ and the work of his church should refuse to support and patronize the money seekers who would destroy our greatest symbol of faith in God.

ALVIN E. HOUSER

Aurora Christian Church

Aurora, Colo.

THREE GENERATIONS ALREADY

Thought you might be interested to know that my late grandfather, A. N. Fraser, was a subscriber, and my father F. E. Vogan is at present a subscriber. So this makes it three generations. After a short business career, I am now in seminary, and find your thoughtful writing a great blessing.

DAVID A. VOGAN

Pittsburgh, Pa.

I think CHRISTIANITY TODAY is the best guide in evangelical doctrine we have.

L. E. BARTON

Montgomery, Ala.

The fact is I like CHRISTIANITY TODAY because it so ably upholds ideas that I do not accept. I enjoy its challenge to my own way of thinking, and to a large degree I go along with much of its contents.…

ALFRED CARLYON

First Methodist Church

Durango, Colo.

It is heartening to see intellectual evangelicals who are neither afraid nor ashamed to continue giving the Bible its rightful place of authority.

It is disturbing to see here and there one time “sound” evangelicals who now consider this view of the Scriptures incompatible with “love.” I believe these true members of the Body of Christ are mistaking love (agape) for what E. P. Schulze (“A Letter to Missouri,” Nov. 21 issue) termed “syncretistic theological latitudinarianism.” It seems to me that truly to love with God’s own love we must be willing to be misunderstood and to be sometimes described as “unloving.”

ELIZABETH L. WOODWARD

Durham, N. C.

It seems that many in our day are wanting a United Church but like thousands of other churchmen, they are not willing to pay the price of Christian unity. Christ prayed for the unity of his followers and the Apostles pleaded for and preached unity.… Accepting nothing as authoritative but the teachings of the Word of God we could see the restoration of the Church of the New Testament.

JAMES L. SCOTT

Rich Acres Christian Church

Martinsville, Va.

I believe your magazine is the proper way for the churches to be joined together, with each of us using different ways and means to reach “everyone” in the highways and byways of life.

MRS. BRYAN ASHEORD

Corcoran, Calif.

It is nice for you to be international and interdenominational, because heaven will be like that.

MRS. A. E. LOOSE

Sierra Madre, Calif.

Only God can truly know the extent of this ministry in uniting Bible-believing people of nearly all denominations, giving to them a sense of their essential oneness in Christ Jesus.…

KENNETH J. HARRY

Vineyard Estates Baptist Church

Oxnard, Calif.

I appreciate very much your publication being a publication of Christianity and not a publication of a denomination.

F. AMELINCKX

Maracay, Venezuela

Please discontinue sending this magazine to me. I do not share the views … and do not care to have your “lack of love” attitude crossing my desk so often.… I have done the same to Christian Century as I do not care to have so much of that controversy before me.

As many other pastors, perhaps, I am seeking to spread love and not doctrinal or religious discontent.…

PAUL M. BINGHAM

Prestonburg, Ky.

The biblical literalist is self-righteous; the liberalist, an unbearable snob.

HENRY RATLIFF

Hartford, S. Dak.

We believe it is one of the finest Christian publications available today.

WILLIAM E. DAVIS

Southwestern Bible Institute

Waxahachie, Tex.

I find very little in your magazine that is congenial or creatively stimulating to me.

DOUGLAS M. PARROTT

Cold Spring-On-Hudson, N. Y.

Great evangelical magazine.…

DONALD E. DEMARAY

Dean

School of Religion

Seattle Pacific College

Seattle, Wash.

I think it is not true to truth but bears to inaccurate representation of the best biblical scholarship and philosophy.

ALFRED COMAN

Ithaca, N. Y.

Perhaps there are at times temptations, even pressures, to enter the subjectivistic side shows of evangelical Christianity and concomitant peculiarities bearing sectarian labels. You have steadfastly resisted these trends in keeping your magazine in the mainstream of historic, classical Protestant theology. This is the kind of hard-nosed objectivity a Missouri Lutheran understands. It is, in my judgment, the only way to preserve evangelical Christianity.

RUDOLPH F. NORDEN

Editorial Assistant

Com. on College and University Work

The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod Chicago, Ill.

Let me express my appreciation for the finest Christian magazine today. I believe that the influence of CHRISTIANITY TODAY is incalculable. If a revival of biblical Christianity comes to pass in our era, I think that this one publication will have had a very great deal to do with it.

LLOYD F. DEAN

East Glenville Church

Scotia, N. Y.

Robert H. Reardon

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

A Window on the Pulpit

The Preacher:

Son of a clergyman, Robert H. Reardon is the second president of Anderson College (Church of God), Indiana. After serving congregations in Ohio and Pennsylvania, he returned to his alma mater in 1947 as assistant to the president, and in June, 1958, succeeded Dr. John A. Morrison as president. In addition to his B.A. from Anderson, he holds the B.D. and M.S.T. from Oberlin Conservatory, and was awarded the honorary Doctor of Human Letters by DePauw University in 1958. Dr. Reardon has been secretary of the Indiana Association of Church-Related and Independent Colleges since 1955. In addition, he officially represents his denomination as a member of the NCC Commission of Higher Education.

