Page 6299 – Christianity Today (2024)

Wanted: Constructive Defense

Intellectual Schizophrenia, by Rousas J. Rushdoony (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961, 133 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by Cornelius Jaarsma, Professor of Education, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

It is easy, and not uncommon, to make one’s own views seem very plausible by contrasting them with a caricature of opposing views. This is the thought that occurred to me as I read this vigorous, militant little volume of attack and defense.

Of the intellectual schizophrenia in educational theory and practice referred to in this volume there can be no doubt. On the one hand current education speaks of man, his development and learning, in terms of uniquely human accomplishments. On the other hand man is described in biological terms, one with the natural world in which he moves. Man is a creator, but he has become a stranger to the world that has produced him. In spite of these dual phenomena, current educational theory tries to recognize a unity of personality, but the unity is merely organismic, that is, a behavioral unity. Christian education faces a challenge to point the way in educational theory and practice based on a scriptural view of man.

The cause of Christian education is not well served, however, when non-Christian views are inadequately or even unfairly presented. Unfortunately this is the case in several instances in this little volume. A few illustrations will point this out.

There is the frequent mistake of linking Dewey and “progressive education.” This is done uncritically and dogmatically. Dewey disowned “progressive education” on several occasions. This is not to say that Dewey’s philosophy was not a major contributor to the views that the “progressive education” movement followed for some time. It would be fairer to Dewey to discuss his views independetly of the later “progressive education” movement.

“The public school is now unmistakably a state school and its concept of education is inevitably statist.” From both the historical development of our public schools, and from their present organization this sweeping statement is easily refuted. It is simply not borne out by the facts. We have no national system of education and our state organization embodies a large degree of local initiative. It can be shown that the excesses of state initiative in education have come about by the failure of local communities, Christian as well as non-Christian, to provide for adequate educational opportunity. Even today the state has to put pressure on some Christian school groups to enforce standards. The point is, if one is going to speak of statism in education, the full truth should be told.

I mention one more illustration. Modern educational theory is referred to in several places as viewing the child as being passive in the learning process. Nothing is further from the truth. Christian education is learning a lesson from modern behavioral sciences on self-activity in learning. Recent Sunday school material is evidence of this. What is true is that self-activity in current education theory has the wrong view of the self. Here Christian education can make a contribution.

We need a strong polemic to point out the inadequacy, even fundamental error of modern educational theory and practice. We need, likewise, a positive, constructive defense of sounder views in education. Unfortunately this little volume fails to give either.

CORNELIUS JAARSMA

In Name Only

The Wild Goats of Ein Gedi, by Herbert Weiner (Doubleday, 1961, 312 pp., $4.50), reviewed by Sherwood E. Wirt, Editor of Decision.

Thirty-odd wild goats, nibbling at the crops of the new co-operative farm (kibbutz) at Ein Gedi on the Dead Sea shores, are a problem to the government of the state of Israel. They are rare goats and must not be killed. But what to do with them?

Herbert W. Weiner, a Reformed Jewish rabbi from Orange, New Jersey, has written a fascinating story about the religious “wild goats” of Israel who—also—must not be eliminated, but somehow put up with. An able religious reporter, he interviewed leaders of nearly every sect in Israel, not to discuss politics but to investigate and assess the religious life.

The result was disappointing to him. Rabbi Weiner found that the Holy Land was holy in name only. “More than the doubtful authenticity of the historic sites or the petty bickering over who can whitewash which stairway, more even than the quarrels about status quo and religious freedom, is this sense of spiritual lifelessness in a land which the religious heart has always associated with the power of rebirth, the dream of the utterly new.…”

Amid all the paradoxical encounters of the various faiths there is a vast disinterest in prayer, theology, and the deeper dimensions of spiritual life. Traditionalism is strong, notably in orthodox Jewry but spiritual creativity is lacking, Weiner found. I would, on the basis of a brief visit, be inclined to agree, but would add that the one locus of potency is the Baptist Arab community in northern Israel. And even there the potential still lies buried and untapped.

In so many ways the Israelis have made tremendous strides, but spiritually—as the rabbi freely admits—a new birth is needed. Too many are like the Coptic Christian lady of Jaffa, who told the author she was “not particularly religious,” and added, “All people are the same, and it’s a different age now.”

SHERWOOD E. WIRT

Greek In Perspective

Beginning Greek, A Functional Approach, by Stephen W. Paine (Oxford, 1961, 322 pp., $5.75), is reviewed by Robert C. Stone, Professor of Classical Languages, North Park College.

The student of New Testament Greek misses a vital part of his training if he gets nothing of the broader aspects of the language: and the classical student needs to see the language in its historical perspective. This volume skillfully combines the study of these two facets of Greek.

The approach is inductive: vocabulary, forms, and grammar are presented as they are met with in the readings. The latter are unaltered selections from Greek literature. Portions of the Gospel of John comprise the first half of the book; the second half contains selections from Xenophon’s Anabasis, accompanied by adequate explanatory notes.

Well-ordered presentation of the material, clear and concise explanations, numerous charts and other aids for the student, as well as a superb printing job, mark the volume. Author and publisher are to be commended for making this excellent text available. It deserves wide use, though perhaps it is best suited for teachers in church-related schools or colleges.

ROBERT C. STONE

China

The Awakening, Revival in China, 1927–1937, by Mary Monsen (Lutterworth, 1961, 128 pp., 5s. 6d.), is reviewed by Frank Houghton, Missionary Bishop in China and now Vicar of Drayton, Banbury, England.

At a time when men of God in every land are warning us that nothing but a revival of true religion on a national scale can meet the grim situation in which we find ourselves, the production of this factual record of the revival in parts of China in the years 1927–1937 deserves a wide circulation and prayerful reading. Miss Monsen is a veteran Norwegian missionary who sailed for China soon after the Boxer Rising of 1900. She became increasingly conscious of the deadness of the churches to which she ministered. Even among the pastors, and among missionaries also, there were those who had a name that they lived, and were dead. In answer to the prayers of many years the Spirit of God began to work in central and northern China, until over wide areas the churches were transformed. Miss Monsen admits that she was not a great speaker, yet where-ever she went men and women were broken down before God. This little book should stir us to a consciousness of the need in our own churches—perhaps in our own hearts—and stimulate in us a living faith that the God of the impossible can as easily revive American and British churches as Chinese or Korean.

FRANK HOUGHTON

Establish The Rebel?

The Noise of Solemn Assemblies, by Peter L. Berger (Doubleday, 1961, 189 pp., $1.75), is reviewed by Marvin C. Baarman, Executive Secretary, Christian Reformed Board of Home Missions.

In reading this volume one is reminded of the prayer of Peter Marshall, “Lord, comfort the troubled, and trouble the comfortable.”

This book serves both purposes. In its appeal for a realistic view of society, as well as in its sharp analysis of the religious establishment in America, it disturbs the thoughtful Christian caught in the inertia of uncritical pursuit of the status quo. Religion has suffered dilution in this establishment. According to Berger, the answer to the dilemma lies in a deliberate dis-establishment which makes room for the individual and the rebel in the American religious scene. Religious establishment tends to prevent our encounter with the Christian message. The antidote is personal conversion or confrontation.

Berger, a Lutheran, has given much food for thought to those who really desire to see the Gospel function as salt in a sick world. Particularly significant is his analysis of modern domestic missions and church extension. He charges that the criterion for missions is economics and social status rather than the Christian Gospel. He suggests that too often the motive for missions is potential success and political advantage rather than the biblical mandate and love of Christ.

Perhaps Dr. Berger errs in seeking the solution to the irrelevance of the Church outside of the church. Radical alteration of the form of the church or a deliberate by-passing of the Church is less desirable than bringing the Church itself back to its scriptural course.

MARVIN D. BAARMAN

For Children

Children of the Bible, by Norman Bull (Evans Bros., 1961, 96 pp., 10s. 6d.) and The Story of Christianity in Britain, by Elfrida Vipont (Michael Joseph, 1960, 191 pp., 12s. 6d.), are reviewed by Elizabeth Collie, Educationalist and Graduate of Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford University.

Mr. Bull is an experienced and prolific writer in many areas of religious education. Here he retells 12 Bible stories about children, six from each Testament. The language is simple, and his imaginative recasting should make the episodes attractive for infant school youngsters. Elfrida Vipont unfolds the drama of the Faith in Britain for a slightly older group, and she arranges her history round a series of individuals. This method may well impress the image of certain great figures on the minds of the young readers, but there are risks involved. In the opening chapter the dream of a cathedral representing all religious groups in one harmonious whole underlines the dangers, not always avoided here, of blurring deep cleavages among Christians. But is it fair to blame the author when so many learned textbooks write the same “ecumenical” history? The story moves with a charming flow, and, as in the other volume, the illustrations have an appealing dignity. Both books should play a part in winning the rising generation for Christ.

E. COLLIE

To Amplify The Mission

Education for Mission, by J. Allen Ranck (Friendship Press, 1961, 159 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by Harold Lindsell, Vice President of Fuller Theological Seminary.

Ranck, who is general director of the Commission on Missionary Education for the National Council of Churches, has written an elementary but highly-commendable volume on missionary education for the local church. The purpose of mission is described, and he deals in detail with the question “how” to get through to the local congregations with the missionary story so that the people will give, pray, and go. He suggests ways in which the success or failure of the educational process can be checked to determine if the parish members are getting “educated.” The volume is written within the context of the NCC setting and fails to take into account the whole stream of missionary endeavor and the educational materials and techniques of groups outside the NCC. His ecumenical horizons are limited to the NCC and the WCC.

HAROLD LINDSELL

Qumran Community

The Scrolls and Christian Origins, by Matthew Black (Scribner’s, 1961, 206 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Ralph Earle, Professor of New Testament, Nazarene Theological Seminary.

The book is divided into two parts. The first, “Historical,” has to do with the identification of the Qumran sect. The second, “Religious and Theological,” traces the beliefs and practices of the Qumran community which seem to bear some significant relation to Christianity.

Professor Black endorses the prevailing view today that the Qumran sectarians are to be identified with the Essenes. As to the much-debated question of the date of the scrolls, the author feels that we cannot be more certain than to place them between the second century B.C. and the second century A.D.

That the Essenes, like the Pharisees, are descended from the ancient Hasidim is probable (p. 15). But the Qumran community was opposed by both Pharisees and Sadducees (p. 24).

One of the valuable contributions which Professor Black makes is his critical evaluation of the descriptions of the Essenes given by Josephus and Philo. These Greek historians (Jewish, but Greek in outlook) emphasize three main characteristics of Essenism: monastic asceticism, community of goods, and rejection of animal sacrifice. The author notes that the first is “nowhere expressly attested or even implied in any of the texts so far published” (p. 27). But he thinks it likely that this priestly sect would react against the loose morality of that Hellenistic age. With regard to the second, he finds evidence of private property in the Qumran community (p. 35). Yet he thinks it was organized as “a kind of welfare state” (p. 37). There is some evidence that the Essenes worshiped at the Temple, but they thought of their community itself as a spiritual Temple (p. 42). This bears striking similarity to Paul’s concept (1 Cor. 3:17).

Professor Black’s originality is shown in his contention that the link between the primitive church and Qumran was not through the Hellenists of Acts, as Oscar Cullman holds, but through the Hebraists (p. 167). He shows that the Qumran emphasis on a baptism of repentance and on frequent sacred meals shows close affinity with Christian origins.

RALPH EARLE

Book Briefs

How to Help Through Understanding, by Josephine Robertson (Abingdon, 1961, 124 pp., $2.25). Practical, wisdom-ripe suggestions on how to be truly kind in the many and varied inter relationships of daily life.

Reconstruction in Religion, a symposium edited by Alfred E. Kuenzli (Beacon Press, 1961, 253 pp., $3.95). “The contributors … do not concern themselves with the supernatural—the orthodox reader, dedicated to traditional prescientific religious formulations, will not be happy in this company” says the dustjacket.

Everyday Devotions for Youth, by Walter L. Cook (Abingdon, 1961, 110 pp., $1.75). Very fine devotional material addressed to where teenagers actually live: right in the middle of the problem of bringing home the girlfriend for the first time, or standing in front of a mirror looking at ears that stick out too far and deciding he does not like girls anyway. Highly recommended.

Our Father, by E. Margaret Clarkson (Eerdmans, 1961, 117 pp., $2.50). Essays geared to children to make plain the meaning of the Lord’s Prayer; artistic production.

Say ‘Yes’ to Life!, by Anna B. Mow (Zondervan, 1961, 152 pp., $2.50). A novel pleading for a Christian affirmation of life.

Minister’s Service Book for Pulpit and Parish, by Jesse Jai McNeil (Eerdmans, 1961, 212 pp., $3.25). Seeks to meet the liturgical needs of ministers in non-liturgical churches.

This Is Protestantism, by Arthur W. Mielke (Revell, 1961, 127 pp., $2.50). Published radio sermons asserting basic principles of Protestant vs. Roman Catholic Christianity.

Use Your Head, by Sidenham Lambert Huffman (Higley Press, 1959, 97 pp., $2.50). An amusing, well-written little book with 17 practical lessons taught with humor. Points from personal finances to moral standards are covered. For clergy and laymen alike, candy-coated sermonettes with more than a little common sense added.

Good Friday 1963, by Otis Carney (Morrow, 1961, 123 pp., $3). A dramatic literary journey into the heart of one man—and into the soul of a nation.

Bay Windows into Eternity, by A. Graham Ikin (Macmillan, 1961, 117 pp., $2.95). A devotional roadmap to spiritual maturity, with foreword by J. B. Phillips.

The Winning Move, by J. S. A. Wor-boys (Christopher, 1961, 142 pp., $3). Heartwarming sermons culled from a preacher’s life of preaching and writing.

