Page 6344 – Christianity Today (2024)

The coming of warm days brings the happy sight of Americans on the move—or it would be a happy sight, if not quite so many of us were trying to move at the same time. Turnpikes and freeways are now crowded with millions of cars crawling over the glorious landscape. Who are the people riding in these automobiles? Where are they going? What are they thinking? We rarely know. Only when a bumper crashes into ours, or a fender is creased, do we step out and engage in the formal ritual of exchanging cards, thereby becoming acquainted with our traveling fellow-Americans. For the rest of the journey we live in isolation, the windows rolled up. Even though we are on the same highway, we live in different worlds.

It is astonishing how complete and self-sufficient our little “worlds” are, and we have but little inclination to change groupings. There is, by way of illustration, the intellectual-philosophical world, which moves in its distant and wide-ranging orbit. There are the tight orbits of the “scientific world”, the “world” of psychoanalysis, the “sporting world” and the “underworld.”

The danger is that the particular “world” in which one lives becomes the consuming interest of life. The Church has always, since New Testament times, been tempted to become a “world” of its own, and the temptation is such today that no “world” can become quite as isolated in its orbit as the denominational “world.” Ministers and church executives can and do go for days without speaking to anyone except to Baptists, or to Presbyterians, or to Episcopalians as the case may be. Despite all the books about “the role of the Church in the world,” many churchmen never see the world or even the other side of the Church.

Thus it is possible for an intelligent Christian to be unaware that on the highway of Christianity there are millions of American church members traveling alongside him, but headed perhaps in a different direction; whose personal disciples, intellectual life, attitudes, opinions and even dreams revolve around foci that are quite unrelated to his own orbit. Only because of this compartmentalizing of American life can we explain such a statement as appeared in a recent issue of Christianity and Crisis:

To hear again the claim that the church’s chief function is the cultivation of individual piety and the ignoring of social responsibility seems like listening to an echo in an empty room … it has come as something of a shock to realize the intensity of feeling that still exists in this area.

Such a scribe cannot conceive that anyone today would think that the Church’s business first and last is with God Almighty, the Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer of the universe. He decides, therefore, to seek out a hidden primary motive, and what does he come up with? Money, no less. “The effort to normalize some kind of pietistic theology is better seen as the rationalization of a reactionary political and social ideology.”

The sword of determinism cuts both ways, of course. If evangelical theology and social ethics are a mere reflex of free enterprise economics, anti-supernaturalism is a mere reflex of Communist political theory, and the neo-orthodox search for “middle axioms” is a mere reflex of socialist economic theory. But we believe the reverse is more likely to be true: that one’s beliefs about God mold one’s attitudes toward the issues of life.

It so happens that life’s answers are never quite so simple as people who are orbiting in their own little worlds like to think they are. Men are, as the Psalmist says, fearfully and wonderfully made; and if a theologian is bumped from the rear and gets out of his car to discover that the Christian Church is greater than he thought, and more Biblical than he thought, and has not swung behind the latest theological fashion as rapidly as he thought, it is all to the good.

How easy it is for some churchmen to clamber back into orbit by writing off the great truths of the Christian faith as “some kind of pietistic theology,” and to resume forthwith the anthropo-sociological debate! Surely God called us into his service for greater purposes. To the Body of Christ he has committed the Spirit, the gifts, the sacraments, the means of Grace, the privilege of prayer, the message of the evangel, the joy of salvation, the communion of saints, the Christian hope, eternal life, and the mysterious riches of his love. Is it “pietistic theology” to believe and declare that Christ loves the whole Church, just as God loved the whole world and gave His Son for it; or that this world is greater than any “private worlds”?

The priest and the Levite stayed “in orbit” on the turnpike. The Good Samaritan then “parked his car” and left his world and offered his brother a hand. Paul acted from the same motive when he left the world of Asia for the world of Europe. There is a sense, indeed, in which only the Christian is truly a world citizen, since for the love of Christ he makes every man’s world his own.

ALCOHOLIC RESPECTABILITY IN ‘CHRISTIAN’ AMERICA

Whiskey seems totally irrelevant to “responsible fatherhood,” but the House of Seagram, one of America’s leading distillers, does not think so. In fact, it spent a small fortune this year in Father’s Day advertising in 143 newspapers with a circulation of 24 million advising dads to drink moderately and set a good example for their sons.

This hypocritical “hard sell” in reverse is typical of a trend in modern liquor salesmanship. Calvert promotes drinking by intimating that “men of distinction” are whiskey users. The pious visage of a William Penn-ish Quaker “sanctifies” every bottle of another brand. Christian Brothers is not only the trade-name of a popular wine but the winery is a church-sponsored business. Christmas is celebrated in many of our larger cities by elaborate crèches underlined with the name of the sponsoring brewery. Good Friday and Easter are yet to be exploited, but give the liquor industry time! Thanks to Madison Avenue and mass media intoxicating beverages are no longer linked with drunkenness, the underworld and crime; alcohol is becoming not only respectable but an essential to the abundant life. Has “Christian” America so far degenerated that she has no conscience on these blasphemies against good taste and God?

HOW TO EXPLOIT A WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE

Three months after the 1960 White House Conference on Children and Youth, the official findings have been announced. Seven thousand conferees last Spring came up with 1,600 recommendations but no final report. The present document seems to reflect the views of its drafters more than the consensus of the delegates themselves.

There are many good things in the report. It manifests a sincere desire to give United States youth better opportunities to realize their full potential for a creative life in freedom and dignity. It takes a sound position of separation of Church and State. It recognizes religion as a far more vital factor in the nation’s social situation than did the 1950 Conference report. It proposes some new valid scientific techniques for dealing with youth problems.

Nevertheless there are startling evidences of apparent Conference exploitation to promote questionable social and political doctrines and procedures. The framers of the report clearly intend to reconstruct the White House Conference into a monolithic Federal bureaucracy involving a children’s bureau, a national youth council, a cultural center, and varied secretariats under the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. It would centralize authority and exert control over all state and community agencies involving schools, churches, religious organizations, health, welfare, recreation, mental health, medical aid, and other services to American children and youth.

The report frankly calls for a vast increase in Federal spending not only to finance this bureaucratic complex from Washington down to Prune Center, but for the encouragement of the social and behaviorial sciences, more government scholarships and fellowships, vocational guidance, school and community counsellors, subsidies for public education, increased teachers’ salaries, aid to migrant workers, and other concerns too numerous to mention. If half the suggestions of the report are followed a new horde of professional personnel in the fields of health, social welfare, and education would swarm over the land—all at Federal expense.

Strange socio-political doctrines are sanctioned, such as “inter-group” community religious education, a weakened draft law, rewriting the nation’s marriage law, public marital bureaus, easing laws of illegitimacy, mass diagnostic evaluation of children and youth, fluoridation of the nation’s water supplies, compulsory “fair employment” practices, compulsory racial integration, public sex education, elimination of loyalty oaths, Federal support of public education, state planning for family and home life, minimum legal children’s and family allowances, watered-down immigration laws, a “one-world” youth exchange to translate the “essence of democracy” to all nations.

Should this proposed bureaucracy be realized the Conference report would take an added significance. It might well constitute a platform and a policy which could be effectively implemented within a few short years. Here is a document which warrants more than casual reading as a record of something that happened yesterday. It is a portrait of tomorrow.

SOME AMERICANS ABROAD HAVE BEAUTIFUL FEET

Something healthy is taking place in world missions. Here and there a Christian doctor, dentist, contractor, or agricultural expert is putting his business in the United States in the hands of others for a year, and is going abroad to serve the people of Africa or Asia through his church’s missionary out-reach. He takes his family along and learns at first hand what it is like to be an ambassador for Christ in strange surroundings. He also smooths out many kinks in the mission’s operation.

Today thousands and even millions of American churchgoers travel outside the United States. Some attach themselves to permanent Christian communities overseas; others encounter representatives of various religions and become more confused than ever. Denominational leaders meanwhile struggle to indoctrinate their traveling laymen with some notion of cultural empathy and the “motive for mission.”

We feel that this new “grass roots to grass roots” missionary thrust is the best teacher of all. It has something of New Testament flavor about it, and we hope the idea will catch fire. The world could stand some attractive Americans following in the steps of him of whom it was said that even his feet were beautiful.

NCC PROJECTS FIVE-YEAR PLAN, SEEKS FUNDS FOR PEACE PROGRAM

The National Council of Churches, whose sense of competence in international affairs ought to have been shaken by recent events, is now launching a five-year plan to expand the activities and staff of its Department of International Affairs. A five-year program of education and action in “Christian Responsibility for World Survival and Peace” has been approved by the executive board of the Division of Christian Life and Work, of which the Department is a part. Substantial funds will be sought from individuals, corporations, and foundations to implement the project. The Department wants to expand its work with liaison specialists with the United Nations, United States government agencies in international affairs, ecumenical and denominational programs in international affairs. It also seeks program associates with special concern for disarmament, international aid, and world economic development; world area specialists for Asia, the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and North and South America.

