Page 5874 – Christianity Today (2024)

“Deliver us from feudalism and imperialism but deliver us not into the hands of Communism.” Walking with the dean of the theological department through the halls of San Carlos, the oldest Roman Catholic university in the Philippines, I noticed a poster displaying this plea. It eloquently expresses the tension in the minds of many Filipino Christians. At a meeting of Asian Roman Catholic bishops in November, 1971, the challenge of Chinese Communism was mentioned frequently. Thomas B. Cardinal Cooray highlighted the problem when he said: “The tragedy of our peoples is that no one else other than Mao’s China seems to offer realistic solutions that are radical enough to meet the urgent and grave needs of the poor Asian masses, the proletariat of the world.”

On the plane leaving Cebu I read the Manila Chronicle, which expressed the same thought in a different way:

It is our firm belief that there is more of the Christmas spirit, which is just another name for Christian spirit, in the Peoples’ Republic of China every day than we find in this so called “only Christian nation in Asia” on Christmas Day. People are so sad and angry that they do not even want to talk about Christmas. The message of Christmas is “Joy to the World, the Lord has come.” The only way we can maintain the spirit of this message is to help alleviate the poverty of the great majority of our people.

In what has come to be known as “the angry seventies,” the missionary together with his Asian fellow workers finds that criticism comes not only from Communists and members of other religions but also from some Christian students who denounce both the established church and its leaders. The bishops in Manila were told by Catholic students:

As long as you become wealthy, you will be incapable of becoming a saving sign in the world. You will remain a part of the status quo that you yourselves condemn, yet ironically benefit from—and thus be a self contradictor. Your voices will be but feeble echoes of the resounding message of the Gospel as your wealth has imprisoned you in structures that breed hunger for power and thus alienate you from the poor.

Protestant missionaries are also accused of introducing a capitalistic ethic of Christianity. “The exploiting group in the capitalist society,” it is said,

finds a magnificent ally in religion because the salvation would always be an individual salvation. Instead of trying to help his brethren lift themselves out of their misery, the believer takes comfort in the Christian egoism of salvation and is concerned only with the well being of his own soul.

A young editor of a radical newspaper told me he thought it was unrealistic of Christians to talk about transforming the lives of individuals when they do nothing to change the structures of society. Like others in his generation he could not imagine the existence of a true church in a capitalist society. It was an echo of a complaint we heard many times in China in 1949.

What should be the attitude of the missionary in the angry seventies?

1. We must be willing to listen humbly to the critics, recognizing that we cannot divorce ourselves from our political, economic, and cultural background. Although we ourselves may not agree with all the policies of our own government, non-Christians will still associate us with the cultural imperialism of the West. In the early fifties the Communists described the China Inland Mission as a “spy organization.” After we left China, because I had been working with students my name was placarded on the “wall newspapers” as that of “a leading American imperialist”—even though I came from England! We must acknowledge that a few missionaries have engaged in political activities or have supplied information to government agencies. We suffered in China when an American broadcast announced that although all embassy personnel had been withdrawn, a good number of American missionaries remained.

2. We should take seriously the criticism that the church is often dominated by missionaries and examine our relation with church leaders. It is possible to be paternalistic toward church leaders without realizing it. We may also be exercising a very short-sighted policy about training leaders. Missionaries who persist in doing most of the teaching and preaching may leave the church totally unprepared when the time comes for the Western worker to withdraw.

3. Together with Asian fellow workers we should reexamine the attitude of the church toward the injustice and suffering in society. Church leaders should study the teaching of the Old Testament prophets and Christ’s denunciation of the social and religious evils of his day.

If a church does not understand the protests of the “angry young men” of our generation, it will have no opportunity to win them for Christ and may well lose some of its own young people. Too many churches take the ostrich attitude toward approaching danger. Training programs for young believers should include a course on how to confront the burning issues of our day. These Christians will face difficult problems in the future, and the decisions they make must be based, not upon emotional appeals or pressures from outside, but upon obedience to the principles of God’s Word.

4. The missionary must identify himself with the members of his church in seeking to understand how to carry out the instructions given in James 2. The social work of the church is never to be a reaction to the criticisms of the non-Christian: it is to be undertaken in obedience to the teaching of Christ and his disciples to love our neighbor as ourselves. Christians minister to the poor, not to improve their reputation or to justify themselves in the sight of their critics, but in response to the love of Christ.

The missionary has to be very careful lest he identify himself with a style of living that can only be a stumbling block to those sensitive to the terrible gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Each missionary will have to wrestle with this problem himself. His standard of living will depend primarily upon the people among whom he is working. Many factors, such as his health and what is needed for effectiveness in the work, will have to be taken into account. He will need to discuss it with his national fellow workers. The charge that often the church ties itself to the bourgeois class and is out of touch with the vast masses of industrial and rural workers is not easy to deny.

It is not enough to point to the amount of money given to relief organizations. The sight of Christians working alongside their poorer brethren in times of national disaster, or of Christian lawyers counseling oppressed tribal minorities in isolated mountain villages, or of doctors giving up lucrative city practices to minister in rural areas or leprosy settlements, will show far more effectively the reality of Christian love.

5. The missionary must understand Communist teaching and strategy, and share this knowledge with the church. In the coming years China will have more and more influence upon other Asian countries. Its social experiments, its educational methods, and the philosophy of Mao Tse-tung will be discussed in schools and factories throughout Asia. Many, even in the churches, will be carried away with enthusiasm for a revolution that is said to provide the only radical solution to the immense problems facing the developing countries. The missionary who does not understand the appeal of Communism, who dismisses the Communist movement as atheist materialism—the work of the devil, something that must be completely avoided and opposed—cannot help the church prepare for the trials that may come to Christians called to live either in a Communist society or under a government that adopts Communist principles.

Chosen People

Chosen People

cherish

special benison:

manna,

quail, unfailing

torrents of

sweet water;

they savor rememberd

favors.

yet, must not

let delight omit

the harsh denial

when the Chosen

choose their own

pleasure, make

self the measure

of unmeasurd gift

(which may come wrapt

in thorns that

crackle with points

of tender flame)

EUGENE WARREN

It is very important that the missionary (1) understand the problems that Communism seeks to solve, (2) appreciate the dedication and discipline shown by many followers of Mao Tse-tung and recognize their strength, (3) understand the Communist claim that “scientific Communism is the antithesis of religion. Like fire and water, the struggle for realization of the ideal of communism in the world is incompatible with ‘the building of the Kingdom of Christ on earth’” (Peking Review, August, 1969). For the Communist, any compromise with religion is only temporary.

To be prepared for possible trials and persecution, disciples of Christ first need to have a Christian world view. It is not enough to be sure of their own salvation. They must understand the sovereign work of God in history and be convinced that in Christ, through his redeeming death and resurrection, a victory has already been won, a process has been started that will eventually lead to “new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pet. 3:13). The Communist claims of a future classless society must be answered by Christians who see clearly that all human attempts to build utopia on earth without God founder on the basic sinfulness of the human heart. The Communist revolution is not radical enough. The Christian hope of Christ’s return must be persuasively proclaimed to those who find it hard to accept the idea of divine intervention in human history.

Second, in preparing for persecution Christians must understand Communist arguments and be able to answer them from the Scriptures. This requires the study of Communist literature and books that compare the thought patterns of Communism with Christian revelation. Although a vital experience of Christ’s presence and power is more important than the ability to answer Communist arguments, the Christian is told explicitly to be “prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence” (1 Pet. 3:15).

Third, disciples of the Lord Jesus must be encouraged to count the cost of a faithful witness, to think through situations that may arise so that they will know when they are called to say, “We must obey God rather than man.” They are bound to live according to the rules of the society in which they live, even if it is anti-Christian. There may be times, however, when loyalty to Christ will require them to disobey government orders either secretly or openly. There was a time under the Roman Empire when Christianity was an illegal religion and Christians had to worship in secret. The same is true in some Communist countries today.

Fourth, the church needs to be prepared to continue without any pastors or full-time workers and if necessary without any church buildings. This will involve the building up of cell groups, and the fostering of very close fellowship with deep loyalty to Christ and to one another. Divisions among evangelicals are a “luxury” we cannot afford in a hostile society. A study of Communist tactics in China shows clearly that they will seek to divide the church. A radical party favorable to “Maoism” already exists in some countries, and this will form the core of a “new church” that the Communists will seek to build. In the early stages Christians will not be arrested because they are Christians; they will be arrested for being “reactionary” and unwilling to conform to the principles of the new progressive and patriotic church. Christians will be called upon to accuse Christians. Those who will not sacrifice loyalty to the truth for political expediency are bound to suffer, and unless they stand together in the “fellowship of His suffering,” they will not be able to survive the pressures that will be brought to bear upon them.

Fifth, Christians need to be actively engaged now in ministering to those in need so that it will be quite clear that they are motivated by the love of Christ. If they wait until the government compels all to take part in some form of social service, their opportunity to witness through voluntary Christian service will have passed. Under Communism, doctors and teachers cannot choose the most comfortable and highly paid positions in the cities. The Communists ask, “How can we judge whether a youth is a revolutionary? There can be only one criterion, namely, whether or not he is willing to integrate himself with the broad masses of workers and peasants and does so in practice.”

Christian professional men and women may well ask themselves whether they are motivated by love for Christ and their fellow men or by self-interest. One of the most tragic comments I have ever heard was this: “Christianity will not do for Asia; it is not sufficiently sacrificial.”

Sixth, Christians in non-Western countries must beware of adopting a purely Western style of life and expression, for while this enables them to move in international commercial and intellectual circles, it will disqualify them from effectively witnessing to the masses of their own people. Those Christians who are more at home in English than in the prevailing language of the country in which they live should work at overcoming this deficiency. The national language of China is spoken by more than 800 million people. Surely Chinese Christians who are concerned for their own people will want to be proficient in that language, not merely in the English lingua franca of international-minded business and professional circles. In other countries, Christians may have to learn Malay, Indonesian, or Tagalog.

The missionary may not be able to remain with the church when the time of testing comes. Although he will not want to leave his brethren in Christ, the time may come when either he will be forced by the government to leave or his presence will cause such embarrassment to the local believers that it will be better for him to withdraw.

While he is still free to live and work with the church, he can do much to help his fellow workers look ahead and see ways in which the church can be preparing itself for future trials. It is not enough to think only of preserving the church. There must be courageous and creative planning under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to penetrate even Communist society so that those whose minds are “blinded by the god of this world” may hear the liberating message of Jesus Christ.

David H. Adeney is dean of the Discipleship Training Centre in Singapore. He is a member of the Overseas Missionary Fellowship. He served in China with the China Inland Mission 1934–41 and 1946–50 (fifteen months under the Communist regime). He received the M.A. from Queen’s College, Cambridge University.

A host of Christians sing from their hymnals, “Dear Lord and Father of mankind, forgive our foolish ways!” But very few know that John Greenleaf Whittier’s “hymn” is actually the conclusion of a much longer recital of mankind’s effort to bring on a mystical experience by drugs or other means.

To read all seventeen stanzas of Whittier’s “The Brewing of Soma” is to gain a new perspective on the five that we sing. Set against a cacophony of sounds from ages past—the howl of the dervish, the crack of the whip, the drone of endless, repetitious prayers—the final words have a crystal clear, cool quality that ushers us almost startingly into the presence of our Saviour on a quiet Sabbath beside the Sea of Galilee.

In the first seven stanzas, Whittier vividly portrays a pagan priesthood in ancient India that brewed—and came to worship—Soma. The drug was not like an alcoholic intoxicant; it brought on more than “sacred madness” and “a storm of drunken joy.” Soma produced, temporarily, “a winged and glorious birth,” causing partakers to feel that they were soaring upward and, “with strange joy elate,” seeming to reach the very gates of paradise.

After that account of the “child-world’s early year,” the poet reviews in three stanzas the history of man’s efforts through the ages to induce artificially a “religious” experience.

Each after age has striven

By music, incense, vigils drear, and trance,

To bring the skies more near

Or lift up men to heaven.

Some fever of the blood and brain,

Some self-exalting spell,

The scourger’s keen delight of pain,

The Dervish dance, the Orphic strain …

The desert’s hair-grown hermit sunk

The saner brute below; …

The cloister madness of the monk,

The fakir’s torture-show.