The Series:

In enlisting the aid of a dozen seminaries charged with teaching homiletics and practical theology, CHRISTIANITY TODAY commissioned each participant to nominate for the Select Sermon Series a pulpit message representative of the best evangelical preaching in American denominations.

The sermon in this issue, “The Greatest Question,” is nominated by Dr. John A. Morrison, President-emeritus of Anderson College, as representative of such preaching in the Church of God.

In previous issues, CHRISTIANITY TODAY has carried sermons by clergymen identified with the United Lutheran Church, the American Baptist Convention, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Reformed Church in America, and General Baptist Conference. Other denominational traditions will be represented by the selections yet to appear.

What is the greatest question that can be asked about a man? Think for a moment. In your most considered judgment, what one momentous question about a man towers like an Everest above the rest?

The “health” question certainly would be first for some. Is a man’s body strong and well? Is this the first and greatest question—to be free from pain? There are those who come quickly to mind, who make us wonder. We recall Robert Louis Stevenson with his hacking cough, dying of a lifelong lung ailment in Samoa, yet writing that he refused to let the medicine shelf become the horizon of his soul. Health is important, but I doubt if it belongs first.

No doubt some would insist that the “freedom” question should be first. Is a man restricted, coerced, imprisoned, or is he free to move about, to follow his own interests, and to carry out his own plans? Vital as freedom is, there comes to mind that stalwart spirit, John Bunyan, imprisoned for 12 years and offered freedom in exchange for silence, who wrote, “I am determined, God being my helper, yet to suffer, if frail life may continue so long, even till the moss shall grow over my eyebrows, rather than violate my faith and make a continual butchery of my conscience.” Such heroic words indicate that other questions are more important.

No doubt there are some who would say that the “color” question is central and of primary importance. What is the color of man’s skin? The sensitive spirit and scientific genius of George Washington Carver and the unforgettable voice of Marian Anderson about whom Toscanini said, “a voice like hers comes once every hundred years,” ought to make us ponder the importance of this kind of a question. Obviously the answer does not lie here.

Then there is the inevitable question about wealth. How much money does he have? Although few would actually admit that in their own hierarchy of values these questions were of top priority, yet their lives belie what they say. This is the first question for many of us, and let’s not deny it. Yet as money-mad as we may be, in the depths of our hearts we know that possessions do not truly measure the man.

WHAT DO YOU WANT?

Whenever we are pondering the ultimate questions of life we ought to find out just what Jesus had to say.

One day two of his disciples, James and John, both of them ambitious, brash, and impatient for power, pushed their way toward him through the crowd and said, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask” (Mark 10:35). There was much more depth to Jesus’ counterquestion than we generally realize. He asked them, “What do you want …?” Here is a question to ponder, to search the soul. What do I really want? What do I desire more than anything else in the world? What do I long for in my inner heart? What is that deep seedbed of desire from which spring all of the basic motivations and attitudes of my life? At some time or other every man has to answer this question.

King Solomon did as he began his reign. Young, untried, and troubled by his lack of wisdom and experience, he made a pilgrimage to bum sacrifices at the altar of Gibeon, and to meditate and pray about the new responsibilities that had been thrust upon him. As he stirred uneasily upon his bed in sleep, God came to him in a dream and invited him to request anything his heart desired. What did Solomon ask for? This was the great question. Surely he must have thought about a mighty army marching in pomp and splendor at his command, but he did not ask for it. He must have been drawn by the vision of a splendid palace, filled with treasures of all the world, and yet he did not ask for it. Solomon asked for one favor only. He pleaded, “Give thy servant therefore an understanding mind.” This was what he wanted most. Down through these hundreds of years that have elapsed since his reign, Solomon is remembered principally for his wisdom.

There is an interesting counterpart to the story of Solomon in the present day. Only a few years ago King Farouk I of Egypt was overthrown and sent into exile. When the officers of the new revolutionary government entered the fabulous palace of King Farouk, what did they find? This man could have had almost anything that money could buy. In his library one could imagine a collection of books equal to the finest collections in the world. Instead Nasser’s police found stack after stack of American comic books. This was what a king wanted! One might have thought that in the royal galleries would be hanging the paintings of the masters—Ruben, Rembrandt, and Botticelli. Instead the palace walls were decorated with pornography. We need to ponder long the wisdom of the Master who said, ‘Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also” (Matt. 6:21). Perhaps what a man wants is the greatest question that can be asked about him. Where is your treasure, my friend?

WHAT IS YOUR PRICE?

Jesus asks a second question which lays its finger on ultimate things: “Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Mark 8:37). Can a man be bought? Does every man have his price? Such a question cannot be avoided, for it has to do with fundamental integrity and basic character. It applies to the statesman who may be faced with compromising his convictions or committing political suicide. It applies to the teenage girl whose romance seems to rest on her response to the ultimatum, “If you love me, prove it.”