The Quiet Crusaders, by Henry L. McCorkle (Friendship, 1961, 175 pp., $2.95). Written with a descriptive finesse that makes sight and sounds clear, the author sketches the biographies of evangelical Christians whose lives are a gentle revolution in many Latin American countries.

The Robe and the Sword, by Kenneth M. MacKenzie (Public Affairs Press, 1961, 128 pp., $3.25). Has Methodism played the same decisive role in U. S. extra-territorial expansion as it long played an important role on the edge of the frontier in continental expansion?

Paperbacks

The Date and Route of the Exodus, by C. de Wit (Tyndale, 1960, 20 pp., including map, 1/6). Brussels Egyptologist examines rival theories about the Exodus and finds the evidence inconclusive. He favors a date under Pharoah Merneptah and the southern route.

The Bodmer Papyrus of the Gospel of John, by J. N. Birdsall (1960, 18 pp., 1/6). Birmingham University lecturer and textual expert shows how even the Bodmer Papyrus, our best complete manuscript of John which can take us back into the second century, is still far from any pristine purity.

Some Great Christian Doctors, by W. Melville Capper (Tyndale, 1960, 24 pp., 2/-); Christian Initiative and the Future of Medicine, by S. Farrant Russell (Tyndale, 1960, 19 pp., 2/-); Keeping Faith with the Patient, by A. S. Aldis (Tyndale, 1960, 16 pp., 9d.); Contemporary Psychology and Christian Belief and Experiences, by M. A. Jeeves (Tyndale, 1960, 16 pp., 1/6). Four new monographs produced by the Christian Medical Fellowship.

As You Go, by John Howard Yoder (Herald Press, 1961, 36 pp., $.35). Pleads for migration of Christian families to other lands as effective modern way to carry out the Great Commission.

All Ye Who Labor, by Wade H. Boggs, Jr. (John Knox Press, 1961, 288 pp., $2.50). A Christian interpretation of daily work.

Light the Dark Streets, by C. Kilmer Myers (Doubleday, 1961, 149 pp., $.95). Author shares his experiences as Vicar of St. Augustine’s Chapel in New York’s Lower East Side.

Steps to Improved Evangelism, by Carl M. Sweazy (Challenge, 1961, 70 pp., $.85). Psychology applied to evangelism by an author who was converted at 16 and held his first revival meeting two weeks later.

And God Said, “No,” by Lael Cappaert (Augustana, 1961, 143 pp., $2). Story of the anguish which struck parents when polio struck their two year old.

Juju Gods of West Africa, by Linn Haitz (Concordia, 1961, 113 pp., $1). Story of one lay missionary who gave up an established business and went to Africa.

The Recovery of Confidence, by E. H. Robertson (Association Press, 1961, 63 pp., $1). A study of the place and use of the Bible in the churches and a gauging of the Bible’s recent “comeback.”

Bible Weeks, by E. H. Robertson (Association Press, 1961, 80 pp., $1.25). A detailed account describing Bible Week in Yeovil (England) and Buffalo (New York) and suggestions as to what would have made them even better.

The Modern Reader’s Guide to the Book of Revelation, by Martin Rist (Association, 1961, 128 pp., $.50). Claims to present common sense approach to “Revelation” which, when properly understood, is among the easiest of the books of the Bible to interpret.

God Blessed Me With a Heart Attack, by Richard G. Dunwoody (Zondervan, 1961, 62 pp., $1). Spiritual and down-to-earth observations by a minister who was blessed by God with a coronary failure.

What Youth Are Thinking, by W. Gordon Smedsrud (Augsburg, 1961, 65 pp., $.50). Far more than half of 2000 Lutheran high school youth admitted in Lutheran Research Inventory the word sex was a dirty word, and for three out of four justification by faith meant trying to live a good life.

How Protestants Differ From Roman Catholics, by Stanley I. Stuber (Association Press, 1961, 126 pp., $.50). Concise adaptation of author’s full length Printer on Roman Catholicism for Protestants.

One Lord One Baptism (Augsburg, 1961, 79 pp., $1.25). Commission on Faith and Order of WCC reports on Trinity and the meaning of baptism as participation in Christ and in his redemptive history.

Altars from Genesis, by Robert A. Happel (Christian Education Press, 1961, 115 pp., $1.50). A series of biblical devotions based on Genesis, for family use.

Creation and Evolution, by John G. Balyo (Regular Baptist Press, 1961, 23 pp., $.25). Two sermons against evolution, neither of which became any better when they evolved into essays.

The Christian Calling, by Virgil Vogt (Herald Press, 1961, 48 pp., $.50). Lecture delivered at 1961 Mennonite Board of Missions to stimulate Christian vocation.

The Complete Book of Birth Control, by A. F. Guttmacher, M.D. (Ballantine Books, 1961, 152 pp., $.50). A book which claims to be the first with all the facts, and comes with the commendation of W. H. Genne, National Council of Churches.

The Spirituality of the Church, by E. T. Thompson (John Knox, 1961, 48 pp., $1). An interesting study of the nature of the Southern Presbyterian Church (in this its centennial year) as related to racial integration and to its northern counterpart.

Introduction to Judaism, by Lee A. Belford (Association Press, 1961, 128 pp., $.50). An account of beliefs and practices shared by Jews throughout the world.

Calendar of Christianity, by Allan Hauck (Association Press, 1961, 127 pp., $.50). Informative discussion of the origins and meaning of Christian holidays and holy days.

Communist Tricks for Enslaving the World, by Claude Bunzel (Twentieth Century Evangelism, 1961, 107 pp., $1.50). A general survey of Communist strategy and tactics. Originally prepared for Armed Forces Radio and TV Service.

Was Christ’s Death a Sacrifice? by Markus Barth (Oliver and Boyd, 1961, 55 pp., 7/6). Markus (son of Karl) Barth’s article first appeared in Scottish Journal of Theology.

The Book of Isaiah (Parts 1 and 2), by John E. Huesman (Paulist Press, 1961, 126 and 96 pp., $.75). Brief Roman Catholic expositions of the Book of Isaiah with Quiz and True-False questions to aid learner.

In a colorful but unspectacular service in New Delhi’s Vigynan Bhavan Hall, first erected by India for a UNESCO conference, the 13-year-old World Council of Churches absorbed the International Missionary Council in historic action on the opening day of the WCC’s third assembly.

Only the Norwegian Missionary Council disapproved merger with the ecumenical movement, whose “integrated” character was hailed as “a tremendous contribution to the mission of the church.”

So fully had the merger plan been publicized in advance that the program seemed routine, despite addresses laboring its significance by Dr. W. A. Visser’t Hooft and Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, who becomes director of the World Council’s new Division of World Mission and Evangelism. Hereafter this division incorporates the IMC membership of 38 national Christian councils and national missionary councils.

Russian Orthodox Church Voted Into Wcc Membership

During the long week preceding the opening sessions of the World Council of Churches’ third assembly, one topic dominated almost every discussion. But when Britain’s Ernest Payne gaveled the Monday morning business session into action, only 31 minutes were required to dispose of what may go down in history as the most significant action of the assembly.

Anticipations of the delegates for fiery rhetoric went completely unrealized when the application for admission to the World Council by the Orthodox Church of Russia was presented. Speeches of approbation by other Orthodox groups were greeted by enthusiastic applause. Two speeches of abstaining votes (Hungarian Reformed Church in America and Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America) brought only stony silence.

Ten minutes after the voting, an interim report stated that already far more than the necessary two-thirds majority had been received.

Final tabulation of the vote to admit the Russian church was announced as 142 for, 3 against, and 4 abstaining. Those voting against were not identified.

Delegates showed brisker opposition to the admission of Pentecostal churches in Chile than to the Russian Orthodox. Eight churches voted against Iglesia Pentecostal de Chile and against Mission Iglesia Pentecostal (Chile) with three abstaining in the former case and four in the latter.

Outside the fence surrounding the Vigynan Bhavan, two men paced back and forth with placards reading “AGENTS OF K—NOT SERVANTS OF GOD” and “RUSSIAN CLERGY—COMMUNIST AGENTS.”

One Ernest Zingers from Latvia declared, “The Russian Orthodox Church is controlled by the Kremlin and not by Jesus Christ.” He added, “The Soviet government is sending out spies and agents of their conspiracy under the cover of clergymen. No one is able to come out from Russia who is not going to follow the Communist line.”

The Russian application significantly enough was followed chronologically—not preceded by—the applications for admission from churches in other “Iron Curtain” countries. Questioned as to why the Russian application was admittedly delayed for some time, Dr. Franklin Clark Fry stated that the Russians found trends within the World Council that they did not like—those trends being according to Fry an overemphasis on social activity and an under-emphasis on things purely spiritual.

Fry commented wryly that these were the same objections raised by the ultra-conservative groups and that it was amazing how the extremes finally emerged so closely together.

The prospects for the Russian church in council activities are encouraging. Members are eligible for appointment to WCC commissions and to membership on the powerful Central Committee, the number to be determined in a numerical ratio to the membership of the church said to be about 50 million.

Some future WCC meetings will undoubtedly be held in Russia, but the Russian church has with the capitalistic colleagues the responsibility of contributing financially to WCC coffers. Strange commentary on the overwhelmingly favorable vote was the fact that privately few delegates seemed in favor of it.

One top representative of a major American denomination was shocked to learn that each church was entitled to only one vote. He was totally unfamiliar with the man voting his church bloc in favor of the action and began trying to determine when or where his church had caucused to emerge with a favorable vote on the Russian admission. When the interim report assured the admission of the Russian church, Zingers leaned his placard against the fence and gave up his pacing—at least for this assembly.

At a press conference following the vote, the Russian delegation’s leader, 32-year-old Archbishop Nikodim proved an agile dodger of questions. To repeated questions on the same theme he maintained that there is no interference in church affairs by the Soviet government, that priests are free to preach as they will and that the Gospel, not the government, determines church policy.

The limiting of questions mainly to representatives of wire services and secular newspapers virtually excluded the religious press from asking significant questions. Nobody asked Nikodim whether he agrees that a Christian cannot be a Communist in theory and practice. Questions were cut short after a half hour. Nikodim gave more candid answers privately than publicly.

Much of the world missionary task force, however, remains deliberately outside its orbit. Of American personnel serving abroad, only about 9,000 of the 28,000 missionaries, or some 31 per cent, are affiliated with the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A.

In the opening worship sermon on the day of the action, the secretary of the Burma Baptist Churches Union, the Rev. U Ba Hmyin, declared that spiritual realities are better understood through “feeling and will” than by “reason and intelligence.” He called for “a universal theology” utilizing a synthesis of oriental and occidental “structures, ways of thought and life.” As illustrations of oriental modes of apprehension of potential value in formulating Christian theology he pointed to the system of Yoga and the disciplined will. He said this would “enrich our Christian religious thinking based solely on the Bible.”

In a critical comment the Indian evangelist Akbar Haqq, an observer associated with Billy Graham’s evangelistic thrust in Southeast Asia, declared that “the New Testament gospel has the status of universal truth and has universal appeal,” and that “any rejection of reason which would make contradictories equally acceptable issues is a religion serviceable only to schizophrenics.”

The opening day was marked by noticeable deference to the Greek Orthodox church when the “filioque clause” was deleted in the use of the Nicene Creed.

Missionary merger was made during the afternoon business session by Greek Orthodox Archbishop Iakovos, one of the World Council’s five presidents, whose communion historically has not been distinguished by missionary zeal and has on occasion resisted evangelical missions in Greece. Evangelical leaders hoped the merger might spark a new missionary concern. They were perplexed by the confessional insensitivity to Protestant member churches in the World Council.

An Anglican bishop commented that deletion of any article of the creed in worship establishes a precedent which could suppress alternate articles objectionable to other influential ecumenical blocs. Deletion of the creedal connection of the Son and Holy Spirit also disappointed them because of the World Council’s growing Christological rather than merely theological emphasis. The IMC has in fact looked with favor upon the proposed trinitarian expansion of the ecumenical statement of basis.

Neither the flame nor wind of Pentecost stirred the merger ceremony, the only unusual aspect being the earphone translation to each of the participants in three languages.

Newbigin pronounced the placing in the context of the WCC the “organized missionary effort of the world” as a great decision and a natural development. He declared that unity cannot itself serve as an end and that integration adds the dimension of mission to that of ecumenical unity.

The merger, however, promoted a new network of ecumenical relations through the fact that IMC has been a council of councils, and its integration now promises closer World Council ties with the national councils which were in the IMC.

Pressures to widen the World Council’s incorporation process are considered inevitable, subject to the availability of necessary funds and staff.

The council already has a world program of theological education. Integration of ecumenically organized missionary activity into the World Council came 50 years after the first ecumenical expression of missionary activity (Edinburgh 1910). The almost wearying reiteration of these past roots left little doubt that the modern missionary effort is specially tied to nineteenth-century Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. But it failed to answer the question whether the present witness coincides adequately with the ecumenical vision of missionary pioneers.

Two main arguments against merger were that a strong concern for mission might deflect the World Council from its driving interest in church unity and, alternately, that missions might get only secondary attention from an integrated body.

Active missionaries in Delhi wondered what might have been William Carey’s reactions to merger proceedings, inasmuch as 1961 marks the two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of the small town cobbler who is buried in tropical India. Carey was mainly interested in proclaiming the Gospel to lost souls. The Delhi decisions would be judged both by pragmatic results of merger in terms of new converts, churches and life, and by the fidelity with which the Gospel would be addressed to pagan lands.

In contrast to Carey’s arduous trip, delegates could reach Delhi from almost any spot on earth in little more than a day, and they came from all continents and races. But 98 per cent of India’s population remained outside Christ, and some younger independent churches were drifting from missionary motivations and methods which gave them birth.

