Page 6271 – Christianity Today (2024)

Less Spigot

For every top-level preacher who speaks Ecclesian in the pulpit there are three score and ten parishioners whose speech problem is at the other end of the scale. Great swelling words are not their difficulty. They can’t manage any words at all. They are the manly mumblers.

Manly mumbling is a male malady. There are two varieties. The first is the muscular mumble, in which words are extruded under pressure between teeth clamped together by clenched masseter muscles. The tense belligerence which this conveys is accentuated by rippling these muscles occasionally, as though one were chewing on horsehide, or had his dentures fast in a caramel. The second mumble achieves a similar effect through opposite means. It is the drool mumble. The jaw is relaxed, and the lips have barely enough tension to contain saliva. Extreme ennui is indicated; this mumbler could care less, and does.

Both varieties are conscientiously developed in the middle or late teens to prove the mumbler’s masculinity in conformity to the tribal mores. Both add striking new confusions to our language.

I was fascinated to hear a student song leader ask a group, “The zany won half a fable-lit sung?” Someone did, and they sang what sounded like, “Freeze a jelly goof hello.” I met the young man later. When I was introduced he mumbled “Police tomato,” and moved away.

That sort of thing could lead to misunderstanding. Before tackling semantics and psychology in the communication of the Gospel we need to begin with peppermints and consonants. In the great assembly of Israel described in Nehemiah, Ezra the scribe and his colleagues “read in the book, in the law of God distinctly; and they gave the sense, so that they understood the reading.” Clear thinking and speaking should go together.

Tongues were a problem in the early church. Paul warned the Corinthians that a stranger who heard their ecstatic utterances would think them mad. He insisted that those who used the gift in public must have an interpreter.

Perhaps your young people’s group needs an interpreter, too, for the mumblers. I suggest you test the candidate of your choice on this closing sentence:

A slang us in gushes sour linkage less spigot.

EUTYCHUS

In Free Europe

We are missionary appointees to France … now speaking in deputation services in California. We read your issue of July 20 on “Christianity in Free Europe” with great interest, as perhaps it is the finest combined writing on this subject in print today.

CHARLES M. WRIGHT

Greater Europe Mission

Long Beach, Calif.

With reference to the Rev. G. A. Had-jiantoniu’s article, “Greece and Eastern Orthodoxy,” … may I point out the most significant part that American Mission to Greeks has been having in recent years, bringing the Gospel to the entire nation.

It has pioneered in a unique method of evangelism, that of publishing as paid advertisem*nt full-length Gospel messages every week in nearly all secular newspapers and magazines of Greece. This has aroused the official opposition of the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church, who proposed that the government officially forbid me to write these messages. When this was turned down, they offered the newspapers a sum equal to what we are paying, if they would only keep our messages out. And when this also failed, they issued an encyclical in 640,000 copies, forbidding the people to read our Gospel messages. Needless to say that this had the exact opposite result.

In the town of Chalkis, I was sentenced to 49 days’ imprisonment, because a local newspaper published my Gospel messages, prefixing my name with the word Reverend. Local Archimandrite Christopher Kalyvas, along with the Greek Orthodox Church, took the attitude that Protestant ministers did not have the right to be called “Reverend” in Greece. This sentence was appealed and reversed by an Appellate Court in September, 1961.

Furthermore, American Mission to Greeks maintains a large printing establishment in the heart of Athens, employing twenty-six full-time printers, and publishes more new religious titles than any other religious publishing house in Greece. It maintains four evangelical bookstores throughout Greece.… In cooperation with the Million Testaments Campaigns, it has distributed many thousands of copies of the Word of God, and is now printing 100,000 at its own print shop in Athens.

American Mission to Greeks, furthermore, publishes the largest Greek evangelical magazine, the 60-page Voice of the Gospel, which now finds its place in the newsstands all over … Greece for the first time.

For the past three years, American Mission to Greeks has operated a booth at the International Fair at Thessalonica, distributing a million copies of literature and Scriptures to its visitors.

Furthermore, American Mission to Greeks is pioneering in film evangelism, producing the Moody Science Films in the Greek language, which are being shown even by Bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church.

SPIROS ZODHIATES

General Secretary

American Mission to Greeks, Inc.

New York, N. Y.

Re the issue on Europe, [the article discussing] radio omits probably the most widespread radio of all—The Lutheran Hour.…

W. H. LEHMANN

Fremont, Ohio

These eighteen pages of current information on the status of the church in Western Europe … are well worth the price alone of the year’s subscription.…

EVERETT H. VIVIAN

Anderson College

Anderson, S. C.

Some errors in the statistics (p. 14) were pointed out by the Northern Ireland Government Office in London. Under Northern Ireland the correct figures should read: Roman Catholics—498,031, Protestants—829, 502 (this comprises only Presbyterians, Church of Ireland and Methodists, and the 1961 census gives under a separate heading 97, 929 whose affiliation is either with other Protestant churches or else is unknown).

The Government Office further wishes to point out for our information that the nation listed as “Ireland” is really “Eire” or what is known as the “Irish Republic.” Further, there is a serious mistake under “Protestants” in this category. For some reason the figure is given as 975, 543. While the precise figure is not known, the generally accepted estimate is 160,000.… London, England

J. D. DOUGLAS

I fail to grasp the logic of your editorial.… You state that General Weygand saw in the collapse of France in World War II “the chastisem*nt of God for its abandonment of the Christian faith.” In the next sentence you say that Germany, before which France fell, “stood by consenting to the greatest atrocities against humanity in world history.”

But if Germany was, as I agree, guilty of “the worst atrocities in world history,” why use it to chasten a nation which, by this admission, was less guilty?…

GEORGE GORDON

Durham, N. C.

• This sort of thing is common in biblical history. Punishment should not be viewed simply negatively—it can also serve as a discipline.—ED.

Reading your issue on Europe, one perceives a certain abstraction. The front article bears the caption “The Church in Western Europe,” to be followed by more detailed reports. Then the issue leads on to an appropriate editorial, “Free Europe: A Spiritual Decline?”, concluding with extracts of commentaries under the headline “Tempest Over School Prayer Ban.” As to the various reports on the situation of the Protestant Church in Europe, spiritually and otherwise, they represent a good summary of prevailing general conditions. The reporting as well as its deeper meaning of the two contrasting situations—Europe as against America—in one and the same issue imply the abstraction.

Everyone is aware of the fact that the Christian Church in Europe almost since its very beginning is state-supported and the state therefore has influenced the affairs of the Church to some degree all this time; pastors, or priests, are requested to give religious instruction in public schools up to this day. On the other hand, in U.S.A. where church and state are separated, a simple form of prayer before school begins has recently been ruled out by a Supreme Court decision.

The abstraction of this differing situation comes to the fore in the article “The Missionary Situation in Europe” by Robert E. Evans, when he writes: “Since 1945 more than 400 Missionaries have gone to Europe (from North America). At least a score of missionary societies have been created especially for service in Europe.” Conclusion: Where religion is being taught systematically and on a high theoretical level, the Church as a whole has failed in its given task to impute into the lives of its adherents the spiritual life that emanates from Christ—while on the other hand missionaries are being sent from America, where there is not even as much as a formal prayer to be uttered in public schools!

Not all European nations could be considered to have come, for one reason or another, under God’s judgment, but uniformly prove to be in a “spiritual decline”; the implications, both spiritually and psychologically, are no doubt varied and complex and would require comments from places and persons more competent than the writer of these lines. Such showing of the deeper reasons and causes plus their interrelations might … teach a lesson badly wanted and needed in our time.

CHARLES GRESSINGER

Niederaichbach, Bavaria, Germany

The Home Department publishes monthly and distributes … a religious news magazine in braille—The Church Herald for the Blind.

The issue contains material which we would very much like to include in our September issue.

ANNE L. WHITING

Administrative Assistant

The National Council, Protestant Episcopal Church

New York, N. Y.

Baptism: Durable Debate

Tenney on “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper” (July 6 issue) touches on vital differences between Lutherans and other Protestants.

As a Lutheran myself, on one point I must fault both. This is on the meaning of the word baptizo. The Greek word baptizo never means “dip.” In “dip” an immediate withdrawal is implied, as might be in “plunge”; but those “baptized into Jesus Christ” or “into His death” are to stay there.

The word baptizo means the effecting of an immersion, fully or compendiously, whether by sinking, pouring, overflowing, or any other mode or method.

JAMES P. MAIER

Bethel Lutheran (Missouri Synod)

Sweet Home, Ore.

Although listing Oscar Cullmann’s Baptism in the New Testament in his bibliography, Tenney has not come to grips with the basic teaching of that excellent treatise.… He states: “Faith must precede commitment; the external act of water baptism will not transform an unbeliever into a Christian.” Cullmann demonstrates beyond a question of doubt that the “faith of the candidate is thus not a condition of the possibility of the divine action; nor is it a guarantee of the future perseverance of the person baptized” (p. 50). For the heathen adult faith acted as “a sign for the Church” (p. 50) that the person is worthy to receive the sacrament of baptism. The main activity of faith must follow, not precede, the reception of Christian baptism.… Instead of dismissing the possibility of infant baptism by stating that “The mention of the Philippian jailer’s household does not necessarily imply that infants were included,” [Tenney should] … have acknowledged with Cullmann that “natural membership (in) a Christian family conferred on him by his birth … is a sign for the Church that the divine baptismal event will in his case be completed, and that he Will really be incorporated in the Church of Christ” (p. 51)

MARVIN D. HOFF

Rea Avenue Reformed Church

Hawthorne, N. J.

Tobacco And The Ministry

In your July 6 issue under “Critic’s Notebook” (Eutychus), Dr. John Henry Jowett is included under prominent preachers and teachers who use tobacco. From the time of his first visit to this country in 1906 until he resigned his Fifth Avenue pulpit at the close of the First World War, I met with Dr. Jowett on a number of social occasions. I never saw him use tobacco and I greatly doubt if he qualifies among the list of smokers.

FRANK FITT

Ann Arbor, Mich.

May I direct the writer to an article quoted by Dr. Dale Oldham over The Christian Brotherhood Hour on October 15, 1961, and reprinted in The Gospel Trumpet (now Vital Christianity) the same date.

Here is the quote: “One Saturday morning Mr. Spurgeon went for a walk, and when he came back, he said to me, ‘I saw in a show window down the street a can of tobacco, and on it a printed card reading Spurgeon’s Tobacco.’ Then he asked, ‘When the Lord calls me home, shall I be remembered by the tobacco I smoked or by the Lord I preached? I can never smoke again to the glory of God.’ Immediately the preacher picked up all his smoking paraphernalia and threw it upon the fire. He never smoked again to the day of his death.”

May the tobacco-using ministers of our day accept Spurgeon as an example and, along with him, realize their “moment of truth.”

ESTON W. HUNTER

Church of God

Fillmore, Mo.

The letter reads: “I have never heard [a fellow minister] … who was a smoker advise young people to avoid beginning”.…

I have smoked a lifetime (now 68) and I still smoke but I do advise our youth against it. I am not bragging about my smoking. Why don’t I stop? That’s another subject.

DOWIE G. DE BOER

First Congregational Church

Brimfield, Mass.

We all know that in the grace doctrine set forth by Paul, the Christian’s salvation is by grace free of legalism and “works.” By the same token, Paul sets forth the qualifications required for men seeking the offices of the ministry (1 Timothy 3). Under these qualifications, the elders and deacons must be blameless, not for their salvation, but rather for the effect their lives and examples will have on others. While I am a pharmacist by profession, I am also a licensed local preacher in the Methodist Church, and I learned the hard way that you can’t witness for Christ with a cigarette or a glass of beer in your hand if you want to be effective.… The truth of the matter is that in the eyes of the unsaved they place a sinful emphasis on these things, and while they do these things themselves they don’t believe they should be done by anyone connected with the preaching of the Word.…

It never fails, or at least it never seems to fail, that the more modern, the more liberal, the further the minister gets from the fundamental Word, the less effective his message becomes.

Yes, we have complete freedom in Christ, but with the freedom we have an increased responsibility to get the Word to others. It … isn’t a question of self-indulgence or gratification of the flesh or harmful effects on the body, but more importantly, does it interfere with the leading of souls to Christ.…

WILLIAM C. FRUEHAN

Scranton, Pa.

I feel that ministers should do some soul-searching on this matter. My Lutheran friends brush off my query with, “It’s a medical matter!” When it becomes a matter of stewardship, and common courtesy of annoyance, then it has gone beyond the stage of medicine.…

J. RUSSELL MEAD

Evangelical United Brethren Church

Winslow, Neb.

Crete, Jerusalem, Athens

The discovery that the Eteocretan inscriptions in the island of Crete (News, May 11 issue) are in a Semitic dialect, although written in ancient Greek letters, shows the ancient connection between all ancient alphabets of the Mediterranean and the Hebrew alphabet. The very sounds of the names given the letters also indicate this. All we have to do is compare the Greek and Hebrew names: A—Alpha-Aleph; B—Beta-Beth; G—Gamma-Gimel; [etc.] …

The connection between the use of the pointings and the loss of the silenced Waw and Yodh letters is also an indication that the Waw and Yodh were not originally silent, but were silenced after the points replaced them. What were they before being silenced?

A comparison with the Greek alphabet might give a clue: Yodh comes before Kaph; Iota comes before Kappa. This indicates that Yodh corresponds to Iota or I. Unfortunately, Waw has no mate in the Greek alphabet, so it gives us no clue by position. But the fact that the Yodh may be the Hebrew Iota or I, nudges us to look at Aleph and Alpha, both firsts. Can Aleph be the Hebrew Alpha or A? If so, then He is the Greek Epsilon or E. That would give us I, A, E, of the vowels. In the Greek alphabet Omicron or O comes before Pi or P; while in Hebrew the letter before Pe is Ayin (another silenced letter). Can Ayin correspond to Omicron? If so, then we have mates to Alpha, Epsilon, Iota, and Omicron. Only Upsilon is missing. And only the letter corresponding to Waw is missing. Can Waw be it? If so, we have all the vowel letters in the Hebrew alphabet!

Long before the use of pointings in writing Hebrew, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek—the Greek Septuagint. Hebrew proper names had to be written with Greek letters. If we study how they replaced the Hebrew letters, we can get a clue about Hebrew vowels. We find that all these Hebrew letters, Aleph, He, Waw, Yodh, and Ayin, are replaced by Greek vowels.

The pointings came into use to protect the sounding of the Hebrew, and to keep it to the norm sounds of the times in which those pointings originated.…

So we can expect that, by the time the Septuagint transliterated the Hebrew proper names, different sounds had come to be used with the vowel letters. And this is just what we find. They are represented by different Greek vowel letters in different places. But, despite this shift, it is always a Greek vowel letter that represents the Hebrew Aleph, He, Yodh, Ayin, and Waw—never a Greek consonant letter. So there can be little doubt that they are the ancient Hebrew vowel letters, that were silenced by the use of the pointings, because the sounds given to them were different in different places and they had lost their utility for public readings.…

In 194 times out of 208 occurrences, the Septuagint renders Yodh as Iota, I.

Some of the ancient Hebrew consonant letters have also changed sounds during the sojourn of the Jews in Europe. Heth is Kh, but at the beginning of words seems to be like the vowel Aleph.

The use of the ancient vowel letters in their Roman counterparts will stop the deceptive misspelling that the pointings brought about, and reveal new light. Thus the alleged difference between the Hebrew words in Isaiah 14:12 (Helel) as compared to Zechariah 11:2 and Ezekiel 21:12 (17) (Yalal) is exposed as a myth, when we use the English letters corresponding to those in the older plene mss. All three occurrences will be written Eilil, the hiphil imperative, howl, wail, lament. Of course, this will upset many a poem, story, and sermon.…

J. F. HARTMAN

Springfield, Ill.

On Excommunication

The impact of Edward John Carnell’s article, “The Government of the Church” (June 22 issue) … was vague when he spoke of how the early church dealt with false teaching: “The apostles denounced the error, but they did not excommunicate the Judaizers.” This would seem to hint at a policy of tacit coexistence.

The word “excommunicate” is too weak to describe the apostolic reaction to the Judaizers. The formula went beyond “Let him be excommunicated” to “Let him be anathema”! False brethren, creeping in unawares, were an ever present peril in the minds of the apostles. And the arsenal of Christian defense included the power to deliver such to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme. Our Lord would require of his church certain procedures to be followed in the case of trespass (and would not false teaching be a trespass?). The end procedure is excommunication: “… let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17). Even then, the church is not empowered to declare the person unsaved. It simply says that it is no longer possible to regard this person as a Christian, or his teaching as Christian.…

EDWARDS E. ELLIOTT

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Garden Grove, Calif.

The reign of law—Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing No. 1 is 1 to 10. Your chance of drawing 1 and 2 in succession would be 1 in 100. Your chance of drawing 1, 2, and 3 in succession would be one in a thousand. Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3, and 4 in succession would be one in 10,000 and so on, until your chance of drawing from No. 1 to No. 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion.

The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time. Therefore, there must be in nature some form of intelligent direction. If this be true, then there must be a purpose.…

Some astronomers tell us that the chance of two stars passing sufficiently near to each other to develop a pulsating and destructive tide is in the order of millions and that a collision would be so rare that it is beyond calculation. Nevertheless, one of the astronomical theories is that at some time, let us say two billion years ago, a star did pass near enough to our sun to raise terrific tides and throw out into space those objects we know as planets, which appear vast to us but are insignificant astronomically. Among those masses drawn out was that wisp of cosmos which became what we call the earth. It is a body of no importance astronomically, yet it may be demonstrated that it is the most important body so far known to us.

We must presume that the earth is composed of some of the elements which are to be found in the sun and none other. These elements are apportioned on earth in certain percentages, which, so far as the surface is concerned, have been fairly well ascertained. The bulk of the earth is now reduced to very permanent dimensions and its mass has been determined. Its speed in its orbit around the sun is extremely constant. Its rotation on its axis is determined so accurately that a variation of a second in a century would upset astronomical calculations. It is accompanied by a satellite known as the moon, whose motions are determined and whose sequence of variations repeat themselves every 18 1/3 years. Had the bulk of the earth been greater or less, or had its speed been different, it would have been farther from or nearer to the sun, and this different condition would have profoundly affected life of all kinds, including man. So profoundly indeed, that had this earth varied in either respect to any marked degree, life as we know it could not have existed. Of all the planets, the earth is, so far as we now know, the only one whose relation to the sun makes our sort of life possible.

Mercury, because of astronomical laws, turns only one side to the sun, rotating on its axis only once in its complete revolution of the sun—Mercury’s year. In consequence, one side of Mercury must be a desert furnace and the other frigid. Its mass and gravity are so small that all traces of an atmosphere seem to have escaped. If any atmosphere does remain, it is tearing in unbelievable tornadoes from one side of the planet to the other. Venus is a mystery, with dense vapor for atmosphere, and its id demonstrated to be absolutely uninhabitable by any known living thing. Mars is the one exception and may bear life like ours, either in its beginnings or on the point of extinction. But life on Mars must be dependent upon other gases than oxygen, and especially hydrogen; as they seem to have escaped. There can be no water on Mars. Its temperature averages too low for vegetation as we know it. The moon could not hold an atmosphere and is now absolutely uninhabitable. During its night it is extremely cold, and during its long day it is a very hot cinder. The other planets are too far from the sun for life to be established, and because of other insuperable difficulties cannot support life in any form. It is now generally agreed that there has never been, and can never be, life in any known form on any planet except our earth. Therefore, we have in the very beginning as a home for human beings a little planet which, after a series of vicissitudes during two or more billion years, has become a suitable place for the existence of plant and animal life, of which we find the crowning achievement to be man.

The earth rotates on its axis in 24 hours or at the rate of about 1,000 miles an hour. Suppose it turned at the rate of 100 miles an hour. Why not? Our days and nights would then be ten times as long as now. The hot sun of summer would then burn up our vegetation each long day and every sprout would freeze in such a night. The sun, the source of all life, has a surface temperature of 12,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this “eternal fire” warms up just enough and not too much. It is marvelously stable, and during millions of years has varied so little that life as we know it has survived. If the temperature on earth had changed so much as 50 degrees on the average for a single year, all vegetation would be dead and man with it, roasted or frozen. The earth travels around the sun at the rate of 18 miles each second. If the rate of revolution had been, say, six miles or forty miles each second, we would be too far from or too close to the sun for our form of life to exist.