When Daniel was caught in a trap of political intrigue which could have ruined his career and ended his life, what did he do? Did he listen to his fellow countrymen who complained that their businesses would be ruined if Daniel persisted in continuing his faithfulness in prayer? Did Daniel quietly soft-pedal his religious practices and wait for a more convenient day? Was he able to double talk himself into believing that greater good was to be accomplished by compromise? “When Daniel knew that the document had been signed, he went to his house where he had windows in his upper chamber opened toward Jerusalem; and he got down upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he had done previously” (Dan. 6:10). There is a wonderful matter-of-factness and restraint here, as though the writer knew Daniel to be a man of character and integrity, whose course of action would not be in doubt.

A number of months ago one of my good friends, employed as a responsible executive in a large midwest corporation, was taken aside by a superior officer for some friendly council: “We like your loyalty to the company, the thoughtfulness with which you approach company problems, and I know top management has its eye upon you for a promotion. But I have noticed at our social affairs and company parties that you do not drink with the rest of the people. If you are going up the company ladder, you will need to change.” To this my friend replied, “Thank you very much for the confidence you have in me. If this is the price I am to pay for advancement, I prefer to stay where I am.” Was he passed over? He was not. Within six months two substantial promotions came and today he is one of the top executive officers of the corporation and enjoys the confidence of his business associates. Thank God for men who cannot be bought at any price.

When I was a boy I was taught an unforgettable lesson by an old man on my paper route. He was above 90 years of age and lived alone in his house on the corner. During the last several years of his life he had become virtually blind. The day came when he could no longer see to take from his pocketbook the correct change to pay for his newspaper. I still remember the Saturday morning when he drew his old leather pocketbook with a snap on top of it from his pocket, handed it to me and said, “Bob, I can’t see any more. Help yourself.” As I opened the purse I was suddenly struck with what a wonderful thing it was to be trusted. The old man knew very well that I could take out whatever I wanted and he would not know the difference, but he had placed in me an unconditional trust which I resolved I would never betray. And so, whether statesman, business man, paper boy, or whatever, Jesus has this searching question for us which is as relevant today as it was when he first asked it, “What would a man give in exchange for his soul?” Can you be bought? Do you have a price?

WHAT HAVE YOU PAID?

We come now to a third great question which Jesus asked, and there might be some who would rate it as the most important question that can be asked, particularly of a Christian. “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink?” (Mark 10:38). I trust that each one of us will give a more thoughtful answer than James and John who answered immediately, “We are able.” Jesus was getting at basic things again, for it was a question that had stern and frightening implications in it. “You say that you are my disciple, prove it! What evidence is there that you have suffered for what you believe? What price have you paid? Enough of all this talk; what have you done?”

The truth is that most of us are fair listeners to the Gospel, average discussers of the Gospel, but never really “drink the cup.” Just how much of our lives and our resources have we been willing to put on the altar?

A few years ago at a youth convention in Toronto, a small man, nearly blind, rose to speak on “The Way of the Cross.” Toyohiko Kagawa’s sermon laid hold on us and I shall never forget the quiet hush that fell over the audience as he raised his New Testament close to his eyes in order to be able to read the passage of Scripture. Some of us knew that he had nearly lost his sight after being infected with trachoma by a passing beggar taken in, drunken and filthy, to share his bed there in the awful slums of the Shinkawa district of Tokyo. The price he had paid in his own personal health to carry the Gospel moved us beyond words.

Paul, the great apostle, author, teacher, and evangelist would have had little impact on the early Church were he not able to stand before his brethren and say, “I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus” (Gal. 6:17). The ugly scars upon his face, the long lash marks visible upon his back, spoke more eloquently of his love for the Saviour than any words he could possibly employ. And Jesus Christ our Lord, great Friend and Teacher though he was, was unable to fulfill his ministry until finally one black afternoon he was nailed to the cross. Even today it is our vision of him upon that cross against the sky that has so laid hold of our hearts that somehow we have not been able to put him aside. As I stand today before that cross I, too, must ask, what have I paid for what I believe?

In these times when our sense of values becomes blurred and our vision dimmed by the respectable paganism that drifts like a fog across our lives, we need to ponder again the great searching questions posed by our Lord. They are as central and inescapable today as they were then. “What do you want? What will a man give in exchange for his soul? Can you drink of my cup?”

Comment On The Sermon

The sermon “The Greatest Question” was nominated forCHRISTIANITY TODAY’s Select Sermon Series by Dr. John A. Morrison, President-emeritus, Anderson College (Church of God), Anderson, Indiana. Dr. Morrison’s comment follows:

Who is the greatest preacher of the twentieth century? Nobody knows. The concept of greatness as applied to the preacher and his sermon is an elusive thing—it is hard to define with any degree of accuracy. One generation may pronounce a given preacher as great and the next generation may forget him altogether. On the other hand, a preacher’s fame may increase as the generations pass, as in the case of Frederick W. Robertson of Brighton, England. Robertson died more than a century ago at the early age of 37. His sermons endure to this day as homiletical masterpieces.

I have always felt that in the highest and noblest sense the printed sermon is not a sermon at all—only the report of one. The relationship between the preacher and his audience is similar to the relationship between a man and his sweetheart—it is more natural and satisfying with both parties present at a given performance.

