Page 6020 – Christianity Today (2024)

Religious tensions rose in New York City as Christians moved to support Negroes against the Jewish-dominated teachers’ union in the school decentralization controversy.

Vitriolic charges and countercharges of Jewish “racism” and Negro “anti-Semitism” and the distribution of hate literature made the situation more ugly.

The teachers’ union, largely white and two-thirds Jewish, defied widespread criticism and continued its third citywide strike since school began. They were demanding reinstatement of 83 teachers ousted by the governing board of the city’s first neighborhood-controlled school district, the mainly Negro and Puerto Rican Ocean Hill-Brownsville section in Brooklyn. More than one million pupils were affected by the strike.

President of the neighborhood school board in the battle is United Presbyterian minister C. Herbert Oliver, a graduate of Nyack Missionary College and Wheaton (Illinois) College.

Outright condemnation of the strikes and support for decentralization of school control came from top officials of the National Council of Churches, United Presbyterian Church, the city’s Protestant Council, United Methodist Board of Missions, and United Church of Christ. Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy participated in a city hall demonstration in favor of decentralization.

A statement by Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, famed minister of Marble Collegiate Church and president of the Protestant Council, was typical. He said the union’s “intransigence” was the only barrier to getting the schools functioning again. “The due process cry of the teachers’ union has a hollow ring when they themselves engaged in an illegal strike.” He called for union support of decentralization as stipulated in its contract with the city. “That would be real due process,” he said.

Mayor John Lindsay, who has led the way in decentralization, and the board of education have held illegal both the strikes and the local board’s arbitrary transfer of 83 teachers out of the district. In a test of its power which sparked the current controversy, the board claimed that the dismissed teachers opposed community control and asserted its right to hire teachers it felt were tuned to its pupils’ needs.

Local officials became increasingly concerned as the school dispute fed these tensions, and Lindsay met privately on the matter with a number of Jewish leaders. But it exploded in the mayor’s face when a crowd at a Brooklyn Jewish center, bitter at Negro charges of racism against Jewish teachers who had taught many years in the inner city and furious at Lindsay’s efforts to end the strikes, shouted him down during his speech. And Jewish crowds heckled one of their own, New York Sen. Jacob Javits, the next day when he tried to defend the mayor. “It is unacceptable, this Jewish backlash,” Javits told them.

Virulent anti-Semitic and anti-liquor feelings showed in a Washington Post interview with blacks who claim to have set a series of fires during that city’s April riots.

The historic “identity of interests” may be questionable now. Developments cited recently by the New York Times seem to have made a clash of interests inevitable:

• The move by black militants to control the direction of their own movement excluded many whites. This included many liberal Jews who felt snubbed after their extensive efforts for equal rights.

• More black militants have recently joined the Muslim faith, which carries a traditional antagonism between Arab and Jew. Jews felt more threatened when these militants supported the Arabs in their war with Israel.

• The teaching and social service professions, heavily saturated with Jews, are the two biggest areas where Negroes are demanding control “to teach our own, take care of our own.” With civil service and merit hiring, these fields were open to Jews while others were closed.

• Negro migrants to the city have settled in areas most recently occupied by Jews. Jews still own land and shops there. “In this conflict situation, the symbol of white ‘oppression,’ the slumlord, the overcharging of shopkeepers, was the Jew,” said an American Jewish Committee official. For this reason, many say that Negro anti-Semitism is mainly a spin-off of a general anti-white mood among black people.

At any rate, the school conflict reveals a break-up of the old liberal coalition of labor unions, Jews, Christians and Negroes. Jews who think of themselves as “liberals” find themselves allied in reaction with unions, while Christians seem to side with blacks in their struggle for self-determination. Jewish and Negro leaders who hope to close the gap wonder if they can control their alienated constituencies.

Miscellany

Czech aftermath: The Soviet-leaning Christian Peace Conference headquartered in Prague will continue its work despite deep differences over the Soviet invasion. Professor Amedeo Molnar of the Comenius Faculty of Theology, Prague, says a new element in Czech reaction was rejection by statesmen and citizens of the use of violence—even in self-defense. A Lutheran World Federation observer said Czech churches are working freely under the new situation. A statement from Hungary’s Roman Catholic bishops appears to support the Warsaw Pact invasion, but Austrian Catholic newsmen fear the Czech regime will try to regain control of church appointments and policies. Eurovangelism Director Dave Foster reports Czech evangelicals, who have been witnessing to some of the Soviet soldiers, also fear stringent controls are ahead.

Responding publicly to a circular from Reinhold Niebuhr, John C. Bennett, and Rabbi Abraham Heschel seeking endorsem*nts for Hubert Humphrey, ex-President Howard Schomer of Chicago Theological Seminary said the “best witness” for clergy is to refuse to vote for any of the three presidential candidates.

A straw poll among Missouri Synod Lutheran seminarians went: Nixon, 378; Humphrey, 117; Wallace, 27; with 37 favoring “an alternate Democratic candidate.”

A straw poll among readers of the Camden, New Jersey, Roman Catholic weekly went: Humphrey, 303 votes; Nixon, 296; Wallace, 274, with Wallace leading within the city itself. At St. Peter’s College in Jersey City, Wallace edged out Humphrey for second place in a student straw poll.

The U. S. Supreme Court held only a thirty-minute hearing on the suit challenging constitutionality of the Arkansas law against teaching Darwinian evolution. Justice Potter Stewart asked the state spokesman if the law was designed so that teaching “would not collide with the Bible story” of man’s creation, and was told the state merely seeks “neutrality” to “keep the religious question out of the school system.”

More than 7,000 persons, half of them Marines from a nearby base, attended the final meeting of evangelist John Haggai’s two-week crusade, sponsored by 125 churches in the San Diego area.

A hand grenade thrown into a crowd of worshipers in Hebron during the Feast of Tabernacles injured four dozen persons, eight of them seriously. The area came under Israeli control during the 1967 June war.

A legislator from Denmark’s People’s Socialist Party proposed new marriage laws to legalize polygamy, marriage between siblings, and marriage between hom*osexuals.

DEATHS

W. KENNETH WAGGONER, 34, Assemblies of God missionary pilot, whose plane crashed into the Atlantic off the coast of Liberia at night. On board were visiting Texas pastors James Parsons, 46, and B. J. MANLEY, 42.

DAVID H. JOHNSON, 74, general director emeritus of The Evangelical Alliance Mission; of a presumed heart attack at TEAM’s Wheaton, Illinois, offices.

ROBERT H. H. GOHEEN, 88, pioneer Presbyterian medical missionary in India for four decades; father of Princeton University’s current president; in Princeton, New Jersey.

ELDER LIGHTFOOT SOLOMON MICHAUX, 84, one of the nation’s best-known freelance Negro religious leaders; founder of the Gospel Spreading Association of the Church of God; “Happy Am I” radio preacher; pioneer in church housing developments and use of showmanship and gospel songs; in Washington, D. C., of a heart attack.

Church Panorama

In a 43–20 vote, Asheville (North Carolina) Presbytery decided only contributions designated for specific agencies will go to the national denomination. All undesignated gifts will go to presbytery or synod causes. The move is interpreted as a protest at liberal agency trends in the Southern Presbyterian Church.

The Southern Presbyterian education board approved joint long-range planning with the United Church of Christ, United Presbyterian Church, and Episcopal Church. Episcopal Presiding Bishop John E. Hines will file a “friend of court” brief on behalf of the Southern Presbyterian suit to the U. S. Supreme Court against breakaway churches.

The Protestant-Catholic worship committee said that in its new text for the Nicene Creed (October 25 issue, page 42), brackets should appear around “and the Son,” in the statement that the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son.” The phrase was a major factor in the Eastern Orthodox-Catholic schism.

First Baptist Church of New Orleans, after a fifteen-minute discussion at Sunday worship, reaffirmed affiliation with the local church federation. Pastor J. D. Grey, former Southern Baptist president and head of the city crime commission, supported the church federation.

A New York Times survey found many churches in Greenwich Village, New York City, have suffered such theft and desecration that they have had to lock up in off hours, install burglar alarms, and cancel evening meetings.

The Washington (Episcopal) Cathedral claims a loss of $11,000 last year in sale of Christmas cards through theft by postal workers.

The Los Angeles Times reports Jehovah’s Witness publications are increasingly hinting that the end of the world will come in 1975. The group’s prediction of the Second Coming for 1914 once caused considerable theological reshuffling.

Project Equality closed its regional office in Los Angeles because of lack of church support. National director Thomas Gibbons, Jr., blamed the Protestants. Protestants blamed the Catholic archdiocese.

Personalia

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell told his Harlem congregation in a sermon that James Earl Ray—scheduled for trial this month—“didn’t kill King,” and that this murder was part of a racially motivated “conspiracy” linked to the deaths of John and Robert Kennedy.

The Rev. Homer Tucker, urban-work director for the New Jersey Baptist Convention, is the first Negro chairman of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs.

Editor Norman DePuy of the American Baptists’ Mission magazine praised evangelist Billy Graham for “taking sides” by befriending Richard Nixon in the 1968 elections, and supported announcing of political opinions from the pulpit.

Resigned Episcopal Bishop James A. Pike—who has helped create a “find your date by computer” service—will be honorary pastor at small, pacifist oriented Mount Hollywood Congregational Church in California, and preach at least four times a year.

A U. S. attorney charged Catholic Father Robert Niklibore, president of Boys Town of the Desert in Banning, California, with living a double life as a layman in nearby Palm Springs and failing to file taxes on $119,960 income over three years.

United Church of Christ minister Oscar Remick will be vice-president of Assumption College (Roman Catholic) in Worcester, Massachusetts. And the Milwaukee Catholic archdiocese named United Church layman Kenneth Burgess, Jr., 49, as it first full-time financial administrator.

The Rev. Ben Mohr Herbster, 64, said he will retire as president of the United Church of Christ in a year. His successor will be elected at the June General Synod in Boston.

Missing, since October 13: a single-engine plane in dense rainforest in the northern Congo. Aboard: Disciples of Christ missionaries Max L. Myers, a pilot, and Mrs. Harrison Goodall, a surgeon’s wife; and Mrs. Mary Hoyt, a Roman Catholic missionary nurse.

“If that isn’t exactly like Americans: they bring us to one of our own 900-year-old castles and involve us in something so futuristic that it seems like science fiction.” So remarked a German pastor at Schloss Mittersill, near Salzburg, Austria, during the three-day All-Europe Conference on Computer Technique for Theological Research (September 16–18), which brought together thirty-five stellar European theologians and Christian leaders to discuss the establishment of an international computer network to aid the Church’s apologetic task. The sponsoring organization was the Christian Research Institute of Wayne, New Jersey, which is at work activating the network in the United States and on the European continent. Walter R. Martin, the institute’s general director and a renowned authority on contemporary cults, flew to Mittersill for the conference, as did the undersigned, who is serving as executive director for CRI’s European operations.

Present at the fairy-tale castle in the Austrian alps—which inevitably reminds one of The Sound of Music and regularly resounds with hymnody now that it is owned by the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students—were such realistic persons as J. Levery, director of non-numerical research applications for Compagnie IBM France (Paris), and Monsieur Lellig, representing the Strasbourg agency of IBM. Strasbourg, the seat of the Council of Europe and the center of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School’s annual European Program at the University’s Protestant Theological Faculty, will serve as the site for the main European computer, containing the “apologetic memory” to which a network of “consoles” (terminal receivers) will be connected. These consoles, placed in Christian institutions across the continent, will offer immediate access to the central memory bank, containing evangelical apologetic resources, past and present.

In an exemplary address, simultaneously translated into German and English, M. Levery demonstrated the technical feasibility of such a project and provided valuable illustrations from analogous systems now in operation outside the theological field. So sophisticated is current computer technology that a student at the lycee or gymnasium level can type questions in ordinary language on his local console keyboard, and answers—or clarifying questions to him!—will flash almost instantaneously on the cathode screen of his receiver. With a print-out attachment, he can be the immediate recipient of a bibliography, a quotation, or extended passages dealing with his apologetic problem.

A plenary session was devoted to CRI Director Martin’s analysis of “The Needs of the Hour and the Aims of a Christian Computer System.” Martin described the effect of contemporary secularism on Christian testimony: “The spirit of secularism is an agnostic skepticism about almost everything that the Church of Jesus Christ has taught as Divine revelation. Indeed, the revolt against Heaven has in some areas even become a revolt against reason.” The bewildered Christian in such a milieu—in a Europe even more secularized than America—finds himself “shamed into silence by the almost deific pronouncements of professors who present only one side of the case and leave it to the student to ‘come to his own conclusions.’ ” Such a tragic imbalance will be overcome by the computer network, which will put at the believer’s disposal “the combined contributions of the great minds of the Church in all ages, augmented by the contributions of contemporary evangelical scholars.”

To tap the apologetic resources of the participants, intensive small-group meetings were held in Old Testament, New Testament, dogmatics, religion and science, and religion in contemporary society. In each group, efforts were made to explore (1) the fundamental non-Christian objections to the Christian world view in these areas, (2) the structure of informed Christian response, and (3) the most significant bibliographical resources for meeting the objections posed. The contributing presence of such men as the following established a uniformly high level of discussion: Professors Blocher and Külling of the Free Faculty of Evangelical Theology and Pastor Courthial of the Eglise Réformée (France); Dr. David Hedegaard of Sweden; Dr. Uuras Saarnivaara of Finland; Elio Milazzo of “Parole di Vita” (Italy); Dr. Wilhelm Oesch of the Lutherische Theologische Hochschule and Dr. Kurt Koch, world’s authority on the theological treatment of occult phenomena (Germany); President Kreiss of the Free Lutheran Church of France and Belgium; Dr. Harold J. Brown of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students and Professor Frank Horton of Institut Emmaus (Switzerland); Juan Gili and Angel Blanco of Spain’s Youth for Christ; Irving Hoffman of the North Africa Mission; George Clark of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association; and Messrs John Bolten, Sr. and Jr., of F.E.S., Christianity Today, and Schloss Mittersill.

