Page 6318 – Christianity Today (2024)

Only a score of years ago the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod began as a “late comer” to give serious attention to the nation’s campuses as major spheres of church activity. Even this late start was further retarded by World War II, which drained colleges and universities of their male students. By this time other denominations, more in America’s mainstream, had become strongly entrenched on campus borders with impressive churches and adjoining student centers. Their formula called for normal parishes in the immediate environs of the university, with additional facilities and staff workers to serve students.

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod did not to any appreciable extent partake of this phase of the campus-community ministry. What congregations it had in university cities were usually located on “the other end of town.” Lutheran constituents on campus were of insufficient strength to draw congregations toward campus.

In the awakening period not a few complainants were heard to say: “We have missed the bus.” Relating as it did to the status quo, the complaint failed to take into account the possibility of fresh, new approaches. Indeed, although one bus was missed, other, perhaps better, modes of transportation soon appeared.

A NEW STRATEGY

The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is now persuaded that it has more than made up for lost time by introducing a daring plan of outreach to students. From outside observers this venture elicits everything from predictions of failure to undisguised admiration. Confident of success, Missouri Synod claims no patent on its campus program. It invites other communions to assay the ingredients of a plan that is moving students from the periphery to the center of a Christ-centered gospel ministry. With campus enrollments reaching an all-time high of 3,160,000 and still mounting, new frontiers of faith must be found within our college-bred generation.

The Missouri Synod plan centers in student congregations housed in campus-side chapels. These are unfolding under the dynamic leadership of a man who now is the “patron saint” of college work to 600 Lutheran campus pastors. He is Dr. Reuben W. Hahn, Executive Secretary of the Synod’s Commission on College and University Work. “Reuben” to his brethren in the campus ministry and to religious coordinators at state universities, Hahn was induced in 1940 to leave his University of Alabama post to become “general student pastor” on a church-wide basis. He became the first full-time executive head of the then minor $5,000-a-year-budget Student Welfare Committee. Missouri Synod has since given him a Chicago office staff of five and an agency budget nearly 20 times its original figure. The 30-some geographical districts of the Synod provide the hard cash to build chapels and to salary the campus pastors.

MAJOR EMPHASIS ON WORSHIP

What is the primary component in the Missouri Synod concept of campus work? It is the primacy of worship, in congregations or assemblies established for and by students. The visible symbols of this philosophy are the chain of new University Lutheran Chapels—from the University of California to the University of Connecticut—built in the wake of World War II. Is the emphasis on corporate worship right? One observer recently said of college students: “There is increasing danger in our day that Christians are too much with other Christians and too little with Christ.” If this is so, how better can we bring students into communion with Jesus Christ than by worship?

Chapels, as both symbols and properly-appointed locales of worship, loom far above social fellowship halls or student centers euphemistically termed “homes away from home” as starting points for spiritual campus programs. They put communion tables ahead of ping-pong tables. Worship lifts the program, in Richard Celeste’s words above a “punch and cookies affair.”

INTEGRATING STUDENT CHURCH LIFE

The student congregation, served by a full-time campus pastor, spares the Lutheran collegian of a kind of ecclesiastical schizophrenia. Instead, he is provided with Sunday worship, week-day Bible study, Christian service opportunities, campus evangelism, fellowship, and pastoral counseling all in one package. Whatever the student’s church-related activity, from the high faith experience of partaking of Holy Communion on Sunday morning to a Thursday afternoon student center discussion with coffee and doughnuts, it is under the umbrella of the same campus church.

Other patterns of campus work, however meritorious, tend to split the student down the middle. Sunday morning he goes to the town-gown church and listens to the sermon of the parish pastor. Sunday evening and during the week he goes to the student center to be spiritually counseled by another person—the center’s director. If he manages to bring an unchurched or dechurched fellow student with him to the student center program and introduces him to the director, he will have to do the same thing over again when he takes him to church and presents him to the minister there. This requires double orientation, and between the two there is often a break-down. In the Lutheran plan, Sunday worship and student center activities are merged into one spiritual program. The student deals with one minister, who is to him all things: a full priest administering the sacraments, performing confirmations and weddings, and a student center director and counselor.

Anyone who has done campus work knows that a serious offender, next to the student who doesn’t go to church at all, is the four-year “church tramp” or perennial visitor. Students know they must follow an orderly curriculum in their academic studies. They don’t all realize that a well-ordered spiritual course is just as necessary. So, many of them sample all churches in the community but grow roots in none. The Missouri Synod plan reduces the penchant for churchly roaming to a minimum, for it puts the campus church squarely into the laps of the students themselves. Students are the members and from their ranks the chapel council is drawn. Very rarely is “membership” in the chapel effected through a formal transfer from the home church. Commitment to the student parish is accomplished through some other procedure, be it granting associate membership, having students sign the chapel constitution, or issuing Communion cards.

NOT A ‘PLAY CHURCH’

Critics of chapel congregations point to the instability, immaturity, and high mobility of students as factors making the plan unfeasible. They call it “playing church,” the way children play in doll-houses. The Missouri Synod is not minded to underestimate student capacity for responsibilit By its definition the local church comes into being when Christians are gathered about the Word and the sacraments and intend to further Christ’s kingdom by word and deed. Lutheran campus pastors find their parishioners, sprinkled with faculty members and heavily interlarded with married students, entirely capable of being about their Father’s business.

The student congregation overcomes artificiality by structuring itself as much as possible after the normal pattern. It creates out of itself Gamma Delta as its arm for campus action, as well as the suborganisms familiar to the freshman from his past church life: choir, chapel guild, couples’ club, nursery, tots’ Sunday school, pastor’s membership classes, and the various assortment of parish committees, including the stewardship committee. It carries its load of missions and benevolence contributions. University Lutheran Chapel at the University of Minnesota, for example, adopted a current budget of nearly $30,000 for local and church-wide expenses. Of this figure approximately $12,000 is a subsidy of the supporting Minnesota District of the Synod, while the students contribute the remaining $18,000. By involving themselves in the financial program of the chapel, students learn to shoulder responsibilities and, through participation, acquire the skills of lay churchmanship. They will not have to rediscover the functioning church after graduation, for they have remained active in it during college years.

Sophisticated Pilgrimage

We lift our praying hands

In thanks for life

And mutter chanted, meaningless refrains.

In chipped and splintered monotones

We paraphrase our boredom, and self-pleased,

Think God has listened and has heard

Our platitudes and hollow canticles

Droned forth in voices sharp as porcelain.

Stupored we weave disaster through the highway’s arms,

Oblivious to pain, and death, and time.

We wink at murder and condone deceit,

Racing for power and the greatest bomb,

The truest danger, and the fullest harm.

Over the scars and rubble of our latest crimes

We lift our praying hands

In thanks for life.

CHARLES WAUGAMAN

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

Hereafter April 12 will appear on our calendars in large red letters! On that date, there was dancing in the streets of Moscow; and in the corridors of Washington’s Pentagon there were grim and bothersome questions.

In a span of one hour and 30 minutes, man opened a new frontier. It all began at 9:07 with a five-ton vehicle soaring off a launching pad somewhere in Soviet Russia. For 89 minutes that vehicle whipped along at a speed of 17,000 miles an hour, in a path of travel, 188 miles beyond the earth. This “beyond-the-earth sphere” in which the object moved was one which from the dawn of time until that special 89 minute segment of April 12, had been “without a traveller.”

Aboard this earth-orbiting vehicle was a 27 year-old Soviet peasant who, after riding 89 minutes with history, put down on a predetermined piece of soil, and stepped from his “sky scooter” with the light of distant stars in his eyes … the first man to travel in space!

It was this event that brought the dancers to the streets of Moscow, that works a color change to our calendar and pales the glory that was Columbus and the grandeur that was Lindbergh. A man in space!

Mr. Khrushchev has said of his cosmonaut that he had achieved immortality. Obviously this top Communist and atheist did not mean that this first space man is now unliable to death, that 89 minutes in space performed for him what union with Christ performs for the Christian. He simply meant he had captured an enduring fame. His is one of the names born not to die.

We will have to go along with that judgment. Like any “first” for man which is frought with extreme hazard to life, this feat excites all of us to salute the heroism, courage, and gallantry of this young space man. His daring and dedication has earned him a big page in the future history books. He has inched every one of us to the edge of tomorrow. Even now I wonder: how long will it take man, with this space breakthrough, to get around to all the planets and stars and stand astride the most distant galaxy one day crying “Alas, there are no more worlds to conquer?” No question, Mr. Gagarin has achieved enduring fame. But this is more than the achievement of one hardy and brave man. This is an accomplishment of many people’s dedication. Back of those Wednesday headlines that a man had been successfully launched into space and returned are miles of chalked figures on miles of blackboards, small armies of people perfecting the science of aerodynamics, cybernetics, and electronics; men with jaws determinedly set and far away horizons in their dreams. These men have travailed until now in their laboratories and out of their travail they have brought triumph in a great enterprise. And because these are of another nation is not sufficient reason to withhold our gratulations. A deserved salute then to the young Soviet cosmonaut and his scientific colleagues!

CHRIST’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN

While we are all agog with the event of this past April morning, we should remember an event of another morning long ago. This is not the first time there has been a man in space.

It happended on a bit of soil outside the ancient walls of old Jerusalem when without booster rockets, launching pads, or gadget-equipped vehicle, without algebraic equations or armies of men in laboratories, without one piece of electronic equipment, without headlines or dancing in the streets, without space suits and helmets—with just one ordinary cloud—suddenly, there was a Man in space!

“And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:9–11).

Two men in space! Asks a friend of mine, “What is wrong with us that we latch our destiny so much to this modern man in space, and ignore this other Man in space, at whose return “every eye shall see Him”?

Two men in space! And what is the essential difference between them?

For one thing “this other Man in space” did achieve a real immortality, an undyingness, not a mere unperishing fame. Victim of a wicked plot that terminated in death on a cross, He stormed back, by the mighty “thrust” of God from the cold, stagnant regions of death and hell into vibrant eternity which he had possessed with the Father before the foundation of space. His “going up” beyond the earth was to “sit on his throne,” at the right hand of God.

While the modern space man’s success is measured by the fact that he accomplished his mission by remaining alive, this “other Man in space” accomplished His mission by becoming “obedient unto death”; by dying “He abolished death and brought life and immortality to light.”

The accomplishment of last week by Russia’s space man has definite overtones of war and destruction in it. Many have observed the military possibilities of “manned space platforms” from which atomic missiles could be launched, thus speeding up time from launching to target. Are we too far amiss to predict that “he (Gagarin) hath abolished life and brought death and mortality to light”? If this breakthrough follows precedent, it will make war a little more hellish.

Two men in space! Through one the purposes of a sovereign state attained; through the other the purposes of a Sovereign Lord fulfilled. One man’s feat threatening annihilation; the other promising eternal life. One ending up the “man of the hour”; the other the Lord of history!

TWO DIMENSIONS OF POWER

Another essential difference in these two space men is the power involved. I know very little about propellants, booster rockets, energy, thrust. I do know that to hurl five tons of material loose from the fingers of gravity takes a staggering amount of power. Having admitted that the power called for in putting a man in space is fantastic, I must not overlook those other much, much larger objects, and so far away that I must speak of them in terms of light years, orbiting in space. I know Somebody had access to power that makes Russia’s look puny. We are not getting out special editions of our newspapers to herald the accomplishment we see every night above our heads. But well we might, for there is power; if it were not so familiar to us, it would awe us to our knees. And this awesome power is the power of that other Man in space!

Those objects blinking off the starboard of your ship Mr. Gagarin, His fingers launched them! And on your port, that mighty galaxy, He telleth their number and calleth them all by name. Down below, through the blue haze is hail and storm and vapor; down there is mountain and hill, cattle and creeping things; down there are kings and princes and peasants like yourself … “all these things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made.” Even now from his place at the right hand of God he holds all things you see from this vantage point, and much more you can’t see, together. Great is our Lord in space, and of great power!

So, while we are extolling the power that launched a man in space, we must not miss the power that has launched a universe and season after season keeps it all on course. Mr. Khrushchev, Mr. Gagarin, and anybody else throwing a hat in the air to celebrate an exhibition of your power, we must remind you that the weakness of our Christ is stronger than anything you can wheel out to your launching pads and hurl into space. And your wisdom for all of its concerning equations’ computers, and propellents—why, the foolishness of God has more sagacity in it!

THE LORD OF SPACE

Two men in space! Another essential difference between them is that of sphere. Russia’s man in space is now, and was in those historic 89 minutes, spacially bound, still dependent on the resources of this world, still exposed to the mercies and providences and judgments of God.

Not so the other Space Man. He has, according to the record, “ascended into heaven.” The ascent of the modern space man placed him, for a brief span, in a segment of space, and only a tiny portion of it. But the ascent of the other Space Man placed Him in the sphere of the spirit. He is neither 188 miles or 188 light years from the earth. The sphere of the spirit surrounds, sustains, and penetrates the sphere of space and time. Thus Jesus ascending did not remove him galaxies away, but put him “closer than breathing and nearer than hands and feet.” “Lo, I am with you always,” he assures us.

The heaven to which Jesus ascended is at our elbows, and if only we were not so time-bound, so materialistic we might catch glimpses of the hem of his garment, or gleams of the world he rules as Lord over all. In him heaven walks into our living room, touches down at our desk in the office, rides the 8:10 commuter. So close does this realm of the spirit impinge on the physical world since that Man went “up into heaven,” that some have been able to declare most convincingly, “Christ liveth in me!”

“It is expedient for you that I go away,” he told his disciples. It was his going away “into heaven” that made possible his coming into every heart. His ascent loosed him from spacial bounds. No longer spatially bound he is closer to us as we eat our bread than when the five thousand ate with him on a Galilean hillside. He is with us more intimately than he was with them because he “ascended into heaven.”

Two men in space! There is one last but tremendous difference between these two men in space. This difference is at the point of re-entry of the earth. When Russia’s space man unstrapped his gear and walked again on his home soil, he was the same person; his country and world unchanged. The same tears and heartache prevailed. The same pain and death reigned everywhere. The same delinquency and crime, the same nightmare of human history with war and rumors of war; the same character, the same sins!

THE DAY OF RE-ENTRY

Not so when the other Space Man makes his re-entry of the earth. One day He too shall return to this earth. That curtain which holds back the realm of this spirit from our eyes shall be torn open and eternity shall come pouring through the rent into time. This breakthrough will be led by Jesus Christ and when it is accomplished the structures of history will be shattered, a new earth and a new heaven will arise wherein dwelleth righteousness. The travail of history will be over and the kingdoms of history shall become the kingdoms of our Lord.