At the same time the World Council’s study book asked: “How can this Assembly, meeting in India, proclaim Jesus Christ as the Light of the World in a country where ‘light’ is a religious symbol familiar to the non-Christian population?” The future alone would tell.

Ecumenical Roots

Evangelist Billy Graham declared upon arrival in New Delhi last month that “the ecumenical movement had its birth in the work of mass evangelism” and that its roots lie less in “organizational ties” than in a “simple, warm and living faith in Christ” and in forgetting denominational distinctions long enough to labor together “to reach those outside of Christ.” Graham was on hand for the opening of the New Delhi assembly as an observer at the invitation of WCC officials. He is a member of the Southern Baptist Convention, which is not affiliated with the World Council.

The evangelist had toured India six years ago. He says he remembers the people as “the most tolerant in the world.”

Here are excerpts of his statement in New Delhi:

The assembly should not overlook the fact that there already exists within the Church a true ecumenical movement which crosses all denominational, national, and social barriers—an ecumenicity which proceeds from a common faith in the Christ of the Scriptures, of history, and of personal experience.… This assembly should also not forget that the Church is essentially a great missionary society—that her primary task is to witness to the redemptive work of Christ.

While the influence of the great evangelists has waned in the World Council, I am hoping that some of that influence can be preserved. I am hopeful that during the next 10 days I will have the opportunity privately to exert influence in the direction that the early leaders hoped and prayed for.… I feel that the present world crisis makes it imperative that Christian leaders from every corner of the earth work together while there is still time to touch the world for Christ. I believe it is possible to evangelize the world in this generation.… Not in history has the Church had such a magnificent opportunity to challenge and appeal to the world … divided as it is by theological, national, and racial tensions, and trembling on the threshold of the nuclear extinction of the human race. There should be a world-wide evangelistic effort in which all Christians are urged to participate.

However, we must be certain of the Gospel we proclaim. If we go out with an uncertain sound we will add to the confusion in the world today.

This world assembly can be either a Babel or a Pentecost. Should this historic meeting return to the faith and message of the early Church, hopes for peace would immediately brighten.… The Church today stands sadly in the midst of the ever-increasing ruins of the civilization she helped to create, with little power to save it. This could all be transformed here at New Delhi. On the other hand, New Delhi could be so compromised by the influence of those who no longer hold to the apostolic message that the Church may find herself yet further weakened and her witness muted as a result.

While all of us lament the scandal and shame of the disunity of the Church, we are also obliged to confess that an even greater scandal and shame is the disloyalty of some areas of the Church to Jesus Christ and His Word. The person and work of Christ cannot be minimized. His exclusive concept of salvation cannot be dismissed. Therefore I am hopeful that the assembly will spell out in no uncertain terms its faith in the divine authority of the Scriptures, the deity and lordship of Christ, his atoning death for our sins, the lost condition of the world apart from saving faith in Christ, his bodily resurrection and his personal return.

I would like to see this assembly reaffirm the authority of the Scriptures.… Do not the Holy Scriptures declare Christ’s message for the world? The Scriptures are to be studied that Christ may be properly obeyed.

I would also like to see this assembly proclaim the prophetic truth that Jesus Christ is coming back to this world. The Church has often failed to keep divine objectives in view because she has neglected the prophetic message of the Scriptures. As a result … the human race has been left without a social program of authority and … men and nations have been experimenting with their own national and international goals, endeavoring to bring about unrealizable world utopias which are not of God. This results in periodic national collapse and world-wide calamity. We are in one of these collapses at the present hour.

This assembly should also recognize that the Church is not a political organization nor a social reform society. Individually and collectively Christians may work for political and social justice.… But Christ’s Church must keep on the main highway outlined in the Scriptures and witness before the nations concerning the truth of salvation in Christ and also concerning the program of God for the whole world, especially witnessing to the grand consummation of the age.

This assembly should also warn that world about antichrist.… Had the Church in Germany been faithful in preaching the Christ of Luther and warning of antichrist, there would have been no Nazism there. We should shout for all the world to hear from New Delhi that the future great ruler of the world will be the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church during the next few years must keep this message clearly, plainly, and consistently before the nations of the earth.

This assembly should call the Church back to her true message and true program. Dare this assembly allow the Church in the world to deviate from her proper spiritual orbit?

We should also reaffirm that every knee shall bow not to the Church but to Christ … The Church does not redeem; it only witnesses to the redemption that is in Jesus Christ.

The World Council should also listen carefully, prayerfully, humbly, and attentively to the large groups of Protestants in many parts of the world that are outside the ordinary councils. The World Council should ask: Why is 37 per cent of Protestantism in America outside the National Council of Churches?… Why are over 60 per cent of the missionaries from America from denominations outside the National Council? These masses of Christians have something to say to the World Council if the council is humble enough to listen.…

What the Church needs today is not more machinery or better organizations or novel methods, but men whom God can use. Everything … will depend on the spiritual character of the delegates. It is my prayer that out of this assembly will come heroic, stalwart, toilsome, soldierly, saintly, self-denying, self-crucifying men who are willing to die for the faith once delivered to the saints.…

Congo Beatings

The Board of World Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. says that two of its missionaries were beaten and arrested last month by Congolese troops in Luluabourg.

Injured were Dr. J. B. Jung of Alexandria, Louisiana, a dentist, and Dr. W. Grant McIntosh of Edinburgh, Scotland, a physician.

The board also reported that two other of its missionaries were ill-treated by the soldiers and arrested: Dr. Mark K. Poole and the Rev. William C. Washburn, both from Texas.

A fifth person, Miss Nolie McDonald, an X-ray technician in the mission hospital at Lubondai, was “slapped and insulted” but not taken to jail, the board statement said.

All four men arrested were later released. Washburn has since returned to the United States on regular furlough.

Jung and McIntosh reportedly were attacked by mutinying soldiers, tied to a tree and beaten with gun butts, then taken to prison.

Budding Buddhism?

Selection of U Thant as Secretary General of the United Nations is evidence of the growing influence of Buddhist thought in relation to world problems, according to Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia.

In an address last month at Phnom Penh to the sixth conference of the World Fellowship of Buddhists, the Cambodian head of state called upon Buddhists everywhere to “lead the struggle for peace and truth.” He said Mr. Thant’s qualities “are essentially those of a faithful disciple of the Buddha.”

The acting U. N. Secretary General is known as a devout and practicing Buddhist. He is believed to have a private shrine in his upper East Side apartment. His 22-year-old daughter was married in a Buddhist ceremony last year.

Conciliatory Compromise

A resolution favoring “closer relationships with all other branches of the Church of Christ” was adopted at autumn sessions of the Church of England Assembly in London.

The resolution, which “warmly welcomes the conversations being undertaken with the Presbyterian and Methodist churches,” was a compromise between a suggested motion by Gervase E. Duffield of Oxford and an amendment to it by A. T. Macmillan of London, brother of the British Prime Minister.

The subject had been raised originally with an eye to the Church of Scotland, whose relations with the Anglicans since the ill-fated “Bishops’ Report” of 1957 have been marked by coolness and misunderstanding.

“It may be that the Church of Scotland are a little touchy,” said one speaker, “but let us look at our own faults and our own sins and not criticize them so readily.”

He went on to make severe criticism of an Anglican journal’s article on John Knox which, full of historical inaccuracies, had offended the Scots.

Apparent in the assembly’s discussion was a spirit of conciliation and friendliness which augurs well for future relations.

J. D. D

Christmas Pilgrimage

Some 15,000 Israeli Christians are requesting permission to cross the Jordanian border to participate in the traditional Christmas pilgrimage to Bethlehem.

This number represents about one-third of all Christians in Israel.

Last year, 10,000 applied for permits to attend the annual observance at the birthplace of Christ, but authorities in Israel and Jordan granted only 3,500 permits.

Tv Blackout

For the second consecutive year, the West German television network will dispense with its programming between 6 and 8 p. m. on Christmas Eve, the traditional family gathering time in German Christmas observances. (The high-point of the Christmas season in Germany is Christmas Eve, when families join under lighted Christmas trees, carols are sung and gifts exchanged.)

Last year there were some protests of the blackout which cited the fact that West Germany’s television audience would have to rely upon telecasts from the Soviet Zone.

A New Religious Issue?

Some Washington observers are saying that a religious controversy may develop in the selection of a successor to the late House Speaker Sam Rayburn.

Leading candidate for the post is Representative John W. McCormack of Massachusetts, a Roman Catholic who has been widely criticized for championing his church’s views on public policy.

A comment by Representative Albert Rains of Alabama, who said he was “considering” opposing McCormack for the office, added to reports circulating in the nation’s capital to the effect that a religious controversy might be involved in an intra-party scrap between House Democrats. Rains is a Baptist. Earlier it had been reported that Southern political leaders were favoring McCormack.

Dr. Glenn L. Archer, executive director of Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said there would be widespread Protestant concern over McCormack’s candidacy.

Archer said McCormack “has consistently demanded government support for sectarian schools; he was the leading advocate of the appointment of an ambassador to the Vatican; he denounced the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the separation of church and state in 1948; and he has been the sponsor of many bills in Congress conferring financial benefits upon his church.”

If elected, McCormack would become the first Roman Catholic ever to hold the Speaker’s post. A 1947 law made the Speaker second in line of succession to the President when death causes a presidential vacancy. He draws the same pay as the Vice President, $35,000 a year plus $10,000 for expenses, and has the use of a limousine and a chauffeur.

McCormack holds the highest papal decoration awarded to any Catholic layman, that of Knight Commander, Order of St. Gregory the Great, with star.

Rayburn’s successor probably will be nominated January 9 at a party caucus of House Democrats and elected by the House when it convenes the next day for the 1962 Congressional Session.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy itself provoked widespread criticism from Protestant leaders last month when it reaffirmed its stand on federal aid to education. The hierarchy’s statement opposed any program of such aid which failed to include parochial schools.

Sources close to the prelates maintain, however, that a new school of influence took over last month in the annual meeting of the U. S. Roman Catholic leadership. In terms of their stand on federal aid to education, there are said to be two opposing power blocs, one led by Cardinal Spellman and the other by Cardinal Cushing, and it is reported that the latter gained the upper hand. Archbishop Karl J. Alter of Cincinnati, who sides with Spellman and who as chairman of the administrative board of the National Catholic Welfare Conference has demanded parochial school provisions in any federal aid-to-education program, was dropped from the board altogether. The chairmanship was given to Archbishop Patrick A. O’Boyle of Washington, who has never issued any public statements on aid to education. O’Boyle and Archbishop John J. Krol of Philadelphia were named to the 16-member board for the first time. Both are comparatively liberal on social issues and O’Boyle is a strong advocate of Protestant-Catholic cooperation in the fight against communism who tries to avoid controversy which might undermine such effort.

Secular Or Religious?

The U. S. Supreme Court was asked last month to review legal decisions which have revoked the tax-exempt status of the Scripture Press Foundation, publisher of Sunday school materials and other religious literature.

The Internal Revenue Service ruled in 1953 that although Scripture Press products are of a religious nature, “the manufacture and supply [of such materials] does not constitute a religious activity in itself but is a business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit.” Courts have upheld the 1953 ruling.

Lawyers for Scripture Press say the ruling could be applied to the Methodists and their Abingdon-co*kesbury Publishing House; the Baptists and Broadman Press; the Disciples of Christ and Bethany Press; the Church of God and Warner Press; and many others.

Scripture Press has no specific church affiliation, but its materials are evangelically oriented.

Washington Voice

The Union of American Hebrew Congregations reaffirmed last month a 1959 decision establishing a Reform Jewish center in Washington. The center, in effect a lobby, has been opposed by a number of Reform Jewish congregations. Its personnel will appear before Congressional committees and give views on pending legislation.

The reaffirmation came in a majority vote among 1,300 delegates to the union’s biennial assembly in Washington. Highlight of a four-hour debate was the reading of a telegram from Secretary of Labor Arthur J. Goldberg supporting the center. Goldberg is a newly-elected union trustee.

Interfaith Harmony

President Kennedy publicly praised the National Conference of Christians and Jews last month, suggesting that it has done more than perhaps “any other factor in our national life to provide for harmonious living among our different religious groups.” Kennedy spoke to some 100 leaders of the NCCJ who called on him at the White House at the close of the conference’s 33rd annual meeting in Washington.

Purpose of the visit, as explained to Kennedy by NCCJ President Lewis Webster Jones, was to inform the President of a new four-year “project in religious freedom and public affairs.” The project is designed to raise the general level of public discussion and understanding among religious groups differing on issues of public concern.

“It has always seemed to me,” said Kennedy, “that when we all—regardless of our particular religious conviction-draw our guidance and inspiration, and really in a sense moral direction from the same general area, the Bible … we have every reason to believe that our various religious denominations should live together in the closest harmony.”

Urging Expansion

Bishop Joseph A. Synon, general superintendent of the Pentecostal Holiness Church, told the 52,000-member denomination’s quadrennial General Conference in Richmond, Virginia, that Pentecostals must find more efficient means of getting their message across to the world.

He said the church needs to strengthen and stabilize its foreign missionary, evangelistic, and educational programs. In addition, he said, the denomination must expand its printing and publishing potential.

“We need also to take advantage of the favorable influence of our church, wherever it is known, to establish new congregations in expanding housing projects,” Synon declared. “We need to follow our people into new areas.”

The Progressive Convention

A group of Negro Baptists split off from the National Baptist Convention, U. S. A., Inc., last month and formed a new organization to be known as the Progressive Baptist Convention of America.

In organizing the new convention at a meeting in Cincinnati, delegates from 14 states stressed that new officers would observe their terms of office. Disagreement over this point was given as the reason for the break with the National Baptist Convention, U. S. A., Inc.