A century after Whittier wrote those words, man has turned again to drugs in his search for mystical experiences. But now some of those hungering after eternal verities are coming to realize that there is something basically phony about any drug-induced “religious experience,” and some former drug freaks have turned their backs on chemicals and “turned on with Jesus.” Progress!

But Whittier’s poem is not yet done: “And yet the past comes round again,/ And new doth old fulfill;/ In sensual transports wild as vain/ We brew in many a Christian fane/ The heathen Soma still!” He seems to be saying, “Take it easy; it’s not just a matter of exchanging one way of ‘turning on’ for another.” It would be the height of presumption, however, to attempt to apply this warning only to the so-called Jesus freaks. There is a message here for all of us!

There used to be a lot said among Christians, especially among youths and young adults, about the “thrill” of knowing Christ. In fact, the word “thrill” was very much a part of the young Christian’s vocabulary, particularly in songs and testimony. Do Christians seek a thrill? And what about some of the music that is used in Christian circles—thick, cloying, sugary-sweet harmonies and the newer music with the “big” sensual beat? By listening to such music as a part of worship or meditation—music not evil in itself, to be sure—do we seek spiritual feelings or are they sensual? Are some of us in danger of confusing feelings engendered by beautiful church architecture, stained-glass windows, and high, vaulted ceilings with true reverence that springs out of a genuine Christian experience and a heart-knowledge of Christ?

Elation and ecstasy need not be condemned out of hand, but we should evaluate them to see whether they are an integral part of the spiritual life. We must differentiate between the essential experience of knowing Christ and the feelings that are basically side effects.

Whittier’s main thesis was not drugs; it was the propensity of men to try to propel themselves into the heavenlies, the self-induced “religious experience” in whatever form it appears. Perhaps we can epitomize it as self-will versus God’s will. It is about such human efforts that Whittier cries out: “Dear Lord and Father of mankind,/ Forgive our foolish ways!/ Reclothe us in our rightful mind,/ In purer lives Thy service find,/ In deeper reverence, praise.” Some may fault the Quaker poet for overemphasizing the “calm,” the “deep hush” and “silence,” the “tender whisper” and “still dews of quietness.” But there is an aspect of true Christian discipleship that says, with Whittier, “Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire.” We must be careful—that we don’t try to induce an experience—emotional, sensual, or spiritual—that in some way makes us feel “religious.” “Drop Thy still dews of quietness,/ Till all our strivings cease,/ Take from our souls the strain and stress,/ And let our ordered lives confess/ The beauty of Thy peace.”

To Whittier, this is true discipleship.

Paul A. Marshall is editorial assistant in the National Publications office of the Salvation Army, Chicago. He received an A.B. in sociology from Wheaton College.

On the surface the “bread and butter” principles of biblical interpretation (or hermeneutics) of evangelical and non-evangelical theory seem to be the same. Both stress grammatical interpretation, historical interpretation, and the necessity of understanding the culture in which a given book of Scripture was written. Both reject the Roman Catholic authoritarian interpretation by the teaching magisterium, and both recognize the dangers of an unrestrained allegorical interpretation.

Yet in following these standard rules the evangelical theologian and the non-evangelical theologian construct radically differing theologies. Some other factor must be at work to cause this digression in theology.

The evangelical stays close to the methodology of the Reformers. This means dedication to a certain pattern of authority in theology. The pattern runs like this: Jesus Christ is the fountain of living revelation for the Church; he chose twelve men as apostles to be his official and inspired interpreters of his mission, message, and deeds; these apostles and their immediate understudies wrote the New Testament; Christian theology is derived from a careful scientific interpretation of the New Testament.

During the nineteenth century, liberal or critical New Testament scholars were greatly influenced by the scientific history and literary criticism developed during the Enlightenment (documented in Gilbert Highet, The Classical Tradition). The net result was that another step was inserted into the Reformers’ and evangelicals’ program as outlined above. Between the apostles and the New Testament were added “church materials” (sometimes called Gemeindetheologie—theology of the church). These materials are very diverse in character, depending on whether they occur in the Gospels or in the Pauline writings. In general “church materials” are additions, interpretations, revisions of original materials, and unintentional accretions that came into the oral traditions and documents between the time of the apostles and the writing of the New Testament.

Inserting church material into the historical lineage from Christ to the New Testament has great theological significance. This is why, despite the apparent similarity of their hermeneutical rules, evangelicals and non-evangelicals produce such divergent theologies.

If the New Testament contains a large body of distortive church material, then the scholar or theologian has the right to sift the New Testament with the intention of discovering what reliable materials are there. And so the New Testament as it stands written can no longer be viewed as the unimpeachable source of Christian theology.

This does not mean that all non-evangelicals come to the same conclusions about the original nature of New Testament teachings. There is enormous variation. Nevertheless non-evangelicals concur on two methodological principles:

1. Because the New Testament is interlarded with church material, the theologian or scholar must sift through the New Testament to determine what is authentic historical material.

2. The scholar or theologian also has the right to attempt to reconstruct the original message of Jesus and his apostles and is therefore not bound to historic formulations of the essence of Christianity.

The validity of these two assumptions came to the surface in Bonhoeffer’s disagreement with Barth’s basic theological method. Bonhoeffer accused Barth of holding a dated revelational positivism. This means that Barth took the New Testament as it is and permitted no critical assessment of the text to challenge its complete normative authority in theology. Barth’s position has been sloganized in a German proverb, “Eat, bird, or die,” which comes across in English as “Like it or lump it.”

In this connection Bonhoeffer gave Bultmann a pat on the back. Though not a disciple of Bultmann, he did honor Bultmann for his honesty. Bultmann fearlessly faced the problems any modern intelligent man faces when he reads the New Testament, said Bonhoeffer; such a man recognizes the critical problems posed by the kind of documents that make up the New Testament, and recognizes the datedness of the conceptual apparatus of the New Testament.

Many evangelical New Testament scholars admit that there are church materials in the New Testament. The Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) has a strong trinitarian statement, whereas baptism as practiced in the Book of Acts was in the name of the Lord. It is presumed that the later strong trinitarian formula was put in by Matthew where perhaps a simpler formula was said. In Mark 2:4 the men bringing the paralyzed man to Jesus dug through the thatched or mud roof. Luke, writing to people who had a different kind of architecture, says they removed the tiles (Luke 5:19). When Matthew told the parable of the Marriage Feast he had city dwellers in mind, whereas when Luke told it he was thinking of country people (cf. Matt. 22:1–14; Luke 14:16–24). John’s Gospel is in some sense church material not only because of the enormous differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) but because the style of Jesus’ speeches and the style of the author’s editorializing are the same.

The non-evangelical approach to church materials is radically different. The classic is perhaps Rudolf Bultmann’s The History of the Synoptic Tradition; when he is through with the Synoptic Gospels, the historically trustworthy sayings and deeds of Jesus would scarcely fill a demitasse. The non-evangelical works with two assumptions: (1) Faith elaborates. That means the early Christian communities made up (with good intentions, of course) all sorts of sayings that Jesus never said, and all sorts of deeds that Jesus never did. The result is that the Gospels are heavily interlarded with faith’s elaborations—church materials. (2) The contemporary scholar has the right to assess these materials to see if he need believe them or not. In German this is known as Sachkritik, usually translated “content criticism.” Thus the non-evangelical may throw out the Incarnation as unbelievable and the Virgin Birth as a myth; he may interpret the Resurrection as “existential new birth” in the minds of the disciples. Jesus didn’t walk on water—that is contrary to the laws of physics; and dead men tell no tales, to say nothing of coming from the tomb like Lazarus.

Granting that there are church materials in the Gospels, the evangelical believes they are limited. What is there became part of the text for reasons of clarification or communication to a special set of readers or to a later group of readers. It is not a distortion or betrayal of the original Christian revelation but is part of the complex process whereby revelation becomes cast into the form of an inspired and authoritative text (and canon) for the Christian Church.

This is very different from the position of men like Ebeling, Fuchs, and Bultmann (to name but a few) that there is a great deal of church material, that it must be sifted for credibility, and that the interpreter has the right to reject any given passage either as spurious or as containing kinds of material that so-called modern man cannot believe. If a theologian or New Testament scholar takes such a view of the Gospels, there is no question that the theology he writes will differ radically from an evangelical theology.

The evangelical believes that whatever church material there may be in the New Testament is on a continuum with the original Christian message. Therefore his theology stems from taking the message as it is in the New Testament. Such a position can be (very briefly) supported by the following:

The assertions that (1) Jesus Christ is someone who is somehow normative for Christian theology (and here there is enormous variation), someone to whom Christianity must be related if it is to remain Christianity, and the assertion that (2) the New Testament is a document highly corrupted through the interlarding of church materials (frequently called legends as well as myths), are mutually incompatible.

To put in the form of a question: Is it really conceivable that God’s word of redemption, and God’s highest revelation to man in Jesus Christ, upon whom all our hopes rest in this world and the world to come—is it conceivable that these should rest upon a document that has been highly corrupted with church material and therefore has as its historical basis nothing more substantial than toothpicks?

To the evangelical, if the New Testament is so corruptly interlarded with church materials, then the most reasonable response is not to sift the New Testament with the hope of recovering the pristine message but rather be agnostic about the New Testament; this would seem to reflect a greater honesty than the boasted honesty of Bultmann.

On the other hand, we think the whole of Romans and First Corinthians 15:1–8 are fatal to the non-evangelical assessment of Christianity. First, their Pauline authorship is hardly questioned. Second, Paul’s understanding of Christianity dates from within about three years of the death of Christ. Hence his witness to the essence of Christianity is within three years of the death of Christ, a period far too short to account for the development of any significant body of distortive church materials.

With reference to Romans, Paul did not found the church at Rome. He could write to that church only what was accepted in all the churches as the true teachings of Christ and his apostles. Romans is dated about 57 A.D.

In First Corinthians 15:1–8 Paul uses the language of tradition which means he is expressing not personal opinion but the common heritage of the churches. This letter was written about 55 A.D. So damaging is First Corinthians 15:1–8 to non-evangelical theory that every device possible has been used to break its back. Mainly the effort is to show it is an addition to the text. But the situation is simple. First Corinthians 15:1–8 takes us back to Christianity as understood at the time of Paul’s conversion—33 A.D. If the back of this passage is not broken, it breaks the back of non-evangelical theology.

Romans and First Corinthians as genuine Pauline letters and as reflecting (1) the earliest tradition possible of what the Church believed and (2) what the earliest churches generally agreed upon—these substantiate an evangelical theology, not the various versions of non-evangelical theology.

This position about church material is not intended to stifle a critical investigation of the New Testament by cutting criticism off in an a priori way. I concur with what Machen wrote:

On the other hand, I have never been able to give myself the comfort which some devout believers seem to derive from a contemptuous attitude toward the men on the other side of the great debate. I have never been able to dismiss the “higher critics” en masse with a few words of summary condemnation [Contemporary American Theology, I, 257].

Nor do I wish to sweep under the rug some very hard problems, such as the divergencies of the resurrection accounts.

However, I believe one of the great dividing points between evangelical and non-evangelical theologies is how church material is assessed. Those who think this material significantly corrupted the original message of Jesus write one kind of theology. Those who think it is very limited in amount and is in harmony with the other material end up with an evangelical theology.

As long as this impasse continues, evangelicals must stand alone in their program of theology. A New Testament with historical integrity has a ring of truth (Phillips’s expression in reacting to what he considered the exaggerated skepticism of so many New Testament scholars). It is therefore the primary document of theology for the Church, the inspired document for its theology, the authentic document for its theology, and the authoritative document for its theology. It certainly makes heavy demands upon the best of our scholarship to learn it properly, but it does not need radical, critical sifting that attempts to find some real stratum of bedrock truth below its present literary or documentary form.

Bernard Ramm is professor of systematic theology at American Baptist Seminary of the West, Covina, California. He holds the Ph.D. from the University of Southern California and is the author of about a dozen books.

Looking around at the efforts of evangelical Christians to preach the Gospel today, one might be struck with the almost heretical thought that maybe, just maybe, what passes for the Gospel of Christ in the twentieth century is not an exact reproduction of the original article. Perhaps somewhere along the line something has been lost. What with “pack the pew night,” “transportation Sunday” (the one who gets to church in the oddest way wins a prize), big-name athletes and movie stars appearing at the local church to give their testimonies, and other novelties, one may suspect that evangelical churches have begun to let gimmicks and glamour overshadow the Gospel.