The Department promises to provide “competent leadership for Christian church people who are concerned about the world situation, and who seek the largest attainable measure of justice, freedom, and peace in the world.” But the competence of American ecumenists to speak on issues of world order and peace in the present international crisis has been a matter of open doubt since the World Order Study Conference urged United Nations admission and United States recognition of Red China. The unbecoming equivocation of the General Board on this issue has only served to communicate to grass roots an impression of ecclesiastical sophistry; and the high-powered propaganda campaign launched by ecumenical leaders to convince the masses that “ecumenism can do no wrong” has only confused the situation. The American people prefer truth to a whitewash.

In 1954 the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs called for the nations to “refrain from the threat or use of hydrogen, atomic and all other weapons of mass destruction as well as any other means of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Dr. Charles Malik commented bluntly on this involvement in strategic problems of the H-bomb that the churches “should say nothing on any subject about which they know nothing.” Former President Harry S. Truman has since said, “We know now that when some people were advocating in 1956 that the American government stop its tests of the hydrogen bomb, the Russians were already in possession of a multimegaton stockpile of intermediate ballistic missiles with thermonuclear warheads.…”

Nobody is trying to muffle the Church or the spokesmen who bask in the dream that their pronouncements are pan-Protestant. But the Church, if she be Christ’s Body, has a mandate to conform her words to his authoritative Word. If she professes to speak for him, she must fix her sights on the revealed principles of the Bible rather than on the provisional programs of study conferences.

GET RID OF THE MESSAGE BY DISQUALIFYING THE MESSENGER

The attempt to get rid of the Christian message by getting rid of the messenger continues. Many caustic critics are busily at work trying to convince the public that every day in every way, the minister is getting worse and worse. “Sinners, watch out!” shrieks the downtown marquee, “Elmer Gantry is coming!” And Bert Lancaster, who built his reputation in roles specializing in sadism, lust, mayhem and murder, now becomes the paragon of the pulpit. A remarkable bit of Hollywood casting, indeed. The next minister part will probably be played by an orangutan.

How magnificent it would be if, just once, before God rolls up his heavens and the alarm in the clock of the universe goes off, Protestant Christians would echo the apocalyptic thunder with a resounding protest: “Let the Christian minister alone. He has earned a rest.”

WHAT DO CHURCHES REALLY THINK ABOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?

The value of denominational statements on public issues is cast in doubt by a booklet issued by the Connecticut Friends Committee on Social Order, titled “What Do the Churches Say on Capital Punishment?” The booklet is, in fact, a fascinating document, for it compiles official statements of dozens of Protestant church bodies, every one of which opposes capital punishment in explicit terms. Many of them claim biblical warrant for their views.

If such remarkable unanimity of mind were characteristic of the Church as a whole, capital punishment would be eliminated overnight. But such is evidently not the case. We can only conclude that the church leadership is not fairly reflecting either the views of American Christians, or the Bible on which they profess to base their views.

IS THE CHURCH CONFUSING THE BODY AND THE HEAD?

The decisive ecclesiological issue of the latter part of the twentieth century seems to be taking shape. A movement is underway exalting the Body of Christ at the expense of the Headship of our Lord. Oriental Christians grasped the significance of the issue before the West did, as we know from the reactionary “Jesus Only” movement which flourished in China during the years before communism, and the popular “No Church” movement in Japan. In the West the conflict is developing more slowly, but it is surely coming.

Some of the impetus behind this drive to establish the Body over the Head comes from the form criticism which has tried to show that Jesus can be seen only through the eyes of the early Church; that the objective facts of his life are not knowable by us; and that the faith of the early Church contrived a supernatural setting for his life as a kind of hero worship. It was only natural that, with the New Testament “de-mythologized” and the figure of Christ blending and fading into the background until it was no longer discernible, scholars should begin to exalt the Church. There was nothing else left.

Father Gregory Baum of Toronto, as reported earlier this year by Time magazine, noted that the new Protestant tendency is to minimize the importance of “whether Jesus really said this or did that.” “What counts,” according to the new view, “is that through the biblical witness the early Church proclaimed its faith.” Thus it does not matter whether Jesus healed a blind man; what is significant is that Jesus “now heals the blind eyes of men through faith,” that is, through a faith mediated by the Church.

The tragedy is that while churchmen have been emphasizing the significance of the Church, magnifying its strength and virtues and “strengthening” its theological base at our Lord’s expense, more and more there has welled up within the hearts of contemporary churchgoers and non-churchgoers a yearning to know more about Jesus. People read the Gospels and find a bond that knits them to the Man from Nazareth. They couldn’t care less about our scholastic debates; they assume the record is true or it would not have endured for centuries. They are eager to appropriate the power that they sense as they read the chapters of the New Testament.

What does it mean to come to Jesus today? How does one walk with Him along the Emmaus road when it has been transformed into a six-lane freeway with satellites whizzing overhead and international TV installed in every car? People want to know. They feel it is still possible to have Jesus for a Savior and a friend, but they are confused. When they arrive in church they are caught up in a flood of promotion that sweeps them down the ecclesiastical water gap, and instead of answering their question, the church introduces ten new ones. Do our Christian leaders really understand that Jesus is the key to mission, to stewardship, to Christian education, to worship—to everything? He is Lord of the Church, and without him our cathedrals and meeting houses are about as useful to man as the pyramids of Egypt.

Somehow the idea has been circulated that the Church herself is the instrument of reconciliation; that the Church herself redeems us from our sins; that the Church today is God’s favorite, if not his sole instrument on the earth. And who make up the Church? On the earth, we do. If we glorify the Church we are therefore in danger of exalting ourselves. Yet John said that God the Father could raise up sons of Abraham out of the very stones of the desert.

The Church exists for one reason only: to glorify God through Jesus Christ her Lord. She exists to proclaim the message that John uttered: “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” An expensive set of binoculars is not worth much if you cannot see anything through them. Not to get men on the church roll, but to get them to Jesus; not to integrate them into the social stream, but to get them to Jesus; not to bring them into an awareness of their acceptance into reality, but to get them to Jesus! This is our task.

WHEN JUDGEMENT COMES

When the debacle comes, when there suddenly dawns on America a realization that we as a nation have frittered away our place of world leadership, when the judgment of God descends on our land and the reality of our folly becomes apparent to all—then we may be given the sight to view agonizingly our follies and our blindness.

From its inception communism has declared its intentions and mapped its course. It has proceeded to carry out its plans without ever deviating from its avowed purpose and ultimate goal, which is complete domination of the world.

We cannot claim ignorance of the terrible wants which have occurred in recent years. The plans and accomplishments of communism have never really been concealed under the bushel of subterfuge—except to those unwilling to see—and the entire world has watched as nations have succumbed and maps have been changed.

Freedom is a Christian concept, and it is obvious that freedom and communism are antiethical. In such circ*mstances how obvious it should be that it is the Christian faith alone which has the dynamic to save.

We have willfully chosen to ignore facts and to embark on a course which will spell the doom of America. We have no one but ourselves to blame. In 1933 our government took official action, giving diplomatic recognition to a nation which officially denies and defies God. The supposed advantages of this step are now lost by increasing evidence that the judgment of God is descending upon us for our compromise with evil.

Americans have been wilfully ignorant of communism and its aims. We have thought we might “win” this embodiment of satanic cleverness by developing a spirit of mutual understanding and good will. We have confused the natural friendliness of the Russian people with the implacable evil of their rulers. We have thought that diplomatic relations would make possible cultural and social exchanges which would break down the barrier.

Our grave mistake has been in confusing people with a philosophy of dealing with an evil system as one would deal with wayward friends. Most serious of all, we have ignored communism’s attack on the sovereign God, and have thought that we could do business with his enemies without harm to ourselves.

America is by no means a “Christian nation.” One need only look around to see the devastating effect of sin in our midst. But America does offer freedom to Christianity and to the Church, and she has from the beginning of her existence given official recognition of God and honored him as supreme. The Bible in our court rooms and “In God We Trust” on our currency bears mute testimony to this.

Under the good hand of a beneficient God we have prospered as a people, enjoyed freedom, and been raised to a position of world leadership. But with increasing power and prestige we forget that God holds nations, as well as men, accountable for their actions. For America we believe the fatal turn was taken when we recognized Soviet Russia.

The childish argument that “recognition of a government does not carry with it approval of that government” has no relevance to the things of God. In communism we have the spirit of anti-Christ rampant, and we chose to try to do business with it.

As time has gone on, the inevitable deterioration has set in and gone on apace. There are those who now boldly say that “anti-communism can be worse than communism.” Now open attacks on communism and our own international policies are in turn condemned and ridiculed by a combination of well-meaning but ignorant individuals, the professional one-worlders and those definitely committed to left-wing philosophies, or worse.

But there is no excuse for ignorance, nor is there justification for letting some ill-advised alarmists divert one’s attention from a danger which is both real and evident.

Confused by subversive forces working from within and the agents of infiltration and intrigue to be found everywhere today, many people feel that America is in the gravest danger in her history. Compromised by official recognition of our political enemies, we are also confronted by the softening and degrading influence of immorality and greed run riot Our great educational institutions, once the bulwark of national integrity, have themselves sounded a note of uncertainty; for “academic freedom” is now often interpreted as godless license, and “tenure” has become a wall behind which some hide as they shoot at the spiritual and moral values which once made our nation great.

The Church, wherever she becomes more concerned with social engineering than with proclaiming the Gospel of redemption at the personal level, contributes to the confusion while she neglects her God-given task of preaching to the lost.