This was interpreted as a reference to the re-election of Dr. J. H. Jackson as head of the 5,000,000-member Baptist body. Jackson had been the center of a controversy which began in 1960 when Dr. Gardner Taylor claimed he and not Jackson had been elected president. At the 1961 convention in Kansas City the dispute led to a near riot which resulted in the death of one of the delegates. Jackson was finally elected to his ninth term as president.

The new Progressive Convention chose as president Dr. T. M. Chambers, Sr., pastor of the Zion Hill Baptist Church in Los Angeles.

No membership figures are available.

Church Giving

The annual report of the National Council of Churches’ Department of Stewardship and Benevolence shows an increase of 5.5 per cent in the giving of 39 bodies whose figures can be compared to those of the previous year.

Most principal denominations submitted a financial report for inclusion in the tabulation. The biggest exception is the Roman Catholic church, which never discloses its receipts or disbursem*nts. Also holding out this year were Seventh-day Adventists, who are known to be among the leaders in per-capita giving (a spokesman said Seventh-day Adventist leaders have decided against release of figures for fear that they be interpreted as “boasting”).

Here are 1960 per-member contributions for all purposes as given in the report:

In 1924–25 existentialist philosopher Heidegger, New Testament scholar Bultmann, and philosophical theologian Tillich were colleagues at the University of Marburg. All three have had a marked interrelated influence on twentieth century thought and all three have utilized the now well-known existentialist approach to the “human predicament.” Actually, Bultmann tends to adopt Heidegger’s anthropology directly and (according to Tillich) limits himself to an ethical interpretation of theology. He differs from the older Ritschlian moral liberalism, however, in that he asks for a personal decision concerning the Christ of the cross, concerning the Christian kerygma or message, because of its relevance for “meaningful” existence. Tillich, too, delineates this existential-ethical approach in his discussions of God as man’s “ultimate concern.” Since 1925, however, Tillich (in contrast to both Heidegger and Bultmann) has been developing an ontological interpretation of theology that centers in the Being of God and requires man’s participation in the New Being manifest in the Christ. This fact points to important philosophical differences between Tillich and Bultmann, despite their theological agreement about the necessity of form criticism and demythologization to arrive at a kerygma that is communicable to the “modern mind.”

This summary indicates the extensive similarity between Tillich and Bultmann both as to theological method and as to existentialized doctrine. Whether a merger of the two can take place is really beside the point because in a fundamental sense one already exists. One reason Bultmann has not stirred America as he did Germany after 1941 may be in part Tillich’s development in this country of a similar theology that has been projected in a more positive, cultural context. Perhaps the current effort to translate Tillich’s works into his native language will extend the effectiveness of this type of existentialist theology in Germany too and thus prolong the seeming eclipse of Barth. In any event several ways may be noted wherein Tillich launches beyond Bultmann. The question of their joint impact upon the immediate development of religious thought in America is also significant.

Any comparison of Bultmann and Tillich should include the positive as well as the negative aspects of their existentialist theology. Even those who resent the apparent negativism of demythologizing Scripture must acknowledge Tillich’s and Bultmann’s help in sharpening today’s need for new ways to communicate the “good news” of the Bible. What these men (especially Tillich) have been trying to do for communicating the Gospel must not be lost in discussions over what they may be doing to the Gospel. Making the Word relevant to the needs of men is the special business of preachers, and using existentialist hermeneutics positively is an old and well-known tool of their trade. Reading Bultmann’s recently-published sermons, This World and the Beyond, and comparing them with Tillich’s The Shaking of the Foundations and The New Being should indicate just how successful Bultmann has been in retaining a “positive” message. Preaching must present Jesus Christ as Lord in such a manner that it places before the hearer “the decision whether he will remain the old man or become a new man” (Bultmann, “Preaching: Genuine and Secularized,” Religion and Culture: Essays in Honor of Paul Tillich, ed. W. Leibrecht, p. 242). “To communicate the Gospel means putting it before the people so that they are able to decide for or against it.… The Christian message is the message of a new Reality in which we can participate and which gives us the power to take anxiety and despair upon ourselves” (Tillich, “Communicating the Christian Message,” in his Theology of Culture, pp. 201, 208). Both men use Heidegger’s terminology to describe the tragic sense of life that engulfs many persons in our “Age of Crisis,” even though philosophers have rightfully indicated the ambiguities and onesidedness of this pessimistic approach. Tillich justifies existentialist language pragmatically because it provides in our time a persuasive way to pose the question about life’s deeper religious meaning. Indeed, Tillich’s perceptive analysis of various phases of our culture, art, literature, and psychology are much more convincing for many Americans than Bultmann’s more restricted efforts as a critical student of the New Testament.

The Bultmann series in CHRISTIANITY TOHAY has called attention to the negative side of his work. The writers of these recent essays, not unlike Barth, Cullmann, Thielicke, and other right wing critics, have warned about so demythologizing that Scripture no longer does justice to the reality of God and of Christ. Despite Tillich’s ontological emphasis, perhaps his writings, too, fail to give assurance about the personal, objective-historical basis of Christian faith. Nor does the conservative find much comfort in hearing that Bultmann is still not the most radical deviate in Christian theology. In The Scope of Demythologizing, a very stimulating study of Bultmann and his critics, John Macquarrie of Glasgow says that the kerygma of “the event of Christ” is the top limit in Bultmann’s method for demythologizing the Scriptures. Bultmann’s left-wing critics at Basel (philosopher Karl Jaspers and especially theologian Fritz Buri) feel he is quite arbitrary in stopping short of dekerygmatizing the “saving core” too. Such criticism is what Barth has aptly called “uninhibited radicalizing of Bultmann’s radicalism” (see Macquarrie, p. 131). Buri represents the danger implicit in pushing existentialist hermeneutics negatively. In this approach the Christ-myth has nothing whatever to do with fact and history but remains only (with apologies to Tillich!) a symbol of human possibilities for “authentic” existence.

Tillich’s Reconstruction

This reduction of theology to philosophy, existentialist or otherwise, is exactly what Tillich contests. He also holds Bultmann partly responsible for this problem because Bultmann leans toward an existential-ethical theology that fails to examine seriously the ontological basis of biblical religion.

How has Tillich tried to reconstruct neo-liberal theology? As noted he concurs in Bultmann’s attack on the “obsolete world view” of the Bible. At the same time Tillich warns against using the shifting status of modern science as the absolute criterion over the Bible. To those right-wing critics who wonder about really trying to remove the skandalon of the Gospel, Tillich has this to say: any effort to reduce the logical and super-naturalistic offence of preaching is justified if it helps prospective Christians confront the real “offense” or “stumbling block” of the Gospel, namely, the paradox of the cross of Christ. The real religious offense for men of all time is that God should have appeared in history with all of its estrangement, sin, and death. In short, Tillich contends that demythologizing is pragmatically justified if it helps men by-pass “unnecessary blockage” in coming to participate in the New Being manifest in Christ. By the same token, Buri’s dekerygmatizing is untenable because it removes the essential offense of calling men to genuine decision for or against reconciliation to God. Without this call one has philosophy but not Christian theology.

Definition Offered

So far as the Scriptures go, Tillich defines the real problem not so much as a matter of getting rid of myths as a task of “breaking the myth” (Dynamics of Faith, p. 51), or of deliteralizing the “genuine” religious myths in the Bible. For Tillich a myth is always a cluster of symbols; it serves as a literary medium whereby God’s transcendent reality is drawn into the categories of human temporality. Symbols and myths constitute the language of faith. Contrary to Bultmann, Tillich feels one should not try to replace myths with more acceptable scientific substitutes; rather one should deliteralize the mythical elements in the Bible, doctrine and liturgy, and thereby discover the “real” religious significance of these symbols. For Protestants, he says, the problem is to keep these symbols as full and rich as possible so they retain their power to point men beyond the symbolic material to God, who is the Ground of all being and the true object of man’s “ultimate concern.”

There is no question that Tillich succeeds in getting his religious symbols to “point beyond” in a mystical-ontological fashion. Just what they point to and whether they are “rich” enough to be comprehensively Christian are issues which Tillich’s critics have raised. Reinhold Niebuhr, for example, questions the possibility of comprehending in ontological categories the mysteries of God’s operation in history. With all of Tillich’s talk about symbols pointing to something, perhaps the greatest difficulty is that we are never quite sure what they point from. This fact is particularly significant when we consider the historical basis of the gospel concerning Jesus Christ. In volume two of his Systematic Theology Tillich claims that while Bultmann stops with the “historical element” in the words of Jesus—the message of the kingdom of God to which man must respond in his own “history”—he himself has been able to emphasize the reality of the being of Christ. This Tillich has done by using the symbolic power of biblical language to point to the ontological reality of Christ as he is accepted by faith, even though this reality cannot be verified by strictly scientific historical research. Tillich will say only that “Christological symbols are the way in which the historical fact, called Jesus of Nazareth, has been received by those who consider him to be the Christ” (p. 152). While Tillich seems to add something significant to Bultmann by referring to Christ’s resurrection as the central Christian symbol which must be accepted as both symbol and event, the “event” actually turns out to be no different from Bultmann’s. The “event” has nothing to do with the physical appearance during 40 days of the same Jesus Christ who died about A.D. 30. The “event” is not a matter of historical conviction nor of biblical authority; it rests rather on “the certainty of one’s own victory over the death of existential estrangement,” on experiencing the presence of New Being and the eternal presence of God as Spirit (p. 155). A new gnosticism (via Heidegger) confronts us if we ask about the historical reality of the “mighty act of God” from which the eschatological symbols point. Tillich and Bultmann have merged again.

A Future for the Merger?

So far as America goes, Tillich’s impact stems not primarily from his advocating a neo-liberal theology akin to Bultmann’s. His reception, rather, results from his attempt to define a theology that recognizes the philosophical and cultural challenges to Christian faith in our century. He tries to meet these challenges on their own ground by using his talent as an ontologist, existentialist, idealist, and romanticist. He applies his “principle of correlation,” his “Protestant protest,” his sensitivity to the religious foundation of history and culture (“theonomy”). He employs depth psychology. Above all Tillich has a passion for interpretation in terms of the symbols of Christian faith. It is his knowledge of the world in which we live, and for which the Gospel must be shown to have relevance that wins even those who disclaim any value for the existentialist framework or who doubt that Tillich has retained the “whole counsel of God” in his kerygma.

It is quite possible that while Tillich will and should continue to get a respectable hearing, the radical use of demythologization will have less and less appeal. This conjecture comes not from wishful thinking but from evaluating the fundamental shift from the old liberalism toward a more biblically-oriented theology that has been developing in America in the last quarter century. (See my “Has There Been a Shift in the Presuppositions of Criticism?” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, Fall, 1960. While the works of Frederick Grant and John Bright are especially emphasized here, scores of others could be cited. We suggest also Donald Rowlingson’s “Let’s Reinstate the Bible Historian!” The Christian Century, July 5, 1961, which calls for return to Jesus of Nazareth, and to his words and deeds in history as a prerequisite for any existential application.) L. H. DeWolf’s The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective illustrates what we have in mind.

DeWolf reasons that even if some demythologizing is found to be necessary, one must also determine what aspects of the New Testament best portray the unique reality of the Christ-event (pp. 65–67). DeWolf concludes that neither vagueness about the personal character of God (as in Tillich) nor about the historical reality of Jesus Christ can provide a theology for the living church.

This trend in theology seems to indicate an increasing realization that theological presuppositions for biblical interpretation must rest on reasonable inference from scriptural evidence. It means, too, an increasing awareness that when man responds the Bible will fulfill the purposes for which it was given as divine revelation. What Albright calls the “substantial historicity” of the Bible is receiving serious attention in diverse quarters. While all of this can occasion rejoicing on the part of evangelicals it also provides a challenge. It marks a challenge to conservative scholarship co-operatively and constructively to restate its case in a way that shows an understanding of the changing position of these alternative theologies. The problem of biblical authority and interpretation has been raised in new ways by men like Bultmann and Tillich and the answers must be correlated with the actual questions which perplex them. Only with continued reclarification of the dynamic saving message of the Bible can there be effective communication to our generation. This kerygma must include the “saving history” which Bultmann denies and the miraculous Gospel at which Tillich stumbles.

WILLIAM W. PAUL

Department of Philosophy

Central College

Pella, Iowa

Though its methods differ, communism no less than Christianity seeks the salvation of the world. On October 30 Soviet communism so loved the world that it presented us with the greatest demonstration of physical power ever put on by man. In the 50 plus megaton range, 2500 times greater than what leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bomb was equal in explosive power to a train of TNT-loaded boxcars extending from New York to Los Angeles.

At such a time the Christian Church must tell abroad that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son; it must call the world to faith in the babe of Bethlehem. A world which measures both its power and its fears in terms of megatons must be summoned to acknowledge Jesus as the light of the world and as mankind’s only hope. Boldly and with great joy the Church must proclaim to all nations and to every creature that this infant is very God, that despite all appearances, all things were created by him and through him and unto him. Nothing therefore can be saved without him. The world must be asked to believe that this infant of the manger has the whole wide world in his hand. From a pulpit-by-the-manger the Church must proclaim: Behold thy God! Any lesser call is a mockery of the Christmas miracle.

Millions will celebrate the Christmas season extolling peace and goodwill and the nobility of giving, without any trembling whatever at the mystery that God is now a man, a baby, that Deity itself lies nestled in the straw of a manger.

Even some who stand in pulpits as ministers of Christ will be ashamed to proclaim that when God came in the flesh he needed to be ministered unto; that he needed a mother, and clothes, and a manger in which to lie. Suffering the offence of the Gospel, their self-pride and self-sufficiency will make them too ashamed to humbly confess this babe as their Lord and their God, their only hope for this world and the next.

