Page 6293 – Christianity Today (2024)

Acts 4:29 (RSV)

The Preacher:

John R. W. Stott has been since 1950 Rector of All Souls’, Langham Place, in the heart of London’s west end. After a distinguished career at Cambridge University, he was ordained in 1945. Appointed a. royal chaplain in 1959, he is also Chairman of the Evangelical Research Center at Oxford, and a frequent speaker at student conferences. Mr. Stott’s published works include Basic Christianity and Fundamentalism and Evangelism.

The Text:

And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness.

The Series:

This is the fourth in CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S series of sermons from the United Kingdom and Europe. Among the preachers scheduled for future issues are Jean Cadier, President of the Reformed Faculty at Montpellier, France; Charles Duthie, Principal of the Scottish Congregational College; G. C. Berkouwer, Professor in the Free University of Amsterdam; and Ermanno Rostan, Moderator of the Waldensian Church of Italy.

So began the persecution of the Christian Church. Since that clay it has never ceased. It continues unabated today.

Peter and John, after healing the lame man at the Beautiful Gate and preaching to the people, had been arrested, put in custody and brought to trial. The Supreme Jewish Council had forbidden them to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus, and when Peter and John quietly replied that they must obey God rather than men and that they could not help speaking of what they had seen and heard, the Sanhedrin further threatened them (whether with imprisonment, the dreaded scourging or death we are not told) and released them. Peter and John went straight to their Christian brethren to pray. It was a critical moment in the history of the infant Church. When Jesus had been arrested and tried, the disciples had all forsaken him and fled. And now the power of the enemy was turned on them. Would they falter and fail, or stand the test and hold firm?

In many parts of the world today the persecution of Christians is open and undisguised. Violent attempts are being made to stifle the Church’s witness. In Communist China the present experience of the Church has been exposed by Leslie Lyall in his book Come Wind, Come Weather, published by Hodder & Stoughton in 1961. He describes the subtlety of the indirect attack by the creation of the “Three-Self Reform Movement,” which is pledged to purge the Church of all “imperialist influence.” Disguised as a patriotic movement, it has woefully compromised the truth of God and is in fact a tool of the State. All who dare to disagree with it are publicly accused and imprisoned. In Nepal newly converted Christians have been thrown into prison because of their faith. In Germany recently the East German bishops were virtually prevented from attending the Tenth All German Congress of the Evangelical Church. These things are not far away. Do not let us imagine that we are safe in England, where the Communist domination of the Electrical Trade’s Union has shown us the great power of the Communist Party in this country. The Americans also have Cuba less than 100 miles from their coast to remind them. It is not in the least unlikely that within the next few years we shall have to undergo persecution for Christ.

Their Attitude To God

They trusted the sovereignty of God. The opposition of the authorities did not overthrow their Christian faith. They did not begin to doubt whether God was God. They did not complain against his providence or whine over their sufferings. No. They prayed. And as “they lifted their voices together to God” (v. 24), their hearts and minds were filled with the divine sovereignty.

They called God “sovereign Lord,” using the word despotes, which was used of the Roman emperors and slave owners and signified a sovereign and absolute rule. They also called themselves His slaves (v. 20). Moreover, the fact that Herod and Pilate, Gentiles and Jews, rulers and people, had been arrayed against Jesus did not frighten them. The enemies of God, who had been responsible for the death of Jesus, had only succeeded in doing “whatever thy hand and thy plan had predestined to take place” (v. 28). Twentieth century Christians have great difficulty with the doctrine of divine sovereignty and predestination, but the early Christians do not seem to have had. They held fast to it. They believed that God’s “never failing providence ordereth all things both in heaven and earth” (Collect for Trinity VIII). They did not deny either human responsibility or man’s freedom to choose, but they saw these things within the wider context of the over-ruling sovereignty of God. Herod and Pontius Pilate, Gentiles and Jews, rulers and people were free agents, who set themselves of their own purpose against the Lord and his anointed, and yet in so doing, they were accomplishing the very thing which God s hand and purpose had foreordained. The hands which killed Jesus were wicked and lawless, yet he was “delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God” (Acts 2:23). The same was true in their case; and they regarded the opposition of the world as under the controlling hand of God. What then was the source of their confidence? We must see how they qualified and elaborated the title “Sovereign Lord.”

1. They referred to creation. “Sovereign Lord, who didst make the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them” (v. 24). God’s sovereignty is viewed first and foremost in his creative work. The whole universe and its contents (earth, sea and space) were brought into existence by the will of God. They owe their origin and continuance to the purpose and power of God. They have no inherent self-control; they are upheld by the authority of the living God. Only God depends for his being on himself; all things else come from him and depend on him. If we are tempted to doubt that the Most High rules in the kingdoms of men, and that he “orders all things both in heaven and earth,” then we need to do what these early Christians did and look at his work in creation. It is an easy step from faith in God as the Creator, to faith in him as the Sovereign Lord. It is this that we affirm in the Creed when we speak of God as the “almighty (i.e., All-Ruler), maker of heaven and earth.” That is, we state our faith in one who is ruler over all that he has made.

2. They referred to prophecy. In their prayer, the apostles spoke not only of what God had done (in creation), but also of what he had said (in Scripture); not only of his creative work, but of his prophetic word. “Sovereign Lord … who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant, didst say by the Holy Spirit ‘Why did the Gentiles rage …’” (vv. 24, 25). This is a quotation from Psalm 2, in which God clearly foretold the raging and rebellious fury of the world against himself. Kings, rulers and people would conspire together saying, “Let us burst their bonds asunder, and cast their cords from us.” But the God who predicted the opposition of the world predicted also its final overthrow: “He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord has them in derision.… I have set my king on Zion, my holy hill.”

This prophecy of the world’s opposition to God’s Christ had been historically fulfilled. In that very city of Jerusalem there had been a vile conspiracy of Gentile and Jew, leaders and people, against the anointed Son of God (v. 27). Yet the victory was not in the hands of God’s enemies. God has not abdicated his throne. His own purpose of love will ultimately triumph.

These assurances should bring us comfort. The most frightening fulminations of men against God and Christ should not alarm us. If opposition breaks over our heads in England and we are threatened with extinction, let us take fresh courage from the works and words of God, from the evidence of his sovereignty to be found in what he has made in the universe and what he has said in the Scripture.

Their Attitude To Their Persecutors

They preached the Word of God with boldness. We have seen that the apostles felt no bitterness in their hearts towards God, and complained against neither his love nor his wisdom. But what about their attitude towards their persecutors? Did they show resentment towards them or seek to take revenge? Did they plot against their enemies as their enemies had plotted against Christ and them? Or did they run away and seek safety in the hills and caves of Judaea or Galilee? No. They did none of these things. They stayed at their post, although it meant imprisonment and scourging for some, and death for others, and they prayed for boldness to preach.

How positive they were! They were not content just to grit their teeth, to stay and stick it out. They loved their enemies, and desired the eternal good of their persecutors. They longed to see them won for Christ and saved by him for ever. They thirsted not for the destruction, but for the salvation, of their foes. They wanted them to hear the Gospel, to embrace it and to enjoy its innumerable benefits. So they prayed for utterance, for freedom of speech and courage to preach the word.

And God answered their prayers. The place where they were assembled was shaken. They were all filled anew with the Spirit, and in the power of the Spirit they preached the word of God with boldness. Moreover, as they went forth, the Holy Spirit confirmed the word with signs following. These supernatural signs attending the ministry of the apostles (healings and other miracles) are probably the exception rather than the rule today. But the Spirit still can, and does, confirm the word with his own inner testimony, if not with outward signs.

In the book Come Wind, Come Weather which I have already mentioned, and in which Leslie Lyall gives an account of the present condition of the Church in China, he tells in one of his chapters the moving story of the Rev. Wang Ming-tao, whom he appropriately calls “Mr. Valiant-for-Truth.” Mr. Wang was the pastor of a church in East Peiping, actively engaged in the ministry of preaching and writing. When the Communists captured Peiping, he continued his ministry without fear. In 1951 he wrote these words in his magazine Spiritual Food Quarterly, as the opposition of the Three-Self Reform Movement was growing: “… the one who faithfully preaches the Word of God cannot but expect to meet opposition.… I know that this will come to pass. I am prepared to meet it. I covet the courage and faithfulness of Martin Luther.…” and he quotes one of his prayers. In 1954 Mr. Wang suffered the ordeal of a vast public accusation meeting. But still he continued without fear. In 1955 he wrote in a pamphlet: “We are ready to pay any price to preserve the Word of God, and we are equally willing to sacrifice anything in order to preach the Word of God.… Dear brothers and sisters, let us be strong through the mighty power of the Lord.… Don’t be cowards! Don’t be weary! Don’t give way! Don’t compromise! The battle is indeed furious and the battlefield certainly full of dangers; but God’s glory will be manifest there.… My dear brothers and sisters, let us follow in the steps of the Lord, and, holding aloft His banner, go forward courageously for His Gospel’s sake.”

That was, I think, in May 1955. On August 7, 1955, Mr. Wang preached his last sermon on “the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners,” with reference to the betrayal of Christ by the Three-Self Reform Movement. That night at 1 A.M. he was roused from sleep by the police. They bound him with ropes and took him to prison—“Mr. Valiant-for-Truth.”

Some Helpful Suggestions

Down the Christian ages persecution has too often caught the people of God unprepared. We need to get ready. Let me make three suggestions.

1. We need a deeper confidence in the sovereignty of God. The whole world is in the grip of a vast convulsion. The old order is passing away with bewildering speed. Nothing is secure or certain in the future. Our greatest need is a quiet, serene, unshakable confidence in the sovereignty of God. So we must meditate on the revelation which God has given of himself in his works and in his word, in nature and Scripture, until we are still and know that he is God, exalted among the nations, exalted in the earth. Then no catastrophe can shake us.

2. We need a deeper experience of the Spirit of God. A persecuted Church cannot stand in its own strength or survive by its own power. It will be engulfed, its life stifled and its witness smothered, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps our desperate need in the Church today of the fullness of the Holy Spirit will only come home to us when we are driven to it by the violent opposition of the world.

3. We need a deeper knowledge of the Word of God. If the day comes when we are forbidden to preach or teach in the name of Jesus, we cannot obey. The world can persecute the Church, but it must not be allowed to silence it. Our backs may be against the wall, but our mouths must remain open in testimony. But what would happen if they took the Scriptures from us, or if the Edict of Diocletian in A.D. 303 was re-enacted and all our Scriptures were ordered to be burned or confiscated? We must prepare soberly and sensibly for this eventuality too. We need to store God’s Word in our hearts, meditating on it, memorizing it. digesting it, until it is so much part of us that it cannot be taken away from us. They may take God’s Book out of our hands, but they cannot take his Word out of our hearts. So, if the storm breaks, we shall continue by grace to trust his Sovereignty and preach his Word.

