Page 6379 – Christianity Today (2025)

A local incident is fairly representative of a situation developing throughout the nation. The council of the PTA, concerned about juvenile delinquency, publicly demanded that certain magazines be withdrawn from the newsstands because, it alleged, they were demoralizing, particularly in their sex emphasis. The city’s daily newspaper gave editorial approval, saying, “We think the PTA members who have shown initiative in helping to make our city a decent place for children and young folk are deserving of support by every parent.” In response to this pressure the agency handling sales banned 25 men’s magazines of the “girlie type.”

Immediately several professors in the law school of a large university in the community protested the extra-legal proceeding. On a single day 300 students of the university signed a protest, similar to that of their professors, urging that such censorship over reading matter available on the newsstands violated the freedom of the press. They asked that it be discontinued. These opponents insisted: “An axe has been used where a scalpel was appropriate; freedom of the press is one of the most important and most deeply cherished of our constitutional rights; a publication is not obscene just because it is offensive to some persons; the magazines in question have not been legally proven obscene in a single instance; if obscene magazines are appearing, there are legal means to deal with them, rather than the haphazard and untrained judgment of a small private group.” The opponents concluded their argument thus: “We prefer to trust in the traditional orderly processes of government to determine such delicate and complex questions rather than to rely on even a public-spirited pressure group.”

An effort was made to provide for a public hearing, with both sides presenting their views, but the PTA council declined to have anything to do with it. Could it have been that their opponents had convinced them they were wrong? Or that they discovered somewhat to their chagrin that after all the banned magazines were read mainly by adults? Or that the sales agency intimated that it expected soon to resume distribution?

Some Salient Facts

Without presuming to pass upon the merit or demerit of this local action, perhaps we may use the occasion to point up some pertinent considerations.

First, it is true, according to Senator Estes Kefauver, who has seen the evidence, that some of the most objectionable publications and photographs are distributed to children, even mailed to them. Further, it must be observed that immense numbers of people in the United States are becoming attentive to what seems to be an alarming growth of pornographic publications.

The Postmaster General, who holds the high responsibility of passing upon what is mailable, is reported as about to ask Congress for a stiffer law. The law now reads: “Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy book, pamphlet, picture, paper, letter, writing, printing or other publication of an indecent character … is hereby declared to be nonmailable matter, and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any postoffice or by any letter carrier.” Law enforcement agencies complain that they are only partly able to restrict the distribution of “printed filth.” Why? Must enforcement always await formal complaint?

Special Agent Charles E. Moore Jr. of the FBI says: “Local action by church and civic groups is the surest way to put smut salesmen out of business and rid newsstands and drug stores of obscene publications.” Obviously this suggests use of free speech rather than forcible control. It should be accepted to mean, however, that churches and civic groups not only have the right of free speech to express opinion but have a duty in helping to form a moral public opinion by their exercise of that right, especially in respect to evil license.

Actually the problem is by no means new. It is as old as civilization. Censorship was demanded in ancient Greece and Rome. It has been a major weapon of autocratic governments from the days of the Caesars to the latest example of the Communist dictatorship which prohibited Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago. It was the chosen instrument of a church in the Inquisition and remains in force with that authoritarian church in respect to dress, printing, drama, and painting, and much else, so much so that the church is accused of telling a man what he can think, what tastes he shall cultivate, and how he must behave along all lines, except drinking and gambling.

Perhaps the loudest and most lasting protest against censorship in respect to printing was made in 1644 by John Milton. Milton addressed his Areopagitica to the English Parliament against a decree of the Star Chamber that all printing should be entrusted to the Archbishop, the Bishop of London, and the Chancellors of Oxford and Cambridge. The practical effect was to give Archbishop Laud absolute control over every press in England. He used his authority after the manner of the papists whose practices were most detested by the Presbyterian Government of the time.

Milton’s masterpiece is strong meat, likely too strong to be palatable to many people. In it he declared that the attempt to keep out evil doctrine by censorship is “like the exploit of that gallant man who thought to pound up the crows by shutting the park gates.” He reminds his readers that ideas are spread as effectively by word of mouth as by the use of printing. He argues that censorship, if attempted over printed matter, to become effective must be extended to apply to garb, pastimes, eating, in fact to almost everything. Moses, Daniel, and Paul and the Church Fathers, he claimed, by precept and example, enjoined freedom in the pursuit of knowledge. Milton ended with a paean to England which through freedom of the press had come to be recognized as “a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious and piercing spirit.” In a final burst he prayed, “Give me liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely, according to conscience, above all liberties.”

The American Tradition

The founders of our Republic, steeped in Milton and resentful of the arbitrary proscriptions of a Laud, wrote into the first article of the Bill of Rights a guarantee for the freedom of utterance. We are not shocked when we read that Thomas Jefferson, on being informed that a book has been suppressed, exclaimed:

I am really mortified to be told that in the United States of America a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of a criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the Civil Magistrates. Is this our freedom of religion? Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold and what we may buy? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or a layman, simple as ourselves, to set up his reason for what we are to read and what we must believe?

It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not.… For God’s sake let us hear both sides, if we choose.”

A Spiritual Approach

Desperate situations require desperate remedies. If pornography is regnant anywhere, interested citizens should consult the district attorney. They should, even before resorting to court action, endeavor to take all possible positive steps without the use of force. An influential Christian magazine editor advises that our real reliance must be upon spiritual disciplines which produce “a sensitized conscience.” A home counselor asks if those whose children are susceptible to corruption from salacious literature have provided an abundance of attractive wholesome literature for their homes. A pastor advocates adequate church libraries with a promotion of the offerings that will win readers. The churches should, he says, seek a power of persuasion and enlistment that will induce high standards and produce good taste. Their task is to teach youth to approve that which is excellent. Others have worked at maintaining a joyous social program that is Christian.

It is of the utmost importance that Christians try to see life whole, and not fatuously imagine that youth is lost through a single evil. An educator of wide experience recently declared that if one should today single out a sole factor in the creation of sex sins, it would be the scanty dress which obtains in Christian homes as well as in those that are godless. Another thinks that reading, which according to reports is now at a minimum, is far less corrupting than what is served upon screen and television. These opinions, and many others that might be quoted, add up to the conviction that home training, effective evangelism, and Christian education must confront the evil elements in our society and overcome evil with good.

Curiously enough censorship, whether operating openly or behind the scenes, whether officially constituted or asserted by self-appointed groups, has usually tended to ignore flagrant moral infractions and gravitated toward suppression of political policy on religious heresy. Generally censors have been notorious for partisanship and arbitrariness and almost universally hated for a ruthless disregard of human rights and freedoms. Who, then, is qualified to serve as a censor? Is Cato or any of his ilk anywhere? It is the arrogation of individuals or groups who assume superior ability and authority to become guardians of people’s choices and behavior, according to private canons, that arouses resentment. Democracy usually refuses to tolerate such. It is free, however, to give judgments on all matters without setting up committees to impose individual views on others apart from due process of law.

END

Dr. Joseph M. Dawson has served Southern Baptist causes effectively for more than half a century. Born in 1879 in Texas, he received the B.A. degree in 1904 from Baylor University which also conferred on him the D.D. in 1916. Dr. Dawson was cited in 1955 by Protestants and Other Americans United for his contributions to religious liberty. He is author of America’s “Way in Church, State and Society.

The National Council of Churches has promoted 10 books on social ethics. Sponsored by its Department of the Church and Economic Life, the project was launched 10 years ago under a large subsidy from the Rockefeller Foundation. Most of these books now also appear in popularized paperback summaries.

A member of the NCC’s General Board has suggested purchase of these books as gifts to church libraries. His endorsement describes the 10 volumes as “tremendously effective tools for your Christian work—the product of nine years of research by top economists, theologians, political scientists and psychologists.… You will find in these books invaluable insight … for use in all your efforts at guiding men toward that larger understanding which we know to be so essential to their effective Christian living.”

Other Christian leaders have taken exception on the ground that some of the volumes reflect left wing social philosophies. An influential layman has described the NCC’s promotion of this series of volumes on “The Ethics and Economics of Society” as “one of the boldest attempts to use the church for the purpose of disseminating the Collectivist philosophy that I have so far run across.”

CHRISTIANITY TODAY has sought an objective verdict on this series of studies by inviting 10 leaders to submit 350-word reviews with an eye on the presuppositions of these volumes. The several books are not lacking in individual differences. But the reviewers are in general agreement that the underlying bias of the series favors the “New Deal society” against a limited government, free enterprise, private property philosophy, even though this thesis is resisted in some of the volumes.—ED.

Goals Of Economic Life

Goals of Economic Life, edited by A. Dudley Ward (Harper, 1953, 470 pp., $4), is reviewed by J. Howard Pew, Director, Sun Oil Company, and President of the Trustees of the Foundation of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A.

Launched by the old Federal Council of Churches some years ago, this book, Goals of Economic Life, supposedly to determine to what extent our economic system is consistent with Christian principles, provides the introduction to the whole series of books on ETHICS AND ECONOMICS OF SOCIETY. It contains 15 essays, each by a different author taking his own approach to the subject, be it that of a philosopher, social scientist, biologist, anthropologist, economist, psychologist, or theologian. Such rarified atmosphere makes for strange observations which often fail to check with either Christianity or sound economics.

But the National Council takes cover in assuming no responsibility. Charles P. Taft makes this unequivocally clear in his Foreword to the book: “The National Council of Churches has taken no official position and assumed no responsibility regarding the content of any of the volumes.” This is tenuous cover, indeed, when it is stated specifically in the Introduction that the 15 authors were selected “with an eye to the requirements of the project …,” and in view of the aggressive promotion given to the “project” by the National Council.

Can the National Council sidestep responsibility so easily? It is incredible that a business man of integrity could or would hold himself aloof from any responsibility for the wares he produces or sells. By that same token it is incredible that the National Council can hold itself aloof from even a quasi endorsement of the authors’ theses which—give or take some points here and there—seem colored by Kremlin instructions to Party workers in our country to cast doubt on the efficacy of the free market system of economics and to advocate measures which would substitute government control or ownership for private control and ownership of property, and in other ways regulate the lives of its citizens. Such would be a sad day for freedom and Christianity. To this much of the world today gives dramatic testimony.

The final chapter—the summation and Statement of conclusions—was left to the skillful pen of Reinhold Niebuhr, but who, according to an earlier statement by his colleague, John C. Bennett, “follows the Marxist pattern in his political thinking.…”

Such Marxist overtones seep insidiously through the whole book. It lacks Christian motivation. It lacks a realistic understanding of the relationship between the Christian ethic and economics. And it is my conviction, in contradistinction to the statist philosophy that emerges from its pages, that Christianity and freedom are inexorably tied together, and the free market is but one of freedom’s parts.

Organizational Revolt

The Organizational Revolution, by Kenneth E. Boulding (Harper, 1953, 286 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Dr. Hudson T. Armerding, Dean, Gordon College.

This work is a descriptive and analytical study of the organizational revolution which today is of compelling significance. The author, an economist, demonstrates competence as a social scientist by his balanced and perceptive treatment of the subject. Despite the sponsorship by the National Council of Churches, Professor Boulding asserts that he writes in this volume as an individual, not as a spokesman. Inclusion in the text of verbatim comments by his critics supports his assertion that he is contributing to a discussion.

With the descriptive material there can be little disagreement. Some of the author’s analyses, however, are controversial, for his assumptions are those of the so-called classical economist. He insists, for example, that to the capitalists in their corporate activity should go the credit for the Western world’s economic development, including the improved status of labor. This is a viewpoint too little articulated today, but one bound to be vigorously challenged.

In attempting to explain the causes of the organizational revolution, Professor Boulding stresses the interaction of society and its environment. This, he believes, has become dynamic because of technological advance, particularly in communications, and not primarily because of a response to social needs. According to the author, sanctions governing group behavior locate primarily in human or social imperatives with the distinctive tenets of Christianity adjudged too intensely personal to be effective for organizations or groups. This apparent failure of the author to utilize Christian perspectives is nowhere more evident than in his suggested solutions to the major problems of the organizational revolution. In endorsing a limited world government as a practicable expedient to resolve the organizational dilemma, he does not even speculate upon what part the return of Christ or the establishment of the kingdom of God might play in this process.

The contribution of this study to the perspective of the Church, therefore, will be determined largely by the wisdom and skill with which informed Christians utilize such materials in relating revelational truth to the contemporary scene.

Social Responsibilities

Social Responsibilities of the Businessman, by Howard R. Bowen (Harper, 1953, 276 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by the Rev. Edmund A. Opitz of the senior staff of the Foundation for Economic Education.

Readers of this book may feel that businessmen are unwarrantedly lumped together as a class, and then singled out as the group in our society most in need of reformation. If they do, their suspicions are not without foundation. In effect, this book asks businessmen (to paraphrase the old leading question), “When are you going to start behaving responsibly?” If they were to protest the impropriety of starting an inquiry with an accusation, Dr. Bowen would inform them that, “In general, Protestant thinkers are … suspicious of arguments used by businessmen that their power is being used—or will be used—benevolently and point out the frequent proclivity of men in a given social class to hold views consistent with the interests of their class” (p. 35). The men in the dock are presumed guilty, and no testimony in their own behalf, it is alleged, can rise above mere special pleading.