We think of the early Church as the ideal example of church power and normalcy. Somehow those early believers turned the world upside down in a very few years without resorting to the use of gimmicks.

Why do our churches produce so little in lasting results? Why have we so little power? I want to suggest one thing that seems to me to be a great part of the problem: the dearth of the preaching of God’s law from our pulpits.

At this point many will decide that I have been reading too many Puritan classics and spending too much time in the damp basem*nt of Calvinism. But the fact remains that the Gospel being preached in many churches today is a candy-coated Gospel. “Three easy steps to salvation” seems to be the order of the day. To hear many pastors and evangelists preach, you are not sure whether they are offering a crucified and risen Lord or a no-down-payment, twelve-easy-installments way to heaven. Evangelical preaching seems to have been influenced by the shallow, neon society in which we live. We make it easy to become a Christian; after all, we might lose converts and church members if we preached too many “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.”

After the rich young ruler in Mark 10:17–21 asks how he can gain eternal life, Jesus says:

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and shou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

And of course we know the rest: “he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved; for he had great possessions.”

Rumors Of Light

I’d never thought

this city could be

so filld with rumors

of light

& sitting now where

the sun’s warmth

reaches / I feel the dust

walk & cling

to my borders

“the field is the world”

the edges of the plot

fenced with stars

& deep space

the paths thru

the midst

starred with stones enough

to shake Goliath down

rattle his armor

from the broad palm

a fan of seed spreads

on the wind

borne into the corners

of the dusty field

the enemy crows circle

& scramble

their lightless wings

even now fleeing

the sun’s sure blaze

that quickens

the greening & heavenward

seed

EUGENE WARREN

Note that Jesus didn’t make a general statement about the sinfulness of all men as a first step to leading this young man to faith. The young ruler didn’t think he had sinned. Most men don’t really believe they are sinners, at least not bad enough for God to keep them out of heaven. Our Lord didn’t just condemn sin in general; he condemned it in the particular. The rich young man was an idolator. He loved money more than he loved God. Jesus’ implication was clear and convicting.

Christ used the law in dealing with sinners. Why do we shy away from it? We go on our way singing, “Free from the law, O blessed condition,” forgetting that without the law there is no basis for identifying sin: “By the law is the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20). Without this divine yardstick, men have no way to measure their lives against God’s righteous demands. No wonder sinners are bored by our proclamation, and we make very little impact on the world. It is when we get down to particulars that sinners begin to get restless and look for the nearest exit.

As an Episcopal priest, I am called upon to instruct potential church members in the tenets of the faith in confirmation classes. I have had people threaten not to return to the class because as we studied the commandments they felt God was getting too personal in saying “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not.” When we get down to particulars, men quickly see that they are sinners in need of divine grace.

In Today’s Gospel—Authentic or Synthetic, Walter J. Chantry says:

Normal evangelical practice is swiftly to run to the cross of Christ. But the cross means nothing apart from the law. Our Lord’s wretched suffering must be tragic and senseless in the eyes of any who have no reverent esteem for the perfect commandments. On the cross Jesus was satisfying the just demands of the law against sinners. If sinners are unaware of the decalogue’s requirements for themselves, they will see no personal significance in Christ’s broken body and shed blood.… Christ was set forth to be a propitiation (Rom. 3:25), i.e., the substitutionary object of God’s wrath poured out against a violated law [Banner of Truth Trust, 1970, p. 37].

Not until the law is applied in the condemnation of particular sins will sinners flee to Christ for mercy. The woman at the well must have had the seventh commandment applied to her condition. Paul confesses that the law was the schoolmaster that brought him to Christ: “I had not known sin but by the law” (Rom. 7:7). When we have been wounded by the law, then the oil of the Gospel can be poured on our diseased souls.

It’s time to do away with the gimmicks and tricks. Let’s quit trying to attract men to Christ by giving them a candy-coated Gospel, and let us restore the law to its rightful place in the preaching of salvation by grace through faith. To do this will take us a big step toward reproducing the original article.

M. Dean Stephens is vicar of St. Philip’s American Episcopal Church in Wilmington, North Carolina. He received the A.B. degree from Bob Jones University.

Unity Of The Jesus Movement

It’s Happening With Youth, by Janice M. Corbett and C. E. Johnson (Harper & Row, 1972, 176 pp., $4.95), The Jesus People, by Ronald Enroth, Edward E. Ericson, and C. B. Peters (Eerdmans, 1972, 249 pp., $5.95, $2.95 pb), Berkeley Journal, by Clay Ford (Harper & Row, 1972, 109 pp., $4.95), Spaced Out and Gathered In, by Jerry Halliday (Revell, 1972, 126 pp., $.95 pb), The Jesus People Speak Out, compiled by Ruben Ortega (D. C. Cook and Pyramid, 1972, 128 pp., $.95 pb), The Far-Out Saints of the Jesus Communes, by Hiley W. Ward (Association, 1972, 190 pp., $5.95), and Call to the Streets, by Don Williams (Augsburg, 1972, 96 pp., $2.50 pb), are reviewed by Erling Jorstad, professor of history, St. Olaf College, Northfield, Minnesota.

The Jesus People is easily the most satisfactory interpretation now in print. From their base at Westmont College, the three authors spent much time and effort interviewing and observing a wide variety of young Jesus people. Their resulting book is careful, judicious, and clarifying in most details. The first half is a narrative account of the best known groups, to which is added fascinating detail on some hitherto little known bodies. The authors have also answered many of the questions about the internal wranglings of the Children of God. They add fresh information on Calvary Chapel, the Hollywood Free Paper, and other points.

The second half is an unusually close examination of the theological teachings of this the teen-age phase of today’s revival movement. The authors sharply criticize the participants for the lack of carefully thought out principles of biblical interpretation, especially in the areas of eschatology and ethics. They also fault their staunchly anti-social, anti-intellectual, anti-historical, and anti-cultural attitudes. The authors present only limited discussion of two other major parts of the Jesus revival, the socially minded collegiate evangelicals and the Catholic Pentecostals.

The book sorely needs a bibliography and footnotes but has a good index. For some reason, the historical background doesn’t appear until the twelfth of the thirteen chapters.

Those who want a more personal account are urged to read new autobiographical accounts by youth ministers, Don Williams’s Call to the Streets and Clay Ford’s Berkeley Journal. Williams tells his story by presenting sketches of five teen-agers with whom he worked. These are well written and thoughtful; the reader feels personal identification with Williams’s ministry. Ford spent the summer of 1970 in Berkeley and here offers his diary of the experimental ministry he led. It is fascinating throughout. The flexible format gives him freedom to explain the movement in several ways: as daily events, from personal observations, and from reflective analysis. Each category adds depth and variety. Both these books would make excellent reading for older teenagers.

Another autobiography, this from a former drug-user now converted to the revival, Jerry Halliday, is entitled Spaced Out and Gathered In. This is less successful; it tries too hard, it seems to me, to be cool and turned on. Jargon abounds, but careful analysis is missing.

Two other new books concentrate on the teen-age phase of the movement. Hiley Ward adds more information to the collective side with a study called The Far-Out Saints of the Jesus Communes. This is an accurate account of the successes and the failures of communal experiments. Another variation is a compilation of brief but forceful opinions by Jesus kids on a variety of subjects, edited by Ruben Ortega as The Jesus People Speak Out. With his staff from Collegiate Encounter for Christ, he interviewed dozens of teenagers across the country. They sound off, in three-or four-sentence statements, on conversion, drugs, sex, parents, tongues, and other topics. Their opinions are offered with no editorial evaluation.

The new question raised by all this information—where is the Jesus movement going?—is answered in part by It’s Happening With Youth, an absorbing report on new experimental youth ministries by Corbett and Johnson. After a general introduction on the need for bolder outreach, the authors present seventeen studies of imaginative church-based programs that offer help to young people who have gotten involved in drugs, crime, and other serious problems. The authors show why some programs succeeded and others failed, and offer concrete proposals to parish ministers.

Besides the spiritual activity among the Jesus people, two other areas of revival are now prominent. The Catholic “charismatic renewal” movement continues to grow, and impressive new life, strength, and social outreach are evident among groups of collegiate evangelicals such as Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade for Christ. Comparing these three movements with earlier revivals, we detect both continuity and change. As with older revivals, today’s is based on the verbally inspired, inerrant Bible. It accepts the efficacy of instant conversion, and holds to a firm pre-millennial eschatology.

But the three-headed revival of our day also shows important changes from the revivals of the past. It has not thrust forth a unifying figure, such as Whitefield or Finney. It includes Protestant, Catholic, and Jew. Its participants celebrate group interaction, communal sharing of property, and spontaneous expression rather than following the cultural patterns inherent in the older revivalism. And today’s converts seem less enthusiastic than those of the past for joining older church bodies.

Cohesion can be found in three themes or principles. First, the teen-age Jesus people, Catholic charismatics, and evangelical students are united in their dedication to the teachings, ministry, and redemptive life of Jesus. They find in him the authority, direction, and love they consider completely adequate for their lives. No other person, institution, set of doctrines, or body of wisdom so completely commands their loyalty.

Second, unity emerges out of willingness to give up former loyalties for the sake of a full social expression of the new birth. This leads the teen-ager to break his drug habit and turn to fulltime evangelism. This helps the collegiate evangelical break with his past tradition about social involvement and leads him into service in the ghetto or wherever else human need is found. It leads the Catholic charismatic to a new understanding of the Bible, a new love for warm, communal worship, and a new confidence that without ecclesiastical support he is experiencing God in himself through the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Third, the Jesus movement is united by the joyous enthusiasm of its participants for sharing, worshiping, and growing together. They are sharing the new birth in communes, group witnessing, and group Bible study. They submerge their individual preferences into the redemptive power of their chosen community.

The movement clearly is moving into a new phase, one that will mean closer association with established congregations. The Jesus people and those in the establishment bear the responsibility of sharing their resources with one another and with non-believers. There need not be any real line of demarcation between those inside and outside the movement so long as both strive honestly to learn what it means to let Jesus make all things new.

Neutrality Negated

Jesus, by Eduard Schweizer (John Knox, 1971, 200 pp., $7.95), is reviewed by F. F. Bruce, professor of biblical criticism and exegesis, University of Manchester, England.

This work, translated by David E. Green from the German Jesus Christus (1968), is not a life of Jesus along conventional lines, but rather a study of the various perspectives on Jesus that come to expression throughout the New Testament. Professor Schweizer wrote the work in 1966 during a visit to Japan, “when,” he says, “besides the text of the New Testament, I had at my disposal considerable leisure but not much literature.” In these circ*mstances especially one would expect to find ample evidence of Professor Schweizer’s distinctive approaches to the New Testament, and our expectation is fulfilled.

He does not believe, for example, that one can approach Jesus as a completely dispassionate historian. The historian who would give an accurate and adequate account of (say) an important battle must understand what it was all about, but he does not need to take sides; indeed, if he takes sides, he may unconsciously give an unbalanced report. But “towards Jesus one cannot remain neutral … for his summons is such that whoever seeks to remain neutral has already rejected him.” This is in line with the fact that our sources for the story of Jesus are witnesses, not simply informants:

A newsreel with sound from Jerusalem, depicting the crucifixion of Jesus, could have provided us with many historical details; but it could not have told us what actually happened there, whether we were witnessing the execution of a harmless fanatic or an ambitious nationalist, or whether God himself was giving us his final word. Only a witness, whom we can believe or not, can tell us this [p. 7].

Here, of course, Schweizer writes as a theologian, not as a historian. A historian might regard himself as competent to make a pronouncement on the significance of Jesus in world history without considering the question whether or not in him God was giving any word at all—indeed, he would probably hold that such a question lay right outside the historian’s province. And there might be substantial value in the assessment of such a historian, but it would not answer the questions about Jesus that are raised by the New Testament. These are the questions to which Schweizer draws our attention, and he does so as one who, having weighed them for himself, has made the same positive commitment as Mark and Paul and John. In other words, he too writes as a witness.

Five main New Testament perspectives on Jesus are discussed, beginning with “Jesus: The Man Who Fits No Formula”—the author would have earned our gratitude for this chapter heading alone if for nothing else. Many of his contemporaries found him disconcerting for this very reason: they could not fit him into any of their pigeon-holes. His self-designation “The Son of Man” is relevant here: it had no fixed meaning in the minds of his contemporaries, and we ourselves must determine what it meant on his lips not by establishing its antecedents but by studying his own usage. As for his teaching and his practice, “on behalf of all of us, he defended the position that even literal fulfillment of the commandments does not result in doing God’s will, that his will demands much more of us and for this very reason gives us a much larger area of freedom, in which we can breathe and live and rejoice.” To live in the enjoyment of such freedom is “to live by the principle of love,” and what this means is shown in one after another of the parables.