Letters and telegrams of encouragement were received from distinguished invitees who were unable to attend: Dr. Heinrich Bornkamm of Heidelberg; Jean Cadier, dean of the Protestant Theological Faculty at Montpellier; Old Testament specialist Edmond Jacob of Strasbourg; Dr. Walter Künneth of Erlangen; Pierre Marcel, secretary general of the French Bible Society; David Mellon, dean of Fleming College and the Institute for European Affairs, Switzerland; Pastor Poetsch of the German “Lutheran Hour”; Dr. H. Rohrbach, rector of the University of Mainz; and Dr. Carl Fr. Wislöff of Norway.

In contrast, one respondent—who did not attend the conference—wrote that he could not support the project because (1) the computer memory “will very rapidly swallow up the human user, blocking his capacity for individual thinking”; (2) the system will encouage citing material out of context; and (3) automated apologetics will detract from a “living testimony of faith” and from “prophetic and apostolic confrontation.”

In a French-English lecture on “The Apologetic Application of the Computer System,” the undersigned dealt with these objections, pointing out that the computer revolution of the twentieth century has remarkable parallels with the introduction of printing from movable type in the fifteenth century, and that Christians are called to use intelligently the technology of our time for the spread of the unchanging Gospel.

The judgment of Servan-Schreiber, one of Europe’s foremost political and economic analysts, was underscored: “The arrival of the computer is the most important event of the twentieth century. Many people are afraid of the computer here, a Middle Ages conception. But it is only a servant of the human mind.” No one at the conference suffered from this irrational fear, however. The participants demonstrated once again the supreme relevance of an uncompromisingly biblical theology: its eagerness to bring all things, new and old, into captivity to the mind of Christ.

JOHN WARWICK MONTGOMERY

Many months ago former editor Carl F. H. Henry in conjunction with the Christian Medical Society arranged for a symposium on contraception and abortion. The symposium convened the last week of August in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, and included in its roster theologians, physicians, and sociologists who addressed themselves to the major questions and worked out, at least tentatively, some biblical and timely answers.

In this issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY we publish in condensed form some of the papers delivered at the symposium. None of the material is available for reprint without the permission of the Christian Medical Society. All of the papers as well as the Declaration (which we are also publishing) will under the imprint of Tyndale House Publishers, which has distributed millions of copies of Living Letters.

The readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY are urged to peruse the material thoughtfully and critically, and to regard the effort as an introductory rather than a final one. Because the issues are significant and the opinions varied, we expect to receive a heavy mail and we welcome all letters. Insofar as space permits we will share the reader response through the Letters to the Editor column. So, if you have anything to say, be sure to write—tersely and succinctly! appear in book form next spring

The plot thickened in the Lutheran love triangle last month.

The American Lutheran Church (ALC) met in Omaha and floated a fellowship bid down the Missouri River to St. Louis. Come July the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod will decide on its reply. The more conservative Missouri Synod’s vote on fellowship with the ALC is rated a toss-up by insiders.

The ALC also approved the same “pulpit and altar fellowship” (meaning legalized intercommunion and pulpit exchanges) with the Lutheran Church in America, third and largest of the major U. S. Lutheran groups. One wag said this just legitimized a common-law marriage.

The big three in Lutheranism have a total baptized membership of 8.7 million and with the Baptists form the major blocs outside the current talks toward a giant united Protestant church.

In a third action, the ALC expressed readiness to talk three-way organic union with Missouri and the LCA as soon as both are interested. By a close standing vote the 1,000 delegates (half clergy, half lay, nearly four-fifths Midwestern) rejected a motion to talk union with any interested Lutheran group. The motion’s meaning was clear: if Missouri wasn’t interested, the ALC would talk merger with the LCA. And if Missouri votes no in July, that could be just what happens.

Also involved in all this is the 21,500-member Synod of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, a Slovak-background group that is a satellite of Missouri Synod. The four groups compose the Lutheran Council in the United States.

Technically, ALC fellowship policies need approval of two-thirds of the delegates to next year’s district conventions. But passage—a foregone conclusion—will not be announced until Missouri votes.

The LCA meets in 1970 in Minneapolis, ALC headquarters town. While it has previously proclaimed open fellowship with other Lutherans, the ALC merger invitation will be new on the agenda.

New LCA President Robert Marshall told the Omaha convention, “We err when we allow differences of origin, geographical concentration, polity, or discipline to separate us indefinitely.… Either cooperation or union must join us as saints who rejoice in the same Triune God, the same revelation, and the same confession of faith. Either cooperation or union must serve to increase our unity; for while unity must exist before union, we know that unity also increases after union.”

The three denominations have engaged in exploratory talks for four years. A key breakthrough was Missouri’s entry into cooperative work through the Lutheran Council, despite its theological reservations about the other two groups.

The ALC convention postponed for two years a decision on whether to join the National Council of Churches. The NCC could use the boost, since the ALC is the only major non-member likely to join in the foreseeable future. But a motion for immediate NCC affiliation was withdrawn without even a floor test after President Fredrik Schiotz said the ALC is sharply divided on the issue. A delegate added that non-NCC member Missouri might also be offended. NCC opponents were spared embarrassment when a layman failed to introduce a motion against the NCC that rummaged through the Communism files of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

The ALC approved guidelines stating that relations with non-Lutherans and church councils must not violate “its confessional position regarding the primacy of the Gospel according to the Scriptures in all matters of faith and life,” and that the other bodies must “confess their faith in the Triune God.” The convention also expressed preference for the word “Christian” instead of “Catholic” in the Apostles’ Creed.

If Omaha will symbolize Lutheran unity in the future, it symbolizes Lutheran racial anxiety in the present. This was the city where the Rev. L. William Youngdahl tried two years ago to start a modest exchange series between his LCA parish and a Negro Presbyterian church. The idea met a wall of lay opposition, and Youngdahl left. But not before hand-held cameras had recorded the embarrassing saga for the award-winning film, A Time for Burning.

Youngdahl is now running the new urban-action program at the ALC’s Augustana College, Minneapolis. And the ALC used the Omaha meeting not only for rhetoric and resolutions but also for allocation of $511,552 for “national crisis” spending next year, plus $1,250,000 in reserves to be invested in black housing, banks, and business—all this despite a 5 per cent cutback in operating expenses this year because income isn’t matching the budget.

The delegates also:

• Deferred as too liberal a resolution supporting conscientious objection to particular wars.

• Deferred as too conservative a statement asking pastors to distinguish their church role from political stands.

• Joined “Project Equality” despite claims it constitutes a boycott.

• Declared opposition to interracial marriage has no Christian basis.

• Chose Dr. Kent Knutson, 44, as president of Wartburg Seminary in Iowa; the last seminary president to be elected in convention. Knutson has edited dialog, which reflects the ALC’s theological left.

A.L.C. Man To Watch

Don’t be surprised if 46-year-old activist David W. Preus is elected president of The American Lutheran Church two years from now.

At the ALC’s Omaha convention last month (see story above), Minneapolis pastor Preus upset by 476–458 incumbent William Larsen for the denominational vice-presidency. Larsen, 59-year-old executive secretary of the theological education board, was president of the former United Evangelical Lutheran Church and was elected secretary of the merged ALC when it formed in 1960.

ALC President Fredrik A. Schiotz, 67, must retire at the next convention because of statutory age requirements.

Preus, only parish clergyman in the seven-man Omaha runoff, has served a decade at a large church near the University of Minnesota, where he was a campus pastor for a year. The congregation has several black and Oriental families, and has managed to hold its own despite a neighborhood shift from residential to apartment-commercial, and a parish that mixes campus types with working-class residents.

Concerned to maintain school quality in the urban shift, a neighborhood council Preus headed decided to work to get him on the Minneapolis school board. He was appointed to a seat in January, 1965, and has been board chairman for a year and a half. In the post he has established a citywide reputation as a champion of racial justice.

Preus graduated from the ALC’s Luther Seminary and also studied a year at the University of Edinburgh and a summer at Union Seminary, New York. In addition he did a stint at the University of Minnesota Law School.

He has been chairman of the denomination’s youth board since the ALC formed in 1960, and once defended its staff when a publication was attacked as being too humanistic.

“Theologically, I like to think of myself as a confessional Lutheran,” says the suave, handsomely graying pastor, “and part of that confessionalism is a passionate social concern. It is an unfortunate notion that either you are confessional or you are a social activist.”

He thinks the three major U. S. Lutheran groups have the same theological “mix, in somewhat different degrees,” and would like to see them in a working unity, if not organic union. “With the kind of issues facing the Church today, it is tragic to knock heads over something like lodge membership,” he believes.

With the pressing “intra-Lutheran requirements,” he foresees no Lutheran role in the Consultation on Church Union. Preus says that “‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ does not require organic joining of machinery” but should mean acknowledgement of “my Christian brethren.”

Personally, Preus would like to see the ALC join the National Council of Churches, but he knows many disagree and thinks “it’s not an issue on which we should split the church.”

Preus, cousin of two well-known Missouri Synod theologians and nephew of a former Minnesota governor, is optimistic that the Missouri Synod Lutherans will approve fellowship with the ALC next July.

He also believes black and white Americans “will learn to live together” in the “long haul,” but in the short run, “I can’t imagine it being less tense.” With social change “causing all kinds of illness, anger, and frustration,” he believes “Christians must involve themselves in the gluing mechanism.”

From Caribbean To Arctic

Anglican churches from the “Caribbean to the Arctic Circle” moved toward deeper involvement with one another but shunned actual merger like a hot potato, as bishops of the United States and Canada met last month in Augusta, Georgia, for their first joint session.

The bishops supported formation of an “Anglican Council of North America,” to encompass churches in the United States, Canada, and the West Indies. The council, already approved by the U.S. and Canadian denominations, is on the agenda for the 1969 West Indies meeting.

The bishops hope the council will open channels for dialogue and sharing of common problems, and help the churches avoid costly duplication of services. Each member church and province will be represented on the council by seven persons.

The council is not hemisphere-wide, since Latin American nations are not included. Vice-President Stephen Bayne of the U.S. Episcopal Executive Council said cultural differences were partly to blame. Also, he said, the Latin Americans had not indicated a desire to join the council, as has the West Indies church, and the North Americans did not want to be “imperialistic.”

Many bishops felt that in light of Lambeth, talk of “merger” was redundant. There, the emphasis was on an Anglican Church already in union, though not organically. In fact, one purpose of the council, according to its constitution, is to give “expression to the existing unity of the church.”

“We don’t want to start merging among ourselves,” said Bishop Ned Cole of central New York. He feared these moves might endanger union across denominational lines. The Anglican Church in Canada is talking merger with the United Church of Canada. “We will no longer be just Anglican,” said Canadian Primate Howard Clark. And that, he added, might complicate mergers with other western hemisphere Anglican bodies. The Episcopal Church is involved in merger negotiations with eight U.S.-only denominations.

Renewal rather than new structure is more important to some. Said California Bishop C. Kilmer Myers: “I get turned off when we begin talking about union of WASP churches. I get turned on when we talk about renewal.”

WALLACE HENLEY

Baptists Talk Evangelism

Neither the new United States president nor more police power can solve world and domestic problems. Their solution requires Christ, declared black and white Baptist leaders as they rallied North American Baptists to their part in a mammoth evangelistic effort, the Crusade of the Americas.

“Christ—the Only Hope,” the crusade theme, dominated the Continental Congress on Evangelism, held in October to fire up 1,250 representatives of thirteen U.S. Baptist conventions for the movement. It aims to mobilize the 24 million Baptists in the western hemisphere for Christ.

“It doesn’t really matter who is elected President of the United States, for the problems of our world will not be solved by political process. We talk about more police authority and soldiers, but there is enough of that. Something is profoundly wrong in the hearts of the people,” Gardner C. Taylor of Brooklyn, immediate past president of the Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc., told 4,000 persons attending the congress’s main rally.

“Our only hope lies in [changing hearts by] preaching the Gospel,” said W. A. Criswell, president of the 11-million member Southern Baptist Convention.

Crusade President Rubens Lopez of Sao Paulo, Brazil, called it an “integration” as well as an evangelistic movement, uniting individuals, churches, races, nationalities, and Baptist conventions in Christ.

However, racial integration of the four-day congress in Washington, D.C. was noticeably scant. Wayne Dehoney, North American coordinator, said he was “plainly disappointed” that “extensive efforts” to gain black participation had brought at the most 100 delegates from the three major black Baptist conventions. The three groups had strongly endorsed the crusade, he said, but their loosely organized structures made it difficult for promotion from the top down to the local churches. Lack of travel funds was also a problem, he said.

Dehoney, of Louisville, Kentucky, said one of the largest black contingents came, surprisingly enough, from Mississippi, where white Baptists helped finance the trip for about forty Negro delegates.

The congress’s hard-sell on evangelism was, however, mottled with continual references to the church’s role in social causes. The first night C. E. Autrey, evangelism director of the Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, gave a rip-snorting blast at the Baptist press, accusing it of dividing the denomination through a socialistic emphasis.

“As the secular press is building socialism, so the Baptist press is trying to build a socialistic emphasis into the denomination.… Redemption comes first, all else is secondary.” Autrey said later that by “Baptist press” he meant “many of our publications, state papers, and magazines.”

But American Baptist Carl Tiller, a U.S. Budget Bureau official, took issue the same evening with those who label social involvement “Communist influence.” “Those who would stop the church from seeking to be relevant, are themselves taking a Communist path.… It is the policy of Communist governments everywhere to see that the churches … are irrelevant to the society in which they find themselves.”

The American Baptist Convention was the only major Baptist group whose national board did not endorse the Crusade, although many local ABC groups did. Tiller, former ABC president, urged ABC members to participate in the crusade.

Tiller and many other speakers, however, said the only solid base for social action is Christian conversion and conviction. They said the conflict between evangelism and social action is artificial.

All speakers appeared to agree that one “social action” imperative for all Baptists is to take their witness out of the pews and into the marketplace.

British Bible scholar George Beasley-Murray challenged Baptists to “be adventurous” and substitute traditional revivals with meetings in church members’ homes. Revivals are “fine for people with a religious background,” he said, but other methods are needed for those with “absolutely nothing-to revive.”

Taking the Gospel to urban ghettos and alienated young people received special attention in panel discussions.