The solution to our dilemma does not lie in the realm of partisan politics. There are men who will rise up and join ranks regardless of party affiliations; men who see the cause of our danger and have the courage to call for a reversal of any and all policies that play into the hands of our national and spiritual enemy.

It is our conviction that there can be no permanent relief until we have severed all diplomatic ties with communism, Communist nations, and agencies. This would also require the expulsion of all Communist nations from the United Nations.

“Unthinkable!” is the loud chorus which would rise to such a proposal. “It would be giving up the great advances achieved for international brotherhood.” Within the political and church life of America, the overwhelming majority will arise to denounce even the suggestion that we cut all ties with international communism.

But what is the alternative—politically?

Against the devilishly ingenious and effective spread of communism, there is but one answer: separate from it and trust the Lord to take care of the consequences. We believe our present dilemma is due to a fatal mistake. If this is true, the mistake must be remedied at the place where it was made.

From a spiritual standpoint, what is the answer?

Problems can never be settled aright purely at the secular or political level. The ultimate solution of America’s dilemma has to do with our right relationship with God. The answer then lies in repentance, conversion, and healing.

And that is exactly what the Gospel of Jesus Christ does—it brings repentance for sin, conversion to Christ, and healing to the soul.

The answer to this dire crisis is a revival of true religion, a turning to Christ and a receiving of his blessings.

L. NELSON BELL

There are three important factors concerning the date of Nahum’s prophecy. First, in 3:8–10, the fall of the Egyptian city of No-amon (i.e. Thebes) to the Assyrians is spoken of as a past event, having taken place in 663 B.C. Second, the main subject of the prophecy is the fall of the Assyrian city of Nineveh, but that event has not yet taken place (Nineveh fell in 612 B.C.). Third, Nahum alone, among all the Old Testament prophets, has no strictures to pass upon the religious and moral life of his own people. If that silence is really significant then the only period between 663 and 612 when a prophet of Jahweh might conceivably have been hopeful of Judah would have been 622–621 B.C., when King Josiah’s religious reforms were in full swing (cf. 1:15 with 2 Kings 23:21).

Now, a few years before Nineveh fell, the writing was on the wall so far as Assyria was concerned. As early as 614 B.C., the city of Asshur fell to the Medes; and it might well have been that event, heralding the end of the hated Assyrian hegemony, that marked Nahum’s being seized with divine inspiration to write this triumphant hymn of acclamation.

BACKGROUND

If, then, we place Nahum’s prophecy towards the end of the period 621–612 B.C., he would be a contemporary of Zephaniah (c. 627), Habakkuk (c. 614), and Jeremiah (625–582, or thereabouts). One of the main events in this period was Josiah’s reforms, which took place about 35 years before the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. Probably Jeremiah was a warm supporter of the Josianic reformation in its early stages, and he may even have undertaken a preaching campaign in the towns of Judah on behalf of the new religious movement (cf. Jer. 11:2–6). However, Jeremiah’s enthusiasm for the new reforms began to wane when it occurred to him that the very reforms he was supporting were only helping to confirm Judah in some of her already long-cherished illusions, in particular, the notion that the externals of religion were sufficient to reinstate her in God’s favor in spite of the fact that no change of heart had taken place.

While, therefore, Josiah’s religious reforms were in progress, Jeremiah felt it necessary to warn Judah of the tragedy that was soon to overtake her (4:4; 8:9–13). But it appears that he was practically the only person who had any real insight into the prevailing situation. The other responsible leaders in Judah’s religious and political life treated Jeremiah’s warnings with an easy optimism which communicated itself to the people. And as long as Josiah ruled in Judah, this state of affairs continued. Indeed, the circ*mstances that allowed Josiah to initiate and pursue his religious reforms, and through them to extend his political influence, seemed to support those leaders in Judah who argued that Jeremiah was unduly pessimistic, if not completely mistaken, in his reading of the situation. Did not the impending fall of Assyria to the advancing Medes and Babylonians confirm those in Judah who persisted in an optimistic interpretation of the existing international situation?

Now, it was within the context of this mood of easy optimism that Nahum prophesied in terse, vivid language the doom that overtook Nineveh in 612 B.C.

CONTENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS

The prophecy of Nahum consists of two poems which take their place among the most accomplished, and most finished poetry in the sacred literature of the Hebrews. Because it deals with only one event in particular, the prophecy is characterized by a unity and a cohesion which distinguishes it from the writings of the other Old Testament prophets. Chapter one proclaims certain moral attributes of God, and the effects which the moral judgment of God has upon the world of nature, and upon the enemies of Judah. In chapter two Nahum, with vivid strokes, paints in quick succession the seige, the capture, and the final overthrow of Nineveh, and the resulting desolation. In chapter three the prophet, fascinated by the main theme of his work, returns to the fall of Nineveh, and supplies more details of the city’s doom, and dwells on the shame which she will experience in the same lavish measure which she had so cruelly meted out to her foes for so long. Nahum makes special mention of there being none to console her.

There are two points to be made which help us to place Nahum’s cry of exultation over Nineveh’s doom in proper perspective. First, Nineveh was the capital of one of the richest, most powerful, and most flagrantly wicked empires that the world had ever seen. The story of this splendid Assyrian tyranny and social corruption, which has been told and retold, has been culled from the monuments and tablets dug up long after Nineveh was dead and forgotten. And this resurrection of Nineveh only confirms the story of her shame, and proves that Nahum, with all his passion, was not guilty of exaggeration at any point. And his shout of fierce triumph not only expressed the sentiment of the Jews who had suffered so terribly at the hands of the stricken Assyrians, but also that of all the other nations of the Near East upon whose necks the Assyrian yoke had lain for so long. When Nineveh finally plunged to her doom, the minds of men must have been convinced that a great curse was being removed from off the face of the earth.

Second, a few years before Nineveh fell the Near East was divided into two camps; on the one hand Assyria and Egypt, and on the other the Medes and the Babylonians. Each was struggling for the hegemony of the Middle East. In 612 B.C. Nineveh fell to the Medeo-Babylonian alliance, as also did the city of Harran, the new Assyrian capital, two years later. The issue of this life and death struggle remained inconclusive until five years later (605 B.C.) when at the battle of Carchemish the Egypto-Assyrian alliance was effectively crushed by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. Babylonian domination was then established throughout the Near East.

Against this background Nahum’s exultant prediction of Nineveh’s (i.e. Assyria’s) downfall suggests that he had high hopes for the future of his native Judah once the Assyrian yoke was struck from her neck. Jeremiah, Nahum’s contemporary, on the other hand, realized that Babylon’s victory over Assyria meant simply that Judah was exchanging masters; and that the pro-Babylonian party in Judaean politics was indulging in idle daydreaming when it assumed that Assyria’s downfall would bring political independence to Judah. Probably, then, Nahum shared these sentiments, whereas Jeremiah, with authentic prophetic insight, realized that Judah’s deliverance could not come about through a shift in the balance of power in international politics, nor through a transference to a new sphere of political influence, but through a change of heart manifesting itself in confession, repentance, contrition, faith, and obedience. That, said Jeremiah, is the highway to true freedom, not faith in this or that concentration of military might, or in this or that political alliance.

TEACHING

It is in chapter one of Nahum’s prophecy that his main teaching is found. What the prophet is preoccupied with there is the character of the God of Israel, and especially with the attribute of ‘jealousy.’ Nahum 1:2 f. might well be taken as the preacher’s text, where Jahweh’s jealousy manifests itself particularly as wrath. But in common with the rest of the Old Testament Nahum speaks of divine wrath in connection with the covenantal name Jahweh; which means that God’s anger must be viewed in the light of his complete sovereignty and omnipotence.

In Nahum’s prophecy divine wrath as God’s jealousy in action is the reaction within the divine nature against sin; but whereas the rest of the Old Testament prophets see God’s jealousy going out in anger against the sins of the covenant people, Nahum sees it in action against only the Gentiles. But that ‘fortuitous’ difference apart, Nahum, in common with the rest of the prophets, relates divine anger to divine holiness, and is therefore free from the taint of sinfulness, and is moral through and through both in its nature and its purpose. And related to his jealousy, God’s wrath is a manifestation of his refusal to give his glory to another.

In such a world as this, therefore, the moral attribute of jealousy makes divine vengeance a necessity. The world, says Nahum, is governed by a righteous God; and his prophetic indignation against tyranny, and his passionate demand for vengeance upon all who outrage the moral principles that operate in the world, is really the voice of divine justice, which will be vindicated in God’s time.

We have already hinted at the main difference between Nahum’s outcry and the preaching of the other Old Testament prophets. The latter constantly affirm that divine jealousy manifested itself as indignation especially against the covenant community of Israel. While they did not fail to apply to Gentile nations the searching standard of God’s demands in terms of righteousness, yet they were concerned most of all to apply that criterion of judgment to the ethics of their own people. This Nahum does not do.

His intent was to judge only the Gentile nations by the yardstick which other prophets had applied to Israel. So far as one may judge from his oracles, Nahum’s preoccupation with Nineveh’s iniquities and impending judgment seems to have made him oblivious to the sins of Judah. In this Nahum is alone among the other prophets. Probably it was his inability to appreciate the real spiritual condition of Judah that enabled Nahum to indulge in such passionate hatred concerning the sins of the doomed Assyrians.