Passing from the Jesus of the Gospels, we are brought to “Jesus, who will soon return” (the advent hope, the “irruption of the eschaton,” meant that God had become immediate, no longer confined to the distant past of sacred history or the distant future of popular apocalypticism—the positive elements in Christian apocalyptic, with its “absolute focus” in the person of the living Christ, are well brought out.) In this context attention is also paid to the judicial force of “sentences of holy law” in the New Testament church. In these the authority of the Son of Man was still active, and their enforcement was left to the judgment of God.

The chapter entitled “The Heavenly Jesus” deals with the various aspects of the Lordship of Christ as they find progressive expression in the New Testament documents. Paul, it is pointed out, takes hymns that celebrate Jesus’ sovereignty over the cosmos and his receiving worship from principalities and powers and transfers their emphasis to his Lordship over the Church and the humble service its members ought to render one to another. If, in Colossians, Jesus is “the Lord who fills the world through the missionary work of the disciples,” this is a thought that is not foreign to the mind of the historical Jesus, although it is with Paul’s ministry that it makes its decisive breakthrough.

“Jesus, Crucified For the World” is the title of the chapter that considers, among other things, his death for us and our life in him. “The Earthly Jesus” traces the growth of the gospel tradition from the earliest days to the appearance of our written Gospels; part of this chapter is devoted to an interesting exercise in redaction criticism. The final chapter, headed “Innovations With the Dawn of Church History,” deals with the later parts of the New Testament and the dangers that had to be guarded against, such as the danger of an official church maintaining ancient traditions (which a one-sided insistence on Luke’s perspective might have encouraged) or that of a withdrawal from the world (which might have been the result of a one-sided emphasis on the Johannine approach). We are shown how these dangers were overcome and the various approaches of the apostolic age preserved in the post-Pauline and post-Johannine community.

In such an individual study as this there are bound to be many viewpoints and statements that readers will question or even reject. Some of these are minor and incidental: I cannot see, for example, how such passages as First Corinthians 16:15 ff. make the appointment of church elders impossible; my own understanding of those verses is almost the exact opposite of Dr. Schweizer’s. For all the weight of Wrede’s argument, I am not persuaded that the messianic secret in Mark is a “fiction”; it is much more likely to correspond to a real situation in the historical ministry. And it is disquieting at this time of day to read of “those who nailed him [Jesus] to the cross because they found blasphemy in his parables”; his theological opponents did indeed find blasphemy in the parables from time to time, but those who were responsible for his crucifixion were moved by other considerations than the meaning of the parables.

And so one might go on; but the main impression left at the end of a study of this work is one of grateful admiration. Here is a fresh and lively introduction to New Testament Christology by a Christian scholar whose approach is marked throughout by sympathetic insight into the New Testament message. No New Testament student could fail to derive a great deal of help from what he says.

Newly Published

Searchlight on Bible Words, compiled by James C. Hefley (Zondervan, 198 pp., $4.95). Besides showing the difficulties of translation work, the examples shed light on the meaning of some major Christian concepts and doctrines. For those interested in applied linguistics, or for those who want to deepen their understanding of Scripture, this is a book to read.

Of Wise Men and Fools, by David Edman (Doubleday, 229 pp., $5.95). A fresh look at Gideon, Solomon, Jezebel, Judas, Barnabas, and five other Bible personalities. Can be helpful in making them seem more real. Also serves as a model for biographical preaching.

The Doctrine of the Word of God, by Thomas A. Thomas (Presbyterian and Reformed, 114 pp., $2.50 pb), The Bible: God’s Word, by Tenis Van Klooten (Baker, 231 pp., $2.95 pb), and The Authority of the Bible, by Donald G. Miller (Eerdmans, 139 pp., $2.25 pb). Thomas concisely presents the doctrine of the authority and infallibility of the Bible. From the same perspective, that of historic Protestant orthodoxy, Van Klooten examines the doctrine in some detail, attempting to make the meaning and implications of infallibility clear and to answer many of the objections of its detractors; his work is a valuable study guide. Miller, by contrast, surveys some of the problems he has encountered in defending biblical authority, and casts some valuable light on perplexing questions, but he deals more with the psychological than the theological side of authority and does not expressly defend infallibility.

Religion May Be Hazardous to Your Health, by Eli S. Chesen (Wyden [750 3rd Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017], 145 pp., $4.95). A psychiatrist who finds it “difficult to imagine a God who listens to me or an afterlife that waits for me,” thinks that a sane, comforting religion is fine but that orthodoxies are dangerous. Indeed, some are, but the author does not distinguish between human and revealed religion.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament: Volume Eight, edited by Gerhard Friedrich (Eerdmans, 620 pp., $18.50). With forty-one articles on words and word groups beginning with tau and upsilon, this standard work is nearing completion.

Evangelism Alert: A Strategy For the Seventies, edited by Gilbert Kirby (World Wide [27 Camden Road, London NW1 9LN, England], 283 pp., £1.80). The messages and reports of the European Congress on Evangelism, Amsterdam, 1971. For all institutional theological libraries.

Discipling the Brother, by Marlin Jeschke (Herald Press [Scottdale, Pa. 15683], 200 pp., $2.95 pb). See editorial, page 25.

Lectures in Systematic Theology, by Robert L. Dabney (Zondervan, 903 pp., $12.95). The outstanding Southern Presbyterian theologian of the last century deserves to stand alongside the better-known giants of the Princeton school. This work offers a wealth of valuable homiletic material.

The Far-Out Saints of the Jesus Communes, by Hiley Ward (Association, 192 pp., $5.95). Responsible journalistic look at a variety of Jesus communes. Ward considers such topics as sex, the occult, doctrine, and money. Fascinating reading, but highlights the unusual.

How Dependable Is the Bible?, by Raymond Surburg (Lippincott, 204 pp., $5.95). An Old Testament professor at Concordia Seminary, Springfield, looks at various forms of literary criticism of both testaments, section by section. He does in compressed form what standard Old and New Testament introductions do with more depth.

Being a Disciple, by Temp Sparkman (Broadman, 94 pp., $1.75 pb). A good book to help teen-agers realize what it means to follow Christ.

The Love Command in the New Testament, by Victor Paul Furnish (Abingdon, 240 pp., $6.95). A careful and competent exegetical discussion of a central New Testament concept. Clears up many misunderstandings and remedies much harm caused by over-simplification and over-generalization. Critical questions are handled conservatively in this detailed but easy-to-read work.

Ecological Renewal, by Paul E. Lutz and H. Paul Santmire (Fortress, 153 pp., $3.95 pb). An open-faced sandwich: H. Paul Santmire’s theological reflections, compounded from Norman O. Brown, James H. Cone, and Teilhard de Chardin, slapped onto Paul E. Lutz’s straightforward but spiritually insensitive biologist’s wrap-up of the ecological crisis.

Logical Analysis and Contemporary Theism, edited by John Donnelly (Fordham, 337 pp., $12.50). A major challenge by several philosophers who are also Christian theists to the attempt of logical analysts to discredit all religious language and doctrine. Also provides much helpful material on philosophical questions in religion from a generally Christian perspective.

The Sensitive Woman, by Sandra S. Chandler (Compass Press [Box 173-C, Pasadena, Ca. 91104], 1972, 116 pp., $1.25 pb). Structurally parallel to The Sensuous Woman by “J.” The wife of the former news editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY combines the secular and spiritual in a refreshing approach to developing sensitivity. She gives guidelines to increase awareness of the needs, drives, and desires in oneself and hence toward others. Hopefully it will have as big an impact in the Church as The Sensuous Woman did in the world.

Anahaptism: A Social History, 1525–1618, by Claus-Peter Clasen (Cornell University, 523 pp., $17.50). An excellent, painstaking study of the surviving documents that focuses on the Anabaptists’ complex relations to the larger society rather than their faith. (The Netherlands, where Menno Simons predominated, and north Germany, including the short-lived kingdom of Münster, are outside the regional bounds of the study.)

Grace Grows Best in Winter: Help For Those Who Must Suffer, by Margaret Clarkson (Zondervan, 205 pp., $3.95). Those who read this will find themselves richer for it.

Priests in the United States: Reflections on a Survey, by Andrew M. Greeley (Doubleday, 213 pp., $5.95). A clear-headed sociological analysis of the situation of Roman Catholic priests in the country, banishing the stereotype of the priest as unhappy and frustrated, and making it appear that the current decline in candidates reflects in part something other than a deep-seated malaise.

Evangelism Now, edited by Ralph Turnbull (Baker, 112 pp., $1.95 pb). Essays by ten leaders on various aspects and formats of evangelism, such as theology, essence, biblical basis, radio, crusades, congregations, and literature. Helpful.

Things to Come: Thinking About the 70’s and 80’s, by Herman Kahn and B. Bruce-Briggs (Macmillan, 262 pp., $6.95). A sober projection that, though entirely lacking in an evangelical dimension, is a valuable antidote to some of the utopian fancies currently being peddled as “theology of the future.” Not flattering to the integrity of the theological radicals of our day.

Northern Ireland: A Report on the Conflict, by the London Sunday Times Insight Team (Random House, 316 pp., $7.95). Journalistic look at the problems; a good addition to the other volumes on the subject.

Hope For Your Church, by Harold Fickett, Jr. (Regal, 159 pp., $3.95). Another in the recent surge of books on huge congregations (this one is First Baptist of Van Nuys, a part of Los Angeles). Includes principles by which any Bible-believing congregation can grow.

Your Half of the Apple: God and the Single Girl, by Gini Andrews (Zondervan, 159 pp., $3.95), How to Spark a Marriage When the Kids Leave Home, by Frank A. Kostyu (Pilgrim Press, 128 pp., $4.95), and Risk and Chance in Marriage, by Bernard Harnik (Word, 179 pp., $4.95). Three fine books. The first, on single life, is the best treatment yet on the subject. Kostyu takes a light-hearted but serious look at a problem faced by our older readers. And Harnik’s book should be read by young and older adults, married and single alike.

Samuel Seabury, 1729–1796: A Study in the High Church Tradition, by Bruce E. Steiner (Ohio University, 508 pp., $13.50). A carefully documented study of one of the principal shapers of American Episcopalianism.

Strangers at the Door, by Marcus Bach (Abingdon, 189 pp., $3.95), The New Religions, by Jacob Needleman (Pocket Books, 240 pp., $1.25 pb), and Strange Sects and Cults, by Egon Larsen (Hart [719 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10003], 245 pp., $5.95). Bach gives a sanguine view of resurging variations in America of Hinduism, Buddhism, and lesser Asian faiths, wishing that Christianity would give more of a welcome to them. Needleman, in an inexpensive revision of his 1970 book, covers the same ground with even less concern for relating the newcomers to Christianity. Larson takes us on a round-the-world tour of what he depicts as a religious zoo, taking special delight in the bizarre. Included in his itinerary are Amish, Rosicrucians, Soka Gakkai, Dukhobors, Thugs, and numerous others. None of these books is definitive, but they do illustrate how religious many supposedly “secular” contemporary men are.

A Place to Belong, by Robert A. Williams (Zondervan, 175 pp., $3.95). Won’t replace Paul Tournier’s A Place for You, but is a good beginner for laymen who are unacquainted with the more sophisticated volume.

Successful Ministry to the Retarded, by Elmer L. Towns and Roberta L. Groff (Moody, 144 pp., $2.25 pb). An introduction to a subject that Christian educators often ignore.

Search For Silence, by Elizabeth O’Connor (Word, 186 pp., $4.95). Practical exercises to help people accept themselves as God does and then learn what God wants them to do. Somewhat in the mystical-meditative tradition of Christianity.

The Blessed Hope in the Thessalonian Epistles, by William Thomas (Sundby Publications [1609 Barrington Ave., Los Angeles, Cal. 90025], 47 pp., $.50 pb). Those who believe Christ’s return will be in one stage rather than two will welcome this irenic, exegetical study.