When I beard Dr. Reardon preach the sermon under review here, I pronounced it a fine sermon. The preacher stood in the pulpit with his heart warmed by a profound conviction of the truth of his message. The tone of the voice, the posture of the body, the expression in the eye, the gestures of the hands, the movements of the head—even the pauses—all were brought into play as a means of conveying a message from the heart of the preacher to the hearts of the people. And they responded like flowers in a summer garden when a shower had fallen. Here and there one would note a moistened eye; now and then an occasional smile, an unconscious nod of a head; everywhere a look of deep seriousness. God’s message was finding its mark.

A quality of the sermon which impressed me was its simplicity. Great preaching is never pompous. Effective preachers do not itch to parade a vocabulary, nor do they make a show of knowledge. If a preacher is wise he has no need to show it; if he is ignorant he has no means of hiding it. So in either case effort is a waste. One reason Jesus caught the ears of the common people, and they heard him gladly, was that he used terms they could understand. Who wants to carry a dictionary to church to find out what the preacher is saying?

Again, as I listened to Robert Reardon preach this sermon, it seemed that he was preaching what he had experienced. When preaching comes to be academic, it ceases to be preaching. It is lecturing. New Testament preaching was serious business. It was the business of the heart, the soul, the whole life, the total personality of the preacher. The first Christian preachers had had a profound religious experience.

Furthermore, the sermon is relevant to the times. The preacher addresses his message to the here and now. Its application is not remote but immediate. People who heard it sensed that it was for them.

When I heard Dr. Reardon’s sermon I thought it was good and I asked him to write it up for this magazine.

J.A.M.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

- More fromRobert H. Reardon

Roy A. Burkhart

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

For two years it has been my privilege, since becoming emeritus, to meet with fellow ministers in all parts of the United States and several places in Canada. During one such meeting a year ago, I was asked to speak on “The Minister’s Image of Himself.” I asked, instead, that the ministers give what they thought was their own image. They were slow to start, but when they finally felt free they really responded. Rather than talk, we searched together. The insights that came forth, the hostility, frustration, and resentment that were resolved really made the three days a life-changing experience.

In another part of the country I met with 150 ministers as part of a preaching mission. During a morning hour from Monday through Friday I talked with them, and then offered to meet not more than 15 of the ministers in a therapy group at another hour. We were overwhelmed with the response.

THE HUNGER OF MINISTERS

I have permission to include some of the personal reports of these ministers. As each in the group shared together, amazing healing took place. The needs, as they were related, were more typical than I ever dreamed they would be before I started.

FIRST MINISTER: “I can’t tell you how deeply moved I am with the spirit here. Most speakers come to ‘tell us’ and for us to have a chance to talk, with you listening, is really too good to be true. I am frank to confess that you caught me at a point of staleness. The demands upon me, within the church and without, have left me barren in spirit and I am too busy even to pray and I feel that many of my sermons are just warmed-over dishes.”

SECOND MINISTER: I hardly know how to chat with this group about my feelings. After our session yesterday morning at 9, I went to my room really quite disturbed. I came to the conclusion that my seminary trained me for a church that does not exist.”

THIRD MINISTER: “Ed, your statement is rather a shock to me. You are one of the most successful ministers I know. In fact I have envied you. To be more truthful I have secretly hated you. I thought that you had everything you wanted and were everything you wanted to be. You don’t know what it means to me to realize that maybe all along you yourself have need. You have a ‘D.D.,’ you have a large church and a fine parsonage. I do not have an honorary degree. I have a small church, a small salary, and I have never been able really to get off the ground in my ministry. So I have talked love when actually so often I have been angry. This is a dilemma.”

FOURTH MINISTER: “The place where I would like to begin is, how I can meet the demands of my ministry and still fulfill the requirements of being a husband and father. Frankly, my relationship with my wife is not good. When I come home she begins complaining, and the result is that I work all the more. As soon as I enter the door, she starts working me over, which means that she has me in the doghouse most of the time, and then I start barking at her. One effect of this is that I over-react to criticism and hostility in my parish, and I also over-respond to a few women who are devoted to me. Right now I have two women in love with me and I am not sure what the outcome will be. They are in love with me because I have a need, and I have a need because my wife and I have lost some pages out of the book of our marriage. I think that it is more my fault than hers.”

FIFTH MINISTER: “The thing that jarred me in the first session yesterday morning was your description of the four kinds of ministers. I am distinctly of the “poor worm complex.” You startled me when you suggested that I focus on the power of the Lord rather than upon my own inability and limitations. I would like to work with you and the group to determine just where I can begin.”

SIXTH MINISTER: “I think my greatest concern is the fact that I am so busy with the details of running the church that I not only have never committed my life to prayer, but I am still running on concepts that I got from the seminary which were more verbalizations than descriptions of experiences. This means that so much of my preaching and teaching is just saying words, not guiding people in experience. You asked yesterday, ‘How many lives were changed under your preaching last year?’ Frankly, I can’t point to one, and to be honest, the Lord is not real to me. I don’t know how to describe the new birth experience; I have never led anyone to this experience—what is more, I myself have not been born again.”

SEVENTH MINISTER: “I never dreamed that I would be in a group where I would be free to say what I am saying to you men. No one here could be more hostile than I am. When I am driving down the street and see another car coming in the opposite direction, even though I don’t know the driver, I am actually overcome with hate for him. Yet I stand up trying to preach the gospel of love.”