A Poem

I

The age is a bastard

Born without a father to know,

Denying both its own being

And mine.

II

Melon-shaded light to read

The word from Logos-place

Is not enough. Melon-shaded,

Amber-shaded, dulcet, scarlet,

Jaded is not enough.

Spirit is enough.

III

I peeled the skin from my cheeks in a great spiral

As from a ripe orange. This is self-effacing.

I pulled shiny beads in a great shuffle

As on an abacus. This is self-negating.

I paraded God about on a silver chain

As one would a pet. This is self-piety.

God plucked me out of the grave

When I was corrupt with death and He breathed

A breath into me. And I live.

A. FRANKLIN GOODRICH

The sole objective of Communism is world domination through world revolution. On this foundation Marx based his economic and political philosophy. This objective directed every move of Lenin’s strategy and justified every act of his treachery. Mr. Khrushchev’s statements have never renounced this position nor has his conduct in international relations basically altered the Marx-Lenin procedure.

The official membership of the Communist Party is small, possibly 7 million in Russia and only 2 percent of the population in Red China. Yet in every particular it directly controls the lives of 900 million people.

Communism wants nothing of coexistence with us in the free world. Communism wants us—all that we are, all that we have. It wants you in complete submission to its authority; whatever it agrees to temporarily is but intended to achieve this ultimate purpose. It is not, therefore, the people of Russia or of Red China that we need to fear. Rather, it is Communism’s domination and the use of these people to gain control over our way of life, our resources, and us. Red China alone has fomented six wars and rebellions in other countries. So long as Red China is able to do this, Russia can afford to make deals which immobilize us in helping free nations to remain free and slave nations to revolt. Such was certainly the tragic case with Hungary. This strategy has divided Korea and undermined Tibet. It also may explain Red China’s continued castigation of the United States despite Mr. Khrushchev’s public warning against such outbursts.

However, not all the factors determining the direction of world affairs are on Khrushchev’s side. We have acted, regrettably, as if they were. Unfortunately, too, we have given him the advantage of the offensive.

What kind of world we shall live in depends on us. How accurately we appraise Communism, and what we are willing to do about it both in service and in sacrifice to secure for ourselves and for others the right to self-determination, will define the nature of our world and of our security.

Communism Is Not Moral

Before making agreements with Russia, the free world must ask: “How good is Communism?” To date we seem to be answering this question in terms of its military strength, industrial production, scientific invention, and mass education. These facts are but secondary. The main consideration is ethical. What character, what kind of personality the moral philosophy of Communism produces should determine the trustworthiness of Communism and our evaluation thereof. The Communists’ standard of action reveals their measure of integrity and tells us with what we must deal. Chesterton once observed that when you rent a room to someone, the real question to ask is not where he works or how much money he has, but rather, what is his philosophy of life. This advice could apply to nations also.

The basic question then, whether Mr. Khrushchev gives a watch to a worker, calls for universal disarmament, or speaks of peaceful competition in coexistence, is first and always the philosophy to which he is completely committed. The concept of “this jolly old Nikita” dare not fool us about the real Khrushchev. As Editor Ralph McGill of the Atlanta Constitution said, “Remember when Khrushchev turns on the charm that he also heads a police state.” Read Marx and Lenin alongside the current news releases. World revolution, world domination by any means, has been Khrushchev’s training school. He is committed to the very same tactics. Remember he vowed to bury our system of free enterprise. Remember that in advocating trade agreements, he is not embarrassed to repudiate a $2,600,000,000 indebtedness to the United States. Remember Communism’s endorsement of slave labor that incarcerates even now at least 12 million in Russian labor camps alone. When you think of your future and that of your children, remember Marx’s concept of man as a producing animal. Don’t ignore what Overstreet said and verified, that “during 40 years of existence the USSR has set a world’s record for breaking pacts.” Remember Zinoviev’s words on treaty making which Communist leaders have never repudiated, “We are willing to sign an unfavorable peace because it would only mean that we should use the breathing space obtained to gather strength.” Remember the nonaggression pacts signed with Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and what happened to all three in Russia’s “Little-Red-Ridinghood” act. Remember the 50 out of 52 agreements with Korea which the Reds have flouted and broken.

These facts are but several illustrations of Dr. John Bennett’s conclusion in Christianity and Communism: “The only ethical test they (Communists) recognize is whether or not it serves the Communist cause, which in turn bears out Lenin’s principle that ‘there is room in life only for those who are not troubled by virtue’.” We dare not stake our whole future on Russia’s present “good faith,” nor pay in advance for some eventual delivery of goods. Russia favors a “negotiation in crisis” strategy: point one, create a crisis; point two, make demands; point three, offer to negotiate. The result? A compromise in Russia’s favor. By agreement we surrender what is ours; by agreement they get what was never theirs. With such strategy nothing ever gets properly nor finally settled. Reopened hostilities are a constant threat under such “blackmail” conditions. Take the Berlin situation, for example. Establishing peace is not Communism’s chief concern. Rather, Communists want to maneuver themselves into a position where, if necessary, they can wage a successful war to gain control of Berlin. Conferences, therefore, either go on endlessly or end in stalemate.

Rejection Of The Idea Of God

Communism’s rejection of all forms of historical religion is thoroughgoing and final. It is atheistic in theory. More than this, Communism is committed to the destruction of all historical religion as rapidly as circumstances permit because religion, as we define it, is incompatible with Communism and a hindrance to its goals. Like Marx, all subsequent Communistic leaders have evaluated and treated the individual as a producing animal. That man exists merely to work for the State (the Communist doctrine) contrasts sharply with the Christian view, where man, as God’s child, stands in personal relationship to his Creator and yields to him his ultimate allegiance. Obviously if Communism is to survive, it must declare war on historic religion. Lest we think that Communism has softened its attitude toward religion, we need only to read what Dr. I. Krivilov, Communism’s prominent philosopher, said about Canterbury’s Red dean, Dr. Hewlett Johnson’s attempt to reconcile Communism and Christianity. Writing in Kommunist, the Party magazine, Dr. Krivilov said, “When such prominent figures as Hewlett Johnson state that dialectical materialism can coexist with Christianity, notwithstanding our high esteem for this outstanding man, we must show him the groundlessness of his thesis.”

Militant Against Christian Principles

Atheism in Communism is militantly committed to eradicating Christianity. As an instrument of destruction it is no less powerful than Russia’s nuclear weapons. Atheism destroys the moral and ethical principles of Christianity as a basis for man’s action, removes his sense of guilt when Christian principles are violated, and honors the man who repudiates them. Atheistic Communism takes complete charge of educating a man’s children. It makes him responsible only to the State which in Russia’s situation is the Party. It finally and summarily destroys his manhood.

While we may deplore atheism, in America we at least proceed on the principle of freedom in religion and the right to think. In Russia such right to think has no place whatever. To avoid persecution and to receive rewards, the individual must think and act only according to the Party line. At this point we should warn Americans that many evidences of such militant atheism are appearing in the United States. Apparently it is finding ways to use the law and its current interpretation to deny Christians full exercise and development of their basic rights and of their Christian philosophy of life. When some law permits a small minority to deny a large community the right to have a house of worship, or permits one school child averse to hearing Scripture or prayer, which are the common possession of both Christian and Jew, to cancel that right for all other children, then we see militant and destructive atheism at work.

Communism uses an immoral and unethical basis for its negotiations, while quite aware that the Western world operates on the morality and ethics of historic religion, believes that agreements must be kept, and considers human rights as paramount. For Communism, the end justifies the means. Winning is the main thing; whatever advances the cause is right, be it deception, murder, violation, or repudiation of agreements.

Why Christianity and Judaism cannot be tolerated in a political system which operates on this principle must be quite apparent. Obvious, too, in her negotiations is Russia’s abuse of the fact that free nations recognize the Christian ethic as foundational to a better world.

Russia has been very clever in deceiving the outside world about the real conditions inside her boundaries. For one thing, the tourist is shown only what Russia wants him to see. And if he sees a church it will be a full one. We get a truer picture of what Russia is doing to the Church when we realize that for the 3 million Jews—conditions are such that they can no longer worship on Saturday—less than 200 synagogues with only 60 rabbis are permitted; that in Moscow, a city of 5.4 million, there are two Baptist churches, 33 Greek Orthodox churches, two synogogues, and one Moslem temple (U.S. News & World Report, Oct. 26, 1959). By way of comparison this equals 14 churches for all Philadelphia, a city of 2,500,000 inhabitants. The same pattern of attrition is operating in Red China. All churches, furthermore, function under civil, not ecclesiastical, authority.

Justice W. O. Douglas of the United States Supreme Court has recorded his findings in a hook titled Russian Journey. Mr. Douglas found no religious groups on the university campuses. The Communist Party, he was told, does all the educational work and supplies enough activities to keep the student busy without religion. Youth is taught that religion is evil and that atheism is the true faith. Religion, it was indicated, is for old people, for those too old to shake off their capitalistic philosophy. Soviets, according to Mr. Douglas, have confiscated all church property and demand 13 per cent of all church revenues. Church buildings are often desecrated by their use as cinemas, museums, and warehouses. What’s more, since in Russia the church has no legal standing, it cannot defend its property and other rights. “The State has destroyed the pulpit,” says Mr. Douglas. No church member can qualify for membership in the Communist Party, and without party membership it is impossible to secure public office or even any significant advance or promotion. The clergy dare not speak for social justice, and are so muzzled they can give only prescribed and stock answers to queries about religious freedom. To complain brings accusation of subversion or counter-revolutionary activities. To discredit Christianity, the propaganda ministry of atheistic Communism has taken pictures of Christ and hung them in Communist museums with the inscription, “A Jewish Fortune-teller.” Another portrays Christ among four horseman trampling down the people. Still another shows St. Christopher with the head of a horse. In one museum Mr. Douglas also saw a picture of drunken priests and nuns carousing together. The campaign against religion is an incessant one, he concludes, and aimed at Moslems as well as at Jews and Christians.

Because destruction of religion is a weapon used to destroy people’s confidence in the Western Powers, should not our free nations insist on real religious, as well as political, freedom as a quid pro quo for concessions which Communism seeks? In Tibet, the U.N. Commission discovered 65,000 Tibetans butchered, a military attempt to destroy national and racial groups, and an organized, ruthless campaign to stamp out Buddhism as a religion and to sack Buddhist shrines and buildings of their treasures. The hope of establishing common basis of morality and ethics on which to form trustworthy agreements is a religious problem. The “religion” of Russia still justifies slave labor for millions of people, and, according to a House of Representatives Committee report, in the last decade Red China has perpetrated 30 millions of political murders.