At his re-entry the conflicts will be resolved, the imperfections ended, pain and sorrow, sin and death swept into discard, disobedience and defection and indifference challenged and dealt with. With his return “everybody will be brought on stage for the grand finale,” everybody to receive the verdict of life or death.

When this other Man in space re-enters it will be with the materials of a solemn examination; which materials he now gathers out of our doing from day to day.

Dr. Thomas Chalmers, the great preacher of the Free Church of Scotland, closes one of his sermons this way: “And along the whole of this perspective, there seems no event, the contemplation of which is more fitted to still the spirit into seriousness, or bring it up to high resolves than the coming advent of the Saviour—an event on one side of which lie all the recollections of time, and on the other side all the retributions of eternity. Meanwhile, and ere he take the decisive movement from the mercy seat which he now fills in heaven, to the judgment seat which he then will occupy on earth, he bids you all flee from the coming wrath—he holds out even to the guiltiest of you all the scepter of an offered reconciliation—he plies you alike with the overtures of pardon and calls of repentance; a pardon sealed by the blood of a satisfying atonement, in which he invites you to trust.… O kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and while he is in the way—for blessed only shall they be who have put their trust in him.”

Yes, why do we latch our destiny on to the modern man in space and ignore this other Man in space? Does not the apostle Paul have the only plausible answer? “The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Two men in space! Lest we be enamoured of the modern space man, and ignore the other man, let us be sure we have the Spirit of God.—A sermon preached by Dr. LEE SHANE, pastor of National Baptist Memorial Church, Washington, D. C.

We Quote:

BOGUS HISTORY—You cannot take Jesus Christ and his influence out of our culture. So very rarely do you hear Christian people make this point in argument with non-Christians, and make it securely. The influence of Christ is deep and real in spite of all the failures of the Christian Church. Jesus Christ did, in fact, bring certain new ideas into the world, and history cannot be as if Christ had never been.

We complain about the Communists twisting history. I am opposed to the falsification of historic proof because it’s a very serious matter. This twisting of history happens in democracy too.

The thing I constantly have to do in your universities and in England (but very much so over here, because so many of you seem to me to have little historical sense) is to make them understand that these ideas of Jesus were new. This is an objective fact in history. We’re so used to these ideas now that we divorce them from their source. We’re living on borrowed capital and are not knowledgeable enough to acknowledge our debts. In fact, one of the books for required reading in Stanford University, and I think in many other universities, is a certain book on Western civilization. It’s for first year students, and many of my friends tell me that this book is utterly unfair because it leaves out the influence of Christianity on our Western civilization. In other words, it’s a bogus history. Some of your students are having bogus history forced on them.—Canon BRYAN GREEN of Birmingham Cathedral, in an address at the Layman’s Leadership Institute.

Background Comments

The Preacher:

The Reverend Roland G. Riechmann is Pastor of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church, Jacksonville, Florida, where he has ministered since 1954. Ordained in 1935 by the Illinois Synod of the United Lutheran Church in America, he formerly served churches in Missouri and Illinois. In Decatur, Illinois. he was elected “Father of the Year.” He holds the B.A. degree from Carthage Lutheran College and the B.D. from Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary. An avid bowler and golfer, he is also President of the Jacksonville Ministerial Alliance and a member of Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary’s governing board.

The Sermon:

The sermon on “The Christian Ministry” differs from others in CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S Select Sermon Series in that it is a commencement address. No theme could be more appropriate for seminarians ready to move to their new frontiers.

Professor Richard Carl Hoefler, who nominated the sermon, makes his evaluative overcomments elsewhere in this issue. The sermon was preached last May at the commencement exercises of Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary held in Ebenezer Lutheran Church of Columbia, South Carolina. This month a new contingent of reserves will move from Protestant seminaries to churches scattered across the land. Numerically they are inadequate to fill the need for workers. Pastor Riechmann’s great concern is their spiritual preparedness for a task that will require divine undergirding.

Twenty-five years ago, I sat as you are sitting, awaiting graduation and the reception of a B.D. degree that would permit me to be ordained a few days later. Then I could begin the ministry to which I had been called: a tiny mission church of 35 members, meeting over a tavern in what had been a lodge hall, and at the astronomical salary of $1,040 per year. From the depths of my heart I congratulate you today not only upon your graduation but most especially upon your entrance into the Christian ministry, for I have found it to be a glorious calling: a holy, rewarding, and most exacting calling. To this I would direct your attention.

A GLORIOUS CALLING

The Christian ministry is a glorious calling—glorious because we serve and are led by the King of kings and Lord of lords. He has no superior. He is glorious in his own Person, as well as through his great might and power. “I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphims.… And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory” (Isa. 6:1–2). That glory surrounds us in our ministry, if we will it, if we permit it.

On Easter Sunday morning I arose before six o’clock to watch the local sunrise Easter Service on television. As I watched, I thought of the many similar services being conducted around the world. It seemed suddenly as though Jesus himself were confronting me. I noted his tears and asked him, “Why are you weeping? All over the world men are singing glad hosannas for this is your day of Resurrection. There is joy, not sadness in the world today.” He said nothing, but his piercing glance conveyed to my mind the words of William How, “I died for you, my children, and will you treat me so?”

Two hours later, as the choirs of the church lined up before the service was to begin, my heart was still heavy. The organ soared into a triumphant prelude and I wondered how I could lift my voice in joy as we entered the church. Then the hand of Kay, a charming 10-year-old, tugged at the sleeve of my robe. “Pastor, I have brought some money I want to give to some special project of the church. Where should I give it? During Lent I did without desserts at school and saved the money for the church.” She opened her purse and showed me the pennies, nickels, and dimes. I named two or three projects and after a moment of consideration she made her choice. She placed the money in an envelope, the choirs moved forward, and we lifted our voices together in worship and praise. The risen Christ was in the heart and life of a 10-year-old, and I realized that he was rejoicing with me because once again a little child had led the way and had revealed him.

A HOLY CALLING

The Christian ministry is a holy calling. “I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, or come to Him,” said Martin Luther, “but the Holy Ghost has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me by his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in the true faith.” “You have not chosen me, I have chosen you,” says Christ.

God has called us, as he called Moses and Aaron, Isaiah and Jeremiah, Amos and Hosea, Abraham and Jacob, Luther and Wesley. We march where saints have trod. We preach the same message that rang from the lips of the apostles. A glorious and a holy company of witnesses surrounds us in Christian ministry.

When I entered the ministry I had few fears. I felt I was doing the Lord’s work where the Lord had called me, at a price the Lord was willing to pay. You would call me naïve today. We no longer seem to believe that the Lord calls us. “Presidents of synods are the fellows to know; congregations are the ones to be influenced!” Thus are our futures assured and secured. Well, there will always be some politics, even in the Lord’s work, but I continue to be naïve enough to be led by his Spirit. Christ will gain his way despite the interferences placed before him, if the cause is his Church and his ministry.

The knowing of God’s will, as opposed to our own desires, or the will of others: of synodical presidents and officials, of parents, friends, family, professors, or even of congregations, will be one of the difficult and necessary questions facing us as long as we live. The ability to distinguish requires a lifetime of prayer and presence before the living Lord. A secret to the solution is perhaps best found in a story illustrating aptly what we are to do. A southern janitor who was working for a landlady known for her meanness was asked, “How do you get along with her?” “I puts my mind in neutral and lets her shove me around,” he said. Put your mind in neutral and say, “Here I am, Lord, use me. Put me where you want me, where my talents and abilities will be best used.” God in his divine wisdom and all-powerful might will do the rest.

A REWARDING CALLING

The Christian ministry is a most rewarding calling. You know already I am not talking about financial returns, although they have improved. Twenty dollars a week was not much 25 years ago. One of my members said one day that he became angry every time he saw my salary figure, and that he had to debate whether to send his check to me or the church.

Working with God and for God is the reward. Will power does not change men. Christ does! Time does not change men. Christ does! How then to get Christ into the everyday lives of our people? It is really very simple: Get him to dwell in your life! If men see Christ in you they will be moved to want him for themselves.

If you try to offer Christ to others when you do not possess him, or more rightly put, “are not possessed by him,” you sound like clanging cymbals and sounding brass to your hearers, not like a prophet of Christ. Luther exhorted his people to be “little Christs” to their fellow man. The pastor, of all men, must be a “little Christ” to all men, or he is both faithless to his God and to his calling.

“Be an example” we are commanded: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus …” (Phil. 2:5). Be possessed of Christ and by Christ. Let Christ glow from your eyes, shine from your face, flow from your lips, heal from your hands, lift with your heart interest. Moses had to cover his face after being in the presence of God. What a boon and a blessing we can be to self and others when we return from the presence of God. Spend hours in prayer, meditation, devotion, Bible reading, study. You are not going to overcome the world. Christ will! Get close to him.

AN EXACTING CALLING

The Christian ministry is an exacting calling. We serve God through Christ: not an ideal, but the ideal. Every prayer, every sermon, every address should show signs of work, toil, prayer; each one a bit better than the previous. During college and seminary days I marveled that my home pastor could preach Sunday after Sunday, and never in some eight years did we hear a poor sermon. My pastor never served a large parish, he spent most of his ministry as a “mission developer”; but his sermons were always models of good preaching. Would that the same could be said of yours and mine. Phillips translates 1 Corinthians 3:10 following: “Let the builder be careful how he builds. The foundation is laid already, and no one can lay another, for it is Jesus Christ, himself. But any man who builds on the foundation … must know that each man’s work will one day be shown for what it is.” This is directed at you and me!

The ministry calls from us with unceasing demand, love. “Love is the fulfilling of the Law.” “God is love.” “God so loved that he gave.” How then can we, as ambassadors of the Almighty, the God of love, be loveless? And yet often we are just that.

There are so many conditions in the ministry that tend to make us loveless: stubbornness, obstinate church councils; alcoholics, neurotics, bosses in the church, pettiness, lack of cooperation (the capable refuse, the inept volunteer), choirs. “No rest or relief from daily tasks set free.”

In spite of our “ministerial afflictions” we are to love as Christ first loved us and never cease loving. “Where love is, God is, and where God is, we must be. Lavish it on the poor, upon the rich, who often need it most; upon our equals, where it is most difficult, and where we are most apt to love the least. Give pleasure, lose no opportunity of giving pleasure for that is the ceaseless triumph of a loving spirit. It is better not to live than not to love,” says Henry Drummond (The Greatest Thing In The World).

One of the wonderful rewards of living in the south as a minister of the Gospel is the love showered on you by your congregation.

Today we in the ministry face some real battles, some problems so perplexing that the most saintly among us do not know even a part of the answer, much less the complete solution. How shall I, as a minister of Jesus Christ, stand on the race question? In the south your people will want you to take one stand; if you serve in the north, the opposite position. There is only one answer for a servant of Jesus Christ. “I shall stand where Christ stands.” “Where does he stand?” “Where love is found.”

The servant of Christ is against all hatred, bitterness, selfishness, evil intention, unrighteousness, injustice. We too must be against them in fact and in act. And when we are not sure how Christ would act—don’t move until he makes his way clear. If we temper all we feel and do with love, then we shall not be far from the road Christ is traveling. His way will prevail, will conquer. Stop unseemly strife! It is not his way, of this we can be certain.

Comment On The Sermon

The sermon “The Christian Ministry” was nominated forCHRISTIANITY TODAY’SSelect Sermon Series by Dr. Richard Carl Hoefler, Professor of Homiletics and Liturgics in Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary. Dr. Hoefler’s overcomment follows:

The sermon was chosen for this series not because it is the greatest sermon I have ever heard but because it contains the basic elements that a sermon should possess if it is to be called “great preaching.”

To begin with, such a sermon must come freely from the sincere conviction of the preacher. This conviction is not just what he believes intellectually about a certain passage of Holy Scripture but it is a conviction that reflects a struggle—a struggle of the total man who has been confronted by God’s Holy Word in the midst of an active participation with life. If a man is to write and preach a great sermon, he must be first a pastor. He must enter his study to prepare the sermon concerned not only with the Word of God but also with the World of Dying Men. Each sermon thereby becomes a focal point where God and the World of Men meet. In the quiet of the study the preacher must struggle at this meeting place of Word and world, as Jacob did with the angel. He must wrestle until he is blessed—blessed by divine guidance and insight. For then, and only then, can he leave his study and go to the pulpit as a man who has seen a vision that must be shared, and has received a message that must be told.

Secondly, a sermon that is to be called “great” must be directed to where men are. The Word of God was never spoken in a vacuum. It was always a word spoken to particular people—at a particular time—in a particular place. Therefore, the sermon must be relevant, personal, and direct. But this requirement must be fulfilled in the complete realization that people are not where they should be. The sermon begins where man is, but immediately lifts and directs him to where he should be and can be by God’s grace and power.

This demands that the preacher have courage and humility, but above all an attitude of expectancy. He must enter the pulpit believing that when God’s Word is proclaimed something is going to happen. And this will happen not because of his own talents, or clever ideas, not because he forces or compels the people to a certain action by his logical line of argumentation, but because he is a witness to what God has done, is doing, and will do.

The third element of the sermon that is to be called “great” is clarity. Clarity begins in the mind of the preacher. My practice is to require each student to establish a theme before he writes or presents a sermon. This theme is a single statement which spells out, in his own words, what he believes God intends for him to say. Secondly I demand that every sermon have an outline—not hidden under clever verbiage, but brittle and sharp like the edge of a razor so that even the attention of the most careless listener cannot escape being cut at least once during the development of the sermon.

Great preaching comes in the process of attempting the impossible. To speak God’s Word is impossible for man. God and God alone must do it, but as we strive humbly and earnestly to do that which we know is impossible for us to do, God does it in us.

The sermon fulfills the challenge of greatness, not necessarily as you will read it and analyze its structure but as its effect continues to work in the lives of 30 young pastors who began their ministry with its words on their hearts.

R.C.H.

A startling comment one Sunday by a stranger as he left church set us thinking about successful ministries and unsuccessful ones. “I like to hear your sermons, you believe what you preach.” It never occurred to me that any man could or would stand in the pulpit of our Lord Jesus Christ and utter what he himself did not fully believe. But men do! And Christ’s body is crucified again—the church of Jesus Christ and his great cause of salvation for all men is hurt or restricted!