This hardly qualifies as fair play. There are scoundrels in every walk of life, and virtue is not limited to the professions. The producer of honest goods and services has a vocation which doesn’t suffer by comparison with any other. Moreover, no businessman is just that and nothing else. Like most of the rest of us he functions in many capacities; as a citizen, a husband, a father, a churchman, a neighbor, second clarinet in the town band, coach of his son’s Little League team, and so on. In each of these roles he acts as a responsible person, trying to meet the moral, aesthetic, and legal demands that are made upon him. He is the same many-sided person when he enters his place of business. In his role as a businessman he manufactures some item, such as men’s suits; or runs a store selling a variety of merchandize; or operates a service, such as a garage or laundry. In no one of these pursuits does the businessman consult merely his own inclinations, as if they were hobby activities; he tries to form an estimate of the economic needs and wants of other people which he might be in a position to fulfill on a voluntary exchange basis.

As a result of his work, goods and services appear on the market in competition with all other products available to the buying public. If he wins customers, he prospers and makes a profit while they enjoy goods and services not otherwise available to them. The sum total of human satisfactions is increased, and no one is enriched at the expense of anyone else. But sometimes the customers turn in a negative verdict; there are no sales, and consequently no profits. In such a situation some businessmen have turned to government for a monopolistic grant of privilege—in which case they cease, in strict definition, to be businessmen. If Dr. Bowen understood the distinction between monopolist and businessman he might have written a more valuable book.

Income And Its Use

American Income and Its Use, by Elizabeth Hoyt, Joseph McConnell, Janet Hooks, and Margaret Reid (Harper, 1954, 362 pp., $4.00), is reviewed by Donald Grey Barn-house, Editor, Eternity Magazine.

American Income and Its Use maintains that the Christian Church should utilize the strengths of capitalism and the welfare state to formulate a practical, working compromise which will benefit society in general.

This volume contains five studies: “The Ethics of Consumption,” by Elizabeth E. Hoyt, Professor of Economics, Iowa State College; “Distribution of Income and Consumption,” by Margaret G. Reid, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago; “The Changing Family and Its Dependents,” by Joseph L. McConnell and Janet M. Hooks, both of the University of Illinois; “Conclusion: What Lies Before Us,” by Dr. Hoyt; and “Ethical Aspects of Income Distribution and Consumption,” by Walter G. Muelder, Dean of Boston University School of Theology.

The writers of this book believe that private wealth should serve the best interests of society. They do not believe that this can be achieved, however. They recognize the weaknesses of state socialism, and they do not believe that laziness should be encouraged, nor incentive destroyed.

Dr. Muelder sums up the study thus: “An adequate Christian stewardship, with a philosophy of vocation, recognizes the spiritual significance of detachment, non-possessiveness, and even renunciation, but it proceeds from a new motive and a vision of inclusive community responsibility. There is a need to restore the awareness that even man made things come ultimately from God. There is a need to see the diversity of gifts and talents in men in terms of the mutual service which all can render” (p. 317).

According to Dr. Muelder, the theological basis of this approach is the doctrine of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. Herein, I believe, lies the weakness of this book. The problems of the world arise not primarily from a faulty view of economics but from man’s faulty relationship to God. Although this view of the Christian social ethic aims at a Christian goal, nevertheless any attempt to build a better world with inferior material is bound to fail. The primary purpose of the Christian community is to so live before men that they see us as a people redeemed by Jesus Christ. Only thus can men know the true Fatherhood of God and exercise the true spirit of brotherhood.

Christian Values

Christian Values and Economic Life, by Howard R. Bowen, John C. Bennett, William Adams Brown, Jr., and G. Bromley Oxnam (Harper, 1954, 272 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Harold J. Ockenga, Minister, Park Street Church, Boston, Massachusetts.

This is the last of a series of treatises purporting to set forth a Protestant economic ethic, to be used as a standard in attempting to solve the complex problems resulting from our rapidly changing social institutions. The authors reaffirm commitment to the value and integrity of the individual, the character of government as a tool for service of the people and the capacity of human life for essential decency and justice. A sincere interest in human welfare, in avoiding totalitarianism, and in being Christian marks the work throughout. The reader (and I read the entire book) is impressed with the desire of the authors to grapple with difficult problems and to apply permanently valid Christian principles.

These principles are declared to be “a religious perspective, a sensitive concern for the human consequences of all economic behavior, a spirit of dedication and self-criticism.” The biblical doctrine of the depravity and hence the selfishness of the human race is lightly referred to and the biblical admonitions about the responsibility of wealth are emphasized. Responsibility corresponding to power of unions, management, farmers and government is recommended.

The authors all believe government must take a large responsibility and initiative in controlling and directing the economic life of the nation. Basic is their belief that the people have given a mandate to government to prevent a serious depression, to control inflation, to relieve unemployment, to set a subsistence support to the family unit, to care for the aged, to maintain educational opportunities.

Lack of faith in the law of supply and demand, in the self-regulating power of a free market, in the processes of capitalism, is evident. Large graduated income taxes are advocated even in a peace economy to enable the government to more equally distribute income and to lift the level of the masses. The profit motive as such is not condemned except when disproportionate to other motives and interests. Equalitarianism of incomes is repudiated in the interest of initiative, but stress is placed on social responsibility. The authors lean upon government regulation, control and direction of economic life to right the wrongs of society under Christian idealism. The work is critical of capitalism, but affirms belief in modified capitalism. This modified capitalism gives large place to the state in the economic order. But Christianity is identified with no form of social order.

The governing view is that of the social gospel stemming from Walter Rauschenbush. Personal evangelism is associated with laissez-faire capitalism. The book’s preoccupation is with the brotherhood of man, social justice, and labor’s rights. We cannot take exception to the application of the Christian ideal in a changing society, but can ask, what is this ideal? This whole study lacks the lift and incentive of “the eternal view.”

The resulting impression of the book is that though the authors repudiate socialism by name, they lay the groundwork for socialism in their resort to the state’s activity in the economic order. At best we have here no answer to socialism or communism or fascism.

The American Economy

The American Economy—Attitudes and Opinions, by A. Dudley Ward (Harper, 1955, 199 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by the Rev. Irving E. Howard, Christian Freedom Foundation.

The main drive of the classical economists was to find laws written into the nature of things which govern economic activity in the same inexorable fashion as the laws of physics and chemistry. In their search for these laws, they leaned heavily upon deduction, but not without observing the activity of the marketplace.

The reaction against the classical school provoked an inductive approach to economics which stimulated the gathering of statistics. This has made a worth-while contribution to the understanding of economics, but it has been carried to excess. All “fact finding” is useless unless the facts are interpreted, but the interpreter of facts must first select his facts from the overwhelming mass, and then he must interpret them. In both activities he is guided by some given philosophy. Knowledge is never arrived at by “fact finding” alone.

Nevertheless, the pretense of “going to the facts” and being “completely objective” became popular in the so-called “social sciences.” The American Economy-Attitudes and Opinions by A. Dudley Ward is an example. The Reverend Ward, a Methodist minister and graduate of Union Theological Seminary, is now Executive Secretary of the Board of Social and Economic Relations of the Methodist Church. Director of Studies for this series on ETHICS AND ECONOMICS OF SOCIETY, he compiled this sixth volume which reports the results of individual interviews and group discussions in various parts of our country.

While the volume pretends to be a random sampling of public opinion, a collectivist social philosophy clearly lurks in the background. Social justice by means of government intervention and social injustice as a result of “laissez-faire capitalism” are the two alternatives that are suggested. For example, one group is reported as concluding: “The social order of the day tends to reward, at least economically, the dishonest.” The possibility of social cooperation and economic justice resulting from a genuinely free market is never raised. Questions used in the interviews and discussions were loaded. One questioner frankly reported: “It had never occurred to these people that there were tensions such as so many of the questions in the questionnaire suggest.”

The American Economy—Attitudes and Opinions is evidence that a purely inductive approach to social and economic problems is an impossibility. Pretending to be engaged in objective fact finding is an excellent way to mold opinion while the people so molded think they are coming to their own conclusions.

Business Ethics

Ethics in a Business Society, by Marquis W. Childs and Douglass Cater (Harper, 1954, 191 pp., $2.75), is reviewed by Maxey Jarman, Chairman of the General Shoe Corporation.

It is difficult to understand the purpose of this book. Published as part of a survey sponsored by the National Council of Churches, it apparently has as its general thesis that “the Social Gospel is being grounded in a deeper theology.” It does not clarify that deeper theology, nor does it bring into focus the ethical problems of a business society.

A large part of the book is made up of quotations from a miscellaneous group of writers and speakers. Since many of these quotations are necessarily given out of context, the original meanings are frequently obscure.

The authors apparently have no personal knowledge of the actual conduct of business or the ethical problems involved. Few of the many quotations are by men active in business affairs. The absence of definite proposals or recommendations or clear discussion of many real ethical problems that do arise in business produces confusion. For example, there are a number of statements of politicians and professors about a growing concentration of power in big business. Yet several references, including statistics, show that small business and the total number of individual businesses are growing at a faster rate than big business.

There is evidence of a much greater concern about the material side of life than the spiritual side. But, supposedly, the book is written from a religious point of view. An indication of the viewpoint might be drawn from this quote: “There is no tendency [by the National Council of Churches] toward an easy acceptance of … complete socialism.” Consider the implications of this statement.

The book is scholarly but disappointing and lacking in worth. It confuses rather than clarifies. It has many pious platitudes, but has no strong message.

Mass Communication

Responsibility in Mass Communication, by Wilbur Schramm (Harper, 1957, 392 pp., $4.50), is reviewed by V. Raymond Edman, President, Wheaton College (Illinois).

Out of wide experience in newspaper and research work this Stanford University professor has presented a realistic approach to the problem of mass communication in mid-twentieth century America, and a careful evaluation of solutions. After surveying the historical background of communications since Gutenberg’s fifteenth century press, he depicts the tremendous power that has now accumulated to mass communications. The problem of responsibility to control communication is accentuated by the very largeness of the media, their relative fewness, centralization, mechanization, and distance from the general public.

Historical experience has proposed four approaches to the problem of responsibility for communications. They are the old authoritarianism based on medieval concepts such as the divine right of kings and the authority of one church; and second, the newer authoritarianism such as communism or fascism which in reality exercise totalitarian control over every aspect of national life. These two philosophies are ruled out at once. The third is libertarianism with its eighteenth century laissez-faire doctrine in which “free market of ideas” is alleged as inevitably banishing error. Twentieth century conditions call for a review of this basic concept of freedom so as to maintain liberty and require responsibility.

After an excellent and well-documented discussion on ethics in mass communication, the major problem is faced: whose responsibility is it to preserve and to promote the freedom and corresponding responsibility of the press, radio, television, and movies? The government is the ready answer of some social planners. But Schramm declares this to be the worst possible solution. He states clearly: “Our kind of mass communication system will be more healthy if the government keeps its hands off as much as it possibly can.” The government’s responsibility is to promote the public interest, and not to augment its power. However, experience has shown that the government moves into areas of responsibility not assumed by others. A large measure of social control can be exercised by the public if it is alive, articulate, and discriminating.

The major responsibility is on the media of communications themselves. Self-regulations and self-imposed standards are quick ways for assuming increased responsibility; however, most self-imposed codes have evidenced only minor effectiveness. The “czar” of an industry like motion pictures is, of course, an employee. The development of professional attitudes is a slower method, but is more promising in the long run. While mass communications can hardly become a profession like medicine or law, it can personalize professional responsibility and develop attitudes and programs for deepened responsibility to the public. If the media and the people are indifferent to their responsibilities, or are unwilling and unable to assume them, sooner or later government will take over.

Spiritual values as such are largely overlooked in this thought-provoking volume. But there is the suggestion that our basic freedoms must have a religious basis. In discussing libertarianism, Schramm quotes Toynbee who declared that “in relinquishing our hold on Christianity, we have deprived our belief in freedom of its religious foundations.”

Organized Labor

Social Responsibilities of Organized Labor, by John A. Fitch (Harper, 1957, 237 pp., $3.50), is reviewed by Gordon H. Clark, Professor of Philosophy, Butler University.

Under this title one would expect to find arguments imposing some moral obligations on organized labor, especially since the Introduction says that the inquiry is based on Christian assumptions. One’s expectation, however, is largely disappointed. A few mild criticisms of the labor movement are made in the last two chapters, but the bulk of the book is almost totally historical.

Furthermore, the Christian assumptions are discarded in chapter one. The author speaks of ethical concepts, not as the commands of God, but as the outgrowth of human experience. The basis of moral conduct is asserted to be the result of man’s search for an acceptable way of life. “Social responsibility, then, is a response to the generally accepted code of behavior … and a sense of obligation to its major and most firmly established principles” (p. 4). Thus majority opinion, with no norm by which to correct or oppose it, is substituted for divine revelation.

The majority opinion which controls the selection of historical detail and by which the concluding criticisms are made is largely the opinion of labor officialdom. Thus Charles P. Taft in the Foreword can assert that the labor revolution of the past years “has been accomplished without violence.” F. Ernest Johnson in the Introduction speaks of “the stern measures provided for in the Taft-Hartley Act.” The author in several places shows his hate of the Right to Work Laws. Religious scruples against unionism are to be “compromised” by extorting dues from the resentful worker but graciously allowing him to be absent from meetings (p. 70). Indeed, one gets the impression that the author disallows all rights of minorities. He also admits (p. 46) that in President Truman’s 1945 conference the unions refused to specify a single area within which management decisions could not be questioned.

The author quotes Walter Reuther with apparent approval: “We have to assume ever increasing social responsibilities.” These include all national politics, foreign affairs, and public education. Only a person for whom the unions can do no wrong, for whom official union opinion is the norm, can acquiesce in this bid for unlimited power.