NOT FREE TO MINISTER

Last summer I was asked to give a lecture series at a certain meeting, and I offered to lead two different therapy sessions. Here we had a chance to have 16 consecutive meetings with men who had come out of seminaries and who were filling important pulpits, yet (according to their letters) they were not free in Christ to minister. Many of them were filled with fear, resentment, or inferiority because they had no honorary degree, or they were moved from church to church with very little progress. Others were disturbed because they could not point to one changed life. Most all of them complained they felt spiritually barren.

I was asked to speak to 180 ministers for three days on the Church, its meaning, its nature, and its method. The men agreed instead to meet in small groups to explore and then to report their findings. All were shocked with the difficulty they experienced in putting into words the meaning and nature of the Church. They were surprised at how hard it was for them to make clear the message of the Church and to describe the meaning of the new birth. It was not easy for them to show people how to pray and how to know the Lordship of Jesus Christ in their lives. On another occasion Dr. Stanley McGee and I spent a day with 68 ministers in such a gathering. Only two made any profession of being committed to the life of prayer.

What does it mean to the local church? It means, first, that many ministers do not know how to start guiding their people into a vital relationship with God in which the Holy Spirit can do his work. And what is that work? Through the Holy Spirit each child is conceived and born into the Body of Christ, each person is born anew with the Holy Spirit, and each person then continues to open his life to Jesus Christ and for Jesus Christ. Through the Holy Spirit each person may grow from dependency through interdependency to wholesome and responsible independency by knowing the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Many ministers have no theology, their orientation is sociological and psychological. Or their theology is sociologically and psychologically irrelevant.

Much of today’s preaching is saying words but not guiding persons into thinking which leads to action. Many ministers either have no theology, which means that their orientation is essentially sociological and psychological, or else their theology is sociologically and psychologically irrelevant. Both situations are tragic.

Countless ministers are so overwhelmed by the demands of their churches that they have little time either for their own spiritual research or for the establishment of a real relationship with their families.

Other pastors need help in their preaching, in their pastoring, in their counseling, and in their training of the priesthood of the laity.

Many fall short in their ministry to children and youth, in their premarital counseling, and in dealing with grief and sickness.

Some either feel that they must play the hero in social action, or else retire and become harmless in the face of the great social questions.

Finally, the voice of the local church is amazingly silent today in the face of the threat of nuclear war and of world communism.

WORD TO THE SEMINARIES

Please forgive me then if I seem bold enough to offer some suggestions to the theological seminaries:

1. Find the ministers who are guiding their churches in a vital program of nurture from conception through all seasons of life, and bring them to the seminary for a week. Do not limit your convocations to prima donna preachers. (So often the great preachers deliver sermons which the listening pastor may “eat up,” but which may also intensify his feelings of guilt, self-hate, and frustration simply by the unfavorable contrast with his own efforts. How much better it would be if the great preacher listened more and then talked in the light of what he heard.)

Locate the churches where a real work is being done with children, youth, family life, lay leadership in parish work, Christian education, evangelism, administration, the development of dynamic stewardship, and a vital relation of the church to the community and to the Church of Jesus Christ. Bring together the ministers of these churches and some of their key laymen. Let the seminary professors share in what is said.

2. In searching for your next faculty member, would it be too much to ask you to stipulate that most, if not all, of the professors prove their ability in a parish situation before trying to train ministers? Even for the highly-specialized scholar, a parish background could ensure a greater degree of relevancy.

3. Teach the content courses on a creative basis with a syllabus. Let all content matter be presented by the students, with summaries and interpretations given by the professor. (Lecture courses make young preachers dependent, and they are a substitute for thinking. Lecturing is not education; it is pigeon-feeding.) In connection with these courses the students should be doing clinical work in parishes, helping people and groups to find a living theology, teaching the Scriptures, and helping groups come into an appreciation of the amazing history of the living church.

4. Whether the field be preaching, parish work, counseling, or the conduct of worship, the approach should be clinical and related to parish situations.

5. A seminar approach should be set up for first-year students, with all faculty members sharing. Small groups should report to the whole group on coming to know the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and learning how to lead others into that knowledge.

6. Establish therapy sessions for second-year students to help each young person find maximum freedom to love and be loved, to deal with all types of parish situations, to know freedom of health and growth so he will ever be responsive to the truth.

7. Third-year students should carry on a program of training in the life of prayer and of the Spirit. This program is expected to grow as the student leads his own people in their prayer life.

8. Let the seminary student learn in his third year how to lead his parish in creative Christian action according to the principles of Jesus Christ.

9. Before he graduates, teach the young minister how to deal with hostility, with over-aggressive members of his church, with lonely women, and with the various psychopathic types. Show him how to grow to the place where he has no need either to be a “hate” or a “love” object; or if he has such a need, how to recognize it and how to handle it.

10. In his final year at seminary, help the student to bring into being small personal growth groups. In these, prayer becomes not just an act but a way of life.