As I rode one day with the pastor of a great church, we talked of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity. He said to me, “I would give anything if I could believe what you believe and as you believe.” “Thus saith the Lord” must be your authority. “Rooted and grounded in the Scriptures,” not in the philosophies of men, nor simply in the principles of science, but in the word of the Lord—both Christ and his holy Word.

Science and philosophy will be valuable to you in your ministry, but you preach Christ, crucified and risen from the dead, and let the “isms” preach human ethics and philosophies.

H. Grady Davis in his fine book, Design for Preaching (Muhlenberg Press, 1958), reports that Christian leaders in Europe had to learn anew how to read, preach, and hear the Word as God’s Word. Preaching had become only a religious discourse, a “sacred oratory.” One such leader confessed, “We found that we had only been presenting considerations about the Gospel. We had not been presenting the Gospel itself as God’s message.”

Dr. Davis added, “We must proclaim whatever the King gives us to proclaim. A man does not merely ‘preach.’ He preaches the Kings’ message. A man preaches ‘The Gospel of God,’ ‘The Gospel of Christ’ for the purpose of reaching and reclaiming the lost.”

In The Sermon and the Propers (Concordia, 1958), Dr. Fred H. Lindemann has written, “We have the sign of the cross on our forehead and breast from holy baptism; how far have we driven it into our daily life, into our business and profession, into our school life? How far have we carried it into our community? How deeply have we impressed it on our environment? These questions we, the ministers of God, must daily answer!” Would to God that none of us fail Christ, his Church, his cause!

It is a glorious ministry that you are entering. It is a holy calling with an unusual compensation, for you walk with Christ. With the rewards come unusual demands, that you are to love others as Christ loved you. Your entrance into Christ’s ministry signifies your willingness to fulfill the demands. God grant you the faith, the courage, and the steadfastness so to do.

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

The chief business of a college has to do with the thinking of its students. God created man to be a thinking being. The Bible recognizes the central importance of thought. It does not, of course, speak in terms of modern psychology. When it deals with man’s most characteristic activity, it uses not only the word “mind” but also more often words like “heart” and “soul.” It tells us that we are made in the image of the only wise God, an image that, though ruined through the fall beyond our power to repair, is not beyond God’s power to regenerate through the work of Christ.

In the Bible the thought life is decisive. Solomon says, “As [a man] thinketh in his heart, so is he.” And again, “Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.” Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to this world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds; and he gives us the charter for Christian thought when he says: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.”

Blaise Pascal, certainly one of the most biblical of all the great scientists and philosophers, says in his Pensées, “Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature; but he is a thinking reed.… Let us endeavour, then, to think well.” In other words, one of the great marks of man’s uniqueness is his God-given capacity to think. Consequently, anything that diminishes our thinking tends to dehumanize us through making us less than what God created us to be.

We ought, therefore, as partners in Christian education, to take seriously our obligation to live our intellectual life to the glory of God. For us who receive the Bible as the Word of God, who know at first-hand the power of the Saviour who died and rose for us, the Christian’s intellectual life is not an optional, take-it-or-leave-it matter. It is for all of us. It is a “must” for every believing student and teacher.

The Christian call to the intellectual life is not just to an elite, a chosen few. It is not merely for members of the scholastic honor society, or for the faculty. Said Sir William Ramsay, “Christianity is the religion of an educated mind.” Observe that he did not say that it is the religion of a brilliant or a gifted mind. We are not responsible for the extent of our native intelligence but for the extent of our use of the ability God has given us. And in the Christian liberal arts college the talents of the mind must be developed into Christian intellect. There is, as Professor Jacques Barzun of Columbia shows in The House of Intellect, a crucial distinction between intelligence and intellectualism. The former is our native endowment in mental aptitude; the latter is the use we make of our individual ability in helping to develop a cultural tradition.

So let us go on to see some of the implications of the development of Christian intellect. Consider its distinctive nature. We Christians are people of the Book, not just any book, but the Bible—the greatest, most beautiful, most profound Book in the world, on the truths of which the Christian college rests. Because this Book has to do with man in the entirety of his being, and because of our relationship to the living Lord who is made known to us through it, our intellectual life is much bigger than our reason alone. It embraces all of us, including our will and our emotions. Man is a unit; we cannot isolate and compartmentalize our faculties. To quote Pascal again, “The heart has reasons that the reason does not know.” As Dr. A. W. Tozer puts it: “The Greek church father, Nicephorus, taught that we should learn to think with our heart. ‘Force your mind to descend into the heart,’ he says, ‘and to remain there.…’ When you thus enter into the place of the heart … it will teach you things which in no other way you will ever learn.”

THE UNION WITH MORALITY

Look now at the scope of the Christian’s intellectual life. The charge is often made that those of us who take the Word of God as our guide are bound to be restricted in outlook. To this the best answer is to turn to Philippians 4:8 where Paul outlines the scope of our thought and urges us to “think on” (literally “ponder,” “let your mind dwell on”) six categories of things: those things that are “true,” “honest” (honorable), “just” (according to God’s requirements), “pure” (and remember that purity of thought comes from purity of soul), “lovely” (all that is beautiful), and “of good report” (before God and our fellow man). What horizons these six open up! They invite Christian thought to explore every aspect of truth to the glory of God.

We hear much today about the imperative need for the pursuit of excellence in education. It is a worthy purpose to seek excellence in all that we do. Yet by itself the pursuit of excellence is inadequate unless it is always related to the truth, not only abstractly but as it is in Christ. Just as we should say with Paul, “For me to live is Christ,” so we must, as A. P. Sertillanges suggests, learn to say in every aspect of our intellectual life, “For me to live is truth”; for Christ is himself the truth. As he is revealed in his perfection in the Word, he is the ultimate criterion and measure of truth.

Now to live for the truth means to adopt a scale of values different from that which surrounds us. It was Archbishop William Temple who remarked, “The world, as we live in it, is like a shop window where some mischievous person has broken in the night to change all the price labels, so that the cheap things have the higher price on them and the really precious things are marked down.” Why is there this twisting, this reversal of values in the world? One reason is the divorce in worldly thinking between truth and its ethical and spiritual implications. One of the contributions of Christian thought to our times must be the recovery of the ethical and spiritual dimensions of truth. No matter how great the prestige of a college or university is, search for truth merely on the level of the reason will not do. To hold truth in a moral and spiritual vacuum is not good enough. Thoughtful secular educators are beginning to see this. Witness these words of President Dickey of Dartmouth College: “I believe we must at least redouble our effort to restore the relevancy of moral purpose as an essential companion of intellectual purpose and power in any learning that presumes to liberate a man.… There is simply no civilized alternative to having personal power answerable to conscience.”

What Dr. Dickey and others like him are seeking—that is, the connection between intellectual and moral purpose—is at the center of our Christian heritage. Observe that Paul’s pattern of the subject matter of our thought—the things that are “true,” “honorable,” “just,” “pure,” “lovely,” and “of good report”—is united throughout with ethical values.

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE TRUTH

But the Christian’s intellectual life goes even deeper than this union with morality. It is at bottom a life of faith. Let us never make the mistake of thinking that faith is unrelated to knowledge and the development of intellect. In the deepest sense, believing is the door to knowledge. Truth is never created by the mind of man; it is there all the time and we are led to it by faith. Have you ever noticed how many heroes of faith were intellectual persons? Think of Paul, Augustine, Anselm, who gave us the great insight, “Credo ut intelligam” (I believe that I might know), Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and many others. Faith is not, as some make it out to be, a leap in the dark; rather is it, as David Read suggests, a leap out of the darkness into the light.

The blind spot in the striving of the non-Christian mind for intellectual excellence lies in the incorrigible secularism with which it disregards faith. Secularism is, as someone has defined it, the practice of the absence of God. If it is our privilege as Christians to see where the world is blind, let us be very humble about it. Let us also be very sure that our intellectual life is infused with faith. For only the thinker who “believes that God is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him” uses his mind to God’s glory.

A COSTLY CHALLENGE

The challenge of the Christian intellectual life is indeed great. But it is not an easy challenge. It costs to have a mind that is really dedicated to the Lord. The reason why there are Christians who are not going on intellectually to the glory of God is not that they are dull or incapable of learning, but simply that they will not pay the price. And the price will not come down. It is nothing less than the discipline of self-restraint and plain hard work.

Dr. Allan Heely, distinguished headmaster of the Lawrenceville School, was once asked by a voluble lady, enamored of progressive education, this question: “What, Dr. Heely, is your idea of the ideal curriculum for growing boys?” He replied as follows: “Any program of worth-while studies so long as all of it is hard and some of it is unpleasant.” This was a severe but wholesome answer which applies in principle to the whole range of education on through graduate school. A great fault of education today is that much of it is too easy, and the fault applies to college as well as to school. No student will ever make sound progress in learning if he chooses courses merely because he thinks they will be easy.

What kind of books, if any, do we read voluntarily in term time and in vacations, what kind of music do we listen to, what pictures do we look at, a leading quesion now that television has invaded the campus as well as the home? What will we be doing this year with our leisure time? These are revealing questions. No Christian, no matter how pious, will ever grow intellectually if he feeds his mind on trash, on the third-rate; if he never on his own reads some hard books, listens to some great and profound music, or tries to converse seriously about difficult subjects.

Turning from these things to the greatest Book of all, let me ask what is the place of the Bible in our lives? Have we the fortitude to maintain inviolate a daily time alone with the Word of God? One may be an intellectual person without the Bible, but one will never be a Christian intellectual without it.

Finally, we grow in intellect in the broadest and deepest sense as we submit ourselves to our teacher. And who is that? As Bishop Stephen Bayne put it in the title of an address on Christian education, “God Is the Teacher.” In the Christian college—and herein lies the inestimable value of a committed Christian college—the living God is recognized as the source of all wisdom and excellence. And how does He teach? Let me say it reverently. God is not a progressive educator. He teaches us daily, as we pay the price of hard thinking. He teaches us through his Word. He teaches us through teachers who in turn are taught by him. He teaches us through the discipline of trial and disappointment and suffering, and through our successes too. But most of all he teaches us through a Person, through the One who is altogether lovely, the One who is himself most excellent in all things, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the Truth, never compromised with anything that was false or sinful. When God teaches us, he is always saying in and through and above whatever we are studying and learning for ourselves, or, in the case of us teachers, what we are teaching others, “This is my beloved Son; hear you him.”

The intellectual life at its highest and best is above all else a Christ-centered life. It means having the mind of the Lord Jesus. It has a goal, the magnificent, lofty goal, as Paul said, of “bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”

Like the high priest of Israel who had written on the mitre over his forehead, “Holiness unto the Lord,” so the Christian student and scholar, dedicated to the intellectual life, must have written over his mind, “Holiness unto the Lord,” as he seeks to ponder and dwell on the truth.

Preacher In The Red

YOUR FRIEND AND MINE

DURING MY PASTORATE in Monrovia, California, we had a guest speaker on one Sunday morning. He was a very short, light weight man, perhaps but little over 5 feet tall, and he was well known to our congregation. When the time came to introduce Rev. Remfrey Hunt, guest speaker, and after the usual amenities were over, I turned to the congregation and said, “It is now my very good pleasure to present to you, your friend and mine, Mr. Hemfrey Runt.”—The Rev. FRANK H. SHAUL, Pasadena, California.

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

This brief article adds a footnote to our suggestion (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, May, June, 1960, issues) that a new “mind” or world-outlook is emerging, characterized by a definition of Reality in terms of Self and Unpattern. This development leads, we said, to finding the “Real” either in the Group, the Self, or the Unpatterned Cosmos. In this outlook, we suggested, “God” becomes either the Unpatterned Cosmos, or something produced by the Group to give emotional security. Many observers have felt that something like this is going on in religion: Richard Niebuhr, for example, has said that we have replaced “the mysterious will of the Sovereign of life and death and sin and salvation” with “the sweet benevolence of a Father-Mother God or the vague goodness of the All.” Such opinions could be multiplied.

Various polls seem to show that the apparently widespread affirmation of traditional religious beliefs in some respects must be taken with a grain of salt.

Thus, Will Herberg, for example, summarizes the results of three recent polls (Gallup, Gaffin, Barnett) as follows (Protestant, Catholic, Jew, pp. 91 ff.): 97 per cent (or 96 per cent, or 95 per cent) believe in God; 90 per cent (or 92 per cent) pray; 86 per cent believe the Bible is the Word of God; 89 per cent believe in the Trinity, 80 per cent believe that Christ is divine; 77 per cent (or 76 per cent, or 75 per cent) believe in heaven (with 13 per cent, 13 per cent, 15 per cent not sure); 95 per cent feel religion is important, and 81 per cent that it can answer “most of today’s problems”; 91 per cent say they are trying to live a good life, and over 50 per cent feel that they love their neighbor as themselves; 98 per cent want their children to be educated in religion. There would seem to be no question that America, at least superficially, is religious, and indeed Christian. And yet the very same polls show that 40 per cent never or hardly ever read the Bible; that 80 per cent are “more serious” about “comfort in this life” than about life after death; that only 5 per cent have any fear of hell; that only 25 per cent feel they could love an enemy of America; that 54 per cent say religion has no influence on their political or economic ideas.

These results might seem to be contradictory. But, if there is a transition to a “mind” which sees God as either the Unpattern or something developed by the Group in order to give emotional security, they are consistent enough. The traditional terms would be mouthed, for they are still held up by the Group; at the same time, their content would be watered down and changed so that anything which might jeopardize emotional security is removed. In such a context, statements such as “our government makes no sense unless it is founded on a deeply-felt religious faith—and I don’t care what it is” (Dwight D. Eisenhower, see The Christian Century, Feb. 24, 1954), have great appeal.

To examine more closely the extent of such attitudes, a poll was given to 100 college students, largely Protestant and from small towns in central Illinois. While the sample was not large enough to be conclusive, the findings are rather suggestive. The students were freshmen and sophom*ores taking social science courses.