Stars vary in size, as we all know. One is so large that if it were our sun, the orbit of the earth would be millions of miles inside its surface. Stars vary in the type of radiation. Many of their rays would he deadly to every known form of life. The intensity and volume of this radiation is anywhere from less than that of our sun to 10,000 times as great. If our sun gave off only one-half of its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave half as much more, we would have been reduced to dust long ago if we had ever been born as a protoplasmic spark of life. So our sun is about right for our life among millions of others which are not.

The earth is tilted at an angle of 23 degrees. This gives us our seasons. If it had not been tilted, the poles would be in eternal twilight. The water vapor from the ocean would move north and south, piling up continents of ice and leaving possibly a desert between the equator and the ice. Glacial rivers would erode and roar through canyons into the salt-covered bed of the ocean to form temporary pools of brine. The weight of the unbelievably vast mass of ice would depress the poles, causing our equator to bulge or erupt or at least show the need of a new waistline belt. The lowering of the ocean would expose vast new land areas and diminish the rainfall in all parts of the world, with fearful results.

We seldom realize that all life is confined to the space between the snow of the mountain tops and the heat of the earth’s interior. This narrow stratum as compared with the diameter of the earth is but one half the thickness of one leaf of a thousand-page book. The history of all creatures is written on this tissue-thin surface. If all the air was liquefied it would cover the earth to a depth of 35 feet or 1 part in 600,000 of the distance to the earth’s center, a close adjustment!

The moon is 240,000 miles away, and the tides twice a day are usually a gentle reminder of its presence. Tides of the ocean run as high as 60 feet in some places, and even the crust of the earth is twice a day bent outward several inches by the moon’s attraction. All seems so regular that we do not grasp to any degree the vast power that lifts the whole area of the ocean several feet and bends the crust of the earth, seemingly so solid. Mars had a moon—a little one-only 6,000 miles away from it. If our moon was, say 50,000 miles away instead of its present respectable distance, our tides would be so enormous that twice a day all the lowland of all the continents would be submerged by a rush of water so enormous that even the mountains would soon be eroded away, and probably no continent could have risen from the depths fast enough to exist today. The earth would crack with the turmoil and the tides in the air would create daily hurricanes.

If the continents were washed away, the average depth of water over the whole earth would be about a mile and a half and life could not exist except perhaps in the abysmal depth of the ocean, where it would feed upon itself till extinct. Science seems to sustain the theory that this condition did exist during the general chaos before the earth solidified. By well recognized laws, the very tides pushed the moon farther and farther away and at the same time slowed the rotation of the earth from less than a six-hour day to one of twenty-four. So the gentle moon has now become the lover’s delight and is in splendid adjustment, which promises to remain safe for a billion years or so. The same astronomers also believe that far in the future, by the same astronomical laws, the moon will return to the earth, burst when close enough and glorify our dead world with rings like those of Saturn.

Out of a chaotic mixture of the elements torn from the sun at 12,000 degrees temperature, and thrown at every conceivable velocity into limitless space, has come our solar system. To chaos has come order so exact that the place any part will occupy at any time can be predicted to the second. The balance is so perfect that it has not varied in a billion years and points to eternity. All this through the reign of law. By this same law the established order as we see it in the solar system is repeated elsewhere.—A. CRESSY MORRISON,Man Does Not Stand Alone, New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1944 (Rev. ed., 1947), Chapter 1, “Our Unique World,” pp. 13–19.

During the past 50 years a large number of historians, educators and church leaders have come to the conclusion that it is possible to accept both Darwinian evolution and orthodox Christianity. Increasingly, millions of pupils in our high schools and colleges (even elementary schools) are offered unauthenticated, fantastic statements in textbooks dealing with the history of civilization. Their instructors appear convinced that the undermining of respect for the Christian faith in the public schools is in accordance with the “blessings of liberty” mentioned in the national Constitution. But when a Christian point of view is presented, a terrible roar of protest arises. Atheists and infidels allege that the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits even the support of the famous statement in our Declaration of Independence to the effect that all men have been created free and equal. They would also abolish the maxim of the grand old men who founded our Republic: “In God we trust.”

Fusing Fact And Fiction

One problem arises when scientific theories are so interwoven with facts that the student accepts both as truth.

An example of this destructive approach, tantamount to an attack upon the orthodox Christian faith, is found in a textbook by Professor O. Harold King of Miami University entitled A History of Civilization: The Story of Our Heritage. Thousands of boys and girls from fine Christian homes have read: “Their (the scientists’) theory of the development … begins with the common ancestor of monkeys, apes and men—the first primate whose nearest equivalent today is Tarsius.” This remarkable animal “still lives.” Farther on more fiction is presented as absolute truth: “Then occurred an interlude in which man’s ancestor displayed himself a progressive. He got down out of the trees. But so did a few of the apes, like the gorilla” (p. 10).

Too often in classroom discussion, if Adam and Eve appear at all, they appear as the butt of a joke. So anti-Christian viewpoints infiltrate education, subvert the student mind, and thus rob the church of its leaders for tomorrow.

Is it not a matter of academic ignorance, moreover, when Professor King asserts that “the Old Testament shows the influence of Babylonian legends”? Or when he declares that the God of the Hebrews “had passed through a long evolution as those who worshipped him received new inspirations. When the Hebrews first came out of the desert, Yahweh was a primitive god, showing his power in storms”? Poor Abraham must have been very credulous and naїve to have argued with such a God about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah! And what explanation remains for the second verse in the Bible where we are informed that “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters”? We are also told that God created man “in his own image.” That God was called Elohim, and his powers were far beyond those of a mere tribal god. And what evidence does Professor King show for his unfortunate conclusion: “While this was not monotheism as yet, nor even a close approximation, as in contemporary Egypt, the scope of Yahweh’s powers opened the way to preferential recognition of him” (p. 69)? This is a very different story from that which students had previously learned in their Sunday schools. Can they retain faith in their pastors when they are indoctrinated in such reading in universities and colleges?

A subtle example of indoctrination is found in a textbook by the Columbia professor, Theodosius Dobzhansky. In the frontispiece of the textbook, Evolution, Genetics and Man (John Wiley and Sons, 1955) appears a familiar print, bearing the caption, “Creation of Adam, a fresco by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. This is a symbolic representation of Creation by evolution” (italics mine). Is this not distortion of truth for indoctrination?

Still more ominous is the example of work by distinguished scholars at the University of St. Louis. In 1959 they published a book which was issued by the Bruce Publishing Company, hence supported to some extent by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Here some implications in attempting to fuse two viewpoints are clearly seen: others are not. The authors proclaim that the account in Genesis is not reliable. They dare not offend the great scientists who thunder forth their anathemas against the humble Christian’s belief in the fall of man or the operation of Satan among men. They imply that God did not say to Satan: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Modern science is supposed to have proved that the very first human beings were very different from the two named in the Bible.

Now let us examine the exact phraseology used by the three historians at the University of St. Louis (Thomas P. Neill, Daniel D. McGarry, and Clarence L. Hohl). In A History of Western Civilization they reiterate: “According to modern scientists, man is not descended from the apes as we know them, but man and present-day apes derive from a common previous ancestor, now extinct” (Vol. I, p. 12). Then they offer the amazing opinion that this theory of evolution implies nothing “for our beliefs in God, creation, a human spiritual soul, immortality, and moral responsibility as formulated by theistic philosophy, revealed religion and the Bible.” No matter how the human body originated, “the dependence of man and nature upon God is unassailed.” And as for the development of religious concepts, we meet again the idea that man advanced from barbarism to civilization. We are informed that “in this process, man seemed to pass from a vague monotheism through polytheism and back again to monotheism” (p. 21). The textbook in question does not bear the official approval of any archbishop in the Roman Catholic Church; had such been granted, the archbishop would have repudiated the faith of his own communion.

So, a compromise has been attempted between two bitter enemies—Darwinian evolution and orthodox Christianity.

The Biblical View

The Bible does not teach that man descended from animals and rose from barbarism to civilization; on the contrary, it teaches that Adam and Eve were created in God’s image and endowed with immense spiritual talents. These were largely ruined, as both Martin Luther and Ignatius Loyola taught, by disobedience to the commandment of God not to eat of the fruit produced by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As soon as our young people have been convinced through their textbooks dealing with the history of civilization that there never was such a thing as original sin, they must conclude that the human race does not need a Saviour and that the sacraments of baptism and communion are superfluous, for there is no such thing as present sin. If true, the Mass then loses its value for the Roman Catholic Church. The whole hierarchy of that communion would, in time, find itself without clientele. And Protestants would have to abolish the Sunday school.

‘It Doth Not Yet Appear’

Not yet on winter’s

Brittle branches bare

Can we perceive

What will be clothed

In vibrant green.

Not yet in single kerneled corn

Can we behold the tasseled ear,

Not in the dearest human form

See with the certainty of sight

The immortality

That we shall one day wear.

Yet we may glory in the glance

All darkly seen

Of naked branches

Dressed in spring’s new green;

Of one bare grain

Miraculously multiplied;

Of human dust in death

Whose spectral seeming end

By spirit is denied.

RUTHE T. SPINNANGER

Difficulties With Evolution

In the acceptance of evolutionary theory honest differences of findings are too seldom discussed. Paleontological evidence is the basis for evolution: yet there are limits to paleontological evidence, as some scientists state, and unresolved problems in relation to it. Why is this not more frequently mentioned?

Suppose human beings do owe their existence to animals who produced them. How did that sort of production cease? How prevent a reversal from human to animal life? Does any leading scientist today imagine that—with or without a god—the process of evolution would come to a halt? Then why do dogs reproduce dogs and why do monkeys also remain true to their own kind? No anthropologist has ever demonstrated from any findings that the origin of species as envisioned by Charles Darwin was “nothing but the truth.” It actually is still pure fiction. Why are its implications taught as truth?

In Genesis 1:25 we are told that “God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Each group reproduced after its kind: one group did not produce another kind. Moreover, man and animals were sharply differentiated, for in the next verse we read: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,” and so forth. In the Hebrew original the word for God is Elohim, which at first had a double meaning. For this reason we have the plural pronoun and verb: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Here again we have the significant phrases: “after our likeness” and “after their kind.” Man was made after the likeness of God.

As long as secular historians who do not believe in the Bible ignore its teachings, it is possible to argue that they present a view contrary to that of orthodox Christians. But when professors state that their view is the same as that expressed in the Bible while they are denying the veracity of the Book of Genesis, they are causing immense confusion. Worse than that, they are misleading their own students. Instead of combining two points of view that are diametrically opposed, they assist secular scholars by making it appear as if the Bible actually supports Darwinian evolution.

Biblical teachings involved go far beyond the Genesis account. The Apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:45: “And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.” He assumed that human beings (with no mention of animals) could participate in the resurrection. The natural body of man is “sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption.” In verse 39 he remarked that “there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts.” He had in mind the enormous difference between animals and human beings. He would have gasped with astonishment to hear that monkeys were closely related to human beings. (To call some of them apes would have made little difference!) No animals were assured a resurrection, no animals were made in the image of God.

Vanishing Fear Of Sin

A major unfortunate result of teaching evolutionary theory as truth has been the loss of fear for commission of sins. Men will argue that the word “sins” is now out of date. Errors are conceded, to be sure, but it is no longer fashionable to speak of sin and sinners. As human beings rise to ever greater heights of wisdom, they care less and less about the “inevitable punishment” that follows crime. They now can make their own laws and feel that somehow they can escape the results of evil actions and thoughts. Both heaven and hell fade away from the scene of scientific research. The things unseen by human eyes lose their significance. Conscience has importance only as a rudimentary survival (its presence at all being unexplained mystery) and moral law is based solely upon mores. Thus all values become relative and transitory. In short, Darwinian evolution and Christianity are enemies, not friends.

Illuminating, as a contrast, is a statement made in the Third Number of the Baltimore Catechism, published in 1933. In explanation of Question 63 the author presents the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church: “The creation of Eve, the wife of Adam, shows that the whole human race descends from one man.… Evolution is the theory that man developed from lower forms of animals. There is no scientific proof for evolution, though it claims to be scientific.” We are also informed here that if evolution were true, “it ought to be able to repeat itself.” Inferior skulls might well be “cases of degeneracy and prove nothing.”

How well Professor Martin Luther in his lectures on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, delivered in the academic year 1515–1516, understood the facts of life. He stated: “What is original sin? It is the loss of all rectitude and all efficiency in all our faculties, both of the body and the soul.” Luther referred to a famous book by Gerard Zerbolt of Zutphen, entitled Spiritual Ascensions, in which he found original sin described in a manner unsurpassed outside of the Bible. Zerbolt had drawn the following conclusion: “We have been contaminated by original sin, and wounded in all the powers and faculties of the soul.… Christ through his precious death does indeed redeem us from our original sin.” All the great creeds of Christendom have supported these views. Unfortunately, the sermons preached on Sunday are disregarded by students who have been indoctrinated by their textbooks to opposing pronouncements. If they think that there is no need of a choice, they simply do not understand the present contest between Christ and Satan.

If it is a violation of the First Amendment to teach the biblical story of creation in our schools, it is also a violation of religious freedom to teach a conflicting theory of origins as truth.

As we gaze enraptured into a marine pool—seeing here a sea anemone, its iridescent blue-green tentacles rhythmically searching for food, and there the ludicrous side-winding hermit crab, his home a borrowed sea snail shell—we suddenly sense that natural selection explains too much! The brown rockweed; green, red, and coralline algae; sun, blood and purple starfish; sea urchins; sand dollars; many richly beautiful red beard sponges—surely the sea tides, daily giving this pool in the craggy rock its place in the sun for an hour or so, could not, by selection, develop such marvelous diversity as this.

Elliott G. Watson, British zoologist writing for The Saturday Evening Post (“Hidden Heart of Nature,” May 27, 1961, pp. 32–33), lists four examples of life histories that orthodox evolution theories simply cannot explain. We mention only the coral reef inhabiting crab whose claws are so small as to be useless as weap-one. But the backward curving teeth of the claws grasp the slippery bodies of small anemones and detach them carefully and without injury from the rocks. Thus held close to the mouth of the pirate crab, the anemones continue to spread their tentacles and to capture small creatures, which the crab, with his free front pair of walking legs, removes as dainty tidbits. Those he dislikes he leaves for the anemones, which are finally released unharmed. Are these adaptations to be explained by chance mutations? Did a chance modification of the claws prompt some ancestral crab to detach an anemone for the mere fun of the thing and by chance hold it near its mouth? If so, we must then assume that the crab passed on to its offspring this behavior tendency, and through natural selection the crab species thus developed their close association with various anemones—the species differing, of course, (to make the problem more complex) for each specie of pirate crab. Such process, Watson says, reason simply cannot accept, and I agree with him.

Experimenting With Mutations

Let us briefly consider these mutations. It is currently believed that they are caused mostly by cosmic radiation (B. Peters, “Progress in Cosmic Ray Research Since 1947,” Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 64, Feb. 1959, p. 156), whereupon natural selection, according to Neo-Darwinian theory, leads to new species. My own work on neutron-induced variations in roses describes a technique by which from 50 radiated buds of Queen Elizabeth we can induce more mutations than could hitherto be found by a lifetime of searching among several million rose plants grown annually from non-radiated buds (“Neutron-Induced Variation of Roses,” Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, Vol. 13, No. 1:2–6, 1960). Without exception, all mutations so induced were found to be defective or weaker than Queen Elizabeth. Some, such as a three-foot dwarf type, were horticulturally desirable novelties since gardeners sometimes find the seven to eight foot height of the Queen Elizabeth objectionable. Biologically, however, there is no competition with the Queen Elizabeth.

After reviewing the thousands of “naturally” occurring mutations found in that biological Cinderella, the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster), T. Dobzhansky admits that only a few have greater capability of living or viability than normal, and these only at temperatures higher than normal for the species! Yet from such questionably favorable cases he still argues for evolution (Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press, 1951, chap. on mutations).

R. B. Goldschmidt devotes a whole book to showing how contrary to fact such a concept really is (The Material Basis of Evolution, Pageant Press, 1960). Still he seems to accept evolution as proven by geology, embryology, and taxonomy, and argues for some rather mysterious large-scale “macro-evolution” during embryonic development, new genera, and even new families suddenly arising as a result of segmental alteration of the chromosomes. Incidentally, nothing of this sort has ever been observed, even on a species level.

As K. Patau has shown, even mutations having a 1 per cent survival advantage increase in frequency from .01 to .1 per cent of the population only after 900,230 generations (“Die Mathematische Analyse der Evolutions Vorgange,” Zeitschrift für Inductive Abstamungs und Vererbungslehre, Vol. 76:220–228). Another 100,511 generations are needed to increase the frequency to 100 per cent. Certainly the time needed for natural selection to effect a change in a large population is enormous even geologically speaking. That is why Sir Charles Lyell’s concept of slow change by presently acting causes is so necessary for any concept of general evolution. We have all been taught the sequence of raindrops, rivulets, brooks, streams, and finally rivers that, carrying the sediments to continental shelves, in time wear away the mountains to almost level plains. Undoubtedly some of our landscape does result from this infinitesimally slow action. Among the well-rounded hills of England, near Downs, the home of Darwin, one can almost see such a process in operation as he watches the well-ordered flow of streams into the slow-moving Thames. But can the sedimentary rocks of the world and their abundance of fossils really be explained in this way? Let us remember that any demonstration of substantial world-wide catastrophe breaks the slow time sequence so necessary for evolution. Daily we live under threat of sudden destruction by nuclear energy bombs. Could this fact perhaps be influencing scientists to reconsider catastrophism as the possible explanation of our planet’s scarred features?

Ivan T. Sanderson writes a fascinating story of the “Riddle of the Frozen Giants” (The Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 16, 1960, p. 83). “Here is a really shocking (for our previous, Uniformitarian, way of thinking) picture,” he says. “Vast herds of enormous well-fed mammoths not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pasture delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat. Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved despite their great bulk and high temperature.”

What, we may well ask, could possibly do this? Sanderson’s explanation is that at least 20 or more volcanoes erupted simultaneously due to long cracks suddenly forming from built-up tension in the outer mantle. Coincident with these eruptions occurred great lava flows. The sudden extrusion of dust and gases formed monstrous amounts of rain and snow and cut out sunlight for days, weeks, and even months in some areas. Cold fronts of great length were built up that caused continental floods of vast proportions and tidal waves. The gases shot high into outer space, cooled to—150 degrees Fahrenheit, and suddenly descending, instantly froze the mammoths. Sanderson’s postulation of the rains, tidal wave action, and continental floods makes the usual interpretation of the Genesis flood seem a tame affair by comparison.

But one might say this burial of mammoths is most unusual; surely most fossils were deposited by burial in sediments accumulated slowly as are present-day alluvial fans and offshore continental shelves. While it may come as a shock to followers of the usual geological discussions, actually the opposite is true—almost all of the fossils, by their very manner of perfect preservation, clearly show a sudden burial. M. Brangersma Sanders (“Mass Mortality in the Sea, Marine Ecology, and Paleoecology,” chap. 29, Geological Society of America Memoir 67, 1957, pp. 972, 973), William J. Miller (An Introduction to Historical Geology, 6th ed., Van Nostrand, 1952, p. 12), and Ph. H. Kuenen (Notes from Marine Biology, Wiley, pp. 215, 217) all agree that very few fossils are now formed, and these only under catastrophic conditions.

Simple And Complex Forms

Just what geologic finds then do so many scientists consider as evidence for evolution? Stripped of technical words, the answer is this: Simple marine types of plants and animals are usually found at the bottom of the sedimentary or water-deposited rock formations and lying on the granitic rocks of the earth’s outer mantle. The more complex backboned land animals and flowering plants are toward the top. Furthermore, except in areas such as the great swath of muck stretching around the Arctic Ocean, the formations have a characteristic orderly assemblage of plants and animals instead of being jumbled in some hopeless mess. The actual percentage of area showing this progressive order from the simple to the complex is surprisingly small. Indeed, formations with very complex forms of life are often found resting directly on the basic granites. Furthermore, I have in my own files a list of over 500 cases that attest to a reverse order, that is, simple forms of life resting on top of more advanced types.

It is assumed that in the sedimentary rock layers graded 1, 2, 3, and 4 in complexity, breaking (faulting) occurred followed by the uplift and thrusting of those on one side over those which remained in place; the resulting order of rock layers then became 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 (2, 3, 4). Later erosion presumably removed all traces of 2, 3, and 4!