Youth: The Hope of the Harvest, by Edmund J. Elbert (Sheed and Ward, 244 pp., $6.95). Although he writes from a hollow humanist perspective (“The meaning of our existence as persons, then, is ultimately a call to an active participation in the great enterprise of human life which is the work of world construction”), the author, a priest, does provide a good overview of this generation. It’s unfortunate that he doesn’t see that a commitment to Christ as Lord isn’t opposed to humanism.

Tomorrow’s Child, by Rubem Alves (Harper & Row, 210 pp., $6.95). A strangely confused testimony against the present and in favor of the future. Combines Marxist sociology with a religiously tinged hope, warranted more by its own rhetoric than by any evidence presented.

Power to Dissolve: Lawyers and Marriages in the Courts of the Roman Curia, by John T. Noonan, Jr. (Harvard, 489 pp., $15). An amazingly interesting study of a highly technical question, the history of papal annulment of marriages. Beginning in 1653, the author omits the cause célèbre of Henry VIII, but he makes up for it with amusing descriptions and historical anecdotes.

Theological Dynamics, by Seward Hiltner (Abingdon, 224 pp., $5.75). Essays on relating important theological concepts such as grace, sin, and church, to life and experience understood psychologically. Stronger on psychological insights than on theology.

The Cosmological Argument: A Reassessment, by Bruce R. Reichenbach (Charles C. Thomas [301 E. Lawrence Ave., Springfield, Ill. 62703], 150 pp., $8.75). A cautiously positive reevaluation of one of the strongest traditional arguments for the existence of God and an attempt to rescue it from Immanuel Kant’s attacks. The author hopes that through elimination of some of the attacks of reason on faith, “the ground has been prepared for the planting of reasoned belief.”

Hebrew Union College Annual, Volume XLII, edited by Samuel Sandmel (Hebrew Union College—Jewish Institute of Religion, 301 pp., $10). A well-known annual publication of articles on biblical and Judaic studies. Of special interest to CHRISTIANITY TODAY readers is a ninety-six-page bibliography of everything published on any archaeological site in the Holy Land.

Coming to a Theology of Beauty, by William D. Dean (Westminster, 207 pp., $3.50). Nicely written speculations by a former assistant of Paul Tillich’s, written without any more authoritative foundation than the antecedent broodings of Whitehead, Cox, Todrank, et al.

You and Yours, by Ellen McKay Trimmer (Moody, 224 pp., $3.95). Sensitively discusses the problems of maturation as well as the need for Christians to be aware of and involved in contemporary culture.

Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel, by Joseph Blenkinsopp (Cambridge, 152 pp., $11.50). All that is known on the subject, in a technical monograph originally written for a Ph.D. at Oxford.

Contemporary Critiques of Religion, by Kai Nielsen (Herder and Herder, 163 pp., $6.95), Oppositions of Religious Doctrines, by William A. Christian (Herder and Herder, 129 pp., $6.95), Problems of Religious Knowledge, by Terence Penelhum (Herder and Herder, 186 pp., $7.95), and Philosophy of Religion: The Historic Approaches, by M. J. Charlesworth (Herder and Herder, 216 pp., $8.95). Under the editorship of a fallen-away evangelical, John Hick, the once stalwartly Roman Catholic house of Herder and Herder has begun an ambitious series of handbooks in the philosophy of religion. Charlesworth gives an informative and useful treatment from an historical perspective, offering much valuable information in readable form, and reaching conclusions that are basically favorable to revealed, biblical religion. Penelhum examines attempts to offer evidence for faith, and comes to the conclusion that when one starts from nontheistic premises, compelling evidence is unavailable. Christian offers an extremely technical study of the mechanics involved in doctrinal disagreement. Nielsen, an atheistic philosopher, sharply and maliciously attacks religious faith as neither reasonable nor justified.

The Unfolding of the Person, by David G. Cernic (Christopher, 169 pp., $6.95). A detailed, technical study of an important American philosopher of interest chiefly to the specialist in philosophy.

The Stones and the Scriptures, by Edwin Yamauchi (Lippincott, 207 pp., $5.95). Excellent overview of archaeological discoveries and their relationship to ancient Israel and the early Church. Suitable for both the beginner and, because of the notes, the advanced student. Five indexes make it a useful reference tool.

Commentary on Romans, by William Plumer (Kregel, 646 pp., $8.95), and Commentary on First Peter, by Robert Leighton (Kregel, 511 pp., $8.95). Reprints of works by a nineteenth-century American Presbyterian and seventeenth-century Scottish Episcopalian.

Body Life, by Ray Stedman (Regal, 149 pp., $.95 pb). Emphasizes the need for each Christian to use cooperatively the spiritual gifts entrusted to him in the context of genuine fellowship. The author’s congregation in Palo Alto is mentioned at the end as a place where “body life” has actually worked.

Makers of Modern Thought: Freud, by Michael Hare Duke, Gandhi, by H. J. N. Horsburgh, and Bertrand Russell, by David R. Bell (Judson, approx. 60 pp. each, $1.50 each). Laudatory biographical studies issued by a Christian press of noted opponents of Christianity. Bishop Duke’s study of Freud is not lacking in critical insight, but Horsburgh’s effusive Gandhi does not deal with his pantheism and specifically anti-Christian polemics, while Bell presents Bertrand Russell so uncritically that the reader will hardly detect in the portrait one of the most arrogant and inveterate foes of Christian faith in our century. The series as a whole is sadly lacking in discernment and Christian perspective; one must wonder at the publisher’s purpose in producing it.

Power Ideas For a Happy Family, by Robert Schuller (Revell, 128 pp., $3.95). Simply presented with plenty of slogans and jokes, but the ideas have potential to provoke profound reflection that could improve some families’ lives.

Morality For Moderns, by Marc Oraison (Doubleday, 117 pp., $4.95). Random observations by a Catholic psychiatrist. The Christian substance in them is meager.

Ellen G. White: Prophet of Destiny, by Rene Noorbergen (Keats [212 Elm St., New Canaan, Conn. 06840], 241 pp., $6.95). Mrs. White (1827–1915) was a remarkable woman who came to be recognized as the principal figure in Seventh-day Adventism. This is a popularly written, admiring biography by the man who collaborated with Jeane Dixon in her auto-biography.

Two Ways

Sayings of Mao, of Jesus, edited by Dick Hillis (Regal, 1972, 127 pp., $1.25 pb), is reviewed by Norman Cook, Asia area director, Overseas Crusades, Palo Alto, California.

Dick Hillis is aware of the growing Mao cult and the spread of the Jesus movement, and also of the fact that hundreds of idealistic students have no real knowledge of the teachings of either Mao or Jesus. In this book he invites the thoughtful reader to consider and compare these teachings. The reader will discover that he cannot embrace simultaneously the doctrines of these two revolutionaries. The quotations, standing on opposite pages in sharp contrast, reveal that both leaders call for uncompromising allegiance. The reader must choose between the most deified man in modern times and the One who spoke with quiet authority nearly two thousand years ago.

The young person standing at the crossroads should examine these Sayings. And the adult who may pride himself on his knowledge of Jesus should take this opportunity to learn what Mao is teaching our youth.

Effective christian witness springs from Spirit-filled wells, not from broken cisterns; from a divinely given revelation accepted by faith and acted on in obedience, not simply from accumulated human wisdom or erudite reasoning.

Israel had forsaken God, and the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah saying that they “went after worthlessness, and became worthless … for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns, that can hold no water” (Jer. 2:5, 13). Let us beware today lest what should be a stream of living water proceeding from a Spirit-filled life prove instead to be the parched ground surrounding a broken cistern!

In his infinite wisdom God has placed Christians in the world to witness to his saving power. Neither the Christian nor the Church is the agent of redemption; rather, both are witnesses to God’s redemptive act in Christ.

Therefore the Christian and the Church are the channels of the Gospel, the instruments of witness, the repositories of truth to be passed on to others. They are likened in the Scriptures to wells of living water and streams of blessing.

What then can transform a cistern of spiritual life and witness into a broken repository of nothingness? Certainly three things: unbelief, neglect, and disobedience.

Unbelief stretches back into the dim shadows of antiquity. “Yea, hath God said?” was the root of man’s downfall in the Garden and continues to blight classrooms and pulpits today.

“Thus says the LORD of hosts: … To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the LORD is to them an object of scorn, they take no pleasure in it” (Jer. 6:9, 10). These words spoken through Jeremiah can be applied today!

Jeremiah speaks to us again: “The wise men shall be put to shame, they shall be dismayed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD, and what wisdom is in them?” (Jer. 8:9).

Do we not need to hear and heed these words of that prophet: “Thus says the LORD of hosts: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word of the LORD, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to everyone who stubbornly follows his own heart, they say, ‘No evil shall come upon you’” (Jer. 23:16).

God’s word is not to be trifled with: “Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the LORD.… Let him who has my word speak my word faithfully” (Jer. 23:24, 28).

Do we long for power as we live and as we witness? Then let us pray to be delivered from unbelief, accepting the Holy Scriptures at face value: “Is not my word like fire, says the LORD, like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces?” (Jer. 23:29).

The sin of unbelief empties the cistern through the crack it has created. Following the cunning devices of men who deny the Bible may feed our ego and titillate our pride, but it means that the cistern of power is broken, and only the dregs of a sandy futility remain.

Neglect. The first cousin of unbelief is spiritual indifference, a state in which a person pays scant heed to God’s truth and blithely goes his own disinterested way.

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews tells of God’s revelation of his truth through the prophets and then through his Son. He depicts the Son as the One who “reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power” (Heb. 1:3). Then he exclaims, “Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For if the message declared by angels was valid and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation?” (Heb. 2:1–3).

Neglect and indifference are just as deadly in their effect as open unbelief. We who know the truth—what are we doing about it for ourselves? For others? God holds us responsible for the truth he has imparted, and neglect in no way invalidates that responsibility.

Disobedience also takes its deadly toll. The cistern of spiritual power is broken by disobedience, a turning aside from the divine command in favor of one’s own preferences. Strange that we acknowledge the validity of a military command and the necessity of obeying it while we regard lightly the divine command and make its execution optional! I know gifted men who once appeared destined to become mighty channels of blessing, only to have the cistern of spiritual power cracked to its very bottom by the sin of disobedience.

Christianity is, thank God. a positive religion; one can mar its witness by emphasizing the negative. But Christianity is also a religion of “Thou shalt nots,” and woe to him who disregards these warning signs on life’s road!

The zealous Paul had great advantages of learning, citizenship, and social standing. But the risen Christ on the Damascus road gave him a commission that ultimately involved giving up all he had counted dear. To Agrippa Paul rightly said: “I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision” (Acts 26:19).

Suppose Paul had been disobedient. Suppose he had counted the cost of discipleship and found it too great to pay. What a tragedy for his age and for succeeding generations! The cistern of his spiritual power would have been broken from top to bottom by disobedience.

Have we been disobedient to the heavenly vision? Has disobedience marred God’s plan for our lives? Are we living right now with no more spiritual power than a broken cistern has water?

Unbelief, neglect, and disobedience shatter the cistern of life, but the cracks often begin with such supposedly “minor” sins as pride, selfishness, temper, jealousy, impurity.

Let any Christian, any minister of the Gospel, ask himself about his greatest need. An honest answer for many will be “spiritual power.” The cistern has been broken, but we hate to admit it. The water of spiritual power has drained away, and we try to get along with the sands of futile human endeavor.

“He who believes in me, as the scripture has said. ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water’” (John 7:38).

Americans are spending approximately $105 billion this year on leisure. That’s almost double the 1965 figure. This financial outlay for leisure, noted U. S. News and World Report, is more than our national defense costs for this year, more than the total of our corporate profits, and more than the overall value of the country’s exports. Despite the burdens of taxes and inflation, experts suggest that providing goods and services for spare-time activities is a growth operation with few parallels.

We get power equipment to do much of our work. Then we must look for other activities to fill up the time we have saved and burn off the energy we have conserved. Often what we turn to are sports activities, either as spectators or as participants. Sport is nudging its way into an ever more dominant role in our culture. Many newspapers devote between 20 and 30 per cent of their hard news space to coverage of athletic events.

As worship on weekends is displaced by worship of weekends, a big loser is the environment. Many of our leisure-time activities require much more of our already scarce power and add to our already abundant pollution.

Sports and recreation of all kinds also raise particular questions for the Christian, who has stewardship obligations. Can we find biblical guidelines to justify our vast leisure-time outlay? Why have we so long avoided the scrutiny the new pattern demands in view of the acute physical and spiritual needs in so many parts of the world? Underdeveloped countries must wonder how a supposedly Christian nation can put so much money into play. Surely such a staggering sum demands more open debate.