Indeed, at first every man’s pride is such that he suffers the offence. This pride each man must lay aside. Else he cannot admit it was his sinful predicament that constrained God to do so extreme a thing as become man, even in the form of a baby, to provide help and deliverance from his predicament.

Who indeed shall truly see this thing that has come to pass? Not those blinded by pride or deceived by the illusion of self-sufficiency. And even the humble will need a sign, for when God came, he came as an infant, and surely not every infant is God! This was the sign for the shepherds, and is still the sign for us, “You shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.” The swaddling clothes, the manger—these are the signs that identify the infant that is the hope of the world, the infant that is God in the flesh. A manger! How unlike the sign of the 50 plus megatons—proud symbol that man rules the world and disposes its future. Swaddling clothes! How unlike those standard-of-living symbols by which the materialist guarantees the salvation of the world. An infant! How unlike those power symbols whereby men seek to exercise dominion over all lands and seas.

Yet these, the wrap-about clothes and the manger cradle, are the signs that God has come, that God has entered into our broken existence, delivering us from the sting of sin and death by making it his own. Indeed, these are the lowliest and humblest of signs, yet for this very reason they are the signs of the glory of God. God’s special and unique glory is not that he can make bigger bombs than the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.A.—though indeed he can. The distinctive glory of God, which distinguishes him from man as nothing else does, is his love for men and his willingness to share his life with sinners even though the Creator to do so must become part of his creation, the Most High God an infant. The divine glory revealed in the Christmas event is that willingness of God to become one of us, to be identified with our existence, to lift us out of our darkness and death into the everlasting joy and enjoyment of his own light and life. Christmas is God in Christ emptying himself, becoming poor, that we through his poverty might become rich. This loving condescension for our good, this is God’s grace, and this his glory. The infant form with its obvious weakness is therefore appropriate. The swaddling clothes and the manger—signs of lowliness and of poverty—are apt, and even more than apt, for they are part of the Incarnation itself and themselves reveal the nature of God’s glory.

It was this character of the glory of God which moved the angels to cry in praise, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace and good wall to men.” For if this profound and amazing act in which God stoops to become a helpless creature discloses the nature of the divine glory—that glory in which God himself glories—God should indeed be praised in the heavens above and acclaimed on the earth below.

The lowly signs were not arbitrarily selected, as though the signs of his birth could as well have been signs of wealth or glory. Had they been of the latter type, this infant would not have been “God with us.” Nor were they merely functional so that having served the purpose of identifying the infant to the shepherds, they could be forgotten. The signs of lowliness are so essentially a part of the revelational event of God’s Incarnation that had the signs been of a different order, the revelation would have been other than it was; the God revealed would not have been the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This integral aspect of lowliness present in Bethlehem must be recognized and retained since it characterized the whole revelation of God, which is to say, it characterizes God himself.

When God reveals himself in lowliness and humility, in condescending grace, he is not revealing something that he really is not. Rather he is revealing what he truly is. God in the incarnation, in the swaddling clothes and the lowly manger, is not concealing but truly revealing himself, disclosing to us his true nature.

The God of the manger of Bethlehem is not an actor assuming a role. Much less is God assuming a role which ill befits him, one really quite other than he actually is. God is not for the time being arbitrarily wearing a mask, appearing to be something that he is not. The miracle and mystery of Bethlehem is that God became man, that God is this baby, and that in being this baby God is revealing, not violating his true nature. The infant form of the divine incarnation is no pedagogical aid for children who, upon growing up, may forget the infant form and by a sartorial demythologization strip away the humble swaddling clothes. The God who comes as an infant in the meekness and lowliness of the servant form is, by so coming, revealing his true nature.

The signs therefore may never be forgotten and are, accordingly, preserved for us in the Bible. Each generation needs these no less than the shepherds to learn the nature of him whom the signs reveal: the one and only God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Because the signs are revelatory, they point to an important and essential ingredient in the entire revelation of God through Christ. Jesus is always the one who came not to be ministered unto, but to minister. He is ever the Lord in servant form, even as he ever will be the Servant of the Most High. He still stands among us saying, “I am in the midst of you as one who serves.” He is ever the glory of God, the glory of the divine grace and redeeming love. Even in heaven he is still the Lamb, the Lamb that was slain, even as in the post-Resurrection appearances he appears with the nail prints in his hands and feet.

We must, therefore, ever return to Bethlehem to see this thing that is come to pass; we must ever look again at the signs of lowliness for they are of the essence of the revelation of God given at Christmas. They belong to the God whom they reveal, and they reveal that characteristic of God which we most need: the lowliness and meekness of the divine condescending love and grace for sinners, without which the world could not be saved.

The power and glory whose sign is megaton 50 plus is neither the glory of God nor the hope of the world. The glory and power of God of which the angels sang, and in which godly men hope, have their sign in the poor swaddling clothes and the humble manger.

Today when the world is boasting of the greatest power it has ever possessed, yet is beset with fear as never before in history, let men go to Bethlehem to behold their God. There let them celebrate with great joy, because there the “weakness of God is stronger than men.”

Population Explosions And The Church’S Missionary Task

Census takers count noses and add, but their method tells little about the dynamics of population growth. Populations grow not by addition but multiplication. This being true, one would expect that except for war, famine, and pestilence, the acceleration of growth would proceed with a steady, even, predictable speed. History, however, reveals a different pattern. The multiplication of mankind sometimes proceeds by spurts; some, as the current one, are of such dimensions as to be rightly called explosions.

A current estimate that 25 per cent of all the people that ever lived are alive today indicates the highly explosive character of the present increase.

Sudden, vast increases defy explanation. They occur in both poor and prosperous countries, among peoples of diverse cultures and, as in the present instance, after great depletions of manpower by war.

Population statistics in the past and in the present are not obtainable in anything approaching scientific precision. Yet, there is no doubt we today are witnessing the greatest population explosion in all history.

When the human race explodes in self-production, people face the question of what to do with people.

One thing, however, is not a problem but a challenge. If the estimate that 25 per cent of all people that ever lived are alive today is anywhere near true, the Church is under a staggering obligation to preach the Gospel to every creature. Never in history has the Church faced so tremendous a challenge.

In such a grand and awful time the Church is surely obligated to make full use of the media of mass communications, radio, television, and the printed page, to tell the story of Him who is concerned about even one sheep gone astray.

When R. C. Moberley spoke of the Incarnation as “the crucial doctrine” of Christianity, his adjective completely gave his case away. “Crucial” is from the Latin crux, “a cross.” So whenever we say, “This is the crucial point” or “The crux of the matter is this,” our language means “just as the Cross is central to Christianity, so the point I am making is central to the present discussion.” The centrality of the Cross to the Christian faith has shaped the language we use.

Right at the heart of Christianity there is a cross, and on that cross the Son of God wrought man’s salvation. Put simply, the atonement means that Jesus Christ in his death dealt completely with the problem that man’s sin had set. Whatever had to be done, He did it, and now those who come in faith may enter into full salvation. Throughout the centuries there have been many theories current in the Church as to how this was done, and none of them has been able to command universal acceptance. This leads us to the conclusion that there is an essential mystery about the atonement so that men cannot know completely how it works. But there are some points that the Bible makes very clear and any satisfactory understanding of the atonement must reckon with them.

The Love of God. The first point to notice is that the atonement proceeds from the loving heart of God. In the best known text in the whole Bible we read that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). With this, accord the words of Paul: “God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8). This line of teaching could be traced through the whole of Scripture, for it is fundamental that the atonement takes place only because God’s love leads to it.

Notice that the passages we have cited do not speak of the love of Christ, which we would perhaps think more natural. It is the love of the Father that is seen in the Cross (the love of the Son is, of course, seen too, but that is not the point in the passages under discussion). This is important in that it shows us that our salvation comes to us with all the majesty of God the Father behind it. It is a divine work in the fullest sense. It is important also in that it shows us that in this work of salvation the Father and the Son are completely at one. Sometimes, with the very best motives in the world, theologians have given the impression that God the Father is a stern judge, just, it is true, but stern. He lays down his requirements, and when men do not reach them insists on punishment. Into that situation comes the loving Son who intervenes in such a way as to save men from their judge. This is not the scriptural teaching at all, and must unhesitatingly be dismissed as a caricature. The atonement takes place because God the Father loves us and makes provision in his Son for our salvation.

The Sin of Man. Paul gives as one of the fundamental pieces of the Church’s teaching (it had been given to him: he did not originate it), that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15:3). This, too, is teaching that could be widely documented, for the early Church was sure that Christ’s death and man’s sin were closely connected. So frequently do we find the two linked that it is more or less a commonplace of New Testament teaching on the subject, and it could be passed over quickly were it not for the fact that in modern times the church has often lost sight of this altogether. Many think of Christ as a martyr, and of his death as taking place because he was not understood, or because his teaching was rejected, or for political reasons or the like. “Explanations” of this type are legion, and they make a strong appeal to many in our day. But they are out of keeping with the New Testament, There it is clear that, humanly speaking, Jesus could have avoided the Cross had he so chosen. But he did not so choose, for this was the divine way of dealing with sin.

Sometimes the New Testament speaks of Christ’s blood as shed “for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:28). This same blood “cleanseth us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). Christ “purged our sins” (Heb. 1:3); he “bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). And there are other expressions. Whatever had to be done about sin, he did it. And he did it perfectly and finally for “where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18).

The New Testament witness is clear. The death of Jesus was connected with the sin of man. And the death of Jesus was the perfect atonement for man’s sin.

Penal Substitution. The way this is effected in the traditional evangelical statement of the position is by Christ’s bearing the penalty that sinners had incurred, by his taking their place. It is true that the New Testament never uses this term, but it is difficult to explain such a passage as Romans 3:21–26 any other way. Here Paul says that the Cross shows us the righteousness of God. His point is that the truth that God is righteous was in danger of being obscured because in earlier days God had not always exacted the penalty for sin. “Remission” in verse 25 (KJV) is better “passing over”; the meaning is that God had passed over men’s sins without punishing them; therefore he might appear not to be just. But in the light of the Cross, such an accusation can never be leveled again. What does this mean if it does not mean that the penalty of sin has been borne?

Substitution is to be found in many places. We see it in the saying of Mark 10:45, “The Son of man came … to give his life a ransom for many.” The expression lutron anti pollon expresses a substitutionary thought, as, indeed, does the whole saying, for the meaning is “Because Christ died the many do not.” Again, the agony in Gethsemane taken with the cry of dereliction (Mark 15:34) points to the same thing. Why should Jesus be in an agony as he contemplated death? He was no coward, and many lesser by far have faced death calmly, including not a few who have been in spired by him. It was not death as such that he feared, but the death that was the death of sinners, that death in which he should experience the horror of being foresaken by him who is of purer eyes than to behold evil (Hab. 1:13). Paul is surely referring to the same thing when he says that God “made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). This identifies Christ in his death in the closest manner with the sinners. He died the death of sinful men. So Paul can say, “one died for all, then were all dead” (2 Cor. 5:14). And the same truth underlies his words, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us” (Gal. 3:13). This must surely mean that Christ bore the curse that we should have borne. And this is substitution.

Twice Christ is said to have borne our sins (Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 2:24). In modern times this is sometimes understood to mean that Jesus put up with the frustrations and difficulties involved in living among sinful people. But that is not the biblical meaning of the term. It occurs often in the Old Testament in contexts showing plainly that the bearing of penalty is in mind, as when Ezekiel says “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father …” (Ezek. 18:20; see also Num. 14:33 f., etc.). The expression then means that Christ bore our penalty. He stood in our place.

Substitution is also in mind when John records the cynical prophecy of Caiaphas “it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:50). Caiaphas spoke out of a worldly political cynicism, but John records the words because they were an unconscious prophecy of the significance of the death of the Lord (vv. 51 f.). His death is a substitute for that of the people. We must surely understand the references to Christ as “the propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2; 4:10) in the same way.

Thus the evidence that the New Testament regards Christ’s saving work as substitutionary is considerable and varied. He took our place. This is not the whole story. His death is an example for us (1 Pet. 2:21). It is a display of God’s love (1 John 4:10, etc.). There are other aspects. None can be dismissed as unimportant, and all must be kept in mind if we are to obtain the complete picture. But an emphasis which is usually overlooked in modern theological writing is this substitutionary one which is found throughout the New Testament, and which is so fundamental. Whatever it was that Christ did for us, he did by taking our place. He bore what we should have borne and we go free.

Those who deny this do not usually reflect on the consequences of their denial. But there are only two possibilities. Either Christ bore the burden of our sin, or we bear it. There is no middle course. Thus to deny that in any sense Christ took our burden means that the whole idea of Christianity as a redemptive religion must be abandoned. Substitution may need to be understood carefully. It is not some crude, external thing. It includes the thought that the Substitute is on the one hand one with God and on the other, one with sinful men. Believers are not saved as detached units; they are “in Christ.” But the fact that we need to understand substitution carefully does not mean that we are at liberty to abandon the concept altogether. It is too deeply rooted in the Scriptures and too imperatively demanded by the logic of the situation for that.

The Triumph of the Crucified. As he comes to the climax of his great treatment of the Resurrection, Paul exults, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” He answers his questions, “The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law,” and immediately proceeds, “But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 15:55–57). This note of victory runs through the New Testament treatment of the work of Christ. The gospels do not finish with the Cross, but go right on to speak of the Resurrection. The Acts pictures the early Church as living in the afterglow of the same fact, and the extent to which it dominated their thought is revealed in the speeches that Luke records. In the epistles the same triumph is depicted, and this rings on to the last book of the Bible where the note of triumph sounds forth clear and sustained. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the New Testament writers conceived of their Christ as having won for them a complete triumph over all the forces of sin and death and hell. “We are more than conquerors through him that loved us” (Rom. 8:37).

