Page 6262 – Christianity Today (2024)

The Christian character of T. S. Eliot’s poetry is a common subject for discussion in religious periodicals. Professor James Wesley Ingles has commented eloquently on this topic in his article, “Christian Elements in the Poetry of T. S. Eliot” (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, October 13, 1961). Nowhere is Eliot more explicit in delineating his Christian beliefs than in the short poem, “Journey of the Magi.” Here his grasp of the inherent soteriological truth, that Jesus Christ was born to die, makes relevant the reading of this poem at this Christmas season, when all the world concentrates on the manger, as if to blot out the cross.

In “Journey of the Magi” we hear the reminiscences of one of the Wise Men. Now an old man, he appears to be recounting his memoirs to an amanuensis. The words “but set down/This set down/This” are directed to the secretary, and the first five lines of the poem, enclosed in quotation marks, are a partial transcript of the record already written. This would seem to be a valid interpretation from the text, although Eliot in one of his essays has attributed these opening lines to a paraphrase of a sermon by Lancelot Andrewes (1555–1626), one of the translators of the Authorized Version. As it appears in the poem, however, the passage belongs to the aged Magian.

His attitude, shown in the first stanza, toward his memories is important to observe. He recalls very little about the journey that could be considered pleasant, even in the romance of retrospection. The season was “just the worst time of year.” The journey, “such a long journey.” The functionaries on whom he depended—the camels and the men who drove them—are remembered as having been “refractory.” The animals lay down in the melting snow, refusing to go any farther in their “galled, sore-footed” condition. Their drivers cursed and gambled and ran off, looking for liquor and women. Even the comforts of fire and human fellowship were denied the men from the East.

… the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters, And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly And the villages dirty and charging high prices: A hard time we had of it.

External forces opposed them in their quest for the newborn King. But the greater gnawing of dejection and doubt originated “with the voices singing in our ears, saying/That this was all folly.”

Eliot’s ambiguity in the second stanza is pervaded by Christian symbols. A whole day, the most important of the journey, comes to the mind of the narrator. It begins at dawn in “a temperate valley”—where the travelers might well have been tempted to give up their search—and ends “at evening, not a moment too soon.” Discouragement at the length of the journey and the hardships involved would have resulted in resignation from their mission, had the Wise Men not reached their destination when they did. Between the hours of sunrise and sunset much had been seen: “three trees on the low sky” that unmistakably forecast the scene at Calvary; “an old white horse” that gallops away into the meadow, possibly to await his Rider’s need for him (Rev. 6:2). In the village, one of those already described as “dirty and charging high prices,” the Wise Men find their own Vanity Fair. It is a tavern in which three men are seen “dicing for pieces of silver,/And … kicking the empty wine-skins.” Filled as it is with incisive statements on the wasteland of this world, Eliot’s poetry has no more striking picture of man’s frustrated existence than this. Of course, there is no information available from anyone in the tavern concerning the whereabouts of the Christ-Child. One could scarcely expect men who grovel in greed to know or care about the coming of their King, and so the Wise Men continue their pilgrimage to find “the place” on their own.

After all their struggle, success seems anti-climactic. In this one respect Eliot differs from the story in Matthew’s account, which tells us that the Wise Men “rejoiced with exceeding joy.” What must be the understatement of all time is the old man’s only comment upon that scene described in Matthew 2:11—“it was (you may say) satisfactory.”

How much more than merely “satisfactory” the experience was we may judge from the final stanza. First, the sight of the infant Redeemer did stamp a permanent impression upon the memory of the Magian, for although “all this was a long time ago,” he is certain that he would repeat the expedition. “I would do it again,” he says. Secondly, the significance of the Saviour’s birth was not lost upon the Wise Man. In his years of pondering the strange journey that took him to the Child before whom he opened his treasures, one question has played in his mind. It is the key question to his whole understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation: “Were we led all that way for/Birth or Death?” In coming to know the truth about God manifest in the flesh, he has learned that Birth and Death are no different when the cross shadows the cradle.

Moreover, in this Birth the Magian found birth, and it too was compounded with death, for

this Birth was

Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.

Much more must be seen in the worship of the Wise Men than a mere offering of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. It was, in fact, the turning-over of themselves, their treasures, their kingdoms. In such a transforming, transcending act there was “hard and bitter agony,” as the lust for gold yielded before the Lord of Glory. A death to self, to the coveting of possessions, is always painful. Yet, in the act of dying the Wise Men found new life.

The closing lines bring the story up-to-date. Upon returning to their homeland, the Magi found themselves “no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,/With an alien people clutching their gods.” Eliot’s pilgrims, having once seen their King, are not content in the City of Destruction to which they have returned. One senses the reason in the words “the old dispensation.” Like believers today—and here the correspondence between Bunyan’s Christian and Eliot’s Wise Men dissolves—the Magi remained “in the world” but were no longer “of the world.” The old things had passed away; all had become new. Their countrymen appeared as strangers, “an alien people,” in the continuance of their pagan worship. The transformation in the lives of the Magi had been complete, and it had brought with it dissatisfaction with the old ways.

One thought, then, remains. It is Eliot’s final statement from the lips of the old Magian. “I should be glad of another death,” he informs us, and we note the wistful tone in his voice. In comprehending the paradox of Christian teaching, that spiritual birth and death are related, the Wise Man has also realized that physical death will again bring him before the King he once traveled so far to adore. This thought pleases him, and in glad anticipation of the close of his life, he contemplates again the eventful journey that so altered its course.

Journey of the Magi¹From Collected Poems of T. S. Eliot. Used by permission of Faber and Faber, Ltd., covering English language rights throughout the world excluding the United States and its dependencies, and of Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., covering the United States and its dependencies.

“A cold coming we had of it,

Just the worst time of the year

For a journey, and such a long journey:

The ways deep and the weather sharp,

The very dead of winter.”

And the camels galled, sore-footed, refractory,

Lying down in the melting snow.

There were times we regretted

The summer palaces on slopes, the terraces,

And the silken girls bringing sherbet.

Then the camel men cursing and grumbling

And running away, and wanting their liquor and women,

And the night-fires going out, and the lack of shelters,

And the cities hostile and the towns unfriendly

And the villages dirty and charging high prices:

A hard time we had of it.

At the end we preferred to travel all night,

Sleeping in snatches,

With the voices singing in our ears, saying

That this was all folly.

Then at dawn we came down to a temperate valley,

Wet, below the snow line, smelling of vegetation;

With a running stream and a water-mill beating the darkness,

And three trees on the low sky,

And an old white horse galloped away in the meadow.

Then we came to a tavern with vine-leaves over the lintel,

Six hands at an open door dicing for pieces of silver,

And feet kicking the empty wine-skins.

But there was no information, and so we continued

And arrived at evening, not a moment too soon

Finding the place; it was (you may say) satisfactory.

All this was a long time ago, I remember,

And I would do it again, but set down

This set down

This: were we led all that way for

Birth or Death? There was a Birth, certainly,

We had evidence and no doubt. I had seen birth and death,

But had thought they were different; this Birth was

Hard and bitter agony for us, like Death, our death.

We returned to our places, these Kingdoms,

But no longer at ease here, in the old dispensation,

With an alien people clutching their gods.

I should be glad of another death.

Contemporary readers may accept the poem as a sophisticated amplification of the familiar Bible story. Or we may interpret its symbolic message in the light of our own quest for salvation. We too must turn aside from the sensual pleasures that would prevent us from continuing our pilgrimage; we must reject the voices that cry “Folly” in our ears. We must overcome the base wallowing in sin that mires men in the tavern of this world. And we must be willing to seek Him when there is no one who can lead us to where he is.

In seeing Jesus Christ, in offering to him the treasure of our lives, we can be certain that his influence upon us will match his influence upon the Magi. We too shall see ourselves transformed, becoming new creatures as the old life dies and the new is born. But whether or not we sense an estrangement from the old ways depends upon how vividly we keep the image of Christ’s Lordship before us. Our Christmas devotion means nothing if we cannot honestly say, “I too should be glad of another death.”

END

The people had been waiting a long time for deliverance. Alien armies roamed their land, and spiritual leaders looked after their own welfare rather than that of the people. In such circ*mstances, despite their tradition-cluttered religion, the people waited for Him of whom the prophets spoke, at whose advent and under whose benign and righteous rule they expected their problems to disappear.

In a stable one wintry night, this Child of destiny was born. Angels proclaimed the good news. Shepherds left their flocks and came to see him. Men in far countries who studied the heavens saw a new star, harbinger of a King. Loading their camels and trekking across the weary miles of desert to do him homage, they arrived one day at Herod’s gate and inquired, “Where is He … born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship Him.” Later they placed gifts at his feet—perfumes from Edom, myrrh from the forest, pearls from the sea, gold from the mine.

Shadows surrounded this promised Messiah even in childhood, and before long his parents were forced to flee their homeland to save him from evil men. After his return to Nazareth he toiled unrecognized and unknown at the carpenter’s bench, shaping timbers to the needs of men; each day he partook of the experiences of the race he had come to save. During those years, pious souls no doubt often recalled the events at Bethlehem and asked, “Where is He … born King of the Jews?”

One day a humble prophet came out of the wilderness proclaiming: “Repent ye, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand!” Thousands longing for deliverance from religious bondage and political tyranny flocked to hear him. Being a Jew is not sufficient, warned John the Baptist. Entrance into the Kingdom is conditioned upon repentance and faith in the One who has come. The long-awaited Messiah, moreover, will appear in judgment, John assured his listeners. The ax will be laid to the root of the tree, he said, and all who fail to bring forth good fruit will be hewn down and cast into consuming fire.

One morning the Galilean laid aside his tools, untied his workman’s apron, and set out for the River Jordan. He bore no royal scepter. He wore no regal robe. But there before John and his followers he was revealed as the Messiah. “We beheld his glory,” John the Apostle said of him years later, “the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” Grace and truth—these tokens marked his divinity.

Then began the greatest ministry the world has ever known. Brushing aside the empty traditions and human speculations, he gave men a new vision of God and a deeper understanding of righteousness, sin, and salvation. “I and my Father are one,” he said. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” He healed the sick. The blind were made to see. The lame walked. Even the dead rose at his command. Those who heard his gracious words exclaimed, “Never man spake like this man.”

But there was opposition. Those who looked only for political leadership were disappointed in him. The proud and self-righteous resented his claims. It was the poor, the needy, the depressed in spirit, those who longed more for righteousness than for political deliverance, who followed him.

After a ministry of almost three years, the Nazarene rode into Jerusalem one beautiful spring morning. Although a joyful populace acclaimed him “King of the Jews,” cruel hands soon seized him. Within a few short days he was led to Calvary and was crucified. In the days that followed, his friends doubtless searched their hearts and again asked, “Where is He … born King of the Jews?”

Through the gloom that enveloped those who had forsaken all to follow him, came word that he was risen—he had appeared to several women and to a few disciples! He who had died was alive again! In the days that followed his resurrection, hundreds saw him. Before his ascension, he encouraged the disciples’ faith. Later, after receiving his Spirit at Pentecost, they went forth with boldness and joy to tell all the world the Gospel of his life, death, and resurrection.

Almost two thousand years have passed since his birth at Bethlehem. Peace and good will are still not abroad in the world. Confused multitudes continue to ask: “Where is He … born King of the Jews?” Let us tell them he has come. Let us proclaim his message of salvation. Let us point to that new day when indeed righteousness will vanquish evil, when he that was born in the manger of Bethlehem will reign as King of Kings and Lord of Lords!

END

“When you cross the river,” says a Zambesi proverb, “speak kindly of the crocodile’s mother.” An echo of this sentiment could be found in Rome during the opening weeks of Vatican Council II. Whoever questioned motives or closely examined official statements or mentioned the Reformation or brought Scripture into it, was watched by eyes set more in sorrow than in anger. There was, in fact, no surer way of rocketing up the scale of People To Be Watched.

That such an atmosphere should exist at all is ultimately a reminder that the Roman church has been in the business a long, long time. It is also part of a large-scale offensive which leaves no situation unexploited, no potential ally unwooed, which makes a skillful use both of words and of silence, and in which the charmer charms never so wisely. Thus a stream of Protestant potentates has made its way, cap in hand, to the third-floor apartments of the Vatican. All seemed suitably grateful that their existence (and maybe even their right to exist) had been recognized. Overnight they had become “separated brethren”—suggesting some sort of leprous body not-yet-persona-grata-but-they’re-working-on-it.

Around the central fortress of our faith we sometimes tolerate pleasant suburbs of mild heterodoxy, but there are elements in the present situation which even the most accommodating Protestant must face squarely. True unity is not achieved by halving or dividing the things of God, nor, in Dr. Marcus Barth’s phrase, “by exchanging concessions, like railroad companies.” This is an essentially Protestant delusion which Rome encourages. For example, much has been made of the fact that at the council opening the Pope made no reference to a return of non-Roman Catholics to the fold. Such eager embracing of the argument ex silentio, an almost pathetic clutching at straws, bedevils Protestant attitudes. In his encyclicals Ad Cathedram Petri (usually known as “Truth, Unity and Peace”) of June 29, 1959, and Aeterna Dei Sapientia of November 11, 1961, John XXIII makes very clear that (1) the Church of Rome is the Holy Catholic Church; (2) the supreme rule of faith and life is Scripture and Tradition as interpreted and defined by the Pope; (3) since unity depends on union with the Apostolic See, the only way to attain it is for non-Roman Catholics to return to the one Church.