“When we think about sport,” Dr. David Wee says, “we often forget to ask the most important question that we should ask about all of our human activities: What is its effect upon the quality of the human experience? Or what is its effect upon the human spirit?” Dr. Wee, a Lutheran clergyman-scholar and all-American runner, was on the right track in his article in Event and the Christian Athlete. But we submit that even more profound questions are involved. How does sport measure up to God’s requirements? How can it affect our relationship with him? It is easy enough to make a case for sport from a human perspective, but to do so in terms of divine demands is something else.

Occasionally sports offer promise on the international scene: most people agree that table tennis was instrumental in bringing a welcome thaw in American-Chinese relations. More often, however, sports arouse tension, hostility, and violence. Hardly an Olympics goes by without some political incident. Hitler used the 1936 games to deceive the world as to what he was up to in Nazi Germany.

Sport today also is being misused to numb our concern for truth and justice. Many persons become engrossed in it as an easy means of evading responsibility, of getting their minds off more important things they know they should be doing. This is true even within churches, thousands of which field softball teams but neglect evangelism and the building up of believers. They assume that having a team is fine so long as they avoid Sunday play.

Evangelicals who love sports like to appeal to the numerous allusions to athletics in the New Testament. Close examination reveals that none of these bestows any kind of divine blessing upon sport. Paul very likely used references to runners and games because they aided communication with Greeks. In his address on Mars Hill he used the Athenians’ altar to the unknown god in a similar way.

Sport was not part of the Hebrew tradition. It was eventually introduced as part of the influence from the Greek lower classes. Roman leaders used sports to pacify people and keep them in line.

Yet there is not adequate reason to condemn sport per se. It does serve to relieve aggression and to occupy the attention of some people who might otherwise be doing things that are a lot worse. Moreover, there is certainly an extent to which athletics are good therapy even for the Christian who thinks himself well-adjusted. Everyone needs and should have relaxation and diversion, and Paul does say that “physical exercise has some value in it,” adding, “spiritual exercise is valuable in every way, for it promises life both for now and for the future” (1 Tim. 4:8, TEV).

What we need to do is to lift the lid of silence that has covered sport, as if this particular human activity were beyond discussion. An adequate apologetic, if there is one, must be brought forth.

To be sure, thorough examination of athletics may pose a threat to our life styles. But the alternative is to rationalize our position simply from experience so that we are little more than puppets of our times.

Part of our preoccupation with sport results from a snowball effect—it is so much with us that it tends to build on itself. Another reason is that for most games a minimum of skill is required to watch or even play, and so vast numbers can readily involve themselves.

But among the various activities we can relax with, athletics are low on the scale of demonstrable religious significance. We need to apply biblical principles more forcefully to our use of leisure.

Sport is sometimes the path of least resistance. As the distinguished Yale scholar Paul Weiss wrote in his recent book Sport: A Philosophical Inquiry, “Young men find it easier to master their bodies than to be truly noble, monumental, pious, or wise.” Older men gazing for long hours at the tube take an even easier way out. The threat is that we will get carried away with sport and other leisure-time activities. We need to justify the extent of our involvement in the light of eternity’s values.

India And Pakistan At Twenty-Five

On August 15, 1947, the British formally relinquished control of the Indian subcontinent, where they had begun to establish themselves early in the 1600s and which they had formally ruled since 1858. British imperialism created one country, India, out of a multitude of principalities and territories with different languages, cultural heritages, and religions. The end of British rule came before the major source of religious tension, the Muslim fear of domination by the more numerous group, the Hindus, could be resolved. Thus two new nations were born, India and Pakistan. But Pakistan was divided into two wings, separated by hundreds of miles of Indian territory and by major ethnic and cultural differences, although one in their Muslim heritage. In 1971 civil war split Pakistan and resulted in the establishment of the new republic of Bangladesh.

Transition from imperial subjugation to responsible self-rule has thus been difficult and bloody for Pakistan and by no means easy for India. The second most populous nation in the world, India has now struggled for twenty-five years to solve its immense human problems without resorting to tyranny, mass coercion, and one-party thought control. Those who have spent time in India must testify to the depth of the Indian commitment to intellectual and personal freedom and to parliamentary democracy in a situation that could easily have driven a government to the use of compulsion.

As India and Pakistan start their second quarter-century of independence and the new nation of Bangladesh starts its second year, we wish them well in their struggle for human dignity and freedom and economic viability. We wish for them also an increasing appreciation for Jesus Christ, for in him alone is there a sufficient answer to man’s longings.

The Featherbedding Fireman

Most people under thirty missed the thrill of seeing a puffing steam locomotive, so the term “fireman” may need a bit of explanation. The steam engine had two men in the cab, the engineer, who was at the controls, and the fireman, whose job was mainly to shovel coal from the tender so as to keep the boiler producing steam. When diesel and electric locomotives came along, railroad executives said firemen were no longer needed on freight trains and tried to get rid of them. The rail unions objected, contending that the “firemen” acted as valuable lookouts.

The dispute became the longest labor-management conflict in American history; it dragged out over thirty-five years and was not settled until last month. Interestingly enough, the end came not in the midst of one of the many strikes and negotiation crises brought on by the dispute but quietly, calmly, and unexpectedly. Labor agreed to a long-term plan of attrition of firemen, an admission that there had been featherbedding. Management made its big concession in allowing a number of years for the phaseout.

The fact that on both labor and management sides new men got the negotiating responsibility this year suggests that personalities may have played a part in the settlement. This serves to remind us that we never get away from the human element. We congratulate those who found a way out of this impasse, and we echo the hope expressed by Secretary of Labor James D. Hodgson that “this presages a new era of collective bargaining.”

Advertising p*rnography

We think p*rnography, like much advertising, creates or inflames desires that often are contrary to God’s explicit revelation. Obedience to God’s will is, of course, ultimately an inward matter. Moreover, sexual sins are not the only ones that matter. We don’t urge that ads for fine clothes or cars or food be forbidden or even voluntarily refused because they encourage coveting and excessive self-indulgence. But without minimizing the seriousness of these materialistic sins in the sight of God, we do suggest that advertisem*nts for p*rnographic movies and books be treated separately and be voluntarily refused by our nation’s press.

While the goods and services offered in other ads can serve legitimate needs and offer wholesome pleasures, we see no comparable redeeming values in p*rnographic materials. Not only is p*rnography against the law of God; even from a humanistic perspective, it is degrading and exploitative. If people want to debase themselves, God does not stop them. But journalistic media that claim to represent an honorable profession should be willing to pass up the advertising income from p*rnography. Most people would expect the press to refuse ads for clothing made from furs or hides taken from endangered species and usually acquired by poaching. Similarly, many are calling for rejection of ads for products made by willful violators of pollution laws. The definition of pollution might well be expanded to include the debasing of God-given sex as well as the fouling of God-given nature.

Christians should make their views on advertising known to the editors of their local newspapers. Possibly a paper’s own editorial stands on p*rnography and related moral issues can be used to urge a reasonable consistency between the editorial and business sides of the same enterprise.

Pity The Controversial Theologian

Pity the unfortunate former Anglican bishop of Woolwich, now dean of Trinity College, Cambridge (England), John A. T. Robinson. Early in his career he wrote a number of essays and monographs, liberal in perspective, on New Testament subjects. Although these were generally agreed to show a respectable level of scholarly competence, they did not gain him that elusive prize of fame.

National and then international celebrity came quickly, however, when as a modest suffragan bishop Robinson took up the cause of Lady Chatterley’s Lover and said that, far from being considered p*rnography, the novel ought to be looked on as a description of a form of “holy communion.” Only a Jesuit general or the Pope himself would have reaped a richer reward in notoriety for such an opinion. Honest to God (1963), a little book that enjoyed first-rate pre-publication exposure on BBC television and in a national newspaper, made the suave bishop a kind of swami for falling-away Christians all over the English-speaking world. His subsequent writings were the toast of the intellectual religious co*cktail circuit, but they never quite matched Honest to God in sensational value.

Now Robinson’s fertile mind has once again seized upon a subject that will stir up, for the moment at least, some outcry and attention among those not yet cloyed by such antics from ecclesiastics: he now advocates lowering the age of consent for sexual relations to fourteen.

As to the merits of his proposal, made to the Methodist Conference at Nottingham, we can only observe that it is consistent with a modern trend: law should forbid nothing that is not a clear and present danger to our civilized society, such as certain forms of murder and all forms of failure to pay taxes. As to its demerits, we can note that it abandons one of the last vestiges of the ancient (and biblical) conviction that the civil law should encourage good behavior and aid in character formation, not merely punish the most obnoxious crimes.

We know that Robinson is in a difficult situation. To remain in the limelight he must necessarily increase the outrageousness of his proposals with each passing year. Yet there is always the danger that if he strays much further from his supposedly Christian heritage, he will no longer be able to speak as a churchman but only as a late twentieth-century secular man—and where would the sensation be then?

Why Make It Complicated?

Occasionally readers write in to complain about theologians (and Christian magazines) who seem determined to replace the simplicity of the Gospel with the complications of theology. We don’t deny that sometimes we—or some of our writers—may take a paragraph to make badly a point that could have been made well in one sentence. This is an occupational disease of theologians—perhaps rather akin to that of the doctor who, you suspect, gives your ailment a Latin name because you would find his bill too high if he diagnosed you in plain English. We recognize this temptation, fight it, and still occasionally succumb to it.

But even when we successfully resist the temptation, when we haven’t brought in any unnecessary rhetoric or bombast, there are things in theology—as in medicine and in every other discipline—that just cannot be simplified and made easy to swallow but may nevertheless be vitally important for us.

Although the Gospel is simple, attacks on it can be very subtle. They can pose as “refinements,” “clarifications,” “explanations.” Almost every case of heresy, apostasy, or plain loss of faith begins with a plausible clarification or criticism of the Gospel. Since the Gospel is often inadequately presented, plenty of the criticism may in fact be justified. But we know that mere “commitment,” even enthusiastic commitment, is not immune to the constant wearing-down effect of repeated criticisms and questions for which adequate answers are not forthcoming.

Individuals and occasionally whole movements that began full of zeal for the Lord have stagnated or have even been ruined when their zeal was unmatched by knowledge of the Bible and of theology. Every heresy begins plausibly, and if you do not know anything about the old heresies, there is a good chance that you will fall into them.

As Peter Beyerhaus wrote in our July 7 issue, there was a tremendous burst of Christian enthusiasm in Germany immediately after World War II. People were converted, studied the Scriptures, had the joy of the Lord in their hearts. But no one made a serious attempt to refute the skepticism and anti-supernaturalism that underlies modernist theology. Young students went to Bultmann and his disciples and, while listening to his theology, kept on praying and attending Bible studies. After all, Bultmann himself, like many of the theological radicals, comes from a “pietist” background and is emotionally attached to such devotions. But the rationalism and skepticism won out in many cases. Warmth and zeal, unsupported by sound doctrine taught on the same level as the modernists’ skepticism, were not enough.

“We wrestle not,” wrote Paul, “against flesh and blood, but against … spiritual wickedness in high places” (Eph. 6:12). False teaching is one of the effects of the “spiritual wickedness” he had in mind, and wrestling is not an easy sport. When we do our intellectual wrestling clumsily, boringly, or unimaginatively, we owe our readers an apology. But then the best response is not to criticize but to do it better. Learning sound theology is one aspect of spiritual wrestling, and it is not optional. It’s a requirement.

Blessing The Weapons—Of The Other Side

Most Christians admit that a just war can exist, and thus under appropriate circ*mstances they defend the right and even the obligation of citizens, including Christians, to go to war. This does not mean they support the “bless the weapons” attitude whereby the clergy and other noncombatants have been expected to encourage their own nation’s armed forces in every action and in any war.

In time of armed conflict, outspoken pacifists, even those with the purest of intentions, often have a hard time, for they appear to be aiding the enemy and harming their own country. During the last few decades most Americans—including non-pacifist Christians—have learned to respect the personal integrity of pacifists and war resisters, even when their actions seem to run counter to the “national interest.”