“The question of the inner city ministry must be, ‘Are we going to get personally involved?’ We’ve got to bleed with them,” said Robert Tremain, a Worcester, Massachusetts, inner city pastor. “The people have been so exploited in the inner city and they are so suspicious that they do not trust anyone they do not know.”

Thirty per cent of this discussion’s participants indicated they thought the work of a professional social worker employed by a church was part of evangelism.

The Rev. Arthur Blessitt, flamboyant evangelist to youths on Hollywood’s Sunset Strip, told the convention to stop quibbling over evangelism and social action and get concerned about youth in trouble.

Blessitt, wearing a white clerical collar, black shirt, and “love” beads, said misuse of sex and drugs by young people today is really a misguided search for God. “Young people are searching for the truth, a deep spiritual experience, not a new Mustang or a bigger bank account. But they don’t know where to go.”

Blessitt said one of his biggest problems was getting churches to take in new converts from the Strip. “They are afraid the converts will contaminate their kids.”

He recommended twenty-four-hour ministries with pastors working in shifts. “Young people need to know where they can go for help.… We ought to at least have a place that stays open as long as the bars. Churches are made more for the convenience of church members these days.”

Baptist unease over their relation to secular life surfaced several months before the congress in controversy over a gospel march planned from the Capitol to the Washington Monument. The march was replaced with a rally when problems arose over obtaining a permit.

At the congress itself, six manifestos relating the Gospel to world problems also reflected this disquietude.

After giving distressed descriptions of such ills as racial strife, the population explosion, poverty, alcoholism, wars, and highway deaths, the manifestos hurriedly concluded that Christ is, indeed, the “Only Hope.” Only one statement said “the Gospel has deep social implications and … at times the church has failed to realize its obligation in this direction.”

One congress official said he was “disappointed” that the manifestos “didn’t really say much.” No votes were taken on the statements. They are not binding on the participating conventions.

BARBARA H. KUEHN

Business Men In Boston

It was a time of prayer and feasting as the Christian Business Men’s Committee International invaded a plush Boston hotel last month for its thirty-first annual convention.

The 930 delegates, representing a wide variety of vocations, rejoiced in their largest convention to date and stressed that they were meeting not for debating or for formulating resolutions but for fellowship and for reaching unsaved businessmen for Christ.

Plenary meetings and discussion groups explored aspects of the businessman’s life and of evangelism. International Chairman Ted DeMoss, a Chattanooga insurance executive, proposed that ashtrays be set out at CBMC banquets, known as “outreach meetings,” to help establish “conditions when men can listen to the Gospel with ears unstopped.”

Harvard University psychiatrist Armand Nicholi, leading one session, stressed that Christianity is not a crutch but strengthens a person in four areas necessary to emotional maturity: (1) the capacity to love another person and become aware of his or her needs; (2) a sound, consistent conscience with well-formed moral precepts; (3) a sense of personal identity and of how others feel; and (4) the realization that one will die, and a way of coping with this prospect.

The central concern of the gathering, however, was outreach. After an all-night prayer meeting at the beginning of the convention, delegates fanned out day by day to tell how they “found profit in more than just their business.”

About 3,000 men in forty-one civic clubs in the greater Boston area listened to CBMCers tell of finding new life in Christ and assurance of eternal life. Seventy-five area pulpits were occupied on Sunday by delegates who urged fellow laymen to witness.

Four or five outdoor meetings, led by Australia’s Open Air Campaigners, were held on working days at the Prudential Center and on Boston Common. Crowds of varying size and composition heard testimonies of businessmen and sermons whose points were driven home with practical illustrations of the triumphs of faith, such as D. L. Moody’s refutation of the atheism of Robert Ingersoll.

DeMoss was elected to a second term as chairman of the 15,000-member organization. The CBMCI has 700 chapters in forty countries and is strongest in the United States and Canada. International headquarters is at Glen Ellyn, Illinois, where the monthly magazine, Contact, consisting mainly of members’ testimonies, is published.

Definite results of the convention outreach were not made known. A spokesman would comment only that “we had a tremendous impact in many lives in Boston from businessmen to bellhops and waitresses, who will never be the same as the result of this convention.”

KENNETH CURTIS

Adventist Optimism

All the statistics were optimistic at last month’s biennial council of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Toronto, the first ever held outside the United States.

The record 1969 budget will be $47 million; world membership is 1,780,000; per-capita giving in North America is a remarkable $340.42 a year. The figures represented an increase of $2.2 million in budget, of 90,000 members in two years, and $12.60 in per-capita giving. Last year the SDA sent out 421 new overseas workers.

Southern Asia regional president Roscoe Lowry said nationals are taking over leadership of missions in India, since the country is tightening rules on entry permits. Three of the major SDA fields are now administered by nationals.

South American President Roger Wilcox said a new congregation is established every twenty-four hours in his region, and be hopes 1,000 new churches will start by December of 1969.

The Adventists voted a special November 30 offering for relief to Biafra, with an advance grant of $50,000 to be sent immediately. Returning Adventist medical missionary Sherman Nagel told Toronto reporters that he thinks Nigerian soldiers are deliberately slaughtering civilians in secessionist Biafra and have bombed clearly marked hospitals and churches.

Besides discussing foreign needs, the council passed a five-point program for inner-city domestic needs. Each major city is supposed to get a model health-and-welfare center with an integrated staff. Each of sixty conferences is asked to maintain emergency disaster vehicles and to hold education classes for preschool, school-age, and adult city residents. Last year the church spent more than $4.5 million in aid to disaster victims and other needy persons.

A Peea For Recognition

A group of autonomous churches that have their roots in the teachings of Alexander Campbell are seeking corporate (collective) recognition distinct from the Disciples of Christ, which reorganized into a full-fledged “church” last month (October 25 issue, page 41).

A twelve-man committee headed by the Rev. James DeForest Murch met in Cincinnati last month in behalf of what is termed “The Undenominational Fellowship of Christian Churches and the Churches of Christ.” Out of that meeting a letter took shape that was sent to the National Council of Churches’ Yearbook of American Churches, commonly regarded as the standard reference listing. The letter asked for a listing of 4,600 Christian congregations with a membership of 1,018,912 and a “located ministry” of 4,038. This compilation is based upon data compiled and published in the Directory of the Ministry, an annual published in Springfield, Illinois. All churches listed are said to have submitted written requests at one time or another to be included; this is an important point, because the Disciples of Christ with headquarters in Indianapolis has published a directory over which there has been much dispute.

It is understood that a few of the 4,600 churches in the Springfield directory are also being counted among the congregations claimed in Indianapolis. Neither group has made any inroads among the predominantly southern Churches of Christ, which have similar perspectives in doctrine and policy.

The Undenominational Fellowship in actuality represents the wing of the Campbellite movement served by the annual North American Christian Convention. There is no direct link, however, because the churches involved recognize no extra-congregational authority.

Out of the September 16 meeting came also a decision to seek membership in the Commission on Chaplains of the National Association of Evangelicals. The application will be considered by NAE directors next April.

East German Split Near

After twenty years of holding on to an illusion, an East-West split in the Evangelical Church in Germany seems inevitable.

For the first time last month, Western delegates held their synod in West Berlin without a simultaneous synod of delegates in East Berlin. During early years of this superorganization of independent Lutheran, Reformed, and United churches, delegates met together. Since the Berlin wall went up this has been made impossible by East Germany’s Ulbricht regime, so two meetings have been held at the same time with couriers going from one to the other to integrate decisions.

Last year the synods restated their wish to stay in one organization, but both got the right to make decisions for their own areas. Now it seems the East Germans have finally decided it will be better to form their own church. Ulbricht, who has forced the split, doesn’t like that solution either, because he would rather deal separately with weaker independent churches than with one strong organization. East German churchmen are still deliberating over the best course.

The West Germans have finally agreed to permit separation. Bishop Dietfelbinger of Munich, the moderator, opened the synod by saying “it is completely understandable that the East German churches want to decide for themselves what will be best for them.”

On other issues, the Western synod proved again that European church meetings can expect to be in for aggressive youth observers. As at Uppsala, and the Reformed Ecumenical Synod in Holland, so in Berlin young pastors and seminarians formed a “critical synod.”

They wanted a decision not to build any new churches for two years in order to give 5 per cent of income to aid young nations. Instead, the synod asked member churches to devote 2 per cent to world poverty, with an increase to 5 per cent by 1975. “Critical synod” members started to yell and unrolled placards with words like “hypocrites,” “mercenaries,” and “blind.”

On the same day a German judge ordered student rebel Fritz Teufel, 25, to prison for seven months for disrupting services last year in the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church.

JAN J. VAN CAPELLEVEEN

Perhaps the only major newspaper in the world to be mum on the marriage of Mrs. John F. Kennedy to Aristotle Onassis was the Vatican’s Osservatore Romano.

Its silence was the loudest announcement of church embarrassment over the marriage of Mrs. Kennedy, one of its most noted members and widow of the first Roman Catholic to be U. S. President, to a divorcé.

Mrs. Kennedy, now Mrs. Onassis, put the Catholic Church in a tight spot. Public pressures flared quickly for Vatican approval of the union. But that seemed just short of impossible. For the church to close its eyes to its ancient laws to accommodate one celebrity would both crack its credibility and open the way for many other Catholics to remarry.

If the public sought church approval, Mrs. Onassis apparently did not. She presumably knows well the intricacies of church marital laws, since her sister, Lee, obtained an annulment of her marriage to actor Michael Canfield from the Sacred Rota in Rome, to marry Prince Stanislaus Radziwell. Their mother is also divorced, and remarried a divorcé.

Vatican officials appeared at first to seek a way out, when they suggested that an annulment of Onassis’ first marriage by his Greek Orthodox Church might ease the predicament.

“The church would like to be in a position to show understanding,” a high Vatican source said.

One main problem: There is no such thing as annulment in the Greek church.

A later Vatican statement was more rigid. News agencies quoted Vatican spokesman Monsignor Fausto Valainc as saying: “Mrs. Kennedy is not a child and therefore she must know perfectly well what are the laws of her church. Therefore, if she is not a child and not out of her mind she must have known that she could not legally marry Mr. Onassis. It is clear that when a Catholic marries a divorced man she knowingly violates the law of the church. It is not a question of excommunication. It is what is termed in canon law an irregular situation.” He said Mrs. Onassis is now cut off from receiving the sacraments.

Whatever some churchmen thought, family intimate Richard Cardinal Cushing of Boston said he had known the marriage was planned for months and “I encouraged and helped her in every possible way.” He said in a speech, “This idea of saying she’s excommunicated, she’s a public sinner—what a lot of nonsense. Only God knows who is a sinner, who is not.”

Cushing also revealed he had been “contacted by many of those who are identified in high places with the administration of the late President Kennedy, and by others intimately related and associated with the Kennedy family to stop all this from taking place.”

A year ago Mrs. Kennedy’s marriage to a Greek Orthodox in a Greek ceremony would have been legally questionable in the Roman church. Since then the two bodies have agreed to recognize each other’s marriages, though not without reservations, as a result of ecumenical talks.

But in Catholic eyes, the former Mrs. Kennedy has committed adultery in marrying a man whose first wife is still alive, since the church holds that a valid marriage is virtually indissoluble, except by death.

Onassis married his first wife, the former Athina Livanos, after he had known her for three days, according to the Saturday Evening Post. He was 40 and she was 16, daughter of a multimillionaire Greek shipowner. She obtained a civil divorce from an Alabama court in 1960 on grounds of mental cruelty. Onassis’ cavorting with opera singer Maria Callas was said to be a major factor in the divorce. A Greek Orthodox court in New York recognized the civil divorce in 1961. The first Mrs. Onassis, since remarried, is now the Marchioness of Blandford, wife of the son and heir of the British Duke of Marlborough.

There is only one way the Roman church could declare Mrs. Kennedy’s marriage legal. The Roman Rota, the highest marriage tribunal, would have to study the reasons behind Onassis’ divorce, and conclude that the first marriage had been null and void from the beginning.

But the grounds for Catholic annulment are few, among them nonbaptism of one party, a prior marriage, intention by one partner not to have children, or proof that one party had never intended the marriage to be permanent. The last condition is probably the only one Onassis might try to qualify for. But, according to one canon-law expert, he would have to “prove through evidence of general conduct or statements he made before and during the first marriage that this [no intent for a permanent marriage] was his mentality from the beginning.”

It is highly questionable whether the dynamic, iron-willed Onassis and the former Mrs. Kennedy would care to subject themselves to the process. It seems logical, then, that she decided to enter the marriage no matter what the cost to her relations with the church.

Another interesting aspect: Greek Orthodox spokesmen said Mrs. Onassis would be required to sign a pledge that any children from the new marriage would be brought up in the Orthodox faith. This doesn’t directly affect Mrs. Onassis’ children, John and Caroline Kennedy, who are Roman Catholic. But the Roman church would normally require that Mrs. Onassis raise any new children as Catholics also.

Onassis is known not only for his charm with women but also for his fabulous, if sometimes murky, rise from rags to riches. His shipping firm’s ocean fleet, larger than some navies, is the basis of his wealth. The fleet is insured at $500 million. His firms, however, have been fined a total of $7 million for violation of U. S. shipping regulations. He is also one of the lowest-paying employers in the world maritime industry, giving wages about one-fourth those of U. S. shipowners.

One institution that appeared delighted with the marriage was the controversial Greek military regime. It apparently hoped, validly or not, that the marriage would be a boon to fractured U. S.-Greek relations.

God’S Smuggler

To most people behind the Iron Curtain he’s just a tourist who travels in a fast car by day and sleeps in a tent at night. To border guards and customs officials he has all the semblance of the elusive Pimpernel. To Christians in Communist lands he’s one of a small band working to supply Bibles in their languages, as well as tape recorders and cars.

But in England “Brother Andrew” is likely to become known as “God’s Smuggler”—a title he would never choose for himself, but one given to his first book, recently published in England.

In a London interview last month, the 40-year-old Dutch missionary told how he started as an independent evangelist in 1955. Now he has a staff limited to twelve and directs a work which goes under many names. He said he has worked in every Communist nation except North Korea and North Viet Nam, and goes to Cuba once a year for an evangelistic campaign. He has been in Czechoslovakia twice since the Soviet occupation and hopes to visit Viet Nam this month.