Throughout the New Testament it is assumed that man’s salvation rests entirely and only on what God has done in Christ. The atonement is the very central doctrine. Without Christ’s saving work men are lost. In Christ they are triumphantly saved.

Bibliography: J. Denney, The Death of Christ (probably still the best conservative work; R. V. G. Tasker has produced a revised edition); The Christian Doctrine of Reconciliation; R. W. Dale, The Atonement (a standard work; and the various writings of P. T. Forsyth on the subject are still useful); H. E. Guillebaud, Why the Cross? (slighter, but valuable).

Warden

Tyndale House

Cambridge, England

In areas where moral and spiritual values are concerned, neutrality is that twilight zone of irresponsibility which plays directly into the hands of evil.

We hear much of neutrality in nations today. History shows that there have been only a few nations which have remained “neutral” in times of international conflict, and this neutrality has often paid off handsomely in material advantage.

Today neutrality is assuming increasingly ominous proportions, for many who call themselves “neutral” are actually unwilling to commit themselves for or against communism, and in so doing they have left the free world to carry the burden while they themselves reap benefits from both sides.

The basic philosophy of the so-called neutral nations became even clearer during the recent Belgrade conference. At that time these nations were willing to denounce any act of the West which could be interpreted as preparation for defense against Moscow while the renewed nuclear testing by Russia was largely ignored.

A Christian’s primary concern, of course, is not in the realm of international politics. We are subjected daily to the temptation of remaining neutral in the area of spiritual and moral issues. This is a deadly sin.

In the Revelation we read our Lord’s comment to the Laodicean church: “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.”

Many characteristics of the Loadicean church are to be found in the churches of America today and these characteristics are but the elongated shadow of those who comprise her membership.

The affluence of our churches today is a deadly menace.… Are we not wretched in our wealth and sophistication, miserable in our lack of spiritual perception, blind to the opportunities, privileges, and responsibilities which are ours? Are we not naked as we stand revealed in the clear light of God’s judgment?

Too many of us are indifferent when we should be deeply concerned. We affirm our belief that Christ is man’s only hope and then spend dollars on self-gratification and pennies, if anything, on making Christ known to a lost world. This very indifference may some day rise up to smite us as God finds it necessary to use other channels for the proclamation of the Gospel.

These are days when Christians should act, but because we are infected with a deadly spiritual ennui we wait complacently for the world to be evangelized, and hope that it will be accomplished without our having to do much to further the end.

Few of us have ever made a clear-cut decision to serve God regardless of the consequences. Few of us have exercised our priestly authority over our own homes and with Joshua declared, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Neutrality in spiritual and moral matters makes us fearful when we should be fearless, and silent when we should speak out. The forces of evil are in evidence on every hand, but few of us speak out against them, nor do we dare stand up and be counted when the issue is drawn by others.

Woe to the individual who feels he can be neutral when to do so means that he takes his place on the side of evil. Sins of the spirit and of the flesh are all about us. We cannot be neutral even if we so desire—for silence gives consent to the thing against which we should take a stand.

It is impossible to be “neutral” about Christ, either we are for him or against him. To ignore him is to take one’s stand on the side of his enemies.

Furthermore, it is not possible to be neutral about vital Christian doctrines, those which have to do with the person and work of our Lord. In every generation there are those who deviate from Christian truth and there are those who accept these deviations without protest.

We are not speaking of areas of the Christian faith on which good men can and do differ, that is, areas which have nothing to do with salvation itself. We are speaking to the necessity of convictions and actions where the Bible itself leaves no doubt as to the Christian’s duty.

Our Lord confronted Peter with a query as to whether he too would turn away from him. There was not neutrality but a ringing certainty in Peter’s reply: “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

In Christian faith there can be no neutrality. And in Christian practice there is no room for the deeds of Satan. Christianity and the Church have been gravely compromised with the world by those who are unwilling to take a stand for righteousness.

What is the cure for the disease of neutrality in the face of spiritual and moral demands?

The Laodicean Christians were counseled first of all to recognize their own pitiful state: they were naked when they thought they were clothed, poor when they thought they were rich, blind when they thought they could see. Then they were told to seek the cure for spiritual blindness.

Certainly one of our greatest needs is spiritual discernment and judgment. One’s Christian witness can be gravely affected by a lack of either. There are many situations where the Christian should remain silent, just as there are others where silence involves denial of our Lord and his truth. It is in this realm that spiritual discernment is so greatly needed and comes solely by the presence and illumination of the Holy Spirit himself.

Another need is convictions resting squarely on God’s revealed Word. That we live in a time of theological uncertainty and compromise none can deny. No longer do the clear affirmations of the Scriptures carry full weight with many people who stand in the breach between the living and the dead. Because of a neutrality stemming from theological compromise too many persons are placing their emphasis on secondary rather than primary matters.

We witness the strange phenomena of men affirming and acting on the strongest kind of convictions on social, economic, and political matters while at the same time equivocating when it comes to basic truths on which the eternal destiny of men depends. This neutrality with reference to the eternal verities is causing men to waver and turn away. Because of the uncertain sound of the trumpet the battle of the ages is, from the human standpoint, in doubt.

Nothing could do more to revitalize individual Christians and the life of the Church than a shift from neutrality to bold faith on the side of the One who someday will triumph.

His future is certain. Is ours?

Meet The Magi

Where is he?

Where is the promised King?

Why do you ask? We knew him well,

For once he passed this way.

He healed our sick, he preached for us,

And came to dinner, too.

Indeed, it sometimes seems

That he is with us still,

We have such memories.

That star you followed we

Have set in galaxies

Of Christmas incandescence

To twinkle on our skylines.

Your quest for him we know;

In effigy you ride

Across our lawns and windows.

But look about you, Magi,

For where has he not been?

That cathedral bears his name,

These hospitals have grown

From a story he once told—

We tell it still to children.

But where is he?

We do not know.

If you find him, bring us word

For we might worship too.

Where is he?

Where is the Lord’s Anointed?

He has gone. We broke his yoke;

We have cast away his cords.

Like the corpse of our dead god,

Stalin, we have flung him out

From the people’s mausoleum.

Above your phantom star

We raise another, red

With blood of Bethlehem.

To us, and not to him has come

The East, and all its treasures.

Where is he?

Where is Christ the King?

We know. Thus it is written,

And thus it came to pass—

His sufferings and glory.

We know where he has gone,

The way we also know;

He lives, he rules, he comes;

All power on earth is his

And we are witnesses.

We know, and since you ask,

We point you to the Scripture.

You must excuse us now—

It is a busy season.

Just follow the star to Bethlehem—

You can’t miss it.

EUTYCHUS

Kenosis

Thank you and the author for sundry stimulating suggestions in the article on “The Kenotic Theory” (Oct. 27 issue). But may I raise two questions?

First, if “God certainly limited himself with reference to future choices and deeds of free moral beings,” what does one do with such passages as Matt. 10:30; Eph. 1:11; Isa. 14:27; 43:13; Dan. 4:35; and such doctrines as providence, petitionary prayer, predictive prophecy?

Secondly, in addition to this doctrinal question there is an exegetical one: What becomes of the theory if one accepts the exegetical position set forth by Professor J. Jeremias, TWNT, V:708, to the effect that the “He emptied himself” of Philippians 2:5–11 is simply the Greek rendering of the Hebrew text of Isaiah 53:12, “He poured out or surrendered his life unto death?” On this interpretation the “central passage” on which the kenotic theory is built refers to the death of Christ and not at all to the Incarnation.

WILLIAM CHILDS ROBINSON

Columbia Theological Seminary

Decatur, Ga.

The New Ecclesiarchs

Let us face it. “The values of the marketplace are the values of the church.”

William Henry Anderson, Jr. did a remarkable piece of work in “The Organization of the Church” (Oct. 27 issue). The Unitarians and the Universalists are now merged … and we have a “guide” of 50 pages, the introduction to which says, “The new mood is to blend together all the independent parts of our movement into a comprehensive system (the italics are not mine).

I believe that, with few exceptions, the new ecclesiarchs are dwelling in such a dream world that they might even be called psychotic. They have no relation to reality and are not concerned about it. Papers, reports, but where are the people?

E. L. THEODORE POPP

Unitarian Church

Grafton, Mass.

Anderson’s essay needs but this fresh, modern, headquarters-approved dash of poetry to make it crystal-clear that the essential difference between any particular church and its corporation god lies in the fact that while the church intones “Have faith in God,” headquarters translates it to “Have Faith in Goals.”

Have faith in goals

You need not preach the Word.

Have faith in goals

The print of the great speckled bird,

Have faith in goals

Or get thrown out at third.

Have faith, dear friend, in goals.

Have faith in goals

When quota sheets get boring,

Have faith in goals

Our spirit sweetly snoring,

Have faith in goals

Our first love: cash-adoring!

Have faith, dear friend, in goals.

Have faith in goals

Old Laodicea’s boon,

Have faith in goals

Each year a bigger spoon,

Have faith in goals

Launch cash-nik to the moon.

Have faith, dear friend, in goals.

Have faith in goals

Behold the golden calf,

Have faith in goals

Join Ahab’s dancing staff,

Have faith in goals

God weeps and devils laugh.

Have faith, dear friend, in goals.

W. F. HADEL

Mountain Home, Ark.

For Whom The Toll?

O. K. Armstrong’s article on taxation of churches (Oct. 13 issue) is very apropos—so far as it goes—but kindly tell us what is fair or just about exempting the church buildings, etc. This forces the many millions of good citizens who are not communicants of any church and have no interest in them to pay added taxes. A substantial number even think the church harmful. How must they feel over being taxed for the propaganda which they regard as nonsense?

IRA D. CARDIFF

Yakima, Wash.

Your article … brings up a subject of great interest to me. About 10 years ago I was a County Commissioner, and selected chairman of a fact-finding committee (on tax exemption). I found some real eye openers, under difficulties.

While newspapers and periodicals were eager to print my findings … I found many obstacles placed deliberately in my way by churchmen, both Protestant and Catholic; also by educators and unions. They were bold in their attempts to suppress my reports.

I was even written up in a state college paper as being opposed to religion and education since I had none of my own:

And yet I was a church deacon and member of the alumni of the college at the time.… I don’t go to church any more. I feel out of place. I am doomed to the everlasting punishment, so I have been told. So be it.

O. M. JORGENSEN

Manhattan, Kan.

A short time before I read your article … was the first I had known that our church (Latter-Day Saints) did not pay taxes on business operations.

I do not feel that this is right or honest. It happens not only in Salt Lake City, hut all over Utah as well as in other states.…

M. C. LEARITT

Neola, Utah

Historicity Of Genesis

I was perplexed with the review … of The Message of Genesis by Ralph Id. Elliott (Oct. 27 issue). Dr. Elliott was my professor in the seminary, and his book reflects the denials which he declared in class. This book has caused no little stir among those of us who subscribe to the complete historicity of Genesis and to the correct interpretation of Genesis by the inspired writers of the New Testament. The book naively ignores the New Testament’s view of the Old Testament.

GENE L. JEFFRIES

Harmony Heights Baptist Church

Joplin, Mo.

Macartney And Machen

Please permit a brief footnote to G. Hall Todd’s attractive review of the new autobiography of Clarence E. Macartney (Oct. 13 issue). The book should he widely read because of its firsthand report of the doctrinal controversies of the twenties and thirties as well as for many other features to which the reviewer draws attention.

Particularly gratifying in my judgment is Macartney’s evaluation of the character and witness of J. Gresham Machen which may serve to correct certain persistent distortions. Yet one statement of Macartney’s in this context is highly disturbing. It is that after Macartney offered to act as Machen’s counsel before the Permanent Judicial Commission in 1936, Machen declined, “saving that if I defended him, he might be acquitted, and that was not what he wanted” (p. 189). The full correspondence is available to myself and shows that at this point Macartney’s memory failed him. In a letter of about 1200 words Machen, while expressing deep gratitude for the offer, declined on the ground that he felt that his counsel, who would be his spokesman in connection with the subsequent appraisal of the trial regardless of its outcome, had to be a person who would “represent my view in the most thoroughgoing way,” which, to Machen’s distress, Macartney did not do.

At this time indeed (May 9, 1936), after many years of struggle for reformation from within, Machen had come to believe that the denomination was apostate and he longed for a separation. Nevertheless, as this letter also emphasizes, Machen’s sense of obligation to fulfill his ministerial vows was such that he could not condone the evil involved in his anticipated condemnation even though it might become the occasion of good. In his own words in the letter, “But I cannot acquiesce in that evil for a moment, and therefore I am adopting every legitimate means of presenting my case even before the Modernist Permanent Judicial Commission.”

NED B. STONEHOUSE

Westminster Theological Seminary

Philadephia, Pa.

Articles Of Religion

Pastor J. B. Cain, in his letter (Oct. 27 issue), quotes what he states is from the Methodist “Discipline” as to Holy Scriptures containing all things necessary to salvation. Be it known that this is the VI Article of Religion, 1562: “Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation,” of the Church of England, and repeated also in the Articles of Religion of the Episcopal Church.

And, as regards Pastor Mueller’s article in the same issue: “Luther’s ‘Canon Within the Canon,’ the same Article VI goes on to list as Scripture the 14 books of the Apocrypha, with this statement: “And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine.…”

ROBERTS E. EHRGOTT

St. John’s Episcopal Church

Mount Prospect, Ill.

Stewardship Of Time

You certainly have dared to review the picture “King of Kings” honestly and sincerely from the Christian’s point of view (News, Oct. 27 issue).

Yesterday on my way to church, I heard the local program of the Church Federation of Los Angeles praising the picture—in fact, taking more time to praise it and a very questionable French picture which deals with adultery and fornication … than they gave “Question 7.”

JAMES K. FRIEDRICH

President

Cathedral Films, Inc.