Aeterna Dei, we may note in passing, appeals to Christians threatened by Communism and secularism to present a united front by embracing the supreme and infallible magisterium reserved by the Lord for Peter and his successors. This is the argument from expediency which offers a false choice and does not present Christianity primarily for its own sake. Moreover, it leaves itself vulnerable to telling references to Communism’s hold on Pope John’s Italy. Yet prudently, when he was still Cardinal Patriarch of Venice, the pontiff said in addressing the city council with its sizable proportion of Communists: “… There may be some here who do not call themselves Christians, but who can be acknowledged as such on account of their good deeds.” This is as theologically confusing as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s famed “atheists-in-heaven” remark.

Another vexed question which cannot be ignored is that of Mariolatry. Addressing a group of Austrian pilgrims some time ago, the Pope thus outlined three paths for the return of all Christians to the Church of Rome: “Fidelity to the Gospels, love for the Saviour, and trust in His Mother and ours, Mary.” It was no accident that the Vatican Council’s opening day, October 11, was the Feast of the Divine Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin, and the anniversary of the Council of Ephesus which in 431 proclaimed the Church’s faith in “Mary, Mother of God.”

No less relevant to the current situation is the position of the Pope himself. Lytton Strachey in his Eminent Victorians says: “It is not so much because he satisfies the reason, but because he astounds it, that men abase themselves before the Vicar of Christ.” As I watched the two abbots and two superiors general, at the end of a long line of other council fathers who were “making their obeisance,” kissing the Pope’s foot, I could not help wondering what a certain Galilean fisherman would have made of it all, particularly in view of his words in Acts 10:25, 26. As the Pope was borne away on his throne at the end of the service, after the reading of a plenary indulgence and amid the adulation of a packed basilica and excited cries of “Viva il Papa,” one bethought himself of a different occasion and different multitude who with not-so-different intent cried, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”

He will be misled who thinks that Hans Küng’s book The Council and Reunion reflects the position of the Roman Catholic majority. Many of the hierarchy believe that Küng’s trumpet blows an uncertain sound, and even urge the book’s withdrawal. It has been read at mealtimes in the refectories of many of the religious colleges in Rome, but never, curiously enough, at the English College, which has strong traditionalist tendencies. That “error has no rights” is far from being an outdated attitude, can be seen in the following extract from a recent pastoral letter of the Bishop of Madrid-Acala: “In spite of the ecumenical movement and the Week of Prayer for the reunion of Christendom, we must move without any humane considerations against Protestants when they try to spread their errors and heresies, because true ecumenicalism, after all, means only return to Rome.”

Almost every utterance of the Pope on the subject of the scandalous divisions of Christendom implies that these are the consequences of the sin of all Christians, clergy and laity, Roman Catholics and Protestants alike. Most of us would admit that this is sadly true, yet we find that the suggested remedy must not involve any change in the nature of one body which professes a share in the universal guilt. This kind of double-talk is both confusing and revealing. It shows why Rome elicits vastly different responses (true Church or cosmic swindle?), and why the present council, which professes to “proclaim the mind of Christ,” is dismissed in some quarters as a gigantic publicity stunt.

Some of us might question the wisdom of the three Irish Reformed Presbyterian ministers who traveled to Rome for the council opening and read aloud Revelation 17 while the fathers passed by in St. Peter’s Square. Like London’s left-wing New Statesman, they are convinced that at the end of the day the Scarlet Woman will emerge from the council in her old familiar garb. Whatever our views, we can follow the Pope’s appeal to pray for a hastening of the time when there shall indeed be “one fold and one shepherd.”

We have failed to meet the postwar goals which America had established for herself because … the forces for decency in our country have failed in many respects to live up to their duties and responsibilities.

What has happened to the time-honored precepts of hard work and fair play which influenced the American scene during the all-important formative years of this great republic? Where is the faith in God which fortified us through our past trials? Have our national pride, our moral conscience, our sensitivity to filth and degradation, grown so weak that they no longer react to assaults upon our proud heritage of freedom?

Crime and subversion are formidable problems in the United States today because, and only because, there is a dangerous flaw in our nation’s moral armor. Self-indulgence—the principle of pleasure before duty—is practiced across the length and breadth of the land. It is undermining those attributes of personal responsibility and self-discipline which are essential to our national survival. It is creating citizens who reach maturity with a warped sense of values and an undeveloped conscience.

Crime is a parasite, feeding upon public disinterest and moral lethargy. This day, more than 5,200 felonies—four serious crimes every minute—will be committed across the United States. They will include 430 crimes of violence—murders, forcible rapes, and assaults to kill. At least 250 robberies, 10 an hour, will be recorded, as will 4,500 burglaries, major larcenies, and automobile thefts.

Since 1946, our national crime totals have more than doubled. Over the past five years, since 1957, these crimes have risen five times as fast as our growing population.

Nowhere has this increase been more pronounced than among America’s youth. Last year, persons under 18 years of age were involved in 43 per cent of all arrests for serious crimes. They accounted for 22 per cent of the robbery arrests, nearly one-half of the burglaries and larcenies, and well over half of the automobile thefts.… There is a moral breakdown among young people in the United States. The crime rate is outdistancing the population increase; p*rnography is flourishing; and there is a quest for status at the expense of morality.…

There must be a moral reawakening in every home of our country. Disrespect for law and order is a tragic moral illness.… Our city streets are jungles of terror. The viciousness of the rapists, murderers, and muggers who attack women and young girls seems to know no bounds. This senseless sadism can be stopped only by a concerted, realistic action on the part of everyone connected with law enforcement and our judicial processes. We must adopt stiffer laws and a more stern policy toward these perverted individuals.

Too often, the interests of justice and consideration for the welfare of society are buried under an avalanche of court decisions which give violators of the law rights and privileges that destroy respect for the law and the public safety.

Too often, technicalities have been permitted to exist in our penal codes which have been employed solely and exclusively for the benefit of that small minority of lawyers-criminal who use any tactic, no matter how unethical, to defeat the interests of justice.

More and more the judicial-legal system of this country is being revised to benefit the criminal—to the disadvantage of the innocent. More judges should speak out against this legalized perversion of justice.

Too often, our parole boards are being influenced by impractical theorists—conference room “experts” who are without experience in the arena of action against crime.

Too often, a cloak of special privilege is thrown around the enemies of society, vicious young muggers, robbers, rapists, and murderers, by poorly conceived and maladministered programs intended to promote their rehabilitation.

Mercy tempers justice in the American judicial system, but leniency was never intended to become a weapon for repeating offenders. Mercy can be hazardous and sympathy morbid when they are wasted on those who exploit them.

Responsibility for the wave of lawlessness now sweeping the nation and the continued existence of conditions in which crime and corruption flourish, rests directly with the American people. The public, by its submissive attitude and its lethargic acceptance of infractions of the law, has helped create an atmosphere conducive to the insidious growth of underworld activity.…

Every strong nation in history has lived by an ideal and has died when its ideals were dissipated. We can be destroyed only by our own gullibility. If we are ready, we shall neither be Dead nor Red!

It is what a nation has in its heart, rather than what it has in its hand, that makes it strong. The nation which honors God is protected and strengthened by him.… We are a God-loving people. This is our greatest strength. Let our national motto always be, “In God we trust.”—DIRECTOR J. EDGAR HOOVER, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to the American Legion convention in Las Vegas, Nevada.

THE MIRAGE OF CO-EXISTENCE—The whole idea of peaceful co-existence between a world half free and half slave is a pernicious mirage. To believe that one can resolve all conflict between the West and the East soon in a soft, sweet compromise is a much worse delusion. Some people in our midst seem to think that the Soviets are moving slowly and surely toward capitalism and that the West moves slowly but surely toward socialism. Hence they conclude that sooner or later the twain will meet on an East-West honeymoon. But one cannot slide backward and move forward. Khrushchev, as well as Mao and Chou En Lai knows this extremely well. There is no greater danger for the West than in underestimating the faith in their philosophy which the leaders of the Sino-Soviet-Bloc have, and their determination to conquer the Western world. They are well on their way to cracking our defenses wherever they can. The suicidal strands of thought give them an opening wedge in many countries. If the Western allies do not succeed in closing ranks, abandoning lofty demands and unreasonable postulates addressed to each other, and do not instead cling to the great ideals by which the West lives, then we all have a fair chance of being buried one by one—eventually—by Khrushchev et al after a most sophisticated ceremonial suicide, not after assassination.—KARL BRANDT, Director, the Food Research Institute, Stanford University, in remarks to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.

Bible Versions: To Each His Own

The Teen-age Version of the Holy Bible; Modern King James Version of the Holy Bible; The Children’s Version of the Holy Bible; and The Children’s Bible Story Book: Old Testament, by Peter Palmer, with 418 color illustrations by Manning DeV. Lee (McGraw-Hill; 1962; 1527, 1535, 1535, and 223 pp.; $7.95, $7.95, $7.95, and $3.95), are reviewed by James Daane, Editorial Associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

The publishers’ own comments provide apt description of these three Bible versions. “The series evolved when a Midwestern publisher, Jay Green, ran into difficulties teaching his own three children to read. Realizing that the ‘foreign’ language in which the Bible was written, and the difficult vocabulary were part of the problem, he began to prepare portions of the New Testament in a language that they could understand. He started learning Greek and plunged into a systematic program of translation.”

Teen-agers, we are told, want their own version of the Bible. “It isn’t that we lack the vocabulary to follow what goes on in an adult version,” the teenager is quoted as saying, “but that on every page it is easy to see and to feel that this book [the Bible] was not prepared for us.” Yet several check comparisons between the Old Testament of the TAV (Teen-age Version) and that of the MKJV (Modern King James Version) reveal no difference between the two. The same plates seem to have been used for both.

To effectively meet this teen-age need, teen-agers were consulted (students in public and private schools, members of various religious youth organizations, and even Boy Scouts). A current advertisem*nt declares that the TAV was “edited by experts and teen-agers.” When teen-agers were asked, “What kind of Bible does a teen-ager want to read?” they “told us exactly what features they desire.” They even, according to the publicity release, “suggested that the words which were added to make the meaning clearer should be italicized in order to show that they weren’t part of the original language. This Bible is just what they want.” We can agree with a statement in the Preface of the TAV: “Teen-agers are smart.”

What did teen-agers get? Not a Bible that has been rewritten or paraphrased, say the publishers. Nor a watered-down version, as are some others. Teen-agers, we are told, are impatient with “those who water down Bible words.…” Today’s teen-agers must be a new breed! They got “all of God’s words everywhere,” and also the assurance that “all verses normally memorized are still in their familiar words.” Their Old Testament, as mentioned above, appears to be identical with that provided for the new adult version. What they got was the KJV with many old English words eliminated: “view” is changed to “look over,” “lodged” to “stayed,” “wot not” to “do not know,” “is fallen” to “has fallen,” and the like. The New Testament of the TAV shows a recasting of language and difference of words when compared with the new adult version. Sometimes these are innocent enough (as when “the” is omitted in one and included in the other, or when the Baptist in one is said to be clothed “with” and in the other “in” camel’s hair), and some are definite improvements; others, however, are theologically misleading, as for example when “under the law” in Romans 3 is changed to “within the law,” which will mean to the teen-ager—as it would to anyone else—a keeping of the law.

Except for a three-page “What The Bible Says About:” which includes such items as kissing and petting, there is nothing about this version except the title which suggests that it is a teen-age version. Tempted parents had best read before they buy.

What did adults get? A version described as “modern” but which to many people will sound very much like the untouched King James, and which when compared with the TAV will drive the reader to look at the cover to determine which version he is reading.

In the Preface, written by Jay Green, the principles and methods employed by translators of other versions are decried and those followed by the producers of this modern, adult version of the KJ indicated. “Instead of giving Bible readers the kind of new Bible we thought they ought to have, we in preparing the Modern King James Bible have adopted the principle that we should give them what they wanted.” Further, “What they [the consulted public] really want is a removal of plain and clear errors … and a carefulness to leave untouched what cannot surely be improved upon. This is their clear directive. This principle has been followed.…”

Few, if any, versions of the Bible have come to the public with such an explicit dissociation from the scholarship usually associated with this kind of biblical work. And few, if any, versions have been presented to the public with such bald and abject catering to the demands of the market place. So reputable a publishing house as McGraw-Hill deserves better treatment than this, even from its own hand.

“Now for the first time! The whole Bible for the whole family”—so runs the advertisem*nt. Is it true that the Church has been so negligent as to have left the whole family without the whole Bible all these centuries? One expects advertisem*nt to be a bit fluffy, but this is too much.

It is also legitimate on the grounds of the verbal inspiration of the Bible to question the propriety of graded translations. Is it possible to have graded Bibles without downgrading the inspiration of the Bible? Matthew, Paul, and the rest felt no need for multiple graded versions; I suspect this was not from lack of concern for children and teen-agers, but because of another understanding of the nature of the Word of God.

As for the Children’s Version, only careful search will discover any differences of language between it and the TAV, and no kind of search will reveal any consistency or pattern followed in making the changes. In the TAV, verses 11 and 12 of Genesis 6 say that the world was “corrupt,” while in the CV verse 11 says it was “corrupt” and 12 that it was “filthy.” In Psalm 25:11 “iniquity” is changed to “sin,” but not in Isaiah 53.

Most indicative of all: the pages of the TAV and the CV, and even the number of them, are the same; no change of language was allowed as would demand the making of a new set of plates.

Even the reference list entitled “What The Bible Says About:” is identical with that of the TAV—with the result that interested children have ready reference to what the Bible has to say to them in the event they are “starting a new job,” “making a new home,” or “planning [their] budget.”

None of these versions differs sufficiently from the others, or from the original King James to warrant either its title or its publication.

Peter Palmer’s The Children’s Bible Story Book is a legitimate venture (it does not claim to be the Bible); with quite some success she tells biblical stories in intelligible, simple language—aided by many attractive illustrations.