There would seem to be little doubt that the group polled, like Americans in general, are “Christian” at least superficially. Of the students, 96 per cent believe God exists, 84 per cent believe in the Trinity, 94 per cent believe in Christ, 95 per cent that Christ rose from the dead, 89 per cent that God created the world, 80 per cent believe in eternal life, and 87 per cent that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. And yet the very same poll shows other results—which make good sense from the outlook of the post-modern “mind.” Some 56 per cent feel that “the main purpose of religion is to give emotional security”; 44 per cent agree that “when we say a religion is ‘true,’ we mean that it gives those who believe in it a feeling of security”; 47 per cent believe that “if we try and do our best, God will let us into heaven”; 43 per cent say that “man is essentially good”; 36 per cent agree that “all religions are equally true”; 40 per cent concur that “science deals with truth, while religion is what you believe”; 71 per cent say that loving our neighbor as ourselves means that “we should not interfere in his business, nor use force against him”; 61 per cent deny that “the love of money is the root of all evil”; 41 per cent agree that “so long as we believe in God, it does not make much difference how we define God; thus, it is a good religion if we believe in Universe, if we feel that it is God”; and 25 per cent agree that “God is a belief of man’s” so that “if there were no men, there would be no belief in God, and therefore God would not exist.”

We cannot say that this merely shows that many Protestants are “modernists” and that we evangelicals need not worry about our own youth. Consider the answers of those who said that the Bible was infallible (just under half the sample). Some 36 per cent of them agree that “the main purpose of religion is to give emotional security,” 43 per cent that “when we say a religion is ‘true,’ we mean that it gives those who believe in it a feeling of security”; 42 per cent agree that “I believe in salvation by works, that is, if we try and do our best, God will let us into heaven”; 34 per cent agree that “man is essentially good, and is capable of doing good acts by himself”; 26 per cent feel that “all religions are equally true”; 38 per cent agree that “science deals with truth, while religion is what you believe”; 70 per cent take loving one’s neighbor to mean “we should not interfere in his business, nor use force against him”; 45 per cent deny that “the love of money is the root of all evil”; 23 per cent agree that if we believe in Universe, it would be a good religion; and 15 per cent agree that if nobody believed in God, he would not exist. And yet 53 per cent agree that “atheists should not be allowed as president.”

It might be suggested that such results show the emergence of a new attitude towards religion which can hardly be called “Christian” in a meaningful sense; and, further, that we need some far-reaching self-examination in order to decide how to come to grips with the man who can hold both that the Bible is infallible and that all religions are equally true. We may have to “destroy his faith” so that he can come to grips with Christianity.

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

The Church and its theology—like many other things—is often put before the dilemma of being conservative or progressive. In spite of repeated attempts to show how false this dilemma is, it manages to keep its power to falsify the truth. The terms vary. Sometimes it is put as conservative versus modern. But the dilemma is the same. We wish to point out that his way of stating the alternatives that face the Church and theology gives us no help at all in analyzing the theological situation.

It is not hard to illustrate how useless the conservative versus progressive approach to the characterization of men and thought is. Take Jeremiah, for instance. This prophet was the man who called the people back to “the old paths” (Jer. 6:16) and who was also the prophet of the “new covenant” (Jer. 31:31). Consider Paul also. The apostle told Timothy to hold fast to that which he had received (1 Tim. 6:20). Yet, no one was more possessed with the vision of the new than was Paul (cf. 2 Cor. 5: 17). One quickly senses how meaningless the opposition between “conservative” and “progressive” becomes when it is used to typify men and their positions. This is especially true when the term “conservative” is meant to describe someone who cleaves to the past and turns away from the future.

Many modern theological movements today manifest strong conservative tendencies. Consider the powerfully conservative attitude that liberal theology has shown in regard to miracles. Liberal theology has held on to the old attitudes regarding myth and world-view, redemption and Christ, and many other positions typical of the nineteenth century. Liberals still consider old positions untouchable. Whenever someone declines this conservative attitude and seeks with new joy to develop the perspectives of the Holy Scriptures, when someone, that is, tries to shed himself of the stubborn conservatism of liberal theology, he is branded as a “conservative theologian.”

The zeal with which many orthodox theologians have staked claim on the adjective “conservative” is, in my judgment, regrettable. They mean by their self-designation as conservative to take their position on the side of the Gospel and the faith of the Reformation. Sometimes one means by the term “conservative” to indicate that he is not liberal. But we must, I think, get away from this defensive tactic; we must decline the conservative-progressive dilemma. We ought not to be forced to accept either horn of the dilemma; we ought not accept the term conservative as describing our position. The word does nothing to suggest the presence of the dynamic power and the perspective for the future that are inherent in the Gospel.

To call the Reformation a conservative movement is on the face of it a bad half-truth. To be sure, the Reformers reached back across the centuries to the old Gospel. But they also looked to the renewal of all of life through the Gospel. And life was renewed. Preaching was again set in the center of the Church. Scholars went at the serious business of exegeting the Word from which, in turn, all sorts of new perspectives came to light, perspectives for the practical life of the people. The false dilemma, “progressive” or “conservative,” in no way really illuminates what happened at the Reformation.

The broad divisions between the theological schools are real and significant. But these divisions are not clarified in the least by calling one side conservative and the other side progressive. Surely, orthodoxy does not swear by the old while liberal theology searches for new perspectives. The Gospel does not face us with an option between old and new, as such. The choice presented by the Gospel is that between the power and blessing of the new life in Christ and the weakness of the old nature and the old dispensation.

I strongly suspect that we are talking about more than mere words. A confusion has arisen from the habit many have had of seeing a basic polarity between the conservative and progressive attitudes. A bad and wrong impression has been created by the orthodox’s acceptance of the designation of their position as “conservative.” The theology which seeks to live and work by the Word of God, the Word which is always in movement toward new paths of power, is not conservative. But the impression created by letting the liberal position take possession of the word “progressive” is just as wrong. Liberal theology is showing its bondage to traditional ways more clearly than ever these days. Liberalism is bound to the past; it shuts the door to the new and unexpected.

There is always the danger of trying to preserve what is not worth preserving. We always run the temptation of refusing to follow the new ways to which the Gospel calls us. There is the danger that, flying the conservative banner, we lose our power to speak to the modern world, that we give the impression that the Gospel, interpreted by conservatives, has nothing to say to modern man. To avoid the dangers, we must continuously, earnestly, and with intellectual integrity keep close to the Bible. We cannot rest with the delusion that we have rather completely grasped what there is to be known from the Bible. Fresh biblical research is constantly necessary; where it goes on things can happen to break new ground for the Church. Renewal in theology as well as in the Church comes only where men bow with open ears before the Word. For men who really do listen to the Word, there is no such thing as a dilemma between the progressive and the conservative way of looking at things. The Gospel transcends this false dilemma. We must refuse to let ourselves be branded as conservative. Conservatism is not the mark of the man who lives and works in the truth and power of the Gospel.

Matthew’S Testimony And Modern Criticism

The Gospel According to St. Matthew, by Floyd V. Filson (Harper, 1960, 314 pp. $5), is reviewed by Ned B. Stonehouse, Professor of New Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary.

In this contribution to the series of Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, the author, well-known McCormick scholar, has been mainly concerned to make clear how the evangelist, whom he distinguishes from the Apostle Matthew, “understood the gospel story and what he wanted the Church to get from his book.” This concern has in many respects been admirably achieved especially when one considers the severe limitations of space. In the main Dr. Filson sticks closely to his last. And the volume reflects his ability to write succinctly and pointedly without sacrifice of clarity.

Although Dr. Filson occupies a negatively critical position, so far as the authority of Scripture is concerned, and shares to a significant degree the modern view that Matthew is representative of theological and practical viewpoints which developed in the Church after the death of Christ, his critical position is far more conservative than that of many contemporary New Testament scholars. One may single out, for example, his defense of the essential authenticity of the Matthaean record of Christ’s declarations concerning the Church in Matthew 16 (p. 186). Refreshing too is the observation that he stresses the decisive significance of the resurrection of Christ, and maintains in this connection that “the tomb was empty” and that no theory is satisfactory which “limits the resurrection to psychological recovery by the disciples or a purely spiritual survival by Jesus” (pp. 302 ff., cf. pp. 40 f.).

Nevertheless the author makes clear again and again that he does not wish to align himself unmistakably on the side of the testimony of this Gospel. How equivocal his position is may be best illustrated by his comment on the attitude that one should take toward the virgin birth of Christ. He says: “This theological affirmation of the unique, purposeful work of God in sending Jesus Christ into the world is essential to the gospel story. Whoever takes the birth story as poetic and figurative must take care not to drain away the vigor and firmness of that affirmation. On the other hand, those who, to protect the divine initiative and to centre God’s historical working in Christ, accept literally the story that Jesus had no earthly father must preserve the New Testament conviction that Jesus was born as a real human being and lived a truly human life” (p. 56). To be sure, there is no place for Docetism in the New Testament, but the acceptance of the Virgin Birth or its rejection is not basically an issue regarding balance in one’s Christology but of the trustworthiness of Scripture. Of a piece with this attitude toward the Matthaean record are some of the author’s comments on miracle stories. With regard to the record of Matthew 17:24, for example, he says: “A figurative statement of Jesus may have developed into a miracle story in the course of transmission. If so, this could only happen because the Church knew that Jesus had done many remarkable things, and this did not seem an impossible addition to the list” (p. 196; cf. p. 172).

In my judgment the rejection of the tradition of apostolic authorship is a quite different matter from the rejection of the testimony of Scripture itself. Nevertheless, Dr. Filson’s argument here is quite unimpressive (cf. p. 20).

NED B. STONEHOUSE

Thirty Conversions

Evangelical Conversion in Great Britain 1696–1845, by T. W. B. Bullock (Budd & Gillatt, 1959, 287 pp., 35s.), is reviewed by Herbert M. Carson, Vicar of St. Paul’s, Cambridge.

Apart from a short introduction, this book consists of two main sections. The first, which comprises about two-thirds of the total work, describes 30 actual conversion experiences from the period under review (incidentally, it is not quite clear why the particular dates are selected for the survey). The second section is a psychological study of the cases cited earlier.

The 30 experiences recorded embrace a wide variety, including well-known figures like the Wesleys, Whitefield, and Robert Murray McCheyne, and also others who are probably unknown to most readers. The accounts tend to vary in value depending upon the measure of treatment accorded. But on the whole the accounts given are carefully and attractively presented, and the fact that a great deal of the material used is autobiographical makes them even more compelling. This part of the book is really valuable.

One major lack, however, in the underlying assumptions of the book is a failure to take into account the work of the Holy Spirit in awakening men. An allied failure is an apparent inability to recognize the nature of a true revival in the sense of a sovereign act of God, so that again and again revivals are confused with revivalism. In fact here perhaps we get the real weakness of the treatment, in that it is essentially man-centered rather than God-centered. Thus where Scripture would see the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, the author describes the experience as the end product of a purely human reaction.

It may be objected that such a critique of the work ignores the whole aim of the book which is to give a purely psychological description. To go beyond that is to enter the realm of theology. But the very failure to deal adequately with the experiences under review shows the inevitable flaw in such a purely psychological approach to convension. It is a treatment of the subject which fails to take into account the most important factor, namely the work of God. Hence while it may describe—and this book does in many ways admirably describe—the emotional and psychological factors which enter into the experince, it fails to lift the subject to the only level where it can really be understood. The understanding of conversion in these pages rarely seems to get beyond the man and the changes in him. While those whose conversions are described are clearly shown to have become God-centered, the discussion of their experience remains very much man-centered.

HERBERT M. CARSON

Divinity Of Christ

Son and Saviour, a symposium (Chapman, 1960, 151 pp., 12s. 6d.), is reviewed by David F. Wright, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

The flyleaf describes these essays as “standing firm on up-to-date biblical criticism, yet written for the nonexpert reader, sound, critical and catholic in approach, stimulating in matter.” The layman will not often find himself out of his depth, though he may be puzzled by references to “the Pasch” and “the sapiential literature.” A critical approach generally reaches conservative conclusions, whether on the synoptists’ portrait of Jesus, or on the historicity of early Acts and of the Johannine Jesus, “those facts of Christ’s life which John chose to preserve” (p. 121).

The last essay is the best, containing clear expositions of “glory” and of the essential dependence of the mission of Jesus upon his nature. The Jewish background to the doctrinal content is affirmed, and the chapter is marred only by a strange and unexplained preference for the variant and much inferior reading of the singular in John 1:13, which refers the verse to Christ (similarly another contributor regards Acts 8:37 as authentic). The other essays may not reach the high standard of the last, but they provide a good introduction to Christology, almost completely free from “Catholic” bias (Protestant writers are regularly cited with approval), scholarly, and faithfully scriptural.

Perhaps the first essay is least satisfactory, where we read that “none of the types of (the Messiah) bore the dignity of God” in Jewish expectation (p. 13), an opinion open to question in the light of such references as Psalm 2; 7; 45; 6 and Isaiah 9:1–6, “none of which affirms the ‘divine nature’ and ‘divine attributes’ of the Messiah.” In the last passage we are told that “the phrase ‘Mighty God’ could only have been understood in the sense of ‘godly nobleman’” (p. 17). A few criticisms must not deter us from this fine example of modern French Roman Catholic biblical study.

D. F. WRIGHT

Bunyan’S Last Work

The Acceptable Sacrifice or The Excellency of a Broken Heart (obtainable from O. G. Pearce, The Retreat, Harpenden, Herts., England, 1959, 108 pp., 5s. 6d.), is reviewed by Joyce M. Wilkinson, Traveling Secretary of Inter-Varsity Fellowship and formerly Research Worker at Somerville College, Oxford.

This little-known work of Bunyan is an exposition of Psalm 51:17, and deals with the subject of repentance and grief for sin. With typical Puritan pastoral concern and thoroughness, Bunyan analyzes such questions as how one recognizes a broken heart and contrite spirit, why a profound conviction of sin is necessary, the salutary results of a broken heart, and how a Christian may keep his heart tender.

The book reflects Bunyan’s own experience described in Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, when he labored under an acute consciousness of sin for two years before being assured of his salvation. Eminently readable, it is written in the simple language of country people, as this extract may show: “Yet, further, God doth not only prefer such an one before heaven and earth, but He loveth, He desireth to have that man for an intimate, for a companion; He must dwell, He must cohabit with him that is of a broken heart.… Verily this consideration is enough to make the brokenhearted man creep into a mouse-hole.” Not only preachers and pastors but every Christian will be instructed by this reminder of the holiness of God; it is indeed a relevant and practical republication when one of the reasons for much of the current spiritual shallowness appears to be a failure to reckon with the seriousness of sin.

J. M. WILKINSON

Has Rome Changed?

We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition, by John Courtney Murray, (Sheed&Ward, 1960, 336 pp., $5), is reviewed by C. Gregg Singer, Professor of History, Catawba College.