The gloriously beautiful Glacier National Park is one such case. Ever since my first visit there in 1936, this majestic area of vari-colored limestone mountains and clear, deep lakes in the valleys of grey-black shale, has fascinated me. These mountains containing only simple kinds of fossilized algal clusters were supposedly thrust over the shales which are classified as Cretaceous because they contain more advanced fossil types such as flowering trees, ammonites, and fishes. In 1957, Ray Siers of Chief Mountain Ranch, Dr. J. Hines, and I drove about 30 miles east of Many Glacier Hotel to the base of Chief Mountain and located the contact line of the upper limestone mountain formation lying on the Cretaceous shale. Dr. Hines and Siers climbed to the top finding only limestone. What had become of 2, 3, and 4 (the Cretaceous shale)?

As I wrote Professor Henry M. Morris: “After careful observation, I am convinced George McCready Price is even more right than he thought: at the actual contact lines, very thin layers of shale showing no evidence of grinding or sliding action were always present. Furthermore, these were cemented to the upper Altyn limestone (cf. George McCready Price, The New Geology, Pacific Press, 1923).

Careful field study during many vacations since 1936 has convinced me that the assumed thrust faults are purely imaginary. The transition layers above the contact line clearly indicate deposition of the limestone formations on the underlying distorted shales. Many well-meaning pastors and teachers have pictured the Genesis flood as a rather mild local affair limited in its destruction to the Tigris-Euphrates Valley. As John C. Whitcomb says, careful study of Genesis 6–9 indicates it was world-wide and violent in action (Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, The Genesis Flood, Presbyterian Publishing, 1961, chap. 1). A number of geologists such as Clifford L. Burdick (Streamlining Stratigraphy, The Forum, published by the Society for the Study of Natural Sciences, Glendale Academy Press, 1948, Vol. II, pp. 121–130) and Richard M. Ritland (Ph.D. of Harvard, now working with Dr. Frank Marsh at Berrien Springs, Mich.) agree with Morris that most of the sedimentary rocks and many of the great lava flows as well as the submerged mountain regions now being explored under the ocean are the result of this great catastrophe. The after-effects lasted for thousands of years, and resulted in more lava flows; in repeated burial of forests such as in the Amethyst area of Yellowstone National Park; in worldwide glaciation; in interior lakes such as Lahonton, and in vast alluvial fans almost covering mountain peaks in the great southwest desert of the United States.

Other arguments for evolution include the idea that the embryo, as it grows into an adult, retraces the various evolutionary stages. As stated by Haeckel, “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” But Cyril B. Courvelle, neural surgeon of White Memorial Hospital, Los Angeles, shows that the embryos of even closely allied species use cells and tissues from various and different sources (“The Recapitulation Theory and Casual Significance of Parallelism,” Bulletin of Deluge Geology, Vol. 1, No. 2 and Vol. 2, No. 1, Collegiate Press, Arlington, California). This fact destroys any hope of tracing presumed evolutionary ancestry since the organizers cut directly across the lines of theoretical family trees. There are, for example, alternating arches and furrows on the neck of the human embryo which are claimed to resemble gill slits of a fish. But this relationship is questionable since the first of the four arches develops into the lower jaw in man, but not in the fish. The second arch forms man’s middle and outer ear which the fish does not even have. Actually, gills are never formed. While Bradley Patten accepts recapitulation in his standard textbook of embryology for medical students, he admits this, and observes, “Although the tissue closing the gill clefts reduces to a thin membrane consisting of a layer of internal (entoderm) and external (extoderm) tissue with no intervening mesoderm, this membrane rarely disappears altogether” (Human Embryology, Blakiston, 1953, p. 460).

In its development the embryo follows the principle of least action; it proceeds as directly as possible and with no waste of material to the construction of the various organs. It is interesting that Patten credits Wilhelm His with laying the foundations of modern embryology and in his discussion of the historic development of this branch of science does not even mention Haeckel. Wilhelm His clearly perceived that similarity in form did not signify ancestry, a conclusion strengthened by modern experimental embryology.

Much has been made of the so-called tail in the human embryo. The late Douglas Dewar, British ornithologist, concluded that the proto-vertebra behind the region of the leg buds fuse to become the os coccyx or tail bone. This is soon bent forward and serves for the attachment of muscles; it is therefore not an ancestral relic but a designed structure (More Difficulties of the Evolution Theory, Thynne, 1938, pp. 34, 35). The fact that the tail is thus curved enables man to sit without discomfort—a rather important consideration in recent American living!

In Support Of Creationism

Patten discusses the primitive streak as a growth center which pushes cells into the growing body, but which never becomes larger itself. The head end of the embryo is always precocious in differentiation, something one would hardly expect if the embryo recapitulated its presumed ancestors who had brains consisting only of paired nerve ganglia! Quite obviously the regulatory mechanism of the embryo is working toward a predetermined goal or template and so the head is developed first to give time for the intricate brain development. Actually, embryo development favors the special creation theory.

Oddly enough, not the faintest trace of recapitulation is found in plants. The rose is rather highly placed in the plant kingdom. Yet its embryonic development shows no trace of the presumed evolution from algae through liverworts, mosses, and ferns to flowering plants.

From the creational viewpoint, by classifying plants and animals into species, genera, and families, we attempt to understand which ones belong together by virtue of having the most genes in common. On the basis of economy of effort, a wise Creator would certainly use the same genes from a common stockpile, so to speak, whenever the same form or function was to be achieved. Thus we have the same gene pattern of flower color inheritance in such widely separated species as the carnation (family Caryophyllaceae) and the rose (family Rosaceae) (W. E. Lammerts, “Inheritance of Magenta Color in Roses,” American Rose Annual, 1960, pp. 119–125). The grouping of such genera as the apple, pear, strawberry, and peach into the rose family merely means that more genes are possessed in common by species in these genera, than are shared for example by a species in the genus Rosa and one in the genus Geranium. One cannot infer descent from a common ancestor any more logically than one can assume the evolution of a complex tinker toy from a simple one. All forms simply came from the same large set of tinker toy units.

Boundaries Of Variability

Quite obviously, to associate the ability of species and varieties to change as they spread over the surface of the earth with evolution is to push this feature of variability out of all proportion. The inability of older naturalists like Darwin to evaluate this variability potential of special and varieties properly and thus their mistaking it for evolution or change of one species into another are quite understandable. After all, they had no clear concept of genetics and even set up genetic postulates such as pangenesis, which is at complete variance with what we now know to take place. Indeed, the continued interest and belief of many modern biologists in evolution, at least in some modified form, is puzzling, since the facts of genetic variability, cytology, and mutation so unmistakably show that species and varieties have such clearly defined boundries of variability. In his Studies in Creationism (Review and Herald Publishing Company, 1950) Frank L. Marsh discusses these boundaries from the viewpoint of creationism. He argues rather convincingly that while some types of species were created monotypic, that is, capable of very little variability (a classic example is the shellfish, Lingula), others, like the rose, were created polytypic, that is, having a high variability potential.

The idea of evolution has had a dulling effect on the minds and work of many younger and less imaginative plant and animal breeders; the very concept that changes require millions of years tends to make one feel that little can be accomplished in just one lifetime. Actually plant breeding experience shows that within the limits of variability possible for a given species, change can be effected quite rapidly. From the practical point of view, however, we must always recognize that once the all-wise Creator’s predetermined limits of variation have been reached, any attempts for further progress are a waste of time.

Many younger scientists tend to accept creationism and catastrophism. In my own small circle of personal contacts are at least 25 creationists. One of the older experienced pioneers, the eminent microbiologist Rene Dubos, has little good to say of evolution; he maintains it provides no answers to questions concerning the development of life (The Dreams of Reason, Science and Utopia, Columbia University Press, 1961). Heribert Nilsson, the late Director of the Botanical Institute of Lund, Sweden, is even more emphatic in his conclusions, as judged by his recently published Synthetische Artbildung (Verlag, OWH Gleerup, 1953). In this two-volume 1130-page book he reports on his 30 years of work. Then he asks: “Has there really been an evolution? Are proofs of its occurrence tenable? After a detailed comprehensive review of facts, we have been forced to give the answer, No!”

Since we are made in God’s image, perhaps we shall learn how he created the marvelous physical universe with its interesting plants and animals. As we are blessed with more knowledge, we may even be able to “make” that metropolis of activity called a “simple” cell. Should such wisdom and privilege ever be granted to man, it goes without saying that the steps involved will be so intricate as to make the wonders of a Swiss watch seem but the work of a child. And surely such “making” of life would not imply in the least that the intricately arranged neutrons, protons, neutrinos, electrons, and other physical units could ever have assembled themselves spontaneously.

We are now beginning to unravel the code and to learn just how the gene works through desoxyribosenucleic acid (D.N.A.) and with its partner ribosenucleic acid (R.N.A.). The conversion of inert chemicals into living units of activity as related in Genesis 1:11 (“Let the earth bring forth”) may not be impossible at all. It may well be achieved by precise knowledge of the chemical nature of these complex helically arranged molecules. Our increasing comprehension of God’s method in assembling these intricate patterns would hardly lead us to substantiate the naïve implication of evolution that they construct and arrange themselves. Instead this expanding discovery and knowledge should elicit from us an ever growing sense of awe and reverence for God’s infinite wisdom.

We are well past the halfway mark in what is to be two months in Europe and have already had almost a month on a conducted tour of the continent—the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy (10 days), and France, with brief stops in “nations” called Liechtenstein, Vatican City, and Monaco. Now we are centered in Cambridge from which point we are using a rental car for forays around the British Isles. One is tempted to reach very sage conclusions concerning life in these places, conclusions based on very superficial observations; a longer stay would make us more hesitant and could eventually give us greater wisdom and more understanding, maybe even some compassion. I am reminded of a cartoon which appeared one time in The Pittsburgh Press. In a crowd of Hopkinson-type club women the chairman was introducing the speaker: “Mrs. Bronson who has just finished a three-day auto trip to Washington will now review the political situation in the country.” If you will allow for our superficial observations to be superficial, we should like to make one or two.

On the right good ship “R.M.S. Queen Mary” there were announcements for Romish masses for three days before the announcement appeared for “Divine services” for all the others. A Roman priest conducted the masses with a proper altar and, I am sure, with some blessed and holy item there to make it all significantly Roman. Our “Divine” service was held in the lounge of First Class, and the ship’s captain read the service assisted by another officer who read the Scripture. Out of about 2,500 passengers and about an equal number of crew, there were a few more than 200 in attendance seated somewhat informally in the loungiest of first-class lounge chairs. The little organ was well played, but the singing was quite desultory and one may judge from the confusions in the service that we were not all Anglicans. The Scripture for the day was from its proper place in the year’s readings but cried out for some word on historical setting to say nothing of a little exegesis; the ratio of Scripture to Prayer Book was about one to ten, there was no sermon, all was wrapped up in 35 minutes, we all stood up while the captain and his retinue marched out. Then we all went our separate ways with nothing faintly resembling fellow-ship. As one firm-type nonconformist commented on the way out: “No wonder they don’t go to church in England.”

What disturbed me most on the ship was that in about five days, in the midst of drinking, horse-racing, a pool on the ship’s mileage, lots of twist, lots of eating and sleeping, the latest movies like “A Touch of Mink” in which Doris Day spends a couple of hours drunk and sober trying to decide on the pros and cons of adultery, the only public and external evidence of Protestant Christianity was that church service in the lounge. If the strength of Protestantism lies in Britain and America, what shall we say of its weakness? On the whole of our trip I have been increasingly uneasy about the apparent irrelevancy of Protestantism—not opposition, just complete unawareness in terms of commitment, language, ethics or culture, or even forms of amusem*nt; meanwhile formal services are held in which one could hardly guess from what is said or done, what Christianity is or what Christianity requires.

On succeeding Sundays on a tour made up of Canadians and Americans, mostly Protestants, the Romanists went to early mass each Sunday, and we had to make special arrangements to leave the tour, sometimes awkward arrangements. We had difficulty even finding a Protestant church. In Venice we attended church with only about 80 people, and yet I am sure the city was stuffed with tourists who would count themselves Protestant. Again the indifferent approach to the whole service appalled us—as Margaret Halsey once said, “They announce the news as if it hasn’t happened.” In Rome we attended church by “watching” a Roman mass. In Paris we were warmed and fed at the American church where the service and sermon lifted our hearts and where De Pauw University’s choir on tour gave us the gift of their music. If one may judge by the bulletin of the American church, the chief social outreach of the church is to alcoholics. By the general look of things France needs the wine industry for her basic economy; at the same time, however, the entrenched habit of drink appears injurious to her culture. Our Scotch and Soda Protestant friends drank well and often on the trip, but that is all another problem. Or should we discuss Sabbath observance by Protestants at home and abroad?

Preparations are going forward in St. Peter’s for Pope John’s coming ecumenical council, and Time magazine tells us that Protestant groups are scrambling to get representatives there. The bleacher seats in St. Peter’s nave look very hard, and they will be very crowded and awkward, and the WC’s of Italy, you know, are notably inadequate. Don’t go to that meeting unless you have to; there is something about St. Peter’s (except for the Sistine Chapel) which can be very disenchanting. The most noticeable characteristic of Romanism in Europe is the central place of the Mary images. In every church we visited the worshipers and the lighted candles were around the Mary worship centers, and there the prayers were being made; the adoration is for the mother not the Son. Axel Munthe in his San Michele tells of his experience of conversing with Catholic priests, “Seldom, very seldom, I heard the name of God mentioned, the name of his Son never. I once ventured to express my surprise to a … Frate who was a particular friend of mine over this omission of Christ in their discussions. The old Frate made no secret of his private opinion that Christ owed his reputation solely to His having the Madonna for His Mother.” What have we to do with Rome in that kind of non-sense. But “conversations” will now begin “looking toward union.”

Growing Pains Or Death Sentence?

The World Role of Universities, by Edward W. Weidner (McGraw-Hill, 1962, 366 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Robert M. Davies, Chairman, Division of Humanities, Thiel College, Greenville, Pennsylvania.

Something like an ecumenical education movement is in its infancy, and this book discusses the growing pains. Professor Weidner discovers it to be a promising child if it can overcome several afflictions.

While there is no organized movement toward worldwide education (except UNESCO?), it is apparent that the universities of the world are engaged in a great cultural cross-pollenization. In 1960–61 over 50,000 foreign students from nearly 150 countries were enrolled in 1,600 American institutions of higher education and over 15,000 American students were attending foreign universities. At the same time 3,600 foreign faculty members were affiliated with 300 American universities, and 2,200 American faculty members were teaching abroad.

Of the six different types of programs now in effect, Professor Weidner asserts that three are designed mainly to import certain values into American education, and three export contributions abroad. Importers include the student-abroad programs, group research abroad, and the various small exchanges of a few students or professors between an American and a host-country university. Exporters, designed basically to bring about change in some foreign nation, consist of the various religious programs to further Christian education abroad, and two technical assistance programs. (In the latter, either foreign participants study in America or American professors work overseas.)

Professor Weidner believes that such educational exchange programs contribute to the universities’ pursuit of truth and to their dissemination of cultural advantages and insights. Most American educators would likely agree with this opinion, even though such programs pose special problems for that distinctively American institution: the small, church-related, or private, Christian college.

Unfortunately, according to Weidner, current exchange programs have not at all systematically achieved the benefits such programs might produce. Generally speaking, their relative failure in fulfilling early high expectations is caused by (1) wide variations in educational theory and practice throughout the world; (2) the inevitable imprecision of any new, experimental program; and (3) failure of both American and foreign universities to formulate clearly enough their educational purpose in these various programs.

Weidner’s strongest commendations are for the various student-abroad programs. These, he feels, should be encouraged and increased as rapidly as the student’s rather casual foreign experience can be assimilated into his American program, more carefully than is now generally the case.

The book’s treatment of religious exchanges, especially mission schools, is cursory (approximately 10 pages). Yet the major significance of this book for readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY is the fact that in a book which rarely expresses a categorical judgment Professor Weidner’s forecast for the future of religious and missionary education is clear and unrestricted:

“The day of the evangelical missionary abroad is drawing to a close. Most of the university programs with religious overtones have either changed in character or have gradually disappeared.… Basic national purposes must prevail, and where they conflict with the religious objectives of outside groups, the latter must give way.… Religious-oriented programs may continue to be of importance to a few host-country religious colleges, but they will not be of national importance either to the United States or to the host country (p. 119).

Spelled out, this means that in other lands the mission school centered in evangelical message and purpose is disappearing, as it is taken over by nationals of diverse purposes.

It is not within the scope of Professor Weidner’s book to note the ways in which the missionary movement has been adapting to this change through variations of the technical assistance programs abroad. In both Japan and India assistance programs which have brought foreign participants to American universities have been deemed more successful than assistance programs that have sent American professors abroad. Would it not be well for evangelical colleges and universities to intensify their efforts in bringing foreign students to their doors, and for individual Christians and churches to provide exchange scholarships to colleges that are Christian in fact as well as in nominal affiliation?

ROBERT M. DAVIES

A Sharp Tool

Teach or Perish!, by James DeForest Murch (Eerdmans, 1962, 117 pp., $3), is reviewed by Howard G. Hendricks, Chairman, Department of Christian Education, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.

Christian education is not optional but essential. The church that ceases to educate ceases to exist in terms of its New Testament objectives. This is the thesis of the book, pointedly expressed in its title, Teach or Perish!

After a shocking but objective analysis of the contemporary educational dilemma confronting the local church, author Murch spells out in inventory fashion the educational potentials available to the church for extricating herself from the suffocating fog of ignorance and apathy into which she unwittingly has been plunged.

It is refreshing to read a book that is not long on diagnosis and short on remedy. While the book does not pretend to proffer a cure-all, it does set forth a realistic “proposal for revitalization, expansion, and advance.”

This is not a textbook. “It is neither a treatise on the philosophy of Christian education nor a compilation of clever techniques for building successful Sunday schools” (p. vi). It is, however, a launching pad for an effective program for fostering educational enlightenment.

Pastors, directors, of Christian education, and others responsible for the educational program of the local church will welcome this volume as a sharp tool to place in the hands of laymen in order to motivate and enlist them in the exciting and gratifying process of “teaching others also.”

Chapter XI, entitled “A Growing Imperative,” is a well-written case championing the Christian day school movement. To many this will be worth the price of the book. This chapter is freighted with thought-provoking concepts which are consistently blurred in our pluralistic society.

In view of the paucity of literature that is educationally competent and evangelically perceptive, one hopes that Dr. Murch and others possessing his gifts will build upon this substantial foundation and contribute what is needed to implement these biblically transparent objectives. May their tribe increase!

HOWARD G. HENDRICKS

How Wide Is The Vision?

Undergraduate Education in Foreign Affairs, by Percy W. Bidwell (King’s Crown Press, 1962, 215 pp., $5), is reviewed by Walfred H. Peterson, Professor of Political Science, Bethel College, Saint Paul, Minnesota.

This review rests on two related assumptions: First, the Christian ought to be cosmopolitan. Ordered to go to all the world, belonging to the universal church, and obligated to be a social critic transcending his own culture, he dare not be a provincial partisan or narrow nationalist. True in all ages, the world scope of Christian concern is made more urgent by the accelerated developments of communications. Second, the Christian college ought to be a center of cosmopolitanism. Its programs ought to remedy the excessive self-concern and inordinate self-love inherent in society at large with a large dose of international and multi-cultural education; its graduates should excel in knowledge of the world beyond their nation’s borders.

The factual reality of the first assumption will not be raised here, though it merits study. The factual reality of the second will be raised, because recently a study throwing light on the matter has been completed by Percy W. Bidwell for the Carnegie Corporation.

The study, centered on American undergraduate education, asks whether the college graduate is reasonably informed on foreign affairs in light of his responsibilities of informed citizenship. Three quotations best serve to give the discouraging answer: “Higher education in the United States is more provincial than in any comparable country.” “Seniors emerge from our colleges with hardly any more acquaintance with foreign affairs than when they entered as Freshmen.” “College graduates are not adequately informed, interested, realistic, sensitive, and responsible so far as events and conditions outside the United States are concerned.”

These strong charges are supported by data from a carefully devised test on world affairs and geography given to nearly 2,000 college graduates from across the nation, by tallies of the courses directly or indirectly related to international and foreign concerns that were taken by some 1,600 graduates, and by a survey of the content of courses and texts that might give education on world affairs. A pedantic critic might argue over sampling techniques used, but this would be superficial. The work was thorough; the conclusions are sound.

What of education in church-related colleges? Are not its horizons widened by the universal thrust of the Gospel? Is it cosmopolitan as our initial assumption says it ought to be? While the Bidwell study does not single out church-related colleges as a separate population, it is helpful in answering these questions. The answers are not encouraging.