JAMES DAANE

Reading for Perspective

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

★ The Literature of Communism in America, by Robert F. Delaney (Catholic University of America Press, $6.50). More than 1,700-entry selected bibliography of Communist and anti-Communist literature, chiefly from American authors; with brief description of each.

★ Christianity and Barthianism, by Cornelius Van Til (Presbyterian and Reformed, $6.95). The author deplores Barthian theology as “man-centered Protestantism” or “higher humanism” that springs from fatal compromise with modern immanentistic philosophy.

★ Historical Atlas of Religion in America, by Edwin S. Gaustad (Harper & Row, $8.95). A brilliant blend of fact and illustration of religion in America.

Bright But Limited

The Interpretation of Scripture, by James D. Smart (SCM, 1962, 317 pp., 35s; Westminster, $6), is reviewed by G. E. Duffield, Member of The National Assembly of The Church of England.

Exegesis is vital to any preacher, and Smart will not allow it to be separated from exposition in the manner of those like A. G. Hebert. The present tension between historical and theological exegesis is explained by an analysis of the history of critical scholarship. The culmination of the survey comes with the theological challenge by both Barth and Bultmann to the older liberal approach. For liberals Smart has little time. He exposes their false claim to objectivity and shows that in fact they simply read their presuppositions into the Bible. The liberal dream of an objective approach is just an illusion, for we must approach the Bible with some presuppositions, and these should be Christian. Barth and Bultmann offer very different approaches. The former is criticized for his Old Testament typology while the latter sits too lightly to history.

Smart has the happy knack of pinpointing the problems and of seeing the errors of scholars, but he is not so good with solutions. His chapter on typology is unsatisfactory, being taken up too much with various definitions. He never faces the New Testament’s typological use of the Old Testament, but merely rejects typology altogether as reactionary. The book is so taken up with what happens in Germany that it neglects too many important exegetes—both Lightfoots, Cullmann, Lagrange, and so on. Though Smart rightly stresses the unity of the Bible, he seems so afraid of giving up his critical views that he never looks at the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament seriously. His knowledge of evangelical scholarship is very limited; he criticizes it apparently without any knowledge of exegetical studies by Tasker or Earle Ellis.

G. E. DUFFIELD

The Place Of Christ?

The Place of Bonhoeffer, edited by Martin E. Marty (Association, 1962, 224 pp., $4.50; paper, $2.25), is reviewed by Stuart Cornelius Hackett, Professor of Philosophy, Louisiana College, Pineville, Louisiana.

This cooperative theological effort, to present Bonhoeffer’s thought in its overall development as centering in Christology and the doctrine of revelation, is symptomatic of the revived interest in the martyred German pastor’s thought in recent years. The fact that he was thus executed by the Nazis (in 1945), together with the fact that his highly controversial prison letters have only recently been made available in English (Prisoner for God, translated by Reginald H. Fuller, Macmillan, 1957), probably accounts in large measure for this renewed interest. In particular, Bonhoeffer’s letters have precipitated a considerable debate in the theological world by reason of the fact that in them he advocates what he calls a non-religious, this-worldly, secularized Christianity; interpreters seem unable to agree either on what Bonhoeffer really meant by this emphasis or on whether such a view is to be regarded as supplementary to, or as contrasting with, the theologian’s earlier published views. While an extreme interpretation would regard Bonhoeffer as expressing, in the context of his prison experiences, a radical break with his earlier position, the writers of the present volume agree on finding a continuity of Christological content which extends throughout their subject’s brief but full career. In any case, this problem, as to the significance of a secularized Christianity in a world supposedly come of age, occupies a significant place throughout the book. Is a non-religious Christianity a Christianity that is interpreted in a totally symbolic, mythological fashion? Or is it, more conservatively, a Christianity which insists that commitment to Christ should be not merely a preparation for the next life on the periphery of this one, but rather the center and vital force of life in this world in the inescapable struggle with distinctively human problems? Bonhoeffer’s own words seem to provide fuel for both fires. Hence, the controversy.

In any case, this book does succeed in presenting the various aspects of Bonhoeffer’s thought in such a way as to explain the development of his theology in his successive books and as to point out that in all of his books Christology stands as the unifying center of an adequate theology. For Bonhoeffer, revelation, redemption, the Church, history, and society all find their true center in Christ, who is God’s Word. On the subject of Christology itself, Bonhoeffer, in typical neoorthodox fashion, expresses dissatisfaction with both the liberal and the orthodox views: an adequate Christology, he thinks, will express an insistence on the real presence of God in Jesus Christ without making separate “objects” of the deity and the humanity of Christ and without requiring an answer to the question of how God was thus incarnate. All attempts to answer the “how” question end with making the historical Jesus the mere vehicle of an eternal essence or idea. One gets the impression, however, that for Bonhoeffer the truth here lies much closer to liberalism than to traditional orthodoxy.

While all the chapters in the book are well written by recognized authorities in their fields—men like Franklin H. Littell, Peter Berger, and Walter Harrelson—I found the chapters by Franklin Sherman, Jaroslav Pelikan, and George W. Forell to make the greatest contribution to my own understanding of Bonhoeffer’s thought. Incidentally, the value of the book as a whole is greatly heightened by the use of summary paragraphs at the beginning of each chapter, in which, among other things, each author’s position and professional qualifications are briefly described. A considerable improvement of the whole book would have been achieved, however, if a general summary had been added to the total effort. Probably the most valuable result of reading such a work will be that the individual will be led to read Bonhoeffer’s own books—books which constitute an important chapter in the history of theology in our epoch-making century.

STUART CORNELIUS HACKETT

Publishing Achievement

The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, edited by George Arthur Buttrick and associate editors (Abingdon, 1962, four volumes, $45), is reviewed by Everett F. Harrison, Professor of New Testament, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

More than 250 writers representing 15 countries, backed by a six-man editorial board and an equal number of consultants have contributed their specialized knowledge to this new work which must be hailed as a notable publishing achievement. The editor is quite justified in claiming that this Bible dictionary approaches encyclopedic proportions. Careful planning and fine craftsmanship add much to the attractiveness of the volumes.

What will the reader find as he turns these pages? He will find discussions of all biblical data and phenomena, including the doctrines of Scripture. He will find many pages of colored illustrations and maps, but no index. In their content the articles represent a cross section of current critical scholarship, with variations according to the viewpoint of the individual writers.

In general this work may be said to be for our time what Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible was for its generation, with some resemblance at times to the more radical Encyclopaedia Biblica. Articles dealing with pentateuchal subjects usually come down heavily on the side of documentary analysis, which may have value for the specialist but hardly for the reader who is looking for a straightforward explanation of the biblical material. For example, the first major article deals with Aaron, and it is so filled with allusions to J, E, P, and the redactor that the reader gets no overall conception of the character and work of the great high priest. This is unfortunate.

Yet there are good features, plenty of them, in a work which, as a rule, is well balanced, with ample coverage of the more important subjects, and good bibliographies. One will find full accounts of the text of the Old and New Testaments, unexpectedly extensive articles on Jerusalem, the Temple, synagogue, and many other items. The literature of the intertestament period is carefully treated in individual articles, and there is one also on the Talmud. It is a pleasure to come upon information on travel and communication in both Testaments, and to note that the materials of the Qumran discoveries are woven into the presentation where they are pertinent (as in the article on Sin). One encounters a great deal of data bearing on geography and archaeology of the sort which could prove helpful to Sunday school teachers.

No pains have been spared to make this dictionary complete, useful, attractive and durable. The discriminating student will find it a helpful tool.

EVERETT F. HARRISON

To Know Him Better

Toward the Understanding of St. Paul, by Donald J. Selby (Prentice-Hall, 1962, 355 pp., $6.60), is reviewed by R. H. Mounce, Associate Professor of Biblical Literature and Greek, Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota.

The stated purpose of this book is “to help the reader toward a better understanding of Paul and his contributions to the life and thought of Christianity” (p. v). Selby seeks to lay before the reader a manageable summary of all the extensive literature relating to Pauline studies. This includes such things as background, literary problems, and interpretation of the apostle’s thought.

The author, who went to Catawba College as Professor of Religion after completing his doctoral program at Boston University, leads his reader through the various discussions with precision and scholarly restraint. He analyzes the problems with clarity and never attempts to establish a point of view at variance with that generally accepted by New Testament scholarship. The footnotes serve as an excellent bibliography for the student wishing further information on a particular subject.

It cannot be denied that Dr. Selby has brought together and organized a great deal of pertinent and helpful material. Whether he has succeeded in demonstrating its relevance to a more penetrating grasp of the life and thought of Paul is doubtful. It is interesting to be reminded that just below Tarsus the Cyndus flowed into Lake Rhegma, but the student grappling with the crucial issues of Pauline thought will perhaps feel that the author in a book of 334 pages of text could well have been more selective, and also more careful to avoid a description of Paul’s milieu for its own sake.

R. H. MOUNCE

For Students And Ministers

New Testament Introduction: The Pauline Epistles, by Donald Guthrie (Inter-Varsity Press, 1961, 319 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by Bastiaan Van Elderen, Associate Professor of New Testament, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

With the publication of this book the first of Donald Guthrie’s projected series of three volumes on New Testament Introduction has appeared. This is a thorough and scholarly presentation. It is evident that the author is well versed in this area and sets forth an analysis of the subject along conservative lines. It is refreshing to read such a work and to note the fair and careful handling of divergent views.

This book is an “Introduction” to the Pauline epistles in the technical sense of the term. Each of the Pauline letters is analyzed along this general pattern: the recipients, occasion and date, purpose, structure and integrity, outline of contents. Where special problems have arisen, Guthrie gives particular and thorough consideration to these. In these discussions he is up-to-date, objective, honest, and not afraid to admit that in places the evidence does not allow for conclusive answers.

Guthrie is inclined to consider Galatians to be the earliest of the extant Pauline epistles and to have been written before the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). This means that Paul’s Jerusalem visit in Acts 11:30 is to be identified with Galatians 2:1. Guthrie, however, seems to overlook the chronological data in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1, since these hardly correlate with his suggested chronology (p. 278) in which he places the conversion of Paul in A.D. 35 and the Jerusalem Council of Acts in A.D. 49—using the 14-year interval of Galatians 2:1 (p. 280). However, in doing this he has apparently identified the Jerusalem Council with the visit of Galatians 2:1, because in his chronology he only allows 11 years between Paul’s conversion and the famine visit of Acts 11:30. To avoid this inconsistency one must posit an interval of almost 16–17 years between Paul’s conversion and the Jerusalem Council. (A longer period must be allowed if one does not include the three years of Galatians 1:18 in the 14 years of Galatians 2:1. However, it is possible to reduce this to 15 years by using the inclusive method of dating [13 + 2].) Other chronological data (the Crucifixion, edict of Claudius, and Gallio Inscription) hardly allow this. Thus the identification of Acts 11:30 and Galatians 2:1 presents a real chronological crux—the implications of which Guthrie has obviously not fully realized.

Guthrie favors placing the writing of the captivity epistles in Rome. He discusses at length the question of the Pauline authorship of Ephesians and the Pastorals. (Guthrie’s qualification to write on this is evident from his The Pastoral Epistles and the Mind of Paul [1956] and his commentary, The Pastoral Epistles [1957].) An Appendix on Epistolary Pseudepigraphy (pp. 282–94) is a valuable contribution to the problem—the absence of close contemporary parallels and certain psychological difficulties make the admission of pseudepigraphical writing in the New Testament very difficult. This brief study is significant in view of the attempt by some to classify certain Pauline epistles as pseudepigrapha. Although granting the existence of differences between the Pastorals and Paul’s other epistles, Guthrie concludes in favor of Pauline authorship after a thorough consideration of the historical, ecclesiastical, and doctrinal aspects of the problem. He defends the Pauline authorship of all 13 epistles ascribed to Paul in the New Testament. His view regarding the Epistle to the Hebrews is expected in a future volume.

In addition to a careful discussion of the various critical problems regarding the Pauline letters, Guthrie has added a chapter on “Paul, the Man Behind the Letters,” one on “The Collection of Paul’s Letters,” and two appendices in addition to the one mentioned above: “Paul and His Sources,” and “The Chronology of the Life of Paul.” Each of these chapters provides helpful and valuable insights. This book also includes a valuable up-to-date “General Bibliography” on Pauline studies; and in a “Classified Bibliography” these are arranged according to the various epistles.

In the Preface Guthrie characterizes his work as an attempt “to give a balanced survey of modern critical opinions as they affect the Pauline Epistles.” His book is more than an attempt—it is a “balanced survey.” There are times when one gets the feeling that Guthrie is belaboring the obvious and getting lost in detail. Since, however, critical opinions regarding the Pauline epistles have fluctuated considerably in recent years (and we appreciate the greater acceptance of the Pauline authorship of many of the epistles), there is a real need for a conservative, detailed evaluation of these positions and their evidence. And this is what Guthrie has given—a valuable textbook to the seminarian to introduce him to this significant literature, and an up-to-date sourcebook to the minister to acquaint him with the present status of Pauline studies. This book is a commendable contribution to evangelical scholarship.

BASTIAAN VAN ELDEREN

Small But Very Good

The Theology of Jehovah’s Witnesses, by George D. McKinney, Jr. (Zondervan, 1962, 130 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by J. K. Van Baalen, author of The Chaos of Cults.

The literature on this insidious cult is growing with the spread of its propaganda and influence. In 1953 the School of Gilead was officially recognized by the United States Office of Education in Washington, D. C., as offering higher education. This recognition made it possible for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to grant foreign Jehovah’s Witnesses students visas to enter the United States to enroll at the school under the non-immigrant student visa arrangement. The Watchtower Society pays for transportation and educational expenses of both American and foreign students. The full curriculum consists of a course of only 26 weeks. No wonder that thousands enroll. The total number of ministers has leaped between 1945 and 1955 from 141,606 to 642,929.