Farm Leadership

Social Responsibility in Farm Leadership, by Walter W. Wilcox (Harper, 1956, 194 pp., $3), is reviewed by Horace H. Hull, President of Hull-Dobbs Enterprises, Inc., Memphis, Tenn.

About half the book under review deals with the general farm picture in America. The author quite accurately relates the history of price stabilization, “surpluses,” migratory workers, farm credit and soil conservation.

The second half of the book surveys the leading farm organizations and summarizes their policies. The largest, the American Farm Bureau Federation, stands for limited, constitutional government, and free market farming. It vigorously opposes price supports, subsidies and other government interventions. Its opposite is the Farmers Union, which supports the welfare state idea, calling it the “legislative economy.” This group recommends a political program of “immediate action to eliminate rural poverty and to solve the problems of low income farm families. As many of these families as wish to remain in farming should be enabled to do so through assistance of federal and state programs.…”Somewhere between these two organizations is the National Grange. An appendix is devoted to farmer cooperatives.

Now for the ethics of the book. “Equity,” writes the author, “is perhaps the most important of the ethical considerations which have shaped our economic institutions, (although) such ethical norms as honesty, truth, and productivity also have left an indelible imprint.” Equity is defined as “even-handed impartiality.” Dr. Wilcox rightly regards equity as “a basic ethical goal in our society.” As the reviewer sees it, fair play as an ideal is based on the recommendation that all men in some aspects (but by no means all) are equal before God and the law.

However, there are those who have the conception that equality, fair play, and equity embrace a political redistribution of the economic spoils, a dividing of the wealth, the philosophy of “from one according to his ability to another according to his need.” The fact that these theses on social and economic life have been distributed under sponsorship of the National Council of Churches by no means guarantees the justice and equity of the pronouncements which some would beguile us into believing are true Christian principles. The effort to make us equal in a materialistic sense necessarily means the abandonment of fair play, justice, the rule of law and equity—both in concept and practice. Dr. Wilcox says as much, but hardly recognizes the implications. His first instance of how “considerations of equity come into play” deals with the effect of welfare state legislation.’some individuals, communities, and groups will gain,” he says, “if a proposed legislative or administrative action is taken; others will lose a part of their current economic advantages.”

Every piece of welfare state legislation is of this character: deliberately and on principle some people are hurt for the assumed benefit of other people. Such political action really denies the principle of equity. Nor is the principle restored by further political action which tosses a sop to the losers at the expense of a third group in society. This third group doesn’t like the short end of the deal either, and seeks redress by putting a fourth group at an economic disadvantage; and so it goes ad infinitum. We must indeed admit that this is the way things now are. But this is not the way things ought to be. “Injure no man” is the basic minimum of every sound moral code. Certainly, a religiously sponsored ethic for economic life must, at the very least, meet this minimum demand. The principle, “one man’s rights cease where he begins to trespass upon the rights of another,” is hardly subject to debate.

What good is the United Nations? Should a Christian support it? These two questions at the present time receive very different answers from Christian people.

One group is frankly and outspokenly antagonistic. The United Nations has no Christian basis, it is purely secular, and it is heading for world government. Therefore, the Western, so-called Christian nations, should pull out.

At the other extreme are people who hold quite a different view. To their way of thinking the United Nations is a bulwark of peace for it obliges the nations to discuss their mutual differences, and helps to bring better living conditions to the “have-nots” of the world. Christians, they hold, should support it wholeheartedly because it is doing what Christianity demands: practicing the love of one’s neighbor.

A Christian Criticism

Neither of these views, however, seem to be completely valid. The United Nations, like any other human institution, must be looked at critically from the Christian point of view. It has possibilities of great good, but it also has possibilities of great evil, so that one can never voice absolute praise or absolute condemnation. Rather one must endeavor to see its good points, its bad points, and even speak for points which might be improved.

Since the United Nations is primarily a political institution, we might begin our evaluation by recalling the Christian evaluation of political government in general. The basic biblical datum is that all civil government is the creation of God (Rom. 13:1 f.). It exists not for the purpose of preaching the Gospel or administering the sacraments but to maintain peace and justice, that men may be able to live upon this earth with at least a certain amount of personal and economic security. This is true of all governments, whether or not they recognize even the existence of God. An evil government usually is the result of evil in the body politic, but it is still the creation of God, subordinate to his purpose which is the working of his will to his ultimate glory.

Consequently, the Christian must recognize government, both his own and that of another country, as a divine creation existing under the rule of God. Concerning this, Paul exhorts (1 Tim. 2:1, 2) Christians to pray for their rulers that they may do that which is right for the preservation of peace. At the same time, however, the Christian has an obligation to oppose any attempt of the civil magistrate to go outside the proper bounds of his sphere of activity, that is, to interfere in spheres which pertain to other aspects of life, such as the church and the family. If these areas are intruded upon, the Christian then has the right and even the duty both passively and actively to resist, for his first duty is to obey Christ who is Creator and Lord over all spheres of life. Thus in spite of any threats of suffering or of death, the Christian’s duty is first to Him who is over all rulers and magistrates.

When we apply this touchstone to the United Nations, we must first of all ask what are the UN’s present objectives? By the charter of 1945 it appears that two basic purposes are involved: the maintenance of international equity and peace, if necessary by the use of force, and the solution of the nations’ economic, social, and cultural problems, without any infringement of national sovereignty. In both these fields the UN has so far achieved desired aims. With some success it has dealt with conflicts in Korea, the Near East and other areas, while at the same time it has exercised a beneficial influence in helping men to better their material position in this world. Thus although it has not done all that it might in either field, it has a number of accomplishments to its credit.

On the other hand it has also had its failures, as in the case of the Hungarian revolt; and there remains the danger of similar tragedies in the future. At the present time the UN is a forum for discussion, but if it contents itself with mere talk, or if one unprincipled group of nations should gain control it might well become an instrument of world-wide oppression. Even if this did not happen, but it simply degenerated into a sort of international Donneybrook Fair with every nation or small group of nations seeking its own advantage irrespective of the rights of others, it might become a monster powder keg which would bring destruction instead of peace and security. Like any other human organization it may deteriorate into a gigantic instrument of evil rather than of good. Until it does, however, one must take it as it is.

Negative And Positive

In this state of affairs, it would seem that the Christian’s attitude to the UN should be both negative and positive. He should oppose, for instance, any attempt of UNESCO to interfere in matters beyond its proper sphere of activity. He should be very distrustful of any motion on the part of the UN to interfere in a member country’s internal affairs. If the Western nations ever agreed to such actions, they would lay themselves wide open to UN intervention for the establishment of communism, should Russia and her satellites ever gain even a temporary majority. In other words, were the UN to become a super-state, it would be dangerous not only to national sovereignty but to individual human liberty.

At the same time the Christian should have a positive attitude towards this international parliament. He should not in any sense deny that the United Nations has achieved much for mankind generally. He should recognize that by the common grace of God it has and can continue to maintain a modicum of world peace. Similarly it has been instrumental in bringing material help to millions of people suffering from poverty, hunger, disease, and ignorance. Some have maintained that this has played into the hands of the Communists, but that is not the fault of the UN. Rather it is due to the lack of foresight by some of those who purport to lead the West.

Many Christians feel, of course, that there is still plenty of room for improvement, and with this most people, be they Christian or not, would heartily agree. Some believe that the first requirement is to force Russia and her allies to leave the UN. Others hold that a better idea would be to let Red China in so that she could speak for herself rather than have Russia act as her mouthpiece. There are plenty of other Communist nations in the UN, they maintain, so that there seems to be no reason for opposing the seating of Red China. Added to these assertions are the plans of the World Federalists and others who are seeking some changes in the United Nations’ charter.

The Believer’S Duty

What then is the Christian’s responsibility in all of this? It would seem that the ordinary Christian must realize that his first duty is to be as good a citizen as possible of his own country. What is more, he should realize that he is responsible to take an active part in his nation’s political life. He should endeavor to see that his country does its part and strives to act in a truly Christian way when dealing with others. This does not mean that he should favor the sentimentality and romanticism which often passes for Christianity in international relations, but rather he should call for firm realism which alone can see how Christian love may be made effective.

To be specific, he should oppose any attempt to hand over to the UN the responsibility for his nation’s defense. That is the national government’s responsibility which it cannot evade. Indeed, he should be very distrustful if, on the pretense of relying on the UN, the government should reduce its military forces to the point where defense would be impossible. This was what happened to the democratic powers in the 1930s with disastrous results, and it should not happen again. Only as the individual nations fulfill their obligations faithfully in matters of military preparedness will the UN be able to help maintain peace. In the economic and social spheres the same principles apply, for the UN can accomplish no more than the states composing it wish and are capable of accomplishing.

Yet in all of this the Christian has equally great responsibility in recognizing that Christ is still Lord over the United Nations. He has the duty of praying in faith for its leaders, the members of the Security Council—even the Russians—that they may do that which is just and true. Too often Christians are ready to criticize and carp, but they are completely unwilling to pray with heart and soul for those who hold in their frail hands the political, economic and physical destinies of the world’s people.

The Christian, on the other hand, may never place his ultimate trust and hope in human institutions, for none are absolute. They change and alter in the movement of time. Consequently, although the United Nations has the responsibility today of bringing peace that men may dwell together without fear, the Christian does not expect that, even under the most favorable circumstances, it will be entirely successful. Peace only comes when man truly has peace within, which means peace with God. For this reason, the Christian’s greatest contribution to the UN’s efforts toward peace is the bearing of a faithful witness to the grace of God in Christ. Yet even this will not bring perfect and absolute peace upon this earth, for that will come only when Christ has returned as Lord of lords and King of kings.

END

W. Stanford Reid is Associate Professor of History at McGill University, Montreal. He holds the Ph.D. degree from University of Pennsylvania. His published writings include the book Problems in Western Intellectual History Since 1950.

America is in the doldrums politically, morally, and spiritually. That fact is being brought home to us from all directions and can hardly be missed by anyone who has eyes to see and ears to hear. Philip E. Jacob’s Changing Values in College for the academic world, William H. Whyte’s The Organization Man for the business world, Eugene Kinkead’s In Every War But One for the military world, and many other sources all point to the same low condition: conformity without conviction, ignorance of the most basic values of the American way of life, unconcern for one’s neighbor disguised under the name of tolerance. The political aspects of this condition are only too evident. Domestically we are without sense of direction or purpose. Internationally we are respected for our power but not for our ideals, and all the dynamism in this rapidly changing world lies with our ruthless and dedicated Communist adversaries. Threatened by lack of vitality inside and aggression outside, American democracy is in a critical condition.

How is it possible that our country with its vast natural resources, its large and educated population, its immense technological know-how, its stupendous economic power, its military competence demonstrated in two world wars, and its democratic and stable constitutional system could find itself in such a dreadful predicament? I submit that the answer lies with the progressive secularization of our national life which has eroded away much of the Christian foundation upon which American democracy was laid, upon which American democracy depends for its vitality and proper functioning, and without which we cannot successfully compete with Communists for the minds, hearts, and souls of the peoples who live behind the Iron Curtain and in the uncommitted parts of the world.

In the universally accepted Western sense, democracy means self-government, and self-government is expressed through majority rule for the common good and within the limits of minority rights and accepted constitutional procedures. Some political scientists might want to argue a little over some of the terminology used in this definition, but I know of none who would deny that it is correct enough in substance. Although this definition is a secular one, it has important theological presuppositions, and it is a serious indictment of the political science profession and of social scientists generally that they have been unaware of the existence of these presuppositions. The omission is the natural consequence of a secular education in an increasingly secularized society. Through textbooks, treatises, articles in learned journals, and classroom lectures, this omission is perpetuated and transmitted to the next generation of students, teachers, and practitioners of politics. As a result our explanations of democracy are inadequate and defenses unconvincing.

The Self At The Crossroads

When we speak of self-government, does it make any difference what kind of a “self” is doing the governing? This is a question which is seldom, if ever, asked by political scientists and politicians. Under the influence of social Darwinism with its key concept of the survival of the fittest, they have made national survival a matter of power pure and simple. It did not occur to them that perhaps some of these nations might not be fit to live. Even Woodrow Wilson, though he was a good Presbyterian and should have known better, did not ask it when he proclaimed his doctrine of national self-determination. Today this has become the most fundamental question in international relations, and the very survival of mankind depends upon it. The nearest public recognition of its importance is that provision of the United Nations Charter which limits membership in the U. N. to “peace-loving states,” and we know only too well that this provision is an aspiration and not a description. We faced this question in the reconstruction of Germany, Italy, and Japan after World War II. It confronts us every time a new state like Ghana and Guinea takes its place in the so-called “family of nations.” Like individuals, nations live by faith, and there are faiths like communism and fascism which are a threat to the world. To defeat them on the field of battle is sometimes impossible and sometimes too costly, but coexistence with them can give us a peace which is at best precarious and short.

Is there any way out of this dilemma? There is, and it can be summarized in one word: conversion. We must carry out the Great Commission. We must turn to Him who can make all things new and regenerate individuals and nations, for we are fast approaching the condition of widespread corruption and violence which was punished by the Flood. God is still a righteous God as in Old Testament times, and we may well be facing destruction once more, this time by the fire of nuclear energy. Like the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah and the ancient empires of Assyria and Babylon, all nations stand under divine judgment in spite of the modern—and pagan—notion that self-preservation is the first law of life. The first law of life should be restated thus: Whoever (whether individual or nation) would save his life shall lose it, and whoever would lose his life for Christ’s sake shall find it again.