Reading for Perspective

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

* Reformation Studies, edited by Franklin H. Littell (John Knox, $5.50). Essays on both left-wing and classical personalities and movements of the Reformation.

* The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas (Eerdmans, $12.95). First entirely new Bible dictionary since Hastings’. Its 2,300 new articles show loyalty to the Scriptures and carry the gains of recent advances in biblical studies. Illustrated.

* The Doctrine of Man in Classical Lutheran Theology, edited by Herman A. Preus and Edmund Smits (Ausburg $3). Disinterment of M. Chemnitz and J. Gerhard’s thought on image of God, free will, and sin. Much of it translated into English for the first time.

The liberal arts college graduates—and most church-related colleges fall in that class—scored lower than university graduates on the test, though they performed better than graduates of technical schools, complex colleges and teachers’ colleges. Also, the occasional references in the study to programs and courses especially effective in promoting international awareness do not indicate that the church-related colleges are giving their graduates an education unique in the breadth of its world vision. Nothing in the entire survey, except the fact that things are bad all over, gives comfort to those dedicated to Christian higher education.

This conclusion squares with what this reviewer knows about the church-related colleges he has surveyed. With occasional exception, such colleges are not strong in anthropology, political science including area-study programs and international relations, history of non-European cultures, and non-European languages. Using eight catalogues of accredited, church-related colleges readily at hand, I find that four offer no anthropology courses at all, three offer some courses which in each college are taught by a lone instructor without a Ph.D. degree, one offers a wide range of courses but at the time the catalogue went to press had no instructor for the next year. In all eight colleges political science courses were all taught by one person or by persons whose primary duty was in some other social science discipline. None had area-study courses. None had non-European foreign languages. Hopefully, this is a poor sample, but I doubt if it badly misrepresents most colleges known for strong denominational ties.

Recommendations made for changing this limitation on American undergraduate education are made by Bidwell. Changes in the curriculum, changes in general requirements, the infiltration of present courses with more materials drawn from foreign sources, and modifications in non-curricular programs, e.g., lectureships, convocations and study abroad, are all urged. Each presents its own problems. The curriculum is already crowded with requirements, college staffs are not broadly informed on foreign matters, the deep-in-the-rut mentality of tradition-bound professors, limitation of resources—all conspire to keep American education provincial.

Hopefully, the Bidwell study will stir American educators and especially educators in church-related colleges to adjust their instruction to the needs of a small, round world. But the stirring cannot be slight if it is to be successful.

WALFRED H. PETERSON

Completely Successful

The Story of the Church’s Song, by Millar Patrick, revised for American use by James Rawlings Sydnor (John Knox, 1962, 208 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by John Hamersma, Assistant Professor of Music, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Written with the Church Hymnary (the authorized hymnal of the Church of Scotland and others) in mind, this book was originally intended to complement the Handbook to that hymnal by placing its contents in historical perspective. The American edition performs this function for three outstanding American hymnals by referring the reader to them rather than to the Church Hymnary. The book, however, is useful in conjunction with any collection of standard hymns.

The American edition adds an appendix on American hymnody of the last three and one-half decades, footnotes referring the readers to additional information, an excellent bibliography, and additional hymns by the authors and composers cited by Dr. Patrick.

As an introduction to the study of hymnody Dr. Patrick’s book is completely successful. The compact chapters, the indexes, the bibliographies, and Dr. Sydnor’s footnotes make this a practical book for all who work with or are interested in the hymnody of the church. Readers will enjoy the author’s lively narrative, especially evident when, with obvious excitement, he treats the Psalters.

The value of the book might have been increased if quotations were acknowledged in footnotes and if the results of studies in hymnody made since 1927 were reflected in the text and not merely in Dr. Sydnor’s footnotes.

Sometimes Dr. Patrick’s mode of expression, retained in the American edition, does not make his meaning clear to American readers.

JOHN HAMERSMA

Milk Or Meat

Leading Little Ones to God, by Marian M. Schoolland (Eerdmans, 1962, 286 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Mary LeBar, Professor of Christian Education, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

For use at family worship or bedtime, this “child’s book of Bible teachings” is a nice combination of the devotional and doctrinal. In eighty-six short chapters a large number of Bible truths are explained simply and carefully. The chapters conclude with a few questions about content, a Bible verse which may be memorized, a suggested reading from the Bible, words of a song, and a prayer.

Style and content reflect the usual difficulties in trying to reach a wide range of ages. “Little ones” in the title, pictures of preschool children on the cover, the style of writing, and the simple presentation of elementary spiritual ideas, suggest that this is for the very young. But the content puts large emphasis on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, and contains such difficult songs as “Spirit of God, dwell Thou within my heart; wean it from earth; through all its pulses move.” If this is the milk of the Word, what is the meat? Are parents able to adapt such materials to preschoolers and to children able to read for themselves?

MARY LEBAR

For Christian Mothers

Leading Little Ones to Jesus, by Jan Waterink (Zondervan, 1962, 119 pp., $2.50), is reviewed by Eugen Fandrich, Instructor in Psychology, United Baptist Bible Training School, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada.

Dr. Waterink, internationally known Director of the Psychological Institute at the Free University of Amsterdam, offers guidance in this book “to Christian mothers in the all-important task of bringing up their pre-school and early school-age children.” This book already has gone through 19 Dutch editions.

The author’s style is generally conversational, but at times tends to be stolid and redundant. Though far from being exhaustive, the advice given reflects a background rich in psychology and Christian convictions.

The title, however, may be somewhat misleading to those not acquainted with Reformed theology (presupposed throughout the volume) as it applies to children. For example, while the book cautions parents against being deceived by a child’s early religious tendencies, it does not discuss “conversion” as a separate, unique experience necessary for the child. Hence the book would be incomplete to many not in the Reformed tradition.

EUGEN FANDRICH

The ‘End’ Of The Law

Law and Grace, by George A. F. Knight (SCM, 1962, 128 pp., 8s, 6d.; Westminster, $2.50), is reviewed by Ernest F. Kevan, Principal, London Bible College, England.

Much in the opening chapters is occupied with the customary critical redistribution of the Law of Moses, but thereafter the reader finds an excellent exposition of the reasons why the Law is still relevant. Romans 10:4 (Christ is “the end of the law”) is related to the chosen people of God and to Christian believers only as they are seen to be “graffed” into the olive tree of the people of God. He understands “end” in the sense of fulfillment or ultimate realization. Taking guidance from our Lord’s attitude to the Law, he considers that the fulfillment by Christian believers is to be in the same spirit of realizing what is at the heart of the Law, rather than a literalistic attitude of keeping rules and regulations. He sees evidence of the continuing significance of the Law in the large amount of moral instruction which the epistles contain, and concludes that sanctification must express itself in conformity to the requirements of the Law. The book demonstrates the unity of outlook and life which combine the Old Testament and the New, and moves in this newly-recovered direction in the exposition of Scripture. What is missing is the necessary emphasis on the obediential aspect of fulfilling the Law. Scripture suggests that the believer should do not only what the Law commands but also do it because the Law commands, and in dutiful submission to the majesty of God, his Creator and Redeemer.

E. F. KEVAN

Industrial Reform

The Responsible Company, by George Goyder (Blackwell, 1961, 200 pp., 21s.), is reviewed by Frank Gough, Assistant Secretary, Church Society, London.

Already half the industry of the United States of America and the United Kingdom is in the hands of a relatively few large groups of companies. The proportion is likely to increase with the popularity of mergers, and with the increase will come a rise in power of this large section of the community. Mr. Goyder, a prominent Church of England layman and an industrialist who is anxious to apply his faith to commerce, thinks a company’s legal duty is not restricted to its shareholders. Large companies in particular should acknowledge their separate responsibilities to employees, consumers, and the community.

Examples are given from both sides of the Atlantic of companies which have voluntarily tackled the problem of their social responsibility. Christians with industrial holdings, as well as company executives, will find this book stimulating, although some readers may write off much of it, in like manner as when Wilberforce suggested the abolition of slavery.

FRANK GOUGH

Quality Stimulation

Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, edited by Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson (Harper, 1962, 242 pp., $5), is reviewed by David A. Hubbard, Chairman of Division of Biblical Studies and Philosophy, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, California.

This collection of “essays in honor of James Muilenberg” of Union Theological Seminary is noteworthy both for the stature of its contributors and the readable quality of its contributions. Although aimed primarily at scholars, these studies are not unduly technical and exhibit a breadth of interest and clarity of expression which will commend them to pastors, teachers, and thoughtful laymen.

To list some of the contributors is to affirm the high caliber of the work: Walter Eichrodt (“In the Beginning,” a study of the interpretation of Genesis 1:1); Norman Porteous (“The Prophets and the Problem of Continuity,” where the role of Israel’s pious, nameless laymen in transmitting her faith is stressed); G. Ernest Wright (“The Lawsuit of God: A Form-critical Study of Deuteronomy 32”); Martin Noth (“The Background of Judges 17–18”); Samuel Terrien (“Amos and Wisdom,” an analysis of the prophet’s use of the techniques and motifs of Israel’s sages); Otto Eissfeldt (“The Promises of Grace to David in Isaiah 55:1–5,” centering in a comparison with Psalm 89); H. H. Rowley (“The Samaritan Schism in Legend and History,” questioning the statements of 2 Kings 17 and Ezra 4 that the Samaritans were a mixed people with a corrupt religion and fixing the real division between Jerusalem and Samaria in post-exilic politics); Millar Burrows (“Prophecy and the Prophets at Qumrân”).

Add to these, essays by Murray Newman, James F. Ross, Dorothea Harvey, Herbert G. May, and the editors, and you have a first-class contribution to Old Testament scholarship. If the conclusions drawn are not always congenial to conservatives, at least they will provide stimulus for thoughtful interaction.

DAVID A. HUBBARD

Checkreined

Science and Religion, edited by John Clover Monsma (Putnam’s, 1962, 253 pp., $3.95), is reviewed by Henry Stob, Professor of Ethics and Apologetics, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Three years ago John Clover Monsma edited a volume entitled The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe to which 40 American scientists contributed brief essays favorable to religion. Dr. Monsma has this year edited another volume entitled Science and Religion to which 23 American theologians and churchmen have contributed essays favorable to science. The least that one can learn from these volumes is, accordingly, that 63 scholars, qualified to express an opinion, judge that science and religion are compatible. How much more one can learn from them depends upon what one knows, or thinks one knows, about either science or religion.

The most recent volume, which is the subject of this notice, is obviously written for the layman. It moves on a popular level, and very few of the essays illumine the problem at any depth. Some of them are merely witnesses to the fact that the authors believe in Christianity and in the Bible in spite of the fact that science exists. These essays are obviously not very helpful to one who is seriously challenged by scientific imperialism, and they might without injury have been omitted from the collection. Others are merely analytical and make varying approaches to an authentic apologia, but none of the essays quite succeed in doing what each of the authors could undoubtedly do if he were given his head and provided with adequate space. As it is, each is given about ten pages, and in this space no one, I suspect, quite comes into his own.

The essayists are, all of them, respectable scholars, and taken jointly they cover the American religious spectrum. Among them is one Jew—Felix Aber; four Roman Catholics—A. F. Horrigan, B. Bonansea, E. McMullin, and J. F. Piefer; eight Calvinists—A. H. Leitch, J. H. Gerstner, J. T. Galloway, A. K. Rule, P. K. Jewett, W. C. Robinson, C. G. Singer, and R. W. Gray; three Lutherans—J. T. Mueller, R. W. Hedberg, and G. Lund; three Baptists—E. T. Dahlberg, E. C. Rust, and M. C. Tenney; three Methodists—G. LI. Kennedy, I. L. Holt, and G. E. Thomas; and one Episcopalian—J. C. Petrie.

These considerable thinkers say what they have to say in their own characteristic way. The Roman Catholic essayists do a very creditable job, mainly in the Thomist manner. Those who speak most to this reviewer’s condition are some, though not all, of the Reformed essayists. Particularly good is the essay “Towards Real Mutuality” by A. K. Rule, and outstanding is that by J. H. Gerstner on “The Science-Religion Conflict: its True Locus.” Dr. Gerstner understands that it is in the area where Christian theology and natural and historical science overlap—as in the biblical assertions about “facts”—that the conflict between science and religion arises and needs resolving.

To those making their first considerable acquaintance with the science-religion problem this volume of essays will not be unprofitable, although something more than this will need doing if Christianity is to speak in a truly meaningful fashion to the unbelieving scientific community.

HENRY STOB

Experience Of Joy

The Lively Tradition, by John H. Vruwink (Bobbs-Merrill, 1962, 199 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Donald W. Mayberry, Rector, St. John’s Church, Washington, D.C.

Joy, declares John Vruwink, comes from God; it enters our hearts, sins, frailty, cowardice, weakness; our sharing in it is incomplete if we do not participate in Christ’s exaltation, resurrection and enthronement; the Eucharist is a vehicle by which all may participate in the joy. Herein is the medium in which the reader is invited to move.

The author, an Episcopalian, writes of his subject simply, clearly, and attempts to structure his book for consumption by all laymen, be they Protestants or Roman Catholics. Whether or not one feels he succeeds (and the book is a welcome attempt to find and use some common elements of our religious heritage), one cannot help but sense that the author writes from a deep personal Christian experience which knows the joy whereof he speaks. He is excited about his subject; he has discovered something vital and wants to share it. Although, as he admits himself, “the life of joy cannot be described.… It must be lived,” nevertheless, one is caught by the author’s sense of discovery and is led to participate in “The Lively Tradition.”

On the negative side of the picture, John Vruwink sometimes loses one in unnecessary detail and reiteration. The mortar of man’s problems, occasionally, is thicker than the bricks of God’s joy which are laid in that mortar. One is led to anticipate with too much expectation the last chapter, which is on the Eucharist, as climax to profound God-man communication. The Eucharist may be all that, but one brings to the final chapter such an expanse of problems needing fulfillment, and is led by the earlier care in presentation to expect so much, that the chapter cannot hold fully the weight of the burden. However, it is a fine chapter and, taken on its own merits, is a good reading experience.

There is a sense of freshness to the book, a living of a discovery with the author, a healthy and often overlooked dimension of God’s relationship to man laid bare.

Donald W. Mayberry

How We Got Here

Christum Thought from Erasmus to Berdyaev, by Matthew Spinka (Prentice-Hall, 1962, 246 pp., $6.60), is reviewed by James Daane, Editorial Associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

I do not know whether people 600 years ago sang songs about “what the modern world is coming to.” We do know what it did come to, and Spinka tells us how it got there.

“The Era Is Dying: Let It Die!” This is the title of the first chapter of Spinka’s book and under it he presents his thesis. The Renaissance era which began six centuries ago by making man the center of the world and the measure of all things has now run its course, borne its consequences, and its consequences are such that they spell “Finis,” the end of an era. The humanist experiment in thinking and living without God has now exhausted its energies and possibilities. The consequences which were inherent in its beginnings, the hidden contradictions implicit in its presuppositions, have now become explicit and actualized in history. What began as an experiment in getting along without God has declared, in the emptiness of our time, the loss of authentic humanity and human values. The attempt to establish an individualism without reference to a transcendent spiritual world has resulted in a loss of individuality which now desperately seeks compensation in a collectivism clothed with the garments of divinity. The attempt to live solely out of the resources of the human has turned upon itself into an anti-humanistic secularism. The Renaissance man who set out to bestride the universe like a god has ended his labors a victim of modern impersonal organizations and totalitarian collectivisms.

With skilled hand Spinka unravels the processes by which the pre-Renaissance Christian ideas of man and God slowly but progressively turned into their opposite in the thought of both Christians and non-Christians, from Descartes to Berdyaev. Spinka traces the progress of both Continental rationalism and British empiricism from their origin in the thought of Descartes. He then shows how Kant dealt with the resultant impasse, and how post-Kantian thinkers developed the various strains of materialistic and idealistic thought as they issued from Kant. Spinka concludes with an analysis of such Russian thinkers as Dostoevsky and Berdyaev who predicted the end of the era of humanism and countered its dehumanizing materialistic and mechanistic reduction of man by urging the reality and exercise of man’s spirit and freedom.

Spinka does not have to prove his thesis. Life has done that. He has written rather that men may see that the human, spiritual, moral crisis of our time was implicit in the humanist experiment and was its inevitable outcome.

The author has sprinkled his always lucid analysis with just enough biographical material to provide a flesh and blood context and heightened reader interest.

There are few, if any, finer critiques of the history of modern thought from the Christian perspective. The material is taken largely from Spinka’s lectures of the past 15 years. But anyone interested in the history of modern thought, or either fascinated or troubled by our disjointed world, will find this book once opened, difficult to close.

JAMES DAANE

Book Brief

Sermons for the Junior Congregation, by George W. Bowman III (Baker, 1962, 118 pp., $1.95). Brief, evangelical sermonettes; with suggested illustrative materials.

Saints and Scholars, by David Knowles (Cambridge University Press, 1962, 208 pp., $3.95, 22s. 6d.; also in paperback at $1.65, 9s. 6d.). A collection of 25 character sketches of such medievals as Bede, Anselm, Roger Bacon, and William More. With two exceptions, all are taken from the author’s Monastic Order in England and his three-volume Religious Orders in England. Done in quality.

The Process of Education, by Jerome S. Bruner (Harvard University Press, 1960, 97 pp., $2.75). Thirty-five scientists and educators conferring on science curriculum for pre-college pupils reach interesting conclusions, notably about structure and intuitive learning.

Handbook of Church Administration, by Lowell Russell Ditzen (Macmillan, 1962, 390 pp., $7). A detailed guide for the administration of the multitudinous affairs of the local church; it could save a pastor from madness, or drive him there.

Handbook of Preaching Resources from English Literature, edited by James Douglas Robertson (Macmillan, 1962, 268 pp., $5). Hardly a resource for preaching (as title claims) but a better than average collection of literary allusions to enhance it.

A fortnightly report of developments in religion

The 100-member Central Committee of the World Council of Churches met at Cité Universitaire, Paris, August 7–17, under the chairmanship of Dr. Franklin Clark Fry, president of the Lutheran Church in America. Two Roman Catholic priests were on hand as observers. Two East German members of the committee were absent because their government would not grant travel permits. The committee was primarily concerned with implementing decisions of the New Delhi assembly. Their theme for the Paris meeting: “The Finality of Jesus Christ in an Age of Universal History.”

Referring to an invitation to send observers to the Second Vatican Council, Dr. Fry said: “This is the first time in history that observers from so many confessions are invited to follow the proceedings of a council of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Dr. A. A. Fulton of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland advised the committee that membership in the WCC has been vigorously attacked in some quarters of his church. “If the council decides to send observers to the Vatican Council,” he pointed out, “it might make the work of those of us who contend for membership harder.”

The committee accepted the Vatican invitation nevertheless and appointed Dr. Lukas Vischer, 35-vear-old member of the WCC Geneva staff as one of two observers. The other will be named later. The committee stressed that the observers will have no authority to speak officially on behalf of the WCC but allowed that they may give “informal explanations of the purposes and actions of the World Council.”

Another highlight of the committee meeting was the approval for WCC membership of seven more church groups—including five from the Soviet Union (see adjoining box).

General Secretary W. A. Visser’t Hooft called for “genuine dialogue” between Protestant and Roman Catholic churches as the next step toward Christian unity. German Bishop Hans Lilje asked about the character of the “dialogue.” Dr. Visser’t Hooft replied that this would depend on the decisions of the Vatican Council in the realm of interchurch relations including such matters as religious liberty, mixed marriages, and the deeper theological issue of the nature of the Church.

The General Secreary also said: “There is in many of our churches a sense of defeatism about their task in the world. So often the world lives and thinks and talks as if there were no Church in existence. And the gulf between the intellectual and ideological forces shaping our civilization and the thought and witness of the Church seems to be growing wider all the time.”

Actions Of The Central Committee

Seven more church groups were approved for membership in the World Council of Churches by its policy-making Central Committee in Paris this month. The action gave the WCC a total of 201 member churches.

The new churches include five from the Soviet Union: the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia (with 500,000 members), the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Estonia (350,000), the Union of Evangelical Christian Baptists of the USSR (545,000), the Georgian Orthodox Church (with 100 churches), and the Armenian Apostolic Church with headquarters in Etchmiadzin (4,500,000, including 1,400,000 living outside the USSR).

Also added were the Armenian Apostolic Church—Catholicate of Cilicia (498,000) and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa—South-East Region (75,587).