Recently, however, some who parade as apostles of peace have been saying and doing strange things. When North Viet Nam launched its massive military invasion of the South in May and the United States reacted by mining and bombing the North, the statements of some anti-war spokesmen seemed to reveal, not merely a desire for peace, but the wish for total victory for the other side. We find it particularly hard to see what good could have come out of Jane Fonda’s visit last month to Hanoi, where she encouraged the Communists and urged American soldiers to defect. When people like Bob Hope visit American forces in the South, they are criticized for “supporting militarism” and “prolonging the war.”

We can respect pacifism and those with whom we differ on how peace can be achieved; but it is a strange kind of pacifism that wants to silence the weapons on one side—in the case at hand, our own—while blessing and encouraging the fighters on the other. In fact, there is a word for this, and it is not pacifism.

The Forgotten Commandment

When is the last time your congregation disciplined one of its members? If you are of the (we suspect) minority who can remember the practice of formal church discipline, then we ask, What was the procedure? And what was the result? Chances are that many New Testament passages on discipline were violated.

Over the centuries church discipline has so often been done wrongly—in both intention and method—that for the past century there has been increasing neglect of it. This neglect is not only in congregations where the Gospel is no longer regularly proclaimed. To be sure, in almost every denominational family small groups continue to practice discipline, but they serve more as an example of what it should not be like and contribute to the overreaction that avoids it altogether. We also recognize that modern metropolitan anonymity makes discipline more difficult to enforce than it is in traditional “face-to-face” society where everybody knows everybody.

What are we to do, if we would be true to the Scriptures? “The answer to bad church discipline is good church discipline, not no church discipline.” So says Marlin Jeschke, author of perhaps the only book-length treatment to be published in English in the past fifty years. In Discipling the Brother (Herald Press [Scottdale, Pa.], 200 pp., $2.95 pb), Jeschke basically discusses Matthew 18:15–18: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him.… If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you.… If he refuses to listen to you, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile.…”

This is the forgotten commandment in much of modern evangelicalism. We are embarrassed by the whole penitential development of the Roman system, and by the excesses of our Baptist, Mennonite, Puritan, Wesleyan, and other ancestors. In keeping with the individualism of our society, we more or less expect self-discipline to take the place of corporate responsibility for one another. Because some people delight in finding faults, seemingly for the sheer joy of being able to excommunicate as many people as possible, we go to the other extreme and ignore the positive role that genuine concern for one another was intended to have by our Lord and his apostles. At times we base our passivity on our reluctance to presume to be holier than others. Jeschke discusses all these excuses in the light of Scripture and church history.

There are books galore on being a disciple oneself, and on getting congregations to enlarge as much as possible. They have their place. But try to make room in your reading for Jeschke’s thorough, well-researched, compassionate treatment of the need and the way “to place the doctrine of church discipline once more in the context of gospel proclamation and to liberate Matthew 18:15–18 from the legalistic interpretation it has suffered since medieval times.”

WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?

One of the stranger gifts God has given me is the ability to interpret dress patterns. In view of the fact that most pattern instructions are written in an obscure Polynesian dialect of pidgen English, that’s no mean gift.

The last time I was called on to display this talent was when my 12-year-old daughter decided she could no longer put off her home ec project, much as she hated the course. The assignment was to make a dress from a pattern of her choice.

At her request I had explained some of the intricacies of the diagram to her, and she was at the sewing machine working against the clock with mounting frustration. Suddenly she threw the dress down and exclaimed, “I don’t see why I have to take a dumb course like this anyhow!”

“Why did you?” I asked in typical fatherly ignorance.

“Daddy,” she replied in the patronizing tone she reserves for very small children and me, “it’s required.”

“Oh.” I responded brilliantly.

“But it’s dumb,” she continued. “Why do I need to spend all this time learning how to make a dress when I’ll probably never do it again? When I become a psychiatrist all my clothes will be tailor made!”

Frankly, I thought she had a point, and a glance at the partly finished dress confirmed it. But since we parents and teachers have to stick together in self-defense, I told her she’d better get back to work and stop complaining.

Then in my best counseling manner I went on to point out that even psychiatrists have to do things in their training that are not particularly fun but are necessary to reach their goal.

Although she wasn’t completely convinced, my speech helped a little, since this image of herself as a psychiatrist conditions all her activities. A home ec course has no meaning because she can’t relate it to her future as a psychiatrist. When she’s playing dolls she’s simply the psychiatrist-to-be enjoying fantasy.

She has already begun to answer that very important question: Who do you think you are?

I’m convinced that our answer to that question, our self-image, is crucial in finding meaning for our lives.

The Apostle John reminds Christians of the most important part of that answer: “My dear friends, we are now God’s children …”

TRIUMPHANT IN DEATH

Thank you for that timely and comforting article, “Death: No More Taboos,” by Cheryl A. Forbes (May 26). It was a joy to read this illuminating discussion of the “right to die with dignity,” and “a living will.” It is heartwarming indeed to see this all-important subject brought out in the open. As for myself, several years ago, I placed a “living will” among my important papers. At age eighty I felt the time had come to make my desires known legally. In my “living will” are these poignant words: “In the event I should become so critically ill that nothing but blood transfusions and intravenous feeding would prolong my life, please use neither—just let me die in peace, for that will be the triumphant moment for which I’ve lived these many years!” Hutchinson, Kans.

A PROPOSAL

Thank you for the excellent article by Frank C. Nelsen on “Evangelical Living and Learning Centers: A Proposal” in the May 26 issue. His recommendation consists of a most exciting concept and one which has practical merit.

Hopefully, the suggestion might be incorporated in the Institute for Advanced Christian Studies program and implemented on a campus such as the University of Pennsylvania, by Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship at the University of Wisconsin, or by a joint effort of both organizations.

Pittsburgh, Pa.

As the pastor of a church close to a major university I have been exploring for some time the possibility of offering Bible-oriented courses to Christian students as a complement to the university’s curriculum. Currently we have the facilities and personnel but are still struggling with the problem of accreditation.

We differ markedly with Nelsen’s proposal, however, in two areas. The first of these is his insistence on perpetuating the concept in loco parentis.… The advisability of such a practice has been held in question for a long time, and most campus ministries are now recognizing the need for the college student to establish his independence and identity as an adult instead of depending on an institution to serve as his substitute parent.

Our second area is one of money. Is there an alternative to spending huge chunks of money in an enterprise such as this? We think there is. First of all, if we do not need to provide housing for students, classes such as proposed by Dr. Nelsen could be held in a variety of facilities. There are any number of churches, for instance, whose facilities stand vacant most of the week. Most universities have memorial unions where meeting facilities conducive to classroom use are available free of charge to campus groups. Additionally, on a growing number of campuses across the United States the Lord is locating a significant number of evangelical scholars who have academic and spiritual qualifications similar to Dr. Nelsen’s. We … have no reluctance to ask such men to serve on a limited basis, free of charge, using their unique gifts of the Holy Spirit to the spiritual enrichment of the lives of college people. All in all I think Dr. Nelsen is on the right track.

Bethany Baptist Church

Iowa City. Iowa

The article … describes what in fact has already been established by Regent College since 1970. We are on the campus of the University of British Columbia, Vancouver. We are training students for a one-year Diploma in Christian Studies, with plans for advanced degrees also. In 1971 some theological colleges followed our lead with similar offerings of one-year courses. It is precisely our vision to see similar evangelical centers established in other major universities throughout the world.

However, we differ from the proposals in two important respects. Firstly the proposal for undergraduate centers may conflict with university syllabi, since universities could reasonably object that students attending the centers may have conflicts of interests, timetables, and subject matter with the courses on the campus. We have felt it was wise to establish our center at the graduate level, so that students coming to us with the accreditation of their first degrees can be trained to view their faith more maturely.…

Secondly, we believe that to own property.… is an unnecessary expense.… Rental facilities on the campus are adequate, and much cheaper. Moreover, we believe the “ghetto” mentality of living in a “holy huddle” does not necessarily generate the wholesome, mature outlook that will prepare Christian young people to live in the world, though not of it. It is the faith and commitment of their teachers, not the “atmosphere,” that inspires them.…

It is, however, exciting to see the growing evidence of emphasis on evangelical scholarship, seeking to re-establish itself on our university campuses and in public life. This is what we need. Regent College

Principal

Vancouver, British Columbia

WEEKLY NECESSITY

“If I were the editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY I would make it a weekly (Eutychus and His Kin, “If I Were Editor …,” July 7). Of course this would mean an increase in the subscription price, plus increases in personnel, etc. Maybe a poll should be taken of the readers to discover if there are enough readers who would pay the price of a weekly.

Minister of Music and Education

Bethel Baptist Church

Salem, Va.

‘IN ALL THINGS LOVE’

Your editorial “The Lord Is Coming Again!” (June 23) was superb. The realistic recognition of diversities of interpretation of the Christian conviction about the final redemption and judgment of God over our world through Jesus Christ is a good illustration of the apostolic advice “speaking the truth with love” (Eph. 4:15). I believe that some of the passionate insistence that Jesus is coming again according to a specified program and timetable is actually a sign of the inability to deal constructively with threats to a belief. The heat in some of our arguments is not always the product of the conviction fires of the Holy Spirit. It is sometimes a part of the oscillation of fever and chills resulting from the struggle with an insecure faith.

In the long struggle of Christians to live with both their convictions and their brothers I think one of the best guidelines we have been given has come from Rupertus Meldenius (A.D. 1627): “In faith unity, in opinions liberty, in all things love” (Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, vol. VII, Eerdmans, 1950, p. 650 f.). Surely on that day when many will gather from East and West and North and South to sit at table with our triumphant Lord Jesus both the passionately convicted and the dispassionately tolerant will find their truth and love made complete and pure.

First Christian Church

Cedar Falls, Iowa

SOUTHERN BAPTIST COMMENTS

In all my years of reading CHRISTIANITY TODAY I have found it to be a magazine which presented a conservative viewpoint concerning the inspiration of God’s word, and I have appreciated its attempts to maintain a conservative and what some would call a fundamental interpretation of the word.

However, your editorial entitled “Southern Baptist Watershed?” (June 23) is, it seems to me, redeemed from outright prejudice only by the addition of the question mark to the title. It is obvious that the writer of the editorial was in sympathy with the one who presented the motion to withdraw the commentaries and did not even consider the arguments against the withdrawing.

All Southern Baptist churches are independent churches and differ in their interpretations of the Scripture. It is true that some are liberal, some conservative, and some fundamental. But to consign all to the unhappy fate suggested in the last paragraph because of the decision in a convention reveals a very poor understanding of the nature of Southern Baptists.

Genesee District Baptist Assoc.

Flint, Mich.

Let me thank you for the excellent editorial. I wish this might be in tract form and put into the hands of all Southern Baptists. I assure you many have read it and will be greatly encouraged by it. I read several state Baptist periodicals and so far I have not seen one which takes your position.… I predict that there will be another effort at Portland, Oregon, to reverse this action. I also predict that if such action is not forthcoming, there will be a split in the SBC.

Keep up the good work!

Area Representative

Wycliffe Bible Translators

Washington, D. C.

As a Southern Baptist pastor having attended the Philadelphia meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, I thoroughly disagree with your conclusions regarding the defeat of the motion to withdraw the “Broadman Bible Commentary.”

Citing the 1925 and 1963 adoption of “The Baptist Faith and Message” you conclude that this recent action “opens the floodgates to all kinds of serious theological errors.” You could not possibly be more wrong. The action merely confirms the long-standing Baptist conviction of the competency of the individual believer to interpret the Scriptures aided by the Holy Spirit.… What the action does is to avoid an “official orthodoxy” for Southern Baptists. The business of the convention does not include the prerogative of defining belief for the autonomous churches. While Baptists have throughout their history approved statements or confessions of faith they have never had the status of creeds and I pray they never will. Your conclusions smack of “creedal fundamentalism” which in my opinion are not shared by most Southern Baptists.

Cradock Baptist Church

Portsmouth. Va.

To those of us not familiar with Southern Baptist Convention procedure the report (“Southern Baptists Veto Book Recall”) was somewhat confusing. Please explain. You state: “Gwin W. Turner offered the motion to recall the entire commentary.… Bates ordered a standing vote, and the motion was adopted by a wide margin … This led to Turner’s unsuccessful move at the convention in Philadelphia.”

The North American Baptist General Conferences

Winnipeg, Manitoba

• Substitute “defeated” for “adopted” and sense is restored. Sorry for the confusion—ED.

SPECIOUS APPEAL

The review of Norman Macbeth’s book, Naturalistic Evolution (June 23), refers to the second law of thermodynamics as scientific evidence that “naturalistic evolution cannot be true.”