The Spiritual Is Practical

Many people will object that this solution to our dilemma is impractical and far removed from the realities of world power politics. The objection is not well taken. What could be more impractical than building a democratic world order with Communist or Fascist member-states, or writing peace treaties if the signatories have no respect for the sanctity of engagements, or expecting a real public spirit from selfish and anti-social people, or trying to establish a regime of law among people who are not law-abiding? Political science is not creative but manipulative, and it is limited in its effectiveness by the defects of the human materials available to it. Reform depends on reformation, and the missionary must precede the statesman. Our real alternative, therefore, is this: convert your adversaries or perish with them.

We cannot bring the Gospel to other nations by putting ourselves in the position of the Pharisee unless we recognize our own unworthiness and emphasize that our message is not ours in the sense of something we have figured out of our own experience but of something which we hold by revelation from God through Christ and which we can communicate only under the direction of the Holy Spirit. We cannot take credit for the Gospel without becoming unjustifiedly and offensively self-righteous, thereby alienating others who will derive their idea of Christianity from the word of man instead of the Word of God and take us instead of Christ as the standard.

It is also necessary that we rededicate ourselves to the Gospel in order that our national life shall truly reflect the principles and the spirit of Christianity, for we too stand under divine judgment. Genesis makes it clear that sin (that is, alienation from God and therefore from man) lies at the heart of the problem. The meaning of sin in our national life is only too evident in our racial, class, and sectional conflicts. The solution requires, of course, that justice be done. But justice is not enough. The victory of unrighteous people over other unrighteous people, even in the name of righteousness, can result only in grief and greater evil. Reconciliation, which includes justice but goes far beyond it, is the Christian’s fundamental objective. The connection with American democracy is obvious because reconciliation is the prerequisite of community, and without community no democracy is possible.

The Lost Sense Of Guilt

Reconciliation is difficult in our society because secularism has all but wiped out the concept of guilt. Much is said about the deleterious psychological and social effects of a sense of guilt, but little about guilt itself because so many people do not believe in it. We have pretty well relegated guilt to criminal court proceedings where even the crassest relativist is forced to recognize it. What we are doing is to blame the symptoms and ignore the cause. Is it any wonder that a cure is not forthcoming? Only he who has caught a vision of God in his perfection, or has had a personal encounter with the radiant figure of Christ, or has measured himself in the light of the stringent standard of the Ten Commandments or the exacting requirements of the Sermon on the Mount can see something of the full extent of his sinfulness and therefore his guilt. Without an experience of this kind, it is impossible to know the meaning of guilt, however much we may suffer the consequences. It is one of the most insidious and devastating effects of secularism that it makes this kind of experience uncommon.

A Plea For Recovery

The survival of American democracy is thus intimately and inextricably bound up with the teachings of the Bible concerning sin and reconciliation because of the bearing of these teachings on the problem of community. Majority rule and minority acquiescence are morally valid and politically feasible only in community. Let community be destroyed, and they forthwith degenerate into a mere contest of strength. Moreover, majority rule in the United States is possible (and constitutional) only through representation. Here again Christianity is vitally involved since the quality of the candidates who are willing to run for office and to serve in it is religiously conditioned and the competence of the voters in recognizing quality is likewise religiously conditioned. Finally, what a man can accomplish in office is again conditioned by the same spiritual insight in himself and in those who elected him. Nations rise and fall with their spiritual level.

The only conclusion I can reach, therefore, is that the survival and proper functioning of American democracy demand a return to a truly evangelical Christianity nurtured in biblical truths, committed to Christ, and responsive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Such a return will give meaning and purpose to our nation, revitalize our democracy to the point where it will become attractive to the uncommitted peoples of the world, and supply us with the power to overcome Communist power. We must learn once more that money, political power, military force, and national prestige are only tools. Men and nations must use them but cannot live by them. The deepest level of existence is spiritual, and it is on that level that both the moral right and the actual ability to survive and to grow are determined. The political task of Christian statesmanship to which this basic truth points was concisely stated by a great evangelical Protestant, John Milton, in these words: “To make the people fittest to choose, and the chosen fittest to govern.…” (The Ready and Easy Way to Establish a Free Commonwealth.)

END

Rene de Visme Williamson has been Professor of Government at Louisiana State University since 1954, and is now Chairman of the Department of Government there. He holds the A.B. from Rutgers University, A.M. and Ph.D. from Harvard. He has served on the faculty of Princeton University, Davidson College, Beloit College, and Univ. of Tennessee.

Recent years have witnessed a new birth of interest in the theological aspects of the American Revolution. People of diverse theological positions have claimed the Declaration of Independence for their respective camps. Evangelicals have rejoiced to identify the origins of the nation with the historic Christian faith, while Unitarians and champions of even more radical positions claim the document as their own. Before a positive claim is laid by either group, it is important to assess the position of Jefferson and his associates in terms of the theological and philosophical outlook of the eighteenth century in the light of the twentieth century. Such an evaluation offers embarrassments to both parties. On the one hand, it is quite obvious that the Unitarianism of the eighteenth century, with its strong reverence for Jesus Christ and its devotion to the Christian ethic, is not that of our day, but on the other hand, it is also quite true that most of the leaders of the Revolutionary movement were not evangelicals.

Although nearly all of them were deeply indebted to the biblical heritage for their ethical and political philosophy, the long-cherished belief that the leaders of the American Revolution were evangelical Christians is open to serious question in the light of the theological and intellectual developments which had been taking place in the colonies after 1700. Deism and Unitarianism had been slowly but steadily gaining influence in the colonial mind since 1720, or so, and by 1776 they could claim a considerable following among the intellectual classes in most of the colonies. The identification of the Natural Rights philosophy with the cause of American independence gave to both Deism and Unitarianism a respectability in the eyes of many who would not necessarily agree with the basic theology of the more radical leaders of the Revolution. For this reason, in part at least, the more evangelical members of the Continental Congress of 1776 made common cause with those who desired separation from the mother country, although they had lost control of the movement for independence, for by 1776 the Deists and political radicals were firmly in control of the Continental Congress.

Thomas Jefferson, an avowed Unitarian, was one of the most outspoken critics of the historic faith, and opponent of the church of his day. His presumptuous attempt to edit the Gospel according to his own notions was equalled only by his contemptuous attitude toward Christian ministers, whom he accused of falsifying the simple teachings of Jesus by adding their own theological conceptions. His position, in general, was shared to varying degrees by such other leaders of the American Revolution as Benjamin Franklin, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen and, for a time, John Adams. The extent to which Deism and Unitarianism gained the ascendancy among the intellectuals is open to question, but there is increasing agreement among students of the period that this intellectual revolt against historic Christian theology lay at the heart of the movement for political separation from England. The Declaration of Independence with its political, social, and economic implications could not become a reality and guiding force in American life until this religious and philosophical revolt had first taken place. Bernard Mosier is profoundly correct when he insists that the sovereign God of Calvinism was no less objectionable to the Deists and Unitarian architects of a new America than was the sovereign George III of England. But their revolt was not merely against Calvinism; evangelical Christianity in any form was distasteful to them.

The Revolt Against Christianity

The Deists rejected as untenable such vital doctrines as the infallibility of the Scriptures, original sin and total depravity, the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the atonement and the resurrection. Following Hume, they banished the possibility of miracles in a world ruled by natural law, and looked to it as the final source and guarantee of truth. They were willing to grant to the Scriptures a relative authority to the extent to which they agreed with the laws of nature and conformed to the dictates of right reason. But they reserved the right to judge Scripture in the light of human reason.

Deism, with its religious corollaries, furnished the inspiration for the Revolutionary program. For the radicals, separation from England was not an end, but a means to an end. It was a necessary prerequisite for the realization of the true revolution which was a reconstruction of colonial life in a manner not possible so long as the colonies remained under English rule. It was their purpose to erect in the colonies not only a new nation, but a new society, democratic in its nature, which would reflect in its political, social, and economic life their basic assumptions.

The radicals desired a society dedicated to the sovereignty and goodness of man, for in it man would realize his native capacities. By the light of reason and with the aid of education, he will seek to do that good which he knows he must do. The Deists not only believed in the perfectability of human nature, but they were also quite optimistic concerning society at large, and were convinced that progress was not only possible, but inevitable. It was possible for mankind to achieve a millennial society on earth; Jefferson, and other architects of the American Revolution, were dedicated to this proposition.

It was not their intention to banish Christianity from the American scene, for, as we have seen, they actually held its ethical teachings in very high esteem, but it was their purpose to break the hold of the historic Christian theology on the political and social life of the American people. Jefferson was deeply convinced that only a liberal religion could offer the most favorable atmosphere for the realization of the democratic millennium. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson ventured to voice the wish that every young American then alive would die a Unitarian.

It is thus obvious that this American dream was inspired by principles which were humanistic and even naturalistic. The society which the Deists envisaged was a far cry from the biblical view of the triumph of the kingdom of God. It was to be achieved by education and cultural progress rather than by regeneration and a final appearance of Jesus Christ. It looked to an earthly Utopia for the realization of human happiness and not a heavenly kingdom for the glory of God. Christianity was interpreted in terms of the democratic philosophy: what is Christian is democratic, and what is democratic must necessarily be Christian. This is tenable only if the Gospel is first shorn of all those elements which deny the basic assumptions of the democratic philosophy. This most dangerous premise has underscored the American dream from 1776 until now.

The Debt To Christianity

But the question remains to be answered: Are there any Christian elements in the philosophy of the Declaration of Independence, or might it be assigned, in toto, to the Deist camp? Does it owe its greatness to non-Christian sources, or may some of its continuing influence be traced to a biblical background? These are questions of great importance for all Christians who would seek to understand, and have the proper biblical attitude toward, the society of which they are a part. Devout Christians of that day were not unaware of these issues which confront us today, and some of them, like John Jay, consciously sought to curb the radical tendencies of the Revolutionary movement. Some leaders, like John Adams, later repudiated the earlier Deism and recoiled from the excesses of the Revolution itself.

Nature Or God?

In its assertion that human rights are derived from nature, and that government is of human origin, the Declaration of Independence was in serious error. It is quite obvious to the convinced Christian that men do not receive their rights from nature, but from God; and that all government is divinely ordained for the government of man and that it derives its just powers from God. It is equally clear that the belief in the right to revolution as it was set forth in 1776 is quite contrary to the Scriptures; also, Jefferson’s inclusion of happiness as a human right is much more compatible with pagan philosophy than with the Gospel. It may well be questioned whether happiness in this sense is a biblical concept. In respect to these points the Declaration of Independence can hardly be called Christian.

The Christian Tradition

Yet, after all of this has been admitted, it is equally clear that such a document could only have been drafted by those who were thoroughly at home in the Christian tradition. In its basic contention the Declaration of Independence stands squarely on a biblical foundation, for the Scriptures clearly set forth a doctrine of human rights—to life, liberty, property, and marriage. Such a conception of human personality is only tenable within a Christian frame of reference and flows naturally from the fact that God created man in his own image and laid on him certain basic creaturely obligations. Possessing the divine image and standing at the very head of creation as God’s vice-regent, man was given duties and responsibilities to his Creator which will call forth equivalent rights which God ordained to be the means by which man would fulfill his obligations as a creature.

Equally valid is Jefferson’s contention that government exists to defend these inalienable rights. When Jefferson penned the majestic phrases of this document, he was thundering forth to the twentieth, as well as to the eighteenth, century eternal truths which man rejects at his peril; for these propositions are derived from the Scriptures, and are a part of that infallible rule of faith and practice which He was pleased to give to his creatures.

The Failure Of The Deists

The Deists tried to maintain the ethical fruits of the Gospel while they divorced them from their metaphysical and theological foundations. At this point they committed their most serious errors. Convinced that the great scientific discoveries of their day had rendered any belief in the infallibility of the Scriptures impossible, they sought to separate the practical Christian life from its setting in the Scriptures as the only infallible revelation of God, and to find for it a more sure foundation in natural law and the dictates of human reason. They failed to realize that this natural law philosophy would, in turn, crumble in the face of the new scientific theories of the nineteenth century, and that those very human rights which they sought to strengthen would, in turn, fall victim to the naturalism, utilitarianism, and hedonism which would replace the Deistic conception of right reason. Still less could they foresee the philosophic nihilism of the twentieth century and the rise of those political despotisms which would make a mockery of all those values which they held dear.

Evangelicals And Government

One additional question presents itself. To what extent has the Declaration of Independence become the guiding influence in the life of the American people? The answer is found in the fact that very soon after the close of the war there was a growing conviction that the Revolutionary movement must be brought to a halt. As a result the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 met to draw up a constitution which, in many ways, was the direct antithesis to the Declaration of Independence. The calling of this convention was not only a triumph for those political conservatives who had lost power as a result of the Revolution, but it also marked a resurgence of evangelical convictions in the realm of government. Only a few of those who had been members of the Congress of 1776 were elected to the Philadelphia Convention; the only radical was the now mellowed Benjamin Franklin.

The Founding Fathers of 1787 represent not only a shift in political opinion, but a decided change in theological tone as well. Many of its leaders were evangelical in their convictions and the resulting Constitution clearly reflects the biblical tone in the thinking of the members of the Convention of 1787. Deism was no longer in the saddle but was under suspicion in many quarters. It is worthy of note that the modern cult of the Declaration of Independence had its origin in the days of Andrew Jackson and the rise of the modern democratic movement in this country.