A report to the committee told of preparations for a major world conference on faith and order to be held in Montreal, July 12–26, 1963. A spokesman said the WCC will insure that evangelicals from non-member churches will be represented despite the feeling that “the intransigence or misrepresentation in some of these quarters may discourage us into thinking that these are completely barren pastures for the practice of ecumenism.

Addressing the assembly on its theme, British Congregationalist Dr. John Marsh likened man to a satellite in orbit, separate from the planet from which he has been launched, vet fulfilling his function only as he remains in proper orbital relation to his launching base. “The world of creatures,” he said, “has been ‘set in orbit’ by the Creator, given a life of its own, and yet must live always as an ‘orbital life’ related at depth to God. The duties of the Christian community, then, are to respect the integrity of the secular, and so to accept responsibility for it and within it, knowing that whatever the course of history proves to be, God is complicit in it, and that its outcome is already assured.”

Dr. Marsh denied that “conversion” means leaving one religion that has no truth for one that has nothing but truth.

Speaking on the same subject, the Rev. T. Paul Verghese, priest of the Syrian Orthodox Church, new associate secretary of the WCC and former private secretary to Ethiopian Emporer Haile Selassie, said: “The charge of ‘Fellow-travelling,’ of being a ‘Com-symp’ (Communist sympathizer), is a frightening and tyrannical force in many parts of the world today, disrupting community both at a world-wide and at national and domestic levels. The Christian faith should be able to deliver us from our bondage to this tyranny. Christ was and is the Master Fellow-traveller and we cannot afford to be less. He was and is the ‘all-symp,’ and we have to share in his universal sympathy. The WCC itself is hamstrung in its approach to Christians in the socialist countries by fear of being tarred and lampooned as ‘com-symps.’ Neither can we afford to neglect one-fourth of humanity in our human community by keeping People’s China out of the United Nations.”

Bishop Lesslie Newbigin, director of the council’s Division of World Mission and Evangelism, addressed a series of searching questions to the committee. Why is the missionary advance of the Church so slow? Why are the missionary forces of the Church apparently so immobile, so completely exhausted by the effort to remain where they are? Why is it that missionaries sent out by the churches which belong to the WCC are a decreasing proportion of the total force? Why is it that missionary has become a “bad word” in many Christian circles? Why is it that among the best and most devoted young people in our churches one hears it said, “Anything, anywhere, as long as it is not a missionary”?

Bishop Newbigin, veteran missionary to India, acknowledged that there had been too much reluctance to admit that the era of history in which modern missions achieved its great triumph was ended. He added that there were still some people who are “surprised when one speaks of the missionary responsibility of African Christians for the unconverted pagans of Europe.”

He quoted the divisional statement which said that “half the world is hungry, and we are learning to share our bread.… There is a hunger from which no part of the world is free, and there is no bread that can satisfy that hunger except Jesus Christ.”

J. D. D.

The Word In Helsinki

Arriving several weeks prior to the opening session of last month’s Communist-sponsored World Youth Festival in Helsinki, a 25-man Pocket Testament League deputation began preparations which were to culminate in the distribution of over 100,000 copies of the gospel of John and in the proclamation of the Christian message in over 20 languages. By the end of the conference, it was apparent that the PTL had achieved a greater success in attaining its goals than the members of the Communist party had in theirs. The Communists had boasted that two million young people would be turned to communism as a result of the week-long jamboree.

By all reports, the free world in Finland had turned a cool and sometimes hostile face to the eighth world congress of the Communist youth. During the first four days, noisy street demonstrations diminished the spirit of the meetings. More than 50 of the festival delegates defected to the West before the congress ended, and many others returned home disillusioned. Throughout it all, members of the PTL task force continued to distribute gospels to the delegates. Nearly 90,000 went to Finnish-speaking peoples. Over 10,000 scriptures were distributed in other languages. Observed team member Larry McGuill, “I am convinced that we have been used of God in distributing his Word, which has become a deterrent factor in the forward movement of the Communist philosophy.”

The Christian witness was present in less structured occurrences as well. At a Communist-sponsored seminar on “The Problems of Peace and National Independence,” a young Harvard graduate and a member of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, took the floor to rebut a charge that American missionaries were used to foster the “colonial aims” of the United States. Replied Fred Notehelfer, whose parents are presently missionaries in Japan, “The United States has had a long history of separation of Church and State.”

In a later statement, Notehelfer told the press that the “American position has been very poorly represented at the festival thus far, if at all.” He believed that the directors of the festival had devised procedures which made it “very difficult” for defenders of the United States to speak.

PTL members discovered that a “very difficult” situation was often outright and physical hostility in respect to the distribution of the Gospel. Nevertheless, concluded Baptist minister Dr. Charles W. Anderson, “multitudes have heard the true message of lasting peace through the blood of Calvary’s Cross.”

Remarked one Finnish woman as the PTL embarked, “You have taught us how to meet people with the Gospel face to face. Please pray that we shall rise to the opportunities that are presented to us here in our own city during these days.”

Shared Time Test

The first planned trial of “shared time” education begins this fall in Monroeville, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Pittsburgh, where Roman Catholic high schools will send students to a new public technical school on a part-time basis.

Dr. Carl F. Reuss, director of research and social action of the American Lutheran Church, predicted this month that the Supreme Court prayer ruling will lead to growing support for the “shared time” plan.

A comprehensive analysis of the concept by Louis Cassels, UPI religion writer, appeared in the August 28 issue of Look. “So far,” says Cassels, “no one has questioned the desirability of the goals or the constitutionality of the approach. The argument has centered around the practicality of the plan.”

Under shared time, pupils may attend religious schools for some courses and public school for others.

[See also, “Will Clergy Back ‘shared Time’ School Plan?,” CHRISTIANITY TODAY, March 30, 1962.]

Singing On The Mountain

On Tuesday the crowds began arriving. By Saturday night 10,000 were camped on the slopes of North Carolina’s 5964-foot Grandfather Mountain. By Sunday afternoon, when evangelist Billy Graham arrived, some 75,000 had crowded to the site of the 38th annual “Singing on the Mountain,” joining in on the old revival hymns and waiting expectantly to hear the sermon. Because of a 50-mile long traffic tie-up, thousands of others had been kept away.

The event was one of Graham’s rare appearances in his home state, and it was characterized by a proclamation of the same Gospel which the evangelist has preached throughout the world. When the sermon had ended and the evangelist had asked the listeners to give themselves to God, hundreds responded with uplifted hands.

An observer might well have altered Goldsmith’s phrase to say, “And those who came to sing, remained to pray.”

Starting At The Bite

The following report was prepared forCHRISTIANITY TODAYby Arthur H. Matthews of The Presbyterian Journal:

“One day the great state universities may be ringed with residential colleges like this.”

That’s the dream of the Rev. W. Jack Lewis, founder-director of the controversial Christian Faith and Life Community of Austin, Texas. The community is made up of University of Texas students who live and study together under a code which is getting wide attention as the “Austin Experiment” and showing signs of having great influence on denominational and interdenominational work at campuses throughout America. It begins its tenth year this fall on the heels of serious internal strife which split the ranks.

Growing pains notwithstanding, the community is still very much in business on a miniature campus of its own adjacent to the grounds of the University of Texas. Physical facilities embrace nearly a square block. Officials say the community has $100,000 equity in some $356,000 worth of property. The budget for the coming year, however, will force cutbacks in the program. The overall figure is expected to be $93,000 or about $15,000 less than in 1961–62.

Far more serious is the personnel toll. Eight of 13 theologically-trained staff members pulled away at the end of the 1961–62 session, led by Joseph W. Mathews, who was program director. The entire faction won employment at the Evanston Ecumenical Institute, recently linked with the Church Federation of Greater Chicago. Mathews will serve as dean of the institute.

The split was attributed to a “problem of communications” among staff members.

The Austin Experiment is expected to attract only about 50 students to reside in the community’s “college house” this year, compared with 100 last year.

But while the Austin experimenters are retrenching and taking stock, their ideas will be used in 50 or more colleges and universities across the nation.

Campus ministers and student workers of all denominations have been beating a path to Austin for the past several years, and “almost all the campus ministers who have been here have picked up part of the program,” according to the Rev. Robert R. Bryant, chairman of the community’s collegium (teaching staff). Officials of the experiment said their patterns have been used in such universities as Brown, Penn State, Emory, Iowa, Duke, Wisconsin and Georgia. In other places, the student programs will follow the Austin plan for the first time this September.

Influence of the community will not be limited to those campuses where a program has followed the Austin pattern. Staff members are in great demand as speakers. Ideas on theological study and worship from the community are showing up increasingly in the literature and programs of several denominations.

What’s unique about the community? Mr. Lewis said the plan grew out of his frustration as a Presbyterian campus minister at the University of Texas in the post-World War II days. He went to Europe and observed the evangelical academies and came back with the idea of a “residential college” architecturally similar to the Cambridge-Oxford residential colleges. He started the community “for the recovery of the ministry of the laity toward the continuing renewal of the church in her mission to the world.”

Participants in the community have agreed to covenant together to participate in certain worship services and some ten hours of group study a week—in addition to regular university studies. “Life together” in the community-operated dormitories and dining hall are a part of the regimen. The community is “ecumenical” in that the participants come from any and all churches or from no church at all.

There is no church connection. A self-perpetuating board gets operating funds from foundations and individuals primarily. Some sympathetic persons have seen that their church budgets included $200 or $300 per year for Austin. Last year the United Church of Christ Board of Homeland Ministries and the American Lutheran Church’s Luther League each gave $1,000. For five years, beginning in 1956, the Danforth Foundation of St. Louis contributed $15,000 annually. (The same foundation has also sent three seminary interns to Austin.)

Does the community, hailed in a forthcoming book as a norm for U.S. Protestant campus work, have a theology?

“We do not begin with a concern for a formulated doctrine,” Mr. Bryant explained. He said the community’s method of theological education is to “start at the point where the bite comes on the life of the individual.” Asked for the community’s position on the Bible, Mr. Bryant replied that “the statement of what is scripture is not crucial to our times.”

The chairman of the collegium protested that “to put into cryptic statements” what the community believes and teaches “is to reduce it falsely.” Mr. Lewis added that the community’s theology is “not philosophical existentialism, but experimental.”

What do the community’s students study? Mr. Bryant said they utilize writings of “the Church fathers—Luther, Calvin, Knox, Schleiermacher and Rauschenbusch—as well as the modern thinkers.” Emphasized among the “modern thinkers” are such writers as Kirkegaard, Tillich, Bultmann and the Niebuhrs.

Persons joining the community’s staff are not “tied to any particular formulation” of doctrine but are “familiar with or involved in the theologizing of our times,” according to Mr. Bryant. “They are also thoroughly and unequivocally a part of the Church,” he added.

“The Church” for which the community considers itself a pioneering and research agency is “made up of all denominations.” And while liturgies of several denominations are used, much of the worship material is original. Examples are the singing of the Apostles’ Creed to the tune of “Colonel Bogey March” and the Lord’s Prayer to the tune of “Waltzing Matilda.”

Not only does Mr. Lewis expect his pattern to be adopted or adapted by many university ministries, but his backers also hope it will have an impact on the lay programs of the churches. Laymen attending weekend sessions often go home to “covenant together” with other laymen and/or their pastors to be a “core” of lay theologians working for the “renewal” of their congregations.

Princeton Seminary President James I. McCord, a member of the community’s national advisory council, suggested about a year ago that the term “experiment” could no longer be properly applied. Staff members agree that the institution is firmly established, but they maintain that their work will continue to be experimental.

A lengthy report adopted by the Presbytery of Northeast Texas (Presbyterian U.S.) at the height of a recent furor over the community noted that while the community is experimental, “it is experiment in one direction primarily.” And, the presbytery report continued, “Christian existentialism” best describes the “fundamental stance of the theologizing of the community.”

The Sabbatarians

Solomon Island fuzzy wuzzies, Amazon River boatmen, and 1,300 delegates from 100 other countries moved with energy and color into San Francisco last month for the Seventh-day Adventists’ 49th World Conference. Their stated mission in the West Coast’s most exotic city was “to review the past four years, elect a staff of the general conference, and lay plans for the next four years.”

Sabbath services saw some 29,000 persons pour into the Cow Palace and adjoining halls, and regular conference sessions left standing room only in the Civic Auditorium.

As expected, America’s 335,000 SDA members were urged to fight blue laws. R. R. Hegstad, the denomination’s world religious liberty secretary, asked the convention, “When a man is forced by law to rest on a day other than that which he regards as the Sabbath, how can the exercise of his religion be called free?” Hegstad reminded cheering delegates, “It was to escape their neighbor’s religion that our forefathers came to America.”

Seventh-day Adventists are the only Protestant denomination operating with one unified organizational and financial structure in 196 countries. Known for financial soundness and close-knit organizational efficiency, the church is divided into 13 divisions, each comprising union conferences which in turn are composed of local conferences. Theodore Carcich of Lincoln, Nebraska, was elected president of the North American Division.

Conference speakers repeatedly noted phenomenal growth, far-flung advance in all parts of the world, and plans for the future “broader than any of the past.” Statistics of recent expansion lent substance to the dreams and credibility to their fulfillment. The four years since the last world conference were reported to be the church’s most successful missionary period: It was reported that 355,436 converts were brought into the membership of the church through baptism—a number roughly equivalent to the total membership of the North American Division, the church’s largest. The South American Division reported 42,385 new members from 1958 to 1961 and compared this to the 52 years it took to obtain the first 42,000.

Today there are 1,307,892 Seventh-day Adventists in 196 countries, and an estimated 563,617 in Sabbath schools preparing for baptism.

Sabbath school membership in Korea soared from 18,426 in 1958 to 72,019 in 1961. C. P. Sorensen, president of the Far Eastern Division, told the conference that “it was largely the result of Vacation Bible School evangelism, followed by branch Sabbath School evangelism.”

SDAs operate 4,821 schools and colleges, two universities, 108 hospitals, 111 clinics, 42 publishing houses, publish 293 periodicals and religious literature in 228 languages.

Observers are frequently baffled by Adventism’s bristling energy and rapid growth. Adventists themselves speak frequently of “miracles” wrought through them by God, and of the urgency “to finish the work” so that Christ may soon return. Their restless drive and sustained dedication reflects their conviction that they are within the Christian community a distinct people with a distinct calling and task. Unlike traditional Christians—whom they acknowledge as such—they believe themselves especially chosen of God to bring “God’s last word” in the present crisis of the world’s end-time. Although conscious of no diminution of the New Testament’s understanding of eschatology, they derive their sense of calling and of existence in the world’s end-time more from a nineteenth-century event—Christ’s cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary, to which they trace their historical origin—than to the teaching of the end and the nearness of Christ’s return as set forth in the New Testament’s explanation of the Cross and Resurrection of Christ.

The distinctive faith that they are a special people by special divine election for a special task of gospel proclamation at a special time in history not only accounts for the distinctive SDA spiritual outlook and sense of calling. It also accounts for a fostered disinterest in any possible union or ecumenical affiliation with their Christian brethren. Explicitly committed to proselyting, and eager to have other Christians join them, they are predisposed by religious conviction against joining with others.

Referring to Adventists as “God’s last men in the world” and as “the last men of God,” Francis D. Nichol, editor of the church’s official weekly Review and Herald asked in a Sabbath evening conference sermon, “How could we, in good faith, become a part of any other all-inclusive movement? We can be true to the logic of our beliefs only as we stand alone.”

In protest against the segregation practices of some of its schools, 1,000 Adventist Negroes met on a Sunday in the jack Tar Hotel under the leadership of Negro Dr. Frank W. Hale, Jr. During the protest session, the General Conferences elected Negro Frank L. Peterson as a vice president of its powerful World General Council, the fourth Negro currently holding an elective position in the church world headquarters. A request of the protesting group for a hearing at the world conference was denied by Reuben R. Figuhr, who was re-elected conference president, as was the demand that desegregation in all Adventist schools be enforced by the church’s highest authoritative council. Figuhr contended that North American segregation was a local problem and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the General Conference with its world scope.

Figuhr also expressed regret for the “misguided” efforts of the Protestants, contending that resolution of an admitted problem must be resolved progressively and within the church, and not abruptly by authoritative enforcement compelled by an external pressure group. Top officials of the church admitted the existence of the problem in some areas and pledged new efforts to bring SDA practice into harmony with its convictions.

Pap smears and cholesterol tests were given to volunteering conferees by medical research workers from Loma Linda University, an SDA school. Adventists have an unusual religious interest in health and diet. Because they avoid smoking, tea and coffee, and eat little or no meat, they present unusual opportunities for medical research into the diseases of heart and cancer.

J. D.

Mennonites En Masse

Under the watchful eye of Queen Elizabeth, whose 15-foot portrait illuminated the front wall of the hockey arena, Mennonites enjoyed their largest and most representative Glaubenskonferenz. Nearly 10,000 of them spent the first seven days of August in the twin Ontario towns of Kitchener and Waterloo for the seventh World Mennonite Conference. The ecclesiastical inferiority complex associated with Mennonites was passé. For at least this once, the Anabaptists’ children in the faith appeared a strong Christian force.

Chief business was adoption of an 800-word “message” to Mennonite congregations of the world, calling upon them “to repentance and a genuine renewal of faith and life, so that our confession that Jesus is Lord may be made real and effective.” The call took its cue from the theme of the non-legislative conference, “The Lordship of Christ.”

Conference highlight was a soft-spoken rebuke of Mennonite factionalism and a plea for mutual respect and stimulation by ailing Dean Harold S. Bender of Goshen College Biblical Seminary. Bender, president of the World Conference, is recuperating after being stricken with cancer. His conference appearances were limited to week-end sessions.

Bender stressed that his appeal for cooperation was not to be construed as groundwork for a super-church. He remarked that he has been accused of being an “Old Mennonite ecumaniac.”

“But I love Mennonites,” he said, “and if that’s a sin, then I stand convicted.”

Bender also prepared the keynote address of the conference. It was delivered for him by Dr. Erland Waltner, conference vice president. The address was one of a series given on various aspects of the Lordship of Christ by key? Mennonite churchmen.

Selection of Kitchener as world conference site was based largely on the fact that it embraces one of the world’s largest concentrations of Mennonites. Most are of the German variety (Kitchener has more people of German descent than any other city in Canada), but several varieties of Mennonites have churches in the vicinity. Sessions held in the Kitchener Memorial Auditorium attracted capacity crowds, which in itself made the 100,000 residents of Kitchener and Waterloo sit up and take notice. Direct impact of the conference was felt as far away as Toronto, 73 miles to the east, where newspapers carried daily accounts of the proceedings. The mass media outreach was enhanced by an efficient press room operated by Maynard Shelly, editor of The Mennonite, official organ of the General Conference Mennonite Church.

Virtually every variation of the Anabaptist tradition was represented at Kitchener, with the notable exception of the Amish, whose disdain for even a very loose organization persists.

Mennonites from Communist lands had been invited, but none appeared. Peter J. Dyck, European director of the Mennonite Central Committee, reported that an estimated 45,000 Mennonites in Russia are settled primarily in the southeasterly part of the country near the Chinese border. Because their religion is not recognized by the government, they must worship with Baptists or meet secretly in private homes.

“Though there are clear signs of a spiritual awakening,” Dyck said, “many ethnic Mennonites are not interested in church life and some are militant atheists and Communists.”

The world Mennonite membership now stands at more than 400,000 (not including 200,000 children), with over half of this total in North America. Virtually all Mennonites are pacifists of one kind or another.¹* The Rev. Nelson Litwiller, missionary to Uruguay and president of a Mennonite seminary in Montevideo, publicized a satirical prayer for inhabitants of fallout shelters: They believe in a strong separation of church and state. For the most part they have favored plain dress, and many men still wear collarless coats. Only a few bearded men were on hand at Kitchener, but about half the women appeared with “prayer veils”—white mesh head covers. By contrast, a number of the younger women came with ear rings, makeup and spike heels.

The Rev. Vincent Harding, Mennonite Negro minister who was recently jailed in Albany, Georgia, for his part in an anti-segregation demonstration, charged that the brotherhood is not doing enough to fight racial discrimination.

Theologically, the Mennonites are largely numbered among the evangelicals in the Arminian camp. Nineteenth-century liberalism, however, swept up a number of Mennonite theologians (one Mennonite observer asserts that some drifted almost to Unitarianism). The liberal impact was greatest upon the Mennonites of Holland, but it did not last. Today the leading Dutch Mennonites are known to espouse Barthian views.