There is more that is on my heart. How can the theological seminary itself become more than a seminary? How can it meet the requirements for intellectual excellence and scholarship today, and still become a life-changing fellowship of the living Christ in which great souls come to be born? Discipline is discipleship, intuitive contagion caught from a leader. We need men and women alive in Christ, and fully free to open their lives to him and then for him.

- More fromRoy A. Burkhart

James W. L. Hills

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

Convinced evangelical Christians need to think carefully and deeply of their relationship to Roman Catholicism. Within Protestant circles one frequently hears theologians and ministers expressing regret that the Reformation took place. Contemporary interest in the doctrine of the Church, ecumenics, and a growing abhorrence of the sin of schism—legitimate concerns—have led some thinkers in this direction. It is vital to the health of evangelical Christianity that the necessity for the Reformation of the sixteenth century be stated in no uncertain terms. Under the circumstances of corruption which then prevailed in the Western Church, the Reformation was necessary, and was, in fact, God’s gift for the restatement of the Gospel in its biblical form. Having affirmed this, it is proper to ask whether Romanism, against which the protest was then made, has so changed its direction that a continuing Protestantism is now unnecessary.

The factors which have created the present climate of thought are multiform. One of the more precipitate, of course, was Pope John’s encyclical, Ad Cathedram Petri. How appealing and how ecumenical was this call for unity and peace! And since that act of October 28, 1958, other pronouncements have been made in the same tenor. It is surprising how many fail to see, apparently, that Pope John’s call, acted upon, would funnel all of us down a one-way street to Rome—the same Rome with the same doctrines (with the addition of other extra-biblical ones) against which the great protest was made earlier.

Moreover, an admirable amount of choice scholarship is being produced, despite the fact that Roman Catholic scholars are required in their research to reach certain pre-stated conclusions (defined by the Biblical Commission set up by Leo XIII in 1902 and subsequently strengthened in a conservative direction by his successor, Pius X). This rightly has won appreciation from Protestant scholars in these areas. At the same time, in spite of the Protestant revival of biblical interest, the fruit of a sterile liberalism which ignored or obscured the biblical message is still evident in our own circles. It is easy for Protestants lacking deep theological concern to talk of union with Rome, for in the sphere of theology lies the chief divisive factor. The Reformation, while pregnant with social and economic overtones, was essentially doctrinal in nature. When theologians grow indifferent to theology, concern for reformation, historical or contemporary, goes by the board.

Is it not true, too, that in their eagerness to be “fair to all concerned” some have lost Reformation concerns? Many Protestants doubtless voted for a Roman Catholic candidate in the recent presidential election just to prove, at least to themselves, that they were “unbiased,” though they did not consider deeper implications. The attitude of “co-operation at any price” is easy to come by in a society marked by the organization-man, love of conformity, and fear of being different, and this attitude is easily carried over into the realm of the Church. Here the passion for “togetherness” leads many to conclude that the Reformation was a mistake which must now be corrected. This conclusion is further assisted by inadequate knowledge and understanding of early (pre-Reformation) church history. Contemporary Roman Catholic pamphlets, including some published by the Knights of Columbus to convince non-Roman Catholics of “the error of Protestantism,” date Protestantism from the early sixteenth century, while (Roman) Catholicism is cleverly portrayed as the true Church having an unbroken line from Jesus Christ to the present day. The Reformation as an historic event can indeed be dated, but the spirit of Protestantism which necessarily produced the Reformation can easily be shown to be biblical. God had prophets in every period of biblical history to protest the adulteration of truth. A Roman Catholic once taunted a keen Protestant Sunday school girl, “Where was your church before the time of King Henry VIII?” The child was not altogether incorrect with her reply, “Where your church never was, sir: in the Bible.”

Even so, as evangelicals we surely must strive to appreciate Rome. Not all about Rome is wrong and false. Ignoring additions to the biblical statements by the authority with which Rome has invested tradition, we can say to Rome’s praise that she has adhered to key doctrines of the Christian faith, at least in doctrinal statement. Some Roman Catholic works are, despite their bias, a delight to work with, and certainly one can agree more with some Roman Catholic works than some Protestant works. The ancient heresy of universalism, reasserting itself with growing strength within Protestant circles today, is denied right of entry among Romanists. In certain areas of “togetherness” Protestants and Roman Catholics are at work, often in spite of themselves. The fields of biblical criticism (particularly that of lower, or textual, criticism), liturgies, and art are examples.

THE GREAT GULF

We must sadly acknowledge that we can more easily appreciate Rome while sitting at a desk than when moving among her people. When the evangelical moves among the people of Rome he realizes how great is the gulf between his faith and theirs.

There is the matter of the biblical revelation. I love my Bible; I teach it and preach it as best I can; I endeavor to lead my people to love it, too, for I believe that this “sword of the Spirit” can be the powerful instrument in molding them after the image of Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Roman Catholic church accepts tradition alongside the Bible. Now tradition is whatever the hierarchy defines it to be, since authoritative tradition must be selected from a profusion of traditions. By adding authorities, the true authority of the Bible is destroyed. Now one of the strengths of the evangelical is in a sense also a weakness: we are specialists in Reformation history and exceedingly deficient in other areas. To avoid being led astray into that which is extra- or contra-biblical (the dangers into which the Bible-plus-tradition approach leads), the evangelical must become better acquainted with the history of the post-apostolic Church prior to the Reformation. The study of patristics is almost an obligation we owe to the other communions in any attempt to understand them. But in doing this, the insistence upon the final authority of the Bible must be maintained. Generally speaking, Roman Catholic laymen are not actively encouraged to become students of the Bible.