For Nahum the fate of Assyria establishes the fact of the moral government of the world, the eternal principle of the government of God in history, and that, therefore, if a nation is to survive it must exalt righteousness in its system of government, in its legal and educational systems, and in its ethical standards in every department of national life. It is this truth taught by Nahum that makes his prophecy relevant to our own age.

The limitations of Nahum’s outlook must not blind us to his importance. This is a reminder that the teaching of the prophets has to be freed from its limitations before it can be truly interpreted for our day. But the recognition of Nahum’s limitations, for example, does not in any way detract from his message for our generation. In any case, it is possible that Nahum felt so bitterly about Nineveh, not only because she was Judah’s inveterate enemy, but because she was the embodiment of that evil power which is still in deadly conflict with the Church of our Lord today.

Conversely, there may have been in Nahum’s mind the thought that Judah was the earthly representative of that power for good that labors to establish God’s kingly rule among men. Nahum may have viewed Judah as the ideal community elected by God to be his instrument in history. If that is so then he would not be preoccupied with her moral shortcomings but with her ultimate triumph over evil which was personified in Assyria.

It might also explain Nahum’s silence regarding another theme which is so common in the rest of the Old Testament prophetic literature—that an evil world power such as Assyria (or Egypt, or Babylon) was God’s instrument by which he chastises his own people. This Nahum seems to have forgotten; and consequently his exultation over the doom of Assyria far outweighs his condemnation of the sins of Judah.

It was this attitude that produced the absolute contrast between Jew and Gentile in a later age. In Judaism privilege was the portion of the former, and judgment was the fate of the latter. What one has constantly to remember is that truth must be seen steadily and seen as a whole. One aspect of truth must not be divorced from the whole of truth to which it belongs. Nahum “makes particular applications of universal truths, which is to say, he fails to apply to himself and his people the standards by which he measures others” (Abingdon Bible Commentary, p. 799). Nahum does not make clear that the moral ends towards which God is working may be frustrated by the sins of His own people. Far from Judah’s time of deliverance, her time of correction under the stern discipline of divine love was just beginning.

However, as Sir G. A. Smith points out, Assyria, by crushing so ruthlessly all the nations to a common level of despair, and by exciting such universal pity through her cruelties, in fact contributed to the development in Israel of the idea of a common humanity. In a sense Nahum is voicing the outraged conscience of humanity, not merely the national passions of poor, downtrodden Judah.

Nahum is the prophet of universal humanity as well as of Jewish patriotism, because he shows that the laws of God made Nineveh’s downfall inevitable; and through her humiliation she became the most conspicuous example in ancient history of the outworking of those laws of divine righteousness which strike down the proud and exalt the meek. How terribly relevant is Nahum’s message for the twentieth century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Of the many excellent commentaries on Nahum, the following will be found to combine sound scholarship with a spirit of devotion: Calvin, Minor Prophets, Vol. 3 (Eerdmans); Keil & Delitzsch, Minor Prophets, Vol. 2 (Eerdmans); Kleinert & Ellicott, Lange’s Commentary (Zondervan).

J. G. S. S. THOMSON

Professor of Old Testament

Columbia Theological Seminary

BEHOLD THE DOLPHIN!

Our vacation plans are reversed. We are not going to the mountains, but to the seashore. Who ever chatted with a dolphin in the mountains? Since a Navy neurophysiologist has announced that dolphins have more brains than men, it is the duty of every patriotic citizen to be a good neighbor to the bottle-nosed dolphin. The Navy doctor has not quite cracked the dolphin language, which seems to be a pattern of whistles, but he assures us that the dolphin must be the smartest mammal afloat. His brain is 40 per cent larger than Navy regulation.

The marine existence of the dolphin indicates to Navy researchers the creature’s superior intelligence. Why mortgage the ranch to build a swimming pool in a world that is three-fourths ocean?

Of course the peril of our situation is evident. What if our researchers discover that the dolphins already speak Russian? Or that Russian linguists have dolphin language records? A network of dolphin intelligence, complete with sonar techniques, may already circle our coastline. Surely, after our experiences with Red eggheads, we cannot assume that dolphins are too intelligent for Communist propaganda. Life underseas may be particularly suited to brainwashing. The strong dolphin social organization noted by the researchers is ominous.

Even if dolphins are politically neutral, the dawn of the dolphin age is upon us. When these bottle-nosed high brows begin to take college entrance exams the Ivy League standards should make a dolphin school of Harvard.

This may be a little premature, since the dolphins are not yet speaking to the Doctor. There is an “if” in his reasoning too—“If brain size and complexity are the criteria of intelligence—and Dr, L. suspects this is the case—then …”

When the riddles of life were too much for Job, God summoned him to examine the animal creation. He marveled at God’s works, the hippopotamus and the crocodile, and his complaints were silenced before his Sovereign. Now we behold the dolphin. Yet we must bow with Job to know what man is. Even T. S. Eliot’s hippopotamus cannot know himself!

EUTYCHUS

THE POST-MODERN MIND

In view of Dr. Jellema’s comments on “New Faiths” (June 6 issue), it would be wise to remember the proverb, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.” Since the so-called “post-modern mind,” which is very ancient indeed, has abandoned the objective reality of God and the universe, it also has abandoned the foundation of rationality; for according to both Aristotle and Leibnitz, the second absolute intuition is that the realities conveyed to the minds of men by their perceptions are as certainly true as the reality of the existence of their own minds. Therefore, to strip the mind of the certainty of its own knowledge is to surrender any certainty of its knowledge of itself; for perception is the basis in any case: that is to annihilate reason.

And to attempt to reason with such, on the basis of their own irrationality, is to become like them; for it accepts their folly as in itself reasonable!

ELBERT D. RIDDICK

Portland, Ore.

I believe the reasons for the revolt against the older “modes of thought” in both theology and Weltanschauungen are legitimate because they were unable to handle either the complexities or the spontaneities of the human and sub-human situation. It must be recognized, however, that none of those who are attempting to wrestle with the problems of the frontier, whether they be beatniks, physicists, depth psychologists or Existenz philosophers have yet come forward with a viewpoint which adequately handles the total range of our experience, including our knowledge.

Many in France and in our Washington-New York and West Coast areas are attempting to find a Weltanschauung in Zen Buddhism which certainly makes a place for spontaneity which the older orthodoxies in science and theology did not permit; but Buddhism merely affirms the Unpattern and denies the Self. Protestant Liberalism is surely even more inadequate than the older Orthodoxies, and Neo-orthodoxy, at least it seems to me, is like Camus, only a way of living with the Absurd.

Although I do not know where the answer is to be found, I am now fairly sure that no purely intellectual answer is possible and that when an answer is found it will involve some other than Western (either Protestant or Catholic) understanding both of the Church and of worship. I am fairly confident that there is an answer somewhere within the tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly Russian Orthodoxy.…

Unless we find an answer to the problem of the Unpattern I feel fairly sure that we will all be involved in the Dance of Shiva.

ROY E. LEMOINE

Columbus, Ga.

Comdr. ChC. USN (ret.)

“Conformity” is agreed by many of the young people I have discussed the matter with to be their taskmaster and their struggle is how to break with it. The Church, I am sure, holds the answer they seek, for only in Christ is one the full, free self God created him to be, and freedom comes only when one is what he is God-intended to be.

FOREST TRAYLOR, JR.

First Presbyterian Church

Bay Minnette, Ala.

THE FUTILE WAIT

Truly enjoyed Fred E. Luchs’ article … “Waiting for Godot” (June 6 issue). It certainly is refreshing to see a religious magazine take up such a thought-provoking subject as Beckett has produced for us. Mr. Luchs’ interpretation is mature and well-founded.

There is one basic difference between the play’s two acts. Several persons I know have failed to catch it. At the opening of the play the tree stands in the stage barren. At the opening of the second act, everything is exactly the same with the exception that anywhere from three to eleven leaves are strung along the still near-naked tree. Strange? Very. It does further Mr. Luchs’ point about futility, however. It reaches into untold stretches of time.

JOHN HUSAR

Church Editor

The Clovis News-Journal

Clovis, N. Mex.

THE CHESSMAN CASE

Your editorial on Chessman (May 23 issue) gave us Britishers a new and authentic slant which was sorely needed in view of our press which failed to bring out fully the man’s criminality.

FREDERICK S. LEAHY

Reformed Presbyterian Manse

Belfast, Northern Ireland

Would you be willing to act as the executioner of condemned men?… Your stand, and the stand of those who agree with you, is all that prevents us from doing away with this medieval, barbarous, and unchristian practice by which we are all made murderers.

JOHN A. BAXTER

Turn of River Church, Presbyterian

Stamford, Conn.

[This] is to congratulate you on the Chessman editorial (May 23 issue)—which came too late to use in my course in criminology. I am going to copy a part of it … and send it to our daily paper.

ROBERT L. WENDT

Salem College

Winston-Salem, N. C.

Those who are advocating abolition of the death penalty on the ground that it is no deterrent to crime need to be reminded that this is not even the main issue. The fact we dare not forget is that “retributive justice” … is divinely vested in human government. “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man” (Genesis 9:5–6).

When we here cast aside the revealed will of God as being too “cruel,” we are not only showing more concern for the criminal than for his victim but are also flying in the face of God’s principles of absolute justice without which the universe would be chaos.