Significance Of Khrushchev

No movement or government is better than its leaders. When you ask, “How good is Communism?” you must therefore seek the answer in the character and conduct of its present officials. No competent observer will deny that from the beginning this leadership has been intelligent, shrewd and clever. These qualities, devoid of moral safeguards, explain Communism’s domination.

Khrushchev’s visit to the United States was intended to leave the impression that he is a different kind of Communist leader. While he became known not as jolly old Nikita” but as shrewd and clever “jolly old Nikita,” it appeared he would not push as hard and as far as his predecessors for world domination.

Is there any real evidence to support this hope? Many say Khrushchev is different from his predecessors. He is said to be easier to deal with and morally better, too. Khrushchev has murdered fewer political opponents than did Stalin, and is said to prefer the less devastating pattern of leadership as seen in Lenin. What are the real facts?

Coming to power through the promise of an election which he never permitted (Overstreet), Lenin achieved dictatorship by what is known in Communist procedure as the “big lie technique.” He then proceeded to increase that power by a worldwide strategy of conspiracy, evasion, and subterfuge. It was Lenin who propounded the principle that tactical collaboration with the enemy should be so designed as to disorganize the free world and to stregthen the forces of revolution. In his strategy, negotiation was never intended to settle anything but was to be used to weaken the enemy and to gain unfair advantage. Peace for Lenin and for Khrushchev as well is “a non-shooting phase of the permanent revolution.”

While in the United States, Khrushchev was actually subjecting us to a brain-washing operation of indoctrination and softening up. According to the surveys, he succeeded more or less with 13 per cent of our people. Whenever convictions and disciplines are weakened, and confusion and dissension set in, Communism is at work. Before we accept Khrushchev, therefore, we should insist on knowing exactly what he means by what he says. He may well be counting on the fact that by and large American businessmen, educators, clergymen and citizens will not insist upon such a translation.

When we decide how to evaluate Khrushchev’s proposal for disarmament, we should certainly be governed by all the immoral factors which constitute the true nature of Communism. While it was Khrushchev who enunciated the doctrine, it was really of Lenin’s making. The basis for good faith on which it was offered is no different from that by which Russia justified the violation of 50 agreements in respect to Korea. Khrushchev’s proposal sounds strangely similar to the Stockholm peace offer which would outlaw all atomic weapons as instruments of aggression; submit atomic weapons to strict international control; and brand as a war criminal any government that initiates use of such weapons against another. By omission, innuendo, and emphasis, this policy formulating leadership cast Western Powers in the role of would-be aggressors, but suggested no criticism whatever of Soviet policy. It said nothing about Stalin’s breaking of treaties and his conversion of East European countries into Soviet satellites. It held out against inspections and made numerous “promises” until the Western Powers complied with Soviet stipulations.

Words That Lie

It is extremely important that Americans know how Communists interpret and use certain key words. Communists, for whom Mr. Khrushchev is the spokesman, assume we will not be aware of or understand their double talk. We are indebted to Think magazine and to Mr. Edward Hunter, an authority on Red China, for the true definitions of these key words which Communists use in the Cold War to disarm us. We must always assume, indicates Mr. Hunter, that the Communist gives his words a meaning which best serves the purposes of psychological warfare. Thus “good in Communism means what is good for Communism, and “bad,” what is bad for Communism. “Truth” is whatever backs up the Communist line; whatever contradicts it is a lie, regardless of the facts. “Law” to the Reds is any regulation or order of the police or Party which governs only the accused; the authorities may uphold or disregard it according to the Party’s advantage. It is possible to be accused of a crime that violates a nonexistent law. And the “crime” could supposedly have happened generations ago. Linder terms of this “historic crime,” if the Reds took control of the United States, for example, every citizen could be punished for not helping in this endeavor. Two of the biggest lies ever perpetrated by any government, says Mr. Hunter, are those of the Moscow-Peiping axis: 1. that the United States engaged in germ warfare in Korea, and 2. that North American nuns attached to orphanages in China systematically murdered their infant charges.

“Peace” means simply the cessation of all opposition to Communism. “Struggle” is the Communists’ word for the war they wage until a Communist peace is achieved. “Unity” means submission to the Communist discipline. “War” means any resistance or attack on Communism. “Aggression” means any armed conflict against the Reds, even one of defense. “People” refers not to human beings as such, but only to followers of Communism. To say the people do not like something, as in Pasternak’s case, means the Party does not like it. When Communists mean “people” in our sense, they use the word “masses.”

By “coexistence” we mean live and let live. The Reds, however, mean thereby not interfering with Communist activity and expansion outside the Communist bloc. A “treaty” is binding only so long as it is of advantage to the Communist bloc. The Korean War truce is an example of this interpretation. To be pro-Communist is to be “liberal.” To be “tolerant” means to accept Red teachings; in other words, tolerance, as we know it is quite illegal for Communists. With such fraudulent language as a barrier, it is apparent there can be no real meeting of minds between us and the Communists.

Mr. Hunter exposes also the Communist trade double talk, something which every American businessman needs to understand. Trade to us is something non-political. For Communists, however, trade is that exchange which supports Soviet Russian economy and facilitates political control. In such an exchange Communism reaps most, if not all, the benefits. Thus its “economic warfare” becomes a major channel in subverting the free world. Merchants are rivals classified from a political point of view. In Burma, for instance, Peiping sold Japanese articles cheaper than they could be bought in Japan. The Communists had obtained them by barter as part of the Red China drive to prevent Japan’s development of natural markets in South Asia. In Thailand, Red China sold goods for less than the customs duties. A contract in Communist language binds only the non-Communist side. Our businessmen, therefore, need to recognize that with the Communists no security in contractual relations is possible.

On the basis of this information, are we to isolate ourselves from all relationship with a part of the world whose record has destroyed our faith in its integrity? Not at all! Let us continue to negotiate, if this delays a shooting war. Time is usually on the side of the democracies, so long as the Soviets postpone any action. But we must conduct our conferences realistically, with all the facts clearly in mind. Even at great personal sacrifice, we must meet the cost of maintaining material and military strength, but above all, of our spiritual principles and resources. We must use every opportunity to state our position and to win supporters for our cause. At all times, and especially now, “Eternal vigilance is still the price of our liberty and freedom.”

More people enjoy political freedom today than ever before. In Africa alone 26 free nations have emerged in recent years. Yet, paradoxically, never have so many felt caught in the grip of powers they cannot control. The criminal is regarded as the victim of his environment, the business man of unethical demands of “the corporation,” the laborer of his union, and everyman the victim of the powers of the subconscious mind. The alcoholic and the homosexual are the unfree persons caught in the web of uncontrollable physical or psychological forces; and the clergyman compromising his prophetic voice is regarded as the benign victim of the not-to-be-denied demands of eccleciasticism. Men sing “what will be will be.” Lovers riding a stream of passion claim: This is bigger than both of us. And if one escapes these, he is in any event caught in the meshes of a historical necessity which leaves him no choice but to see his free, capitalistic Western way of life plowed under by communism. Never were so many people politically free, yet hopelessly tossed as a leaf by inexorable winds of economic, psychological, historical, biological, and social forces.

False sovereigns have moved in to make puppets of those who have surrendered faith in a sovereign God. Against these modern impersonal sovereignties, Christians proclaim a God who is both Father and sovereign. On this they are in common agreement, though they differ in their definitions of sovereignty. Some define it as causality, making God the cause of everything, of war and peace, of sin and goodness. This view is the peculiar temptation of the philosopher, but it is alien to authentic Christian experience since it cannot be translated into prayer and worship. In moments of authentic Christian experience not even the speculative theologian of prayer or worship can entertain the idea that God is the cause of sin.

Others have isolated God’s sovereignty from his moral qualities and define it as unqualified, absolute power, a power that can do anything. This view is so indistinguishable from the arbitrary power of the Moslem’s Allah, that no thinking Christian can long subscribe to it. It ought to be remembered that the Reformers defined sovereignty not in isolation from, but in relation to, divine grace. They were not interested merely in abstract and speculative sovereignty, but in the sovereignty of grace.

In this the Reformers were in the tradition of the Apostles’ Creed where the almighty power and the fatherhood of God are professed in the same breath. Indeed, God is first professed as “Father,” and afterwards as “Almighty,” by which sequence the early Church indicated that it is precisely as Father that God is sovereign. The Creed, accordingly, asserts that as the almighty, he is the Father, that is, the maker of heaven and earth.

By creating the world God reveals the nature of his sovereignty through fatherhood. Sovereignty is might plus right. Through his creation of the world, God expresses both his right and might to share his existence and beatitude with man. As “Father, Almighty,” he expresses his freedom to share his life and glory with another, and thus his freedom not to do so, if he so wills. Thus the grace of God in creation—as also in his recreation of the sinner—Christians speak of as the “free” grace of God. This grace cannot be purchased. It is also free in the sense that man cannot demand or claim it as his right. God remains ever free to grant, or to withhold, as it pleases him.

This understanding of God’s fatherly right and might to share himself, his life and joy with man expresses the heart of the Gospel, and comports with authentic Christian experience. Such sovereignty is capable of translation into Christian prayer and worship. It prompts the worship of Him who is able and willing to call us into the joy of his presence, into the beauty and fellowship of his divine life. Such sovereignty is the hope of the saint, who though burdened by sin, yet dares to make the courageous request that God forgive his sins. He dares to be so bold since he knows that God has the might and the right to do so. It is also the hope of the lost, since his salvation is ever possible if God is ever the sovereign Father who has the right and the might to receive him back into his presence. Such sovereignty can be translated into the prayer and worship of the saint, and into the cry of the lost who call upon the name of the Lord to be saved.

The God who as sovereign Father has the might and the right to give himself even to sinful man is man’s only hope against the false sovereignties which tyrannize modern man. ’Tis better to be under a sovereign Father who is free for man, than under the impersonal and irrational modern sovereignties to whom appeal cannot be made. Since they are not themselves free, they are not free to help others.

Hans Urs Von Balthasar, along with men like Jean Danielou, Henri de Lubac and others, is one of the more prominent representatives of the “new theology” wing of the Roman Catholic Church. He is famous for a great number of publications, not the least of which is his important work on Karl Barth, to say nothing of a more recent book about Martin Buber, George Bermanos and Karl Barth. Von Balthasar leaves no doubt about his love and respect for the Roman Catholic Church. But there is also no doubt that his sober and even critical views of Roman tradition stem from his profound study of the Bible and his contact with Reformed theology and his fellow Baselian Dr. Barth.

Like other figures in the “new theology” movement, he feels that the development of Roman theology, especially since Trent, has been crippled by an attitude of reaction. This reactionary stance has, in Von Balthasar’s thinking kept Roman theology from seeing the fullness of the Catholic faith. He seeks, in his own way, to develop a consistent Christocentric theological viewpoint. It is this that has kept the door open for a rich personal and theological dialogue between Von Balthasar and Barth.