Besides preaching, his main task is providing Bibles, and how he does it remains a closely guarded secret. “I take up to 700 complete Bibles with me at a time, and not one page from them is ever seen by the officials,” he says.

He is known only by the pseudonym “Brother Andrew,” and contributions to his work go by that name to Bible Societies or to a post office box in Ermelo, the Netherlands.

He operates on the theory that a Christian should trust in the Lord to protect him, yet use every reasonable precaution. The Bible says it is not enough to love God with your heart alone, he reasons. “We must also use our minds and our common sense and not take needless risks.”

Tactics often change, since doors open and close quickly in Red lands. Poland doesn’t need smuggled Bibles because it has a flourishing Bible store, but it is short of material for children’s work.

Czechoslovakia permits 3,000 Slovak Bibles to be imported each year, but that many never arrive. In East Germany Bibles are printed and distributed openly, and the New English Bible has now been printed there with official permission.

A team of three—including 70-year-old Dutch woman evangelist Corrie Ten Boom—came out of the Soviet Union last month reporting a need not only for Bibles but also for typewriters and tape recorders. (Any Briton can legally send a car to the Soviet Union, and such vehicles meet a great church need).

Brother Andrew is a Baptist, but he experienced the new Pentecostalism many years ago: “The basis of Pentecostalism is that the power within us is greater than the power that is without us, and only this assurance has enabled me to go through so much enemy territory. If I had listened to the advice of Christian friends I would not have made one trip behind the Iron Curtain.

“So far as speaking in tongues is concerned, I use this gift in my personal praying rather than publicly, but I find it indispensable when crossing the border with Bibles.”

He says there is no competition with Eurovangelism, Operation Mobilization, and other groups taking Bibles behind the Iron Curtain. He himself is not looking for staff recruits, and refers potential volunteers to OM or Wycliffe Bible Translators, since translation is “the first essential.”

Brother Andrew says he always needs support, “but it must be given from the right motive. I do not accept funds from people who are only anti-Communist. I want support from people who are just pro-Jesus.”

J. ERIC MAYER

Ireland: Paisley’S Shabby Victory

Students of Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, are not normally given to mass demonstration. At present, however, they plan further protest marches calling for such things as a new voting system, a revised housing program, and a ban on job discrimination against Roman Catholics.

What lies behind it? Was one writer correct in saying the marches at Londonderry that turned violent began as a “peaceful demand by British citizens for rights enjoyed everywhere else in the United Kingdom”? There is strong evidence to support the statement.

What rights are claimed by Derry marchers and Belfast collegians? Derry provides probably the best illustration of all. In a population of around 60,000, 3 per cent are reported homeless, and more than one-fourth of the men are unemployed. The city is Unionist-controlled only because large numbers of the Roman Catholic majority are virtually disenfranchised through various devices. Ward boundaries have been manipulated to Unionist advantage. The dice are loaded against the young Roman Catholic couple seeking to set up a home, for a house means a vote—and who knows where that may lead? Some firms openly boast they have never employed a Roman Catholic.

These are the facts, whatever one thinks about alleged police violence, Irish Republican Army infiltration, or papist plots. They are facts, moreover, that should be clearly understood before anyone says a word about the Rev. Ian Paisley.

He is an extraordinary man, with two apparently different sides. There is the pastor who cares for his own large congregation as a faithful shepherd, whose words God has used to bring many to himself, and whose ministry in the homes of his people has brought blessing and comfort to the sick and the troubled.

But there is another Ian Paisley: the pied piper whose summons to rally round the Union Jack, spread like wildfire through certain areas of Belfast, can promptly bring forth a motley crew whose indignation is not notably righteous, whose language is assuredly not that of Zion, and whose need is to have the Gospel preached to them.

Disown the extremists as he might, Paisley does little to discourage them. He needs them. The end may be considered as justifying the means. So last month a police-permitted student march was swiftly countered by one called by Paisley for which no police sanction had been given. His supporters chanted, “You can’t take the Pill,” sang Orange songs, jeered, and taunted the students.

Let no one imagine this was in defense of Protestantism uncompromised. It was a threatening mob trying to intimidate a peaceful, non-religious, thoroughly justifiable demonstration.

The outcome is telling. When things might have become dangerously ugly had the students retaliated in kind, one of their leaders made an effective loudspeaker appeal: “If there is bloodshed in Belfast tonight, there will be a return to violence and pogrom all over Northern Ireland, and the responsibility will be ours. We have made our point. Let us now go home with a little dignity.”

And they did. The Rev. Paisley had won a shabby victory.

J. D. DOUGLAS

Sanctuary In The Sanctuary

The anti-war movement is taking sanctuary in the church.

In a series of actions centering in Boston, organizations opposed to the Viet Nam war have joined congregations to offer disaffected GIs the symbolic protection of church walls against federal arrest.

In the most dramatic incident so far, Army Private Raymond Kroll—backed by student supporters often numbering 1,000—held off police for five days at Marsh Chapel of the Boston University School of Theology (Methodist). Kroll, AWOL for more than a month, was taken into custody last month while several hundred students blocked the aisles in passive resistance.

In the weeks since this “bust,” radical students have been winning support for removing Army ROTC from campus. The only administration response has been creation of a study committee on the issue.

The sanctuary was staged by a group of anti-war seminarians in cooperation with the New England Resistance, a regional organization committed to anti-draft counseling and other protest activities and loosely affiliated with similar anti-war organizations across the country.

“The idea behind this form of protest,” explained Resistance staffer Joel Kuglemass, “is to reach people on the issue of the war who wouldn’t be drawn into traditional radical activity.”

The sanctuary tactic (which dates to early Greek history but is not recognized in Western law) was revived last May at Boston’s fashionable Arlington Street (Unitarian) Church. The same church had sponsored the 1967 draft-card burning ceremony which led to the controversial conspiracy conviction of Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin, Jr.

Since May, sanctuary has been extended to at least six soldiers on four occasions in Boston, as well as in several other cities.

The first campus sanctuary came in September at Harvard Divinity School. Besides poor planning, the event was marred when soldier Paul Olympia surrendered to military police on the second day, charging he had been “used” by organizers.

Olympia is known to have made a brief visit to Marsh Chapel moments before Viet Nam veteran Thomas Pratt, his good friend who was participating in Kroll’s sanctuary, surrendered himself and denounced his supporters. This led activists to suspect both were military “plants.”

In the face of controversy, the Boston University theology faculty, like the administration, has remained silently aloof, despite the fact that a majority of the teachers last year signed a petition supporting draft resistance.

Organizers believed last month they had found an effective way to refocus anti-war sentiment, which had dwindled since the start of the Paris peace talks. Their success seemed to assure repeat performances of the tactic-on and off campus-in sympathetic churches across the country.

WILLIAM D. FREELAND

A serious accident has taken place and a loved one, unconscious and bleeding, is rushed to the hospital and taken immediately to the operating room. After what seems like hours of agonized waiting the surgeon comes out, and you immediately ask the questions uppermost in your heart: “How is he?” “Is there hope?”

If the surgeon smiles as he comes to you and says, “Don’t worry; he’ll be all right,” what a relief! What a surge of joy and thankfulness!

As the word and assurance of the surgeon bring hope for the recovery of the injured one, so the Christian faith gives hope for eternity. Christianity is the religion of hope. Christ is the door of hope. To his bewildered and apprehensive disciples of an earlier day he spoke the word of hope; “I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also” (John 14:3b); and to his own of this generation he gives the same promise. But for some the time seems very long, the way very rough.

I have crossed the Pacific by boat several times. On every trip there were days of calm seas and clear skies. But sometimes the waves were high, and on occasion storms seemed to threaten the safety of the ship. Day after day we proceeded on course, with the horizons ever unattainably merging into new ones.

But inevitably the time came when a thrill of excitement ran through the passengers. Land had been sighted, and before long we would be safely in the harbor. All the time the captain and crew had known that beyond the horizon there was land and the desired haven, and the passengers had, by faith, shared in this hope. We read of our heavenly hope in the Book of Hebrews: “So that … we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us. We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf” (Heb. 6:18–20a).

What a glorious hope! The anchor of our souls safely fixed in the harbor, unseen but sure because Jesus himself has gone ahead for us.

In contrast, how vast is the hopelessness of the unbeliever! The Apostle Paul wrote the Christians in Ephesus: “Remember that you were … separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world” (Eph. 2:12). These same people, once hopeless, had found their hope in the One who died for them, so that Paul could say, “In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory” (Eph. 1:13, 14).

Today there is a grave danger in the organized church of dispensing entirely with the element of eternal hope by substituting humanism for Christianity, with a one-sided emphasis on man’s physical welfare and economic security. Important as these latter things are, they must not be given priority over the soul’s welfare and the eternal verities. Paul warns, “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” (1 Cor. 15:19, KJV).

Some years ago a man was crossing New York harbor on a ferry and, being interested in machinery, went down into the engine room. Everything was spotless, and the brass shone like a mirror. When he complimented the engineer for this, the engineer replied with a shining face, “I have a glory in my heart.” How few of us reflect the hope and glory of belonging to Christ by the way we look and the work we do!

There are many facets of Christian hope. In Hebrews it is spoken of variously as a “homeland,” “a better country,” a “heavenly” one, a city “God has prepared,” “a kingdom that cannot be shaken,” an “everlasting city,” “the city which is to come.” And Jesus implies that ours is a heavenly citizenship in the words, “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world” (John 17:16).

The Christian’s hope, far from excluding concern and compassion for the less fortunate, should produce not only love for his fellow men and concern for their material needs but also a strong desire that they might share the same precious hope that is his in Christ.

This hope resets on the sure foundation of the revelation God has given of his truth, his promises that cannot fail, his faithfulness and ability to fulfill what he has promised—all secured through the person and work of Jesus Christ.

It is a hope sustained by the faith that is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). It rests with an unswerving confidence in the fact that Christ has secured our future and that day by day all things are being fitted together for our good by a loving and sovereign God.

The Christian’s hope is nourished by the Scriptures. There he finds his faith strengthened by the assurance that “whatsoever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that by steadfastness and by the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). He is almost intoxicated with a godly optimism. Like David he can say, “Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil” (Ps. 23:4a).

By the Scriptures he is brought into a full assurance, so that he can say with Paul that he knows the Christ revealed there through personal experience and knows that Christ is able to keep everything committed to him “against that day.”

This hope also involves an expectation of the Lord’s return: “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ” (Titus 2:11–13).

This hope that sustained the early Christians is still our shining prospect. We know a better day is coming, a glorious day when Christ shall return, “coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matt. 24:30b).

Finally, the facts about our hope should be transmitted to our children—“that the next generation might know them, the children yet unborn, and arise and tell them to their children, so that they should set their hope in God, and not forget the works of God, but keep his commandments” (Ps. 78:6, 7).

How we of this generation are failing in this duty to our children! Little wonder that many are in revolt, disillusioned but desperately poor spiritually—all because they see no good end for the world. Much that we see in young people today stems from an utter hopelessness. They see so little in many Christians to commend the Gospel they profess.

Christianity is the religion of hope, and a joy to experience—for we belong to the Creator-Redeemer, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, now and forever.

L. NELSON BELL

That the New Left has selected the campus as a base for the disruption of society and a target for assault is not surprising. The halls of academe are peculiarly vulnerable because of the emphasis within the academic community on free discussion and on the relative immunity of the campus to the operations of law-enforcement agencies.

The deeper factors that have contributed to the student left remain largely concealed, partly because of the attention given by the news media to the surface phenomena of campus uprisings. The behavior of campus radicals seems to many to be mindless, irrational, and without rationale. Mindless and irrational it may be; without rationale it is not. Nor is it enough to attribute the behavior of academic militants to some vague feeling of alienation or of loss of individuality, though these do enter into the dynamics of the current wave of student rebellion.

But there is a very definite rationale, traceable to systematic and dogmatic indoctrination. The low-key social pessimism of the late C. Wright Mills does, we are persuaded, underlie much of the mentality of the campus left. Professing a commitment to reason and freedom, Mills nevertheless has sown down the academic world with views of society rooted in romanticism. His volume The Power Elite seems to many a visceral response to a frustrating experience. He holds that the power structure in our national life is an impenetrable and sinister force, completely out of reach of any influence by the citizenry.

Essential to this thesis is the view that the determining decisions in our nation are made by a three-headed “power elite”—the military, the business community, and government. He holds that big hierarchies keep the rank and file voiceless and helpless, while the elite are supported in their Kafkaesque remoteness by the glamor of the professional celebrities.

Mills’ assertion, further, is that “the American elite is composed not of representative men whose conduct and character constitute models for American imitation and aspiration” (p. 360) but of a “fraternity of the successful” whose characters are controversial and ambiguous and whose morals are only those of accomplishment. The end-result is that “the top of modern American society is increasingly unified, and often seems willfully co-ordinated: at the top there has emerged an elite of power. The middle levels are a drifting set of stalemated, balancing forces: the middle does not link the bottom with the top. The bottom of this society is politically fragmented, and even as a passive fact, increasingly powerless.…”

Mills’s vertical model for society furnishes the broad background for the ideology of the campus left. It is not surprising that if idealistic youth accept this thesis, they will be without appreciation of the positive values resident in our society. They are left as fair prey to ideologies of determinism and violence.

Such an ideology is to be found in the works of Herbert Marcuse, whose Reason and Revolution, a critique of Soviet Marxism, and Eros and Civilization have been overshadowed by the volume The One-Dimensional Man and his essay on “Repressive Tolerance” in the symposium A Critique of Pure Tolerance. His central contention in One-Dimensional Man is that today’s society is repressive and totalitarian using non-terroristic manipulation to subject the citizenry to a concealed type of regimentation. The instrument for this is, of course, “vested interests.”

He asserts that in “one-dimensional thought” discourse is corrupted and technological rationality becomes a tool for crass political oppression. Affluence is held to produce a type of public euphoria, inuring the members of the “free” society to its own lack of freedom and to the iniquities his nation perpetrates abroad.