Burbank, Cal.

Part 1

“The church of the living God, the pillar and ground L of the truth … the household of God … built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone …” (1 Tim. 3:15 and Eph. 2:19, 20).

A pronounced characteristic of modern Christendom is its confused doctrine of the Church. This confusion reveals itself in extreme expressions of Protestant individualism, of Roman Catholic sacerdotalism, and of the “ecumenism” of councils of churches, extremes which often embody and “glorify” the visible differences between communions. Any extreme tends to be harmful, of course. In the case of the Church, the above mentioned extremes tend to diminish both the New Testament fellowship described as “filled with the Holy Ghost … [and] of one heart and of one soul …” (Acts 4:31, 32) and the New Testament task of witness to the Gospel commanded by Christ, even to “the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8).

What is being taught about the Church that would diminish its nature and mission? In the first place there are those who describe the Church as just another man-made social organization, a loosely-bound group of like-minded individuals. They feel the Church has social relevance only as individual members give it import and meaning. The most commonly accepted but no less erroneous modern teaching sees the Church as an invisible entity (an abstract divine ideal) toward which Christians strive. Then there are those who describe the Church in such strictly mechanistic or authoritarian terms that they seem at times even to presume on the prerogative of the Holy Spirit.

What shall we say to these trends? The Roman Catholic extreme is best referred to the Holy Spirit, while non-Roman Christians universally proclaim and teach a strong apostolic doctrine and fellowship. Let us turn our attention rather to the extreme teaching that Christendom sprang from the post-Ascension era to modern Protestantism full-blown. This concept shows little concern for the New Testament Church and for the subsequent glorious history of Holy Spiritled martyrs, apostolic fathers, and bold bishops who changed the course of human history. Perhaps the basic reason for Protestant confusion is the lack of real concern about any doctrine of the Church. Such ecclesiastical deprivation can be remedied only by careful and thorough inquiry into the Holy Scriptures under the tutelage of St. Paul, the Church’s greatest theologian, missionary and pastor. From such study the following descriptions of the Church will be obvious:

1. The Church is the special community of believers in Christ who through faith in him and by baptism into him through the Holy Spirit are made one with Christ and with each other. Indeed, “the promise [‘Ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost’ at baptism] is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:38, 39). St. Paul describes this fellowship of the Holy Spirit as “the church of the living God” (1 Tim. 3:15), the outward manifestation of the special individual and social relationship of those in Christ. “He made us alive together in fellowship and in union with Christ—He gave us the very life of Christ Himself …” (Eph. 2:5, Amplified New Testament).

A Unique Institution

This special community of the redeemed in Christ is a unique institution, for it is composed of those who, through God’s saving grace in Christ, have experienced both reconciliation with. God and enfranchisem*nt within the redemptive fellowship. Thus they are “no [longer] strangers … but fellow citizens with the saints …” (Eph. 2:19). As “God’s own people … we are joined together harmoniously … in Him—and in fellowship with one another” (Eph. 2:21, 22, ANT). An evidence of the deep concerns of the early Church is the active healing and confessional ministry recorded by St. James (Jas. 5:13–15).

2. The Church is also the visible society in time of those living (abiding—see John 15) in Jesus Christ, nourished and sustained by the Holy Spirit. Members of the Apostolic Church are “called of Jesus Christ … to be saints … (Rom. 1:6). It was this sense of personal invitation and close identity of the Church with Christ (called his “bride” by the writer of the Revelation 21:9; 22:17) which led John Calvin to observe, “St. Paul calls Christ the Church.” This is indeed an accurate observation of fact. It is erroneous to say that the disciples formed the Church to perpetuate the high ideals and lofty teachings of an unusual Master. Jesus Christ is the Church and unto himself he calls (invites and bids) and draws not only the Jewish disciple/apostles but also those “of the Gentiles … [who] shall be called the children of the living God” (Rom. 9:24, 26). It is the “church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28).

Fellowship Foremost

Such a dynamic organism must be visible. Members as well as initiation and liturgical rites; formularies of faith, order and discipline; new Spirit-directed life; and missionary labor compose this Church visible. But first and foremost the Church is a fellowship of Christ’s men (Christians), a fellowship of his followers and of the brotherhood of which he is the Head. St. Paul reminds us that “He … is the head of the body, the [his] church;” in him “all things consist [are held together]” (Col. 1:18, 17); God “hath put all things under his feet and gave [appointed] him to be the head over … the church” (Eph. 1:22).

Among the many essays submitted to CHRISTIANITY TODAY, this exposition of the doctrine of the Church is one of the most significant. Those who do not share its Episcopal orientation will be rewarded nonetheless by its firm reach for New Testament realities.

Further, the Church possesses the assurance of victory already won by Christ Jesus, eternal Saviour and King. Even the gates of hell “shall not prevail [hold out] against Christ’s Church (Matt. 16:18). The final, most glorious assurance of all is Christ’s promise of victory over death to believing and abiding Christians because of Jesus’ bodily resurrection. St. Paul thus sings the Church’s triumph song: “Death is swallowed up [utterly vanquished] in victory.… Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord …” (1 Cor. 15:54, 57, 58).

3. As the very “body of Christ” divinely established by God in Christ, the Church is commissioned to fulfill his mission under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is the absolute minimum description of St. Paul’s doctrine of the Church (see the Apostle’s great teaching in Romans 7, Ephesians 3, 4 and 5, and 1 Corinthians 12, as well as that of Philippians 3 and Colossians 1). The New Testament Church considered itself the continuing instrument of God’s purpose and plan begun in Christ and now evidenced within its “new life” fellowship and witness. God intends “the perfecting of the saints [all baptized and abiding Christians] … for the edifying [the building up] of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith” (Eph. 4:12, 13). “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus …” (Eph. 2:10). It is from the mighty acts of God in Christ (incarnation, passion, death, resurrection, and ascension) that the Church derives its true life and its dynamic proclamation and missionary witness. In a brilliant autobiographical passage St. Paul describes the common apostolic stewardship: “… who now rejoice in my sufferings for his body’s sake, which is the church …” (Col. 1:24).

4. The Church is both a universal and a local entity, “his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all” (Eph. 1:23). The apostles established each local unit to be a reproduction, a microcosm, of the “one body” “established in the faith” and “confirmed” (strengthened and disciplined) by the apostles as they on their visits delivered “the decrees … that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem” (Acts 15:41; 16:4, 5). St. Paul seems to know nothing of the modern anomaly of “solitary Christians.” Fie counsels Christians, “… brethren, become followers [imitators] of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus …” (1 Thess. 2:14). The Apostle cautions individualists: “Do not let yourselves be [hindrances by giving] offense … to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). It is obvious from the pastoral letters of St. Paul that he considered his apostolic-episcopal office as Spirit-inspired authority within the body of Christ, the Church. This is a far cry from modern individualism which resents any external authority in faith or morals, even if it proceeds from the Church, directed by the Holy Spirit himself.

5. The Church is both an institution and a doctrine. It is “the household of God … built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19, 20), an organic institution entrusted by Christ with the mission of witnessing to the Gospel and of converting the world under the direction of the indwelling Holy Spirit. The institution is comprised of all baptized Christians who, through Christ, “have access by one Spirit unto the Father” (Eph. 2:18). The doctrine of the Church is best outlined by St. Paul (“I speak concerning Christ and the church”) in his letter to the church at Ephesus (5:23–32):

a. “Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (v. 23).

b. “Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water [baptism] by the word” (vv. 25, 26), “That he might present it to himself a glorious church … holy and without blemish” (v. 27).

c. “The church is subject unto Christ …” (v. 24).

d. Christ “nourisheth and cherisheth … the church” (v. 29).

e. “… we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” (v. 30).

In chapter 4 of his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Paul pinpoints the divine work of Christ’s Church as the attainment of “the measure of the stature and the fulness of Christ … [and] speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body [the church] fitly joined together … maketh increase of the body into the edifying of itself in love” (Eph. 4:13, 15, 16). Further, the essential unity of the Church is the person of Jesus Christ. The acknowledgment and confession of our One Lord, Jesus Christ, “Son of the living God” (Matt. 16:16), the Christian’s Saviour, King and Lord of life, bring in “the dispensation of the fulness of time … [that] he might gather together in one all things in Christ” (Eph. 1:10). “For we [no matter how numerous we are] are one … body: for we are all partakers of that one bread [the communion of the body of Christ]” (1 Cor. 10:17).

Because Christians have unity in Christ both the rule and peace of God are acceptable “to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful” (Col. 3:15). Such an historic view of the Church needs to be recovered by the contemporary but no less special society of the redeemed in Christ, his “One Body,” that Body of which he is indeed the head and organic unity. The closer we come to the New Testament doctrine of the Church as a divine, Spirit-directed fellowship in Christ, the more apparent will be the unity we seek.

Only God ever had the idea of making a Christmas. No man would have thought of such a thing. Small wonder the idea has captured the imagination of the world, or that the nations turn aside every year to see the Baby in the tavern keeper’s cattlebarn.

What a way for God to invade our world! No royal proclamation, no fuss! It was all done so quietly! Yet, once you have the picture, you can’t forget it. A King, yes, a Redeemer, born in a cowshed! How could we help coming, as did the Magi, to visit this baby whose birth meant that the calendar was to be changed?

So, every year, we light our trees, sing carols, give gifts, and cry, “Merry Christmas!” And well we should; for it is Jesus’ birthday. However, we might ask ourselves, in the midst of our celebration, what will happen when Christmas is over.

Something did happen after that first Christmas, you know. Jesus didn’t stay in that manger. He left it. He went to Nazareth. “The child grew” states the record. He became a man. He took his gospel to the people. He healed the sick, lifted the fallen. He was flung on a cross. He rose from the dead. He sent his Spirit to the Church.

So much happened after that cattleshed experience!

Perhaps far too many folk in the church have a Christmas religion! It is full of music and poetry; it is a fine emotional thing—but it never gets Christ out of the cowbarn!

Despite all our sentimental singing during the Yuletide, the fact remains that Jesus couldn’t have done very much for the world if he had stayed a baby! Babies are wonderful, they bring us happiness; but they aren’t very helpful in building things or in tilling soil or in running hospitals.

Jesus, as a baby, couldn’t have given us the Sermon on the Mount. He couldn’t have lived his mighty life before the eyes of mankind. He couldn’t have taken his death-beam to Calvary. He had to quit the stable and become a man before he could perform his mission for God and to man.

A stable-faith is not enough. We must have a Cross-faith, a Resurrection-faith. We must do better than that. We must have a Pentecost-faith. We must have a faith that fulfills the words of the Apostle Paul: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.”

Last Christmas we heard a clergyman speak on the radio. Naturally he had a Christmas theme. He was a fluent speaker. Listening, one could see the Magi’s camels plodding over the desert, trailing the new-born Star. You could hear the angel’s song floating on the night, you could see the shepherds hurrying to see the child. In dramatic diction Mary was presented to us, clasping the Babe to her heart. It was an impressive picture. But the sermon left Jesus in the innkeeper’s oxstall! It didn’t even get him as far as the temple to ask his famous question, “Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?”

Recently we heard a Sunday school teacher tell about an incident in the life of Jesus. She had the setting of the incident well in hand. She described the times, the customs, the mores of the people of that day. But she omitted one thing. She never did bring Christ to our day! She left him back there in history, many miles and many years away from us.

Only an incompetent scholar would suggest that Jesus never lived. We do despite to the Gospel when we discount the historical Christ. He came to this earth. He was stable-born. He was a carpenter in Nazareth. He traveled over Palestine, preaching, teaching, and healing men. He was crucified. He rose from the dead. He ascended to heaven.

But the historical Jesus is not sufficient to fulfill the mission and hope of Christianity. The Christ of the cowbarn can have little meaning unless we have the Christ of the atom age. The Master who moved among the men who straddled donkeys must move in a world of tremendous automation.

We heard one minister say, “Let’s not speak of the historical Christ as though we spoke only of the past. He is the Lord of all history, past, present, future.” Our faith requires a yesterday Saviour; but it requires a today Saviour also. Moreover we shall need a tomorrow Redeemer.

It is a far cry from the Christ Child among the oxen to the Christ Spirit among moon-bent missiles and winged rockets. But the distance must be spanned. Even the distance between an historical Easter and our time must be bridged. We must realize in human personality what Paul termed “the power of his resurrection,” which can lift men from their dead selves to “walk in newness of life.”

We must see our faith extended far this side of Pentecost. It is not enough to celebrate a day when the divine fire was outpoured. Pentecost must not end in an upper room in Jerusalem. It only begins there. God meant the action reported in Acts to be extended until the end of time.

True, at Christmastide we commemorate God’s first fulfillment of the pledge of the name, Emmanuel—“God with us.” Yet we must keep remembering that Jesus pledged to live, in his Spirit, in the Church for all ages. “Lo, I am with you always.”

We should not disparage the Christmas season, though we might flinch at some of the false merrymaking, the commercial goings on, the jug tilting and carousing. We should never mar the story of the starled men from the East, or of the angel choirs over the Judean hills. We would not diminish this scene. Yet we would not keep Jesus in the cowshed forever!

God didn’t keep him there for long. He took him to Egypt, probably before he could walk. Perhaps that journey is the symbol of a great fact. Christ cannot stay in Palestine! He must visit the nations of the earth. He must pass through many streets in the big cities, fight through the jungles, and cross the deserts. Christmas was never intended to cripple our missionary enterprise!

Let us resolve then, this Christmas not to lock Jesus up in the cattlebarn until next Christmas. Let us get him out of the manger, out to the dispossessed, the disinherited, the needy people whom he loves. Christianity was never an ox stall religion! It is a global Gospel, restless at roadblocks, fretting at boundaries.