Barth, as everyone knows, has kept up a steady criticism of the Roman church, particularly for its serious sympathy with the natural man, natural theology, natural law, etc. But Von Balthasar wants to show that at heart Rome is not concerned with natural man and natural law as things in themselves, but from a basically Christological concern. We may say that when one genuinely seeks to do this, as in the case of Von Balthasar, he is bound to view any static theological tradition in a critical light and is equally bound to bring everything into a clearer evangelical perspective.

Recently Von Balthasar published the first volume of a triology on Beauty, beauty in the theological sense. This volume is on Glory. He seeks to show that the Beauty of God is diminished by theology whenever theology becomes a neat package of true propositions and practical statements. The quality of amazement is choked out of theology when theology becomes a system in which one has the truth in his complete control. In this respect, too, Von Balthasar manifests his sympathy with Barth. For Barth likewise has had a great deal to say about theologies which have lost the sense of the beauty of God, a loss which too long has empoverished both the church and its theology.

Theological reflection has indeed to do with “the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Rom. 11:33), with the riches of Christ’s wisdom which, “if they could be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25). I have thought about an expression in Psalm 50 as I read Von Balthasar’s book, the phrase which goes, “Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty, God hath shined.”

Von Balthasar’s book is unapologetically Roman Catholic. But it is a great work of a brilliant theologian warning us against superficiality, against rationalistic theology, against every temptation to reduce the mystery of God to a human vision.

Back in 1917 Rudolph Otto wrote his famous book, The Idea of the Holy, in which he too called attention to the element of mystery in man’s apprehension of God. Now, about 40 years later, Von Balthasar’s work appears, also seeking, without Otto’s mysticism, to lay full emphasis on the “mystery of godliness,” God manifest in the flesh, and the truth that in Christ “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). In spite of much decisive difference between it and Reformed theology, we have in this book a witness to the glory of God that is of great significance not only for theology but for preachers of the Gospel as well.

Von Balthasar sets before us the question whether we are, in our preaching, facing men with the “Glory of God” and the great deeds of God, with the love of Christ “which passeth knowledge,” the love of him who “can do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Eph. 3:19, 20). Against all the horrible superficiality of rationalism, a thing which can invade Christian theology, it is wonderful to be reminded once again of the glory of the Gospel. Before the judgment of human thought, the Gospel remains foolishness. Before the judgment of pure aesthetics, such as that of the Greeks, the Cross is ugly. But “the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men” (1 Cor. 1:25). The theology of our century depends on whether we have understood anything of this or whether we still depend for the glory of the truth of God upon our own rational predications.

We must watch out that we do not attempt to lock up the truth in our little systems. We must open the windows and keep them open so that we are always reminded that our talking and thinking must have something of Job in them. Recall Job saying of God that “he hangeth the world upon nothing” and adding, “Lo, these are parts of his ways, but how little a portion is heard of him but the thunder of his power who can understand?” (Job 26:14).

Job was speaking of the power of God, but the same thought is relevant for what Paul calls the “weakness” of God. Church and theology must always remember that they are not talking about important truths and practical wisdom of men. They are talking about the mysteries of Godliness. The men of both the chancel and the academy must capture something of the demeanor of the disciples of our Lord on their way to the city. “And they were in the way going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus went before them and they were amazed” (Mark 10:32).

God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom. 5:8).

I shall have nothing new to tell you. The message will be as old as the everlasting hills, and so simple that a child can understand. God’s commendation of himself and his love is not in words, but in deeds. Now for that mighty act whereby God commendeth his love. The truth here is twofold.

I. The First Commendation. “Christ died for us.” Note here both the Person and the deed. When men first sinned the angels felt helpless. No one of them could have dreamed that God himself would assume flesh and die. If you would have right ideas of God in splendor, think how he best commended his love for us, in that he gave his Son.

When Christ became man for a while he stripped himself of the glories of the Godhead. He gave us a perfect example by his spotless life. But the commendation of love lies here: He died for us. All that death could mean Christ endured. For as many of you as have not yet believed I pray that you may look to him for the expiation of all your guilt, as the key that opens heaven to all believers.

II. The Second Commendation. He died for us while we were yet sinners. Consider how many of us have been continual sinners, not once, nor twice, but ten thousand times, in our outward acts, the thoughts of our hearts, and the words from our mouths. Again, he has died for us though our sins were aggravated. When you sin against the convictions of your conscience, the warnings of your friends, the admonitions of your minister, you sin more grossly than others do. The Hottentot sinneth not as the Briton doth. But do not despair. Christ died for you.

Reflect again. We were sinners against the very Person who died for us. There is an old tradition that the man who pierced Christ’s side was converted. My master said, “Begin at Jerusalem,” because there lived those who had crucified him, and he wanted them saved.

There is this other commendation of love. Unasked, he died for us. God’s amazing work surpasses thought. Love itself died for hatred. Holiness did crucify itself to save sinful men. Unasked for and unsought, like a fountain in the desert, sparkling spontaneously with its healing waters, Christ came to die for men who would not seek his grace.

Sinner, I commend Christ to thee for this reason: thou needest him. A day is coming when thou wilt feel thy need of him. Dost thou believe there is a hell, and that thou are going thither? Let me tell you how to be saved. “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” To believe is to give up trusting in self and to trust in Christ as thy Saviour. “What,” you say, “no good works?” Works will follow after, but first come to Christ, not with good works, but with thy sins.

Remember the striking words of Martin Luther: “Satan once came to me, and said, ‘Thou art lost, for thou art a sinner.’ Then said I, ‘I thank thee for telling me I am a sinner. If Martin Luther is a sinner, Christ died for me’.” Canst thou lay hold on that, by the authority of God? Even if thou be the chief of sinners, thou shalt be saved, if thou believest.

Sermons of the Rev. Charles H. Spurgeon, second series, Sheldon and Co., New York, 1865. The Preface is dated January, 1857. Sermon, “Love’s Commendation” (pp. 410–425).

Liberty, Law And License

CHRIST AND FREEDOM—We owe the entire conception of freedom as a human birthright to the coming of Christ. Until that time “absolutism held unbounded sway,” to use the phrase employed by Lord Action in his study of Freedom in Antiquity. Slavery was the universal condition of the great majority of mankind and was nowhere regarded as an improper social order. Even the Greek civilization, at its finest flowering, was based on slavery. It was the same with the Hebrews, to whom we also owe so much. A formal recognition of slavery introduces the long calendar of minute ordinances listed in Exodus 21, 22, and 23.…

The great problem of politics is how to reconcile the theoretically desirable condition of freedom with the fundamentally essential condition of order. Establishment of Christianity provided the formula whereby this difficult adjustment could be made. The devout Christian ipso facto led a law-abiding life. So laws forbidding offenses which we would not in any case commit were, in his case, superfluous. As the number of Christians multiplied, law enforcement, wherever they concentrated, thus became easier. The moral argument for slavery, resting on the assumption that the common man is untrustworthy, lost its validity, the more so because the particular appeal of Christianity was to the oppressed.…

This thesis that liberty is a human birthright … made headway slowly, and only among people with centuries of organized Christian experience behind them. For the same reason the concept of liberty will weaken, and eventually disappear, wherever and whenever men place their faith in political rulers rather than in God.

Americans are singularly fortunate in having the New Testament as the wellspring of their political thought. On the virgin soil of what is now the United States it was not utopian to plan a governmental system actively conducive to Christian practise.”—FELIX MORLEY, “Freedom and the Laity,” (1961), published by the General Division of Laymen’s Work, National Council of the Episcopal Church.

CONFUSION ON RIGHTS—President Kennedy’s message on protecting consumers drives the last nail in the coffin of the quaint notion, once expressed by Mr. Kennedy, that the citizen should ask, not what his country can do for him, but what he can do for the country.

A quick review does not reveal that the President has as yet proposed that the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Medical Association should be brought under the sheltering wing of the Federal Government. But he has spread Uncle Sam’s umbrella far enough to cover just about every other group in the country—the farmers, the aged, the workers, the students, the urbanites, and now that most comprehensive of all groups, the consumers.

With respect to the latter, Mr. Kennedy wants Congress to get on the ball and do something to protect four consumer rights. These, as he defines them, are the right to safety, the right to be informed, the right to choose and the right to be heard.

We would like to suggest that there should be a fifth right. This right would be for the benefit of those Americans, if any, who would like to know what they can do for the country, as well as for those who merely do not want the Federal Government to take care of everything for them. What we have in mind, simply stated, is the right to be let alone.—Editorial in The Evening Star, Washington, D. C.

SECULAR MATERIALISM—There is the militant atheistic Communist; there is militant Islam; there is a revival of non-Christian religions on a major scale; there is above all—and this is far more dangerous than openly hostile Communism—the secular materialism that has invaded every part of Western life, the subtle, insidious influences that lead to business without principle.—DENIS DUNCAN, Editor of the British Weekly, addressing Scottish Christian Youth Assembly.

FINANCIAL INTEGRITY—Intellectual dishonesty … has characterized the mental attitude in this country for some time toward the national debt. Even were the various administrations able to live up to their perennial pledges of balanced budgets, there would be no hope of getting out of the red.… With an evermounting national debt, we in this country may ultimately find ourselves beyond redemption. Meanwhile, the American taxpayer digs deeper for the money to pay the cost of a government which is directly responsible for the declining value of the dollar.—Editorial, “The Bitter Heritage We Leave our Children,” Florida Times-Union, Jacksonville.

TAX BURDEN—The average American workman currently is paying out some 31 per cent of his income in the form of taxes. About 10 per cent is withheld for income tax. Other taxes, direct and indirect, are estimated at 15 per cent. Social Security takes 6 per cent (while the employer pays half of this item, it is a part of payroll costs and might be available for workers if not taken by taxes). And according to The New York Times of January 19, the fastest growing item in our national budget is the interest which the Federal government must pay on the national debt. This interest will cost American taxpayers over $9 ½ billion in the 1961 fiscal year which begins July 1, 1960. To carry this load and other national government expenditures, the Tax Foundation recently pointed out that the average worker in an 8-hour day spends 2 hours and 16 minutes working for the Federal government.”—Dateline (March, 1960), Clergy-Industrv Relations Department, National Association of Manufacturers.