END

C. Gregg Singer is Professor of History at Catawba College in Salisbury, North Carolina. Formerly he taught in Wheaton College, Illinois, and Belhaven College, Mississippi. He has earned the A.B. degree from Haverford College, and the A.M. and Ph.D. degrees from University of Pennsylvania.

Not long ago I read a Communist magazine. There was an article on a famous Bulgarian monastery. It told of the shrine’s historic beauty, gorgeous mountain setting and significance in the nation’s history.

Then the author, with bitter atheistic scorn, commented about the “new trends and tides” in Bulgarian life. The monastery, he happily proclaimed, “once a center of religious activity,” was now “mainly a haunt of artists and art lovers.” He added: “… it will no

doubt attract fewer and fewer devotees. For our young men today have set out to build heaven on earth, and they would rather go in for engineering, medicine and aviation than for theology.”

This article is typical of Communist propaganda against religion. The “new trends and tides” refer to communism, of course. Spiritual edifices such as monasteries and churches are mere antiques of history! Theology is the babbling idiocy of diseased minds! The job of building “heaven on earth” means the establishment of communism throughout the world.

Communism is a bitter enemy of religion. Karl Marx was an atheist. He violently attacked religion as an opiate. To him, God was only a figment of the imagination, invented by the “exploiting classes” to drug men’s minds. Lenin was also an atheist, as is Khrushchev. For this reason the Communists attack Western morality and seek to substitute a code of values destructive of the Judaic-Christian way of life.

The Communists would like to extirpate religion. However, even behind the Iron Curtain, they have found this most difficult. Hence, they attempt, wherever possible, to deride, scorn, and ridicule religion as an old wives’ tale or superstition which is contrary to the “modern” mind. “We Communists,” they say, “have outgrown the religious stage of history. Man no longer needs God.” “Bright young men find religion pure foolishness.” Religion is equated with ignorance; atheism with intelligence.

This bitter Communist campaign against religion is world-wide, extending also throughout our nation. The Communist Party, USA—though not as openly vocal as Iron Curtain Communists—is a believer in atheism. It works to weaken the tenets of religion. Every possible device—propaganda, front organizations, literature—is used to attack the believers of God.

The Fate Of Christian Values

What does the acceptance of atheistic communism mean in terms of the individual? What happens to the concept of man when Marxism-Leninism gains control? What is the fate of Christian values?

The answer: the individual is not a creature of God, loved and cherished, but a blotch of skins and bones to be trained, manipulated, and exploited for reasons of state. Love, mercy, and justice become meaningless symbols, mocked as “bourgeois weaknesses.” The state becomes supreme and man exists to serve a supreme master whose every whim is final and irrevocable. Man becomes a tool without personality or individuality. In other words, our Judaic-Christian history is completely reversed.

I think it would be most rewarding—as we celebrate again the Fourth of July—to view some of the evil effects of atheistic communism upon the human personality. To do so, I am sure, will make us appreciate more than ever our glorious heritage of freedom.

1. The inevitable rise of the dictator. Communism is based on dictatorship, brutal, aggressive, and efficient. Both the theory and practice of communism are anti-democratic. The power belongs to the strong, the unscrupulous, and the greedy. At all times the Party becomes the idol to worship—the Communist “Messiah” which is to lead the people to the ideal society. Within the Party there is constantly, overt or latent, a bitter personal struggle for position. Any “collective leadership” in a Communist society can only be a temporary or a facade. Ultimately, by the very nature of communism, the “strong man” emerges—a strong man whose credentials of validity are ruthlessness, tyranny, and naked force.

2. The relationship of person to person within communism cannot be based on love or respect for individual rights, but on deceit, hypocrisy, and falsehood. The history of Russia under Stalin shows how he dealt with his foes as well as his “friends.” Personal vanity, fear of position, and inveterate jealousy were Stalin’s ruling guides in dealing with his associates. He was, in every respect, the “law of the land.” There was no appeal beyond him. To love your enemies as yourself is an admonition unheard of in Communist power politics. Accusations, charges, and countercharges are the techniques of “advancement.” Smear your opponent. Accuse him of a wrong. Belittle his position. Inch your way ahead by any means possible. That is the testimony of Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, and Party leaders in the United States.

3. The individual, regardless of his Party position, is never to be trusted. The Communist is indoctrinated in an ideology—Marxism-Leninism. He is taught in Party indoctrination schools, he is forced to read the Party press, he is compelled to listen to Party policy. Never does a member finish going to school. Even if he’s a tested veteran, he must continue to secure Party training. The Communists live in perpetual fear that a member may “backslide,” or in Party language, become a “traitor”—that is, his enthusiasm for communism might wane. To become disinterested is to become a danger to the security of the Party. Hence, the member must be constantly watched. He must live under the closest of discipline. His every decision, even of his personal life, must be made under Party scrutiny. To trust him too much, to give him too much freedom from Party control, is to risk a Party defeat.

4. The individual, under communism, becomes an automatic responder, not an original thinker. In the Party apparatus, the Communist officials quickly learn what the superiors “downtown” (referring to district, state, or national headquarters) desire. Hence, many Party officials do everything they can, slanting their information and opinions, “to please.” If a difference of opinion develops—well, it takes a strong comrade to buck the known desires of headquarters. If he objects, he has vivid memories of how former objectors were expelled from the Party. Communist discipline, throughout the world today, is creating this mass mentality of obedience, the individual who is afraid to make an independent decision. Moreover, eventually, because he seldom uses the power of critical discernment, he loses this facility. We in the FBI have talked to many Party members—some who have been in the Party for many years. They will argue for hours, always in the same Communist groove. Many are incapable of making an independent judgment. This mentality represents a great danger to our way of life today.

5. The function of an individual in communism is to serve, produce, and work for any goal which might he defined by the state. Never, for a moment, is any thought given toward enriching the personality of the individual. In our society, we believe that each personality has merit itself, to be enriched and developed within the general structure of society as a whole. To Communists, this concept is utterly foreign. The office worker, the factory manager, the soldier exist to give their best for the state. In communism there is no personal gratitude for a job well done. There are only demands for further production or criticism for things allegedly gone wrong. The individual is strictly utilitarian: a piece of living matter, without the image of God, to be manipulated for the Party and/or the state. Hence, any alleged neglect of duty, a poor record of production, or faulty workmanship brings the most drastic penalties. Such acts are interpreted as treason against the state.

6. The individual is compelled to give idolatrous worship to the Party. With the true God “expelled,” so to speak, Communists have erected a new god—that of the Party. Communist men and women are compelled to worship it. Communism cannot be understood except as a false religion. Admittedly, and very unfortunately, communism can and often does secure the full allegiance of the human heart. The enthusiasm, devotion and dedication of many Communist devotees are a matter of record. The false Communist appeal to a better world, to a heaven on earth, to elimination of racial, economic, and political injustices is an alluring and powerful motive. The minds of thousands of men and women, including many in our own country, have succumbed and are today furnishing world communism the incentive, intelligence, and dynamic power to make it a master of millions of human souls.

Influence On Personality

This, then, is a brief picture of communism’s powerful influence on the human personality. We see the creation of “Communist man”—a man whose devotion is wholeheartedly to the Party, a man who is stripped of his powers of critical judgment, who works unceasingly for a Communist-defined goal, who is willing to be unfairly treated, who, when criticized, keeps on coming, a man whose daily life is saturated with fear and apprehension. Today he’s a “hero,” tomorrow he may be a traitor and outcast depending on what the Party says.

Can this be true, you ask? As ministers of the Gospel, you know that the attributes of Communist man are diametrically opposed to those of free man. We see the values of Christian society, very literally, being turned upside down. Good becomes evil. Love becomes hate. Help your neighbor becomes tear him down. Trust and confidence are transformed into fear and suspicion. The worship of the true God, the Maker of heaven and earth, becomes the idolatrous worship of a man-made Communist Party.

I think all of us should be aware of the dangers of communism. We must realize that we face a formidable foe. We see, all too tragically, that Communist man can create stupendous material wonders—the Sputniks and missiles. Never must we underrate him. To do so is to risk our freedom.

Yet, as for me, I have utmost confidence that this new creature of idolatry, this handmaiden of tyranny, will be defeated. The power of our Judaic-Christian tradition is too strong. We know from history what happens when men and civilizations stray from the path of God. Their immediate endeavors may be successful, but eventually they are doomed to decay. Communism contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Communist man will ultimately fail.

We, as members of a free society, must stop, take stock of our own values. We must be willing, as Christians, to stand up to the challenge. Communism is an evil which is testing the defenses of our own beliefs. We must be willing to devote the same amount of time and devotion to our beliefs, to reading the Bible, to working for Christian values, as the Communists do for their institutions. We have a great heritage—a heritage of freedom and justice and love.

Challenge To The Ministry

You, as ministers, have a challenge to make your pulpits sound the trumpet cry of free men. Each Sunday morning literally millions of Americans listen to church sermons. Sermons represent one of the most potent forces for good in the nation today. Ministers must proclaim the obligations of free men to meet this atheistic enemy. You must urge a rededication to Christian beliefs.

To my mind, the ministers of America hold a vital place in the fight against communism. As men of God, you know what this atheistic enemy can and will do to the souls of men. You know that communism is an evil—an evil which would destroy Christian values. In a Communist society, clergymen would be one of the first targets of the Communist secret police—to be silenced or liquidated. Communism and the Church of Christ can never mix. You as ministers stand on the front line in our battle of survival. By urging Americans to rededicate their lives to God, to live the values they profess, to uphold the ideals of Christian truth and justice, you can do valiant service for our nation. No group in our population can do more to defeat “Communist man” than the clergymen of America.

The challenge is here. By faith in God this nation was created. By faith in God this nation shall endure, strong and free. By faith in God atheistic world communism can eventually be overcome.

END

J. Edgar Hoover has been Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation since 1924. He holds the LL.B. and LL.M. degrees from George Washington University, and seventeen honorary degrees from colleges and universities across the land. He first entered the Department of Justice in 1917.

Despite the wide-spread epidemic of atomic jitters, it seems that relatively little is being written about pacifism and world peace. For example, the International Index from 1955 to 1959 lists no articles under these titles. This year has produced interesting ones, particularly in The Christian Century, such as John Gwomley’s “End Conscription in 1959” (Jan. 7, 1959). A significant historical study of pacifism appeared, January, 1956, in The Mennonite Quarterly: “The Pacifism of the Sixteenth Century Anabaptists” by Harold S. Bender. We will direct our comments here to two recent utterances: a television address by Marc Boegner and a periodical article by Edwin T. Dahlberg in Current Religious Thought (First quarter, 1958).

Nuclear weapons have made previous concepts of the fighting of wars obsolete. Have they made war itself obsolete? Or, to put the question another way: Granted that modern weapons have made old-fashioned warfare obsolete; have they also made the very possibility of war unthinkable? Marc Boegner, president of the French Protestant Federation, seems to think so (Paris, RNS). At least, he calls for a new “theology of war.” Furthermore, he asks us to revise an old notion that a defensive war may be more Christian than an offensive war could be.

Before we face his thinking, let us say in passing that we never have accepted the preference for the defensive war over against the offensive war. We suppose that defensive war is often thought to be more Christian, or less unchristian, than offensive war because of its apparent necessity. But that may make it less Christian. Can we not hear Christ saying: “If you defend yourself what do you more than others? Do not even the Pharisees the same?” On the other hand, an offensive war, if fought for the welfare of another nation rather than one’s own national interests, would seem to have more chances of being altruistic and Christian. To place the matter on an individualistic basis for purposes of better perspective: If I resist a goon to protect myself would that be as Christian as resisting the same goon to protect someone else? But let us return to President Boegner. His reason for questioning the validity of the distinction between offensive and defensive war is that in modern combat even a defensive war would threaten innocent women and children as much as an offensive war. This fact certainly cannot be denied. However, we wonder if the conclusion follows that defensive war may not be legitimate because it endangers women and children so greatly. We doubt it. After all, the men who fight are not presumed to be more guilty than their wives who do not; nor the wives more innocent than their soldier-husbands. When a nation fights, the nation fights—all of its subjects do. But some fight by taking up arms; others by remaining home and watching over the family. It is a written or unwritten rule of war that such shall be the custom of nations and each nation rightly tries to respect the women and children as sacrosanct. But we repeat, this is a matter of custom and propriety, not of fundamental ethics.

If women are no more guilty or innocent than their men, then their protection is a desirable convenience not a necessary duty of warring nations. If war as such is legitimate—and the church catholic has never declared it otherwise—then a greater exposure of women to the perils of it does not make it otherwise. The exposure of women would not make war suddenly immoral if it were not so independently of that fact. It would make war all the more dreadful in its inevitable consequences. That much may and must be said—but more than that hardly can be morally maintained. Of course, nothing said above is to be construed as opposing the abolition, by international agreement, of nuclear warfare. We are merely facing grim facts supposing such agreement is not attained.

The dreadfulness of modern war has led others to some understandable but dubious conclusions. It no doubt had something to do with the now famous Cleveland conference’s endorsement of the recognition of Communist China. It has led thoughtful Edwin T. Dahlberg to make an impassioned appeal for “massive reconciliation” rather than “massive retaliation.” Impassioned and well meaning as such appeals may be and much as can be said for some aspects of them, we feel they are not only wrong in theory but very dangerous in application in our world situation.