In the growing literature warning against this fanatic and unchristian sect, the present work will occupy a place of honor. Though small in size, it deals rather exhaustively, and certainly clearly, with the main tenets of this weird theology. It also shows beyond doubt what the Witnesses denied or tried to hide some years ago, namely, that they are Russellites plain and simple.

The concluding chapter, “Evaluation and Conclusions,” is good; but it might have been somewhat more elaborate, and thereby have gained in strength.

The author, a minister’s son, is himself a minister and an instructor in the Jackson Memorial Bible Institute in San Diego. Presumably, therefore, his book is chiefly meant for the southern members of The Church of God. However this may be, the author is a Negro, and himself an added proof that our colored brethren, given an opportunity, are in no respect behind the white race in alertness of mind and ability to express themselves clearly, succinctly, and withal evangelically.

J. K. VAN BAALEN

The Difficult Made Plain

Exile and Return, by Charles F. Pfeiffer (Baker, 1962, 137 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Edward J. Young, Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

One of the greatest needs of our day is that men should read the Bible. Ignorance of its contents is appalling. For modern man the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is difficult to read. Even in the most modern translations, the Bible seems to speak a language from another day and another cultural milieu. One whose language is the jargon of the stock market or the electronics laboratory seems to find the words of Scripture distant and irrelevant.

Any aid therefore that can explain the Bible and can make the reading of the Bible more rewarding is welcome. In the present volume Professor Pfeiffer continues his significant studies in Old Testament history. In remarkably simple and clear language he tells us the story of the period indicated by the title and presents a wealth of background material which will facilitate reading of this portion of the Holy Scripture. This is a book laymen can read with tremendous profit, and one who does will discover that, after all, the words of the Bible are the most relevant words there are, for they are the words of God.

Throughout, Professor Pfeiffer is true to the Scriptures. He attempts the difficult task of treating his subject in a scholarly and yet simple way. At times, the brevity of treatment may lead to misunderstanding. An example in point is the discussion of the humbling of Nabonidus, mentioned in the Qumran documents. We are told, “It is the view of some scholars that the events described in Daniel 4 actually took place during the lifetime of Nabonidus and that a scribal error associated them with the more familiar name of Nebuchadnezzar” (p. 87). True enough, some scholars do hold this position, but it would have been well to point out that they are in error. What Daniel relates of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is historical fact, for the book of Daniel is inspired Scripture. What the Qumran documents say about Nabonidus may or may not be correct, but the brief treatment at this point allows for the impression that there is an error in the book of Daniel.

We have in this work a valuable aid to the study of the Scriptures and one which should have a wide reading. Although popularly written, it represents a tremendous amount of research. We look forward eagerly to the appearance of the subsequent volumes of this series.

EDWARD J. YOUNG

Song Prayers

The Psalms Are Christian Prayer, by Thomas Worden (Sheed & Ward, 1962, 219 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by V. R. Edman, President, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

Devout believers in Christ have always found the Psalms to be the language of the heart’s deepest feelings and longings. Here is an incisive and instructive study of the Psalms as true prayer for Christians even though they were written long before the Christian era. There is an excellent analysis of the Jewish use of the Psalms as communal rather than as individual prayers because of the awareness that Israel constituted the children in covenant relationship with the Most High. For the Christian the Psalms should express not only individual prayer and praise, but also the sense of belonging to the body of Christ. Instead of the usual description of the Psalms as historical, didactic, and so forth, they are treated under the generalizations of lamentation and praise. Praise is rightly held to be the highest expression of worship, and blessing God as proclamation with gratitude of what one understands of divine mercy and goodness.

The treatment throughout is devout, earnest, scholarly. The author holds to the full inspiration of the Scriptures and uses the RSV as the basic text. With his Romanist persuasion he quotes the Apocrypha as being equally as authoritative as the Scriptures and postulates in places a critical view of the text. Deuteronomy is from the seventh century B.C., the alleged Deutero-Isaiah is post-Exilic, and the tribes of Israel entered the Promised Land, not as stated in Joshua, but at various intervals, with Judah arriving earliest. The Eucharist is presented as the greatest psalm of praise. Despite the differences of interpretation and opinion that one may hold, one finds here fresh insight into the use of the Psalms as Christian prayer.

V. R. EDMAN

How Critical?

God, Man and the Thinker, by Donald A. Wells (Random House, 1962, 507 pp., $8.95), is reviewed by David F. Siemens, Jr., Lecturer in Philosophy, Los Angeles City College, Los Angeles, California.

This book is an attempt to think critically about the problems of religion by a man who trained for the ministry at Boston University School of Theology, studied under the noted positivist Hans Reichenbach, and has taught many classes in the philosophy of religion. Professor Wells intends to be unbiased, to present views “with as much conviction as their staunchest supporters will permit.” Unfortunately, he does not succeed in implementing this announced program. For example, his many references to the inerrancy of Scripture show his anti-biblical bias clearly (pp. 226–249, 253–255, 302–308, 327, 420–433, 454–457). He attempts to prove (1) that biblical inerrancy is invindicable; (2) that inerrancy is useless without inerrant interpretation; (3) that the Bible is written in the idiom of the people of the time, not in a perfect supratemporal language; (4) that it does not claim divine origin; (5) that inerrancy leads to problems in archaeology, geology, biology and history; and (6) that the Bible contains errors of transmission. But, from the viewpoint of the evangelical who accepts the inerrancy of Scripture, these statements prove nothing disturbing—nor is the last argument embarrassing. All that is required is that the autographs be inspired and inerrant, that the scholars seek to recover that text, and that they have sufficient manuscript material with which to work. These conditions are fully met. Indeed, today there are no textual problems which affect any basic Christian doctrine. Of course, Wells gets himself off the hook by stating that we cannot establish much from Scripture because of the number of translations with individual differences (p. 408)!

As for the fifth argument, Wells might have learned from the history of higher criticism, such as the changes forced by archaeological data in the views of Harnack and Albright, whom he names. Although citing Albright, he completely ignores his scholarly conclusion that neither the Old Testament prophets nor Paul were innovators (From Stone Age to Christianity). As to considerations of science, Wells would have done well to have noted some recent publications, such as Ramm’s The Christian View of Science and Scripture or Henry’s chapter in Mixter’s Evolution and Christian Thought Today. Wells seems to prefer the days of the Scopes trial, or the Wilberforce-Huxley debate.

The fourth argument, that the Bible does not claim divine origin, is patently false. His third argument does not even touch on the matter of inspiration. To be sure, Rembrandt painted an angel whispering the words for Matthew to write, but what does this establish?

As to his second argument, that an inerrant book demands inerrant interpretation, what would this add? Would it not require an inerrant interpreter of the interpretations, ad infinitum, unless God should make all men inerrant—which he has willed not to do. There is no problem for those who believe that the divine revelation provides man with a standard against which he must measure his thoughts in a manner analogous to the way in which nature presents a limitation on all thought that claims to represent material reality. That we do not understand nature fully, that we make mistakes in interpreting phenomena, these are not the scandal of science. Why, then, should errors in the interpretation of an inerrant revelation be a scandal to Christianity?

Finally, to return to the first argument, let us admit that fallible human beings cannot prove infallibility absolutely. But let us also note that human beings cannot establish the validity of any universal sentence except for the vacuously true tautologies and some trivial examples true by exhaustive enumeration. However, we can note (1) that the radical Christian view is consistent, in spite of the claims of its critics, and (2) that any attempted explanation which does not include the divine inspiration of the Word is not adequate to the data. One must take into account fulfilled prophecy, the moral effect of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, to mention no more. Wells takes note of prophecy, but refers to it as “making a crystal ball out of the Old Testament” (p. 233). Such pejorative language has no place in an unbiased appraisal.

Lest it be thought that this is a diatribe based on personal prejudice, additional evidence of careless writing and misunderstanding must be presented. Wells asserts that if vowels were omitted in English writing as in Semitic, t could stand for three words, at, it and to (p. 225). Why slight ait, ate, eat, eta, iota, oat, out, Tai, tau, tea, tee, ti, tie, Tiu, toe, too, ut, Ute? This may be dismissed as unimportant, but no philosopher should be guilty of such distortion as Wells’ alteration of Anselm’s “than which there is no greater” into “a being who has all properties” (p. 86). Anselm was not foolish enough to argue that God had the properties of extension and ponderability, which belong to matter, as Wells notes by implication (p. 88). Further, the confusion of logical consistency and the processes of indirect proof with the coherence theory of truth is unfortunate (pp. 122–128). The former applies to all thinkers, whereas the latter is limited to Idealists.

In spite of its many shortcomings, the book has one major merit for the evangelical: it is a handy collection of the philosophical objections which are still being urged against the conservative Christian view. It therefore will prove helpful to the Christian apologist, for he is certain to meet those who take the arguments seriously.

DAVID F. SIEMENS, JR.

Book Briefs

Arches and Spires, by Alfred Duggan (Pantheon, 1962, 87 pp., $2.95). A delightful short story of English church buildings since Anglo-Saxon times. Illustrated.

The Church’s Witness to the World, Volume II, by P. Y. De Jong (Pella Publishing Co., Pella, Iowa, 1962, 446 pp., $3.95). Comments on Belgic Confession for church study groups.

The Hundredth Archbishop of Canterbury, by James B. Simpson (Harper & Row, 1962, 262 pp., $6). Biography of Arthur Michael Ramsey, head of the worldwide Anglican communion.

The Layman Looks at World Religions, by Niels C. Nielsen, Jr. (Bethany Press, 1962, 112 pp., $1.95). A very readable, factual account of world religions. More critical evaluation would have increased its value.

Harper’s Topical Concordance, compiled by Charles R. Joy (Harper & Row, 1962, 628 pp., $8.95). Revised and enlarged edition; especially helpful to ministers who want to find a text to fit a topic.

Incarnation to Ascension, by James E. Wagner (Christian Education, 1962, 111 pp., $2.50). Significant comment on the great events of Jesus’ life by an author who does not believe that the significance of the events stands or falls with their historicity.

Isaiah 1–39, by John Mauchline (Macmillan, 1962, 237 pp., $3.50; SCM, 15s.). A volume in keeping with the current more conservative critical standpoint, by the Old Testament Professor and Principal of Trinity College, Glasgow.

Book of Prayers for Church and Home, by Howard Paine and Bard Thompson (Christian Education, 1962, 195 pp., $3). 416 entries, ranging wide over ancient and modern prayers and litanies of Christian devotion.

How God Speaks to Us, by Ragnar Bring (Muhlenberg, 1962, 120 pp., $2.25). Interpretation of the Word of God as an Event to be existentially encountered rather than as a theoretical proposition to be cognitively appropriated.

Be Not Afraid, by Emmanuel Mounier (Sheed & Ward, 1962, 203 pp., $4). Essays of the late French journalist which seek to rediscover the person amidst the machines of our age.

The Root And The Branch, by Robert Gordis (University of Chicago Press, 1962, 254 pp., $3.95). The author turns to Judaism for help on the world’s major problems.

Lord of the Temple, by Ernst Lohmeyer (John Knox, 1962, 116 pp., $3). The author explains the desolation of temples and the abandonment of sacrifices within a century after Jesus. Translated from the German edition, 1942.

Paperbacks

The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, by Roland Allen (Eerdmans, 1962, 158 pp., $1.65). A mature, compelling story of the expansion of the Church and the causes which hindered it. Double warning: begin reading and you cannot stop; continue, and your ideas about the Church will change. First American edition of a work published about 30 years ago.

The Heidelberg Catechism, translated by Allen O. Miller and M. Eugene Osterhaven (United Church Press, 1962, 127 pp., $1). The 400th Anniversary Edition; a new translation from original Latin and German texts, authorized by the North American Area Council of the World Alliance of Reformed and Presbyterian Churches.

Bibliography of American Doctoral Dissertations in Religious Education, 1885 to 1959, compiled by Lawrence C. Little (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1962, 215 pp., $4.50). An inclusive bibliography of doctoral dissertations in the fields of personality, character, and religious education.

The Cross of Christ, by William A. Buege (Concordia, 1962, 122 pp., $1.50). Sermons which are fine readings on the cross and resurrection of Christ.

A MOISTURE PROBLEM—Like most new buildings, the $3,500,000 Air Force Academy chapel has been having troubles—the roof leaks. Water has been seeping through joints between the 150-foot high aluminum spires and the stained glass windows that connect them. To stop the flow, storm windows must be placed over the stained glass, gutters must be placed along the length of the spires, and the joints must be covered with aluminum stripping.

PROTESTANT PANORAMA—A plan to unite all Congregational churches in South Africa was approved in principle at an assembly of the Congregational Union of South Africa.

A new Lutheran denomination made up of Lutheran Free Church congregations opposed to merger with the American Lutheran Church was organized at Thief River Falls, Minnesota. On hand for the proceedings were 278 persons from 76 congregations in seven states and Canada.

The “Sermons from Science” pavilion at the Seattle World’s Fair will be transported to an Air Force installation near Everett, Washington, for use as a chapel.

Philadelphia College of Bible is sponsoring an essay contest for high school students. Topic: “New Frontiers for Youth in Christian Service.” Winner gets a year’s tuition paid.

Peoples Church of Toronto, founded by Dr. Oswald J. Smith, dedicated a new building with a sanctuary accommodating nearly 2,500.

Refugees from mainland China reportedly told Assemblies of God missionaries in Hong Kong that only Pentecostal churches are allowed to remain open in the Communist controlled land.

A rally at Glen Ellyn, Illinois, will mark the 25th anniversary of Christian Service Brigade, an association of boys clubs with 40,000 members in 1,100 churches in 43 states and 7 Canadian provinces.