STILL MUNCHING CANDY—At the Village Church in Kalinovka, Russia, attendance at Sunday school picked up after the priest started handing out candy to the peasant children. One of the most faithful was a pug-nosed, pugnacious lad who recited his scriptures with proper piety, pocketed his reward, then fled into the fields to munch on it. The priest took a liking to the boy, persuaded him to attend church school. This was preferable to doing household chores from which his devout parents excused him. By offering other inducements, the priest managed to teach the boy the four gospels. In fact, he won a special prize for learning all four by heart and reciting them non-stop in church. Now, 60 years later, he still likes to recite scriptures but in a context that would horrify the old priest. For the prize pupil, who memorized so much of the Bible, is Nikita Khrushchev, the Communist czar.—Parade, Feb. 11, 1962.

In England and later in New York City Jowett became the most popular evangelical preacher. By study of master sermons, and by ceaseless toil he mastered “the fine art of making a little go a long way.” A few critics called his preaching thin, but common people heard him gladly. So did countless divines. As many as 300 Episcopal clergy attended his Vesper Services at Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church. They learned to value skill in the choice of words, and repetition of things memorable. “He being dead, yet speaketh.”

“Rejoicing in hope” (Rom. 12:12).

This is a characteristic expression of the optimism of the Apostle Paul. He is a child of light, wearing an armor of light, walking in the light, as Christ is in the light. This apostolic optimism is not a thin, fleeting sentiment begotten of a cloudless summer day; not born of shallow thinking. What then is the secret of this energetic optimism?

I. The Reality of Christ’s Redemptive Work. In all the spacious reaches of the Apostle’s life the redemptive work of his Master is present as an atmosphere in which all his thoughts and purposes and labors find their sustaining and enriching breath. In this Epistle to the Romans the early stages are devoted to a massive and stately presentation of the doctrine of redemption. When the majestic argument is concluded, the doctrine appears as the determining factor in the solution of practical problems. No one can be five minutes in the companionship of the Apostle Paul without discovering how wealthy is his sense of God’s redeeming ministry.

II. The Reality of the Believer’s Present Resources. “By Christ redeemed!” Yes, but that is only the Alpha and not the Omega of the work of grace. “In Christ restored!” With these dynamics of restoration Paul’s epistles are wondrously abounding. “Christ liveth in me!” He works within me “to will and to do of his good pleasure.” This is the primary faith of the hopeful life. The Holy Spirit worketh! So sensitive is the Apostle to the wealthy resources of God that amid all the world’s evil he remains a sunny optimist, “rejoicing in hope.”

III. The Reality of Future Glory. Paul gave himself time to think of heaven. He looked for “the blessed hope and appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” This contemplation is largely absent from modern religious life. We have built on the erroneous assumption that the contemplation of future glory unfits us for the service of men. Richard Baxter’s labors were not impoverished by his contemplation of “the saints’ everlasting rest.” Neither are we impoverished by contemplations such as these. They take no strength out of the hand; they put much buoyancy into the heart. Contemplation of coming glory is one of the secrets of the apostle’s optimism, enabling him to labor and endure in the spirit of rejoicing hope.

Apostolic Optimism and Other Sermons, by John Henry Jowett, London, Hodder and Stoughton, 1904. Sermon, “Apostolic Optimism” (pp. 1–18).

SERMONS ABRIDGED BY DR. ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD

JOHN A. BROADUS, “Let Us Have Peace with God.”

JOHN HENRY JOWETT,“Apostolic Optimism.”

CHARLES H. SPURGEON,“Love’s Commendation.”

Therefore being justified by faith let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1, from the Greek).

More than four centuries ago a young professor went from Germany to Rome. He was in trouble because of his sins. He could find no peace. While climbing up a stairway on his knees, pausing to pray at every step, he seemed to hear a voice: “The just shall live by faith.” With such an experience Martin Luther lived to set the world on fire with the thought of justification by faith.

I. The Meaning of Justification. The Greek word means, not to make just, but to regard as just, to treat as just. How would the Lord treat you if you were a righteous man, if all your days you had faithfully performed all your duty? He would bless you as long as you lived here and then delight to take you home. This is how the Gospel proposes to treat men who are not (yet) just, and do not deserve such treatment—if only they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

II. The Need of Faith in Christ. God not only proposes to deal with us now as if we were just, but in the end to make us just. This Gospel proposes to be the means by which to make men holy. It delivers us not only from the consequences of sin, but also from its power. But the Gospel can have no such effect unless we believe in Christ. What is faith? You know what faith is. Everyone knows: Let us cherish all that tends to strengthen faith in the Gospel. Let us read the Word of God, praying that we may be able to believe. Let us ask from day to day, “Lord, increase our faith.”

III. The Call for Peace with God, notwithstanding our unworthiness. We cannot have peace with him as long as we think we deserve it. Many cling to the thought that they must become worthy, and then be reconciled to God. They need to see that coming to God and being reconciled, they will be made good and become worthy, through Christ.

Peace with God, though we are still sinful and unholy. We ought to be dissatisfied with ourselves, but satisfied with our Saviour, and through him be at peace with God. Our sanctification is still sadly imperfect, but if we believe in Christ, our justification is perfect.

Peace with God, though we have perpetual conflict with sin. What a singular idea! In this conflict the Lord is on our side, and we are on the Lord’s side. And so, though we must wage battle against every form of sin, let us have peace with God.

Peace with God, though he lets us suffer a thousand forms of distress and trial. None of these things can separate us from God’s love. When we are in trouble let us take hold of this great thought. God’s peace can conquer trouble, and as in a fortress guard us against all its assaults (Phil. 4:6–7). [In the same volume, Sermons and Addresses, the next one deals with “How the Gospel Makes Men Holy” (Rom. 7:24, 25).]

Idem. Sermon, “Let Us Have Peace with God” (pp. 85–96).

Dedicated to assisting the clergy in the preparation of sermons, the feature titled The Minister’s Workshop will appear in the first issue of each month. The section’s introductory essay will be contributed alternately by Dr. Andrew W. Blackwood and by Dr. Paul S. Rees. In addition, the feature will include Dr. Blackwood’s abridgements of expository-topical sermons, outlines of significant messages by great preachers of the past, or of messages by expository preachers of our own time.—ED.

An address (here abridged) before the International YMCA.

The main support of all individual Christian life, of all high Christian work, must be the truth of God. Truth is the lifeblood of piety. Truth is always more precious and more potent when we draw it ourselves out of the Bible. The Christian work we have today in the world will be wise and strong and mighty just in proportion, other things being equal, as it is directed and controlled and inspired out of the Word of God.

The Bible is one Book, but the Bible is many books. Each of them must be read as a whole life if we would understand it well. You cannot understand any book if you read it by fragments. Take an epistle of Paul as you would take any other letter. Sit down and read an epistle from beginning to end, and see what it is about. Then take it afterwards in parts, and see what each part says about the subject.

[Here Broadus tells how in college he had heard a professor advise reading the Bible by books. Before Broadus became a professor at 32, he delivered a series of evening sermons on the Epistles of Paul, treating each in a sermon and as a whole. Thus he crowded the aisles, and led in building a new church.]

Take the Epistle to the Romans. Some people think the epistle tremendously hard to understand. I remember a time when I found it hard to believe; certain portions were the most difficult writing I knew. It seems to me now [age 54] that there never would have been any great difficulty in seeing what the Apostle meant to say if I had only let him alone, and let him say what he wanted to say. But I had my own notions as to what ought to be said, and not said, on the subject. The plainer he was in saying what he wanted, and I did not, the harder I found it to make him say something else.

As you read the epistle rapidly you find that it breaks into two parts. Eleven chapters contain doctrinal arguments and instruction. Then five chapters treat practical matters slightly connected with the doctrinal. The first eleven treat justification by faith. The first three give the whole substance of this doctrine. They show that the Gospel reveals the righteousness of God, which is by grace. Then they show that men need justification by faith, as they can not find justification in any other way. Their works will condemn them. If they find justification at all, it must be by faith.

This takes up the first two chapters, with part of the third. The remainder of the third tells about the provision God has made for justification by faith. His provision takes out of repentant souls all pride and humbles them into receiving the great salvation that God gives. The next two chapters give further illustrations of justification by faith. One whole chapter shows that Abraham was justified by faith. This whole matter of cur being justified through the effect of Christ’s salvation is paralleled by the effect of Adam’s sin on his posterity. This takes a large part of chapter five. These are merely illustrations of our being justified through faith in the Redeemer.

Chapters six, seven, and eight treat justification by faith from another point: in its bearing on sanctification, or the work of making men holy. Then the next three chapters are on the privileges of the Jews and the Gentiles. So the epistle divides into different sections about the same topic. After you have read it through a number of times, have tried to find out the line of thought, and have been willing to let the Apostle mean what he wants to mean, you will find that the subjects considered are not so very difficult. Of course, there are questions we can ask about them, questions that nobody can answer, but we must content ourselves with what is taught us.

So let us read the Bible by books, first taking each book as a whole, then seeing how it is divided up, and so coming down to details. In that way we shall learn for ourselves how to interpret the various parts of Scripture with reference to their connection. Everybody will agree that you ought to look at the connection of a Scripture passage. One day my father said that he did not like to find fault with ministers, but he wished some of them would pay more attention to the connection of a text, as the preacher of the morning had not done. I suppose that preachers have since grown wiser, and now do always pay attention to the connection.

Each of the sacred books has its special aim and practical value, and we ought to get at the practical impression that each of them is designed to make. It is easier to eulogize the Bible than to love it. I have spoken with the hope that by God’s blessing I may awaken an increased desire to read the Bible attentively, by books. I pray that we may all turn away with an earnest desire in our souls, before Him who knows the heart, that in the remainder of our lives we shall strive to know his Word more, to read it more wisely, and to live more fully according to its blessed teachings.

Sermons and Addresses, by John A. Broadus (ed. by Archibald T. Robertson), George H. Doran Co., New York, 1896, “On Reading the Bible by Books” (pp. 167–197). Address, International Convention of YMCA, Cleveland, Ohio, May 25, 1881.

Every pastor wishes the layman to read his Bible, both in private and at the family altar. From the pulpit why not show him how? There can be no bad way of reading the Bible, but from the pulpit show the best way. The Bible was written by books. Within each book the paragraph, or poetic strophe, serves as the literary unit. In college a layman learns to enjoy Shakespeare by living with one play, and within the play, one act, and one scene. Such a method works even better with the Bible.

Many a layman has never read a Bible book as a whole, and by paragraphs. In private and family devotions he uses a devotional manual, with a Bible verse a day, and little continuity. In church the sermons may follow a similar pattern. How long must a man attend church before he learns to enjoy such a difficult book as Romans? Today the Lord calls on every pastor to serve as a pulpit guide.

In a sermon about any book, tell the layman what to seek for. In successive messages, morning or evening, deal with chosen parts (too many for a special series). Every Lord’s Day the bulletin will give next Sunday’s topic (not the text), with a chapter or two for home reading. The list below runs too long, but it is easier to omit some parts than to add others on the same high level.