P. W. SIMS

First Baptist Church

Helena, Ark.

MISSION NEGLECTED

May I confirm Mr. Conlon’s comments on the present-day importance of reaching African nationals while in this country (News, May 23 issue). However, I must say in addition that at the present time we are also losing out with the African students. They come to the United States with high expectations but are soon disillusioned. In both North and South they feel they are discriminated against. Reacting against actual or imagined affronts they tend to cloister together, brooding with others about their pathetic situation here and the inequalities in their homelands. Most Africans return home quite bitter, far the worse for their experience here. For the most part, this is not their fault. Very few Christians will open their homes and churches to minister in love without prejudice. The Lord Jesus ministered to persons of all backgrounds and nations.

The foreign students in this country, without doubt, represent one of the most significant missionary opportunities of our generation. But only relatively few Christians have thus far responded to this challenge.

R. MAX KERSHAW

Area Director

International Students, Inc.

Chicago, Ill.

PROBABILITIES AND PERILS

The hub of Brunner’s argument (April 25 issue), it appears, is that “the expansion of bolshevist control … is … an absolute certainty” while “the eruption of nuclear war … is pure possibility.” The argument may carry the force of a certain logic. But is it historically and, above all, theologically valid? If we are to argue on the level of historical probability, the evidence points at least as strongly in the opposite direction. Despotisms always come to end, by digging their own graves, or otherwise. Continued expansion is hardly an “absolute certainty.” On the other hand, a race of arms typically leads to a military explosion. Hence the likelihood of nuclear war at the end of the present contest is higher than a mere “pure possibility.” That is, if we are to argue in terms of historical probabilities, one can with more logic advance the conclusion opposite to the one drawn by Prof. Brunner.

The real issue, of course, is theological. Not to raise here the difference, ethically speaking, between “suffering evil” and “inflicting evil”—what I miss throughout the article is the dimension of grace.…

I consider highly injudicious the slogan that has been circulated in some pacifist quarters—better a communist occupation than a nuclear war. But let us keep our bearings when we evaluate historical alternatives. Nuclear holocaust is definitive in a way that communism is not. And if the former comes because of Christian unbelief and disobedience, that finality is infinitely greater.… Might it not be that the form of the antichrist in our time is not the blandishments of Moscow but rather the absolutization of the choice between East and West with which we are all constantly tempted? What would it mean if it suddenly were to become clear that Christianity, rather than being the spiritual rationale which undergirds the “defensive posture” of the West, flows from the redeeming, transforming power of God, accepting yet judging and seeking to redeem East and West alike?… Is it not, in the final analysis, a form of idolatry and unbelief to hold that despite the clear contradiction of all that the Gospel entails by the whole notion of nuclear war or deterrency, God loves the West so much and needs our help so badly to defend it, that we are entitled to destory the East to accomplish it?

PAUL PEACHEY

Mennonite Central Committee

Tokyo, Japan.

I knew Hromadka while he was here at Union Seminary, and on my visit in 1950 to Czechoslovakia I heard nothing but praises by our Congregational ministers about Hromadka and his humanitarian work for peace.…

The progressive pastor Martin Niemoeller is a personal friend of Dr. Hromadka. They both work for the peace and not for war among all nations. Yet when Dr. Niemoeller was in America, the American Presbyterians and other denominations welcomed him, except some of the Augustana Lutherans.

Listen to what the Cleveland capitalist Mr. Eaton says after his visit to Hungary not long ago, namely: “The Hungarian people are grateful that the Red Army is standing close by them because they are in terror of the German army which they feel the U. S. is building up.”

ANDREW J. MONCOL

Cleveland, Ohio.

With the exception of the fundamentalists and a few others, American Protestantism will not lift its hand to … oppose the rapid spread of communism-atheism.

LEE A. SOMERS

Champaign, Ill.

WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE

I spent a week at the White House Youth Conference (Apr. 25 issue) and could not help thinking the results would have been far more substantial if the same effort went into separate state conferences.

GEORGE C. WILSON

The Evening Star

Washington, D. C.

THE CAMPUS NEWSPAPER

Would you pass on to your pastors and Christian leaders the need to encourage able youth who are on secular campuses to try to serve on the staff of the campus newspaper.

This semester at the University of California, Berkeley, the writer submitted three letters on timely issues from the conservative viewpoint which were not published because liberally minded students controlled the editorial staff of The Daily Californian. Upon inquiry, a staff member stated, “One left-winger controls all that goes on the editorial page.”

Most of the letters which are printed are of extremist views, and many of the conservative letters printed are those with anemic arguments, making the conservative position look ridiculous. In one edition (May 16) ten of the seventeen non-sports articles had a strong anti-conservative bias.

WARD WILSON

Oakland, Calif.

WHICH RELIGION?

I was one of the 3,000 who accepted membership in the 5-year-old Academy of Religion and Mental Health, and have been asked to renew my membership. After reading Director George Christian Anderson’s New York City address of January 14, 1960, I see that when he uses the word religion, he does not mean the Christian religion, but something less definable, something sub-Christian.…

We desire to help the individual in need before he is sick mentally, emotionally, physically, and this is the noble aim of this Academy and the alert Church. But my question is this: Can we Christians truly help individuals without recognizing and stating the finality and uniqueness of Jesus as divine Savior and healer, and the Bible as our divine authority when we talk about religion? This may be implicit in Mr. Anderson’s thought, but is this too emotional or divisive to put into language? Is this too spiritual for the behavioral researcher and scientist?

ROBERT W. YOUNG

North Presbyterian Church

Pittsburgh, Pa.

THE PAGANS ARE RIGHT

Ever since you turned down and refused to print the article I wrote to you, about the basic, very foundation of Christianity, the Love Commandments that Jesus said were the greatest and first, I have felt you do not practice as you preach, and that the pagan and many people in other nations are right when they call us Americans hypocrites.

EDWIN BRUSH, SR.

San Francisco, Calif.

NEO-SOMETHING

Recently I came across a volume of contemporary theology with the arresting title, “Die Subjektive Wirklichkeitstheorie in der Christlichen Religion.” Its author is Prof. L. A. U. S. Indembart of the University of Entweder an der Oder. The colophon of the volume reads, “Verlag der Gesellschaft der Christlichen Religionskunde, Hameln, 1958.”

Prof. Indembart had hitherto been little known in this country and indeed in his own. His thesis, it may be assumed, will raise him from obscurity and make him the talk of the seminaries for several generations to come. In this book Prof. Indembart propounds an entirely new approach to the verities of the Christian faith, one which amounts to nothing less than a new philosophy.

The subjektive Wirklichkeitstheorie begins with the major premise that whatever is believed is subjectively true. Applying that principle to theology, the truths of the Christian religion have a validity insofar as they are apprehended and received as such by the individual. The Holy Scriptures, says Indembart, have essentially no objective reality. They exist only in the degree to which one is acquainted with them. When a person begins his acquaintance with the Word it is for him in a state which he denominates potentiale Wirklichkeit or seinwerdenmögen (potential reality or possibility of becoming). That state, through a transitional phase which he calls Wahrscheinlichkeit (probability), leads in certain cases to a state where particular doctrines have a subjektive Wirklichkeit (subjective reality) for the student.

So powerful was the impact of the volume that I felt the philosophy it contained deserved to be more widely known. Accordingly, in the summer of 1959 I flew to Germany with the purpose of interviewing its author.

As I sat in Indembart’s study, awaiting his appearance, I glanced at his library. I was somewhat astonished by the absence of the works of Kierkegaard and the existentialist philosophers generally. On his desk, however, lay an unopened volume of Kant; likewise an open copy of Berkeley’s “Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge,” heavily underscored and much annotated in red ink.

Heavy footfalls in the corridor apprised me of the Professor’s imminent arrival. Restraining further investigation of his reading habits, after mutual salutations and the usual small talk I proceeded to question him concerning his theological views.

My first query was, “Dr. Indembart, do you accept the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God?” Indembart puffed on his pipe, gazed out of the window overlooking the medieval city of Entweder and the placid Oder, coughed and slowly said, “The Bible has a subjective truth for me.”

“Are the Scriptures then in your opinion without error?” was my next question. He scratched his bearded chin reflectively, then said, “I am completely orthodox.”

“But, aside from my own case,” I continued, “don’t you think your theory will militate against evangelical Christianity?” “It needn’t,” said the Professor, peering searchingly at me through his thick glasses. “You see, the Scriptures have a subjective reality. They become true as they are believed.”

“Doesn’t that make man, not God, the ultimate authority?” I wanted to ask, but, thinking better of it, I inquired instead, “Do you believe in the Virgin Birth?” Just then, however, Indembart glanced at his watch. “Ach,” he said, “es ist ja schon beinah halb zehn. Entschuldigen Sie mich, bitte. Ich muss jetzt zum Katheder.”

Indembart departed for his lecture, and I had no opportunity to discuss matters any further with him. Later in the week, however, I picked up a copy of Der Theologische Nebenblick, published by the theological faculty of the University of Pinkeln, lauding Indembart’s thesis as a most significant contribution to the philosophy of conservative Christianity. At this writing, several months later, I have examined the periodical literature of numerous Protestant seminaries and find that, almost without exception, Indembart’s theory has been hailed as indicating the ultimate phase in neo-orthodox thought.