This is perhaps the great reason why one just does not find Roman Catholics who have a radiant assurance of salvation. One of the precious gifts of God to the believer is the gift of the Holy Spirit who bears witness with our spirit that we are the sons of God. The Bible exalts Jesus Christ in his atoning death as the ground and hope of our salvation. Evangelical faith and assurance of salvation are corollaries. This is not to say there are no Roman Catholic Christians. In spite of the roadblocks of purgatory, Mariolatry, and other extra-biblical doctrinal accretions which stand in the way of the Roman church’s laity, we do not doubt that there are those who have a personal faith in Christ as their Saviour. But one must confront Rome with a broken heart here and pray that the blessings of personal salvation (with the blessed assurance which ought to accompany it, but does not always do so) may be visited upon many within her system.

It is frequently announced within fragmented Protestantism today that schism is a sin. This has almost become the shibboleth of parties whose chief end is church union regardless of doctrinal considerations. Schism is a sin. But it should not be forgotten what caused the great schism of the sixteenth century: the Reformation resulted from the Roman doctrinal emphasis. Schism is a sin—but whose sin? So long as the position of Rome on such vital matters as, for example, atonement, mediatorship, and authority, remains so extra- or contra-biblical, the sixteenth century schism must abide. Otherwise union becomes sin.

EVANGELICAL THOUGHT AND ACTION

What must the evangelical in the twentieth century think and do in relationship to Roman Catholicism?

First it is essential that we should love. Nearly always when my sermons must be critical of Roman Catholicism, I stress to my people that such criticism, even though valid, does not excuse us from loving Roman Catholics. The Saviour loved without distinction and so must we. It should not be necessary to point this out. But, sad to say, some Protestants seem to feel that they are the best Protestants when they most dislike “Catholics,” or serve Christ most effectively when they march in a Protestant parade. No one, be he Protestant or Roman Catholic, is going to be won to Jesus Christ by someone in whom he senses a spirit of distrust or dislike. But men respond to love, and multitudes can be loved to Christ who would remain forever unmoved by all other methods. Let us remember that we love Him because he first loved us.

Second, the evangelical must endeavor increasingly to appreciate the Bible. This is the great hedge against the creeping in of any teaching which is out of harmony with the Word of God. To this must be added the sure responsibility of evangelicals to acquaint themselves better with such neglected areas as the sub-apostolic Church and the Fathers. From the pre-Reformation period one can gain a helpful understanding of the Roman Catholic church. One learns how soon the purity of the early Church was stained, and is impressed again with the necessity of being rooted and grounded in the Scriptures as a guard against going astray. And if we do have a vital relationship to the biblical teachings, we shall hear less often that “Protestantism is negative.” The New Testament will give us a vigorous and positive evangelicalism.

Third, evangelicals need to recognize the need for constant restatement of doctrine. This is no confession that the basics of the faith change. But in the past there has been too great a readiness to “canonize” a system, and then to use the system as a touchstone for orthodoxy. Even orthodoxy must be relevantly restated. To take refuge in giants of the past is to surrender our minds instead of using them. In the last few years there has been a movement in the right direction in this regard which will increasingly win for evangelicals the respect and the ears of those whom we should want to win. A formula statement of the biblical faith may set forth its highlights, but is no easy answer to the theological issues confronting the Church today. These must be grappled with. Our honesty and intellectual virility here will appeal to and win at least some of the theologically inclined within the Roman Catholic church.

Finally, evangelicals must venture to evangelize Roman Catholics. This suggestion may seem to negate some present-day ecumenical thought. But read this:

We do, on the part of Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and also by the authority of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and by our own, excommunicate and curse all Hussites, Wicliffites, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, Huguenots, Anabaptists, Trinitarians, and Apostates from the faith of Christ, and all and sundry other heretics, by whatsoever name they may be reckoned, and of whatever sect they may be; and those who believe in them, and their receivers, abettors, and in general, all their defenders whatsoever; and those who without our authority and that of the Apostolic See knowingly read, or retain, or print, or in any way defend the books containing their heresy, or treating of religion.

This is a part of the bull In Coena Domini, which has been confirmed or enlarged by more than 20 popes and which was published in Rome every Holy Thursday or Easter Monday for centuries. It fell into disuse in the latter half of the eighteenth century, not through any abandonment of its intent or spirit but through a canny regard for the sensitivities of temporal powers. Evangelicals should realize that any union with the Roman church would have to be on Rome’s terms. The finest Christian answer to the curse pronounced upon us in In Coena Domini is evangelism, the prayerful attempt to confront Roman Catholics and the Roman Catholic church with the pure and biblical gospel of Jesus Christ which ministers true freedom and the assurance of salvation. We must evangelize Roman Catholics until we are convinced that the Roman Catholic church is preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ in its biblical purity. The ecumenical Church must be the fruit of a Holy Spirit-guided evangelism, not the product of careless conjunction with a Roman Catholicism which has never evidenced godly sorrow for the sins against which the Reformation was a protest.