As discussed in a paper by J. A. Cramer, published in the March, 1971 Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, “the idea that the general theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are mutually contradictory is an error based on failure to recognize that the second law allows parts of the universe to decrease entropy (increase order) while requiring that the total amount of disorder in the universe must always increase. Thus the second law cannot be used against evolution.…” I am sure we would agree that benefits to biblical Christian theism are at best temporary, limited, and questionable when such a specious argument is used to refute an antagonistic philosophy.

Wauwatosa, Wis.

USING WOMAN

Edwin M. Yamauchi’s use of the woman issue to illustrate the problems of “Christianity and Cultural Differences” was quite apt. Unfortunately, however, he seems to have succumbed to the temptation he was warning against: making our own cultural ideas the norm for the New Testament or uncritically transposing first-century norms into the twentieth.

Most scholars will readily admit that First Timothy 2:11–15 is ambiguous, to say the least, in regard to woman’s role. To say as Yamauchi does that it “stresses woman’s pre-eminent role as a mother” is highly selective. If indeed the passage does teach that (the assertion is highly debatable), the rest of the New Testament does not support it.

While the Gospel does not downgrade motherhood, it nowhere teaches that this is to be woman’s only role or even the predominate one as Yamauchi suggests. Christ never taught that woman’s salvation was in childbearing (though in the Old Testament her hope, as did that of all Jews, rested in the birth of the coming Messiah). Rather woman’s salvation was accomplished once and for all in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Her calling is to commit her life to him and to serve him—whether in marriage or celibacy, in rearing children or pursuing a career. To follow Yamauchi’s suggestions would be to deny full Christian personhood to all single women or barren wives.

Likewise the phrase “to usurp authority over the man” (v. 12) is a unique one, ambiguous in its meaning, and thus should not be used alone to establish any major teaching. Yamauchi would be on more solid ground if he took his stand on Galations 3:28 and stayed there. By labeling that passage “ideal” and declaring woman to be in “subordination to her husband” two paragraphs later, he has vitiated any equality. In a modern democracy where woman (as an outgrowth of New Testament teachings) is seen to be a full person in her own right, are we to impose a role on her which is left over from the days when women, like slaves, were considered the property of the “master”? After 1,800 years Christians managed to decide that the Bible no longer decreed that we must live in a slave-master culture. When are we going to apply the same kind of thinking to the woman issue?

And how can Yamauchi cling to woman’s subordination in marriage while blithely labeling as cultural the injunctions that she remain silent in church? Both positions could be argued equally well from New Testament evidence. Is this just another evidence that when it comes to the woman issue (as with many others) we pick and choose which scriptural paths we wish to follow? Just as modern society offers woman “a more equal public role with men,” so we have found (as the Bible tried to teach us, especially in Genesis and the Song of Songs) that a more equal marital role for women builds the strongest marriages. God created men and women to complement one another, not to dominate or submit to one another.

It’s about time evangelical scholars and laypeople stopped relying on personal prejudices and biblical proof texts and seriously looked at what the entire Bible teaches in regard to full Christian personhood.

Mundelein, Ill.

Apparently the key sentence to which Ms. Nancy Hardesty objects is my statement: “I believe that what Paul taught about a woman’s role as a mother and her subordination to her husband is still quite valid.” I did not mean, as Ms. Hardesty seems to have inferred, that “this is to be woman’s only role or even the predominate one,” nor would I deny “full Christian personhood to all single women or barren wives.”

I believe that Ms. Hardesty would agree with me that each Christian man or woman needs to seek God’s will individually as to marriage. He may very well call some to remain single (Matt. 19:10–12; 1 Cor. 7:27 ff.). I would deplore rushing into marriage simply because it seems to be the thing to do as I would deplore the tendency for some to avoid marriage because they do not desire the responsibility of raising a family. Nor should Christian mothers be beguiled by the literature of the women’s lib movement into despising the care of children as an oppressive burden instead of the glorious vocation from God that it is.

Where Ms. Hardesty may disagree is in the matter of a wife’s subordination to her husband, which, she believes, vitiates any equality. Her basic point is that “God created men and women to complement one another, not to dominate or submit to one another.”

There is a question of semantics here. I believe that it is possible for a wife to be subject to her husband without being inferior to him, to be obedient without being obsequious, and to be submissive without being passive. A wife should be able to complement her husband without being dominated by him.

The more substantive issue is whether or not the subordination of wives to their husbands in such passages as First Timothy 2:11–15; Ephesians 5:22–33; Colossians 3:18–25, and First Peter 3:1–8 is an intrinsic, transcultural duty or a conventional, cultural pattern.

An indication that this is not simply a cultural pattern (although the degree of the dominant patriarchal authority in biblical times was culturally informed) is the appeal in these passages to the pattern of the primeval marriage of the first man and woman in Genesis: Genesis 1 and 2 cited in First Timothy 2:13, 14 and Genesis 2:24 cited in Ephesians 5:31.

But as E. O. James, commenting on the subordination of wives to their husbands in Christian marriage, points out:

The obedience demanded of the wife, however, was based on the underlying theological conceptions in which human relationships were interpreted in terms of God’s relationship with man. Thus, for the Christian obedience was the supreme virtue valuable for its own sake when freely given not from weakness but from strength, as exemplified in the perfect self-oblation of Christ wherein was manifested the highest expression of love. It was only when it was deprived of its theological foundations in a secularized society that it lost its spiritual significance and degenerated into a degrading act of submission involving a loss of personal freedom—a derogation from personality rather than a means of attaining the subsistence of the spiritual self by way of love [Marriage and Society, 1952, p. 99].

Oxford, Ohio

‘PUN-FUN’

Edward E. Plowman should be congratulated, no doubt, for restraining himself from having some pun-fun with his mention in “Explo ’72: ‘Godstock’ in Big D” (July 7) that Campus Crusade director Bill Bright “… got the idea for Explo.…” That would undoubtedly make it a “Bright idea”—or, as some critics might put it, a “bright idea” (or even a “Bright bright idea”).

Washington, D. C.

UNNATURAL?

As a Christian, and as a hom*osexual preparing for the ministry, I am greatly disturbed by your editorial on the “gains” made by hom*osexuals (“Gay Ground-Gaining,” June 23). How unfortunate that a magazine which has been, in the past, noted for its high sense of compassion and understanding toward the plight of the hom*osexual—and especially the Christian hom*osexual—should resort to such silly and naïve editorializing. However good your intentions might have been, you helped immeasurably to continue some sad misconceptions and myths about hom*osexuals—namely, that we are a sad lot of child molesters with little or no sense of values, and that, like the forty-nine-year-old father mentioned in your editorial, we are, for the most part, degenerates of the lowest kind. You do us and yourself a grave dishonor. Your statement, “We do not condemn the hom*osexual, but we do oppose the practice of hom*osexuality as contrary to God’s commands,” does little to erase the senseless and certainly untrue picture which the rest of your editorial conjures up in the mind.

I am a Christian, a hom*osexual, and a Baptist, and I do not find anything grotesque, unnatural, and sinful about loving a man and having sexual relations with him. What I do find unnatural, grotesque, and sinful is silly, trite, and inconsiderate editorials perpetuating old myths and making life impossible for those who already find life difficult.

New Orleans, La.

Fifth in a Series

A crisis in theological credibility darkens the Western world; multitudes are baffled over what, if anything, they should believe about God.

This theological credibility gap differs from the widely denounced political credibility gap. Government officials are often charged with withholding information or manipulating the news; religious academics, however, are not often accused of malevolent secrecy or deliberate dishonesty. Few theologians are given either to anonymity or deceit.

The complaint against neo-Protestant theologians, rather, is that they simply don’t “tell it like it is.” Their religious reports are inconsistent and contradictory, if not incoherent. And if theologians and clergy who claim to be divinely updated experts cannot agree among themselves, surely the public cannot much be blamed for having high doubts about the Deity and about those who claim to fraternize with him.

If modern theologians kept their supposed revelational insights to themselves, that would be another matter. Then the continual revision and replacement of their views would create little problem for the public. But as it is, theology is increasingly tagged as an enterprise of creative speculation; its queen-for-a-day tenets have less endurance than many frankly tentative scientific hypotheses.

Neo-Protestant theologians hesitate to admit that they are simply playing peek-a-boo with divinity. Two generations of modern religious theory nevertheless bear out the blunt verdict that their rumors about God have no more solid basis in objective disclosure than Clifford Irving’s supposed conversations with the inaccessible and invisible Howard Hughes.

What makes the confusing theological reports—that the Deity is “in here” or “out there” or “up there” or “in depth” or “dead and gone”—a scandal is the fact that the Living God is truly accessible in his revelation. These neo-Protestant claims are intended to state the truth about God. But they so clearly contradict one another that if their proponents are not promulgating a literary hoax, they are at least profoundly mistaken. No claim is no more obviously fraudulent than that contemporary religionists convey the unadulterated truth about God. Their views cancel one another out.

Realizing this, a great many frustrated divinity students have taken a raincheck on theological commitments. For them to pursue a mod-theology for permanently valuable spiritual profit is about as rewarding, they feel, as for a squirrel to dig for nuts in Astroturf.

What neo-Protestant theologians as a class are saying about God is not only insufficient but inaccurate. At best, they proffer a mixture of truth, half-truth, and untruth—and no recent modern theologian has presented a solid criterion for distinguishing one from the other. The inevitable result is public distrust, even when these theologians happen to tell the truth about God. Their lack of theological concurrence has given rise to an adage: “When in doubt, speak as a theologian.”

This widespread uneasiness over the pontifications of contemporary theologians has been nurtured not only by their ambiguity and abstruseness but also by their promotion of a pluralistic dialogue that often denies historic evangelical Christianity a voice. Champions of a quasi-official ecumenical position screen and manage the news about God. Ecumenical biblicism wears thin the seventeenth chapter of John’s Gospel (“that they may be one”) but leaves comparatively untouched Jahweh’s message through Jeremiah: “You keep saying, This place is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD!’ This catchword of yours is a lie.… Do not run after other gods to your own ruin.… You run after other gods whom you have not known; then you come and stand before me in this house, which hears my name, and say, ‘We are safe’; safe, you think, to indulge in all these abominations” (Jer. 7:4 ff., NEB).

Among multitudes of Christians devoted to fulfilling the Great Commission, few complaints run deeper than that, in their unrivaled mass-media opportunities, ecumenists tend to obscure the singular truth of revealed religion and the good news of the Gospel. This dilution of historic Christian beliefs, whether in deference to modern theological alternatives or to socio-political activism, has nurtured widespread skepticism among the laity about the theological outlook of the institutional church. Ecumenical enthusiasm has been almost irreparably damaged among many laymen.

It is not that these laymen think the learned clergy are lacking in candor, or are given to fabrication and deception and to winning followers by pretense. Yet the ambivalence of many churchmen toward New Testament commitments has convinced numerous churchgoers that a cadre of contemporary religious leaders have acquired unwarranted influence, whereby they control religious information and, perhaps unintentionally, mislead the masses. Many lay leaders suspect that ecumenical bureaucrats have lost the sense of final truth.

The baffled multitudes have a right to know the truth about God. That truth is not nearly so inaccessible to the man in the street as theologians would have us believe. Nor is it dependent upon the ingenuity of modern-minded religious entrepreneurs. Any remarkably modern gospel is sure to be a false gospel. In earlier centuries, a powerful Catholic Church suppressed the Bible and shackled the people to the ecclesiastical hierarchy for their religious concepts. Neo-Protestant theologians suspend the Bible’s special meaning for modern man on their own cryptic “Key to the Scriptures.” In some places today Catholic leaders more energetically dispense the Scriptures (with the Apocrypha for excess measure) than do neo-Protestant radicals who are less sure of JHWH than JEPD.

Much of the new religious literature is greeted with such skepticism and suspicion that the religious book market is notably on the decline. The widespread loss of confidence and trust reflects a costly sacrifice of religious credibility. Now that God has been sensationally proclaimed to be dead, church members abreast of this information are not morbidly curious about the religious undertakers’ progress reports on the supposedly disintegrating corpse.

Indeed, the theologians of modernity are no longer widely viewed as the best source of information about God. While many radical clergymen have inherited what theology they have, or have had, from these theological mentors, there is a growing feeling among the masses that, if special information about God is available, neo-Protestant theologians are not the dispensers of it.