Congo Protestant Relief Agency expects to distribute 50,000 chicks by next June 30. Officials say there is a great demand for chicks to build up poultry stocks with selective breeding.

CHURCH AND STATE—Tensions in Athens increased in the wake of the Greek Orthodox Church’s condemnation of a Greek government proposal that, in raising the salaries of priests, would have merged two church agencies into a state-controlled administrative body. The church’s Holy Synod unanimously opposed the plan.

The Indian government banned the book entitled The Upsurge of China, written by Dr. Hewlett Johnson, the “Red Dean” of Canterbury. The book contains two maps which show practically the whole of the northeast frontier of India as part of China. This, the Indian government said, was most offensive.

Guatemalan President Ydigoras inaugurated an evangelistic crusade at the Olympic gymnasium in Guatemala City. The crusade was part of the evangelism-in-depth campaign sponsored by the Latin America Mission.

MISCELLANY—For the first time in 13 years, the number of juvenile offenders appearing on delinquency charges before juvenile courts showed a drop in 1961. The decrease amounted to one per cent, according to Mrs. Katherine B. Oettinger, director of the Children’s Bureau of the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Four students described as fundamentalists withdrew from a geology course at San Francisco State College on grounds that the contents of the course conflicted with their religious beliefs. The students were not identified. In quitting the class, they protested against the instructor’s teaching that the earth could never have been covered completely with waters as the Bible story of Noah relates.

The National Council of Churches unveiled a new specialized publication, World Community, published by its Department of International Affairs in cooperation with United Church Women. The eight-page monthly, with “news and views of Christian concern,” will be circulated free among “key communicators.”

Church World Service is seeking $1,009,110 from American Protestant and Eastern Orthodox church members in a special Thanksgiving appeal to finance its 1963 Share Our Surplus program.

PERSONALIA—Dr. William C. Latta, pastor of First United Presbyterian Church, Oakmont, Pennsylvania, elected president of the United Presbyterian Board of National Missions. Latta has served as acting president since May.

Dr. Theodore P. Fricke elected executive director of the Division of World Missions of the American Lutheran Church. Fricke, until now an associate director, succeeds Dr. Rolf A. Syrdal, who will become a professor at Luther College, Decorah, Iowa.

Dr. James S. Stewart nominated as moderator of the Church of Scotland for 1963–64.

Dr. Glenn L. McConagha was inaugurated fourteenth president of Muskingum College (United Presbyterian).

Dr. Harold N. Englund, who resigned as president of Western Theological Seminary in Holland, Michigan, last spring, will become pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Berkeley, California.

The Rev. Harold Hindry elected president of the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches of Canada.

Methodist Bishop Herbert Welch was honored on his one hundredth birthday with a dinner ceremony at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York.

Dr. Stuart H. Merriam, ousted minister of Broadway Presbyterian Church, New York, embarked on a five-month world tour which will keep him removed from the scene of the controversy until his appeal is heard by the General Assembly in May.

General Do Young Chang, first head of the 1961 coup that overturned Korea’s Second Republic and a devout Presbyterian lay leader, arrived in the United States for study following his release from a death sentence.

Jack Hayford, youth worker for the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, won a gospel hymn composition contest sponsored by the National Church Music Fellowship and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. Hayford’s hymn is entitled “We Lift Our Voice Rejoicing.”

VATICAN COUNCIL—From the Vatican Council press office came a warning against “religious individuals” who have turned up in Rome and given the impression of being official observers. “In view of declarations made by certain non-Catholic individuals now present in Rome,” says the announcement, “the Secretariat for Christian Unity wishes to emphasize that the titles of ‘observer-delegate’ and ‘guest of the secretariat’ pertain exclusively to those who have received a formal invitation.” The warning coincided with newspaper reports of the arrival in Rome of ecclesiastical extremist Bishop Homer Tomlinson, “overseer” of the Church of God with international headquarters in Queens Village, New York. Several Italian papers carried stories saying that he claimed to be a council observer and that his wife, Marie, was the only woman observer. He said he was presenting his multi-colored “peace banner” to Pope John.

WORTH QUOTING—“If it is wise to pay farmers for not planting wheat, it is even wiser to pay Hollywood for not making movies.”—Methodist Bishop Richard C. Raines.

“My idea of the duties of a bishop differ from those of Bishop Reeves, whose footsteps I have no intention of following. I also feel unhappy about South Africa’s racial policy, but feel it’s too late to change it.”—Dr. Leslie Edward Stradling, successor as Bishop of Johannesburg to Dr. Richard Ambrose Reeves, who was forced out of the country because of his outspoken opposition to apartheid.

Columbus landed in America with a theological thud that introduced Catholicism to the new world. Exactly 470 years later, in October, 1962, arms-laden flotillas were retracing his route and churning up a world crisis. Meanwhile, 4,000 miles to the south, the foremost evangelist of the twentieth century was reintroducing Christianity to South America in the spirit of the Protestant Reformation and on an evangelistic scale hitherto unparalleled.

The week of the big war scare found Billy Graham in the climactic event of his second Latin American tour of 1962: an eight-day crusade in sprawling Buenos Aires, one of the world’s ten largest cities. Warm spring evenings saw turnouts of 20,000 eclipsing the nightly average of Graham’s gigantic 1957 crusade in Madison Square Garden. Hour-long telecasts gave entrée to the Gospel in hundreds of thousands of nominally Roman Catholic homes in Argentina and Uruguay.

Graham made appropriate references to the crisis, but carefully avoided exploitation of fear. To a crowd of some 50,000 gathered for the closing service at San Lorenzo soccer stadium, he said:

“The problems of peace are sometimes greater than the problems of war.”

At about the same hour that President Kennedy was delivering his arms quarantine address, Graham, unaware of the momentary gravity of the international situation, was announcing his sermon topic for the following evening: “The End of the World.”

The next day he told a group of Southern Baptists that word of the blockade came as no surprise to him. He indicated support of Kennedy’s action and disputed philosopher Bertrand Russell’s statement that “we may all be dead in a week.”

“We will not all be dead in a week, or a year, or ten years,” Graham declared. “We may have war, but God has other plans for the universe.”

Graham repeated the observation that night at Luna Park boxing arena, largest auditorium in the city, and subsequently on television. He cited biblical predictions of widespread fear and sudden destruction.

“But the Bible teaches that before man destroys himself, Christ will return and his kingdom will ultimately prevail,” Graham added.

The basic problems of the world, he said, are spiritual. He urged Christians to intensify their efforts in spreading the Gospel, to exert leadership in such times of crisis, and to pray for world leaders. He suggested that the United Nations break precedent by calling delegates to prayer.

Some had feared that Graham would be subjected to anti-American demonstrations in view of the crisis. But they never came off. Would-be demonstrators may have been discouraged by the large contingents of police assigned to the arena. During one rally, five black-helmeted officers guarded the entrance to the platform. At the first of two weekend meetings held in the outdoor stadium, 40 policemen were on hand, probably because the previous night had seen a pro-Castro demonstration just nine blocks from Luna Park. Police used tear gas and fired shots into the air to disperse downtown mobs that night, and 19 persons were arrested.

The overwhelming majority of the population welcomed Graham and his team wholeheartedly. The only thing resembling an incident occurred when a young tough beat the window of Graham’s car with his fist. Once during the week a note was thrown into another car carrying team members. It read:

“For God’s sake, stop the blockade.”

For years, missionaries to Latin America have been predicting a showdown there with worldwide impact. Few guessed it would come out of Cuba. Some mission leaders now have reason to regret that they did not take Cuba more seriously during the years of opportunity. They now realize that the island nation constituted their nearest foreign mission field, yet was neglected.

Graham himself has preached only once in Cuba—to a crowd of 500 at Camaguey. On the other hand, Protestant mass meetings have only recently become realistic possibilities in Roman Catholic lands. It is doubtful that Graham’s reception into South America would have been as successful two or more years ago. In January and February he conducted crusades in Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. In September and October he spoke in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Together he and his team addressed an aggregate of more than 750,000. More than 20,000 of these made public commitments to Christ.

Graham has yet to visit Bolivia and British Guiana, which threatens to be another Cuba on the South American continent. He cancelled tentative services in Georgetown, British Guiana, and another in Recife, Brazil, but hopes to place both on next year’s schedule.

The evangelist took particular note of the Cuba crisis through the perspective of his own travels during the last decade. In a talk to team members, Graham noted that the Buenos Aires crusade concluded a long-range tour of the accessible world. He and his team have now conducted crusades in every major area of the free world.¹Graham has conducted campaigns in five of what the National Geographic Society considers to be the ten largest cities in the world: London, New York, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires, and Chicago. He goes to Tokyo, the biggest, next spring. The other four: Shanghai, Moscow, Bombay, and Peiping. A Far East tour scheduled for next spring will initiate a second time around.

Looking back, it was clear that this had been the opportune year for evangelistic penetrations into South America. Roman Catholic opposition was sporadic. Organized hostility was unthinkable in the ecumenical climate of 1962. Moreover, the latter part of the crusade probably was enhanced by the fact that the hierarchy was in Rome.

Graham’s severest rebuke came in Asunción, Paraguay, where he encountered a boycott by the press and a competing Roman Catholic festival. By contrast, a high-ranking Roman Catholic prelate visited Graham in São Paulo and said he was encouraging people to attend the crusade.

The political climate also favored evangelistic endeavor. Graham paid personal calls on four heads of state: in Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Ecuador. As he does at every such occasion the evangelist gave the account of his own conversion to each.

The crusade in Buenos Aires was the longest and probably had the greatest overall impact, although Graham said he felt the response in São Paulo was more marked.

Despite his weariness, the evangelist’s health held up well. A flu attack felled him in Rosario, Argentina, however, causing cancellation of one of his rally appearances there. A recurrence of the illness confined him to bed for two days in Miami following the crusade.

Graham’s Spanish translator was the Rev. Paul C. Sorensen, missionary of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada. Sorensen spoke with Graham at every point on the second tour except São Paulo, where the Rev. Walter Kaschel interpreted the messages into Portuguese. A highlight of the São Paulo crusade for Brazilian evangelicals was the announcement of the nation’s first Christian radio station, dubbed PRA-7 and owned by the Christian Cultural Corporation of Brazil and World Gospel Crusades.

Comprehensive and authoritative statistics are hard to come by, but there are believed to be at least 500,000 Protestants in Argentina’s population of 21,000,000. Plymouth Brethren are the most numerous of Protestants, followed by Southern Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Pentecostals, and a wide assortment of other groups. At last count there were 432 Protestant missionaries at work in Argentina, most of them organizationally subordinate to nationals.

The Argentines take great pride in their culture and point to their opera houses and universities as being among the largest in the world (there is virtually no illiteracy). Some Argentine evangelicals feel that the caliber of incoming missionaries often does not measure up. The observation that evangelical laity is outpacing the clergy intellectually is not limited to Argentina, however. Such comments are now heard in North America and other parts of the world.

Although the Roman Catholic Church counts more than 20,000,000 Argentines on its rolls, it is doubtful that more than 15 per cent attend church with any regularity. The vast majority of the population are religiously indifferent. They agree to belong to the church, but never take it seriously.

Nevertheless, the thinking of the people is Catholic-oriented, and Billy Graham took that fact into account.

“We’re going to say a prayer,” he would announce. It was a variation from his usual “We’re going to pray.”

Graham also referred to “the Blessed Virgin Mary,” while he tactfully rejected the role assigned her in Catholic theology. In television appearances in which he answered telephoned questions, he stressed that the Scriptures did not warrant belief in a chance for salvation after death. Graham emphasized repeatedly that salvation comes by faith, not works.

Argentine evangelicals were heartened by the mass media opportunities. Said one: “Some of us could scarcely believe our eyes when we read expositions of John 3:16 and other texts in the daily paper.”

Almost all Protestant churches in Buenos Aires gave their support to the crusade. In return they received new converts and a new sense of spiritual unity, not to mention the encouragement, instruction, and inspiration which mean so much to a minority element. The joint effort also went a long way toward healing cleavages.

Denominational Sideshows

With salty words the retiring president of the Canadian Council of Churches lamented the council’s lack of centralized authority.

“What we have in fact,” said Dr. David Hay, “is an ad hoc committee of denominational representatives running some good sideshows over which a powerless president presides.”

In an address delivered for him at the 14th biennial meeting of the council in Toronto this month, Hay said the organization is a public advertisem*nt that “in the regions where real spiritual power is exercised, the churches are rootedly disunited.”

“A real council of churches,” he observed, “unwieldy though it might be, could only be one in which the governing bodies of the several communions foregathered to make decisions binding on all.”

Hay, a professor at Knox College (Presbyterian), University of Toronto, was overseas at the time. His address was read by the Rev. Emlyn Davies.

Speculating In Bishops

A recent Synod of the Diocese of Montreal elected the Rt. Rev. E. S. Reed, the present Bishop of Ottawa, to succeed Archbishop John Dixon, who has just retired from the bishopric of Montreal. The news at first aroused some speculation. Dr. Reed’s removal to Montreal would require a new Bishop of Ottawa. This would be a great opportunity for advocates of a Primatial See (a Canadian “Canterbury”), especially for those favoring Ottawa. Some people indeed wondered whether the whole business had been arranged in advance, forgetting the difficulty—if not impossibility—of “arranging” for any particular person to head the list in a Canadian episcopal election.

These speculations were rudely shattered. After two days of meditation and prayer, Dr. Reed decided to stay at Ottawa. There will have to be another election in Montreal.

Runner-up at the earlier election was Dr. E. G. Jay, the Principal of the Montreal Diocesan College and Professor of Systematic Theology in the Faculty of Divinity of the University (McGill). Before coming to Montreal he had been Dean of Nassau (Bahamas) and Senior Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury (now Lord Fisher of Lambeth). His chances are considered good, unless the supporters of Dr. Reed switch to an entirely new candidate.