- More fromJames W. L. Hills

G. C. Berkouwer

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

From certain Jewish thinkers has come the criticism that Christianity poses an unhealthy dualism between heaven and earth. Christianity, it is said, tends to flee from God’s created reality, and hence from man’s responsibility for the earth, into an unearthly future. Judaism, on the other hand, keeps faith with the earth. The tradition of Israel and its love for the land of God’s gift illustrates Judaism’s concern for this world as God’s world. Here on earth God holds his dialogue with man and here on earth man must seek his divinely intended fulfillment. The difference between Christianity and Judaism is often thus typified by Jewish writers.

One thinks in this context of the modern Jewish philosopher of religion, Martin Buber, as well as of Leo Baeck. Buber speaks of a deep gulf between Judaism and Christianity, a breach that is vividly seen in Christianity’s disdain of creation. He interprets the Christian doctrine of redemption as salvation and escape from this world. He also sees the Christian eschatology as having no place at all for this world. Christianity, Buber claims, is a kind of Platonism, a religion in which God is an Idea without real contact with the world. This eminent Jewish thinker misses in Christianity what he calls the prophetic faith in the eventual sanctification of the earth. Christianity, like much of Eastern Apocalyptic literature—a literature exemplified, says Buber, in the Jewish prophets Ezekiel and Daniel—gives up on the world as on a hopelessly corrupted piece of reality. The Christian apocalyptic mind has no eye for the beauty, the challenge, the future of this earth. Buber is under the impression that Christianity at the core is ascetic, world-estranged, heaven-centered. (It is interesting that Leo Baeck, writing in the same vein about Christianity in general, makes of Calvinism the one exception to the other-worldliness of Christianity.)

From what source does Buber draw his conclusions? Surely he does not come to his conclusions from a reading of the New Testament. Recall that Jesus said that the earth was the inheritance of the meek. Peter reminded his discouraged readers that “we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (2 Pet. 3:13). Peter’s outlook is in direct line with the words of Isaiah (see Isa. 65:17; 66:22). John, too, points his persecuted fellows to the vision of the new heaven and new earth. There is not a hint of world-despising escapism here. The Christian faith in its origins was in conflict with all brands of gnosticism, and its faith in the resurrection of the body gave the lie to all purely spiritualistic religions.

Perhaps, then, the modern Judaistic critique of Christianity rises from the less than full-orbed practice of Christianity of which all of us are at times guilty. Here we touch a point that is not easily set aside. Christians indeed have often lapsed into a longing for a heaven without the wholeness of the biblical concept of Kingdom and the new earth. In dogmatic thought as well, so much emphasis has been placed on the blessed vision of God (“Prostrate before Thy throne to lie, and gaze and gaze on Thee”) that it seemed opposed to the vision of a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. One nineteenth century writer, in fact, remarked that in view of the visio dei which awaits us, we do not really need a new earth. If this were Christianity, then indeed writers like Buber would have a case against us. But the Bible carries no suggestion of such a dualism between the vision of God and the new earth.

We may point to Israel as an example. The people of God received the land from God, not as competitive to fellowship with God, but as the arena in which communion with God was to be concretely expressed. “And now, behold, I have brought the first-fruits of the land, which thou, O Lord, has given me” (Deut. 26:10). The people were to find joy in the earth with God, not a tension between the land and God. “And thou shalt rejoice in every good thing which the Lord thy God hath given thee” (Deut. 26:11). We are reminded as well that in Jesus’ beatitudes, the inheritance of the earth is promised side by side with “they shall see God.”

Judaism’s critique of Christianity as an unbalanced other-worldliness has no basis in the New Testament. The only grounds for it are those found where Christianity is watered down to a non-Christian ethereal eschatology. When Edward Thurneysen wrote that the Christian future has to do with this world, these cities, these streets, these forests, Brunner responded by saying that Thurneysen was speculating rather than listening to the Bible. But I judge that Thurneysen’s words are more biblical than Brunner’s criticism will allow. For the Bible does indeed speak of a new earth, and as new as it shall be, it shall still he earth.

The Christian faith in the resurrection of the body is closely related to the promise of the new earth. We are not called to flee the earth. We are not called to hate the body. Christianity is not a spiritualistic gnosticism, but a redemptive faith. We may be tempted at times to separate the earth from God’s area of concern. When we fall to that temptation we are untrue to the motto “Be true to the earth” and we thus leave the earth to those who would make concern for it a wholly secular concern. But we Christians can also be true to the earth simply because we do look forward to a new earth.

The perspective of the earth’s renewal does not lessen our concern for and interest in this earth and in its social and political questions. Rather, our hope for a new earth calls us to responsibility for and action in this earth. The world is on its way toward God’s future. And God does have a future for the world. The answer to the Judaistic critique, I believe, is very obvious. So long as Christians gear their faith and their life to the biblical perspective, they will not fall prey to an un-Christian program of escape from this world.

- More fromG. C. Berkouwer