Mennonites are often thought of as a rural people and very separatist. Yet they have a strong cultural interaction, particularly in education and art. Percentage-wise, Mennonites are well-educated; earned doctorates abound among church leaders to an extent which matches or surpasses that of larger denominations. Mennonite artists are also a distinguished lot, and their works are exhibited in no fewer than 19 major U. S. museums. A representative art exhibit was a feature of the Kitchener conference.

The happy fellowship and avoidance of controversy at Kitchener will doubtless have a wholesome long-range effect upon the Mennonite brotherhood. But no one seemed willing to predict immediate merger talks among the separated groups, of which there are more than a dozen in North America. The largest of these are the Mennonite Church (“Old Mennonite”) with nearly 80,000 members, the General Conference Mennonite Church with 55,000, and the Mennonite Brethren Church with 26,000.

Though Mennonites are sensitive about their differences, cooperative efforts enjoy considerable scope (missions, publishing, relief work, education).

The General Conference Mennonite Church convened its own 36th triennial meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, immediately following the Kitchener conference. Some 700 delegates were on hand. They approved artificial birth control as not an “evil,” but condemned abortion as a “sin” and divorce as “contrary to the will of God.”

The views were expressed in a policy statement on “The Christian Family.” To prevent broken marriages, the statement called for “courses of instruction for young people on courtship and marriage provided through the church fellowship.” Concerning mixed marriages, the statement said that religious convictions should be strong ties between husbands and wives. “Young people need to take this into careful consideration even in courtship and especially before considering engagement to anyone of a different religious background.”

Delegates also voted to write President Kennedy “to emphasize their church’s stand against nuclear testing.”

Most important issue to come before the Bethlehem conference was a nine-point statement on the authority of the Scriptures prepared by a study commission. The statement referred to the Scriptures as “an adequate, authentic, and sufficient vehicle of divine revelation” and as “the witness to the revelatory events of God in Christ.” After three days of discussion the statement was adopted by a vote of 1434 to 72. An explanatory supplement prepared by the commission said the term “inerrancy is often interpreted as to mean different things to different people. It is wise, therefore, to stay with biblical terminology …”

Keswick 1962

“Oh dear,” sighed the vacationing matron as she strode into the dining-room of a lakeside hotel. “It’s such a relief to get back to some peace after visiting Keswick with all those convention people about.” She spoke too soon, for just then a man seated with six ladies said a loud grace which killed conversation and embarrassed neighboring diners. The convention, like its 86 predecessors, had for a week taken over the little Lake District town. Sacred cow to some, a kind of cult to others, England’s Keswick convention brings together each year 7,000 people in search of practical holiness.

Naturally it arouses criticism, some of it justified. “The Keswick message?” echoed an Air Force chaplain, “there’s no such thing—or there ought not to be. It’s either the Christian message or it’s not!” The predilection for intensely devotional hymns made one Church of Scotland minister long for the sound of a metrical psalm or one of the great Trinitarian hymns. Fragments of gospel hymns drifted out of open windows. One house party was singing “Let me come closer to Thee, Lord Jesus,” probably unaware that this great Keswick favorite had been written by a monk who believed that our Lord was in the Sacrament on the altar. Down by the lake a large group was lustily rendering one of those odious evangelical medleys which seem to consist of snatches of hymns and choruses strung together haphazardly.

Near the big tent a somewhat ragged gentleman reminiscent of an Old Testament prophet passed with slow dignity, holding aloft a placard bearing the simple inscription “YHWH.” At the corner a gospel van festooned with texts roared through a stop sign.

The main meetings, relayed by radio and land lines to more than 90 points of the United Kingdom, were conducted in the most reverent spirit, and the impression was given that here indeed were people who had come to do business with the living God. Other impressions included the wisdom of the I.V.F. camp commandant in organizing an amateur concert with never a hymn-book in sight … the courage of a former Spanish Roman Catholic priest and his moving testimony … surprise and dismay at seeing the vast numbers of different religious societies … the new speaker who departed a little from tradition and gave a powerful and refreshingly different message from the Old Testament … most of all, the enormous task of organization efficiently and unobtrusively carried out.

The story was told of how F. B. Meyer gave such a searching address on one occasion that the town’s Post Office ran out of postal orders, so great was the run on them to settle unpaid debts. The convention now has its own Post Office.

J. D. D.

The Unequal Yoke

A British Member of Parliament has put a question to the Home Secretary in the House of Commons about the granting of a visa to James Taylor, wealthy New York businessman who makes frequent visits to Britain as the international leader of one section of the “Close” or “Exclusive” Brethren. Another M.P. has forwarded to the Home Secretary a petition signed by 1,000 people in a small Scottish town, asking for a public inquiry into the activities of the Close Brethren in Scotland and their effect on family life. The three men who presented it claimed that the sect had broken up their home lives. One of them is a Baptist, but his wife and daughter have joined the Close Brethren and have left his house to live a few yards away with his wife’s parents. Two weeks ago he attended a meeting of the Brethren and was allowed to speak to his wife for ten minutes.

An unsigned letter which appeared in the August issue of The Harvester, but which was completely untypical of that evangelical publication, says at one point: “What fellowship can light have with darkness? It is time a halt was called and assembly principles restated. What do we stand for? Are we not those to whom God has given the light? Have we not the truth? The one doctrine above all others that needs to be taught and emphasized today is that of separation.”

The enforcement of this policy has been made in striking ways since Mr. Taylor succeeded his father as leader. The mailed fist became apparent two years ago when a dispute seriously disrupted the fishing communities along the Moray Firth in northeast Scotland. A pooled price scheme, devised to ensure a fair deal for all engaged in the herring industry, was repudiated by fishermen associated with the Exclusive Brethren because St. Paul said, and a latter-day apostle of their own movement from America had underlined it, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers.” Brethren, who owned about half of the 80 boats sailing out of Peterhead, would no longer eat their meals at the same table as “nonbelievers.” Separate mealtimes did not always provide a practicable solution, and one account tells how righteousness was fulfilled by sawing a table down the middle so that it was technically two tables, though the halves were never parted. One Brethren adherent who had operated a boat with his brother for several years, withdrew himself and his crew. His brother, unable to find a crew, offered to sell out to him, but the other, who did not hold a skipper’s ticket, was unable to accept. The result was that the boat was no use to either.

Information about the sect is hard to come by, but its comprehensive list of prohibitions includes trade unions, cosmetics, tobacco, school uniforms, paid clergy, women’s haircuts, TV, radio (except aboard their fishing vessels), voting, military service, wedding toasts, and “mixed” marriages. A recent decree says that liquor must be on the tables during meals, as a sign that members of the sect have the will power not to touch it. Found in all occupations and classes, they will not discuss their activities with those outside the assembly, and no data are available for estimating their numerical strength.

In past months some glaring publicity has come their way. A press report told of a 21-year-old who committed suicide after his parents were ordered by the Exclusive Brethren to have no social contact with him; he was not even allowed to eat with the family. Another 19-year-old traveled from Glasgow to Edinburgh where 4,000 members of the Close Brethren were being addressed by Mr. Taylor. Guards at the door turned him away because he had no pass, and his father was brought from the meeting to urge his son to “turn from your path of sin.” The sin in question was evidently the boy’s determination to meet the man who, he said, had caused his family to treat him as a stranger. A 73-year-old man reportedly had been compelled by the Exclusive Brethren to leave his wife after 37 years of happy married life. The distraught woman has been told that she is a sinner and that the home is “leprous.” In southwest Scotland her doctor warmly supported a woman’s plea that the local town council allocate a separate house for herself and her two sons, because the father’s association with the sect made their existence “a living hell.” Some 200 miles away another woman testified how family life had suddenly changed after her husband joined the group. She was quoted as saying: “The sect have tightened up some of their rules recently after word came from America. The leader is a Mr. Taylor and I often think I would like to meet this man to tell him that he is ruining our marriage. My husband attended a meeting in Aberdeen recently and when he came home he told me that he could no longer eat at the same table as nonbelievers … He has told my eldest boy that when he is 12 he will have to join the Brethren or eat at another time.… Another young man was ordered out of the family home, and when they meet now in the course of everyday business the father is as coldly polite as he would be to any casual acquaintance. Under the new regime many members of the sect have withdrawn from business and professional associations, and some have even declined to accept the university degree for which their academic success has qualified them.

One minister who has had some dealings with members of the group unclerically described their attitude thus:

We are the chosen few,

All others will be damned;

There is no place up there for you,

We can’t have heaven crammed.

It should be made clear that the particular conduct listed above reflects the policy of only one party of Exclusive Brethren. It is much to be regretted that undiscerning or malicious individuals have gone so far as to identify such attitudes even with the Open Brethren, a body which freely cooperates with evangelicals of other traditions (giving notable support in the Graham crusades at Harringay and Glasgow), and generally enriches the Christian life and witness of Britain to an extent out of all proportion to their comparatively modest numbers.

J. D. D.

With every passing year mounting inflationary pressures place more and more of America’s church-related colleges on the defensive for financial survival. By 1970, some educators predict, 400 private colleges and universities in the U.S.—one out of every five of the nation’s schools of higher education—will close their doors. The implications for Christian colleges are ominous: some will close their doors, others will dangle at the brink of insolvency, still others will manage survival only by widening their secular appeal and support. Because many church-related institutions can no longer be identified properly as Protestant colleges (some Christian educators see no great loss to the Church if these were closed), and since more schools of learning may likewise drift from church support and orientation, the Christian stake in American higher education is being widely discussed.

The federal government’s increasing intrusion into public and private education is being welcomed by many educators who find not only assurance of survival in government loans and grants, but also new opportunities to enlarge their campus empires. The first step toward federal funds for higher education came during the Eisenhower administration when Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, spun out a program which was adopted by the Republican party and endorsed by Vice-president Nixon in his presidential campaign. A Methodist layman long active in the National Council of Churches, Flemming debated the program privately with Methodist and other educators, and decided that federal funds for higher education involve no legal constitutional problems unless such funds are used to meet current operating expenses, including faculty salaries. Flemming’s program extended beyond government loans and scholarships to individuals and approved in principle loans to institutions for dormitories and academic facilities and the matching of grants as well.

Federal disbursem*nts to public and private universities and colleges have grown steadily. In fact, the federal government’s present payout to higher education is estimated at $2.4 billion—a rather substantial involvement. Those untroubled by this trend argue that federal participation is concentrated in a limited number of large universities (more than half the funds go to nine large institutions). The trend in one federal agency alone—payments for public health service funds—shows, however, that whereas $29,000 was available for training grants in 1946, by 1961 the amount had swelled to almost $110 million. In 1946, $44,000 was spent for fellowships and in 1961 almost $20 million; grants, awards and research programs in 1946 swallowed up $780,000, but almost $280 million in 1961.

Some college administrators—even among church-related institutions—argue it is sheer madness to fight the present politico-economic trend and to curtail the destiny of higher institutions by refusing this new avenue of support. Accordingly, some institutions have sought out all the government funds for which they can qualify. Others are searching their souls in respect to federal entanglement. Still others forthrightly reject any and all federal support as a foreshadowing of federal controls.

We must “utilize our pluralism to preserve our freedom” say some administrators; in short, they feel we must seek federal as well as private support to keep our colleges alive. This coordination (particularly in dollars!) of public and private interests, it is claimed, offers a partnership that promises to perpetuate freedom. One president of a church-related college contends that institutions risk greater danger of outside pressures by accepting grants not from big government but from big business. “We can’t settle the question of federal help to colleges by clichés [absolutes?] that grow out of our history; we ought to welcome both government funds and increased private funds” was the recent comment of a (denominational) university president to church leaders.

On the other hand, noting that certain religious colleges by extensive acceptance of government support have become virtually quasi-public institutions—not unlike the weaker private colleges that are succumbing to state control—some college administrators deplore this attitude toward federal funds as a “grab our share of easy money” mood. This spirit, they complain, promotes state socialism and thus, in keeping with the present mood of political compromise, dilutes, even destroys a treasured heritage of academic freedom. Instead of “losing ourselves in a common greyness that silvers everything,” one educator protested, “we ought to stiffen our convictions against the notion that ‘compromise is the only way.’” With gratitude these leaders recognize the widening support to privately endowed schools that corporations began as a reaction against federal intrusion into academic budgets. In certain places federal and corporation grants are becoming actual alternatives. Private institutions, they argue, are worthy of private support. The fact is that the sources of available private support have been underestimated rather than exhausted; such voluntary giving should be encouraged rather than discouraged. “No ‘good will’ rolls up from a tax dollar—either from alumni, local churches, or corporations,” remarked another (denominational) university president recently.

The specter of government control is not easily dismissed. Politicians who promote federal aid to education ridicule any implication of federal controls. On the other hand some state department officials privately seek to justify President Kennedy’s commitment of Alliance for Progress funds to Roman Catholic state schools in Colombia; this action they say will ultimately hasten the inculcation of those democratic ideals which a totalitarian religious hierarchy has suppressed—in other words, funds and curriculum influence go together. A university that accepts gifts from any source accepts likewise the responsibility for indicating to the donor how those funds are used. In a day when power-hungry government leaders know the value of schools for indoctrinating the oncoming generation in political perspectives, the trend toward a monolithic educational system should be resisted. A national policy of government encroachment in education can only lead toward disaster.

While the spiritual effectiveness of Christian colleges is linked primarily to deeper issues, organizational survival may well depend on an avoidance of governmental financing and control. Most Protestants have championed voluntary support of sectarian schools; for this reason they view with alarm the establishment of precedents in government and education by the Roman Catholic hierarchy to support its giant network of parochial schools. They warn power-hungry politicians that churches, too, can be hungry for political power. Still more important, Protestants frown on situations where government may control the church in any facet of ministry that is vital to its life (education included). If governmental money implements governmental policy—no distinction of race or religion in the hiring of personnel, for example—what can colleges do when they find it difficult enough under present policies to secure fully competent professors? Are politicians right in arguing that some aspects of a church-related curriculum are non-sectarian? And—might they add—therefore do not require a sectarian teacher? On this same basis should money-hungry administrators seek federal subsidy for certain faculty salaries? A bill presently before Congress would cancel loans made to students who later teach in public schools. Will sectarian leaders seek similar benefits? Some Christian leaders stress that what may be permissible state policy may not be desirable from the standpoint of the Church. They decry the Romanist approach of “You decline federal aid on your ground, we’ll accept it on ours”—a sentiment which would place Protestants in a poor competitive position in respect to schools, hospitals, surplus goods, and so on. Nonetheless, U.S. Protestant spokesmen contend that a good conscience must include both the Christian conscience of a sectarian and the patriotic conscience of an American. A culture in crisis, they argue, would soon reveal that no church can maintain a favored position simply because it has buttressed its cause by favored legislation rather than by inner strength. Survival of Christian colleges, it is urged, requires freedom from government restrictions.

But the effective survival of Christian institutions necessitates much more than merely a proliferation of support and an avoidance of government controls. Unless the churches define and preserve what has carried them historically into the field of education, the church-related college is doomed. What is a Christian college in the first place? What ought a church-related college to do or to be? The answers to such decisive questions will decide in large measures the ability of American Protestantism to withstand the expanding public sector in contemporary education.

Many critics maintain that most denominational colleges have already outlived their usefulness. One observer has labeled them small, inferior denominational ghettos; their support, he says, might be used to better advantage by promoting a Christian impact upon the large secular universities. Others insist that two or three good universities that try to permeate all areas of life with Christian convictions are far more effective than several dozen struggling, poorly equipped, isolated schools. Then, too, have the possibilities of the federated campus been explored? (See CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Jan. 19, 1962, p. 24).

Often even these proposals tend to face the predicament of Christian higher education more in respect to facilities than to mission. The real issue however is, and must continue to be, how great a priority does Christian education have in the life and world mission of evangelical churches? Is the academic situation in religious schools so clear and unequivocal that their teaching is less conditioned by secular bias, and more defined by spiritual insights? Has the factor of religious epistemology (the science of religious knowledge) received proper recognition in the whole structure of studies? A major obstacle to voluntary support of church-related colleges lies in the fact that many such institutions do not differ sufficiently from non-Christian colleges and universities either in emphasis or in quality to merit special distinction and preference. Colleges with a virile evangelical dedication often stir the loyalties of countless sacrificial donors; on the other hand those with a blunted spiritual orientation must rely more and more upon heavy denominational subsidies. This fact ought to indicate the administrative fallacy of telling constituents: “Support us so we can witness.” The campus that maintains its witness inspires support. If Protestant churches wish to identify themselves with higher education, they must work to keep their institutions within the orbit of the historic Christian faith and its implications for learning; otherwise they will become increasingly dependent upon secular sources of support. Unfortunately college administrators who demand denominational subsidies for their schools often find that denominational leaders in turn demand for the campus ideological support for their official outlook and theological temper. This is proper enough when a denomination remains dedicated to its historic confessions; it becomes disastrous, however, when educational institutions are no longer free to articulate their own heritage aggressively against ecclesiastical deviations. In an age of transition church-relatedness and church-dependence thus tend to multiply both assets and liabilities.

While “church-related” is an ambiguous term, it is the diluted nature of the Christian content in the curriculum of many denominational institutions that has furnished special opportunity and status for some of the interdenominational evangelical colleges. Interdenominational institutions attract many students from denominational churches whose own schools often do not meet Christian expectations. Moreover, as the momentum of ecumenical merger overtakes many of the larger denominations, specific denominational emphases steadily lose vitality and validity for determining college preferences.

But in some cases the evangelical interdenominational colleges are squandering their opportunities. Even when resisting government funds for basically significant reasons, some of them, while determined neither to surrender nor to compromise constructive Christian emphases and values, confine their long-range planning merely to physical and academic changes. Happily, their objectives often include realistic faculty salaries and offices that permit full-time devotion to research, teaching, counseling and writing. But in some institutions, faculty retention has become no less a problem than faculty recruitment—one school has lost almost half its faculty in five years. Pietists criticize a few of the better schools for over-intellectualism; that complaint, however, is seldom made by those who grade students’ exams! In fact, it is precisely the lack of intellectual challenge, the absence of a pervasive presentation of the Christian life view, that vexes superior students on these campuses. The student body is not stimulated to win the Christian heritage in a struggle against the prevalent secular trends. In the clash with alien theories of life and culture students evaluate 1975 more in terms of Khrushchev’s threatened target date to conquer the Free World than within the sword and fire of Christian initiative.

The nature of world events is such that thinking students will not be captured for the Christian cause simply by hearing simple questions and hurried answers. An unearned and unwon heritage is soon surrendered and forfeited. Christian colleges today need a far deeper awareness than the Kremlin concerning education’s strategic role in gaining the mind of modern man, in realizing a new and deeper dedication to academic earnestness, in engendering a new classroom spirit that expects both teacher and student to justify their intellectual and moral commitments. Far more compellingly than Communism, Christian education must exhibit the fundamental unity of all knowledge; this is no time for academic ‘smörgåsbord.’ Christian colleges must so inspire students to zestful encounter with truths and the Living Truth that they will become bearers of hope to the world of our day. Without such an awakening and revitalization of vision, the Christian colleges—however much their literature may boast of superior education—may as well close their doors. The overarching function of the Christian campus is hardly to teach the elemental do’s and don’t’s of morality, nor the dangers of mating with an unbeliever, nor the techniques of evangelism, nor the outlines of a Bible handbook. These A-B-C’s are the proper ministry of the local church. The primary responsibility of the Christian college is so to communicate the content and technique of learning that students not only read Plato, Dewey, and Darwin unafraid, but yearn and are able to match their mettle with those who are devoid of Christian truth and experience in their lives. Far more important to good teaching than faculty-student ratio is the caliber of instruction. A saying at mammoth University of California (Berkeley) notes it is better to be 50 feet from a great teacher than five from a mediocre one. Great teaching is indeed the biggest vacuum in many Christian colleges.