Reviewing this book would be a much easier assignment if one were not convinced of the sincerity which lies behind the attempt, on the part of a prominent Catholic scholar, to bring about a modus vivendi between the Roman Catholic church in this country and American democracy. The author reduces the problem to its simplest terms and locates the whole issue in the American proposition which he finds in these truths concerning human equality which the Declaration of Independence declares as self-evident. In his foreword, Dr. Murray raises the fundamental question around which this collection of essays revolves. Declaring that it is impertinent to ask whether Catholicism is compatible with American democracy, he reverses the question and asks whether American democracy is compatible with Catholic theology. To this latter question he then gives an affirmative answer.

Finding the setting for the problems which he discusses in the pluralistic framework of American society, he proceeds to examine the nature and implications of this pluralism for the Roman Catholic church in this country. The frank admission that this pluralism, as it exists in America, is unique in the modern world and is quite different from that which prevails in Europe is, in the opinion of this reviewer, evidence of the sincerity of the author on the whole. He realizes that pluralism is the native condition of American society and that it did not come about as a result of the corruption or decay of a previously existing religious unity such as was the case in Europe. It is this essential difference between the pluralism of contemporary Europe, and that which has prevailed in this country from its beginnings, which provides the opportunity for an agreement between American democracy and the Roman church.

Dr. Murray then attempts to prove that there is no basic incompatibility between the two systems. He achieves this result by a process of reasoning which involves the argument that the basic proposition of the American consensus was quite different from that of the radicalism of the Jacobins of the French Revolution. That this is a valid assumption may well be doubted, and later on Dr. Murray himself proceeds to destroy it in his well-founded attack on the philosophy of John Locke whose system underlay the philosophy of both the American and French Revolutions. In attacking Locke, Murray destroys the very area of possible agreement which he defined in part one of his book.

When the reader arrives at part four, however, he soon learns that the common ground for both parties is actually to be found only in the Thomistic conception of the natural law philosophy. This reviewer agrees with his sharp criticisms of Locke, but he would point out that to destroy Locke is not to enshrine Thomas Aquinas, and that is exactly what Dr. Murray does. The compatibility between American democracy and Roman Catholicism is thus to be rooted and grounded in the Thomistic version of natural law.

Thus, this reviewer must conclude that, in spite of a sincere desire to find a possible modus vivendi, Dr. Murray has not actually made any significant change in the orientation of the Roman Catholic church toward the issues of American democracy. Even going one step further, he would add the fact that he is rather glad that the author failed. For it is apparent that if the Roman church were to accommodate itself in the manner set forth in part one, the Roman church would cease to be a church and become all too similar to liberal Protestantism which, in its desire to conform to the demands of the democratic philosophy, has sold its soul to the enemies of the Cross.

C. GREGG SINGER

Reference Bible

Dake’s Annotated Reference Bible, New Testament (with Daniel, Psalms, and Proverbs) by Finis J. Dake (Zondervan, 1961, 488 pp., $7.95), is reviewed by R. Laird Harris, Professor of Old Testament, Covenant Theological Seminary.

This book is an extensive cross-reference and chain-reference Bible with much encyclopedic and explanatory material and an extensive index included. The viewpoint is approximately that of the Scofield Bible. The method of listing “15 doctrines,” “19 reasons,” etc., will appeal to many, but seems somewhat elementary. A good book, but should be used with standard Bible dictionaries and works of reference.

R. LAIRD HARRIS

Baptists And Baptism

A Baptist Treasury, compiled and edited by Sydnor L. Stealey (Crowell, 1958, 323 pp., $3.95); A History of Baptists in America Prior to 1845, compiled by Jesse L. Boyd, (American Press, 1957, 205 pp., $3); and The Meaning of Baptism, by John Frederick Jansen (Westminster, 1958, 125 pp., $2.50), are reviewed by Harold Lindsell, Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Missions, Fuller Theological Seminary.

President Stealey of Southeastern Baptist Seminary has performed a service in bringing together this collection of Baptist writings under the title, A Baptist Treasury. The volume is in six sections with writings related to the subject of each section: Baptist Beginnings; Confessions, Cathechism, Church Covenants; Some Baptist Controversies; Distinctive Baptist Principles; Sermons and Addresses; and Hymns and Prayers. The expected problem of what to include and what to leave out was evidently perplexing. Yet the author’s choices show balance and perspective.

Baptists would do well to read this volume, for few have much sense of historical perspective and many entertain naive conceptions of their antecedents. Particularly illuminating are the documents which reveal the doctrinal differences of Baptists. The choice of Benjamin Mays’ (a Negro) address on race relations was a happy one, although his conclusions on the unity of the race and the oneness of believers without respect to race are old. It is unfortunate that there could not have been something extant which would suggest creative solutions to the problem, the principles of which are all too obvious.

Boyd’s compendium, A History of Baptists in America Prior to 1845, is exactly that. He compiled the material for background purposes in a college course. The material is fascinating but its use is limited because it is only a compilation. It lacks organization and integration, but this is to be expected in a work of such a nature. The bibliography is far from complete: Newman’s volume on Baptist history does not appear, although Vedder’s and Torbet’s do. There are pictures of many early Baptist leaders, and this is a valuable contribution.

The reviewer cannot imagine why the third volume, The Meaning of Baptism, was included in this triad. The latter volume has nothing to do with Baptists and should hardly be reviewed by one. It comprises 21 meditations on the sacrament of Baptism, and most of it relates to infant baptism at that. The author has a flair for creative writing, is himself widely read, and has drawn on interesting sources for illustrative material. Conservative, liberal, and neo-orthodox names abound. The hymns and poetry are generally in the orthodox tradition. Dr. Jansen says in his preface that he “does not attempt to argue for the validity of infant Baptism”; however, he violates this principle and practically gives away his case when he says, “We do not rest the case for infant Baptism on any number of proof texts; we rest it rather on the meaning of Baptism and on the reality of a people of God.” He finds “a trace of the baptismal formula” in the “story of Jesus and the children.” From this he argues that we ought not to forbid baptism to children. The logic is bad and the biblical evidences are nonexistent.

Each meditation is prefaced by a Scripture quotation. Too often they are not texts but pretexts. Allegorizing is too frequent. Perhaps the gravest weakness of the book is the author’s use of paradox. It takes strange forms. Baptism saves and does not save. It depends on which meditation you happen to read. “Baptism assures me that God has given me his name …” (p. 41). “There is one body.… And Baptism expresses our initiation into this one body …” (p. 122). He argues that one goes back to his baptism with spiritual value. “Jesus found himself going back to the place of his baptism.… To go back to the place of Baptism for renewal is to rediscover the steadying certainty that we love him.…” Unfortunately no infant can go back or remember!

Baptism is a sacrament and conveys grace. Convenantal theology is tied to infant Baptism. If one can accept these premises he will enjoy the volume. If he cannot, he is apt to find the book rough going. And a Baptist can hardly give it a fair review!

HAROLD LINDSELL

Rebirth Of A Nation

The Rebirth of the State of Israel, by Arthur W. Kac (Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1958, 387 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Eric Edwin Paulson, Minister, Lutheran Free Church, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

No contemporary event has been of greater significance to Bible believers than Israel’s re-establishment as a nation in 1948. Students of the prophetic Word have also been thrilled as they have witnessed Israel’s steady growth economically and culturally.

The question, “Is it of God or of men?”, which appears as a subtitle to Dr. Kac’s book, is answered in a manner that illumines the mind and stimulates the imagination of his readers. Writing in a clear and simple style, Dr. Kac who is currently President of the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America, reveals thorough insight into scriptural truth and a wide understanding of the problems that the new nation of Israel has faced. Quotations included from the writings of statesmen, scientists, and historians should also be of great value to preachers and lecturers on biblical themes. One marvels at how a medical man, who has specialized in radiology, has become so broadly acquainted not only with the problems of the State of Israel but of Jews scattered throughout the world. References and extended notes found at the close of each chapter suggest many other profitable lines of reading and inquiry to persons interested in special aspects of these varied and searching questions.

Although this is a scholarly book, it is written in a manner that will make it equally appealing to laymen and pastors. Students of prophecy, who have yearned for a fresh exposition of Scripture as this applies to present-day events, will find this volume most satisfying. It should also become required reading for all theological students.

ERIC EDWIN PAULSON

Bultmann Demythologized

The Scope of Demythologizing, Bultmann and His Critics, by John Macquarrie (Harper, 1960, 256 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by Robert Paul Roth, Professor of New Testament Theology, Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary.

This book is a valiant attempt to defend the work of Rudolf Bultmann against critics on the right (Barth, Cullman, Thielicke, Malevez) who charge that demythologizing will reduce Christian faith to a philosophy of human existence, and against critics on the left (Buri, Jaspers) who feel that Bultmann has not gone far enough but has arbitrarily stopped short in retaining the kerygma as myth because of too narrow views on grace and revelation.

There is a limit to demythologization which the author, John Macquarrie of Glasgow University, assures has been recognized by Bultmann. An adequate theology would require both a minimum factuality of the events reported in the New Testament and the transcendent reality of God in Christ as the being encountered in the kerygma. But Buri’s understanding of the grace of existence fails adequately to describe the Christian experience of the unique grace in Christ, and Jasper’s conception of general revelation leaves no room for the special encounter in the Gospel.

In addition there is a valuable chapter on the analysis of language, especially the meaning of words like myth, symbol, analogy, and legend.

The importance of this book is pointed up by the comment of Paul Tillich: “When you come to Europe today … it is Rudolf Bultmann who is the center of discussion.” It would seem, however, that in his defense Macquarrie protests too much, so much as to have demythologized Bultmann.

ROBERT PAUL ROTH

Book Briefs

This … I Believe, by Ivor Powell (Zondervan, 1961, 222 pp., $2.50). A lucid and trustworthy review of essential Christian doctrine for the layman.

All the Kings and Queens of the Bible, by Herbert Lockyer (Zondervan, 1961, 253 pp., $3.95). A unique survey of Bible history as seen through the eyes of Bible kings and queens.

Let God In, by Lenn Lerner Latham (Prentice-Hall, 1961, 176 pp., $3.50). Guidelines for practical Christian living presented in popular vein.

King David, by Geoffrey de C. Parmiter (Thomas Nelson, 1961, 195 pp., $3.95). An English barrister’s discerning life story of Israel’s greatest king.

Bible Book of the Month for June 22, 1959, was Nehemiah. Much of what was said concerning title and date for that book is relevant for the Book of Ezra, for there is every evidence that the two formerly existed as one. Ordinarily, Masoretic notations occur at the end of a book in the Hebrew Bible as an indication of the book’s conclusion. This was a technique used for the preservation of textual purity. No such notation occurs at the close of our present Book of Ezra. However, we find notations at the conclusion of Nehemiah and these have reference to the material of both Ezra and Nehemiah, an indication that the two were considered together. Similar Masoretic notations were used to indicate the middle of a book, as in the case of Nehemiah 3:32. Here the remarks are further evidence of unity, for Nehemiah 3:32 is the middle of the Ezra-Nehemiah material. However, as early as around A.D. 400, both Latin and Greek Christians were treating Ezra and Nehemiah as separate books. One cannot be certain whether both parts are by one author or whether the Masoretes may have placed the two together because they dealt with similar settings and situations. A tracing of their exact relationship to each other is difficult due to (1) the various titles by which the books are called and (2) the internal textual variation. Sometimes the two are called I Esdras and at times, II Esdras. Generally, however, the title I Esdras is used to refer to a certain Greek rendering of Ezra which has as its introduction a duplication of the material from 2 Chronicles 35:1–36:21, and which internally has a different arrangement of the text. Our present Ezra 4:7–24 follows 1:3–11. In addition, there is other interpolated material which the usual biblical manuscripts exclude. Second Esdras ordinarily is a term used with reference to the material included as our canonical Ezra-Nehemiah.

No date is specified for either the books or their chief characters. The nearest thing to a specific date for Ezra is that he returned to Palestine in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, king of Persia (7:7), while Nehemiah returned in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 1:1 f.). The simple listing of the chronologies would place Nehemiah after Ezra, for certainly the twentieth year follows the seventh. The arrangement of the books in our canon, Ezra preceding Nehemiah, would suggest the same, and thus has much of tradition surmised. It is strange that there is no notation as to which Artaxerxes is intended, for there were three in proximity—Artaxerxes I (464–424 B.C.), Artaxerxes II (404–358 B.C.), and Artaxerxes III (358–338 B.C.). External conditions would place the return in the reign or reigns of Artaxerxes I or II. Since the time of Hoonacker (1890–1924), there has been much effort to champion Nehemiah’s precedence over Ezra. This would place Nehemiah in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes I, 444 B.C., and Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II, 397 B.C. This is not just a wild suggestion but one which is based primarily upon a study of the names of the high priests listed in Ezra-Nehemiah and upon finds from the island of Elephantine, located at the first cataract of the Nile River. However, as mentioned in the former article on Nehemiah, the data is at times conflicting, variously interpreted, and too complicated for discussion in the limited space available here. Fair and excellent summary treatment is to be found in H. H. Rowley’s “The Chronological Order of Ezra and Nehemiah,” in The Servant of the Lord and Other Essays on the Old Testament. A very readable and more recent attempt at reconstruction is to be found in John Bright’s A History of Israel (pp. 363–386). Suffice it to say that the uncertainty and confusion as to textual arrangement, perplexity in dating, questions of precedence, and nonidentity of authorship may account for the fact that there is no New Testament reference to Ezra-Nehemiah. In the wake of such a long history of questions, it is understandable that there has been tension between those who, like Torrey, consider Ezra as nothing more than fictional imagination and others who take it at face value as literal history. But since one cannot be sure that the writer was seeking to give a strictly chronological history, perhaps a more accurate appraisal would be the middle course of acceptance with a consideration as to textual and source errors and transmission confusion.