Perhaps the most candid appraisal of “Die Subjektive Wirklichkeitstheorie” comes from the pen of Prof. Esopus Apfelmus, of the department of dogmatics at the University of Trügen, which hitherto has been a stronghold of existentialism. Writing in the Trügenscher Rundschau (Bd. XCI, Heft 9), he says: “Indembart has made an excellent case for removing the neo-orthodoxy from its tottering existential foundations to a much firmer base of subjective idealism. His philosophy will outmode the work of Barth, Brunner and their concomitants and followers. It is the neo-orthodoxy to end all neo-orthodoxies. One need not be a prophet to predict a great future for Indembart.”

I was particularly struck by the last sentence. Knowing the acumen of a large segment of the personnel of today’s theological faculties I am convinced that the presage is true, that the man is right.

E. P. SCHULZE

Peekskill, N. Y.

My notice in the Sunday church bulletin had announced that I would be in my study for counseling every morning from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. I straightened my desk, sat down, leaned back in my swivel chair, and after yawning took another look at my seminary diploma hanging there on the wall. The seminaries of this church have done a great job, I thought; I certainly can be grateful for the Pastoral Counseling I’ve received. Now I can help my people make an adjustment to life and enable them to feel accepted in the fellowship of the Christian Church.

This happened to be a Tuesday. Nobody had come. And because I was still exhausted from yesterday’s grind, I settled back in my chair to ponder over my work, and before I knew it I fell asleep.…

All of a sudden I awoke. I had heard a knock at the door.

“Come in,” I said. To my utter astonishment there stood the Apostle Paul! Now what on earth could he be doing here? Is it possible that he is seeking me out for counseling? I greeted him. Paul was looking exceedingly troubled, so I pointed to a chair opposite my desk and invited him to sit down and relax.

LO, A PERFECTIONIST!

He did not say anything at first. For a few moments I observed him quietly. He kept wringing his hands, I noticed, and rubbing them across his brow. Frequently he would swallow with great difficulty as if his mouth were dry from nervousness. And then I saw that he would grasp occasionally at his stomach. Apparently he was in severe pain—perhaps ulcers.

“May I have some water?” he asked.

“Why yes.” I left the room and came back, handing him a half-filled glass.

Before he drank, he slipped a little yellow pill into his mouth.

“Are you not feeling well?” I asked.

“No,” Paul replied. “I have been under Dr. Luke’s care for my nerves. Lately I’ve been upset, terribly upset. The condition of the Church is by no means what it should be! How the Church is ever going to accomplish her mission without drastic changes in both clerical and lay ministry I do not know. Luke tells me I am a perfectionist; he says I take life too seriously. So I do, but I cannot help it.”

He stopped talking for a moment, which gave me time to think.

Perfectionists are often neurotic, but I never thought Paul, the great Apostle, would become neurotic for this reason. Of course, he would have just cause for disturbance if he expected the Church today to fulfill the demands of his Epistles for faithfulness and obedience to Christ. But then …

THE STORM ABOUT THE CHURCH

“You feel there are gross weaknesses in the Church?” I asked.

No sooner had I said this than he began to talk up a storm.

“It’s this dire lack of clear-cut witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” he began. “This is what troubles me.

“You know, as one of the great ‘cloud of witnesses’ I am permitted to ‘attend’ many worship services. Some of the sermons I hear are out of your world. Ministers are preaching a language even I find difficult to understand. Some of those ideas they set forth—frankly, they leave me cold. Many ministers seem to be obsessed with concepts like ‘acceptance,’ ‘love,’ and koinonia. As I remember my Greek, that last word means something about fellowship. Yet I notice that these concepts are not always related to the sacrifice of Christ, that tremendous cost which made this ‘acceptance,’ ‘love,’ and ‘fellowship’ possible. Also, the responsibilities of the committed Christian are not stressed so much as the therapeutic value of Christianity, the attaining of peace of mind or security.”

“You feel, then, that the clergy are letting Christ down?” I asked.

“O yes … but in different ways,” he said quickly.

I was about to ask another question, but remembered that the counselee should do the talking. Paul, however, did not need any drawing out; he began talking immediately.

“There seem to be two types of ministers in the Church,” he said, “if you will permit a broad generalization. On the one hand, you have the ‘uneducated’ ministers who preach the Gospel as they understand it. They preach Christ crucified as the only means of salvation, but they confuse people by demanding abstinence from certain practices in order that they might stay saved. Mind you, I am not giving blanket endorsem*nt to the practices they consider ‘worldly’—many of them are demoralizing—but people are led to believe that they earn or keep their salvation by abstinence from ‘things.’ You see, these ministers fail to bring their people to grips with the doctrine of God’s free grace.

“On the other hand, you have the ‘educated’ ministers. While many of them are faithful to their pastoral responsibility of preaching the Good News and nurturing the flock, there are many who are not positive in their proclamation of the Word. They are not dogmatic, except over the fact they are not dogmatic. There is no authority in their preaching because they do not believe the Bible is the authoritative Word of God to man. They submit to a kind of authority which is the ‘authority’ of the critics. But with the witness of the Word undercut, they are left to flounder among the changing theories of higher criticism. You know, it’s always easier to sit in judgment upon the Word than to let the Word judge us.

“Christians in many churches, therefore, fail to grasp the basic Christian message and, as a consequence, fail to understand their responsibility to God.

SEARCHING FOR FUNDAMENTALS

“The one thing on which this group is solidly convinced is that they are not “fundamentalist.” However, before they can be effective in any kind of ministry, they have to come to grips with the “fundamentals” of the faith. Commitment to Christ must be preached before they can expect their constituency to walk in his way. Before changes can take place, men must submit to the Word of God and its judgment. Christ must become, not an article in a creed, but a living, personal Saviour.”

“All this bothers you?” I asked.

He sighed and put his head in his hands. “Of course; doesn’t it bother you?”

‘Well …,” I began.

“I know times have changed,” he continued. “A long time has elapsed since the First Adam walked on earth, and we’ve made tremendous progress technologically. But spiritually, be assured that men have not changed. They are as rebellious as Adam was. They still turn to covetousness—idolatry. They continue to worship self and the gods it creates. But worse, many no longer acknowledge any kinship to their Creator. Professing Christians call to question God’s authority and reject Christ as their sovereign Lord.”

He paused, and we thought for a while in deep and serious silence.

“You feel, then,” I resumed at last, “that many of the clergy have failed God, and man, made in God’s image, is rebellious and self-willed. Is that correct? And you also feel that ‘Christians’ within the Church have rejected Christ’s lordship in their lives, and the Church herself has not been faithful in her ministry of the Gospel. Is this true?”

“Yes,” he replied, “I believe that to be true.”

GOD’S SUFFERING SERVANT

Paul appeared to be more relaxed now than when he first entered. The pain and much of the distress seemed to have died away. In an effort to enable the Apostle to gain further insight into his anxiety, I asked: “Is there anything else that is giving you undue anxiety?

“There are many things about the Church that cause me anxiety,” he said, “but let me mention this one other matter before I leave.”

“Go right ahead,” I replied.

“You know,” he continued, “theologians have been speaking much lately about the Church as God’s Suffering Servant Community. Their return to the Scriptures for an understanding of the mission of the Church is salutary. They call attention to the fact that Christ saved the world through his vicarious death, and they insist that the Church, the Body of Christ, must sacrifice herself also.

“Now recently I heard a minister speak on the theme ‘The Church as a Suffering Servant Community.’ The occasion was a discussion group, and some of the people there insisted that the Church is serving Christ today, without suffering. The minister justly took exception to the statement and raised the question: ‘Is the Christian Church really serving him, or is she merely creating an organization in which members can find “security in faith and fellowship” while adhering to a kind of heretical, non-biblical Christianity and avoiding any real attempt to do the will of God which leads inevitably to self-denial and sacrifice? If we stopped conforming to the world, and began conforming to the strict ethics of the New Testament, and if we began to practice Christian brotherhood and to demonstrate compassion for a world dying without Christ, then the Church would become a Suffering Servant Community.’ When he said this, a dead silence fell over the group and they turned to consider a more important matter—the relevance of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the idea of the Kingdom of God.

“Why isn’t the hub of the Christian wheel,” Paul continued, “commitment to Christ and his will? Why are so many churches organized according to social-likeness and economic-likeness, and not Christ-likeness? In the early Church it was a reckless abandon to Christ as ‘Lord of all’ that bound us together.

PROGRAM PREDOMINANT

“The American Church is too preoccupied with her ‘program’ and with having ‘fellowship.’ But she has forgotten that fellowship is a by-product of service to Christ. She has not begun to gird the towel and serve sacrificially, after her Lord’s example. She tries to be greater than her Lord, and fails to realize that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. Until she sees these things, denies herself, and reckons her vocation in terms of sacrificial service, she will never know the smile of God’s approval.

“The new concept of the Kingdom which Christ brought differed radically from the popular Jewish concept of my day,” he added. “The Jews thought of the Kingdom in terms of peace, prosperity, and privilege.

“Our Lord ushered in a universal, spiritual Kingdom. He called disciples not to be at ease in Zion but to die, rise, and suffer with and for him. It was this new idea of the Kingdom that the Jews found offensive, and which the disciples were slow in grasping. It is this idea which American Christianity also seems to find offensive.