Nothing less is needed than instruction that so grips the youth of tomorrow with the relevance both of the scientific spirit and of revealed doctrine that young people recognize that either without the other spells disaster for the twentieth century. When the academic community succumbs to pietistic domination, by concentrating on Christian virtue or on mere avoidance of the vices of the world, it violates its witness to the triumph of Christian truth. When teachers are less interested in a mastery of the content of learning than in evangelism a campus is likely to resound only with a rhetorical repetition of questions and answers. Dr. W. Harry Jellema, one of CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s contributing editors, recently warned against education which settles for “the learning of answers without sweating about the questions.” A Christian faculty must recognize that academic witness to the truth is fully as important as ringing doorbells. No simple parroting of questions and answers, no mere verbal echoes, will keep the Christian heritage vigorously alive.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY believes that American Christians can voluntarily support a program of Protestant higher education far greater than anything yet achieved. We believe they are increasingly troubled, however, by the hard news of educational statistics. Whereas one in two students was in a private college ten years ago, only one in five will be in a private college by 1970, of this group (one-fifth of the total collegiate enrollment) only a small percentage will be in Christian colleges. By 1970, moreover, the colleges and universities will enroll 7 million students, contrasted with the record of 3 million in 1960. Devout American Christians are concerned by these trends in a secular age. And, as we have said, we believe that believers in America have sufficient funds to support a strong program of evangelical higher education. The real question that Protestant denominational leaders must ask and answer is simply this: Why are American Christians reluctant to invest their money in church-related colleges?

August Alive With News As Most Ministers Vacation

If anyone was still unconvinced that this is a fast-moving world, the month of August provided the necessary persuasion. While many ministers found their annual vacation respite, news broke at a great pace. Marilyn Monroe’s suicide was scarcely forgotten when the record flight of the Soviet space twins preempted the headlines. Even developments superficially secular had, at a closer look, some religious implications. The Dutch-Indonesian pact over New Guinea, for instance, left unsure the future of missionary activity there.

On the religious front, the forthcoming Vatican Council picked up promotional steam as various non-Catholic groups announced their choice of observers. In a surprising deadlock in Athens, however, the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church adjourned without replying to the Vatican invitation for delegate-observers. In Rome, Pope John XXIII became first pontiff to receive a Shinto high priest when he granted audience to Dr. Shizuka Matsubara, head of the Ken-kun Shrine in Kyoto, Japan. In Moscow, Dr. Arthur Michael Ramsey, first Archbishop of Canterbury to set foot in the U.S.S.R., signed a joint appeal for closer ties between Anglican and Orthodox churches with Patriarch Alexei.

The church-state front in Poland once again was tense as the government announced it would take over all schools and orphanages within a year. Several convents and nurseries in the Warsaw area were being closed down.

Two high-ranking Anglican clergymen were expelled from Ghana after they condemned the deification of President Kwame Nkrumah by a government-sponsored youth organization. Three African Methodist ministers were released from prison in Angola after about a year’s detention on charges of subversive activities against Portuguese authorities.

The Israeli Parliament (Knesset) appointed a committee to look into Christian missionary activities. One legislator had charged the government with being “indifferent” to the fact that “more than 1,000 Jewish children are in Christian missionary institutions.”

In Australia, the Anglican and Roman Catholic archbishops of Perth made a joint appeal to the Province of Western Australia for state aid to church-related schools. The plea followed closely upon developments in New South Wales, where Roman Catholic parochial schools were closed for a week in a demonstration protest against the provincial government, which has refused aid.

A nine-year ban of the showing of the film “Martin Luther” in the Canadian province of Quebec was lifted by the new Quebec Film Censorship Board, made up entirely of Roman Catholics.

On the U. S. front, a number of ministers became involved in the civil liberties controversy in Albany, Georgia. The controversy’s key figure, Baptist minister Martin Luther King, Jr., became the first American Negro ever to speak to the National Press Club in Washington.… A new church was formed by the majority faction which, despite a two-year legal battle, lost control of the First Baptist Church of Wichita, Kansas after protesting American Baptist Convention affiliation with the National Council of Churches.

Spain’s new ambassador to the U. S. told the National Press Club that “we (Catholics) … have committed errors and “are now … establishing a status for Protestants that they have the right to have,” then sent a “corrected” text to the Washington Post stating: “We … may have committed some errors … but we will avoid … such misunderstandings and will give Protestants the position that they have the right to have … under Spanish laws.” He altered in print what he had told the newsmen publicly.

Three hundred years ago, on August 19, 1662, at the age of 39, Blaise Pascal died. What significance does this remarkable Christian thinker and man have for our own day? Often called a scientific genius, Pascal was much more concerned with the mystery of faith than with science. In his intense interest in the problems of faith, Pascal was a truly ecumenical figure. His significance is not confined to the Roman Catholic Church, but reaches to everyone who is involved with the question of how a man comes to believe. In short, Pascal must interest anyone who is concerned with an apologetic for the Christian faith.

This man did not live in mystical isolation from the world. He was ever concerned about the unbeliever. He intended, in fact, to write a defense of the Christian faith for the unbeleiver, but never completed his work. His incomplete work, however, has been left behind in fragmentary form. It is his famous Pansées. If all he left us was his struggle towards the formation of an apologetic, Pascal would merit our attention to this day.

Christians have always asked whether a man simply believes in spite of reason, or whether faith contains its own implicit rationale. The traditional conclusion of Pascal’s Roman Catholic community was that the preface to saving faith was potentially the common possession of all rational men. While the complete content of faith was not rationally demonstrable to all men, certain elements, such as God’s existence, were considered capable of proof. Pascal was unable to accept the rational route to faith. He insisted that the decision of faith took place, not in reason, but in the heart. This is the aspect of Pascal that captures the interest of Roman Catholic as well as Protestant thinkers today.

Roman Catholic theologians are experiencing serious doubts about the usefulness of the traditional proofs for God’s existence. Apart from the logical cogency of the proofs themselves, the question haunts many: what kind of God is actually proven by them to exist? What is one to think of a first cause or a prime mover at which unaided human thought arrives? Questions like these were posed by Pascal in his day and are being asked again in ours. As Pascal was led to question the traditional proofs because of them, they are again leading to doubt about the rational aids to faith. Hence, Pascal’s contemporaneity.

But where did Pascal go after rejecting the proofs? Was faith, for him, wholly irrational? Does a man believe only because he happens to will to believe? Is there no genuine dialogue between the believer and the unbeliever? Do believer and unbeliever inhabit two different worlds with no communication between them? Is there no apologetic? Pascal did believe that there was an effective apologetic for the Christian faith even though he rejected the traditional one.

Before going further, we ought to remind ourselves that we have the same problem. When we forsake the traditional proofs for God, do we forsake all genuine apologetic? Once we reject the existence of a rational area common to believer and unbeliever, do we not break off meaningful conversation with the unbeliever? If belief is a matter only of the heart’s decision, can there be a rational dialogue about the content of faith? Does not, as Pascal said, “the heart have reasons which the reason does not know?”

Pascal did indeed have an apologetic. He did engage in dialogue. He talked, not to an abstract thing called reason, but to the actual, the concrete person. He pointed that person to his own greatness and misery (grandeur et misere de l’homme). He uncovered his fallenness from his original grandeur and exposed him as a “dethroned king.” Man’s own need, his own misery, his unfilled longing, his unrest, and his rebellion—to these Pascal directed man’s thought. Pascal is not occupied with the reason. His method stems from faith itself. But he intended to put his finger on the reality of man as he actually existed, fallen and miserable and in sin.

Unbelief and misery do not, for Pascal, form a neutral point of contact for grace, as though they can be easily disposed toward an easy decision for faith. But Pascal did speak directly to man in his misery and unbelief. He knew the nature of man’s fall and redemption and knew that fallen man had nothing in him to dispose him to salvation. But the witness of Jesus Christ encountered man in his misery, breaking through and becoming manifest there as the new Light of life. This insight Pascal leaves behind and it interests us intensely.

We are not dealing with an argument used to force men to accept the cogency of faith’s rationale. However academically interesting such an argument might be, Pascal knew that it could never overcome the resistance of unbelief. But he was not willing to break off conversation. His apologetic was tied to witnessing. Apologetics and witness met, not in the natural light of reason, but in the misery of fallen man.

Pascal did not deny the greatness of man, but he acknowledged his greatness only within the depths of his misery. We, in our day, know something of man’s greatness as Pascal was not able to know it. Man’s greatness seems to shine through his fantastic technical achievements, an aspect to man’s accomplishments at which Pascal could not have guessed. But Pascal’s vision is still relevant. For the “uncrowned king” is still great only in his poverty, in his threatened existence, and his unfulfilled pretensions. The “grand man” is clearly the man without God. For this reason too, we read Pascal these days.

Pascal placed a problem on the agenda which cannot leave us indifferent. It is the problem of the profound divorce between man and man, between belief and unbelief, and of the possibility of conversation between them. We know today of man’s profound need, of his finitude, of his isolation and estrangement. Existentialism has had a great deal to say about man’s limitations and estrangement. But there is a deep difference between Pascal and modern existentialism. Existentialism accepts man in his need and finitude and calls him to freedom. Pascal sees man in his need and sin and calls him to grace. The freedom concept of atheistic existentialism distinguishes Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir from Pascal. The latter’s interpretation of man calls attention, not to man’s finitude first of all, but to man’s guilt, calls man not to the freedom he has, but to the freedom he has lost. Pascal addresses man in his undeniable misery and points him to the Gospel’s saving light, the Light of the world.

Pascal looms as a truly ecumenical Christian thinker. He dealt with problems relevant to all times. Freeing himself from traditional forms and methods, he sought better and more biblical ways. Though his significance for science and ethics remains as a phase in the history of human thought, his genuine contemporaneity lies in his apologetics, especially in his Pensées. A commemoration of a man’s death can be a good deal more meaningful than the recollection of a colorful historical memory. Commemoration of Pascal’s death and therewith a consideration of his thoughts and struggles sets us immediately into our own time.

In our one world, men’s thoughts and actions touch each other on every terrain. Is our encounter with men one in which we discover that one man believes and the other does not, with no real reason for either? Pascal had an answer. His answer takes the form of a witness. He recognized the resistance of the human heart to God. And he knew that what he had to do was not to prove the rationality of an idea, but to witness to the living God, the father of Jesus Christ. “Not the god of the philosophers, but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” These are words from Pascal’s Memorial of 1654 which was discovered at his death, a fragment that he had carried with him for eight years.

In the Memorial such positive sounds as certainty and, especially, joy are accented. His God was not an idea, but a Person; his faith was not the capstone of an intellectual structure, but the reality which is in Christ. The certainty and joy that permeated Pascal’s brief life places us in our own time—which in its way is also brief—before the question of our own certainty and joy, and before the question of our readiness to respond to God’s call in our God-estranged world. This too is the calling we hear as we commemorate the death of Pascal.

G. C. BERKOUWER

Free University of Amsterdam

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The 1962 Washington conference of International Christian Leadership featured a panel discussion on “Christianity in Higher Education.”CHRISTIANITY TODAYhere presents significant excerpts from comments by the four participants, Former U.S. Senator Ralph E. Flanders of Vermont, Professor H. Maurice Carlson of Lafayette College, Professor John Brobeck of University of Pennsylvania, and President James Forrester of Gordon College.

THE ACADEMIC CLIMATE—I have an intense interest in the particular subject of the relation between the Christian religion and modern education. I had the great privilege and responsibility a year ago last fall of serving as Visiting Professor in Practical Politics at the University of Massachusetts, located at Amherst, the same town of Amherst College. I was required at the end of November and December to give four public lectures and I chose as my topic, “The Moral Law in the modern World.” After I delivered the four lectures, one student after another told me that their professors in Sociology and Philosophy tell them that there is no moral law and that there are no absolutes. That is the atmosphere in which young people get their education.

Some of the most eminent members of the Supreme Court have said substantially the same thing. Oliver Wendell Holmes denied that there are any absolute rights and wrongs to which appeal can be made by the courts. In one of his judgments Chief Justice Vinson, whom I knew personally and respected as a person, said in effect, “If there is anything that is well established, it is that there are no absolutes.” Now that is the intellectual atmosphere in which far too many of our young people are growing up.—Former U.S. Senator RALPH E. FLANDERS of Vermont.

THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST—One of the most thoughtful modern historians has suggested that civilization now finds itself where John Bunyan’s Christian found himself almost three centuries ago, “I dreamed, and behold I saw a man clothed with rags, standing in a certain place, with his face from his own house, a book in his hand and a great burden upon his back. I looked and saw him open the book and read therein, and not being able longer to contain, he broke out with a lamentable cry, saying, ‘What shall I do?’” (Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History, Vol. VI, p. 320. Oxford University Press, 1939).

Into this world of uncertainty for which history through the years offers little or no hope, our educational system each year thrusts thousands of young people. Our hope is in our youth and thus it has always been. Are they equipped to bring order out of chaos, understanding out of misconception, love out of hate?

Dr. Louis Evans of the Hollywood Presbyterian Church in a recent address in Easton, Pennsylvania, told of being in the Orient in 1960 and eating dinner in a restaurant with a man from Osan, an agricultural finance agent from the U.S. who was waiting to get back to Laos, waiting for the revolution to subside. Dr. Evans asked, “How are things?” “Not good,” was the reply. “They are seeping down from the north. I never saw such ‘missionaries’ in my life, they permeate, they debate, they argue. They have vowed to invite at least ten people over to dinner every week and they draw up their chairs after dinner and persuade some more and give out free leaflets and books. They are sweeping Laos.”

“Well,” said Dr. Evans, “why don’t you counter with what you believe?”

He said, “Dr. Evans, I don’t know what I believe and I’m a Ph.D. How can I fight their convictions with my vacuum? I’m a washout and so is every businessman abroad.” Dr. Evans said earlier, “The most embarrassing question that I can ask a college senior is, ‘What are you living for man? Give me your philosophy of life?’ A lot of them don’t even know, in a day when others are dying for their convictions.”

The American Council on Education has noted that there is no marked difference in the religious concept of the average pupil in the eighth grade of school and the average college graduate (Report by Louis Gale, Cleveland Plain Dealer, August 21, 1949).

President Conant of Harvard in the spring of 1943 appointed a committee on Objectives of General Education in a Free Society. From the report: “The ideal of free inquiry is a precious heritage of Western culture, yet a measure of firm belief is surely a part of the good life. A free society means toleration which in turn comes from openness of mind. But freedom also presupposes conviction: a free choice—unless it is wholly arbitrary—comes from belief and ultimately from principle.… A measure of belief is necessary to preserve the quality of the open mind” (General Education in a Free Society. Report of the Harvard Committee, pp. 77, 78. Harvard University Press, 1945). And yet in a recent questionnaire on religious and political attitudes at Harvard and Radcliffe in which 310 students chosen at random participated of whom 183 were Protestants, 39% of these Protestants stated that they had left their Protestantism and most considered themselves to have no faith at all (The Harvard Crimson).

The young people in our colleges and universities are not coming to grips with the fundamental issues of life. It is important that these young people be given the opportunity of making a choice but all too often in our higher education, they don’t have this opportunity.

Robert M. Hutchins in his report “The Relation of Religion to Public Education” says “The higher learning in America has developed a broad urbanity, an all engulfing tolerance which finds it easy to be hospitable to everything except conviction—and genuine conviction, which must not be confused with intolerance, is one of the crying needs of our age” (Robert M. Hutchins, The Relation of Religion to Public Education by the Committee on Religion and Education of the American Council on Education, Series 1, No. 26, April, 1947, p. 41).

What then is the answer? I propose three approaches:

1. There must be a real effort on the part of the colleges and universities to provide an adequate place in the curriculum for this dimension so lacking today. As Howard Lowry of Wooster College has said in such a pointed way, “An adequate place in the curriculum means a department of religion, with personnel of high quality, comparable to that of other academic departments. It means a sufficient offering of courses (not all necessarily in the department) in the Bible, comparative religion, the philosophy and the psychology of religion, Christian ethics, church history, the history of Christian thought and the like. The course in Bible, incidentally, would be more than a course in Bible as literature. It would be a course in the Hebrew-Christian conception of life.”

“Genuine curricular acceptance of religion would involve also the securing of some adequate attention to religion in the other courses of the university where it is germane. There are many such courses, where consideration of religion, necessary to the understanding of the matter at hand, is not something for the teacher to include or ignore according to his own whim, but to take account of because it is his professional duty” (Howard Lowry, The Mind’s Adventure, p. 94, The Westminster Press, 1950).

2. The individual teacher occupies a very important place in influencing the lives of our college young people. It has often been said that we teach more by precept and example than by the spoken or written word. The faculty member who is a committed Christian, who recognizes his potential influence in the lives of young people can relate Christian thought and consideration to the subject he presents daily in the classroom, yet without preaching. It is important that he have the freedom to do this, in the framework of the discipline in which he finds himself. Qualified, committed Christian teachers are urgently needed in all areas of college education.

3. For those teachers who live on or near the campus there is the opportunity to invite students into their homes for study and discussion of the fundamental issues of life, providing a natural avenue for the consideration of the claims of Christianity, the claims of the person of Jesus Christ upon their lives.

In the final analysis, it is with Him whom we must reckon, be it university, teacher or individual. If Christ were only a good man or the best teacher then our education need only give passing mention to Him, but if He is who He claims to be, the Son of God, the One for whom all history was preparing, the One who divided time into the before and after, the One who said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me,” then it is essential, that the college and university and those of us who teach therein, and we as individuals give ear to Him of whom it is said, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him.”—Professor H. MAURICE CARLSON, Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department, Lafayette College, Pennsylvania.

EVANGELICAL FAILURES—I have been in the Christian community for nearly 50 years. In these 50 years I have heard the universities blamed very often for hostility to Christianity. There is some truth in the charge. But this kind of sniping or shooting from the Christian community has done little to increase the means or to strengthen the techniques of communication between these two groups. It is my own impression that if this situation is going to be remedied, it must be attempted first on the part of the Christian community. Evangelical Christians have a limited influence at the present time in the university community; in fact, in some cases one can say that we have no influence, and we cannot expect the universities to come to us.

The nature of this lack of communication can be illustrated, I believe, by the almost complete ignorance that both of these groups have of the other. If you were to ask the first ten people you met on any ordinary university campus to state in two sentences the evangelical Christian position, most of them probably could not give you anything close to a correct answer. But if you ask the devout members of the ordinary, evangelical or fundamental church (the kind of church our family belongs to) what’s going on in universities, they will not know that either. Because I have had a disappointing personal experience in this regard, it is possible for me to speak to you from a sense of personal frustration.

We live in a relative center of Christian education in and around Philadelphia, with seminaries, Christian colleges, and Bible schools in our neighborhood. Not once have I been asked to come to any one of these schools to discuss with their students, many of them going into the ministry or to the mission field, any subject related to the development of modern science. (Perhaps they have reason to think that I do not know!) By contrast, I am often asked—in fact, my wife wishes that I got only a tenth of the invitations—to go to universities, medical schools and colleges, and I have many opportunities to witness as a Christian in these secular institutions. But I have never had any opportunity to witness as a scientist in a seminary or Bible school. I believe that illustrates simply that Christians are not interested in science or scientists. Among my Christian friends there is a considerable mistrust and possibly even a fear of the university idea. There is even a mistrust of higher education in general. For example, many Christian people will not admit that we need good, strong Christian schools and colleges, and that we must provide their support! If you ask these Christian friends why they do not give more liberally to their schools, they may answer, “If they get wealthy they’ll become like Harvard.” This kind of ignorance and prejudice is made to justify a lack of adequate support. Even more serious, however, is the fact that if someone were to give a hundred million dollars for endowment of a Christian college, the money could not be spent effectively because of a shortage of qualified, Christian scholars. Not only is our Christian community not producing the money, it is not producing the teachers and investigators. I suppose that this failure, too, results from mistrust, suspicion, or fear of higher education.

I question whether we can influence the course of the great universities by anything Christians may write or say, or by any kind of public educational campaign. But I suggest that we may have some hope under God of influencing the attitude of our Christian friends, and of getting them to realize that they are getting no more than they are paying for in higher education. If they want something more, if they want something better, it will cost money, it will take time, it will require men. The Christian community can do it if we really put our hearts and our souls into this kind of effort.—Dr. JOHN BROBECK, Chairman of the Department of Physiology, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania.

HONORING ALL THE TRUTH—We are in a crisis in which the difference between and the relation between what has classically been called “knowledge” and “wisdom” have become very important. In the past the university has concerned itself with these together, the conjunction giving them equal value. Historically Greek influences have predominated and now the scientific methodology, added to these, directs higher education into a major dominant concern for “knowledge” with perhaps an unwitting suppression of “wisdom.”

I understand that after the Nazi war crimes trials in Europe Justice Robert H. Jackson said that “the paradox of modern society is that modern society has to fear the educated man.” This is heresy amongst educators. Yet, “knowledge” without “wisdom” could very well lead us to a kind of technological splendor which would be only the precursor of disaster. This is everywhere evident, it is everywhere talked about. We, therefore, have an obligation to consider the relation of values and of Christian values for the whole process of higher education as we know it, and the university’s obligation to present the truth to students without suppression of any part of it.