Let us consider the appeal for “massive reconciliation.” Surely there can be nothing wrong with a desire for understanding Russia in an effort to prevent war and promote peace. And a desire to avoid “massive retaliation” is nothing less than a desire to avoid the extinction of the race, and what man wishes to quarrel with a plan for survival? Yes, who wishes to quarrel with a plan for survival—unless the cost is greater than survival is worth? What does it profit a world if it gains the world and loses its own soul? If Christianity be true and God be a fact, then obedience to His truth at the cost of extinction is a cheap price to pay. Miles Standish once said that war is a terrible thing but in the cause that is right, sweet is the smell of powder. Has that truth changed because we must now say, sweet is the smell of atomic dust? Was the principle true when only some men fought and suffered and false now when all of us are exposed to the same peril? Hardly.

If the above reasoning has any validity, then consider the peril in advocating massive reconciliation rather than massive retaliation. Please note that we do not oppose reconciliation except as a substitute for military retaliation. Who will doubt that if the Western Allies once lose the power of “massive retaliation” that the only “massive reconciliation” will be to Communistic ideas at the point of an ICBM? We do not question the patriotism of Dr. Dahlberg and many who think as he does. There is no reason to suppose that because their program differs from ours that their devotion is less than ours. A man’s thoughts may not be sound whose heart is utterly loyal. This must never be forgotten unless we become infected with that disease of summoning all before a Congressional committee who do not see eye-to-eye with us. Still, notwithstanding, nevertheless, and however—the doctrine of massive reconciliation as a Pentagon formula meant to replace massive retaliation must make the halls of the Kremlin ring with joyous anticipation. How the godless must fervently pray for the adoption of such “Christian” strategy. And how alarmed must Christians be to see their religion used as an instrument of military subversion. Shades of Friedrich Nietzsche! Is Christianity the religion of the weak which begets only effeminacy? Or is it not rather a religion which makes a nation strong so that it may resist the oppressor and defend the defenseless?

Crusade Against Demythologization

Rudolph Bultmann’s influence in theological circles is rising on the continent of Europe and elsewhere. A leading critic of Bultmann’s “demythologizing” of the New Testament is Karl Barth, who wrote Rudolph Bultmann: An Attempt to Understand Him (Evangelischer Verlag, 1952, 56 pp.). This volume is reviewed by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, translator of Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics and currently Professor in Church History, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena.

It is known that Karl Barth has emerged as one of the strongest European opponents of the so-called “demythologization” crusade of Rudolph Bultmann. The general lines of his objection are clear enough. Not so much prominence has been given, however, to the detailed points which he makes, and both for information and instruction it may be well to pass these briefly in review.

Many passages in the Church Dogmatics are directed against Bultmann. One of the most incisive is in Volume III, 2 (pp. 531 ff.), of which the English version should be ready in the fall. The whole of Volume IV, 1, already available, is also written in quiet but massive refutation of Bultmann. In addition, Barth has devoted a special study to the problem under the title: Rudolph Bultmann: An Attempt to Understand Him (1952). This work ought also to be available in English shortly, but meantime we may briefly summarize the leading points in the argument.

Admitting the difficulty of really understanding Bultmann, Barth devotes a first section to a statement of what he takes to be his three main contentions: first, that the Word of God in its living and contemporary power is the so-called kerygma or proclamation of the Gospel; second, that this leads to the existential faith which, as the death of the old man and birth of the new, is the real event of salvation; and third, that in its original form the kerygma is clothed in the alien dress of a different world outlook, and that a change of clothes is thus required for the modern scientific and historical age. In this section already Barth suggests 1. that the real work of exegesis, dogmatics, and preaching should not be to find modern equivalents for incidental scientific statements, but to bring home in the language of our own day the real content of the Gospel (pp. 4–8).

In the second section, Barth interposes a secondary question 2. which need not detain us, namely, that of the source of this whole trend in Bultmann’s thought and activity. He himself fails to see how it develops logically or necessarily either from Bultmann’s concern for historico-critical exegesis or from his professed desire to bring about a return to Reformation teaching (pp. 9–11).

The third section brings us to the heart of the criticism on a dogmatic rather than an exegetical level. The basic error is 3. to think that the whole Gospel can and should be stated in terms of its benefits for and application in me rather than the objective work of God for me (pp. 9–11). But this is linked 4. with an inadequate understanding of conversion itself. Sin for Bultmann seems to be primarily the making of the visible world the true reality, and salvation the rise of faith in the invisible world. The salvation event is thus committal to the existential existence of the new creature which is man’s true existence. Yet surely this is an inadequate, partial, and very formal account even of the subjective outworking of the Gospel (pp. 13–15).

Beyond this, however, the New Testament makes it plain 5. that the real content of the kerygma and event of salvation is what God in Jesus Christ has done for me (pp. 16, 17). Thus Christ may rightly be seen as the kerygma, but we cannot shift the emphasis 6. and say that the kerygma is Christ as though there were no real Christ or work of Christ apart from proclamation and its effect. Tending in this direction, Bultmann divorces salvation from the historical Jesus Christ, who remains only as a starting-point, title or marginal figure of little material importance to the real event of salvation in the believer (pp. 17 f.).

The result is 7. that the true objective work of Christ has no place except in terms of its meaning for us. Attention is thus diverted from the work of God to what is not merely a work in man but in the last resort a work of man (p. 19). This is seen 8. in relation to the crucifixion, which is significant only in relation to the kerygma and the resultant crucifixion of the believer with Christ, not in itself as the actual bearing of the penalty of sin by the Son of God and Son of Man in our place and stead (pp. 19–21). It is also seen 9. in relation to the resurrection. For Bultmann this comes to little if anything more than the rise of Easter faith, of understanding of the cross, of the kerygma, Church, sacraments, etc. But in the New Testament it is surely the rising gain of Jesus Christ himself, and the appearing of his glory in the flesh in time and space, thus giving real substance to faith, the kerygma, etc. (pp. 22, 22).

The direct problem of demythologization is taken up in the fourth and fifth sections. Complaining of the ugliness and provocativeness of the word, Barth points out 10. that the whole conception is trivial compared with the theological perversion (p. 24 f.). It derives 11. from a purely abstract concern remote from the basic interests of the Bible itself (p. 27 f.). In detail, moreover, 12. it involves Bultmann in four serious errors: (a.) the assumption that we know in advance what is or is not intelligible; (b.) the intrusion of the alien concept of myth; (c.) the destruction of the content of the Gospel by refusing to accept the fact that God has made himself “datable” by coming to save us at a specific point and in a chosen and prepared setting; and (d.) the failure to see that this real content of the Gospel cannot in fact be put in the demythologized language which Bultmann desires (pp. 29–34).

This leads on to a sixth section in which Barth tackles the existentialism of Bultmann. Two criticisms are here made. The first is 13. that existential understanding really means a self-understanding which is in fact the core of true myth. Thus Bultmann is really retaining the substance of myth while changing the external form (p. 34 f.). But in so doing 14. he leans heavily on the philosophy of Heidegger. Yet this is only a local and passing phenomenon, and it is hard to see how it really makes the Gospel in any sense more readily understandable even to the modern man (pp. 37–39)!

The seventh section is in some sense an interpolation. But Barth cannot resist asking 15. what mantle Bultmann is taking up in this whole matter. Is he playing the role of a rationalist, or an apologist, or historian, or philosopher, or possibly quite simply a Lutheran in the sense of some of the more dangerous trends in the younger Luther (pp. 41–48)? A warning is here issued that in some aspects Lutheranism does have tendencies towards a subjective soteriology which enables such figures as Hermann, Tholuck, Ritschl, and even Kierkegaard to appear on the Lutheran scene with no real sense of disloyalty.

Finally, there is an acute criticism in the eighth section of the whole hermeneutical conception of Bultmann. Bultmann seems to begin 16. with the assumption that there is a given possibility of understanding, a normative “pre-understanding.” But Barth is not satisfied that this is the case. He thinks that it leads to a worse enslaving of Scripture than any supposed mythological reading. True understanding has to be learned from the object, that is, from the Bible itself. The first requirement is thus an abandonment of the genuine pre-Copernican attitude, namely, that the self is the measure of all understanding. This is the real mythology which constantly calls for demythologization in all of us, but which Bultmann is in fact supporting and confirming. The whole menace of Bultmann’s program on this front is that it bids fair to bring the true understanding attempted in our generation into fresh captivity to the changing misunderstandings of alien assumptions and methods (pp. 48 ff.).

On this twofold theological and hermeneutical front, and for the sixteenth detailed reason adduced, Barth thus calls for the firmest possible resistance to this apparently liberating but in fact reactionary movement. We do not need to accept all the reasons in detail. We may wish to state some of them in different ways, or to give them new emphases.

But we can certainly concur in the conclusion. We can be grateful that Barth himself accepts this conclusion, and that he supports it with such an acute and stimulating analysis. And it may be that we can learn from him to appreciate how serious is the material as well as the formal menace of this demythologization program, and to fashion a more effective, relevant, vital, and positive evangelical answer to it.

GEOFFREY W. BROMILEY

Christ Is Unique

Jesus in His Homeland, by Sherman E. Johnson (Scribner, 1957, 177 pp., $3.75), is reviewed by Robert Winston Ross, Professor of Bible at Simpson Bible College.

A well-written book, Jesus in His Homeland is internally consistent from premise to conclusion. At most points in the discussion, conservative and evangelical scholarship will be in agreement. Yet at other points, one sees views that are wholly foreign to the conservative position. What is encouraging, however, is that these latter expressions do not detract from the thrust of the book, which is upon the uniqueness and individuality of the historical person of Jesus Christ.

Sherman E. Johnson has made a significant contribution to the literature on Christ in his contemporary world. He proceeds by way of a step by step comparison of Christ with first century institutions, parties, and religious groups (formal and informal), and shows Christ to be the unique person that he is. Johnson argues that Christ cannot be put into any of the pigeonholes of convenience that would reduce him to an ultimate humanity.

He is a recognized New Testament scholar and an accredited archaeologist, and his pen and his spade give support to his thesis. Using refreshing translations of the New Testament text in conjunction with a professional comparison of the Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Johnson provides what is perhaps the best feature of the book, namely his conclusion that Jesus is unique.

He gives some ideas concerning the kingdom of God which are provocative. Many readers will disagree with them, but often the differing viewpoints serve to make the book more challenging and useful. The book of Daniel is given a late dating, Daniel is identified with the Hasidim, and Deutero-Isaiah is assumed.

The Q-document and Mark-theory as the basis of the Synoptic problem is also assumed. Practically no consideration is given to current studies in oral-tradition theories in relation to the Synoptics and the New Testament. In a larger discussion of faith and history, very little mention is made of Bultmann and his program of de-mythology.

Is the Christian message historical? Johnson says that it is. Based solidly upon the message of Old Testament Scriptures, the Christian message stands firm. “… Christian theology must never forget the rock from which it was hewn, … the Old Testament and first century Judaism.” Further, “the heart of the Old Testament message is expressed in the teaching of Jesus, and in his ministry we have the supreme example of the activity of God in history.” Johnson further argues that the redemptive act in Jesus Christ is like no other. “To Christians the death of Jesus is an event that transforms all history.”

The reader will find a small but useful bibliography and a good index at the back of the book.

ROBERT WINSTON ROSS

Serious Social Problem

Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, by a Co-Founder (Harper, 1957, 333 pp., $4) is reviewed by Mariano Di Gangi, Minister of St. Enoch Presbyterian Church, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Alcoholism is a problem of serious magnitude, with notable social, economic and religious consequences. One of the means which God in his common grace has raised up for reclamation of alcoholics is Alcoholics Anonymous.

This volume, a companion work to the “Bible” of the movement (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1939), represents the official position of A.A. While primarily published for the 200,000 members and friends of A.A., it contains much material of interest to the general reader.

Here in this “inside and wide-angled view of A.A.” is the candid record of the movement’s temptations and opportunities, successes and failures. Though stressing the need of surrendering one’s life to God’s care for deliverance and restoration, A.A. does not define God in terms of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, it does speak of “the fellowship of the Spirit,” “spreading the message,” “conversion,” “sins,” “witness of God’s power,” and “peace with God.”

It is refreshing to read of a movement in which self-righteousness and professionalism are frankly recognized and rejected. It is startling to learn that brand-new A.A.’s, sober just a short while, may be expected to sponsor alcoholics still drying up in hospitals. It is shocking to compare the sympathy of an A.A. person toward someone in need, to the relative unconcern of professing Christians toward their fellow men.

We would be richly rewarded to consider this movement honestly, and to imagine what would happen to nominal Christians if they were to realize their need of deliverance. We would feel responsibility for aiding others in distress, sponsor new converts to the Faith, and concentrate on the one purpose of “carrying the message” instead of being distracted into fruitless fields of superficial religion.

MARIANO DI GANGI

Shaft Head Of The Mine

A Bird’s Eye View of the Bible, Vol. I, Old Testament; Vol. II, New Testament, by G. R. Harding Wood (Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, London, 1957, 207 pp., and 183 pp., respectively, 10s. 6d. ea.), is reviewed by Philip Edgcumbe Hughes, Lecturer of Mortlake Parish, London.

There is no more enthusiastic Bible teacher than Mr. Harding Wood whose itinerant ministry has been enjoyed and valued by so many. These two volumes will prove of real practical worth to those who desire a concise guide to the plan and the themes of Holy Scripture. They represent, the author says, “the day-to-day digging in the Bible mine, through the years of a very busy life as a Church of England minister,” and it is his hope that they will prove an incentive to others to dig in that same mine.