Broadus used as an example the Epistle to the Romans. He had found it difficult, but “there never would have been any great difficulty in seeing what the Apostle meant to say if I had only been willing to let him alone and let him say what he wanted to say.” Today any such pulpit explainer would delight lay hearers, and increase their number.

Before a minister starts preaching this way he should study Romans in the spirit of prayer. The stress ought to fall on reading the book as a whole, and then by paragraphs. Starting with the Greek, a man ought to use various versions. On points of difficulty he should consult a standard exegetical commentary such as that of Sanday and Headlam; also, a devotional one, as by Griffith Thomas. If the minister still does not understand a part, or see its relevance now, he may recall an old proverb: “If you can’t lift a stone, leave it alone.”

Gradually a number of golden texts will call for sermons. As R. W. Dale once learned about preaching on Christ our Contemporary, a man can keep on in the same field as long as each truth makes his own heart burn. So will the heart of the layman glow while gradually he learns to read the Bible as it was written, keeping the eye fixed on Christ, ever in meeting the heart needs of persons like us now (John 4:42).

In eight or ten years a pastor can guide a growing number of laymen in enjoying almost every major book of the Bible, and some “minor” ones. By such “cooperative preaching” from the Bible, he can present God’s way of solving every spiritual problem, and meeting every heart need of the hearers. As for the harvest, both he and the hearers will claim the promise of God about his Book (Isa. 55:10, 11).

“It is not an accident, brethren, that in this age, in which infidelity has anew become blatant and arrogant, the Bible is more studied than ever it was before. It is not an accident that there is a new demand, throughout the Christian world, springing up for Biblical, expository preaching.… People don’t know about believing the preacher nowadays, and a great many people don’t know about acknowledging the authority of a church as they once did; but the people who come to hear the gospel, if you bring them something right out of the Bible, not a broken, dead fragment, but a part of the living whole, full of the true, divine life, and show them its meaning as God has taught it, and lay that meaning, explained, upon their hearts and their lives, the people everywhere respond to that.…”—JOHN A. BROADUS, Sermons and Addresses (1886).

Under God the effectiveness of the course will depend largely on the opening sermon. Here one does not dangle the skeleton of a corpse, but introduces a living book. First, the Meaning of the Gospel as the Super-Atomic Power of God. Second, the Practical Use of this Power Today. At best, atomic energy can change only the form and the place of things. The Gospel alone can transform a sinner into a saint, a cannibal tribe into a redeemed family of God. Super-atomic power enough to transform our world!

In a message about Repentance, one could deal first with the Gospel Meaning of metanoia, a complete “change of mind” about God and one’s own sin. Then with the Gospel Reason: because the Christ of Calvary is here. Last of all, the Christian Issue. Not merely “turning a new leaf,” but starting a new life, full of joyous service and lasting hope.

So each of the messages will bring the unsaved hearer face to face with the Christ of the Cross, moving him to accept the Redeemer and King, and then to bring others, one by one, to the foot of the Cross, there to lay down the burden of sin and shame, to receive pardon, cleansing, peace, and joy, with endless hope. Hallelujah!

Because of such preaching by a pastor whom I know, a mature young man and his wife accepted the Lord. Four years later they had to move away. In bidding farewell, they thanked him for showing from the pulpit how to read and enjoy 20 Bible books, none of which they had previously read. Who can imagine the lasting impact of such pulpit work where many laymen read the Bible setting before they hear each sermon?

The Super-Atomic Power of God—1:16

The Christian Reason for Repentance—2:4b

The Bible Teaching about Sin—3:23

The Bible Teaching about Salvation—4:3

The Christian Gospel of Peace—5:1

The Gospel Gift of Salvation—6:23

The Daily Struggle in the Soul—7:15 (RSV)

The Holy Spirit as Our Guide—8:14

The Christian Basis of Optimism—8:28

The Christian Promise for Missions—10:13

The Christian Doxology about God—11:33

The Christian Treatment of the Body—12:1

The Christian Attitude toward Government—13:1

The Practical Meaning of the Kingdom—14:17

The Christian Gospel of Hope—15:13

A Look At American Preaching

Best Sermons: 1962 Protestant Edition, by G. Paul Butler (Van Nostrand, 1962, 318 pp., $5.95), is reviewed by James Daane, Editorial Associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

The craftsmanship of these sermons runs from acceptable to excellent. None is poorly wrought; none made late of a Saturday evening.

Evaluated in terms of evangelical content, some sound the Good News of what God had done in Christ in tones clean and clear. Many, if not most, proclaim the Gospel, but the articulation is more or less muffled. Some of these are open to objection, not for what they say, but for what they fail to say, or assert merely as undertones. Some echo no Gospel at all, a judgment that must fall on more than the productions of two Unitarians.

In general it may be said that these sermons do not reflect the old liberal optimism about man, but the situation of man in crisis. The crisis is not the perennial crisis of the individual caught in the anguish of deliverance from sin and death. It is rather that of the twentieth-century man caught in those narrows of history where the past overtakes the present in judgment. Not a single sermon is devoted specifically to sin; none to that moment in which each man dies alone—even though others die at the same time. While most acknowledge that it is God alone who can save us, none explicitly rings the bells on the theme of salvation by grace alone in the grand style of the Reformation. Some few, not yet perceiving the signs of the times, urge that while God had done his work the rest is up to man, since further action on the part of God would violate man’s freedom (assumedly to be lost!) Happily it may be said that there is more Gospel in these 42 sermons than would have been the case in such a collection 25 years ago.

It could be urged that a sermon by definition is the proclamation of the Word of God through human personality in such a fashion that the seeking soul can find wherein to take his rest and the believing soul be lifted up into an act of worship. By this definition many of these could not be classified as sermons. They are rather religious lectures on noble themes, without the sound of divine judgment on human sin, and without sounds of the divine grace of forgiveness. Yet such classification would not be fair since many were preached to special audiences, by men not engaged in the congregational ministry, and under special circumstances calling for special religious objectives. These sermons, therefore, cannot be taken as representative of what is heard on Sunday mornings in American pulpits. That so many religious lectures should be presented as sermons is, I think, indicative of the status of the American pulpit.

If, however, what claims to be a sermon is subject to the criteria of the sermon, the following observations are to the point. Most of these sermons have no text. By generous estimate a few might be called expository sermons, i.e., a proclamation of the meaning of a given text of Scripture and of its bearing on man and his life. Many are more evangelical than anything else, but even of these, few carry the design of the Cross clearly in their fabric. The best on this score is from the pen of the chaplain of Princeton University. Many evangelicals reveal no essential relationship between the theme of their sermon and the Christ they in fact want to proclaim. They choose a biblical theme but fail to relate it in meaningful fashion to the theme of the Bible: Jesus Christ and him crucified. Many evangelicals would be embarrassed if they attempted to evaluate their production in the light of Paul’s “I am determined to know nothing among you save …”

It is these considerations which give substance to Bishop Kennedy’s remark, “The messages coming from our pulpits are little, squeaking words of cheer.”

These weaknesses characterizing many of these sermons when judged by strict homiletical criteria, flow chiefly from the failure to preach expository sermons.

Constructing sermons without specific texts on large biblical themes, which call for a “cover to cover” type of exposition, should be left to the genius of the pulpit, or attempted only after considerable experience in the simpler forms of expository preaching, lest men hear the Word of God without recognizing it.

God can indeed break through our formally Crossless sermons and make the word of the Cross to be heard, but we ought not tempt the Lord our God, least of all in the pulpit.

This book is better than its sermons. Even so, almost everyone of its sermons can be read, especially by men of the pulpit, with large and lasting profit. These sermons sparkle with ideas, illustrations, factual material, biblical insights, and literary allusions. This reviewer has read them, not always with approbation, but usually with profit.

One final comment in which various men will see different orders of significance. Few sermons reveal the denominational affiliation, or the theological tradition of their makers.

JAMES DAANE

From Plato To Hegel

Divine Perfection: Possible Ideas of God, by Frederick Sontag (Harper, 1962, 158 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Gordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Part I is a well-written history of some major ideas on divine perfection entertained by the great philosophers from Plato to Hegel. Part II is a cross classification of these ideas with the aim of seeing how each affects the others. Some of these chapters seem to add very little to what was said in Part I.

The entire discussion presupposes the possibility of natural theology, and no account is given of those who deny this possibility. In fact, revealed theology is apparently regarded as impossible: “Since God has no lips, he cannot speak … This means that we have much indirect but no direct word about God and by God. Were it otherwise, we would have but one religion and one doctrine of the nature of God.” Both inferences are logically invalid, are they not? The author also rules out verbal revelation by asserting “the natural incommensurability between our language and such a Being.”

Although the author wishes to avoid endorsing any one theory of the nature of God, he does not succeed in refraining from unsupported assertions. “Metaphysic is never born in Ethics”—Nietzsche said it always is—and “Being good himself, God was bound to recognize some but not all value standards in creation,” are two that are stated oracularly.

The main conclusion, however, is well supported, viz. that twelve concepts, infinity and unity, form and transcendence, actuality and self-sufficiency, power and motion, simplicity and division, freedom and volition, are not all consistent when defined in certain ways, but may, most of them at any rate, be made consistent by changing their meanings.

GORDON H. CLARK

Laymen Arise!

The Church and Its Laity, by Georgia Harkness (Abingdon, 1961, 208 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Leslie Hunt, Principal of Wycliffe College, Toronto, Canada.

Few people will dispute the contention that one of the weaknesses of the church has been the inadequate role of the laity and the layman’s unawareness of what his real role is. Any effort to deal with this problem and clarify the issues is welcome. Indeed one of the themes much under study in recent times is this very matter: “What is the church?” and “What is the true role of the laity?” The new consciousness that these questions should be faced and answered may be found in all denominational groups. This growing interest is in evidence by the many requests for bibliographical guides. To meet this demand, a bibliography on the subject has been published by the Department on the Laity. It is illuminating to me how much work has been done recently on the theme.

“The Church and Its Laity” is another volume to be added to the list. The author, with a real concern for ecumenical issues, is disturbed by the fact that the movement towards ecumenicity, so important in these days, cannot really function at its best until it gets into the blood of not only the people in high places, but also of the clergy and the laity at the local level. The contention is that this will not take place until there is a real understanding of the meaning of the church, and the true place of the laity in it. The author claims that the book is not designed to be a handbook on lay activities or vocations but to help the laymen to a better understanding of the church, and through this knowledge to a better grasp of his own place in it.