Regardless of the point of view with which one approaches the book, the writing itself furnishes invaluable insight into the conditions faced by those returning from exile. This is of more than historical value. Exilic release meant the possibility of covenant continuation with the inherent mission of sharing the covenant faith which the covenant implied. This New Exodus involved new opportunity, an opportunity which could be fulfilled only if Israel were characterized by pure faith, stable homes, and an uncompromised and non-syncretistic orthodoxy. Such was not the case, as the book relates. Therefore, Ezra had the tremendous task of issuing the call for separation. In so doing, he was at times cold, harsh, and uncompromising. Yet, faced not only with the covenant task but also a noncovenant-like people, he needed to be stern. As so often happens, Ezra, in trying to reach his goal, overemphasized and exaggerated one portion of it. Consequently, the purpose of separation—in order to be purified in preparation for the mission of sharing faith—was forgotten. Thus it was that in God’s providence, a challenge to a universal mission, as is found in books like Jonah and Ruth, was necessary. We see the entire panorama as a wholesome revelation of God’s plan and purpose for cultic and personal purity in order that the faith which the worship center and worship people represented might be shared with and witnessed to others. The Book of Ezra is quite important as a mirror in which to understand the larger world mission of the Church.

THE CLARION CALL

Certainly the ministry of Ezra is to be remembered for its clarion call back to the Word of God. Were Ezra’s ministry re-emphasized in modern terminology, it would be a call “back to the Bible.” Preservation of the law was not enough (7:6); Ezra’s concern was to transmit it, interpret it, and make it relevant for his people (7:10). It is not necessary to dwell at length on the identity of the law to which the people were called. The people readily accepted it as authoritative, and testimony was given that its basic contents were known to the prophets (9:10, 11). The period of the Exile had furnished time for reflection upon and the organization of written and oral traditions. This was a call to the formalized moral, ethical, and spiritual principles of the Pentateuch. The book makes it plain that the people themselves recognized the necessity of a continuation of Israel, and indeed the returning exiles considered themselves to be that Israel built around the revelation of God. Though his position has not gained much momentum, Kurt Gallings’ argument (“Gola-List According to Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXX, 1951) that an effort was made to continue something of the earlier amphictyonic organization seems logical. Such an emphasis upon early tribal structure would naturally carry with it the emphasis of early Mosaic law and atmosphere.

Let it be stressed that any consideration of Ezra’s pertinent value should not pass too quickly over the historical contribution of the book. The work of Albright and others (cf. W. F. Albright, The Biblical Period, p. 49) has established the historicity of the once questioned Edict of Cyrus (1:1 f.). There is no reason to question the Aramaic portions of the book. Those who hold them to be fabrications have no case; it was normal procedure for official correspondence, as the Aramaic in Ezra purports to be, to appear in the official language used by the Persian court (cf. The Interpreter’s Bible, III, p. 557).

CONTENT

Perhaps the Book of Ezra can best be comprehended through the dual division of (1) The Early Return from Babylon (chaps. 1–6) and (2) The Career and Reforms of Ezra (chaps. 7–10).

1. The Early Return from Babylon (chaps. 1–6). Jeremiah had spoken of a seventy year captivity (29:10). Seventy subtracted from 605 B.C. (the time of the first captivity) gives about 536/535 B.C. Thus one gathers that Cyrus’ edict, which allowed the return under Sheshbazzar (chaps. 1; 2), is testimony to God’s providence. The favorable use of Cyrus is further testimony that God can take even a man of this world, a pagan, and use him as his servant. Isaiah 45:1 presents a similar situation.

The identification of Sheshbazzar, who planned with Cyrus concerning the initial return, is difficult. Albright’s suggestion that the name linguistically is to be equated with Sin-ab-usur, the fourth son of Jehoiachin, is probably accurate (cf. Journal of Biblical Literature, XL, 1921, p. 108 f.). It is logical that he, as head of the remaining Davidic family, should have assumed a place of leadership in the preparations. He may have written the decree which Cyrus signed, thus authenticating the latter’s decision to “let God’s people go.” Regardless of how the decree came about, the writer of the book definitely felt that the Lord moved Cyrus (1:1). How much validity Cyrus saw in Israel’s witness to the exclusive claim of Yahweh, it is impossible to tell. Nor will one ever know how much of the expression contained in the decree was mere lip service, mere accommodation to gain the favor of subject peoples. Elsewhere (the Cyrus Cylinder) Cyrus represents himself as the servant of the god Marduk, so he was not adverse to accommodation when it aided his own schemes. It is interesting to note (see the catalogue of returning Israelites in chap. 2) that this decree covered the entire territory which Cyrus controlled. Thus, Jews returned in 536, not only from the Babylonian but also from the Assyrian captivity. Consequently, to speak of “ten lost tribes” is a mistake. Remnants of northern and southern peoples returned.

Life back in Palestine (chaps. 3–6) was not as promising as it might have been. A good beginning was made as the people started rebuilding the Temple on the very spot where it had stood before (3:8). Five excellent qualities among the people made for a propitious start. Various groups gave freely (2:68); they gave proportionately (2:69); there was unanimity among them (3:1); there was appreciation for the revealed tradition (3:2 b); and their activity was joyful (3:11). But contrary to the old adage, not all that begins well ends well. Almost as it is today, there was internal unrest and external intervention. Some were disappointed in the new opportunities and mourned for the “good old days” (3:12). As if this were not disconcerting enough, Samaritan adversaries desired to participate in the task (4:1, 2). They claimed to worship the same deity the Israelites did, but because they came from an Assyrian background it must have been a syncretistic allegiance at best (4:2). Not bigoted exclusiveness but an appreciation of the dangers of being unequally yoked together caused the Israelites to deny the Samaritan request. Involved here is the principle of letting God’s people do God’s work (4:3). We note a parallel effort to intervene in the work in the reference to the “people of the land” (4:4). Those mentioned in verses 1 following and 4 are probably of the same group, for after the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722/21 B.C.) immigrants from Assyria intermarried with Israelites who were not taken into captivity. This union gave birth to the people called Samaritans whom the Jews considered half-breeds, not only in race but in culture and religion. Until the exiles were permitted to return, the Samaritans had been allowed to govern all of this section of Palestine. Permission to take some of the territory and set up a self-governing province around Jerusalem certainly was not looked upon with favor; so it is doubtful that the Samaritan offer to help with the building task had any sincerity about it. In fact, the conspiracies reported in the succeeding passages prove that it was not. Opposition and discouragement from both internal and external sources were so momentous that the building task and the accompanying religious revival were discontinued. A time of general religious degeneration and deterioration set in and continued for a period of approximately sixteen years (4:24).

At this point, it should be mentioned that in chapters 4 and 5, there seems to be either chronological confusion or textual displacement, for chapter 4 makes reference to Ahasuerus (485–465 B.C.) and Artaxerxes (464–424 B.C.) while chapter 5 skips back to Darius who preceded these two, 522–485 B.C. There is justification here for the frequent suggestion that 5:1–6:18 formerly must have preceded 4:6–23. But at any rate the setting would indicate much frustration in the efforts to rehabilitate both civil and religious life. Fortunately Haggai and Zechariah, an older prophet and a younger prophet, were raised at the time to issue a prophetic challenge and recall to the task (5:1). After a lapse of so many years, there seemed to be hope again, but it was not easy. This was a time (c. 520 B.C.) of general unrest in the Persian Empire. Revolts were rampant in various sections of the Persian domain. Enemies of the Jews in Palestine immediately contacted Darius with the implication and inference that Jewish Temple rebuilding signified the seed of new revolt. However, a search of the official archives brought to light precedent and permission for the Jewish Temple, and official sanction was given to the project (chap. 6). Finally the Temple was finished in the sixth year of Darius, about 516 B.C. (6:15).

2. The Career and Reforms of Ezra (chaps. 7–10). It is not until chapter 7 that the reader is actually introduced to Ezra, the individual for whom the book was named. The return under Ezra (chaps. 7; 8) is prefaced by a remarkable statement of faith (8:22). Bold man that he was, he had expressed confidence in God’s blessing upon the pilgrimage. He proceeded “from faith to faith” as a man traveling under a commission, for he was certain that God had tapped his shoulder (7:6).

As spiritual leader of the returning band, Ezra must have returned homeward with a light step. Yet, upon his arrival, we note that he met with disappointment. The religious revival which formally broke out upon the completion of the Temple (6:16 f.) proved unfortunately to be as fleeting as the dew of the morning. Even the religious leaders were foremost in compromising with sin, the ugly sin of adultery and of idolatry. The spiritual mission was in reverse; the community had converted the church (9:1 f.)! Waiting and pleading as a true intercessor, Ezra’s burdened prayer was one of thanksgiving for past opportunity and petition for forgiveness and additional opportunity for revival. Ezra recognized the immediate need for a genuine revival which might revitalize the covenant community. Consequently, the remainder of the book is dedicated to the reforms of Ezra (chaps. 9; 10). Much of the problem consisted of mixed marriages. If Ezra’s reforms sound stern and overdrawn (and they were), remember his point of view that assimilation of the covenant people meant loss of covenant mission. Force cannot accomplish what is lacked in inward religious spontaneity. His legislation failed because the people soon returned to their compromised status. Nevertheless, the principle involved of the “purity of God’s people” remains a valid one. It was a reluctant acquiescence (10:12, 13). Ensuing history has indicated that the pattern was little bettered. The book ends in an atmosphere of suspension. There was yet needed someone to fulfill the covenant mission of voluntary and willing witness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In addition to the sources mentioned above, much value is to be gained from the use of A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (International Critical Commentary), by Loring W. Batten. A somewhat more conservative treatment, though brief, is to be found in An Introduction to the Old Testament, by Edward J. Young. Other helpful materials are discussions in Israel After the Exile (The Clarendon Bible), by W. F. Lofthouse; Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther (The Expositor’s Bible), by Walter F. Adeney; Understanding the Old Testament, by Bernhard W. Anderson; and A Light to the Nations, by Norman K. Gottwald.

RALPH H. ELLIOTT

Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew

Midwestern Baptist

Theological Seminary

Evangelical leaders speaking at the 19th annual convention of the National Association of Evangelicals, held in Grand Rapids April 10–14, conveyed the feeling that the NAE has come of age and that the time is opportune for the organization to present a positive front on church and world issues, rather than to be known in the public mind as merely an anti-Liberal, anti-Catholic, and anti-Communist movement.

Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, struck the keynote when he said the evangelical movement “must face the theological, social, political, and economic trends before us, rather than seeming to be resigned forever merely to react to the world’s initiative” in these areas. And, speaking on “theological trends facing the evangelicals today,” he challenged the NAE to promote a “comprehensive evangelical exposition of three great concerns—the problem of religious authority, the mission of the Church, and the nature of the Church.”

The twentieth-century battle against the enemies of the Christian faith will either be won or lost at the level of the local churches, the convention was warned by Dr. Henry Bast of Western Theological Seminary.

“There must be a basic return to an emphasis of Christian fundamentals in the local churches,” Dr. Bast said. “This means the emphasis must be placed on Gospel preaching, the sincere proclamation of the Word of God.” He said that too many church leaders of the day are “running around with a great deal of concern about the church in general, overlooking the church in particular.”

Liberal leaders in the modern Protestant ecumenical movement have surrendered and sacrificed scholarship and objectivity in their effort to build one great world church, said Dr. George L. Ford, NAE executive director.

“It is going to be up to evangelical scholarship to return objectivity to the study of theological matters,” he said. “There is a demand from the grass roots for clearly stated, easily understood treatments of the matters of authority, the nature of the church, the place of the Word of God and the mission of the church in today’s world. There is a concern on the part of evangelical scholars for the communication of their beliefs and convictions. I am recommending to the Board of Administration of the NAE that we do something about this, beginning with the setting up of a study commission on theological trends.”

Actions Of The Convention

Delegates to the National Association of Evangelicals Convention adopted a resolution urging the organization to make a positive approach to the problem of Communism with a “dynamic presentation of the Gospel rather than engage in the investigation and exposure of individual Communists.” Support was given governmental investigatory functions as necessary for national security.

Other resolutions endorsed (1) tax exemption for church and institutional activities provided such were not of a secular enterprise nature, (2) an appeal to the National Association of Broadcasters to clean up TV films, and (3) church efforts to accelerate educational information on the evils of liquor traffic.

The convention created a new NAE organization post, that of director of information. W. Stanley Mooneyham was appointed to the post. Mooneyham is editor of United Evangelical Action, the NAE magazine, and will henceforth serve in a dual capacity.

Building of a new headquarters building in Wheaton, Illinois, at a cost of $100,000 was approved. It is to be ready for use early in 1962.

The United States and the West cannot snatch the initiative from Communists surging through a large part of the world without developing a positive, aggressive diplomacy, with firmness backed up by military strength and force, Dr. Harold John Ockenga of Boston told a public rally at the convention.

Dr. Ockenga, pastor of Park Street (Congregational) Church in Boston, said that much of the Communist gains must be attributed to the vacillation and weakness of the free world.

The modern crisis demands a return to the Word of God, said the Rev. Thomas F. Zimmerman of Springfield, Missouri, NAE president. “It is not surprising that out of the deep pall of skepticism hanging over the heads of all who do not possess the authority of divine revelation has come a willingness to listen for answers which make sense in a scientific age, in a time of indecision, and an era of cold war,” he said.

“The times in which we live do demand a return to the Word of God,” he said. “Faith has been undermined because the authority of the Word of God has been questioned. What has been a growing concern with the leadership of the NAE has now become a gripping conviction—there must be a special emphasis on the study of the Word of God in the churches of America. The Bible must be returned to the heart of our churches and the nation.”

Among the statements made by the convention was a declaration including the following affirmations of delegates:

“We deplore the present national apathy in spiritual life, confusion in theology, rampant materialism in society, and laxity in morals. Recognizing the only remedy to be a spiritual awakening, we urge the spread of the Gospel with renewed effort and intensified vigor in accordance with our Lord’s command.

“We adhere to the historic American principle of separation of church and state, thereby to preserve liberty and freedom. We are unalterably opposed to a totalitarian state whether materialistic or religious in its tyranny.”

The address by Henry chided the NAE for failing to concern itself sufficiently with contemporary theological issues and for forfeiting the initiative in Christian social ethics. Excerpts:

“The National Association of Evangelicals has labored through many years with many fine practical achievements to its credit. But it seems to me to have fallen short especially in the intellectual arena whose neglect not only leaves any agency powerless against its competitors but breeds internal inconsistency and inconstancy which invite deterioration of any principled fellowship. That is why theological revival sooner or later must enliven NAE or theological decline will stifle it.