TOO MUCH TO EXPECT

“I could go on,” he said, making a gesture with his hand, “but it would do no good. I have taken too much of your time already.”

“Oh, feel free to talk longer,” I said quickly as he rose to go.

“It is not necessary. You see, as I have been speaking with you, I have been listening too. I think I realize I have been too much of a perfectionist—I have expected too much from the American Church. The Church is still composed of sinful, frail men—men who live in the flesh. I suppose I have to learn how to accept reality, how to stop expecting anything better than the status quo.

“How strange. God has made perfect redemption for sin by the sacrifice of his Son; he has restored his image in those who have committed themselves to him in Christ; and the Holy Spirit indwells all believers to guide them through the Word. Yet it is too much to expect men, even though redeemed, to sacrifice themselves in obedience to God!”

With these words Paul disappeared. Somehow I felt I had succeeded with this counseling situation. Paul had at least accepted a realistic view of the American Church, I thought. I am confident he will have less anxiety now, and feel more at ease.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

Let me confess in the very beginning, I think I’ve had it. I’m finished, through, done in. Let men of stronger faith and greater courage right the world’s wrongs; I must be content to sit in the house by the side of the road and be a friend to man.

I have served on boards and committees until they are running out of my ears. I have given speeches to PTAs and service clubs until my name (within a limited area) is a household word. I have opened every kind of meeting and contest extending from the Association of Commerce and Industry to the grade school swimming meet. I have prayed for baseball, football, wrestling, and junior high proms. But the Lord seems strangely distant to me right now. My nerves are jittery, butterflies are continuously in my stomach. And my church members, who used to love me dearly, now wonder what I do with all my time. They seldom see me in their homes, and of course I’m never at the church when they call.

Two weeks ago I preached a sermon, using as a text that glorious passage from Isaiah 61:

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn …

As I worked on the sermon, I hearkened back to my ordination vows. I remembered the charge to the minister as well as to the congregation, and the moisture in my eyes when the hands were laid upon me.

And as I read and re-read Isaiah, and recalled that Jesus quoted the very same words, it dawned upon me again: this is the true job of the minister. There are about twelve hundred members in my church. They have their joys and sorrows the same as people everywhere. Only so many times, instead of being with them in their hour of joy or sorrow, I am attending a committee meeting. Maybe I’ll get to them later in the week, but by then it is too late. To be sure, they can hear me on Sunday and gain a certain vicarious help, but it is nothing like having the minister in your front room when you want or need him.

I know what my job is. It is (1) to preach good tidings to the meek, (2) to bind up the broken-hearted, (3) to proclaim liberty to the captives, (4) to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, (5) the day of vengeance of our God, (6) to comfort all that mourn. And if that is not a full-time job, then someone does not know what his job is. These biblical goals represent a divine commission no minister can escape. Either he acknowledges Jesus Christ as Son of God, and lives and dies in accordance with these goals, or he is in the wrong profession and has not even the right to call himself Christian.

Such is my job and it is every minister’s job. We all are so busy attending meetings on how we can better do our job, however, we never get the job done. I think the original organization man was a minister with a heart of gold but who forgot somewhere along the line just what his job was.

Now there are certain advantages to being an organization man. You get your picture in the paper quite often, and are interviewed by the public press. People of other denominations know you; you are gazed upon with a certain admiration as you walk along the street. The denominational boards know you because you religiously attend all meetings. You are much more apt to be recommended to a larger church if you attend your denominational committee meetings regularly, than if you serve your church members faithfully. Some will emphatically deny this, but I have seen it happen too often.

So the organization man becomes a VIP. He is respected by the denomination, loved by the community. He is Known, and many people think that is quite important.

But what about the 1200 people who pay his salary, who look to him for spiritual guidance, or comfort in time of sorrow, guidance in time of confusion, solace in time of bereavement, or help in time of illness?

Here is a dear lady, 88 years old, who has brought a whole batch of children into the world, and now has a raft of grandchildren and great grandchildren. She is confined to her bed, and life is slipping away. Perhaps six more months, and she will be laid to rest.

All she has is her memories … many of them related to the church she loved and served for 60 years. Now she would like for her minister to see her, at least once a week and preferably more often. Admittedly she has become somewhat petulant. She scolds me when I am a day or even an hour late. And 60 minutes is all too short. She would like for me to spend the afternoon with her … reading the Bible, praying, and talking of the affairs of the church. But I have more than a hundred people in my church past 65 years of age. They have their rights also.

The thought comes to my mind as I pull away from the curb: Why should I waste my time on this old lady? She has lived her life and it will soon be over. Will either of my denominational boards praise me if I see her once a week, or scold me if I never see her? Will they ever notice—or care? Will they recommend me to a larger church simply because I am willing to spend an extra minute comforting the aged and dying? Or will they remember the last committee meeting I skipped, the board meeting at which I was supposed to bring a report?

Then one night, the old lady died. When the family tried to get in touch with me, I was in Park Forest delivering a talk on “Our Quest for Religious Certainty.” To be sure, I conducted a very lovely funeral for her a couple of days later, but my conscience hurt. I’m sure she would have liked for me to be by her bedside when she departed from this life.

So—after much soul searching, I have decided to cast my lot with that splendid group of people, unknown throughout the ages, unknown in the world today, whom I call Ministers Anonymous. They are mostly ministers of small churches, under-paid, overworked, and ofttimes not appreciated.

Ministers Anonymous take seriously the words of Isaiah that their sole job is to preach good tidings to the meek, bind up the broken-hearted, proclaim liberty to the captives, and comfort all that mourn. What was good enough for Jesus (Luke 4:18) is good enough for them. To them has been given a group of people to love and to cherish. They are the shepherds of the flock. The congregation may number a hundred; or a thousand … the job is the same.

Ministers Anonymous awaken in the morning with the thought: Who needs me most today? One who is ill … in sorrow … broken by failure? The confused, the distraught, the frustrated? The young, the old? Christianity has an answer to all problems. We go further and insist: Christianity has the answer to all problems. If the minister does not bring the solution, there will be no solution. To be sure, he needs help. He may call in a doctor, a lawyer, or a teacher. But the minister deals with the total personality, which is the area wherein the problem must be solved.

Ministers Anonymous are interested in civic affairs, but they never let this interest swerve them from their appointed rounds. If they have to choose between the United Fund and a Sunday School class, they will take the Sunday School class every time. They may not get their picture in the paper, but they are doing their job. Leading one small child along the straight and narrow way can in the long run be more important than raising a million dollar budget.

Ministers Anonymous try to meet their denominational obligations, which is an important phase of their work. But denominational leaders sometimes forget the purpose of a church. They get interested in raising budgets, increasing membership, and making a fine showing. Their only recourse is the local church, and their prime source of help is the local preacher. So of course they crack the whip over both preacher and church. “You must attend meetings,” they say, “serve on committees, help conduct surveys, give speeches where they are needed, ring bells, and make telephone calls. The Methodists are getting ahead of us, and we’ve got to make a better showing in 1960.”

Leaders may go even further, though unconsciously perhaps. “Do you want to get ahead in your profession? A bigger church, more salary, greater influence? Then raise more money for us; we need it, the denomination needs it.”

It is tragically true that a minister’s success is judged not by his ability to serve the sick and the dying but by his ability to increase his benevolence budget. For this is the money that flows into denominational tills and makes possible increased activity on a national level. He may be a veritable St. Francis of Assisi, loved by his people, faithful unto death; but if his people happen to be poor and unable to give huge sums to the higher boards, he will never be recognized beyond his parish. He may preach beautiful sermons, spend endless hours in effective counseling; yet, if his benevolence budget remains constant, he is a nobody.

Do you want to get ahead in your profession? Then serve on denominational committees, raise money, make speeches, ring doorbells, make telephone calls. Your sheep may not see you except for a few minutes on Sunday morning, but you are well on your way to success. That big church in the city will soon be yours because you know how to raise money and sound the tinkling cymbal.

Ministers Anonymous balk at the demands which are made upon them by outside interests; that is why they are anonymous. They seek only to serve their people; that is why they are anonymous. They continue to serve small churches, receive small salaries, and eventually die a pauper’s death. But their consciences are clear, and that is all that matters. I am throwing in my lot with Ministers Anonymous. I want to come to the end of the road with a clear conscience. I don’t want memories of dying ladies, untended by their minister, to haunt me.

No church should have over 500 members. Three hundred would be even better. It is simply impossible for one minister to serve adequately more than 300 to 500 members. He cannot know more than this number, their problems, ambitions, dreams, and fears. He may call in another minister to help him, but when people are in trouble they want their minister, the one who preaches to them on Sunday mornings and teaches a Sunday School class.

When a church gets over 500 members, then I believe members should make plans to start a new church further out. Denominational leaders can buy the land, hire a minister, and start the fledglings on their way to maturity. They can guide them through the trying days and be present on their day of graduation when eventually they are free and able to take care of themselves.