If this volume articulates a sophisticated cynicism, his third lecture in A Critique of Pure Tolerance removes the fur glove from the mailed fist. While in other contexts Marcuse is critical of totalitarianism in the Soviet Union, in “Repressive Tolerance” he takes his stand with the most blatant forms of repressive authoritarianism. The public, he holds, must have access only to “authentic information”; “liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right, and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion of propaganda, of deed as well as of word” (p. 109).

If the terms “left” and “right” were transposed, this speech would sound appropriate in the mouth of Joseph Goebbels.

Contending that our society is in a kind of state of fascist “war,” Marcuse develops the authoritarian dictum that “… true pacification requires the withdrawal of tolerance before the deed, at the stage of the communication in word, print, and picture. Such extreme suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly is indeed justified only if the whole of society is in extreme danger. I maintain that our society is in such an emergency situation, and that it has become the normal state of affairs” (pp. 109 f.).

It requires little imagination to understand why campus militants act in a manner almost identical to that of the “bully boys” of Hitler’s Third Reich. The bullhorn is the real symbol and common denominator of campus radicalism. The shouting down of those who attempt rational discourse, the wresting of microphones from speakers, the manhandling of those expressing contrary views (however well structured these views may be), and the prevention of great universities from conferring degrees upon eminent public servants—these are not incidental and spontaneous events. Rather, they spring from a deliberately articulated philosophy of cynical intolerance—an intolerance that dialectically sports itself as tolerance.

The irrational inherent in Marcuse’s dialectic of tolerance is reflected in the nihilism and the romanticism of the adherents of the New Left. Having had no experience with such a phenomenon as the Great Depression, and having only the most superficial view of the magnitude of the task of making even gradual changes in the vast economy of a land like ours, they mouth endlessly the slogans of “destroying this rotten order” and of “cleaning up the mess the older generation has left.” Theirs is a bland assumption that there is a law of Phoenix-regeneration by which new and viable order rises out of chaos.

Ultimately, of course, the campus left has a blind faith that the overthrow of existing society and its institutions will lead quite naturally to a liberation of the individual from the restraints a supposedly “irrationally rational” society has imposed upon them and quite easily to a new form of society structured along lines of “participatory democracy.” Some theoreticians, of course, are less naïve. They are the exponents of the leftist eliteism, who are confident that when they can humiliate and destroy the American nation, they will be the architects of a new order.

Students will do well to ponder carefully the doctrine of “Phases of the Revolution” and to be reminded that “student power” has no intention of granting permanent power to the rank and file of students. Rather, the elite will use the unsuspecting majority for the attainment of revolutionary ends, and then “rub them out,” or at least dominate them in the same manner that they now dominate student governments and twist student journals to their purpose.

Every totalitarianism must have its foe, its “enemies.” Marcuse demands a double standard of tolerance, a double standard of expression, a double standard of violence. For any “reactionary” (read conservative) force there must be radically unequal treatment. And any opposition to the Left must be identified with Fascism or Nazism. (The title “National Socialism” must not be used, for it too clearly identifies the socialist component of Nazism.)

Today must, according to Marcuse, be called a “post-fascist period.” Here, in spite of his critiques of Sovietism, he shows the same authoritarian and haughtily totalitarian mentality that has marked the fascisms of this century, be they brown, red or black. The major appeals to prejudice, to irrationalism, and to repressive action are there—and the sheep continue to hear his voice.

Recalling A ‘Campaign Promise’

When Dr. Arthur S. Flemming took on the presidency of the National Council of Churches he vowed to make evangelistic emphasis a major characteristic of his term of office. That was two years ago, and the pledge has yet to be fulfilled. The National Council has shown no signs of an evangelistic awakening.

Dr. Flemming is an able leader reasonably capable of instituting the program he promised. Christians across the United States should urge him to get on with the task in the year left to him as president.

Dubious Means For Dubious Ends

The religious liberals’ romance with ecumenism seems to have been giving way to an affair with social activism. They still carry the torch for inclusiveness, but the glow has diminished. Their new flame is the principle that God is (only?) where the action is, and they fail to see enough action at 475 Riverside Drive or 150 Route de Ferney.

The shift of the ecclesiastical dynamic from ecumenism to activism has become so pronounced that so-called New Breed clergy are achieving instant greatness in mass media. They are the ones who see the ultimate in “moral action” in resisting the draft or getting arrested for an anti-war demonstration.

In the case of parish ministers, such acts understandably arouse the ire of the local laity who pay their salaries. Resulting tension alienates many, but this only serves to contribute to the heroic image. The pastor performs the supreme sacrifice when he is obliged to resign because of his “courage.”

To the extent that today’s activist clergy represent genuine compassion, they constitute a welcome corrective to the creeping institutionalism that infected the church in the decade following World War II. What is appalling is that their confrontations are confined to a few supposed evils over which equally earnest Christians differ, while trends which are clearly unbiblical go unchallenged.

Even more distressing is the activists’ tendency to regard social reform as the end-all of the Christian faith. Religion by definition has a basis infinitely more profound. Christ died to redeem from sin those who trust him. Compassion can and should be the product of spiritual rebirth, not the means to it.

Mrs. Aristotle Onassis

The marriage of Jacqueline Kennedy to Aristotle Onassis has rubbed many people the wrong way. Surely there is reason to wonder why she chose for a husband a man who has been party to the violation of one of life’s most sacred vows. It is hard to see how this marriage could set a good example at a time when the home, the basic unit of society, is crumbling rapidly.

Of all people Mrs. Onassis must have an awareness of human depravity, shown so graphically by the assassination of her first husband and of her brother-in-law. We hope and pray that she will reorder her life in a biblical perspective and that out of her past grief will emerge a desire to use the Onassis means and influence for spiritually beneficial ends.

Outer Space And Inner City

The world saw on Tuesday, October 22, a striking example of man’s ingenuity as Apollo 7 splashed down safely after a 4,500,000-mile space trip marred by little more than head colds and arguments with ground controllers. The nation’s largest city, meanwhile, faced a massive paralysis brought on by striking teachers and balky police, firemen, and garbage collectors. The moon seems in reach, but big-city traffic crawls along at a pace below that of horse-and-buggy days. This disparity between advance in space and retrogression on terra firma speaks eloquently of the unruliness of man’s nature, which keeps him from solving his problems even though he has the capacity.

The National ******** Reporter

Charles Helmsing, Roman Catholic bishop of Kansas City, Missouri, has turned upon a remarkable weekly newspaper that he helped start. The advent of the National Catholic Reporter in 1964 as an offshoot of his diocesan paper remains the most important development in Catholic journalism in this country. Now Helmsing charges that the Reporter is downgrading such things as Pope Paul’s recent traditionalist “Credo,” and such beliefs as papal primacy and the perpetual virginity of the Virgin Mary. He threatens excommunication of the culprits under Canon 1325, which states that any church member who “obstinately denies or doubts any of the truths proposed for belief by the divine and Catholic faith is a heretic.”

In a statement sent to the nation’s bishops, Helmsing says the least the Reporter could do is drop “Catholic” from its name. He is saying, then, that “Catholic” is a word that belongs exclusively to his church and that those who use it must submit themselves and their views to the control of the Pope and the hierarchy.

To a point, the bishop can indeed wonder whether the Reporter is “Catholic,” in the traditional understanding of that term. It has crusaded quite openly against distinctive Roman Catholic dogma, and its interpretation of the Kingdom of God can be quite secular, temporal. But we are happy that it feels free to express its opinions and—most important—to report the news, even though it is often slanted toward Catholic liberalism. The founders were wise enough to set up a publication independent of hierarchy control; this seems to be an important factor in religious journalism, Catholic or Protestant. The result is that anybody who desires to follow the fast-moving Catholic scene must read the Reporter. We do.

Conviction Of The ‘Catonsville Nine’

The appeal made by the Catonsville Nine at their recent trial in Baltimore is a far cry from the attitude expressed by the Apostle Paul when he stood on trial before Festus (Acts 25). The Nine, a group of Roman Catholic pacifists, were found guilty of destroying government property in the burning of Selective Service records last May. By their own admission there was absolutely no question of their guilt; but in their defense they claimed that they should be judged on the basis of their motives, not on the basis of acts done. They asserted that they acted in conscience against evil; in their view the war in Viet Nam is immoral and illegal.

By way of contrast, when the Apostle Paul was confronted with the possibility that he had disobeyed civil authority, he was ready to take whatever punishment was prescribed—“If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die.” This attitude was certainly not reflected in the defense of the Catonsville Nine. They had no right to expect the laws of the land to be set aside because they did not approve of the action of the government.

New Patterns For The Lord’S Day

New patterns for the Christian use of Sunday emerged at the Consultation on the Lord’s Day in Contemporary Culture which met at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, October 7–9 in connection with the 80th anniversary of the Lord’s Day Alliance in the United States. The eighty-three participants, churchmen and leaders in business and professional life, came from eighteen states and twenty-one denominations.

The discussion revealed a shift from the legalism of a former time to the openness and liberty in the use of the Lord’s Day reflected in the New Testament. There was candid recognition that stimulation of voluntary observance of the day should replace endeavors to initiate new Sunday legislation. While the consultation reached no formal consensus, its mood seemed to favor a much freer celebration of the day commemorating Christ’s resurrection than that sanctioned by former generations of American Protestants.

The Lord’s Day Alliance deserves commendation for listening to its friends who took part in this consultation. Many things—the mass media, entertainment and sports, weekend travel, business as usual in stores and markets—are competing with the centrality of Sunday worship. Thus the Alliance is wise to study its position in the light of Christian liberty under grace while at the same time holding fast the special character of the Lord’s Day.

Amid a prevalent secularism, Christians cannot afford to let slip their basic obligation of corporate worship on the first day of the week. If the church ever becomes unfaithful to this obligation, its life will be jeopardized. Although for Christians every day must indeed be the Lord’s, the assembling of the body of Christ for public worship on Sunday was never more essential as a witness and source of spiritual strength than now.

But even among many who do gather faithfully for Sunday worship there is a disturbing pattern. They seem to feel that as long as they spend that hour or so in church they are then obliged to run themselves ragged the remainder of the day. Lord’s Day observance as a set of restrictions finds no basis in the New Testament. But the trend in our day is the other way. The drift is toward license rather than toward legalism, a fact easily confirmed by the washed-out weekenders who limp to their labors each Monday morning.

God set apart a day at creation. Jesus perpetuated this institution when he said that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. Whatever else it may or may not mean, the statement strongly suggests that a divinely proclaimed day of rest has continuing validity—for man’s own good.

Sunday is not only an observance, but an opportunity. When Christians fail to use it for spiritual, mental, and physical renewal they are perverting the purpose of Almighty God.

No Changes In Hollywood

The self-imposed rating system recently announced by the motion picture industry has met with widespread approval. Confronted with increasing pressure for formal governmental controls, the Motion Picture Association of America, supported by the National Association of Theater Owners and the International Film Importers and Distributors of America, revealed plans to begin rating films with respect to their suitability for young people. The system will divide pictures into four categories—G for general audiences, M for mature audiences, R for audiences in which children under sixteen must be accompanied by a parent or guardian, and X for audiences from which those under sixteen are barred. This new venture is a step in the right direction; however, it will not effectively deal with the problem of Hollywood’s increasing exploitations of sex and violence.

Two things can be said in favor of the new rating system. Any attempt to protect the young and impressionable from the objectionable subject matter of many current films is to be commended. Also on the credit side of the ledger is the likelihood that this voluntary move has greatly reduced the dangerous possibility of government censorship, a measure that even the strongest critics of Hollywood have cause to fear.

But these advantages come mixed with possibilities which may be cause for alarm. It remains to be seen whether this is a genuine move to protect the moral environment of our younger citizens or a reluctant maneuver which will eventually lead to an even greater degree of appeal to prurient interests in film production.

Even though it is doubtful that this system will result in an improved moral standard in the movies, not all the blame can be laid at Hollywood’s doorstep. The general public in its response to the current crop of pictures must share the responsibility. Sex and violence sell tickets, and Hollywood keeps a sharp eye on the box office. Sick movies reflect a moral disease within society, and no code can begin to deal with this problem. Unregenerate men cannot be expected to be concerned about the will of God in matters of morals. Only as our society has felt the transforming power of the Gospel of Christ will there be a solution to the problem of moral flabbiness.

The Nature Of Faith

Ours is an age of unreason, of subjective fancy, and of intuitional response. Frequently we wonder how many people know what is meant by the words, “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” Is faith subjective, irrational, or simply intuitional? Indeed, what is faith, and how do you get it?

Faith in the biblical sense is three dimensional; if any one of the elements is missing, the remainder is not biblical or saving faith.

The first element of true faith is knowledge. No one has ever been regenerated in an intellectual vacuum. Knowledge in itself will not save you. But neither can you be saved without knowledge. The indispensable knowledge essential to saving faith is the knowledge that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for your sins and rose again for your justification. There are many other important theological truths to believe, but knowledge of this one is the bare minimum for salvation.

The second facet of faith is intellectual or mental assent to this knowledge. You must accept the knowledge you have received as either true or false. When someone says the traffic light is red, your mind agrees with the statement or rejects it. So with the death of Jesus Christ for your sins. Either you “believe” that Christ died for your sins or you don’t. But to believe that Christ died for your sins is not to be saved. Indeed in Scripture we are told that the demons “believe” that Christ is God but they are not saved. What essential element is still missing?

The third element of faith is personal appropriation. What you believe in your mind must be laid hold of by your will, by a volitional act, a choice. You may believe that Uncle Sam will deliver the mail you deposit in the comer box. But if you don’t act on that knowledge and put the letter in the box, it will not be delivered. So with Jesus Christ. You must not only believe that he died for your sins. You must act upon that knowledge and by choice lay hold of or receive Him as your Saviour. Whether you are a Calvinist who holds to predestination or an Arminian who believes in free choice makes no material difference.

Faith, to be faith, must include all three of the elements. And for those who ask the question, “How do I get faith,” the answer comes back from Scripture, “Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.”

Empirical Religion

Experience and God, by John E. Smith (Oxford, 1968, 209 pp., $4.75) is reviewed by Gordon H. Clark, professor of philosophy, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana.

In the first, the shorter, the basic, and therefore the more important part of this book, the author, John E. Smith, defends the philosophy of empiricism so that in the second and much longer part he can construct an empirical religion and theology.