Sing, then, at Christmas. But sing after Christmas also. Give gifts while you sing, but remember that God’s grace makes every day a giving time. Christmas is not a date on the calendar; it is a Spirit in eternity.

A man once dreamed that he was in the stable in Bethlehem and saw the child. He asked, “What are you doing here, little One?” And the child answered, “I am not doing anything, here! But I shall go from here soon. I shall speak parables that will haunt the world. I shall climb a hill, rise on a cross, and the world will not be able to forget. I will overwhelm the grave.

I shall establish the Church. I will come again some day to reign as King. My birth in the stable is not as important as the fact that I shall be born in men’s hearts around the world!”

It was never his birth in a barn that Jesus emphasized. Did he ever refer to it? His interest was in being born into the hearts, spirits, and ways of men. This is the sort of birthday he will join us in celebrating, and the angels, he said, will join him also.

Christ is satisfied only when he has moved from his cattleshed into the living room of men’s lives. END

Malachi 3:1–3

The Preacher:

Robley J. Johnston is General Secretary of the Committee on Christian Education in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. A native of Pennsylvania, he took his A.B. degree from Juniata College and the Th.B. and Th.M. from Westminster Seminary. He served for three years as Pastor of Calvary Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Middletown, Pennsylvania, and before that in Cincinnati, Ohio. He taught in 1949–50 at the Stony Brook School.

The Text:

Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.

But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap:

And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness.

One of Norman Rockwell’s delightful Post illustrations pictures a salesgirl in the toy department of one of our great stores. The date on the calendar is December 24; the hands on the clock point to five minutes past five. The poor clerk has slumped upon a pile of toys behind the counter—dress askew, hair disheveled, and arms limp at her sides. She has slipped off her shoes, and her eyes are rolled back as if she were to breathe her last. She has just made it through another great American Christmas!

We all know just how she feels. There are moments when we glimpse that marvelous childhood Christmas again, to which the toys are tribute, but the mad crush catches up with us and we ask, “Can I stand another year of it?”

There is, however, a far deeper sense to the question, “Who can stand Christmas?” Quite apart from the customs that have grown up around the celebration of Christ’s birth, the question must be asked about that event itself: “Who can stand before the birth of Jesus Christ?”

This is the question, asked in the last book of the Old Testament which looks forward to the coming Messiah. Malachi puts it to warn a people who thought themselves quite ready for Christmas. Indeed, they were impatient for God’s great intervention to begin.

They were exiles returned from Babylon—the remnant of God’s chosen people, restored by God’s promise to the city where he had put his name. But they found the walls and the temple in ruins, the land desolate and filled with enemies. They must rebuild with trowel in one hand and spear in the other. When the wall was repaired and the temple foundation restored, their shouts of joy mingled with weeping. Compared with the former city and temple, the restoration was weak, mean, feeble. “How does all this fit with the promises of God’s deliverance, and of Messiah’s just and glorious reign?” they asked.

Malachi heard their murmurings. They cried to God, “Wherein hast thou loved us?” (1:2). “Where is the God of judgments?” (2:17). If God has really chosen us, when will he judge our enemies and deliver us? Will Messiah never come?

Malachi answers with the Word of God: “The Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap.”

The answer to their prayer was dreadfully more than they had asked. They sought the Lord as an end to troubles; they wanted a Messianic panacea for peace and prosperity. But the coming One was the Lord indeed, and as Lord they must meet him. He comes not to play favorites on their terms, serve their dreams, and establish their kingdom. He comes to bring peace through judgment, to deal not only with the sins of their enemies, but with their sins. Could they abide his coming?

If Israel was guilty of a superficial view of the significance of Christ’s coming, so are we. We talk and sing of the coming of the Prince of Peace to earth. We are choked with emotion as we listen to the story of how he came and there was no room for him, save in a stable. We play the Christmas carols and fondly hope that the Christmas spirit may make the world a better place. But, I wonder, can we really stand Christmas? Are we really prepared to embrace all that the coming of Christ means? Our text suggests three reasons for posing such a question.

The Coming Of Almighty God

The first reason why the inspired Word asks us “Can you stand Christmas?” is that the coming of Christ is the coming of the Almighty God. The One who speaks in this prophecy is none other than for whose coming Israel was crying. This is essentially the same prophecy as that found in Isaiah 40:3, where that prophet speaks of “the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” Isaiah here speaks of Jehovah, Israel’s almighty Sovereign. In ancient times when the king made a journey there were sent before him runners and riders to make sure that no danger lurked in the way, and to arouse all the people to greet their sovereign. This is the picture of the One who is coming, the Sovereign of God’s people, and he is the Lord Jehovah.

But even apart from Isaiah’s prophecy, it is crystal clear whose coming Malachi foretells, for he says, “The Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.” The prophet has just spoken of Israel’s complaint, ‘Where is the God of judgment?” And in answer to that cry this word is given: “The Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple.” The God whom Israel worshiped as the only God—the God whose temple stood in their midst as a continual reminder of his glory and power—this is the One who comes, sending his messenger before him. Is it any wonder that the prophet asks, “Who may abide the day of his coming?”

The One whose coming is the subject of prophecy—the One whose coming is the object of our attention at this season—is none other than the mighty God. The Word who was in the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, and who is very God—the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Only because he veiled his majestic glory behind the curtain of his flesh could men even look upon him. Even so, there were occasions when his majesty and might flashed forth in overpowering manifestations. Think of how the money changers fell back under the lash of his scourge as he cleansed his temple. Think of the moment of his arrest in the garden; he said, “I am he,” and those who would seize him fell to the ground. Or think of the centurion who stood beneath his cross as the earth quaked and the lightning flashed and the thunder rolled in tribute to his deity—think of that hardened soldier crying out, “Truly this man was the Son of God.” Yes, Christmas declares to us the unveiling of the invisible God, the coming of Almighty God among men, and who shall stand when he appeareth?

The Coming Of The Kingdom

The second reason for the inspired question on Malachi’s lips is that the coming of Christ is the coming of the promised kingdom of God. He whose coming is foretold is not only called the Lord, but he is spoken of as “the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in.” The mention of the covenant associates this event with all of God’s promises to establish his rule among men. The messenger of the covenant in whom Israel took delight calls to mind that kingdom which was the fondest hope of God’s Old Testament people. Of that everlasting kingdom of peace spoke all the prophets from Balaam to the Baptist. For God had made his covenant with his people; he had promised that he would set his king on his holy hill of Zion. God’s covenant was his promise to send deliverance and salvation to his people and to establish his own eternal kingdom on earth. And this “messenger of the covenant” is God himself fulfilling his covenant. Again Isaiah and Malachi speak with one voice. In Isaiah 42:6, God says of his coming King, “I will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.” The coming of this One is the realization of God’s covenant; it is the coming of him who is Christ, God’s anointed King.

This prophecy, therefore, agrees with all the other prophetic notices that speak of the coming of Christ. It makes plain that he whose birth we celebrate at this season is the One whom God hath made both Lord and Christ, King Immanuel. As such, his appearance is not merely a momentary manifestation of the great God; it is not one brief revelation of Jehovah upon earth. Rather, in terms of his covenant, it is God come to dwell among men as their King. Christ’s coming was for the purpose of establishing the rule of God as the abiding Lord of the lives of men. What a staggering thought is this! Christ came not that we might glimpse the glory of God for a few brief years, but he came that God might dwell forever among men and that, dwelling among us, his righteous law might exercise its sway over our lives. The coming of Christ is in the most vital sense the coming of God’s kingdom.

The kingdom of God does not await the second coming of Christ and the final, full manifestation of his sovereignty, for the prophet is here speaking of his first advent when he came announced by his messenger John. No, the birth of Christ ushered in the beginning of that glorious day spoken of by all the prophets—the day in which the mighty God dwells among his people as their sovereign Lord. Christ’s birth began that kingdom in which men of every tongue bow and confess that he is Lord. And if we cannot bear his coming, how can we bear the coming of his kingdom? How shall we abide the day of his coming by whose appearance the sovereign rule of God is brought to bear upon our lives day by day, under which our selfishness and willfulness must be subjected to his perfect will?

The Coming Of The King

Thus there is a third reason why it must be asked, “Who shall stand when he appeareth?” The reason is that the coming of Christ is the coming of the King of Righteousness. His coming is not some abstract, faraway concept. Rather, it takes hold upon our life and thought and speech in a most concrete way, for the prophet says of this coming King, “He is like a refiner’s fire, and like fullers’ soap.” Malachi had just reminded the people of their transgression against the law of God—of their blindness to their sins of selfishness and ingratitude, and when he hears them express a desire for Messiah’s coming he cannot but remind them that the One in whom they profess delight will, when he comes, deal harshly with their sin. The refiner puts his metals into the fire to burn out the impurities; the fuller soaks his soiled cloth in soap and water and then tramples it up and down to remove the dirt from the very fibres. It is the essence of the kingdom of Christ to deal severely with sin. Christ came not only as the Prince of Peace; he came also as the King of Righteousness. And he must perform his work of righteousness in order that his work of peace may appear.

Comment On The Sermon

The sermon “Who Can Stand Christmas?” was nominated forCHRISTIANITY TODAY’SSelect Sermon Series by Professor Edmund P. Clowney of Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. His overcomment follows:

Many noted preachers are specialists: masters of anecdote, sons of thunder, fathers of phrases. Yet great preaching does not require the tongues of angels. As the uncomely parts of the body are the more necessary, so the greater gifts in preaching are the less noted. Every true preacher is first a general practitioner, faithful in the routines of the study and the discipline of prayer—a workman in the Word.

Lack of relevance is only a symptom of the impotence of modern preaching. The cause is lack of meaning. Some preachers may fail because they do not know their hearers well enough; others fail because they do not know the Bible well enough, or because they do not know Christ at all. The arts of communication serve only the man who has something to communicate. An empathetic pewside manner is no substitute for Gospel proclamation.

This is a Gospel sermon. It proclaims Christ from the Scriptures. It takes the text seriously, and has no other aim than the explanation and application of the oracles of God. Structurally, it is sound for the theme is unified: the divisions are subordinate to the theme, co-ordinate with each other, and progressive in their development. The exegesis has iceberg form: there is a mass of cold, hard substance below the surface, but light glistens from the high points.

The price of such development is many hours of labor in the study. All good preachers work at their sermons. The preacher of the Word of God must work longest at what the text says, for that will control what he says. This sermon is built upon a careful examination of the Hebrew text and a wide grasp of the whole counsel of God. It is in the Presbyterian tradition of scholarly preaching, grounded in the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God written.

On the other hand this is a sermon, not a theological lecture. It proclaims God’s judgment on sin, and confronts men with the presence of the Saviour. There is a Puritan ring to the earnestness with which the challenge of the prophet is declared. The preacher pleads with men before God. In a printed sermon, particularly one which has been severely pruned for requirements of space, much of the immediacy of application is lost. Enough remains, however, to suggest the power of this as preaching.

Finally, this sermon preaches Christ from the Old Testament. Too often Christ is lost in current preaching. The moralizing that results may presuppose the Gospel, but it does not preach it. To be sure, Christ is plainly present in this text from Malachi, the last herald of his appearing. But the form of his presence here declares his presence throughout Scripture. He is the angel of the covenant. In burning bush and flaming cloud, every theophanic coming of God anticipates his final coming in his Son. The story of redemption is the story of the Redeemer. Further, the angel of the covenant is also the coming Messiah. Malachi calls the priest the messenger or angel of the Lord (2:7). The calling of Israel as the priestly nation, the calling of God’s servants as prophets, priests, and kings—this all points forward to the calling of God’s anointed who is both Lord and Servant, God and man, Immanuel.

E. P. C.

In his first coming Christ was himself consumed by that refiner’s fire. The Judge bore the wrath of judgment, for only so could he save his people from their sins. But Christ the Sin-Bearer can never be indifferent to sin; by both word and deed he raised the scourge of judgment. In his second, final coming to earth, that work of judgment will be completed. Then the dread that is expressed in these words of Malachi will be upon the lips of all those who have turned from his righteousness. Then will they cry for the rocks and the mountains to fall upon them to hide them from the wrath of him that sitteth upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. Yes, it is the Lamb who came to apply the righteous law of God to the lives of sinful men. And therefore he poured scathing condemnation upon men who make a show of religion, but whose hearts are void of mercy and filled with spiritual pride. He exposed the hypocrisy of those who made much of the law and the prophets, but who rejected the message they proclaimed for their own devious and foolish traditions.

The coming of Christ is the coming of the King of Righteousness who will by no means clear the guilty; and how shall we stand before him with hearts corroded by coveting the comforts of this life? How shall we endure the searching eye of him who says, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice?” How shall we escape his judgment who says, “Ye outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity?”

Who is sufficient for these things? Who can stand such an appearance as this—the coming of God himself to establish his rule of perfect righteousness over the life and thought of men? We say we want—we need—the celebration of Christ’s birth. The Christmas spirit, we say, will warm the earth with kindness and love to one another, and so let us have Christmas. But can we really stand it when it confronts us in the fullness of its meaning? Do we recognize the implications of our desire for Christmas?

Ah yes, let us have Christmas! God forbid that we should ever be indifferent to the coming of his Son. But welcome his coming for what it is. Worship him who was born—that child whose name is Wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. One day he will come again in power. But our King has already come, and summons us by his grace to enter into the Kingdom where he is sovereign of all our lives. Hear and believe his word: “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Know that “the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.” Submit to his refining, cleansing work. Find cleansing for sin in “that fountain filled with blood, drawn from Immanuel’s veins.” Know that all your righteousnesses are as filthy rags and claim by faith the perfect righteousness of him who did always the things that pleased the Father. Fill your minds and hearts with his Word that in you may appear the fruit of the Spirit which is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. So may we welcome the word of his coming and sing with new meaning: “Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace!”