One of the distinctives of our culture is that it has been so strongly influenced by Christianity and that the university movement itself grew out of the Church. In the beginning higher education in the United States was virtually born through the influence of men of profound religious convictions. The spiritual emphases were dominant in the founding of Harvard and in the subsequent founding of Yale and other later universities which have come to prominence. It seems strange that with this kind of beginning there should now develop a self-consciousness among higher educational people over the discussion of religious truths, and that we should have found it necessary to prescribe legal controls for some tax-supported institution with respect to the matter of religious expression. The universities in our country seem in the main to be uncertain whether they have any responsibility to say anything in the area of moral and spiritual values. If truth is to be defined in relation to the fundamental categories of existence, then the university cannot fulfill its obligation to confront students with all the truth without dealing with the theistic hypothesis as having a dimension perhaps not amenable to the scientific methodology procedures.

It seems to me that certain fallacious assumptions underlie the problem in America in the prevalent avoidance of dimensions of truth which relate to values. To become aware of these might help us to move toward some constructive answers.

1. One of these assumptions is that total objectivity is fundamental to the image of the intellectual. The Christian faith may be examined discursively, and private interest in it has been permitted on most university campuses. But the Christian professes relationship with God the Father and the discovery of God in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and in the revealed word of Holy Scripture. To eliminate these things from Christian perspective is to give us a watered down kind of ethnic religion. Whereas objectivity is a virtue to the intellectual, the subjective experiences which are necessary components of the Christian religion should be elevated at least to some legitimate level of recognition with those things that are the objective criteria by which we operate in the intellectual world. It is supposed that if one passionately holds a world view that excludes divine revelation one is objective and scholarly, but conversely if one holds the broader view, which allows the intersection of human experience by God in Jesus Christ, one is automatically classed as being biased and doctrinaire.

2. A second fallacious assumption is that we must choose between a Christian anti-intellectualism and an anti-Christian intellectualism as though this were the either/or of intellectual possibility on the university campus. If on a given campus the compulsion to be intellectual is dominant on the basis of this assumption, one is committed automatically to an anti-Christian position; one cannot endorse Christianity openly without being intellectually suspect. Likewise, the Christian institution which accepts the intellectual pursuit as being dangerously subversive to intellectual values is likely to move in an anti-intellectual direction. We must challenge this false antithesis if we are to proceed to constructive answers to the question of the university’s contribution in this area and of the relationship of Christianity to the modern American university. We are not forced to choose between a Christian anti-intellectualism and an anti-intellectual Christianity.

3. A third fallacious assumption is that academic freedom requires the repudiation of anything which is religiously doctrinaire. It is significant to me that where this dogma of academic freedom has been argued most strongly economic or social dogma or points of view are presented with all the force of indoctrination. But in the same context the insinuation of religious concepts must be outlawed on the grounds of academic freedom! This fallacy needs to be reevaluated.

4. A fourth assumption is that technical competence is more important than moral power. We are not afraid of atomic information in the hands of morally motivated persons or persons who have Christian values or Christian motivation. We are afraid of its potentiality for human and property and value destruction in the hands of people who have no moral controls of the Christian kind. Somehow or another we must insinuate Christian values into our technological culture so that it is not amoral but moral.

There should be a place in the university curriculum for the Christian religion in the context of our culture. This, incidentally, is occurring across the country more and more; even tax-supported campuses are offering courses in religion with college credit. There has been a greater encouragement to denominational groups for representation in a proper and orderly way on campus. There has been the encouragement of campus chaplains and greater freedom has been given to these men to operate with the students in the last fifteen years. The initiative in this must lie with the Christian educators. It is not to be supposed that the secular educator, who has not the same concern for the Christian values as the Christian educator, is likely to be sufficiently aware of what might be done to initiate something in this regard. Christian educators must first educate their own constituencies so that the intellectual pursuits are not to be equated with heresy. There needs to be communication of the proper meanings of academic freedom to the supporting constituencies of Church-related institutions. We can enter into interchange with regional associations, and express ourselves in the free atmosphere of the Association of American Colleges. The Protestant college group can deal with this issue openly and in the context of the larger association of colleges and universities. Then we must form some articulate voice for the Christian claim in higher education. We must express clearly the kerygmatic faith, the New Testament thrust with all its daring assumptions—not a watered down, minimized faith suitable only for comparative purposes with the other ethnic religions. We must, as Christians, put these concepts into the market of free ideas without the anxiety that they cannot make their way.—President JAMES FORRESTER, Gordon College, Beverly Farms, Massachusetts.

The explicit teaching of Holy Scripture is that Jesus Christ will come a second time from heaven to earth—personally, bodily, and visibly. This marvelous and climactic event is called “the blessed hope” of the Christian Church by the Apostle Paul (Titus 2:13). Christ appeared once on earth in grace (John 1:14, 17; Titus 2:11); he will appear a second time in glory (Matt. 16:27; 24:30; 25:31; Luke 21:27). Both of his appearings, one of which is past, the other which is a future cosmic event, are prophetically foretold in Scripture. A summary of the two Advents of Jesus Christ is made in Hebrews 9:28: “Christ was once [i.e., “once for all”] offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without [i.e., “apart from”] sin unto salvation.” In view of the many scriptural references to the Second Advent of our Lord, particularly in the New Testament, Dr. James Denney has declared with scholarly earnestness that we cannot “call in question what stands so plainly in the pages of the New Testament—what filled so exclusively the minds of the first Christians—the idea of a Personal Return of Christ at the end of the world.… If we are to retain any relation to the New Testament at all, we must assert the personal return of Christ as Judge of all” (Studies in Theology, p. 239).

The Meaning of Christ’s Second Coming. As already indicated, the Second Coming means that Jesus Christ will come again to this world in his personal and bodily form, glorified and deathless. The word parousia is used frequently in the New Testament as a technical term to denote the return of Christ at the end of the age (e.g., Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 2 Pet. 3:4, 12; 1 John 2:28). His second appearing will be personal (Acts 1:11; John 14:3; 21:20–23); unexpected (Matt. 24:32–51; 25:1–13); sudden (Matt. 24:27; Luke 17:24); visible (Matt. 24:30; Rev. 1:7); and glorious (Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26).

This great truth has been subject to misunderstanding and abuse. Christ’s Second Coming is not identical with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, nor is it the same as the conversion of the individual. Neither is it to be equated with some calamity, such as the destruction of Jerusalem. It is not to be identified with the death of a believer, or with the spread of the Gospel throughout the world. “Realized eschatology”—a present-day emphasis which denies future apocalyptic events—likewise evaporates the truth of the Second Coming. The keystone of this doctrine is the fact of the personal nature of Christ’s return at the end of the age as described in the words: “… this same Jesus … shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11).

The Importance of Christ’s Second Coming. The prominent place this subject occupies in the Scripture gives some indication of its importance. All but four of the New Testament books refer to it, with a total of 318 verses in which it is set forth within the 216 chapters of the New Testament. A broad approximation is that one-fifth of the Bible is prophecy, one-third of prophecy relates to Christ’s return, and that one-twentieth of the New Testament deals with the subject. Another approximation is that it is mentioned twice as much as the atonement, and eight times as much as Christ’s first coming.

Its importance is also observed in the fact that it is bound up with the great doctrines of the Christian faith, such as the Deity of Christ (Matt. 26:63, 64); the atonement (Heb. 9:13–28); sonship with God (1 John 3:1, 2); sanctification (1 Thess. 3:12, 13; 5:23); the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23); final judgment (2 Tim. 4:1); and the promise of rewards (2 Tim. 4:7, 8; Rev. 22:12; 1 Pet. 5:4). Above all, its importance is seen in the fact that Christ declared it (e.g., Matt. 24; 25; Luke 21; Mark 13; John 14).

The great Ecumenical Creeds of the Christian Church have briefly but clearly included the expectation of Christ’s return. The Apostles’ Creed declares that Christ “ascended into heaven; and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.” The Nicene Creed states that “he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead.” Again, the Athanasian Creed says, “at whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works.”

Official declarations of various groups in Christendom have presented this doctrine, such as the Augsburg Confession (Part 1, Art. XVII); the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (Art. IV); the Westminster Confession (Chaps. 32, 33); and the Articles of Religion of The Methodist Church (Art. III). To this there could be added the vast volume of testimony from the theologians and hymn writers of the universal Church of Christ. The lines of Charles Wesley’s great hymn reflect the glowing essence of that testimony:

“Lo, He comes with clouds descending,

Once for favored sinners slain;

Thousand, thousand saints attending,

Swell the triumph of His train; Hallelujah!

Jesus comes, and comes to reign.”

The Purpose of Christ’s Second Coming. There is a divergence of interpretation regarding the details of the Second Coming. However perplexing the fitting together of various details may be, it is clear that Christ will come for his own (1 Thess. 4:16, 17; John 14:3; Matt. 25:6; Luke 19:15). It is also obvious that the judging and rewarding of men are related to Christ’s return (Matt. 25:31–46; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 22:12). Divine redemption is unfinished until the last enemy is beneath the Redeemer’s feet and God is all in all (1 Cor. 15:25–28).

(1) The Millennial Views. Although there is agreement in the belief among evangelicals that Christ will return to judge the world, there is a difference of opinion regarding the events before and in connection with his Second Coming. These differences are largely due to various interpretations of an interlude of a thousand years spoken of in Revelation 20, which has been called “the Millennium” (from Latin mille, a thousand). There are three generally accepted views concerning this passage (Rev. 20:1–7)—postmillennialism, amillennialism, and premillennialism.

(2) Postmillennialism. The term covers “that view of last things which holds that the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the Gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit, that the world eventually is to be Christianized, and that the return of Christ will occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace, commonly called the millennium” (L. Boettner, The Millennium, p. 4). Evangelicals who embrace this interpretation are quick to point out the difference between this view and that of liberals who emphasize human progress and social betterment, by virtue of which the kingdom of God on earth will be achieved through a natural, rather than a supernatural, process.

The Postmillennialists insist that Revelation 20 should be understood figuratively, that the words “a thousand years,” which occur six times in the first seven verses, mean an indefinitely long period of time, and embody, among other things, a spiritual kingdom in the hearts of men. It will be a golden age of spiritual prosperity which culminates with the Second Coming of Christ, the general resurrection, and last judgment. Both the Old and New Testaments give evidence of a future golden age. Isaiah 11:9 anticipates the day when “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Jehovah, as the waters cover the sea.” In Psalm 22:27 we are informed that a day will come when “all the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” For the Postmillennialist the parable of leaven in the New Testament teaches the universal extension and triumph of the Gospel as society is transformed by the Kingdom’s power and influence (cf. Matt. 13:33; Luke 13:20, 21). Admittedly, this involves a long and tedious process through the centuries, but the ultimate goal is certain and the outcome is assured.

(3) Amillennialism. Sometimes called the non-millennarian view, this interprets the disputed passage in Revelation 20 symbolically and spiritually, and omits an earthly millennium. Amillennialists reject the notion of a “golden age” which represents the hope of a converted world. Rather they believe that the Scripture teaches that good and evil will continue side by side, but eventually there will be a sudden personal eruption of Christ into the midst of the world’s scene of conflict, with a swift sifting and separation of souls at the final judgment. Hence the millennial reign of Christ in Revelation 20 is given a spiritual interpretation. Following a view which originated with Augustine, it may refer to the present reign of Christ in the world through the Church and in the lives of Christians, or it may refer to the souls of Christians who have been martyred as they now reign with Christ in heaven in the intermediate state. Those who follow this particular teaching insist that a literal and temporal interpretation of the millennium is erroneous.

(4) Premillennialism. This is a view of last things which insists that the millennial passage in Revelation 20 must be interpreted literally, and that the Second Coming of Christ will inaugurate his reign as King in person on the earth. There are two phases involvea in his coming, the first of which is called the “rapture” when Christ comes for his Bride, the Church, and the second phase is called the “revelation” at which time Christ returns with his Bride to the earth. At that glorious appearing he subdues the antichrist and establishes his reign over the earth during the millennium. At the close of the millennium there will be a brief but fierce rebellion led by Satan which is quickly quelled, and which is followed by the bodily resurrection of the wicked and the final White Throne Judgment.

The Premillennial view also involves a very definite teaching concerning the tribulation period which precedes the millennial reign of Christ. There is disagreement among Premillennialists, however, regarding the “rapture” in relation to the period of tribulation which is predicted in the Scripture (Matt. 24:21; Dan. 12:1). One group believes that the “rapture” will take place before the tribulation period, and this view is known as a pretribulation rapture. Others insist that the “rapture” takes place after the tribulation period, and is therefore a posttribulation view. Still others believe that the “rapture” will take place during the tribulation period, and their view is a midtribulation theory.

It should also be noted that among Premillennialists there are those who regard Revelation 20 from a dispensational point of view, with the millennial kingdom being the last of seven dispensations which they believe are revealed in Scripture.

The Time of Christ’s Second Coming. Although our Lord’s return occupies a prominent place in Scripture, the time of his return is not specified (Mark 13:32; 1 Thess. 5:1, 2). Hence the necessity of preparedness (Matt. 24:44). From the standpoint of God’s evaluation of what we call time, Christ’s return has been “imminent,” or near, ever since he went away. Although the time of the Second Coming is unknown, various “signs” of its approaching hour are indicated in Scripture. Among these “signs” are the recurrence of war and commotion (Luke 21:9); the growing apostasy in the church (Luke 18:8; 1 Tim. 4:1), the foregathering of God’s covenant people to the promised land of their fathers (Matt. 24:32, 33; Luke 21:29–31), and the spread of the Gospel (Matt. 24:14). (Also cf. Mark 13; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 3:1–7; 2 Pet. 3.)

The Goal of History. In conclusion, it is well to note that the subject of the Second Coming involves the meaning and goal of history. Scripture indicates that history is built along redemptive lines, and that, in moving to its final goal, it is a conflict of opposing forces heading toward a crisis. To the end of time a mixed condition will prevail—wheat and tares (Matt. 13:24–30), love and hate, peace and war, faith and apostasy, righteousness and iniquity (e.g., the Book of Revelation). In the end, however, God will prevail, for the final word in the conflict rests with him—a word that will be spoken in judgment through his Son (Acts 17:31; Rom. 2:16). The immense drama of human history with its perennial conflict between good and evil will not go on forever. In the end, God and righteousness will triumph (1 Cor. 15:24–28; Acts 15:14–18; 2 Tim. 2:19; Rev. 11:15).

The truth of Christ’s Second Coming is a glorious and comforting revelation to all believers, as well as a stimulus and encouragement to Christian service and holy living (Luke 21:28; 1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20; Col. 3:4, 5; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:18; Heb. 9:28; Jas. 5:7; 2 Pet. 3:12; 1 John 3:2, 3). For unbelievers and Christ-rejecters, it is a solemn warning (Mark 13:35, 37; John 3:18; 2 Thess. 1:7, 8; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4, 9, 10; Jude 14, 15; Rev. 6:12–17). But to the child of God who trusts utterly and completely his Son and his atoning death for salvation, it is the “blessed hope.” It is a thrilling prospect! “Even so, come, Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20).

Bibliography: O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church; L. Boettner, The Millennium; G. E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope; J. H. Snowden, The Coming of the Lord: Will It Be Premillennial?; G. Vos, The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church; J. F. Walvoord, The Return of the Lord.

Professor of Christian Doctrine

Asbury Theological Seminary

Wilmore, Kentucky

“Marilyn Monroe was found dead in her bed early this morning, an emptied bottle which had contained sleeping tablets on a table near by”.… The radio announcer went on to give some details about the finding of the body and then passed on to other news headlines.

One casual remark was overheard—made by a high-minded citizen—“Well, not much was lost.”

But a sober second thought brought this woman’s death into clearer focus: Everything was lost … salvation, an eternity with Christ, the possibilities of the influence of a godly life upon a generation at the crossroads.

But more than this woman’s influence and opportunities were lost. What about those responsible for an unwanted and unloved childhood? What of those who first sensing unusual physical attractiveness took advantage of her loneliness, ignorance and lack of any sense of values for their own selfish ends?

What about a nation in which millions made her a sex symbol? About producers, script writers and directors who contrived scenes and situations to exploit her childish, fragile beauty for personal fame and profit?

One Christian woman, hearing of Marilyn Monroe’s tragic death, remarked, “Poor kid, she never had a chance.”

After her death it was revealed that two weeks earlier Evangelist Billy Graham bad awakened in his hotel in Seattle with a burden to pray for her. A week later, in Los Angeles, this burden continued, and one of Mr. Graham’s associates tried to contact Miss Monroe through one of her agents only to be told, “Not now, maybe two weeks from now.”

Was the phone clutched in the lifeless hand a last and futile attempt to get help? Only God knows, and the motivation of this final act of a dying woman must be left to the One who is all-knowing and all-loving.

But America is still here, and the nude dead body of an exploited child, girl and woman is no longer a “sex symbol” but the symbol of men and women dead in trespasses and sins, all of whose lives lie naked and open to the One with whom all of us have to do.

Death is inevitable. Postpone it? Possibly. Evade it? Never.

Why then the shrug of the shoulders in the face of death? Why turn to the spiritually dead for hope or comfort? And, how useless any religion which fails to offer forgiveness of sins and an eternity with Christ!

Confronted with tragedies such as this some may smugly repeat, “The wages of sin is death,” even as they are confronted by the accusing finger of Truth—“Thou art the man!”

We write with feeling because we believe that America and her sex obsession stand judged before a holy and righteous God.

The body of Marilyn Monroe lay dead in a city morgue, no longer a symbol of sex but of death. Reams of copy have come out of Hollywood, and people in and out of the movie industry have expressed shock, sorrow and words of appreciation of this woman who did so much to contribute to the financial gains of her employers.

Before long Marilyn Monroe will be nothing but a name and a memory, receding as time inexorably moves on.

But even now there are other Marilyn Monroes in and out of the movies. The process of exploitation will go on unabated, and millions will continue to worship at the phallic altar because their eyes are blinded by the god of this world.

Even now there are other children, victims of parents who never wanted them, and once they came into the world, never provided for them.

What could be more pitiful than a child starved for love, home and a sense of security? What is more despicable than the base misuse of youth and young womanhood for gain?

Are not we as individual Christians, and the Church as an organization, often failing to meet the needs about us? Where is the community in which there are not those who need Christian love and compassion? Rare too is the place where there is not open or secret degradation of women for the gain of others.

And in every city and town our young people are confronted by “adult,” “realistic,” “frank” and “exciting” pictures which portray the entire gamut of filth—bawdiness, prostitution, hom*osexuality and other perversions. But we do nothing to stop this exploitation of man’s basest nature so that our youth now only too often looks on the perverse as the natural.

This writer protested the showing of one evil film in a city only to have the owner of the theatre write back that (1) he had to show what was sent him by the distributors, and (2) this was what people wanted, and he could prove it by the attendance of the “best people in town” when such films were shown.

What has this to do with the death of Marilyn Monroe? Just this: she was a symbol of the accepted values of our times. She was exploited by lustful men, greedy producers and by a public which cared for nothing more than cheap exposures—the more suggestive the circ*mstances the better.

Marilyn Monroe was a victim of this world—a victim of an age which has confused freedom and license, lust and love, and which worships at the altar of personal gain at any price.

Only a few days prior to her death a national magazine carried an article about her, evidently a taped interview, which was pathetic in its baring the facts of an unwanted and neglected childhood, of unrequited affection—a Christmas for instance, when the children in the family all received presents while she, kept there by a welfare agency, received nothing.

This article showed the longing of a soul for something better but which she never found. Money? Yes. “Fame” and pawing adulation? Yes. But with it all she knew she was being taken advantage of. There was always the realization that she was surrounded by selfishness and greed.

Had anybody ever spoken to Marilyn Monroe about her own soul? About Jesus Christ? About those things which last for eternity?

Perhaps some had, but the overwhelming evidence is that her eternal soul was forgotten while men sought to profit from her physical beauty.

Then, for nearly twenty-four hours a dead body lay unclaimed in the morgue—no longer profitable and only the shell of what had once been the home of an immortal soul.

The words of the Psalmist speak to us accusingly today: “I looked on my right hand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me: refuge failed me; no man cared for my soul” (Ps. 142:4).

One can but wonder whether some day this generation may not stand condemned for what it has done and is doing to the Marilyn Monroes who are burned, as moths, in the flames of commercialized lust.