Each book of the Bible is briefly analyzed, and questions for study and topics for discussion are added at the end of each chapter. Mr. Harding Wood’s intention is not to provide a commentary or theological textbook, but rather to take his readers to the brink of the shaft head of the mine, as it were, so that he may have a sight of some of the treasures which are waiting to be discovered. It is for the reader himself to go down and delve in the mine.

The two volumes could be used with advantage by young or recently converted Christians and by youth groups who are studying the Bible together. Bishop J. R. S. Taylor has written a preface in which he commends the simplicity and clarity with which Mr. Harding Wood has set out his material.

PHILIP EDGCUMBE HUGHES

A Question Of Ethics

Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, by Sir Frederic Kenyon (Harper, revised 1958, 352 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by Meredith G. Kline, Assistant Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary.

Kenyon’s original popularization of the story of the transmission of the sacred text appeared over 60 years ago. The present revision is an up-to-date edition with over 100 additional pages of text plus new illustrations. An introductory biographical sketch of Kenyon is provided by G. R. Driver. A completely new chapter, “Revisions and Translations since 1881,” includes an exuberant endorsement of the RSV and an interesting description of progress on the new English version, which is not a revision but brand new translation. The relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls is duly noted, and partiality is shown for Kahle’s textual views.

According to the jacket, “the essential character of Kenyon’s work has been kept”; but only in a formal sense does that seem to be true. Kenyon, who was famous for his roles as director of the British Museum and editor of the Chester Beatty papyri, was generally evangelical. His doctrine of Scripture, however, was not altogether satisfactory. Especially disappointing in the original of our book was Kenyon’s account of the formation of the Canon and his decision to be noncommittal on critical questions like the authorship of the Pentateuch. Elsewhere in his writings he was worse than noncommittal on that subject. He advocated a concept of progressive biblical revelation in which the progress was not from truth to more fully revealed truth but from that which was error to that which is truth.

But if Kenyon tended to be mediating, reviser A. W. Adams, dean of divinity of Magdalen College, Oxford, is militantly naturalistic and negative. Symptomatic is the rather impassioned defence offered for his rationalistic bias under the guise of a plea for “free inquiry” (pp. 62 ff.).

Is not a serious ethical question involved in this business of revising another man’s book? After all a book is uniquely its author’s own—sometimes more intimately his own than a melody is its composer’s or a painting the artist’s. A book about the Bible is a form of religious confession. And the question is whether one not thoroughly sympathetic with the theological position of the author of such a book has the moral right to revise it.

Certainly failure to apprize the reader whenever the reviser introduces elements not congenial to the original author’s thought is a failure to guard sufficiently the principles enunciated in the eighth and ninth Commandments. Such failure marks Adams’ revision of Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. An alien spirit has taken possession of the body of this old classic.

MEREDITH G. KLINE

The year of the 400th anniversary of Calvin’s Institutes, it somehow seemed appropriate that a doctrinal issue was the chief preoccupation of commissioners to the 171st General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. Meeting in the Indiana Theater at Indianapolis May 20–27, the Reformed body’s corridor conjecture centered on possible action to be taken against appointment of Dr. Theodore A. Gill, former managing editor of The Christian Century, to the presidency of San Francisco Theological Seminary, San Anselmo, California. The doctrine: the virgin birth of Christ.

Certain West Coast clergymen had voiced grave concern over Dr. Gill’s fitness to oversee training of their ministerial aspirants. Focal point of the controversy was an editorial written by Dr. Gill for the Century, where he asked, “What of us who make the Virgin Birth no part of our personal confession, however often liturgical obedience involves us in its public repetition, yet who hang our whole hope on the Resurrection?”

Dr. W. Paul Ludwig, chairman of the Standing Committee on Theological Education, opened debate by stating that Dr. Gill had not denied the virgin birth (he did not say Dr. Gill had affirmed it), that he had “not abrogated his ordination vows,” and that he “stands in the center of Reformed theology.”

Of Dr. Gill’s subsequent defenders, none said flatly that Gill believed in the virgin birth. Some said they did not know his views on the subject, but pleaded for freedom of conscience. For the most part, they repeated Ludwig’s arguments, particularly harking back to Dr. Gill’s ordination vows. But one speaker pointed out it was common knowledge that ordination vows had proven a most vulnerable defense against ministerial candidates who did not believe in the virgin birth.

The Rev. Herbert Schreiner of Seattle said he opposed Dr. Gill’s appointment “out of concern for the peace of the church.” He asserted that the controversy in the West would end immediately upon Gill’s affirmation of belief in the virgin birth. Having met Dr. Gill by chance the day before, he confessed he would support him for the office upon this one condition. Gill had refused to commit himself. Concluded Schreiner: “The Bible, our infallible standard, the Apostles’ Creed, the Longer and Shorter Catechism, and our Confession of Faith, all teach that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary. A Presbyterian seminary president should have no hesitancy in affirming this.”

Three different commissioners at varying stages in the debate called upon Dr. Gill to state his convictions on the matter before the assembly. Stated Clerk Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, the church’s chief administrative officer, said anyone could be invited to speak to the assembly, but raised the question of propriety. Dr. Gill had been quoted as saying that any statement by him would be a reflection on the seminary board of trustees. Blake asserted that the proper place for Gill to speak was before his own presbytery. The assembly voted to table a motion asking Dr. Gill to speak.

Previously in the debate, Dr. Blake had voiced resentment at “the pressure put on this assembly” by the “many telegrams” to commissioners and the “stories given to the press.”

Ellis Shaw of Los Angeles Presbytery asked that Dr. William D. Livingstone, a member of his presbytery but not a commissioner, be permitted to speak. Dr. Blake advised against this inasmuch as Livingstone held no official status relevant to the subject of debate and his views had not prevailed in his own presbytery.

The question was called and Dr. Gill’s appointment was easily approved, though there was a substantial minority vote. Thus ended a significant, tension-filled debate conducted in gentlemanly fashion by both sides and moderated ably and impartially by the Rev. Arthur L. Miller, newly-elected moderator, who ministers to Denver’s Montview Boulevard Presbyterian Church.

“But the matter is not ended,” says Dr. Livingstone, minister of the 5,200-member First Church of San Diego, said to be the nation’s second largest Presbyterian church. “It is our view that it’s just beginning. We remain unsatisfied until Dr. Gill makes a clear affirmation.” Livingstone held a telegram from his 66-member church session indicating that the church’s benevolent program would probably be revised to exclude the seminary unless such affirmation were forthcoming.

In earlier debate, unexpressed theological issues were at stake in connection with the proposed merger of Western Theological Seminary and Pittsburgh-Xenia Theological Seminary. The latter was the sole divinity school of the old United Presbyterian Church of North America, which joined the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. just one year ago.

Pittsburgh-Xenia board members had voted 22–10 for merger, a decisive factor which tended to neutralize a plea of the seminary’s president, Dr. Addison Leitch, that “we need more seminaries, not fewer.” The merger passed.

In other theologically-related action, the assembly: voted down formation of a committee to write a new confession of faith, but approved a move to elevate some sixteenth-century Reformed creeds to the level of her own seventeenth-century Westminster Confession; softened an Evangelism Committee report which implied a lack of emphasis on the new birth in the church’s Christian education materials.

Also approved was a letter to be sent to other churches of the Reformed tradition encouraging talks toward merger.

Moving into the political and social arena, the assembly twice faced Red China issues set forth by the Fifth World Order Study Conference of the National Council of Churches. Overtured to record disapproval of the Cleveland conclusions, the assembly took a middle position, expressing hope for the day when the United States with other free nations could “with honor” enter into “normal relations with the government of the Chinese people.” Rejected overwhelmingly was a proposal for immediate U. S. recognition and U. N. admission of Red China, though serious consideration of the Cleveland proposals was encouraged. Prayer was assured those exposed to “the ruthless acts of atheistic communism” and of other such forces.

The assembly also: declared that federal grants should be made on a “racially non-discriminatory basis”; recorded its opposition to capital punishment; approved planned parenthood; spoke out for voluntary abstinence from alcoholic beverages; reversed, after some prolonged debate, a committee condemnation of right-to-work laws but so garbled the committee report through amendment as to leave the will of the assembly on this matter in doubt; and learned of the acquisition of a 16½-acre District of Columbia tract (cost: $2,200,000) for a proposed new National Presbyterian Church.

The church reports a 1958 membership increase of 56,990 to reach a new high of 3,159,562.

On the assembly’s last day, well-beloved retiring President John A. Mackay of Princeton Theological Seminary said his farewell: “Calvinistic to the core, I believe we [the United Presbyterian church] are predestined to give leadership to the churches of our nation and our world.”

March Of Missions

Outside Buffalo’s Hotel Stuyvesant, guests appeared in exotic garb. One wore white tights, another a glistening silk sheath. Some were wrapped in gaily-striped robes, others in scanty cloaks. All were missionaries assembled for the 62nd annual General Council of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

Down a tree-lined thoroughfare the missionaries marched, 120 in all, their costumes representing 18 nations served by the Alliance. Leading the way was a slightly built, graying Canadian in a dark business suit: President Harry L. Turner. The colorful procession highlighted a Sunday afternoon rally, but it symbolized an Alliance parade of progress, too. These were among strides reported at the six-day convention last month, strides which indicated that while the Alliance was taking on more of the attributes of a denomination (as distinguished from its missionary society roots) zeal for the Gospel witness abroad still carried utmost priority:

-Forty-nine missionaries were added during 1958, bringing the total to 832. Moreover, added Foreign Secretary L. L. King, the missionary candidate picture is encouraging. King said that in a recent survey at Alliance-operated Nyack Missionary College, 197 out of 500 students said they had a missionary calling.

—Field tabulations listed 8,483 baptisms last year.

—A record budget, $3,708,000, was set for 1959, some 87 per cent of which will be direct missions expenditures.

—Per capita giving for foreign missions last year reached $56.

In some respects, the Alliance was setting a pace at home, too. Council registration reached an all-time high of 1,019 voting delegates representing 1,142 churches (twice the number 10 years ago) with a total membership of some 64,000. A new youth quarterly, AYF (Alliance Youth Fellowship) Compass made its debut. Delegates heard of preliminary merger talks with the 7,500-member Missionary Church Association.

But the work at home also had some rough places. A commission appointed a year ago to study Alliance organization cited such things as inadequate lay influence, financial losses in publication work, and, privately, overcentralized authority. Delegates subsequently (1) authorized each church to send both a clergy and lay delegate to annual council meetings and (2) voted to reorganize the Home Department. Reorganization of publication functions was given a vote of confidence, but delegates defeated a move to curtail ex officio representation on important committees. Decision on creation of an interdepartmental publicity bureau was deferred for a year.

Peoples’ Precedent

A four-week missionary convention at the Peoples Church of Toronto raised “faith promise offerings” totalling $313,000 for foreign missions. The figure represents the amount the congregation hopes to advance for the Gospel witness abroad within the next 12 months. It was a record for the Peoples Church and is believed to represent the largest amount of money ever given by a single congregation for foreign missions.

Dr. Oswald J. Smith, founder and pastor emeritus, has led annual conventions featuring missionary speakers throughout the church’s 30-year history.

Smith distinguishes between a “faith promise offering” and a pledge. Annual missionary offerings are described as personal covenants binding before God alone. Between 92 and 98 per cent of the “promises” have been fulfilled in years past. In 1958, actual cash receipts for foreign missions topped $300,000.

‘Come Before Winter’

The theme for Billy Graham’s closing meetings in Australia might well have been taken from Paul’s invitation to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:21) to “come before winter.” Grady Wilson, Graham associate, opened a series in Perth amidst the cold, wet weather of the Australian autumn. Public response, nevertheless, was reported encouraging.

Associate Joe Blinco, meanwhile, was getting the campaign under way in Adelaide before crowds of more than 10,000 per service. Leighton Ford opened the crusade in Brisbane before 22,000, largest Protestant assembly in the city’s history.

Graham was scheduled to close the series in each city before returning to the United States via Europe.

Pierce At Osaka

Bob Pierce’s evangelistic crusade in Osaka, second largest city in Japan, opened before nightly capacity crowds of 4,000. The crusade, scheduled to run for three weeks, was sponsored by World Vision at the request of 400 churches in the Osaka-Kyoto-Kobe area.

Pierce, World Vision president, was presented with a medal prior to the start of the crusade last month by President Syngman Rhee. The decoration cited Pierce for work in behalf of Korean refugees and orphans.

Protestant Panorama

• Gifts to individual missionaries are no longer deductible from federal income tax. The Internal Revenue Service says contributions made to a charitable organization, but earmarked for a specific individual, likewise are nondeductible.

• Little Rock public opinion may have reached a turning point last month when three moderates on the school board were given a vote of confidence in a recall election which ousted three segregationists supported by Governor Orvai E. Faubus.

• Ground was broken in Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, last month for a million-dollar Greek Orthodox church designed by the late Frank Lloyd Wright. Plans call for a modern adaptation of a Byzantine form of architecture which provides a saucershaped interior seating 700.

• The Hawaiian Evangelical Association of Congregational Christian Churches says it will construct a $1,500,000 headquarters building in Honolulu. Comprising some 18,000 Hawaiian members in 113 churches, the denomination is the largest group in a current Protestant population of between 50,000 and 60,000.

• About 223,000,000 gallons of distilled spirits will be consumed by Americans this year, or four per cent more than in 1958, according to Peter Hoguet, president of the Econometric Institute.

• The Latin America Mission is setting up a Canadian office in Toronto.

• The Bible Institute of Los Angeles will build a 2,400-watt FM station to operate in San Diego.