R.A.W.

Uneasiness In The Camp

Though smaller in area than Alabama, England has a population of 44 million. Of that number, 64 per cent were baptized and 22 per cent were confirmed in the Church of England. Only 6½ per cent (rather less than 3 million) are actually members. Such arid statistics are not without significance for the major storm which is blowing up around historic Westminster.

Last July the Archbishops of Canterbury and York sent a letter to members of both Houses of Parliament pointing out the need for revision of Canon Law (largely unaltered since 1604), and of the Prayer Book (last amended in 1662). Revision calls for a Parliamentary bill and Crown approval. To broadcast the necessity for bringing both law and book up to date, the archbishops took the surprising step of thus lobbying the Lords and Commons—who incidentally withheld their consent in 1927–28 after an acrimonious debate on the Prayer Book.

That Parliament should have the last word is a bitter pill to many, and will remain so until the Church of England is disestablished—and even that would be dependent on Parliamentary approval. Such a development would allow the church to run its own affairs, but would deprive it of the very considerable benefits which accrue from its favored position vis-à-vis the state. Theoretically, disestablishment is regarded by some church leaders as not too high a price to pay. Wistful glances are being directed northward to Scotland, where the kirk’s position, at once national and thoroughly autonomous, is explicitly guaranteed under oath by successive monarchs at their coronation.

That much of the new legislation sponsored by the archbishops is looked upon with grave misgiving by evangelicals in the Church of England is seen in a similarly addressed reply from four of their leaders—the Rev. J. R. W. Stott, the Rev. R. P. Johnston, Viscount Brentford, and General Sir Arthur Smith. Pointing out that the Protestant character of the church was fixed at the Reformation, they suggest that “certain features of the proposals now envisaged” (which display marked high church tendencies and an aim to reintroduce certain customs and practices deliberately set aside at the Reformation) will “tend to increase existing tensions rather than reduce them, and will cause bewilderment and distress to great numbers of conscientious church-people, particularly laymen.” Questioning the archbishops’ assertion that the new measures have “the steady support of the great majority in the Church,” the evangelicals state, among other objections, that “some of these canons would tend to erect new barriers between the Church of England and the Free Churches.” Against the request that Parliament should sanction experimental variations in public worship, they point out that “some of the chief advocates of liturgical alteration have made it clear that the reason why they want new services is to express new doctrinal emphasis.” The Church Assembly House of Laity was expected to discuss the matter this month.

J.D.D.

Developing Devils

The British Council of Churches, meeting in Coventry Cathedral last month, discussed a committee report on the moral problems connected with artificial insemination, particularly the new developments in grafting of ovaries, induction of multiple births, and selection of sex.

“The value of looking at the issues, even before they fully emerge,” said the report, “is that there is time for calm reflection.” New knowledge and techniques purportedly would enable man to predetermine the sex and the physical and intellectual qualities of the human race.

While seeing the importance of such developments, the council was not altogether in agreement with them. It might be possible on sound and carefully executed principles to breed fit, physically well-developed, clever devils—there was no knowledge of any responsible eugenists who could breed or determine spiritual and moral values or capacities.

The new techniques, practiced on a large scale purely for eugenic purposes, would reduce the intensely personal element which Christians believe should be involved in reproduction. Indeed, on grafting of ovarian tissue from one woman into another, the report commented: “We are at one in believing for any pressure—whether of financial inducement or family feeling—to be used to secure a woman to act as ‘host womb’ would be entirely wrong. It would be to seek to use a woman as an incubator—in other words, a person as a thing. On all Christian grounds this is to be condemned.”

Artificial insemination by the husband was held to be justifiable, as was induction of multiple births. But drafters of the report disagreed on artificial insemination by a donor.

The report was referred to member churches for further consideration

J.D.D.

Balancing Insights

The current charismatic revival within old-line denominations drew the first major reaction from church leaders this month. The Episcopal House of Bishops issued a statement which said, in effect, that the movement must not get out of hand.

Although the statement was couched in general terms, there was little doubt that it was aimed at the charismatic revival—and perhaps glossolalia in particular. Such manifestations have been cropping up in denominational churches increasingly in the last several years.

The bishops said it was the church’s duty to view all new movements “with sympathy” but warned that “the danger of all new movements is self-righteousness, divisiveness, one-sidedness, and exaggeration.” Their statement added:

“We call, therefore, upon all new movements to remain in the full, rich, balanced life of the historic Church, and thereby protect themselves against these dangers; and we remind all clergy of their solemn vow to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of this church.… The Church … is both enriched by and balances the insights of all particular movements.”

Green Light

Delegates to the quadrennial General Conference of the Evangelical United Brethren Church voted last month, 310–94, to authorize preparation of a plan of union with The Methodist Church.

The merger plan will be worked out by the two denominations’ Commissions on Church Union, which have been conducting conversations for seven years. It would have to be approved by the General Conferences of both bodies and then by their annual conferences.

Baptism Ecumenism

A group of Baptist leaders announced last month that they were establishing an unofficial but permanent national committee to study means of bringing about an eventual merger of the American Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention.

The announcement came at a two-day conference of 76 ministers and laymen in Washington, D. C. They voted unanimously to establish a continuing body to be known as the Baptist Survey and Study Committee. The Rev. Howard R. Stewart, pastor of the First (American) Baptist Church of Dover, Delaware, was elected chairman of the permanent committee.

Midwestern Dismissal

Dr. Ralph H. Elliott was fired from his professorship at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary last month after a year-long controversy over his book, The Message of Genesis.

Trustees of Midwestern, a Southern Baptist seminary, voted 25 to 4 to dismiss Elliott because he refused to promise to forego republication.

The 209-page volume casts doubt on the historicity of certain aspects of the Genesis account. It was originally published by Broadman Press, the Southern Baptist publishing house, and the 5,000 copies of the first printing were all sold. The book gave rise to a debate at last spring’s Southern Baptist Convention sessions and Broadman Press decided against a second printing.

U. S. Offerings

Protestants and Eastern Orthodox of 46 bodies gave a record total in 1961 of $2,708,722,264 to their churches, according to the annual report of the National Council of Churches Department of Stewardship and Benevolence. For 43 bodies whose figures can be compared to the previous year, the 1961 totals constituted an increase of 4.8 per cent. Foreign missions giving was up 8.1 per cent. Here is how denominations compared in per capita giving:

Religion And Congress

This month’s election results indicate only two clergymen will serve as members of the 88th Congress when it convenes in January.

PRESIDENT’S THANKSGIVING PROCLAMATION

Here is the text of the 1962 Thanksgiving Day proclamation by President Kennedy:

Over three centuries ago in Plymouth, on Massachusetts Bay, the Pilgrims established the custom of gathering together each year to express their gratitude to God for the preservation of their community and for the harvests their labors brought forth in the new land. Joining with their neighbors, they shared together and worshipped together in a common giving of thanks. Thanksgiving Day has ever since been part of the fabric which has united Americans with their past, with each other and with the future of all mankind.

It is fitting that we observe this year our own day of thanksgiving. It is fitting that we give our thanks for the safety of our land, for the fertility of our harvests, for the strength of our liberties, for the health of our people. We do so in no spirit of self-righteousness. We recognize that we are the beneficiaries of the toil and devotion of our fathers and that we can pass their legacy on to our children only by equal toil and equal devotion. We recognize too that we live in a world of peril and change—and in so uncertain a time we are all the more grateful for the indestructible gifts of hope and love, which sustain us in adversity and inspire us to labor unceasingly for a more perfect community within this nation and around the earth.

Now, therefore, I, John F. Kennedy, President of the United States of America, in accord with the joint resolution of Congress, approved December 26, 1941, which designates the fourth Thursday in November of each year as Thanksgiving Day, do hereby proclaim Thursday, the twenty-second day of November of this year, as a day of national thanksgiving.

I urge that all observe this day with reverence and with humility.

Let us renew the spirit of the Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving, lonely in an inscrutable wilderness, facing the dark unknown with a faith borne of their dedication to God and a fortitude drawn from their sense that all men were brothers.

Let us renew that spirit by offering our thanks for uncovenanted mercies, beyond our desert or merit, and by resolving to meet the responsibilities placed upon us.

Let us renew that spirit by sharing the abundance of this day with those less fortunate, in our own land and abroad. Let us renew that spirit by seeking always to establish larger communities of brotherhood.

Let us renew that spirit by preparing our souls for the incertitudes ahead—by being always ready to confront crisis with steadfastness and achievement with grace and modesty.

Let us renew that spirit by concerting our energy and our hope with men and women everywhere that the world may move more rapidly toward the time when Thanksgiving may be a day of universal celebration.

Let us renew that spirit by expressing our acceptance of the limitations of human striving and by affirming our duty to strive nonetheless, as Providence may direct us, toward a better world for all mankind.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington this 7th day of November, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-two, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and eighty-seventh.

Of top significance nation-wide was the election of a high Mormon official as governor of Michigan. George Romney, former head of American Motors, is president of the Detroit Stake, or district, of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Romney, a Republican, defeated the incumbent Democrat, Governor John B. Swainson, in an extremely close vote. His victory placed him among the forerunners for the GOP presidential nomination in 1964.

One other churchman ran for a gubernatorial post and was defeated. The Rev. John Pillsbury, a Congregational minister, ran as a Republican in New Hampshire and lost to John W. King, first Democrat to be elected governor of the state in 40 years.

Republican Representative Henry C. Schadeberg of Wisconsin, who was minister of the Plymouth Congregational Church in Burlington at the time of his election in 1960, was reelected to a second term.

He defeated former Representative Gerald Flynn, a Democrat, by 9,000 votes.

Democrat Representative Adam Clayton Powell of New York, who in private life is minister of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in New York City, won his eleventh consecutive term as representative from a Harlem district. Powell is chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Democratic Representative Walter H. Moeller of Ohio, a clergyman of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod who won election to Congress in 1958 in a political upset and had served two terms, was defeated in his bid for reelection to a third term.

Republican Representative Walter H. Judd of Minnesota, a former medical missionary in China for the Congregational Christian churches, was also defeated when he sought reelection to an eleventh term in Congress. He ran in a newly created district carved out of Democratic territory.

Judd, although a supporter of the bipartisan foreign policy, was a staunch conservative on domestic issues.

Moeller, a conservative Democrat, lost his seat to Homer E. Abele, Republican, the man whom he defeated in 1958. Moeller had been a pastor in Lancaster, Ohio, less than two years when he ran for Congress, barely satisfying residence requirements for voting in the district. He developed into an accomplished politician, highly regarded by his colleagues in the House, and won distinction serving on the House Committee on Space and Aeronautics. His defeat was attributed largely to a Republican landslide in Ohio.

Democratic Representative Merwin Coad, of Iowa, a clergyman of the Disciples of Christ who had served three terms in the House after his upset election in 1956 at the age of only 32, did not seek reelection.

The Rev. R. G. Christensen, a Lutheran minister, ran an astonishing race against veteran Democrat Senator Warren G. Magnuson of Washington, but was defeated. The 31-year-old minister, accorded virtually no chance against the senator who has served more than 25 years in Congress, received at least 100,000 votes more than the most optimistic of Christensen’s supporters would have predicted.

Christensen, in defeat, contributed one significant innovation to national politics—perhaps the first completely honest statement of campaign expenditures ever filed under law with the Secretary of the Senate. He said that as of ten days before the election he had spent $71,000 on his campaign.

By tradition, expenditures in Senate races are handled by various independent political committees so that the candidates themselves show little or no personal contributions or expenditures.

Only Senator Jacob K. Javits, Republican of New York, who listed $206,000 in contributions, filed a larger expense statement with the Senate, and he was campaigning in a state with nearly seven times the population of Washington. On the same expense report, for instance, Senator-elect Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy duly reported that he had not spent a cent of his own money in Massachusetts or received a single personal contribution. All funds were handled by committees.

Christensen astonished Washington not only by the substantial sum of campaign funds he had raised without any organization support but by his insistence on reporting every cent of it as a personal contribution and a personal expenditure in full compliance with the original intent of the law.

Representative David S. King, Democrat of Utah, who had served overseas as a missionary of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), was defeated in his bid to unseat veteran Senator Wallace F. Bennett, Republican of Utah, who is also a leading layman of that church.

For a few precarious days last month, the world seemingly hung on the nuclear-oriented edge of war. The human race underwent one of its biggest scares.

How did the Christian clergy face the crisis? What did church leaders have to say? What kind of help did they offer?

NEWS / A fortnightly report of developments in religion

CHRISTIANS RALLY TO INDIA’S SUPPORT

Protestants and Roman Catholics in India rallied behind their government this month against the Chinese Communist invasion, praying for the armed forces and offering funds, blood, and clothing.

The All India Council of Indian Christians said it would seek to recruit about 10,000 volunteers to join the Indian forces.

Church leaders, through circulars and sermons, appealed for financial contributions and prayers to aid Indian troops on the battle lines.

“Remember that death is better than slavery,” said Chaldean Bishop Marthoma Dharmo of Trichur in a speech calling for funds.

Valerian Cardinal Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay, brought a message from Pope John XXIII of sympathy and prayer for India.

The small Jewish community of Cochin and Ernakulam raised $5,000 for the defense fund, while also donating two gold coronets which had rested in the Cochin synagogue, oldest in India, for about 200 years.

Roman Catholic bishops issued a pastoral letter asking the church to accept all hardships and sacrifices for peace.

Dr. Eugene Carson Blake complained the church did and said very little.