In defense of empiricism Smith fulminates against restricting experience to sensation and in particular against the subjective idealism that results from such restriction. Experience is encounter; it is objective, not subjective, a critical product of the intersection between reality and a self-conscious being. Experience does not reside uniquely in the person who has it. Indeed, experience is not mental at all; it has a social character. “The experience of being a self distinct from a world of events and other selves is itself an event, and one that is usually accompanied by a shock.”

I myself cannot recall any such shock. I seem always to have realized that I was not the little boy who lived next door. Perhaps before this is pronounced unusual, a poll should be taken. I remember being hit by a baseball bat at an early age, as the batter slung it aside and ran for first. The game no doubt was a social situation, but the hurt and bruise were private and individual. So, too, when smallpox may have threatened, the doctor vaccinated me, the individual; he did not vaccinate the social situation.

Then, again, even if experience is an encounter with reality, there is no guarantee that this encounter gives more accurate information than the subjective idealist would allow it. My own encounter with allegedly objective roll mops led me to contradict violently the predications some of my friends made.

This highlights the first gap in Smith’s formulation. There is no continuity between his poorly defined “experience” and his assertion of a religious reality. To obscure the gap, he momentarily reduces “God” to “religious object,” for the latter is so vague that maybe it could be reached from some equally vague “experience.” But the gap cannot be hidden, for when he needs some “religion,” he has a revert to the terms “God,” “holy,” and “religious dimension.” If these terms were clearly defined, the gap would be painfully obvious; yet vague as they remain, the author shows no derivation from experience.

Instead of justifying them, Smith asserts, reiterates, and begs the question. For example, “To ignore the religious dimension of experience in favor of a wholly dogmatic approach to God through revelation is an error.” Is it? Could not dogmatic revelation itself be the religious dimension of experience? “The attempt to present God as a being who breaks into the world and human life entirely ab extra through sheer self-disclosure must always fail to convey to the would-be believer a proper understanding of his belief.” Would Abraham agree to this? If the author believes that Abraham was deceived or lacked proper understanding, something more is needed beyond the simple statement that this “is an error.”

There is a second gap, this time one that the author acknowledges. It is impossible to derive any positive religion from the “religious dimension of experience.” This leaves unsupported, not so much his denial that Christianity is final and exhaustive, as his assertion that Buddhism and Hinduism contain true revelations from God. One would like to see a detailed, step-by-step account of how experience justifies this or that truth in Hinduism. If the alleged truth is definite, even the author admits the gap; but if the truth is vague enough to be found in some form in all three religions, then “God” is the common characteristic of Jehovah, Shiva, and Nirvana; and this is nothing at all. These considerations ruin some twenty pages of non-Chalcedonian Christology, as well as the assumptions underlying a discussion of the Book of Job.

So far as I can see, the best Smith does with this situation is to appeal to a “living reason” that depends on “convincing” conversation, which by the canons of logic is fallacious (chapter 4). Such fallacious “living reason” can “develop the content of experience” in any direction one wishes. Christianity—whether it be liberal or orthodox—Buddhism, and Hinduism follow equally well.

First Corinthians Rediscovered

The First Epistle to the Corinthians, by C. K. Barrett (Harper, 1968, 410 pp., $8), is reviewed by G. Coleman Luck, chairman, Department of Theology, Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, Illinois.

First Corinthians is the longest of all the New Testament epistles, and in content it is fascinating and relevant to our day. Yet it is almost a lost book, according to the distinguished professor of divinity at the University of Durham (England). Indeed, Professor Barrett feels that the Gospel itself is in the same class. In a brief preface he expresses his belief that “the church in our generation needs to rediscover the Apostolic Gospel; and for this it needs the Epistle to the Romans. It needs also to rediscover the relation between this Gospel and its order, discipline, worship, and ethics; and for this it needs the First Epistle to the Corinthians.” The dust jacket of this new addition to “Harper’s New Testament Commentaries” proclaims that this volume itself represents such a discovery.

The epistle deals with various problems the Corinthian assembly faced. Since these were largely of conduct rather than doctrine, the main thrust is practical. However, as Barrett says, “the practical advice is consciously grounded in theological principles which can usually be detected.” After a brief, readable introduction and an unimpressive outline, he provides a careful exposition, covering every verse to some extent. The work is scholarly, yet not pedantic. There are numerous references to Greek words (with a useful index of them at the close); yet these are not conspicuous enough to hinder the reader unacquainted with that language. Barrett quite often refers to views of other expositors (mostly modern and liberal), both to agree and to disagree.

The greater part of what he writes is edifying, and he sometimes expresses important biblical truths in a thrilling way. One sample:

Paul must have known that he could not surpass or even equal the Greek world in its own kind of eloquence and wisdom, and like wise Christian preachers in every age he focused his attention upon the one theme the world did not share with him. Of all the epistles, those to the Corinthians are most full of Christian paradox—of strength that is made perfect in weakness, of poor men who make many rich, of married men who are as if they had no wives, of those who have nothing but possess all things, who are the scum of the earth but lead it to salvation, who die and yet live; and the heart of the paradox is the preaching of the feeble and stupid message of the crucified Christ, which nevertheless proves to have a power and wisdom no human eloquence possesses, since it is the power and wisdom of God himself.

But although Professor Barrett seems to hold to many of the great doctrines of the faith, he clearly is far from believing in the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture. In fact, his conception of inspiration is rather loose. He confuses it with illumination—we are “inspired to understand” things. He seems to consider any kind of divine empowering or manifestation to be inspiration. He concedes that the great inspiration text of 2:13 may refer to the apostles, but “more probably” it merely means that all mature Christians talk about deep spiritual truths as “prompted by the Spirit.” He expresses doubts about the historicity of statements in the Book of Acts and in the Synoptic Gospels. This is probably why he thinks First and Second Corinthians “constitute perhaps the most valuable of all the documents available to the historian of the apostolic age.”

As for Paul himself, though Barrett concludes that he probably wrote the letter straight through as it now stands, yet he concedes that part of chapter 14 may be the work of a “Deutero-Pauline writer,” and plainly states that First Timothy is such. Paul is said to be sometimes “not wholly consistent,” to give wrong numbers probably from a memory lapse, to hold “substantially Gnostic opinions,” to use physiology that “may or may not be correct,” to have reworked an “existing apocalypse” in a large portion of chapter 15.

Barrett claims that the Apostle thought he was living in the “last days,” and that he was positive he would live to see the actual return of Christ. This view is based on Paul’s use of such expressions as “we shall be changed.” In Second Corinthians 5:1 Paul uses the first person plural when speaking of the prospect of physical death. Instead of understanding that by “we” the Apostle merely mean any and all Christians to whom the teaching might apply, Barrett argues that Paul at first was sure he would live to see the second coming, but later found “death nearer” and therefore probably changed his “perspective” in Second Corinthians.

Many times Barrett speaks of the redeeming work of Christ in the highest terms. In the incarnation and especially the crucifixion, he says, God did for man what man couldn’t do for himself. Christ offered himself for his people; he bought us at the cost of his life; for his sake men are freed from guilt; the righteousness of Christ is given to believers; our sins are forgiven because of the shedding of his blood. Nevertheless, the “primitive proclamation” simply affirmed that his death was “in order to deal with our sins” without explaining the exact way this dealing was accomplished. Salvation is a gift and cannot be earned, we are rightly told on one page; yet later we read that “the law was … able to keep a well-intentioned man in the way of life.” Perhaps Paul isn’t the only one who is sometimes “inconsistent.”

Barrett believes that a saved person can lose his salvation—this could even have happened to Paul himself, he says. The resurrection of Christ is said to be historical “only to a limited extent”; it cannot be proved or disproved by historical evidence. The accounts of the post-resurrection appearances prove only that certain people thought they saw Jesus. “If Paul used them as such a proof [i.e., of the Christian doctrine of the resurrection], he was for the moment losing his grip on his own subject matter and line of argument.” Paul also, according to Barrett, may have been a universalist. God’s final judgment of those outside the Church “may indeed bring to the orthodox Christian a number of surprises.” May I be permitted to respond that it may also bring a number of surprises to the unorthodox Christian.

There are still other points in the book to which I take exception. Yet despite all these strictures, I still can say that I found much positive teaching of real value, and I recommend the book to the reader who can use it with discernment.

Dusting Off Pelagius

Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals by Robert F. Evans (Seabury, 1968, 171 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Robert D. Knudsen, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

A scholarly book on a British monk of the fifth century who became famous because he was attacked as an heretic by the church father Augustine is not likely to become a best-selling paperback. That is even more true of a book that is a series of historical essays aiming to extricate their subject from a heap of criticism. As the subtitle suggests, this book aims to place Pelagius in what the author feels is a more exact historical perspective, which means that many of the criticisms of him will have to be revised. The book’s scholarly sifting of the evidence in defense of this position will make it tough sledding for the average reader. It will have to be judged not by its popular appeal but by the historical accuracy of the image it projects of Pelagius and the adequacy of its evaluation.

The author introduces his subject by describing Pelagius’s relationship to Jerome and to Augustine. Pelagius’s views, he says, took shape in reaction to teachings of Jerome centering on the possibility of Christian perfection. Jerome held that sin was a necessary aspect of human bodily existence. Pelagius argued, on the contrary, that the Christian could live without sin. The law does not require of man what he cannot attain by his natural powers with the aid of divine grace. After reading a treatise of Pelagius on Christian perfection, Augustine began to attack him for having abandoned the foundations of the Catholic doctrine of grace. This attack, Evans claims, was for the most part unjustified. Pelagius desired to uphold the received doctrine. In his attack Augustine even forgot that he himself had once held some of the views he was attacking in Pelagius.

The last chapter, which is a statement of Pelagius’s position, is the easiest one to read. It is also one of the most revealing. Pelagius’s claim that the Christian could attain perfection was based on the adjustment of the demands of God’s law to human capabilities. Further, he believed that the resources for this perfection lay within man himself. Indeed, Pelagius thought that the law was evangelical, that it itself was a manifestation of grace. But for Pelagius this was true only in the sense that the law acts as an abrasive that scours off the surface of man’s life, tarnished by sinful habits, and reveals to man the possibilities that reside within himself as a rational creature.

Evans tries to rescue Pelagius from the attacks of Augustine. A close reading of his last chapter, however, ought to convince the discerning reader that Augustine was justified in rescuing the Church from Pelagius.

Jewish Initiative

The Jew in American Politics, by Nathaniel Weyl (Arlington House, 1968, 375 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Ludwig R. M. Dewitz, associate professor of Old Testament language, literature, and exegesis, Columbia Theological Seminary, Decatur, Georgia.

This informative and stimulating book adds one more variation to the theme that the Jews happen to be different Hegel found it to be so, as did Toynbee, and so does Nathaniel Weyl.

Sociological logic suggests that Jews in America would be found in the conservative political camp, says Weyl; but the strange fact emerges that they are more dominant in the liberal-radical sector. In seeking to explain this, he takes the reader back into American history, over to Russia, to Israel, and into the modern civil-rights movement. His ample statistics show that the Jews in America are an intellectual, progressive, elite group, but that their enemies are not those who are in competition with them (i.e., elite Gentiles) but rural or low-income groups who, as such, have little direct contact with Jews.

Understandably, minority problems come to the fore in this book about American Jews. Weyl criticizes modern trends that aim at “egalitarianism” without due respect for the initiative of the “uncommon man.” He wants the Negro to have every opportunity to help him progress but emphasizes that “privileges entail duties” and that “men are not entitled to equality, but to the far more precious gift of equality of opportunity.” He fears that Jews are going too far in their espousal of the Negro cause, not realizing that account must be taken of intellectual and social potential. At this point he seems to imply that Negro potential is below par and that this should be recognized. He puts into the mouths of an older generation of American liberals these words: “Yes, it is wrong if he is held down by lack of equal opportunity. But if he is at the bottom because he is the least intelligent, the least productive and the least creative component of the population, then the bottom is where he belongs. And there is no point in being sentimental and saying that society should not have a bottom. For unless there is a bottom, there cannot be a top.”

Certain random observations that Weyl makes are of special interest to the Christian. Some paragraphs on Jews and Puritans discuss their affinities. Both tend to prefer Old Testament names (to contrast with Roman Catholics). The Puritan elder, “like the rabbi, laid no claim to supernatural authority, but qualified for his vocation through piety, wisdom and Biblical learning. Like the rabbi, he was consulted on all political and juridical issues.”

In his chapter on “Church and State” Weyl is critical of Jews who are over-aggressive in their desire to banish from the public schools anything and everything associated with religion. He prefers the view of those Jews who realize that diversity, not uniformity, is desirable; this would allow for more permissiveness also in the practical application of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Weyl has given us a thought-provoking, well-written book.

Mapping The Bible

The Macmillan Bible Atlas, by Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah (Macmillan, 1968, 173 pp., $14.95), is reviewed by Carl E. DeVries, research assistant, The Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.

Of the many Bible atlases that have appeared in the last decade or so, this one deserves particular commendation. By using many more maps than are ordinarily found in a Bible atlas—about 260—the authors have been able to show the geographic details of many Bible events. Maps of battles show the position and movements of opposing forces. An abundance of maps illustrate events and situations on the periphery of the biblical scene that influenced some facets of biblical life. These maps increase our understanding of the history and culture underlying the Bible. There are economic maps that show the sources of important raw materials, manufacturing centers, and trade routes. A number of maps have to do with the intertestamental period and with Judaism during the early days of Christianity. Often the maps are accompanied by translations from ancient sources and by references to primary source materials. Drawings of archaeological objects, reliefs, inscriptions, and so on, a detailed chronology, and a comprehensive index increase the usefulness of the volume.

As the authors note in the preface, making a map commits one to putting down definite boundary lines, even when their actual location is not known. (Could not uncertainty be indicated by a different kind or color of line, by an explanatory note, or by a question mark?) And obviously a writer’s own views show up as clearly in the way he discusses chronology, theology, and textual criticism. Although in a number of details my own conclusions differ from those of the authors, in general I found the text to be objective. Careful attempts have been made to indicate differing views when scholarly opinion is divided. But thoroughly conservative viewpoints are typically slighted.