“Let me speak now of three important trends in theology. Each is a contemporary issue which stared NAE in the face already at the time of its founding many years ago, and which even provoked its organization in a measure, and yet the movement as such has not yet elaborated a comprehensive evangelical exposition and interpretation of these great concerns. They are: the problem of religious authority; the mission of the Church; and the nature of the Church. There is little point in comforting ourselves here that the inclusive ecumenical movements gather all divergent viewpoints, wheat and chaff alike, into one theological granary, welcoming each as a “witness” to the truth (irrespective of conflicts and contradictions), and then settling for an existential togetherness as the enduring common core of Christian faith. A movement may deplore the skeptical handling of truth, and even the deceitful manipulation of doctrine, as long as it has life and breath, but until it spells out an answer in terms of theological structure—and not simply in terms of evangelistic energy and ecclesiastical goodwill—the issues are not really faced in depth.

“Has there come out of the theological reservoirs of NAE as a movement any authoritative exposition of the form and content of divine revelation? Of the task of the Church? Of the mission of the Church? If these are the central concerns, have the movement’s ministers (not simply the theologians) been caught up by these issues, or have they been left to the theologians, and at that to theologians who are not really at this stage ‘NAE theologians’ after all? Is theology something that belongs off center, and only on the periphery of a movement like this, even if kept within shouting distance so that now and then it can be summoned to help plaster some sagging nontheological foundations?

“Why is it that, although more than half the foreign missions task force stands consciously outside the ecumencial movement, and although the integration of IMC and WCC is scheduled in New Delhi in November, the production of a comprehensive symposium on the theology of the Christian mission has been left to inclusive theological agencies, which will force even your missionary training centers to rely on their textbooks as the price of this neglect? Why is it, with the United States undergoing a social revolution involving greater reliance on centralized government and narrowing opportunities for voluntarism, NAE has been content mainly to condemn the quasi-socialist philosophy often expressed in Federal and National Council actions, but has bequeathed to ecumenical forces the opportunity of elaborating Christian social ethics from an objectionable point of view?” p. de v.

Protestant Panorama

• A plane crash claimed the lives of three clergymen of the Church of God last month. Found dead in the wreckage of their single-engine private plane near Woodland, Mississippi, were the Rev. Robert Mapes of Fort Wayne, Indiana, the Rev. Charles C. Kirby, of Troy, Michigan, and the Rev. M. B. Ellis of Detroit. They reportedly had been flying through a thunderstorm to Paragould, Arkansas, after a conference at Ellinsville, Mississippi.

• A Presbyterian minister, his wife, and their two children were killed this month when their single-engine plane crashed near Summersville, West Virginia. Killed were the Rev. Francis Barr Allan, 33, minister of the State Street Presbyterian Church in Schenectady, New York; his 30-year-old wife, Laurice; a 13-year-old daughter, and a 10-year-old son. The family was returning home following a visit to the minister’s mother in Kentucky.

• Merger proponents claimed an interim victory this month in litigation involving the Congregational Christian General Council and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. Federal Judge Edward J. Dimock refused a request by merger opponents to dismiss a “trial within a trial” being held to determine whether issues raised in a suit filed by the plaintiffs in 1957 have been already decided by a 1953 New York State Court of Appeals decision.

• A new seminary, to be known as the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, will be formed through consolidation of four schools which represent four merging church bodies. Exact location is not yet determined, but classes may begin by January, 1963, according to spokesmen.

• The Lake Drive Baptist Church of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, will soon begin construction of a new $125,000 edifice following a five-year legal battle over zoning restrictions. The state supreme court last month reversed a ruling of a Milwaukee circuit court which upheld a zoning ordinance prohibiting construction of the church.

• China Bulletin, a National Council of Churches publication devoted to religious news from behind the Bamboo Curtain, will henceforth appear less frequently because of a lack of information. The March 27 issue announced, “Due to the smaller amount of concrete news about the churches of China which is now reaching us, it has been decided to make the China Bulletin a monthly instead of a bi-weekly publication, beginning with April.” Edited by Francis P. Jones, the publication is issued by the Far Eastern Office of the NCC’s Division of Foreign Missions.

• Presbyterian missionaries were re-occupying certain stations in the Congo last month. Work was continuing in safety in Kasai Province and in the cities of Leopoldville and Elizabethville, according to reports received by the Board of World Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U. S.

• Lilly Endowment, Inc., is advancing $30,000 to Princeton Theological Seminary for preparation of a new bibliography of New Testament studies. Seminary President James I. McCord said the grant will make possible the early publication of the first such study in a century. Director of the project will be Dr. Otto A. Piper, professor of New Testament literature and exegesis.

• World Vision President Bob Pierce was a surprise guest on Ralph Edwards’ “This Is Your Life” television program this month. The well-known missionary evangelist is making final preparations for his Tokyo crusade, which begins May 6.

• Eleven of the 14 Lutheran bodies in Japan will merge at a constituting convention scheduled for October 31, 1962. Fixing of the date climaxes nine years of merger discussions.

• George Fox College, Quaker liberal arts institution in Newberg, Oregon, plans a major development program aimed at accommodating at least twice as many students. First of the new facilities will be a women’s dormitory and 12 apartments for married students.

Impact of Revival

A religious revival that would demonstrate its impact on society by curbing social evils was urged by the manager of the National Holiness Association’s 93rd annual convention in Chicago this month.

Despite steady increases in church membership rolls, Dr. Paul L. Kindschi asserted: “I don’t feel that a real, deep revival has hit American society.”

“If a religious revival really were upon us,” he said, “it would show up statistically in such places as FBI reports on crime. But crime keeps increasing. This is a disturbing thing.”

The NHA is a coordinating agency for 16 religious bodies aimed at promoting the Wesleyan evangelical tradition “on the infilling of the Holy Spirit as a work of grace experienced subsequent to conversion.” Some 1,500,000 church members are represented in its constituent bodies, which include the Wesleyan Methodist, Free Methodist, Church of the Nazarene, Pilgrim Holiness, United Missionary and Brethren in Christ denominations, as well as the Salvation Army and several Quarker conferences.

Welcome Home

A “welcome home” testimonial dinner for Ezra Taft Benson highlighted the 131st annual General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) in Salt Lake City this month.

Benson, a member of the Church’s Council of 12 Apostles, had been in Washington for the last eight years serving as Secretary of Agriculture in the cabinet of former President Eisenhower.

Increased youth participation was hailed as “the most encouraging progress” of the church during the last year in a message by Dr. David O. McKay, president. McKay addressed a capacity audience of 6,000 at Mormon Tabernacle. The message was relayed via loudspeaker to thousands of others standing outside in Temple Square and was carried over television and radio.

Leaving the WCC

The Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church of the Transvaal—biggest of the Dutch Reformed bodies in South Africa—voted in Pretoria this month to resign from the World Council of Churches.

The decision came within three weeks of similar action by the small Dutch Reformed Church of Africa. Both churches were represented at a meeting of churchmen held at Johannesburg last December under the World Council of Churches’ auspices to discuss the South African government’s apartheid policies.

The synod’s decision left only the Dutch Reformed Church of the Cape Province representing the World Council in South Africa, and there was strong feeling it also would leave the council.

The Kennedy Advantage

“It would appear that the so-called religious issue was an advantage to President Kennedy” in the 1960 election, Republican National Committee researchers concluded this month.

Among identifiable groups, a GOP report said, “the most obvious and dramatic switch found, when the returns of 1960 are compared with those of 1952 or 1956, is the switch among Catholic voters.”

From Loans to Grants

The Roman Catholic hierarchy apparently will press for direct federal grants for its schools, according to remarks made by Msgr. Frederick G. Hochwalt at the annual convention of the National Catholic Educational Association in Atlantic City this month. Hochwalt, director of the department of education of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, limited his initial testimony to an appeal for low-cost, long-term loans. Since then, an administrative legal brief has been made public which holds such loans unconstitutional in the same way as are direct grants.

Sequel on the Sand

A dramatic sequel to Billy Graham’s Florida evangelistic crusade saw some 10,000 college students crowd a Fort Lauderdale beach this month to hear him preach the Gospel.

A virtual afterthought, the rally was hastily arranged after an urgent plea reached Graham from the mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Edward Johns. It was the only meeting of the entire three-month campaign to be held directly on an ocean beach.

The audience was made up of many of the same students who had to be held at bay for days by local police. Hundreds were arrested for disturbances ranging from drunkenness to inciting to riot. They were part of a large number of college students spending their spring vacations at Florida beaches, a practice which is growing each year and which seems to be developing into a notorious American institution.

The students maintained quiet and order throughout Graham’s 40-minute sermon.

“Give yourselves to Christ,” Graham pleaded, “and it will have been worth coming to Fort Lauderdale to meet him.”

The customary invitation for decisions was not given because of the lack of counselling facilities.

Graham is seeking a few weeks’ rest before undertaking his gigantic North of England Crusade in Manchester late in May.

How Much Do Ministers Read?

Nearly 50 per cent of clergymen responding to a CHRISTIANITY TODAY sample survey indicate they are unable to read more than 10 books a year.

A random sampling of 100 Protestant ministers in large as well as small denominations were asked:

“How many books have you read thoroughly, cover to cover, within the past year?”

Out of the first 43 who responded, 23 said “more than 10” and 20 said “less than 10,” including 2 who declared that they had not read any books during the past 12 months.

In reply to a question as to how often they used their local public library, 16 said “rarely if ever” and 21 said “occasionally.” Only six claimed to use their local libraries regularly.

The ministers were also asked to make suggestions about public libraries. A number urged the addition of more books on religious topics.

“Does your local public library stock the right kind of books for you as a minister?”

Twenty of the responders (nearly 50 per cent), said no. Only 10 said yes, while another 13 were uncertain.

Several of the ministers polled wrote in suggestions to the effect that librarians ought to keep closer liaison with ministers as a means of learning which books to order.

Several others urged public libraries to promote their services to a larger degree and to undertake more effective education to get people to read.

All but two of the responding ministers declared that they thought CHRISTIANITY TODAY belonged in their public libraries.

The poll was taken in observance of National Library Week, April 16–22.

20 Years of USO

Two questions work on the minds of servicemen, according to Selective Service Director Lewis B. Hershey:

“Does anybody know I’m here? Does anybody give a damn?”

“The USO,” says Hershey, “is proof to them that somebody back home does give a damn.”

United Service Organizations, Inc., a federation of six volunteer agencies, claims to aim at meeting “the spiritual, religious, social, recreational, welfare and educational needs of those in the armed forces.” At times the achievements are, like the aforementioned description, crude.

Now embarking on its third decade, having been conceived early in 1941 with the great buildup of U. S. military forces, the USO displayed impressive statistical wares last month at an annual meeting of its 600-member National Council advisory board of prominent citizens in Washington’s Mayflower Hotel.

Played down was the basic religious character of the USO evident from the fact that:

—Five of the six agencies which go to make it up are religious groups, Young Men’s Christian Associations, National Catholic Community Service, National Jewish Welfare Board, Young Women’s Christian Association, and the Salvation Army (the other agency is National Travelers Aid Association);

—By definition it proposes to serve “spiritual and religious” needs;

—It looks to churches for financial help.

Core of USO activity lies with (1) some 200 “clubs” in the United States and abroad—centers where servicemen can eat, dance, read, write, sleep, play, and obtain counsel—and (2) with touring shows featuring singers, dancers, comedians, and athletes.

The club program has wide endorsem*nt except for a few cases where Salvation Army officers have objected to sponsorship of dances. The big discontent with USO activity has always focused upon the touring shows’ persistence in smutty performances. In recent years public indifference has allowed off-color shows to continue.

Most chaplains now seem unconcerned, perhaps on grounds that servicemen’s morals are by and large even lower than the show standards. A few chaplains, however, still speak angrily of some USO entertainment, and charge that it works at cross-purposes with what chaplains are trying to do. They sense that the entertainers consider risque elements necessary to their routine.

Says one Army chaplain:

“The people responsible for producing and programming these shows remind me of my kid-brother who always knew how much deviltry he could raise around the house without getting his knuckles cracked. These people are masterminds at the brinkmanship of drawing that fine line between what will be overlooked and winked at and what will provoke an adverse reaction.”

The “brinkmanship” represents a changed approach in comparison with USO shows of earlier years.

A Navy chaplain recalls that during World War II the actors “were not good, not even ‘has-beens,’ but ‘never-would-be’s’ who were dodging the draft and getting paid to practice on a practically captive audience.… Our commanding officer finally got to the place where he would not book shows, saying that morally they were not worth the time and effort involved.

“Korea was a little different. Talent had profited by the practice of former years. Men would sit and drool at feminine pulchritude, and then stare with envy as some ‘high brass’ escorted the ladies off to officers’ country while they returned to chilly corners of their tents to change into dry clothing.”

The show troupes are known to be more prone to smut when they play in remote areas (an Army chaplain in the Arctic recently complained against the use of profanity, suggestive and provocative music and lyrics, and abbreviated costuming by female entertainers). But some troupes apparently have few qualms about use of ribald lines anywhere, even before servicemen’s wives and children.

Notwithstanding, the level of entertainment is probably no worse morally than that often found on Broadway. What irks concerned religious leaders is that church money is being solicited to pay for such irreligious activity. Last summer Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Jewish experts on military chaplaincy services joined in voicing an appeal for religious groups to increase their support of USO. The appeal, geared to coincide with a USO program to raise an $11,000,000-a-year budget, came from Dr. Marion J. Creeger, executive secretary of the General Commission on Chaplains and Armed Forces Personnel, Msgr. Joseph F. Marbach, chancellor of the Roman Catholic Military Ordinariate, and Rabbi David M. Eichorn, director of field operations for the National Jewish Welfare Board’s Commission on Jewish Chaplaincy.

There has recently been an encouraging trend in the USO show program toward more cultural entertainment. A number of college choral and orchestral groups now make annual overseas jaunts under USO sponsorship. There is every reason to believe that these are as much appreciated, and certainly far more wholesome, than the entertainers who stoop to smut.

So much is commendable in the overall USO effort that evangelicals profoundly lament the black eye of the touring troupes. It is probably for this reason as much as any that evangelicals have had a minimum of interest in USO activities. There is virtually no evangelical influence discernible in the USO planning and programming, despite the great opportunities that exist for extending genuine Christian service to members of the armed forces through this medium.

Moral Re-Armament’s Bid

The Moral Re-Armament movement is making its most sustained bid for support in Britain, according to a comprehensive report of the group’s activities and philosophies by Ivan Yates of The London Observer.

Timing of the bid, made primarily through dozens of full-page newspaper advertisem*nts, coincided with the appearance on the British scene of the latest MRA feature film, “The Crowning Experience.”