Declared Blake, stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., in a Reformation Festival of Faith at Binghamton, New York:

“We’ve been worried about the possibility of ending all cultures, the end of the world.… But has the church said anything?

“Not very much. Not very much.”

Blake’s observation notwithstanding, the Cuban crisis produced a variety of ecclesiastical commentaries. The Chinese-Indian border war, on the other hand, was largely ignored.

The most controversial statement came out of the Geneva headquarters of the World Council of Churches the day following President Kennedy’s announcement of an arms quarantine against Cuba:

“Taking their stand on statements made by the World Council of Churches assemblies, committees and officers of the WCC have on several occasions expressed their concern and regret when governments have taken unilateral military action against other governments. The officers of WCC consider it therefore their duty to express grave concern and regret concerning the action which the USA government has felt it necessary to take with regard to Cuba and fervently hope that every government concerned will exercise the greatest possible restraint in order to avoid a worsening of international tensions.”

The statement was signed by Dr. Franklin Clark Fry, president of the Lutheran Church in America and the Lutheran World Federation and chairman of the WCC’s policy-making Central Committee; Dr. Ernest A. Payne, vice-chairman; and Dr. W. A. Visser ’t Hooft, general secretary of the WCC. It was forwarded to the U. N. Security Council by Dr. O. Frederick Nolde, director of the WCC’s Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, who appended some remarks he had made in a sermon the previous Sunday.

“Only if Cuba becomes a military threat against other countries—aggressive in action rather than defensive—is military reprisal justified and it should be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter,” said Nolde.

The WCC statement was promptly repudiated by delegates to the 2,455,000 member American Lutheran Church convention which only four days before had voted to remain in the World Council. Dr. Fredrik A. Schiotz, ALC president, first urged that the convention take no action on the WCC statement. Later he said that it was “exceedingly unfortunate” that the statement did not cite the evidence of a Soviet buildup in Cuba on which the United States based its action.

The ALC action was one of the most stinging rebukes ever handed the World Council by a member church.

The National Council of Churches came out with a considerably longer and more general statement calling for “restraint, calmness, and control” and urging prayer for world leaders. The six-point message emphasized recourse to international organizations.

“We are hopeful that the Cuban people will be freed from foreign domination, and that we all may progress in political, economic and social well-being,” the statement said. It was signed by NCC President J. Irwin Miller.

In Washington, a group of prominent religious leaders met in a specially-called “emergency consultation” under the chairmanship of Dean John Bennett of Union Theological Seminary. They subsequently released a statement warning against “brandishing our might” but praising Kennedy’s use of the U. N. and the O. A. S. Methodist Bishop John Wesley Lord was host to the meeting.

Dr. Ben M. Herbster, president of the United Church of Christ, assured Kennedy that his denomination will continue to pray that this country will pass the crisis “without a conflict of arms.” He declared, however, that liberty and justice are more precious than peace.

In Philadelphia, leaders of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., including Blake, called on members to observe a day of prayer and repentance.

The American Council of Christian Churches, at its annual meeting in Chicago, approved a statement commending the blockade and remarking that it was “long overdue.”

In another statement, the ACCC urged the U. S. government to deny visas to Russian Orthodox churchmen planning to come to this country in 1963 to return visits made this year by delegations from the World and National Councils of Churches. The statement asserted that “the strategy of the Reds in the use of the churches has been imminently successful and they have obtained recognition and membership in numerous international church bodies and councils where their deceptions are being effectively promoted.”

In Moscow, six Protestant and Orthodox church leaders protested the arms quarantine but understandably ignored the Soviet military buildup in Cuba. They branded Kennedy’s decision “a violation of Christian teaching” and said it was “the greatest sin against mankind.”

At Columbia, South Carolina, the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church was obliged to issue a clarification of his response to a reporter’s question about the proposed exchange of Cuban missile bases for those in Turkey. Presiding Bishop Arthur Lichtenberger had told a press conference that “this seems a reasonable solution.” He later observed that there seemed to be widespread misunderstanding of his statement and emphasized that “we do not know the actual facts” and “I rely fully on the judgment and actions of the President in these serious negotiations.”

Lichtenberger was in Columbia for a meeting of the Episcopal House of Bishops, as was Dr. Arthur Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, who said:

“My own view is that general disarmament is absolutely urgent, as shown by recent events. I don’t believe, however, in unilateral disarmament. I support the statement made by the Presiding Bishop, and I feel that both the scrapping of Soviet bases in Cuba and the scrapping of U. S. bases in Turkey would be a step forward to the relief of tensions.”

The House of Bishops issued a statement invoking “all people, especially leaders of nations, to exercise the strongest discipline of conscience to prevent total war.” But the statement added that “a strong military posture does serve as a deterrent to an aggressor nation intent upon military conflict.”

Delegates to the Evangelical United Brethren Church’s quadrennial General Conference in Grand Rapids, Michigan, pledged to join other Christians in confessing “our failures which have contributed” to the Cuban crisis and in interceding for divine guidance for peace. In a resolution, the delegates expressed satisfaction over Kennedy’s “courageous effort to safeguard the security and freedom of our hemisphere.”

Lichtenberger had also been quoted as saying that the United States should not invade Cuba to remove missile bases. A similar view was expressed by Methodist Bishops Lord, F. Gerald Ensley, and A. Raymond Grant. Although they spoke as individuals, Ensley is president and the others vice-presidents of the Methodist Board of Christian Social Concerns.

Dr. Oliver R. Harms, president of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, called upon members to “express their loyalty to God and their nation through words of encouragement and prayer.”

Dwight L. Moody, the genial bearded heavyweight evangelist who died ten days before the calendar clicked into the nineteen-hundreds, is remembered on many counts: apostle of the love of God to an age that overstressed God’s wrath; the outstanding American religious figure of his century; a layman who gave the laity their long-neglected opportunity in spiritual work and who put more men and women into Christian service than any other of his time. The Moody and Sankey campaigns have a distinct niche in British and American story. As an agnostic biographer neatly put it, Moody reduced the population of hell by a million souls, while the schools he founded—at Northfield in Massachusetts, and the Bible Institute at Chicago, pioneer of all Bible institutes—are living memorials of his vision and vigor.

Moody’s outlook is particularly relevant to present-day theological debate because he has high claim to be seen as grandfather of the ecumenical movement.

Interest in Christian Unity

Ecumenism has many sources. As a matter of history there can be little dispute that the two chief springs of the movement were Moody’s Northfield Conference of August, 1885, with its Appeal to Disciples Everywhere calling for a united campaign of world evangelism to be planned by “an ecumenical conference”; and the Student Conference convened by Moody in July, 1886, on the campus of his five-year-old Mount Hermon School. From the latter came the Student Volunteers with their motto, “The Evangelization of the World in this Generation.” Both springs were direct effects of the stirring of Christian consciousness by the Cambridge Seven, that band of wealthy, athletic, and aristocratic Englishmen who early in 1885 abandoned ease and privilege to be missionaries to China. All seven had been either converts or workers in Moody’s Second British Campaign of 1882–84.

The Northfield stream with its “Appeal” flowed through the ecumenical missionary conferences held in London, 1888, and in New York, 1900; the Mount Hermon stream through the impact of the Student Missionary Volunteers upon America and Europe under Robert Wilder and John R. Mott and through the rise of the Student Christian Movement. The two streams flowed together under Mott’s chairmanship of the Edinburgh Conference of 1910, which is accepted as ecumenism’s 1066 (or 1776!).

The ecumenical movement as it is today may usefully be measured against its grandfather Moody’s views on unity.

From his earliest “Crazy Moody” days in Chicago when the young zealot shook and angered the get-rich-quick city and men under his spell laid aside strong denominational prejudices to unite in bringing Christ crucified to the “barefoot boys” of skid row, Moody pressed what J. V. Farwell called his “all absorbing idea of making the world feel the power of Christian union in active work for the masses.” Moody never considered unity as an end in itself, but as vital for evangelism—because mankind needed saving and there was no time to lose on bickering. It was to a Roman Catholic archbishop that Moody, stout evangelical though he was, said in the nineties that he “wanted to see New York shaken for Christ and wouldn’t it be a grand thing if all the churches swung into a simultaneous effort. The Archbishop had the power to do it for the Roman Catholic churches, and the other churches would follow the lead.”

Moody, with a characteristic toss of the head, would have puffed at laborious negotiations to promote unity for its own sake. But the Moody and Sankey campaigns were the strongest force for Christian unity in the nineteenth century, as Moody’s vision of union grew from carrying Chicago for Christ to include, before he died, “the glorious object of a world’s evangelization.”

True unity cannot grow in a vacuum. It develops from mission. When Moody and Sankey, almost totally unknown, were invited to Edinburgh by prominent Presbyterian divines in the winter of 1873, they found themselves in a divided Scotland, where previous attempts to dissolve disruption by discussion had merely bred deeper bitterness. Suddenly men of the opposing kirks found themselves working together in “our decorous city stirred to the depths by two strangers.” Sectarian divisions were forgotten; warmth and kindness grew. What weary years of wrangle had failed to promote, mutual devotion to Christian mission produced almost unawares.

Moody flung wide the frontiers of unity. He liked to see local churches working together as churches in his city campaigns, in mutual dedication with others of various traditions. Any who would cooperate were welcome even if ministers were not agreed with him on controverted points. The Gospel was its own refiner’s fire. Moody’s aim and message and method were so uncompromisingly biblical, evangelical, that a man whose beliefs were unbiblical, unevangelical, might refuse to cooperate; but Moody was ready to draw him in if offered opportunity.

He relied on local campaign committees to sift most carefully those who wanted to work in the inquiry room and to exclude any who would snare “anxious souls” into their own peculiar sects or fads. He refused any aid from Unitarians, among whom, as it happened, he had been bred. “Unitarians insult Christ,” he would say, “and whoever insults Christ insults me.” If a Unitarian turned Christian, Moody was the first to embrace him. He cared not at all what a man had been—Unitarian or Mormon, alcoholic or adulterer—if in sincerity his present love and motive lay at the feet of the Saviour. In other words, the measure of unity is basic loyalty to Christ as revealed in the Word of God. On this basis the frontier of unity can be pushed to the very edge of hell, for “the magnet that goes down to the bottom of the pit is the love of God.”

What of Modern Ecumenism?

The ecumenical movement has carved many channels since its rise in a distinctively evangelical, missionary sector. How might Moody feel towards it now?

He would approve World Church Service and similar social concerns; for “there was no preacher,” the Scottish biblical scholar Sir George Adam Smith said in 1900, “more practical or civic amongst us,” and the milestones of Moody’s road across Britain and America were new Y.M.C.A. buildings, temperance halls, and rescue missions. He would regret, however, the tendency to count practical aid as sufficient in itself; service for body and mind must be balanced by service for the soul. This was the crux of his schools system: “Mr. Moody insisted that education was not worthwhile unless the heart was right.”

As to ecumenism’s doctrinal inclusiveness, its unsure definition of the Gospel, and its presupposition of the compromised authority of the Bible, Moody’s reaction might well be garnered from his attitude to the parallel problem of his own day: higher criticism. Indeed, he defined the purpose of his Northfield conference as “Christian unity … but along with the idea of Christian unity goes the Bible as it stands.”

Moody deplored the effect of criticism on the life of the Church, but his public attitude was essentially positive. Criticism did not frighten him. His own faith in the authority and power of the Bible lay secure, and therefore he regretted the piecemeal defense with which some conservatives sought to rebut each critical theory. He told them not to waste energy but to use the Bible, to let it convict and convert.

He refused to indulge in personalities: “The critics raise questions which do not help the spiritual life; their opponents retort with bad temper and personal recrimination.” Don’t denigrate, he said. Don’t be isolationists like the Plymouth Brethren, “eating their gingerbread all by themselves in a corner.”

Be positive, he urged. Truth edges out falsehood. His answer to higher criticism was to train men and women in his schools and his Bible Institute, “and as fast as they can prove themselves good workmen, send them out to all lands,” to reach unchurched millions. “The masses,” he said of America in 1897, “are sick and tired of speculative theology in the pulpit.… People are not fed. They are hungering and thirsting for the pure Gospel.”

Do not withdraw. Give a lead. That would be Moody’s call today. “Let us get up all the steam we can and put up the sails and go ahead.” A primary, overriding determination to proclaim among “the masses” at home and “the heathen” abroad that “there’s no sin so big or so black or so corrupt and vile but the blood of Christ can cover it,” that God was in Christ reconciling the world and himself and calls all men everywhere to repent, must surely shake every lesser priority into its proper, lower place.

To D. L. Moody Christian unity was meaningless except in the context of revival. “It is my opinion that the closer we can keep to apostolic times the better.… Human nature has not changed in the last 1,900 years. Preach a different gospel from that which was successful in apostolic times? Oh, bosh.… What can save the life of the nation? Only the strength of a quickened Church, and the Church can only be quickened by a visitation of power such as the old apostles knew.”

J. C. POLLOCK

Devonshire, England

Contemporary interpreters of the world scene are constantly warning America that the greatest threat to the free world’s civilization is not the challenge of a militant Communism, but the present alarming decay of the moral fiber and the sense of purpose of the champion of the free world. No one today seriously doubts that America faces a severe test of her maturity and her strength in the years ahead. Can she meet this challenge? America can meet the challenge if she comprehends the secondary nature of her bout with Communism and seeks first to recover her own spiritual heritage, and thereby a firm national purpose and a renewed sense of God-given destiny.

What are the weaknesses of American society? In the first place, America is being weakened by a pluralism which is finding its way into every facet of our national life. In the late spring and summer of 1960, Life magazine published a series of eight essays by eminent Americans on the theme “The National Purpose.” Editorial motivation for these assessments was the disconcerting discovery that a nation of 177, 733, 190 Americans no longer seems unified by dedication to a common goal. Multitudes of citizens seem to cherish no articulate principles and purposes that unite them and govern their energies. In such a climate, the great American dream of individual freedom and of equal opportunity for all men appears to degenerate into a gospel of selfish individualism and personal aggrandizement.