• Reiji Oyama completed four months of evangelistic meetings in the Philippines last month as the first Japanese missionary to come to the Philippines since World War II.

• Dr. Mordecai Kaplan, Jewish Theological Seminary professor, made a terse comparison last month of Judaism’s conceptions of God: “The Conservative group recognizes that a definite conception of God is indispensable, but has given little or no thought as to what it should be. It is emotionally compounded of nostalgia for the Orthodox Jew and complacency for the Reform view.”

• The U. S. Senate Internal Security subcommittee heard testimony last month which charged that Soviet leaders have forced many Russian Orthodox priests to become agents of the secret police. Petr S. Deriabian, 15-year veteran of the Red secret police who defected to the West in 1954, named Metropolitan Nikolai of Krutitsky and Kolomna, second-ranking Russian Orthodox prelate, as one of the agents.

• This summer’s American exhibition in Moscow will include displays to illustrate “the persuasive influence of religion in American life in a variety of ways,” according to the U. S. Information Agency. David V. Benson, president of Russia for Christ, is one of the U. S. guides at the fair.

• Howard Butt, official of a Texas supermarket chain and a lay evangelist, conducted an eight-day crusade in Lubbock, Texas, last month, which drew an aggregate attendance of more than 44,000, and produced 694 decisions for Christ.

• The Oklahoma House of Representatives defeated last month, 86–17, a bill to legalize horse racing and pari-mutuel betting.

• “Large loss” church fires—those listed by the National Fire Protection Association as having caused more than $250,000 damage—showed a marked drop last year in the United States and Canada. The NFPA said there were only four such blazes in the United States last year, compared with 15 in 1957, and none in Canada, where there had been three the previous year.

• Mrs. Olive Fleming, widow of one of five missionaries slain by Auca Indians in Ecuador three years ago, planned a June 6 marriage to Walter L. Liefeld, who has been studying for a doctor of philosophy degree at Union Theological Seminary and Columbia University.

Around The World

Worshiper Shortage

Fifty Anglican churches throughout Ireland will be closed because of diminishing attendances, it was announced last month at a meeting of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland in Dublin.

Irish churches, it was stated, are being increasingly affected by a steady rate of emigration from rural areas. A committee chairman told the synod, however, that a process of parish amalgamation and regrouping resulting from the closing of the churches was “not a retreat, but an advance.”

No Legal Action

The president of the Evangelical Church of Hesse and Nassau, Dr. Martin Niemoeller, who had been accused of slander in remarks about the West German army (see CHRISTIANITY TODAY, February 16, 1959, issue) apparently will escape prosecution.

A West German Defense Ministry official announced last month in Bonn that investigations preparatory to court proceedings have been abandoned because they failed to disclose any insulting intent in remarks attributed to Niemoeller, who is known for his strong opposition to the arming of West Germany.

Christian To Muslim

In Northern Nigeria’s celebrations last month of the attainment of self-government, one religious overtone was conspicuous: the rule of 18,000,000 Africans had passed from a Christian, Queen Elizabeth II, to a Muslim, the Sardauna of Sokoto, Alhaji Sir Ahmadu Bello, who nevertheless promised that “we will not interfere” with Christian work.

Headhunters’ Toll

Three Christian natives were beheaded in as many days last month by young Ilongot tribesmen roaming northern Philippine forests. The pagan Ilongots have a custom of presenting Christian heads to prospective brides.

In Memoriam

Dr. Ronald Bridges, said to have been the first layman ever to head a major seminary, presumably was drowned last month while on a fishing trip near his Sanford, Maine, home.

A memorial service was held for Bridges, 53, after his cane and capsized boat were found in a river.

Bridges was president of the Pacific School of Religion at Berkeley, California, from 1945 until 1950, and served from 1950 until 1954 as director of the Broadcasting and Film Commission of the National Council of Churches. More recently he was religious adviser to the U. S. Information Agency. He had also been president of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions of the Congregational Christian Churches.

Catholic Population

Roman Catholics now constitute 22 per cent of the U. S. population, according to latest figures from the Official Catholic Directory and the Census Bureau. Corresponding statistics from 1949 showed U. S. Catholic strength at 18 per cent.

‘Doctrinal Article’

The Joint Commission on Lutheran Unity, liaison agency for the proposed merger of the American Evangelical, Augustana, Finnish Evangelical and United Lutheran churches, came up with a “doctrinal article” last month which will be referred to constituent conventions for inclusion in the new body’s constitution.

While the article does have legal significance, the drafting committee said, “we would hope that it is first of all a ringing challenge and a joyful affirmation of the blessings we share together in our Christian and Lutheran fellowship.”

Here is text of the article:

Section 1. This church confesses Jesus Christ as Lord of the Church. The Holy Spirit creates and sustains the Church through the Gospel and thereby unites believers with their Lord and with one another in the fellowship of faith.

Section 2. This church holds that the Gospel is the revelation of God’s sovereign will and saving grace in Jesus Christ. In Him, the Word Incarnate, God imparts Himself to men.

Section 3. This church acknowledges the Holy Scriptures as the norm for the faith and life of the Church. The Holy Scriptures are the divinely inspired record of God’s redemptive act in Christ, for which the Old Testament prepared the way and which the New Testament proclaims. In the continuation of this proclamation in the Church, God still speaks through the Holy Scriptures and realizes His redemptive purpose generation after generation.

Section 4. This church accepts the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian creeds as true declarations of the faith of the Church.

Section 5. This church accepts the Unaltered Augsburg Confession and Luther’s Small Catechism as true witnesses to the Gospel, and acknowledges as one with it in faith and doctrine all churches that likewise accept the teachings of these symbols.

Section 6. This church accepts the other symbolical books of the evangelical Lutheran church, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, Luther’s Large Catechism, and the Formula of Concord as further valid interpretations of the confession of the Church.

Section 7. This church affirms the Gospel transmitted by the Holy Scriptures, to which the creeds and confessions bear witness, is the true treasure of the Church, the substance of its proclamation, and the basis of its unity and continuity. The Holy Spirit uses the proclamation of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments to create and sustain Christian faith and fellowship. As this occurs, the Church fulfills its divine mission and purpose.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Dr. Edmund P. Schwarze, 73, bishop of the Moravian Church in America, in Winston-Salem, North Carolina … Stephen L. Richards, 79, of the first presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon), in Salt Lake City … Dr. John Wesley Holland, 82, radio pastor of the Little Brown Church of the Air, in Chicago … the Rev. Francisco Quintanilla, 59, founder and for 39 years pastor of El Buen Pastor Methodist Church (Church of the Good Shepherd) of Los Angeles.

Election: As head of the Lutheran Church in Poland, Dr. Andreas Wantula, professor at the Christian Theological Academy of Warsaw … as president of the Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Ramsey Pollard … as moderator of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., Dr. Arthur L. Miller.

Appointments: As executive vice president of Asbury Theological Seminary, Dr. Frank B. Stanger, for the past eight years pastor of the First Methodist Church, Collingswood, New Jersey … as chaplain and assistant professor of religion at Lebanon Valley College, Dr. James O. Bemesderfer … as pastor of the First Baptist Church, Van Nuys, California, Dr. Harold L. Fickett, after nearly five years at Tremont Temple, Boston … as pastor of the First Baptist Church, San Francisco, Dr. Curtis R. Nims, vice president in public relations at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Retirements: After 27 years as general secretary of the North Carolina Baptist Convention, Dr. M. A. Huggins, effective June 30 … as Africa secretary of the Church Missionary Society, Canon T. F. C. Bewes.

Award: To George Dugan, religion editor of The New York Times, the James O. Supple Memorial Award of the Religious Newswriters Association for “excellence in religious news reporting in the secular press.”

NEWS

CHRISTIANITY TODAY

Religious Assemblages

In a masterful exhibition of organizing skill, the Southern Baptist Convention conducted annual sessions May 19–22 at Kentucky’s new Fair and Exposition Center in Louisville. The program momentum within the arena, before nearly 12,000 messengers and some 6,000 visitors, reflected Southern Baptist momentum without, as America’s fastest growing large denomination.

The listener might well imagine the nearby thunder of hoofbeats from Churchill Downs. But, it turned out, unexpected burrs under the saddles enlivened convention activity.

Indeed, whenever convention machinery appears to be running smoothly, Baptist freedom dictates the possibility of perhaps a country preacher’s fervent speech dissolving a year’s work of some committee. This year, despite contrary hopes and predictions, two troublesome issues reached the floor—segregation and last year’s Southern Baptist seminary faculty dismissals.

The Louisville site had been chosen for this year by the convention in honor of Southern seminary’s centennial. Commencement ceremonies comprised the first evening’s program. Shadowing festivities somewhat was the threatened loss of accreditation which hovers over the Louisville school. Retiring convention President Brooks Hays, also retired—more abruptly—from Congress last fall by his Arkansas constituents, made it plain to the ministers that while mistakes had been made at Southern, trustees and others were properly seeking rectification. There was no need, Hays said, for convention action.

But Dr. James S. Bulman, East Spencer, North Carolina, pastor and long a convention critic, had other ideas. Maintaining that he was neither for nor against the dismissed professors, Bulman sought to show that there remained on the faculty those whose teaching contradicted the seminary’s “Abstract of Principles.” Professor Eric C. Rust’s views on the inspiration of Scripture, biblical myth, and miracles were advanced as examples. Among other things, Rust was quoted as denying that Jesus turned water into wine at the marriage at Cana.

“Malicious distortion,” replied Dr. Duke K. McCall, seminary president, who read from an article from Rust affirming that miracles, the virgin birth, and the resurrection are historic facts.

Bulman later made the charge of distortion mutual but by time limit and convention vote was forbidden to continue. He was physically assisted out of microphone range.

In his presidential address, Mr. Hays spoke at length on the race question, amidst much applause, pointing out that missionaries abroad are handicapped by racial discrimination in American society. He recommended a meeting between leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention and leaders of the two largest Negro Baptist conventions to examine the problem of misunderstanding between the races. But when a resolution to this effect came to the floor, it drew fire usually accorded to issues directly bearing upon integration, which this did not. The motion appeared not to be clearly understood. But any further agitation on the race question was feared by some as to its possible effect upon financial support for the convention program. Said one messenger, “I know you brothers. You vote one way here and another at home. Now vote your convictions and not your ideals!” After lengthy debate, the resolution passed in slightly amended form, though there appeared to be many abstentions.

Coming under criticism in the foregoing debate was Dr. Ramsey Pollard, pastor of Broadway Baptist Church, Knoxville, Tennessee, who only the day before had been elected new president of the convention over the other finalist, Dr. Roy O. McClain, Atlanta pastor. A messenger charged Pollard with making “timid statements” to the press on the race issue. The new president, who has been very active in evangelistic work, had identified his position with that of the convention in endorsing the Supreme Court decision on school segregation, but gave the impression that on this whole question he was slightly to the right of his predecessor, Mr. Hays, who was retiring after serving the maximum two one-year terms.

A World Peace Committee urged: additional support for world missions, prayer for peoples of all nations, financial support for agencies proclaiming the message of freedom and democracy, support for efforts toward international disarmament while at the same time opposing pacifism and unilateral disarmament, and prayerful support of the United Nations. The convention voted to “provide a Non-Governmental Organizations observer at the UN.” Committee chairman Walter Pope Binns spoke out against the idea of a church convention’s passing on specific matters of state, which are better handled by government experts.

Minnesota’s Congressman Walter Judd outlined the ideological basis of present world conflict and called for righteousness in international relations, masterfully presenting the case against admission of Red China to the U.N. He was roundly applauded.

Phenomenal growth experienced by the loosely-knit Southern Baptists continues to be a source of wonderment to many. Presently numbering 9,206,758, they seem destined to overtake as largest Protestant denomination in the United States, barring another Wesley, the Methodist Church, which in 1957 provided 4.7 per cent of the total gain of U.S. church membership as compared to Southern Baptists 10.1 per cent. While it took this 115-year-old convention 34 years to reach its second million members, it has since 1946 gained a million every four years. The number of converts baptized in Southern Baptist churches in 1958 was 407,972. Approximately 200 Southern Baptist ministers are engaged in full time evangelistic work. Sunday School enrollment is 7,096,175. Total gifts in 1958 amounted to $419,619,438; the value of church property: $1,825,474,318. Total theological seminary enrollment is 5,524. The two largest seminaries in the world are Southern Baptist—Southern with 1,428 students being topped by Southwestern’s (Fort Worth, Texas) 2,395. With all of this, it is hard to believe that the average Southern Baptist church is a small one of 292 members. Of 31,498 churches, only 25 per cent are urban.

As everyone knows, Southern Baptists are moving north. Having formed state conventions in Alaska as well as in several other northern states and counting churches in 42 states in all, their name has become more of an historic term than a geographic one. And they wish to retain it. A technicality in this year’s convention put off their decision as whether to enter Canada, to which most of the leadership seems opposed in the interest of good relationships with the Canadian Baptist conventions. While many northern U.S. churchmen welcome new allies, others look nervously at this “Confederate comet blasting out of the South.”

But the sweeping advance extends beyond these shores. In 1958, the appointment of 137 foreign missionaries brought the total of those active to 1,320. The prediction for five years from now is 2,000. This year’s convention heard 62 appointees introduce themselves in the foreign mission board presentation, which seems to be the highlight of all the sessions. Here the drama of missions is movingly portrayed. There is no hint of sharing insights with pagans but rather of carrying the Gospel of salvation to the lost. Here in this service one senses he is at least in the proximity of the Southern Baptist raison d’être.

F. F.