Yates’ report, which appeared in The Washington Post and Times Herald this month, said the film enterprise “displays many of the qualities that distinguished MRA: deep devotion ably exploited, a tendency to oversimplify and at the same time to exaggerate, a fondness for well-known names, a conspicious lavishness unusual in either religious or political life—all harnessed to high-pressure publicity.”

“No such publicity attended the birth of MRA, or the Oxford Group, as it is still legally known in Britain. Indeed, it is difficult to say just when or where it was born, partly because its founder, Dr. Frank Buchman, has himself given currency to different versions at different times, partly because the movement began as a body of men doing similar work in different places without an organization to bind them together.

“Even today, though its world-wide activities are organized with remarkable precision, it prefers to be known as an organism, not as an organization. It prides itself on having no paid staff, no hierarchy, no membership, no subscription, no badges. You cannot join or resign; you belong.”

Yates says MRA has “never burdened itself with doctrine and liturgy. It makes do with the four absolutes: absolute honesty, purity, unselfishness and love. The barrier to these is sin. Sin is washed away by ‘sharing,’ by confession followed by restitution. The barrier removed, the person is ‘changed.’ Thereafter he has one devotional practice and one duty. He must get ‘guidance’ in a ‘quiet time’ listening to God with pencil and paper—and he must seek to ‘change’ others.”

In recent weeks, 72 full-page MRA advertisem*nts have appeared in British newspapers. Similar advertisem*nts have appeared in the past in the United States. “This costly campaign represents MRA’s most sustained bid yet for support in Britain,” says Yates. “Yet, in spite of its extensive publicity, in spite of the large claims to influence and power made on its behalf, little is generally known of the real nature of MRA, its origins and development, its aims and achievements. Little has been revealed of the people who work for it and the source of their financial support.”

Yates asserts that anti-communism is today “the most strident feature, the staple,” of MRA propaganda.

Oxford Churchgoers

A survey conducted by the Oxford University undergraduate paper Isis concludes that the more highly educated a man is, the more likely it is that he will be a regular churchgoer.

Twenty-eight per cent of the students covered in the survey said they went to church at least once a week.

The figures indicate, therefore, that church attendance among Oxford students is much better than it is among the people of Britain as a whole.

Several recent surveys show that only about 16 per cent of the British population attends church regularly.

A Pastor’s Rights

A Methodist pastor in Maine found himself at odds with his district superintendent over right-to-work legislation this month.

The dispute occasioned the withdrawal from active support of right-to-work legislation of Philip Alward, local preacher at Belfast Methodist Church.

Alward had testified before a state legislative committee in Augusta in support of a right-to-work bill. His withdrawal came after a conference with the district superintendent, the Rev. Edward F. Allen of Augusta, a leading opponent of the right-to-work bill.

Allen said the bill is not in line with the Social Action Creed of the Methodist Discipline of 1960 which reads, “We stand for the right to organize for collective bargaining. We stand for the right of employees and employers alike to organize for collective bargaining; protection of both in the exercise of their right; the responsibility of both to bargain in good faith; the obligation of both to work for the public good.”

Alward apparently did not agree that the creed is to be interpreted as ruling out right-to-work legislation.

Ministerial Refund

The Rev. Ira Gallaway, pastor of the Kirkwood Methodist Church in Irving, Texas, returned money to the federal government last month in protest of what he calls “a dangerous trend toward the welfare state.”

Gallaway returned four Veterans Administration checks, endorsed to the U. S. Treasury, via Democratic Representative Olin E. Teague of Texas, chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee, asking that all further VA disability payments and VA life insurance dividends be stopped. One check was a $39 life insurance dividend, the others, each for $14.85, disability compensation. He received a wrist injury in World War II.

A congressional secretary, county judge, and oil company tax expert before entering the ministry, Gallaway told newsmen that “I’ve been taking those checks for years, but I became convinced that I don’t deserve anything from the government.”

He said he believed that if the government did not assume so many welfare functions more people would assume those responsibilities themselves.

“The government is making the shirking of responsibility easy. And the churches are partly the cause of this by not themselves taking seriously the call to practice charity and to show love toward all people.”

Flogging Probe

A Lutheran minister student says he was flogged by segregationists last month after he had moderated a human relations seminar in a church in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

James David Fackler, a student at Concordia Seminary of St. Louis, was serving his vicarage (internship) in Tuscaloosa. He said he was seized one night outside the University Lutheran Church, blindfolded, and taken to a secluded swamp section where the abductors beat him severely.

They accused him of “bringing nigg*rs into town and into the church,” Fackler reported. Three Negroes had attended the seminar.

Church officials transferred Fackler and his wife to New Orleans. The FBI, meanwhile, launched an investigation.

People: Words And Events

Deaths:Dr. James H. Franklin, 89, former president of Crozer Theological Seminary; in Richmond, Virginia … Dr. W. Aiken Smart, 77, noted Methodist theologian; in Atlanta … Dr. Francis deWitt Batty, 82, retired Anglican Bishop of Newcastle, Australia; in Sydney … Dr. Nicholas Louvaris, 74, professor of theology at the University of Athens and former minister of education and cults; in Athens.

Election: As president of the Council of Bishops of The Methodist Church, Bishop Paul E. Martin.

Appointment: As professor of Assyriology at the University of London, Dr. Donald J. Wiseman.

Quotes: “Christ sent us into a service of witnessing. The United Nations is as fine a forum as can be found for witnessing because all nations of the earth are represented there.”—Brooks Hays, in an interview in which he said he considered Southern Baptist Convention approval of his proposal to have an unofficial observer at the United Nations the most significant achievement of his administration as SBC president.

Jesus’ words about the keys of the Kingdom have had an enormous influence upon the entire history of the Christian Church. In a real sense Christendom today is divided into two major branches—Romanism and Protestantism—by divergent interpretations of Matthew 16:18, 19: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.… And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Views of this Passage

The extravagant claims of the Roman Catholic church are based ultimately upon these two verses, and without them the whole dubious structure of Rome crumbles to dust. According to that view, Peter is said to be the personal possessor of the keys whereby men gain or are refused access to heaven. This has been taught so assiduously and for so long that even we ourselves sometimes refer to heaven as a place guarded by pearly gates, with Peter as the gatekeeper carrying the keys in his hands. This is a distinctly Roman Catholic picture. Moreover, the Roman church insists that this divine prerogative of Heavenly Gatekeeper has been transmitted to all those whom they call the “successors of Peter”—the bishops of Rome, the popes.

All of this we roundly reject, “for there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). However much our Lord may have loved and honored the big fisherman, Simon Peter, Jesus certainly did not abdicate his own prerogatives as only mediator and assign them to another.

What then may a conscientious Protestant make of these verses which have been so troublesome within the family of Christians? For one thing, Protestants are in general agreement that these words were not intended for Peter alone. Rather, Peter was the spokesman for the whole group of disciples, and Jesus answered the whole group through him. When Jesus asked the disciples, “Whom say ye that I am?” (Matt. 16:15), it was Peter who spoke in answer, but he spoke for the whole group: “We believe you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus’ response to this, though addressed to Peter, was directed to the whole company who believed as Peter did. The keys of the Kingdom were delivered into the hands of the whole band of disciples. Whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.

Not only so, but what Jesus said to Peter and the other disciples, he also says to you and to me: “Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

What did Jesus mean when he committed to you and to me the keys of the Kingdom? There is some difference of opinion among Protestants. One popular and rather modern interpretation makes much of the fact that certain rabbis in Jesus’ day sometimes used the words “binding” and ‘loosing” in the sense of “forbidding” and “permitting.” Thus, it is assumed, what Jesus was saying to his disciples in essence was this: “I now bestow upon you the authority of officially forbidding or permitting what men shall believe and practice in the church.” These interpreters tell us that Jesus is talking here about the ecclesiastical prerogatives of church leaders in deciding matters of faith and life (The Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 7, loc. cit.; The Abingdon Bible Commentary, loc. cit.; The Moffatt New Testament Commentary; and others).

This popular and recent interpretation, however, seems strangely blind to the fact that what Jesus really said was, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Surely God in his heaven is not bound by the decisions of church courts, or of ministers, or of church leaders.

Far sounder is the classical Reformed view, enunciated four centuries ago by John Calvin, and expressed more recently and in popular form by Elton Trueblood in The Yoke of Christ (Harper, 1958). According to Calvin and the bulk of the Reformed tradition, the “keys of the kingdom” do not refer to special prerogatives at all. They refer instead to special responsibility. Our Lord has not abandoned his own prerogatives and given them over to Peter, or to you and me, or to the highest courts of the church. Jesus is not speaking here of ministerial prerogative, but of Christian responsibility.

The awesome responsibility of loosing the chains that bind all mankind has been committed into our hands—your hands and mine. Whatever, by God’s grace, we are enabled to loose on this earth, will be set free forevermore. And whatever, by our own indolence and selfishness and coldness of heart, we never get around to unloosing, shall never be loosed—either in this life or the next, either in time or eternity.

Classical Reformed View

What is this key, committed into our hands, that unlocks the chains which bind men? It is none other than the Good News about Jesus. In all the history of man, no other key has ever been able to unshackle the chains that bind men in their ignorance, sin, and despair.

Let the Bible speak for itself. In the passage before us, Jesus turned to the disciples and said, “Whom do you say that I am?” They answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Note well that answer, for it is the turning point of the whole passage. Everything else that Jesus says here is based upon it.

In reply to that Great Confession—“thou art the Christ the Son of the living God”—Jesus said three things. First, he said, “On the rock of this kind of a profession I am going to build my church. Not on the rock of any man or organization or material power … but on the rock of the profession ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’ I will build my Church. And nothing in all creation, not even the defenses of hell itself, will be able to stand up against it.”

The second thing that Jesus said, in response to the disciples’ Great Confession, was this: “Into your hands who make such a profession, I commit the testimony to what you have affirmed—the testimony which has power to bind and to loose, both here and hereafter, both now and forevermore. The keys of the kingdom I place in your hands.”

The third thing that Jesus said in response to their Great Confession was, “Now I can begin to show you that the Son of Man must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.” He began to explain to them what it would cost him to provide this deliverance.

The key, then, which opens the Kingdom to men, and which has been placed in our hands, is composed of two parts: a testimony of who Jesus is—“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”—and a telling of what he has done for us in his suffering, death, and resurrection. This is the key placed in our hands, the key which unlocks the chains that bind.

The King has come! He has done battle with the enemy, and has won! The New Age has begun. Jesus now reigns, whether men acknowledge that reign or not. This is the testimony that liberates men from the chains that bind. This is the testimony that reconciles man to God, and man with man. This is the testimony that saves. All over the world today, blighted hearts and darkened minds are being lighted with faith and hope and truth through this simple testimony of who Jesus is and what God has done in him. This is the Good News! It is the key to the kingdom of Heaven.

Moreover, this key is the only key. There is no way of salvation other than telling and hearing what God has done for us in Jesus. There is no other way, no other key.

A heathen’s sincerity in the practice of his pagan religion is no alternative justification before God. A pagan’s faithful performance of the best that he knows is no substitute key to the Kingdom. Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6). As the Apostle Peter put it, “Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

The Gospel of what God has done in Jesus is the only key into the kingdom of God’s love and peace and presence. This key has been delivered into your hands and mine. Whatever we leave bound on this earth by not applying this key, will remain bound in heaven. Whatever is loosed by this key that is in our hand, will be loosed both by time and for eternity.

The Missionary Imperative

The application should be plain. You and I are under a missionary imperative, every one of us, to go into all the world and make known the Good News to every creature. This ought to be plain enough from the Great Commission.

Somehow there has grown up a way of thinking among us that cuts the nerve of the missionary imperative. Somehow men do not seem as sure as once they were that the eternal destiny of countless souls rests squarely upon you and me, in our faithful telling of what God has done for us in Jesus. Somehow we do not seem to be shaken any more by the awesome imperative that whatsoever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatsoever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Somehow we seem no longer moved by familiar lines that we often sing:

Behold how many thousands still are lying

Bound in the darksome prison house of sin,

With none to tell them of the Saviour’s dying,

Or of the life he died for them to win.

Perhaps we have heard so often of the love of God—the great and gracious love of God—that we find it strangely difficult to think of thousands of men and women perishing because someone has never told them what God has done for them in Jesus. But they are perishing! Look about the world and see. The marks of their perishing are plain for all to see—they are written on the front pages of our newspapers. Moreover, they will continue to perish until you and I, and the whole Christian Church rise up and tell in every place what great things God has done for them.

Where did the notion come from that there is some kind of “second chance”? Where did we find the idea that the pagan is judged differently than we, on the basis of his pagan sincerity? Certainly we did not find this in the Bible. On the contrary, it is a product of freelance sentimental thinking, dreamed up, it may well be, in order to salve our restless consciences in the face of our unwillingness to yield to the imperative of the Great Commission which lies upon every one of us.

Yet, what about the love of God? Can God really love these who have never heard, if he allows them to perish in their ignorance? Yes God loves them! He loves them enough to send his only begotten Son into the world to die for them. Indeed, our Lord has called you and me to be Christians, not because he loves us more than he loves them. He has called you and me precisely because he loves them, in order that we might carry to them the Good News of what God has done for them. He has not called us as his pets to special privilege. He has called us to special service, as his messengers.

The missionary imperative is not a select and highly specialized calling that rests only on a few. The missionary imperative rests equally upon every man, woman, and young person whom Christ has redeemed. Robert E. Speer, the great missionary statesman, has written a remarkable pamphlet titled, “What Constitutes a Missionary Call?” While the pamphlet runs to some thirty pages, this is the substance of it: We all stand under the missionary imperative—the Great Commission. “Go ye,” Jesus said. “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:15). This was spoken to the entire band of disciples, both then and now. We are all called, every Christian among us. We need no strange and special revelation in order to fall under this general Christian responsibility. On the contrary, we need a special revelation to show that we are exempt from the claims of the Great Commission. It is not a special justification to go that we need—we have our Commission. We need a special justification if we do not go—one which we can present to the Saviour when we meet him face to face.

Every one among us is called to missions—specifically and personally. The call of God is upon us! Who will obey? The trumpet call of the Kingdom has sounded! Who will rally to the King’s service?

He comes again: O Zion, ere thou meet him,

Make known to every heart his saving grace;

Let none whom he hath ransomed fail to greet him,

Through thy neglect, unfit to see his face.

Publish glad tidings, tidings of peace,

Tidings of Jesus, redemption and release.

Central Presbyterian Church

Bristol, Virginia