Accordingly, the author is prompted to devote the first half of the book to the matter of the nature of the church—what it is, how its principal divisions came to be as they are, and what its true functions are. The second and third chapters present an historical survey of the changes that have taken place from New Testament times to the emergence of the major Protestant denominations. Chapter IV relates more specifically to the current scene, with the fifth and sixth chapters exposing some of the secular standards and practices which have made their way into the life of the church. The author elaborates on some of the channels by which the church can be a constructive force in remaking society. Chapters VII and VIII point up some hopeful projects and signs, such as the ecumenical movement, laymen’s institutes in Europe, lay centers in America. Behind all this the book presents a strong appeal for more effective action by laymen as they endeavor to be the church within the world.

Reading for Perspective

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

* The Council, Reform and Reunion, by Hans Küng (Sheed & Ward, $3.95). With charity, humility, and ruthless honesty, a Roman Catholic professor urges that reunion of Catholicism and Protestantism requires a renewal and reform of the church. Superbly written.

* Women Who Made Bible History, by Harold J. Ockenga (Zondervan, $3.50). Literary portraits of saintly and some not-so-saintly women of the Bible. Rich in biblical wisdom.

* Martin Buber and Christianity, by Hans Urs Von Balthasar (Macmillan, $3). In penetrating Christian-Jewish dialogue, a Swiss Roman Catholic urges that the faith of Abraham and that of Paul appear irreconcilable only because Jews reject Christ, and Christians reject Jews.

The author has written simply so that any lay reader can grasp the meaning. With clarity and some forcefulness, she has sought to clear away confused thinking on a number of relevant issues. Some may not agree with some of her definitions but there would, I am sure, be general agreement in her analysis of the factors which are preventing the church from making a greater impact upon the world. If this volume can help laymen to catch a new vision of the true function of themselves as the church, and fire them to a greater participation and service, it will be well worthwhile.

LESLIE HUNT

No Ghettos

Poems of the East and West, by Merrell Vories Hitotsuyanagi, ed. by Frederica Mead Hiltner (The Omi Brotherhood, Omi-Hachiman, Japan, 1960, 169 pp., $2.95), is reviewed by Gordon K. Chapman, Missionary to Japan, United Presbyterian Church.

One of the most romantic stories of the modern missionary movement is that of the Omi Brotherhood, founded in 1905 by the missionary-teacher and architect, Merrell Vories. From the beginning he was fully convinced that “the ghetto mentality where Christians separate themselves from those among whom they live and work, and from the culture and life of the nation,” was contrary to the mind of Christ. Thus the 400 workers of this indigenous mission have been engaged in industry, architecture, and evangelistic, educational and social activities as active Christian witnesses. Vories’ marriage to Maki Hitotsuyanagi, daughter of an ancient noble family, and his subsequent naturalization, were the natural outcome of the application of indigenous principles.

His poems are the spontaneous expression of one who has found complete fulfillment in Jesus Christ and reflect the spirit of a very consistent Christian whom God used to accomplish a unique work in a virgin field of Japan. This hook is a significant supplement to the story of the Omi Brotherhood, A Mustard Seed in japan, which should he required reading for all modern missionaries.

GORDON K. CHAPMAN

Crossed Up

The Many-Sided Cross of Jesus, by Alan Walker (Abingdon, 1962, III pp., $2), is reviewed by J. Kenneth Grider, Associate Professor of Theology, Nazarene Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri.

This little book presents what an evangelically-interested (pp. 7, 89 ff.) liberal sees in the cross of Jesus.

The author might be mistaken on occasion, as when he says that the Apostles’ Creed “came out of” “the great councils” (p. 14). He might seem to switch horses, too, on the question whether the atonement does anything for God himself. To Charles Wesley’s line, “’My God is reconciled’” (p. 18), he takes exception saying this is an “error,” for “God is not reconciled by the actions of his Son.…” (p. 18). Yet he later upbraids the Abelardians for giving “a far too subjective” view, “putting emphasis on the response given to the Cross,” and thereby “transposing the center of God’s saving act from God himself to ourselves” (p. 39).

Nor may the reader look for scholarly treatment. Often, quotes are not footnoted. Scripture passages are not exegeted: he usually simply quotes, as though the meaning were obvious.

Bible-respecting Christians would take hearty exception with the author on whether the Cross was planned. According to Walker, the Father “did not intend” “the Crucifixion,” “but once it happened, … God seized upon the Cross and … made it the occasion of salvation” (p. 75). Nor did Jesus come to earth in order to “give his life a ransom” (Matt. 20:28). Instead, “As he came nearer the end of his life he believed he could do something by dying …” (p. 18).

With all this on the negative side, the book does give the laymen a general treatment of atonement views. It could be useful to the minister because of its illustrative materials and its analogies of the Cross, as, for example, the sustained comparison between Christ’s death and the suffering of a scientist on behalf of others (pp. 50–59).

J. KENNETH GRIDER

The Shape Of The Gospel

Kerygma or Gospel Tradition—Which Came First?, by Robert A. Bartels (Augsburg, 1961, 126 pp., $1.95), is reviewed by Glenn W. Barker, Professor of New Testament, Gordon Divinity School, Beverly Farms, Massachusetts.

One of the fundamental tenets in the modern study of Gospel origins is that the kerygma, the preaching of the earlier church, determined the nature and shape of the Gospel tradition. With this conclusion Professor Bartels, of Northwestern Lutheran Theological Seminary, takes issue. He proposes instead that Jesus “is not only responsible for most of the contents of the tradition, but also for the basic and general shape into which the tradition has been cast by the synoptic writers” (p. 62), and that this tradition, “largely in the shape in which we now have it,” is responsible for the form of the kerygma.

The position taken by Professor Bartels strongly fortifies the authority of the tradition, sounding a note that is sadly missing in much of the modern discussion. However, does the author prove too much? If Jesus is made responsible for both the shape as well as the content of the tradition, is it likely that the differences between the Gospels can he explained as “editorial liberties,” as Bartels seeks to do?

For its involvement with contemporary discussion the book is to be commended. The criticism raised against Bultmann is particularly effective.

GLENN W. BARKER

Into The Stream

The Layman’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 21: Romans, I & II Corinthians by Kenneth J. Foreman; Vol. 16: Matthew, by Suzanne de Dietrich; Vol. 6: Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel, by Eric C. Rust; Vol. 13: Ezekiel, Daniel, by Carl G. Howie (John Knox Press, 1961, about 135 pp., ea. $2.00 ea., $1.75 in quantities of four or more), are reviewed by G. Aiken Taylor, Editor, The Presbyterian Journal, Asheville, North Carolina.

The Layman’s Bible Commentary represents the major effort to date to launch the Presbyterian Church, US (one of the last holdouts against neoorthodoxy and the effects of “biblical” theology among the larger denominations), into the main stream of contemporary theological thought.

Only one of the present four volumes was written by a member of the denomination publishing the Commentary.

Romans, I & II Corinthians. Here is theology indeed brought to the level of the layman’s understanding. Concisely and attractively written the weakness of this volume is the weakness of the Commentary as a whole: “positive” Christian doctrines effectively affirmed; “negative” or “hard” doctrines ignored or denied.

Thus laymen will find helpful treatments of justification and propitiation (expressed as expiation). But predestination is denied any negative application. There is no doctrine of reprobation; or of imputation; or of condemnation. The elusive shadow of a tacit universalism flits throughout.

Dealing with the “Jewish problem” of Romans 9, Dr. Foreman says that Paul is not here revealing truth, he is thinking out loud, so to speak, turning over in his mind various possibilities respecting the fate of the Jews and rejecting each possibility until he reaches the final answer upon which he settles, namely that all Israel shall be saved.

Matthew. Essentially the same theological position is reflected in this volume. There is one of the most interesting paradoxes of reverence for, and at the same time disbelief in, the supernatural that this reviewer has seen.

Not the slightest shadow of doubt is cast over the Virgin Birth. The miracles are treated respectfully. The Passion is faithfully told. The Resurrection shines forth in all its splendor. Matthew’s repeated references to judgment, rejection, casting away, are not evaded.

But in the story of Christ walking on water the author cannot refrain from suggesting that post-Resurrection traditions may have woven themselves about the story of Jesus. And certain prophecies on the lips of Jesus (as about his Passion) were “fixed in the tradition after the event.”

Miss de Dietrich’s universalism appears this way: “If the sin against the Holy Spirit is not pardoned either in this age or in the age to come, the opposite is true also—there is hope in this age and in the age to come for those who will not have been acquainted with or recognized the Son of Man here below.”

Judges, Ruth, I & II Samuel. If the major fault of the New Testament volumes in the Commentary is a tacit universalism, the major fault of the Old Testament volumes is a slavish acceptance of the findings of higher criticism.

History is only an original peg, now almost wholly obscured, about which the stories have been woven. Natural events, such as plagues, come to be embellished with theological meaning after being handed down for generations. Thus a pestilence which struck Beth-shemesh is later assigned a theological cause, namely that the people had looked into the Ark.

Ezekiel, Daniel. Surprisingly enough, Ezekiel is said to have been a historical figure, actually living among the captives, seeing in his visions the circumstances of Jerusalem back home. The book is interpreted with a fine appreciation of the theological issues of sin and redemption.

Daniel, on the other hand, is not considered a historical figure at all. The “hero” of this epic story, which is compared to the “Joseph saga,” (the “Daniel image”) was created to represent the truest and best in Israel.

The story of the fiery furnace celebrates (for the encouragement of the persecuted Jews of the Maccabean period) the historical event when “Israel was rescued from the fiery furnace of Chaldean captivity when the people were set free by the hand of Cyrus the Persian.” The story of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness is explained by reference to extra-biblical stories of Nabonidus, who ruled after Nebuchadnezzar, and who spent so much time at Tema, a resort in the desert, that he “was probably considered a ‘nature boy.’”

To this reviewer the marvelous thing about this sort of approach to the Bible is how the commentators can speak appreciatively of material they characterize as a deliberate lie. Scripture is said to be historically inaccurate, the stories garbled, the dates fabricated, the characters unidentifiable. Yet this is to be taken as “containing” the Word of God from which we can learn much!

One hopes that this Commentary is not designed to form the theological perspective from which the new curriculum of the Presbyterian Church, US, will be published in 1964.

G. AIKEN TAYLOR

Semantic Dilemma

The Language of Faith, by Samuel Laeuchli (Abingdon Press, 1962, 272 pp., $5.50), is reviewed by Robert H. Mounce, Associate Professor of Biblical Literature, Bethel College, St. Paul, Minnesota.

The basic dilemma of Christian language is pointed up by Irenaeus’ comparison of the Gnostics’ use of words to the disassembling and rearranging of a mosaic: the gems are the same but the two images are quite different. Dr. Laeuchli’s fascinating study introduces the reader to this semantic dilemma of the early Church. To speak meaningfully to the second century the Christian faith had to employ two languages simultaneously the canonical and the contemporary. Whether it could accomplish this without such distortion as would obscure the essential message was the crucial question of that formative period.