The emphasis on vivid presentation and the introduction of rarely used but relevant data from extra-biblical sources make this atlas unusual. It is highly recommended as an informative help to anyone who will use it critically and carefully.

The Serving Church

Service in Christ: Essays Presented to Karl Barth on His Eightieth Birthday, edited by T. H. L. Parker and James I. McCord (Eerdmans, 1967, 223 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Jaymes P. Morgan, instructor in systematic theology, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California.

This eminently readable discussion of diakonia—the mutual service to one another by the members of Christ’s Church and their service to their fellow men—is a most fitting tribute to one whose teaching and writing have been dominated by the theme “the man for others.”

Two chapters are of particular note: In “The Care of the Poor in the Old Testament” N. W. Porteous outlines how the people delivered from bondage were taught to respond to suffering; and G. Barrois documents the fateful shift by the theological system-builders of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries from viewing works of mercy as an obligation of justice to understanding them as an office of love. The dire effects of this change are described by James Atkinson in his discussion of Reformation times. G. W. Bromiley’s criticism of the Reformers’ relative lack of witness to the civil authority concerning a just social and economic order is both temperate and well considered.

In a rather unclear section of his generally fine introductory chapter, T. F. Torrance suggests that the Church is faithful in diakonia when it threads its way between a quietistic relegating of corporate responsibility to the state and the temptation to build power structures of its own. As it stands, this analysis is unfortunately facile, for in contemporary American society the use of power is not optional for the Church. We may regret that the churches have become powerful, but we cannot ignore the fact that they are sources of political, economic and social power, whether they use this force consciously or not, redemptively or not.

Regrettably, most of the chapters do not give biographical suggestions for further study; those by Frederick Herzog on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and by H. Francis Davis on the modern Roman Catholic Church are notable exceptions. The materials on diakonia in the life of other churches tend to be rather pedestrian.

This volume makes a valuable contribution to the modern discussion, both as a theological and historical commentary on the tangled question of the relation of love and justice, and as a plea for a credible witness to Jesus Christ in the world, under the assumption that the Church can be recognized as such only as Christ clothed in the Gospel meets Christ clothed in the desperate needs of men.

Book Briefs

Old Testament Life and Literature, by Gerald A. Larue (Allyn & Bacon, 1968, 513 pp., $8.95). A well-organized and broadly researched survey of the Old Testament. Accepts the documentary hypothesis and correlates biblical passages with historical data.

The Gospel of St. Luke, by G. B. Caird (Seabury, 1968, 271 pp., $6.50), and The Gospel of St. Mark, by D. E. Nineham (Seabury, 1968, 477 pp., $8). Learned and readable commentaries originally published in 1963 by Pelican Books.

Maya Mission, by Lawrence Dame (Doubleday, 1968, 252 pp., $4.95). The thirty-year missionary service of Elva and David Legters in Yucatan jungles.

Youth at Bat, by Chester E. Swor and Jerry Merriman (Revell, 1968, 128 pp., $3.50). Biblical personages and events portrayed in baseball terms for youth. Should hit 400 in the Little League.

The Marrow of Theology, by William Ames (United Church, 1968, 353 pp., $7.95). A new translation of the theology of Puritan William Ames (1576–1633) that stresses living, dynamic faith.

The People on Second Street, by Jenny Moore (Morrow, 1968, 218, $5). Introduction by Malcolm Boyd. An Episcopal rector’s wife tells of her family’s emotional involvement for eight years with the people in a ghetto-like area of Jersey City—how they learned about the “constant fears, harassments, and discomforts” that the very poor face every day, and how love contributed to change.

Taste: An Essay in Critical Imagination, by Christopher Browne Garnett, Jr. (Exposition-University, 1968, 88 pp., $4). A philosophy professor simply presents the continual exercise of critical imagination as the tastebud enabling man to appreciate beauty in such things as poetry, people, and silent thought.

Writings in Time of War, by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (Harper & Row, 1968, 315 pp., $5.95). Early writings of the Catholic scholar whose theology posits that Christ is at the center of a cosmic evolutionary process.

Mr. Jonathan Edwards, by James Playsted Wood (Seabury, 1968, 166 pp., $4.50). A biography of the great eighteenth-century Christian leader, written especially for young readers.

The Word in the Third World, edited by James P. Cotter (Corpus, 1968, 285 pp., $7.50). Roman Catholic and Protestant thinkers offer lively discussion on new approaches to the task of church mission.

Revelation and the Quest for Unity, by Avery Dulles (Corpus, 1968, 325 pp., $7.50). Papers on the two areas of theological study that have advanced most dramatically in Roman Catholic theology during the past decade: revelation and ecumenism. By a Roman Catholic priest who is the son of the late John Foster Dulles, a Presbyterian.

Acts—An Inductive Study, by Irving L. Jensen (Moody, 1968, 253 pp., $4.95). Jensen provides a study guide and diagrams that help the inductive Bible student grasp the message of the Book of Acts.

Every Man a Brother, by William F. Drummond (Corpus, 1968, 160 pp., $4.95). Father Drummond writes about reason, nature, and natural law as stressed in the social encyclicals. His emphasis on the mutual responsibility of all men should make an impression on ecumenists.

Some of My Best Friends Were Addicts, by Virginia Ely (Revell, 1968, 128 pp., $3.50). A firsthand account of the determination and understanding of a woman who has sought to rehabilitate lives trapped in drug addiction.

Absolutes in Moral Theology?, edited by Charles Curran (Corpus, 1968, 320 pp., $6.95). Catholic professors of moral theology wrestle with personal and social ethical problems and call for modifications by their church in various areas.

Dear Mr. And Mrs. America:

The American phenomenon of gospel show business is on the wane, but it’s far from dead. Converted motion-picture actors, television personalities, and rock ’n roll singers (like Dick Van Dyke, Pat Boone, Cliff Richard) are still frequently stellar attractions at Christian mass meetings. A recent San Francisco Youth for Christ rally featuring Miss America of 1965, Vonda Kay Van Dyke, is a vivid case.

After a preliminary Soupy Sales-type pie-in-the-face fun fest, rally director Guy Rowe introduced the teen-age YFC King and Queen who brought on The Celebrity Herself. The curtains parted revealing the former Miss America seated in regal splendor on an elevated golden throne in the midst of four majestic columns topped by the banner: “Vonda Kay Van Dyke.” Hair beautifully coiffed high on her head and wearing a discreet filmy, flowing rose gown, Miss Van Dyke gracefully descended to down center stage to receive a bouquet of roses. Regrettably, Bert Parks wasn’t present to sing you-know-what.

The beauty, charm, and talent of Miss Van Dyke (now a real-life Mrs.) showed why she was chosen both Miss Congeniality and Miss America. A fifteen minute routine with her dummy, “Kurly-Q,” displayed her versatility as a ventriloquist (which will soon land her guest shots on network television). Her bright personality, humorous “dialogue,” and sweet singing made a smash hit with the clean-cut, unhippie teenagers in the audience of 400 (or evangelistically speaking, 600).

Then Vonda gave a direct statement of her personal commitment to Christ. She recounted experiences and rewards of being Miss America—travel, appearances, friendships, a scholarship, a car, and a $10,000 wardrobe (at which teenyboppers audibly sighed). But she stressed that life without Christ, like the broken Miss America crown she one day found in her suitcase, has no lasting value. After her heartfelt testimony, twenty-five young people came forward for spiritual counsel.

The Christian Church need not look to entertainment-world celebrities and elaborate productions as means of making Christ known. But we certainly can use more vibrant witnesses like Miss Van Dyke. Despite the unnecessary show business trappings, beautiful Vonda really rang the bell.

A Beast who loves Beauties,

The Pulse Of Youth

Thanks and a vote of admiration to David E. Kucharsky for putting his finger on the pulse of American youth (“A Case for the Young,” Oct. 11). Thousands of younger Christians, who have experienced something amounting to consternation over older Christian positions held by many in an inconsistant way, will also thank him. The point that age is no criterion for either creativity or responsible thinking was particularly appreciated.

Professor of Church History and Theology

Toccoa Falls Institute

Toccoa Falls, Ga.

Brother Kucharsky is just like the friends of Job and about as wise, practical, and helpful as they were. He is typical of … all those seeking to condone lawlessness and justify young people in their revolt against God and country, home and church, grace and truth.…

We have a generation of spoiled, unspanked, irreligious, unconverted, ignorant, brainwashed idiots.… It is not going to help by telling them … that they have the right to rule the church, the home, the school. They are not mature, not qualified, not ready to take over. It is time for them to learn a few manners, a little respect, and a little decency, modesty, virtue, manhood, womanhood, and a little Christianity. God have mercy on pagan parents and their creeps.

Edgewood Church

Puyallup, Wash.

I … especially enjoy (and agree with) “A Case for the Young.” Along this line I witnessed the following incident in the downtown section of Portland, Oregon, today.

An old crippled man was crossing the street when the light changed and caught him out in the middle. Of course the auto horns started blasting at the poor old man who could hardly hobble along. A “hippie” (with long hair, etc., and barefooted) jumped off the curb, ran out to the old man and took his arm and helped him across—neither paying any attention to the horns.

Portland, Ore.

Prayer And ‘Inspiration’

W. C. Robinson’s “The Inspiration of Holy Scripture” (Oct. 11) is a literal answer to prayer as I begin the year leading a senior high Sunday school group in studying Christian Credo. I thank the Lord for the way he uses your magazine to enrich the lives and make more efficient the service of lay-workers such as myself.

Thibodaux, La.

No Joke

Looking through your October 11 issue, I came across the cartoon. If that is not the lowest down blasphemy against God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ, I’d like to know just what you call it.… This “joke” may be pleasing to people, that is some people, but if that is the reason it is there, then the person who put it there is certainly not a servant of Christ.

Treasurer

Hauge Foreign Mission Inc.

St. Petersburg, Fla.

The Bible And Modern English

From the Bible translation articles in your September 27 issue, one gets the impression that the new translation is but a reaction to the RSV. This is far from the case. It is primarily an honest effort by those who hold a high view of Scripture to do their very best to give to English readers a faithful translation of the best-attested text on the basis of extant Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts. The position paper setting forth the purposes does not single out any existing translation for a “naughty boy” spanking.…

A special goal of the translators is that of putting God’s Word into today’s language. This the RSV did not do, nor are the KJV, ASV and NASB in modern English. Instead, they follow the Tyndale tradition, which represents the English of another day. But if we want the Bible to span the generation gap, and if we want it to speak to the unchurched, we must use contemporary English, and that is what is being done.

One further point. We read: “Could not the thousands … of man hours to be spent on this new version be better invested elsewhere?” One has only to get involved in such a project to find the answer. There is no more important task in all the world than to study the Scriptures with the diligence necessary to convey their thoughts accurately in another language and at the same time to make God’s eternal truth available to modern man in language through which the Holy Spirit may minister to him God’s saving grace.

Professor of Biblical Languages and Exegesis

Gordon Divinity School

Wenham, Mass.

Dr. Hardwick’s defense of the RSV seems strange in view of its many deficiencies.… The RSV is woefully inadequate and has improved very little the rendering of enigmatic passages in the Hebrew; many mistakes of the KJV were still contained in the RSV. Despite the admirable attempt to use information from Qumran and other new sources, the RSV repeatedly failed to make use of new lexical knowledge such as that from Ugarit (cf. Dahood’s translation of Psalms in the Anchor Bible).

Dr. Harris is quite right when he says “It is too much to hope for a translation to satisfy all scholars … But no effort should be spared to achieve for our day something of what the KJV translators did for theirs.” Despite the new translations present and forthcoming, there is nothing I know of that corresponds to the scope of the evangelical translation project.

Assistant Professor of Old Testament

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Fort Worth, Tex.

I want to applaud the article by Stanley Hardwick.… He faces the problem of biblical translation, interpretation, and theology squarely.

Philadelphia, Pa.

R. Laird Harris’s case for a new evangelical Bible translation seems unfortunately to rest upon the erroneous view that the RSV was produced by a conspiracy of leftist scholars dedicated to the overthrow of the historic biblical faith, thereby highly inaccurate. He proposes, of course, what would amount to a translation equally inaccurate and biased—only in a different direction.

The “critical” (thank goodness) RSV translators were competent scholars and honest, accurate translators skilled in textual criticism. By contrast, few evangelicals even know well the six or seven languages, let alone the lower critical methodology and orthographic-paleographic techniques necessary for Old Testament text work. Textual study and translation should always be left to the best scholars—not to well-meaning but unqualified men, whether liberal or conservative.

His comments on the “thirty conjectured text alterations” in Isaiah now supposedly invalidated by the Dead Sea Scrolls show a lack of text-critical sophistication.… The thirty text problems … are also text problems in the Dead Sea Scrolls—they just don’t make sense as they are, and should be emended.

If the Holy Spirit inspired Isaiah to say “girl” (’almah) instead of “virgin” (bethulah), which he surely did, evangelical scholars should assume he knew what he was doing and not force their New Testament-informed views, post facto, on the eighth century prophet.

Cambridge, Mass.

I must take exception with both articles.… The criterion for determining whether or not a new version is needed should be … the need of English-speaking people compared with the needs of the rest of the world. We American evangelicals have become Bible gluttons, surrounding ourselves with version upon version, while half the world has yet to read a solitary Bible verse. If we were filled with the love for others mentioned so often in the New Testament, we would propagate the Word of God throughout the world in all languages.

Canton, Ohio

“Do Evangelicals Need a New Translation?” Having used and loved the KJV throughout my lifetime, and having memorized many eloquent portions, my answer is a definite, “NO!”

MRS. IDA GRAHAM

Hutchinson, Kans.

Creation And ‘Campus’

I protest the faulty theology in Dr. Taylor’s article, “Christian Opportunity on the Secular Campus” (Sept. 27).

Such statements as “we Christians cooperate with God in creation” and “[God’s] lack of freedom in changing the ground rules once he started” seem to me to be in serious conflict with Christian doctrines of the finished work of creation and the complete sovereignty of God in his creation.…

Of course, Christians have excellent opportunities to witness on the secular campus. But I think that an integral and fundamental part of that witness is to challenge the presuppositions on which the concept of a secular campus rests, such as the ultimacy of academic freedom and the liberty of the mind not captive to Christ.