America is also threatened by a creeping secularism, which is tending to defeat all interest in metaphysical ideals and to plunge our nation into a crass materialism little better than materialistic monism. In an interview with the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Dr. Charles Malik, former president of the United Nations General Assembly, remarked, “I am not sure your Western materialism is better than the Soviet’s. If I were asked to choose between the dialectical materialism of the Soviet and the materialistic outlook on life and the practiced commercialism of the West, I am not sure I would choose the Western brand of materialism at all.” Such opinions are not uncommon in the “neutral” nations, and they account for the ambition of the religions of the Orient to “spiritualize” the Occident. Americans seem solely bent on increasing their military, industrial, and economic lead over the Soviet Union, as if this were all that is necessary to successfully resist the growing might of the Communist block. America must remember that it was only a small minority of Bolsheviks that captured Russia herself for Communism in 1917. The revolutionaries possessed poor weapons, were weak in numbers, and misplaced their idealism, but they were victorious because of their vigorous dedication. America does not need more scientists, former Harvard president and ambassador to West Germany James Bryant Conant is fond of saying. She needs more students of the humanities. America needs to know why she is fighting, whom she is fighting, and what she is fighting for.

Such a revitalized understanding of her destiny will not come from any advance in the materialistic sciences, but neither will it come solely from a study of the humanities. It will come only from an American ideology which has been revitalized by a rediscovery and reappropriation of the spiritual motivation and undergirdings of our heritage. This will mean repentance. Should America fail in this renewal, she may well find herself facing the crucial test of her endurance but failing in her courage and inner conviction.

There is a tendency in our generation to criticize the United States severely, forgetting that in the past America has had a strength of purpose and conviction which has served her well throughout her times of crisis. America has fought for freedom, justice, and religious liberty. Our urgent task today is to revitalize the American ideology—not to invent another, as social revisionists often tend to think. The question to be asked is this: What is the spiritual motivation, the ideological basis, that fired the American dream? What underlying purpose forged the American perspective of a Christian democratic people? If Americans can answer these questions, they will have taken the first step in recovering that sense of destiny which thrilled our patriots and which built a mighty nation in a hostile wilderness.

America needs to get back to a frame of mind and national purpose which make God’s cause throughout the world her own. Such religious idealism has fallen into disrepute in our generation, but its urgency is not weakened because ungodly men have used God’s name in support of devilish activities. The directives of Scripture teach men to value the individual, to pursue social justice, and to carry the message of a new life through Jesus Christ to all men everywhere. To the extent that we fulfill these purposes, America may claim to advance in the name and in the power of God.

America needs to make justice a national goal. In our secular, pluralistic society, emotionalism and a widespread “think-well-of-everybody-ism” have clouded the inescapable obligation of a nation to do what is right, because it is right. On the national scene, we seem to have more sympathy for the murderer than we do for his victim, more compassion for the sexual deviate than for the one whom he has irreparably injured. Internationally, America all too often seems motivated by a relative opportunism, rather than by a determination to act in accord with what she knows, or ought to know, is right. If we are to recapture our self-respect and the respect of our allies and the neutral nations, America must act in accordance with an unwavering standard of justice, as unqualified as possible by human frailties.

Finally, America must again honor the great moral imperatives. Justice is a moral imperative. Love for neighbor is another. So are honesty, respect for our superiors, chastity of mind and body. If these goals are honestly pursued, the climate of our civilization may be changed and our dominating self-interest replaced by a growing sense of individual integrity.

Can America weather the storm? She can if she does not attempt to do it alone. America must find her way back to God. The people of America must say again, and firmly believe, “In God we trust.” If this happens, the deteriorating effect of American pluralism and a broadly based decline into secularism may be successfully combatted, and a new sense of destiny under God imparted to America and the rest of the free world.

Enthusiasm Over Action In Cuba Yielding To Deep Disappointment

After the early sense of relief and thankfulness which followed America’s vigorous stand against the Soviet buildup in Cuba and Khrushchev’s precipitous backdown, the seeming incredible ineptness in handling the situation is producing a wave of deep pessimism.

In one of the strangest developments in history Russia has largely become the broker of negotiations, Castro finds himself more secure because of the United States’ commitment not to upset his regime by military action, the inspection teams are to come from an agency of Moscow’s choosing, and Khrushchev emerges in the Soviet sphere as the “preserver of peace.” Furthermore, the opportunity to step in and eliminate Soviet potentials in the Western world—to the delight of the Latin American countries and the admiration of the free world—has apparently been frittered away through endless negotiations with the guilty offenders.

What pressures have been exerted behind the scenes we have no way of determining. But the public release of a statement by leaders of the World Council of Churches which expressed grave concern and regret for so-called United States “unilateral” action and spoke in favor of the weak international organizations in which we participate (the O.A.S., the U.N., and so on) should give every Christian pause. Why did not the World Council speak out forthrightly against Russia’s offensive buildup in Cuba? This was most certainly a “unilateral military action,” yet America’s defensive measures alone were placed in that category. Why did not these leaders speak out as quickly and forcefully against Red China’s invasion of India?

We believe these World Council leaders, presuming to speak for the Christian community around the globe, have demonstrated again their inability to properly evaluate world affairs while at the same time illustrating their penchant for criticizing actions which might help to stabilize world conditions, all the while seemingly ignoring the slow but inexorable extension of Communism. And we believe that the United States has frittered away a golden opportunity which may not be hers again.

END

America’S Election Fanfare Quiets For Another Season

For another election season the razzle-dazzle of American politics is over. It may seem that these past weeks of campaign tumult and shouting have achieved little. Although there will now be three Kennedy profiles in Washington, the Congressional picture remains much the same—with the Republican-Southern Democrat coalition pitched against much of the President’s program. Richard Nixon’s loss to California Governor Pat Brown apparently ends his presidential possibilities, and Governor Nelson Rockefeller’s reelection by less than a landslide means his Republican nomination for 1964 is not wholly assured; Pennsylvania’s Scranton and Michigan’s Romney, and perhaps Oregon’s Hatfield, not to mention possibly numerous Congressional aspirants, may now also be in the race. Biggest loss to the nation was the defeat of Congressman Walter Judd of Minnesota, whose realistic insight into the Communist menace is sorely needed in Washington, and against whom President Kennedy campaigned in Minnesota while Judd was in Washington promoting desirable aspects of the President’s program.

Politics sometimes seems sordid business even in the free world. But we may thank God for freedom to vote without fear. A passage in Johannes Hamel’s A Christian in East Germany describes an election day: “Many went to the polls and did not dare to use the polling booths, for that would have had the force of voting ‘No.’ The normal voter had nothing to write on his ballot with the approved names, and no pencils were laid out in the booths. Some of these, however, saved their consciences by secretly crossing out their ballots, which required great skill in order not to be noticed by the pollwatchers who observed everyone closely on their way from the ballot table to the ballot box.…”

So we thank God even for the exuberance of American politics. The secret ballot is one of the anti-totalitarian world’s great strengths. But its wise use and survival require our reinforcement of its opportunities with a feeling for the will of God in political affairs, and not simply for the preference of the majority.

Secret Of Fundamentalism’S Vitality Escapes Analyst

It would be a sad illusion for liberal Protestantism to think fundamentalism is dead, says Professor Thomas C. Oden, because “whether we like it or not” it is “one of the most vital forces in American Christianity”. Yet he argues that it has lost “its essential reason for existing,” and now fights “straw men.”

In an article in The Christian Century Oden urges that fundamentalism, and not only the older liberalism, succumbed to nineteenth-century historicism. Fundamentalism’s great mistake, urges Oden, was that it was more interested in the historic facts of the Resurrection and the Incarnation than in their meanings.

But the fundamentalists’ insistence on the importance of the actual historical occurrence of saving events ought not to be confused with a view that the key to any reality lies in its historical origin. For fundamentalists insisted that the origin of Christ and his resurrection lay not in history but in God’s action, and they further insisted (contra the old liberalism) that man’s redemption lay not in the ideas of incarnation and resurrection but in their actual historical reality. This insistence is something quite other than the historicism of the nineteenth century. Fundamentalists were far too little interested in history to fall into historicism, but they were not such starry-eyed idealists as to think that sinners are saved by ideas. They knew that by “taking thought” a man cannot add even an inch to his statue. They rightly realized that an idea of a resurrection without the fact has no redemptive power. It is this dynamic of the Gospel which they sought to retain, and which explains why fundamentalists are still very much alive.

END

The Word Of God … Multiplied: But Not By These Modern Methods

Once upon a time there was a Holy Bible. It existed in a number of versions and in many languages. Recently there has been an explosion of modern translations both indicating and contributing to the new larger interest in Bible reading and study. All this was to the good.

Today, however, we are getting various kinds of Bibles. This is something new. One Bible is regarded as a liberal Bible, another as orthodox. We have also received the Modern Adult, the Teen-age, and the Children’s Bibles. The latest is the Concise Bible (Henry Regnery Co., Nov. 19, 1962), 189 pages of quotations and condensations of the Bible’s 66 books. This averages out to about three pages each; Colossians gets 13 lines, 3 John 7 lines, and John’s Gospel a trifle over four pages. For good measure ten pages of additional quotations are added in an Appendix; and for unintended irony the last verse quoted is: “And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:19).

Christians can only commend attempts to provide faithful translations of the Scripture in the most understandable English possible, as they can only commend new ways to induce people to read the Bible. Yet alteration of faithful translations of Scripture, even if into language a child or a teen-ager can understand, involves violence to the sacred text. There is similar want of reverent respect when a very small fraction of biblical verses are quoted, interspersed with synopses, and then placed on the market under the title of The Bible. The publication of various kinds of Bibles will soon have the consequence that the term “Bible” no longer has definite meaning. Christians had best exercise caution lest they undercut the very thing they are trying to promote.

Heresy Of Universal Salvation Dulls Evangelistic Passion

In a matter of weeks the opportunity will have gone to enter CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S sermon competition (see June 22 issue for details) on the subject of human destiny, with special attention to speculations about universal salvation now leavening some of the churches.

Ministers who have failed to address their congregations on the final doom of the unsaved may well resolve anew to emphasize the inescapable consequences of the rejection of Jesus Christ. In fact, some leading Protestant denominations ought to ask why the evangelistic passion seems to have vanished in their midst.

One great denomination—once among the fastest-growing—has sunk to mediocre gains. The director of its Division of Evangelism is an addict of the Barthian narcotic that all men are already in Christ and need only to be informed of it. Some denominational circles are encouraged to become more theologically conservative whenever funds lag for approved denominational programs. It would be a great boon if American Baptists could rise instead to a new era of evangelistic greatness through a rediscovery of the biblical imperative. There is increasing talk of a Baptist Federation of North America or a North American Baptist Alliance as the next phase of ecumenical momentum following the present Baptist Jubilee Advance. It is noteworthy that Southern Baptists, who represent one of the fastest-growing denominations (without the multiplication of figures through mergers), and in fact the one which is now the biggest Protestant denomination in the United States, are at heart evangelistic. Were American Baptist leadership to take evangelism seriously again in biblical dimensions, it would be a genuine sign of advance and a real token of jubilee.

END

Are Sunday School Lessons Soft On Trinitarianism?

While scanning Southern Baptist Sunday school literature recently, we discovered a rather disconcerting ambiguity in some expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity. Although biblical Christianity is thoroughly monotheistic, and expounds the unity of God, it is anything but Unitarian. Yet one cannot help wondering what has happened to the historic Christian emphasis that in the one Godhead there are three eternal centers of consciousness, when one reads passages which seem to reduce the personal distinctions to differences of function, and which emphasize that God is “one Person.” For examples: “The ‘persons’ of the Godhead have different functions but a single purpose. They act in harmony. Indeed, they are one” (The Adult Teacher, October, 1962, p. 59). “The word ‘trinity’ comes from two roots—tri, meaning three, and unity, meaning unit or one. The word was originally ‘tri-unity,’ suggesting that God, who is really one Person, reveals himself in three characters, each personal in nature and each distinct and individual. We cannot comprehend intellectually the full meaning of ‘three in one.’ As you—one person—are body, mind, and soul, so God—one Person—is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (Sunday School Adults, Oct.-Nov.-Dec., 1962, pp. 17 f.). Unless we have forgotten how to read, Southern Baptist adults are being taught the profoundly unbiblical theory that the distinctions in the Godhead are not eternal personal distinctions, but functional or modal.

END

‘Feed The Chinese’ Urges Moderator As China Feeds On India

It’s a good thing, in some cases, that newspapers relegate religious news to inconsequential, second-rate pages! This was especially true late last month, when world events were moving at a heady pace.

On October 22, as front-page headlines of newspapers around the world screamed forth the fact that Red China was biting off huge chunks of India, Religious News Service carried a story which looked a bit out of place in the context of world events. “Churchman Urges Canada to Send Gift Grain to Red China,” was the headline. The story began, “Dr. James R. Mutchmore, moderator of the United Church of Canada, said … that gifts of grain to Red China would be ‘Christian, and common sense.’”

Reporting on the fine Canadian harvest, he said that wherever people are hungry, they should be fed. This is a laudable generality, but Dr. Mutchmore had evidently forgotten that David, for example, never fed a hungry predator, or threw a dog biscuit to a glowering wolf preparing to attack one of his flock.

In a broadcast to the Indian people on the same date, Prime Minister Nehru called the Chinese “powerful and unscrupulous opponents, not caring for peace or peaceful methods.”

Perhaps there are no newspapers in ivory towers.