Two dangers lurked close by: Gnosticism (ch. I) with its imaginative language and metaphysical subtlety, and post-apostolic Christianity (ch. II) with its moralizing and legalistic distortion of the canonical language of affirmation. Of pivotal importance in this period of theological striving and semantic failure was the contribution of Irenaeus of Lyons (ch. III)—the presentation of a theological language of Christian proclamation.

This is a rewarding book. The temptation, upon finishing the last page, is to return immediately to the first and begin again. In this dialogue with the second century one cannot escape the feeling that there is a strange contemporaneity about it all. The problems of Irenaeus are still with us. To take a hard look at his course of action is to pain direction in the current discussion of religious symbolism. As Gnosticism rearranged the canonical mosaic into an image more philosophically intriging, so also is there the continuing lure to transform the kerygmatic core of revelation into whatever the current philosophy might be. As post-apostolic Christianity used the language of faith as a “handy whip for theologians who have to assert authority,” so also is there the constant danger of allowing the joyful news of New Testament proclamation to become rigid creed and the tool of ecclesiastical conformity.

Dr. Lauechli, who teaches at Garrett Biblical Institute in the field of the history of Christianity, has done us a real service. In the course of his book certain major emphases find repeated expression: that the Christian stands in the clash of two languages; that Christian communication is affirmation, not cosmic speculation or moralizing; that canonical language places man in confrontation with God. The author’s extensive knowledge of the German literature in the field has made available many valuable insights that English readers may have missed. The epilogue, “The Language of Faith,” points up a major conclusion—that relevant proclamation can take place “only when we put ourselves into both the speech of the canon and the idiom of our age.”

ROBERT H. MOUNCE

Mystery Of Life

The Meaning and Message of Lent, by Eugene R. Fairweather (Harper, 1962, 159 pp., $3), is reviewed by James D. Robertson, Professor of Preaching, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Kentucky.

A provocative little book on how an understanding of Lent can deepen the life of the Church and of the individual Christian. Lent is seen as a time of intensive training in Christianity, calling forth serious reflection on such themes as Baptism, the Eucharist, Sunday worship, Christian instruction, penitence, and fasting. The book successfuly bodies forth three things: God’s solution of the mystery of life and death lies at the heart of the Gospel; the great observances of Christianity are designed to set it forth; and the faithful keeping of Lent and Easter can help the believer make God’s answer his own victory

JAMES D. ROBERTSON

Salvation Of Infants

From Limbo to Heaven, by Vincent Wilkin, S. J., (Sheed & Ward, 1961, 145 pp., $3), is reviewed by R. Allan Killen, Professor of Systematic Theology, Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri.

The author, chaplain of Liverpool University for 12 years, who wrote his book during the last four months of his life, discusses the problem of the salvation of unbaptized children who die in infancy. A staunch Roman Catholic who believes in the infallibility of the pope and the supreme authority of his church, the immaculate conception of Mary, etc., he maintains that his church has never made any authoritative declaration on this subject, beyond saying that they go to “limbo,” and sets himself the task of solving this problem in the light of Rome’s view of baptismal regeneration.

Wilkin teaches that there are three kinds of baptism: (1) baptism of water or regular baptism “at the font”; (2) baptism with blood, namely the baptism Rome teaches which saved those Christian martyrs, and the “Holy Innocents” at Bethlehem, who died before they could receive regular baptism; (3) baptism of the Spirit which occurs to all at the second coming of Christ and coincides with the resurrection (pp. 98, 99). Wilkin’s case stands or falls with Rome’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration. He ends by declaring all the heathen and all children who die unbaptized in infancy to be saved by this “baptism of the Spirit,” and only those who willfully and knowingly reject Christ to be lost.

R. ALLAN KILLEN

Bridge Builder

Foundations for a Philosophy of Christian Education, by Lawrence C. Little (Abingdon, 1962, 256 pp., $4), is reviewed by J. Marion Snapper, Professor of Education, Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Professor Little presents us with a sourcebook of the raw materials out of which he believes an adequate philosophy of Christian education must be formulated. The raw materials are the behavioral sciences (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology) and theology, “the discipline by which man seeks to organize his religious beliefs into coherent and ordered form.” The method proposed is a “synthesis of the knowledge about human beings and the ways they learn that comes from ‘secular’ sources and that which comes specifically from the Christian heritage.”

Standing quite clearly in the theological tradition of Schleiermacher and Harnack, and impressed by Tillich and Bultmann, the author does not make theological distinctions between general and special revelation. He notes only that the different sciences deal with different aspects of reality. Nowhere is there any clear indication of which sciences are normative and which are descriptive. In fact, it may be inferred from his approach that he wants to be rid of such distinctions.

In his chapter on “The Scientific Image of Man” he includes a discussion of the worth of the individual and makes value judgments such as, “the tensions should be resolved in a spirit of compromise so that the fullest possible good for the whole may be realized.” Certainly no scientist qua scientist made these value judgments.

For theology he proposes “a reconstruction” of Christian doctrine through an intensification of Christian experience and a more realistic interpretation of this experience in terms of contemporary thought through the pooled insights of thinkers who are specialists in a variety of disciplines.”

Evidently Professor Little’s norm is human reason which first identifies Jesus as “the master student of human nature and the world’s best exemplar of high religion”; and secondly demands that the systematized insights (doctrine) derived from the historical Jesus be rescued by science (e.g., philology, archaeology) from Pauline and subsequent interpretation; and finally calls for such a reconstruction as described above.

A theology thus derived must then be synthesized with the findings of the behavioral sciences. Professor Little demonstrates a breadth of scholarship in that field as he presents us with thumbnail sketches of the more prominent theories of learning and personality. They are included to create an awareness of the broad range of insights which are afforded by the behavioral sciences and to whet the reader’s appetite for more. He is encouraged by such eclectics as Gardner Murphy, and Henry A. Murray, and by O. H. Mowrer, Gordon Allport, and others who are recognizing the spiritual dimensions of existence.

This is a consistent book. The author himself contributes to the bridge he is trying to build. He avoids using traditional theological terms; instead the reader will find that the author is continually restating his understanding of those concepts in the language of the behavioral sciences. He tries to give us the psychological concomitants of his theological constructs. It may make us uncomfortable to have the teachings of the Bible psychologized. But it also makes the psychologist uncomfortable to have his work spiritualized. Our author is trying to build a bridge and his effort deserves careful study.

It may be hoped that this book will stimulate some evangelical scholar to deal with this same problem with the sophistication and honesty which characterize Professor Little’s attempt—but without a price tag which bankrupts conservative theology.

J. MARION SNAPPER

Leading To Membership

Light from Above, Christian Doctrine Explained and Applied, by Alfred W. Koehler (Concordia, 1960, 165 pp., $1.50), is reviewed by Robert Preus, Professor of Systematic Theology, Concordia Theological Seminary, St. Louis.

This book is written as an introduction to the Christian faith. It is designed to be a help or textbook in adult classes leading to membership in the church. In this purpose it is notably successful. It is comprehensive, touching all the chief points of Christian doctrine; its style is plain and readable—and original; and its theology is eminently conservative. It is to be hoped, however, that the book will have a wider distribution than merely as a textbook. For it commends itself to any serious Christian reader. Herein the great articles of our faith are not only set forth with clarity and conviction, but the biblical basis in all cases is brought to bear to convince and strengthen the reader.

A more usable introduction to the Christian faith will be difficult to find.

ROBERT PREUS

Book Briefs

Prayer Pilgrimage Through the Psalms, by John Calvin Reid (Abingdon, 1962, 128 pp., $2.50). Written in belief many people need help in praying, Reid has written 118 short, expressive prayers, each based on a verse in the Psalms.

In the Presence of God, by O.W. Toelke (Concordia, 1962, 72 pp., $1.50). Devotions specifically intended for the newly married; relevant and recommended.

Unity in Marriage, by W. J. Fields (Concordia, 1962, 156 pp., $3). A fine, evangelical, realistic and perceptive discussion on how to achieve unity in marriage. Recommended to engaged and to most married people.

The Gospel According to St. Mark, by Alan Cole (Eerdmans, 1961, 263 pp., $3). A good substantial evangelical commentary which is neither unduly technical nor unhelpfully brief. Recommended to pastors and laymen.

The World: Its Creation and Consummation, by Karl Heim (Muhlenberg, 1962, 159 pp., $3). A substantial and scholarly consideration of the counterclaims of the scientific and biblical interpretations of the origin and destiny of the universe. For those who think.

They Came to a Place, by Robert L. Otterstad (Augsburg, 1962, 47 pp., $1.25). Lenten reflections, written on edge of personal total blindness, in which “deep answers to deep.”

Hope In Action, by Hans Jochen Margull (Muhlenberg, 1962, 298 pp., $5). The first full historical account of the ecumenical movement’s concern with evangelism in our century. Competently done by former faculty member of the university of Hamburg.

Devotional Selections from George Matheson, ed. by Andrew Kosten (Abingdon, 1962, 95 pp., $2). Forty brief devotional messages from the late nineteenth-century Scotch poet and preacher.

Suddenly from Heaven, by Carl Brumback (Gospel Publishing House, 1961, 380 pp., $3.95). A history of the Assemblies of God and of the phenomenal growth of Pentecostalism in the twentieth century.

The Ministers Manual 1962, ed. by M. K. W. Heicher (Harper, 1961, 333 pp., $3.50). Brought to date each year with entirely fresh new material.

Paperbacks

To the Golden Shore, by Courtney Anderson (Doubleday, 1961, 520 pp., $1.45). A great story of the life of Adoniram Judson, Man of Mission. (First printing 1956).

From State Church to Pluralism, by Franklin Hamlin Littell (Doubleday, 1962, 178 pp., $.95). Author explodes the categories that have shaped our vision of American church history. Early American religious unity is declared a lie to be cut down. In colonial times, America, like Europe, was officially religious, but this was in fact a “baptized heathenism.”

George Macdonald, ed. by C. S. Lewis (Doubleday, 1962, 160 pp., $.95). Lewis gleans the best from a nineteenth-century Scottish cleric he highly regards.

The Doctrine of Evolution and the Antiquity of Man, by J. D. Thomas (Biblical Research Press, Abilene, Texas, 1961, 64 pp., $.95). Christian thinker looks squarely at the theory of biological evolution and the problems involved.

A History of Biblical Literature, by Hugh J. Schonfield (New American Library of World Literature, 1962, 224 pp., $.75). An examination of the origins, authorship, and authenticity of the Bible in the light of historical events, literature, and recent documentary discoveries. An original.

According to the Scriptures, by Theodore S. Liefeld (Augsburg, 1962, 70 pp., $1.50). Brief, biblical Lenten devotions.