Assistant Professor and Documents Librarian

West Chester State College

West Chester, Pa.

A Matter Of Conscience

Our Canadian bishops are asking their priests protesting the birth control issue to examine their consciences. After reading your editorial, “Widening Crack in the Wall of Catholicism” (Sept. 27) I would like to suggest the same to its author.… Is this response to Catholicism dictated by the Bible and Christ, by evangelical principles? Or, is it your feelings about Catholicism?

St. Patrick Church

Kankakee, Ill.

I’m afraid that I cannot share CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S sympathy for the Roman Catholic priests who are protesting and dissenting from the pope’s birth control encyclical. It is the same, sad old tale of persons who want to be something (in this case, Roman Catholic priests) but are unwilling to take what goes with it. The fact that the pope’s encyclical is unbiblical and even anti-biblical does not change the illegitimacy of their protest. They bought a train ticket, now let them either ride the train to its destination or get off the train completely.

Grace Lutheran Church

Smithville, Tex.

The hang-up comes in the use of the word “infallible” in dealing with matters of faith and morals. Sola scripturais as frail a reed as sola papa.… What faith is required when assent is demanded in a Book which, or a pope who, cannot possibly be wrong? This is not faith, it is credulity.

The Chapel of the Ascension

Lexington Park, Md.

Shock Gimmicks

Regarding Eutychus Ill’s “Prudes about Nudes” (Sept. 27): what is so outlandish about using gimmicks to shock a decadent and deaf generation into reality? Have you not read Ezekiel 4:12–15? Have you not read of David’s “dancing before the Lord with all his might.” … Also, 1 Samuel 19:24 says of Saul, “and he stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner and lay down naked all day and all night.” … Maybe the Lord is speaking to a group who are willing to obey at the risk of reputation and job.

Greeley, Colo.

Evangelical Influence

My attention has been drawn to a paragraph in “World Council and Evangelical Renewal” (Editorial, Aug. 30) which asks about evangelicals on the Faith and Order Commission. The paragraph implies from the special meeting with the conservative evangelicals held at Bossey after Uppsala, “that the Council’s position is still that it wants evangelicals to serve its interests but not to influence it.”

I know you will be glad to know that this inference is not justified.… Long before any Roman Catholics were appointed to the Faith and Order Commission there were members who were certainly conservative evangelicals. The present membership includes Professor Dale Moody of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Earl Hilgert of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the Rev. E. Chavez Campos and the Rev. Daniel Palma of the Pentecostal Church of Chile. There are also not a few from member churches who would rightly be considered conservative evangelical. One is Dean Nam Dong Suh of the Presbyterian Church of the Republic of Korea and another the Rev. Principal C.S. Song of the Presbyterian Church of Formosa.

Executive Secretary

The United States Conference

World Council of Churches

New York, N.Y.

Social Direction

It is with great pleasure that I read [your] articles related to the Church and all its facets, as well as social concerns.… As an evangelical myself, I deeply appreciate the editorials which give clear direction as to the social trends of our day.

Mennonite Brethren Church

Dinuba, Calif.

Consensus of 25 evangelical scholars who participated inA PROTESTANT SYMPOSIUM ON THE CONTROL OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION, Aug. 27–31, 1968.

Theological Basis

Prologue. We affirm that ultimate values come from God through divine revelation rather than from the “human situation” alone. For some questions the Scriptures provide specific answers as concerning the sacredness of marriage and the wrongness of sexual intercourse outside that relationship. In other situations the Bible speaks primarily through principles such as the sacredness and value of human life, the need to act in love for God and man. Where specific counsel is lacking, Christians acting under the authority of Scripture may differ from each other in the conclusions they reach because different weight may be given to different principles.

The Christian whose mind is committed to God is obligated to understand as fully as possible the problems that confront him and to enunciate with clarity the biblical principles underlying his decision. He recognizes that the will of God may become known to him more fully through discussion and interaction with men of like faith. Even so, while a symposium can provide information and direction it cannot speak with binding authority where the Bible is unclear. Each man is ultimately responsible before God for his own actions, and he cannot relinquish this responsibility to others no matter how qualified they may appear to be.

The Character of Sexual Intercourse as a Means of Procreation and as an Expression of Fellowship and Married Love. Sexual intercourse is the gift of God and shall be expressed and experienced only through the marriage relationship. In this act, husband and wife become one flesh; for Christians this union is ennobled by God and is likened in Scripture to the union between Christ and his Church. Coitus was intended by God to include the purposes of companionship and fulfillment, as well as procreation. Any marriage which does not seek to fulfill both of these sexual functions constitutes a deformed relationship. The Bible asserts that procreation is one purpose of marriage and considers children to be an evidence of God’s blessing. The divine ideal is for all of nature, including man, to be fertile. It is not merely the notion of a static balance but of a dynamic and abundant society. Procreation, however, is not the sole purpose of the sexual relationship even as sex is not the sole component of the marriage relationship.

God intended sexual intercourse to be continued and to be enjoyed even when or after procreation is impossible. Therefore procreation need not be the immediate intention of husband and wife in the sex act, which may be simply the expression of love and of a desire for the mutual fulfillment of normal human needs.

The Prevention of Conception. Because of the Christian’s high view of the sexual relationship, contraception often presents complicated ethical questions. This is true whether the individual employs so-called natural means (coitus interruptus and rhythm), or medicine, mechanical devices, and other methods.

The Bible does not expressly prohibit either contraception or abortion but it does set forth certain governing principles such as the sanctity of life, the command to multiply, and the apostolic injunction for husband and wife to satisfy each other’s sexual needs.

The prevention of conception is not in itself forbidden or sinful providing the reasons for it are in harmony with the total revelation of God for the individual life. Disease, psychological debility, the number of children already in the family, and other factors such as financial capability are among those that determine whether pregnancy should be prevented. The method of preventing pregnancy is not so much a religious as a scientific and medical question to be determined in consultation with the physician. Of all the methods of contraception that of sterilization presents the most difficult decision because it impairs God’s creative activity in man and is usually irreversible. Yet there may be times when a Christian may allow himself (or herself) to be sterilized for compelling reasons which appear to be the lesser of two evils.

Induced Abortion, the Fetus, and Human Responsibility.¹Unless otherwise specified, when the word “abortion” without modifiers is used in the text, the writer means induced abortion and not spontaneous abortion. In addition, unless otherwise specified, the word fetus is used in reference to the offspring from the time of wnception until birth. We are left with the most perplexing questions of all: Is induced abortion permissible and if so, under what conditions? If it is permissible in some instances does this mean that the act of intervention is sinful? Can abortion then be justified by the principle of tragic moral choice in which one evil is chosen to avoid a greater evil? Whether or not the performance of an induced abortion is sinful we are not agreed, but about the necessity and permissibility for it under certain circ*mstances we are in accord.

The Christian physician who is asked to perform an abortion will seek to discover the will of God in this as in every other area of his life. He needs divine guidance for himself in his practice and for the counsel of his patients. The physician in making decisions should take into account the following principles:

—The human fetus is not merely a mass of cells or an organic growth. At the most, it is an actual human life or at the least, a potential and developing human life. For this reason the physician with a regard for the value and sacredness of human life will exercise great caution in prescribing an abortion.

—The Christian physician will advise induced abortion only to safeguard greater values sanctioned by Scripture. These values may be individual, familial, or societal.

—From the moment of birth, the infant is a human being with all the rights which Holy Scripture accords to all human beings; therefore infanticide under any name should be condemned.

Christian Conscience, Natural Law, and Legal Authority. The Scriptures clearly inform us that all men are bound by God’s moral law. Because of sin, men are severely limited in their ability to perceive the content of this law. Apart from the guidance of Scripture, too easily do they equate it with the mores of their particular culture. Nor do we believe that ethical judgments can be based on the situation alone. While the physician must consider the individual circ*mstances present in each situation, his evaluation must be controlled by biblical laws and principles.

The fallenness of human nature requires the guidance of laws and regulations prescribed for the benefit of society and administered in recognition of the ultimate authority of God who is the supreme law giver. Harmful pressures easily result from the codification of law in a way that is either too authoritarian or too permissive. The Christian maintains that in avoiding legalism on the one hand and license on the other, the prescriptions of the legal code should not be permitted to usurp the authority of the Christian conscience as informed by Scripture.

Principles Of The Christian Physician In The Control Of Human Reproduction

The rendering of guidance is basic to a physician’s concern and effective work. This may well result in the confession of his view of life as a Christian. In the realm of the control of human reproduction, his view of Christian life is reflected in the following biblical principles:

Sanctity of Family Life

—Marriage is sanctified as a God-given institution. It is life-long and secure in love. Husband and wife live for each other and in God’s service.

—Children are God’s gift, born into the love and security of family for nurture and training.

Responsibility, Fulfillment, Self-discipline, and Divine Grace in Sexual Relationship

—Sexual relationship is a good and perfect gift from God to mankind, but this, like all of God’s good gifts, has been marred by the effects of sin on human thought, will, and action. The forgiveness and the grace of God are a constant human need.

—Sexual intercourse is rightly confined to marriage. Therefore, fornication, adultery, and prostitution with or without contraception are not a Christian option.

—Sexual intercourse is to be undertaken with understanding and consideration.

Preservation of God-Given Life

—It is the duty of physicians to preserve human life and the integrity of the human body.

—Physicians are called upon to maintain and restore the health of the whole man.

Mitigation of the Effects of Evil. We live in a world pervaded by evil. Human relationships become distorted; unwanted children are born into the world; genetic defects are not uncommon and harmful social conditions abound. Therefore, it is the duty of Christians to be compassionate to individuals and to seek responsibly to mitigate the effects of evil when possible, in accordance with the above principles.

Guidelines For Professional Practice*

The Prevention of Conception. This Symposium on the Control of Human Reproduction affirms the role of the physician in the support of the integrity of the family. The partners in marriage should have the privilege of deciding the number of children to have in their family. The physician should cooperate by providing counseling, taking into consideration both medical and moral factors. It is recognized that at times permanent sterilization, of either male or female, may be indicated. If contraception is indicated, the physician should assist in selecting the best available method for this purpose. In some countries in the foreseeable future, the intra-uterine device (I.U.D.) is expected to be the preferred contraceptive method.

The single person seeking contraceptive advice requires concerned counseling by the physician. If he provides contraceptive agents, he participates in the intent of their use.

Induced (Therapeutic) Abortion. The sanctity of life must be considered when the question of abortion is raised. Regardless of what stage of gestation—including birth—at which one considers the developing embryo or fetus to be equivalent to an adult human, the potential of the developing intrauterine life cannot be denied. There could, however, be compelling reasons why abortion must be considered under certain circ*mstances. Each case should be considered individually, taking into account the various factors involved and using Christian principles of ethics. Suitable cases for abortion would fall within the scope of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Statement on Therapeutic Abortion. However, we believe that isolated sociological pressures that justify abortion rarely occur. We do not construe the A.C.O.G. Statement as an endorsem*nt of abortion on demand or for convenience only.

THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS STATEMENT ON THERAPEUTIC ABORTION

Termination of pregnancy by therapeutic abortion is a medical procedure. It must be performed only in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals and by a licensed physician qualified to perform such operations.

Therapeutic abortion is permitted only with the informed consent of the patient and her husband, or herself if unmarried, or of her nearest relative if she is under the age of consent. No patient should be compelled to undergo, or a physician to perform, a therapeutic abortion if either has ethical, religious, or any other objections to it.

A consultative opinion must be obtained from at least two licensed physicians other than the one who is to perform the procedure. This opinion should state that the procedure is medically indicated. The consultants may act separately or as a special committee. One consultant should be a qualified obstetrician-gynecologist and one should have special competence in the medical area in which the medical indications for the procedure reside.

Therapeutic abortion may be performed for the following established medical indications:

1. When continuation of the pregnancy may threaten the life of the woman or seriously impair her health. In determining whether or not there is such risk to health, account may be taken of the patient’s total environment, actual or reasonably foreseeable. 2. When pregnancy has resulted from rape or incest: in this case the same medical criteria should be employed in the evaluation of the patient. 3. When continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the birth of a child with grave physical deformities or mental retardation.

Changes in the state laws on therapeutic abortion that will permit honesty in the application of established criteria and the principles supported in this statement should be encouraged. Provisions should be included to protect the physician from legal action or medical liability should he refuse to perform the operation because he finds a particular abortion to be against his moral standard.

Fetal Indications for Prevention of Conception and for Therapeutic Abortion with Specific Reference to Genetic Considerations. Much human suffering can be alleviated by preventing the birth of children where there is a predictable high risk of genetic disease or abnormality. This appears to be a reasonable Christian objective.

An accurate diagnosis of genetic defect and statement of risk for subsequent pregnancies often can be based on examination of a single affected child. (Multiple abnormalities in a family are not essential to establish indications for intervention.) In some conditions a significant risk can be determined prior to the production of any children, through evaluation of the family history and laboratory tests. The assistance of a consultant who is a specialist in human genetics may be required.

When a genetic problem is encountered the physician should point out the implications for subsequent pregnancies. The parents should be helped to understand the medical, emotional, and financial problems involved in rearing a child with a congenital disease. The shortterm consequences of contraception and sterilization should be explored. The family may wish to consider other factors, but the decision concerning additional pregnancies should be left to them. If contraception is attempted but fails, the risk of severe defect in the child should constitute a fetal indication for abortion. On the other hand, the couple may prefer voluntary sterilization for husband or wife (the choice depending on the specific case). The preceding accepted precepts of sound clinical genetics accord with the principles of care for the individual and society on which we have agreed.

When an affected individual is not mentally competent to make decisions for himself, the genetic problems should be made clear to the guardian(s). In such circ*mstances, involuntary sterilization could be considered upon the request and express permission of the guardian(s).

The Christian in an Over-Populated World. The control of human reproduction demands the attention of Christians from the standpoint of the desperate needs not only of individuals and families but also of nations and peoples, including our own. This Symposium acknowledges the need for Christians’ involvement in programs of population control at home and abroad.

It is emphasized, however, that participation in programs of population control should be in response to requests for help from the states or communities involved, and that the services or counsel rendered should conform both professionally and ethically with the principles embodied in this Statement.