Such action would relieve the denominations of their constant need for more funds. One reason why more money is always needed is that more churches are always needed. Denominational leaders can and do go out and start new churches. However, I do not think that is their job, because it is an impersonal thing with them. They cannot possibly know the local situation, the problems or the needs, as well as a group next door. As parents give birth to children, local churches should give birth to little churches. Little churches grow into large churches, and in turn beget more churches. Each church will have a minister who has only one job to do: preach the gospel to the poor, heal the broken-hearted, preach deliverance to the captives, and comfort all who mourn.

There are a dozen books I would like to write, books which might bring me fame and fortune. Some ministers write books; some serve their people. You cannot do both.

I would like to make twice the money I am now receiving. I am sure I could do it if I played all the angles. Some ministers make lots of money; some serve their people. You cannot do both.

So I am a charter member of that group known to all as “the least and the lost.” I call them Ministers Anonymous. To me, it is a badge of honor. Some day I will meet my Master. I hope that when I do, I shall have a cup of cold water in my hand, ready to offer it to the thirsty. I am sure this will bring a smile of gladness upon his face.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

In the midst of the search for unity among Christians, and for a meaningful concept of the Church, it might not be out of place to raise the question: “Is there room for a fundamentalist in the Church today?”

The question does not admit a ready answer for want of accurate terminology. Anyone may be categorized by others as a fundamentalist for any of several considerations. If, for example, one gives evidence that he regards the “Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him,” there are those who readily put the mark of fundamentalism upon him. If one regards divine redemption of man as a basic key for scriptural interpretation, there are others who will nod knowing heads. If a person would suggest that it is in order for us to take heed to our doctrine, he qualifies himself in the minds of many for the label “fundamentalist.” If one would speak of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, or insist upon His essential deity, “well … what need have we of further proof?”

THE OBVIOUS INTENT

Whatever may be the occasion for its use, the connotation of the term “fundamentalist” is fairly plain. The meaning may be loose, but the intent is obvious; it is a word used to designate something or someone offensive. For example, a fundamentalist is ignorant, hopelessly enamored of the past, and consequently opposed to everything that has appeared on the human scene since the steam engine. Or “fundamentalist” may be a term of pity to denote a poor fellow who has presumably never had the opportunity to know better. Yet again, the term may suggest one who lives in a world with systems of his own making, all or most of which have no relevance to the mess we are in today. The fundamentalist is a mean spirit, a pharisaical character. He is a cantankerous person who is ready to fight at the drop of a theological diphthong; therefore, he is suspect in that it may be assumed that “fundamentalists split churches.” A fundamentalist is one who is devoid of human warmth, and is callous to the need that lies about on every hand. He is habitually uncooperative so that we may describe some events by saying: “… and even the fundamentalists came in on it.”

If there is some difficulty in positive identification as to who is and who is not a fundamentalist, there is certainly little question as to the intended implication of the word. Indeed, it oftentimes seems to be accepted that a fundamentalist is of such dangerous persuasion and questionable character as to be sub-Christian, if not anti-Christian.

A LABEL AND A LIBEL

It goes without saying that anyone may be called a fundamentalist by any other person. However, professional gossip being what it is, once the label is affixed it remains, with probably no one ever having taken the time to inquire into the reason for the use of the term. Inasmuch as major Protestant denominations are dominated by what is called a liberal tradition, to be called a fundamentalist may well nigh be the end of a professional career. There is segregation by label as well as by skin. The only difference is that the latter is recognized and generally condemned, while the former is cherished and even encouraged as being essential for the good of the whole Church. In a day when prejudice is hardly regarded as sufficient ground for the forming of attitudes toward others, the tag with one word “fundamentalist” is sufficient to excite the bias of many young men for whom some excuse might be found, and to stir the undisciplined wrath of older men who ought to know and to be better. It makes little difference how, why, or by whom one may have acquired the designation; the possession of the label is enough to make him the object of suspicion, indifference, if not outright antipathy.

WHOLENESS OF DEDICATION

In most cases it would be impossible to find any connection with the fundamentalism of the early decades of this century. Simple inquiry would disclose that those who are called fundamentalists have come out of many backgrounds. Here are men and women who have sought a satisfying answer to the distress that is our day; they have found what they sought in Jesus Christ. The life and knowledge that they have received in him, have left them with no alternative but to commit themselves to him, his Cause, his Church, and his Kingdom. They have taken seriously the Word of God, believed its promises—and found God to be faithful; the authority of scriptural revelation is basic in their lives. They will not take lightly the One in whom, by whom and through whom are all things in their lives. They approach their tasks in a deep sense of obligation and ask only to be used of the Lord who loved them and gave himself for them. They feel themselves under an impelling divine constraint to serve him—somewhere, somehow.

Whether any individual’s position is characterized by one or more of these emphases, one may scarcely doubt that his personal dedication to the Lord Jesus Christ is a matter of deep conviction. Many such are giving evidence of the wholeness of their dedication by selfless service. To probe their inner compulsion to serve and bear witness is to discover that they have got hold of a truth, a power, a presence within New Testament revelation. They are committed to Jesus Christ without reservation; such commitment means more to them than human sanction, ecclesiastical preferment, or a popularity among the pious.

FRUITFUL LIVES

The obvious fact is that there are many such persons; they are to be found in every major denomination seeking to make their lives fruitful and their service profitable to the Lord. They are teaching; they are writing. They are witnessing; they are doing basic research. They are sustaining pastoral labors; they are praying. By any human standards that we might believe we could apply to such works, they are being blessed by God. To call them “fundamentalists” with the suggestion or open charge that they make up an enemy within, which is conspiring to take over the organization and financial assets of the churches, is to charge them with motives not suitable for the situation. To look upon them as a resurgent fundamentalism, meaning by this a lurking beast once driven to cover but which now prowls about seeking whom he may destroy—this simply is not true. What they believe, they hold as the end of a long course of intellectual persuasion. Their commitment does not rest in some theological standard, but is rather grounded in the conviction that they have been crucified with Christ and it is no longer they who live but Christ who lives in them.

Just plain honesty ought to dictate a recognition of the fact that there are those who are called “fundamentalists” who are a part of our present scene. They are not seeking to start new controversies; they are seeking to stand in the biblical and theological traditions of the churches to which they belong. “The Lordship of Christ” is a meaningful phrase and they have something to contribute for the understanding of the Church at this point. “Servant Lord and servant people” is a phrase which they can utter with lively appreciation of what God has done for them in Christ and of what their commitment now costs them.

CAST THEM OUT?

Does the concept of the Church and the nature of the unity being sought have room in doctrine and in spirit for those who are called fundamentalists?

The answers thus far are not very encouraging. In denominational life and now sometimes even in interdenominational movements, to call a man a fundamentalist is much the same as saying that the spirit and work of the Church would be improved by his removal. Perhaps it had better be stated clearly that fundamentalists—as indeed, any one else—will not be persuaded by ridicule. They are not going to be enlisted by unbridled accusations. They are not to be impressed by pictures of the Church which always depict them in caricature. A segregation imposed by bias will not elicit their joyful participation. They are not trying to be “fundamentalists” for they are at a loss to see why they should aspire to any other name than that of Christian. Their only ulterior motive is to see Jesus Christ as Lord of all. It ought not to be hard to understand their bewilderment when even within their own communions they find their proffered comradeship in the Cross of Christ brushed aside in favor of closer ties with others who openly and unashamedly deny the Son of God.

REASONABLE CHRISTIANS

Those who are called fundamentalists are not sustained by a martyr complex. Their comfort is that in both body and soul they belong to their faithful Saviour, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for them. They have no alternative but to give themselves for him; they want to do so within the churches that have been their spiritual homes. At one point they would be emphatically clear: they will bear witness to their Lord. They are certainly entitled to ask the question whether the nature of the unity being sought—and so far as possible, imposed—is such that even one who would accept the label “fundamentalist” may be welcomed as a responsible Christian, whose faith and dedication are not to be continually singled out for suspicion and disparagement. In denominational life and program, in the concept of the Church, in the nature of the unity we are seeking for Christians, is there room for a fundamentalist?

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

The small group of religious teachers who prepare pastors for some 60 million Protestant church members in the United States—and similar institutions for millions elsewhere—hold in their hands the spiritual future of the world, humanly speaking.

The total impact of these faculty members upon the crucial years of pastoral preparation determines in turn the pastor’s impact upon the Church. In a predominantly Protestant United States, whose present world leadership is the prevailing hope of mankind’s peace and freedom, the cause and effect relationship of faculty determinants, pastoral thought and conduct, faith and preaching, dedication and church instruction is demonstrably clear. Over these faculty heads hangs the sword of Damocles.

If any group of Christians ever needed to live in individual and collective conformity to Jesus Christ, these faculty leaders do. Their private lives and public instruction, individually and collectively, mark for life the pastors they teach, as clearly and irrevocably as a hot iron bums a permanent brand into the flank of a steer. Thereby they shape world Protestant thought and conduct and are, momentarily at least, the key to world destiny. Many years ago, while in training for the pastorate, I recall hearing a wise and deeply-loved faculty leader say, “If a student does not come to us with a personal, living Christian experience, we cannot give it to him.” Today, I am still troubled by that statement. There is something unhealthy about receiving into training a student for the pastorate who lacks the foundation upon which every premise of his future life rests: a personal experience of the saviourhood of Jesus Christ. My question therefore remains: If a theological seminary or a training center for pastors cannot lead an aspirant to the ministry, who has never had a personal encounter with Jesus Christ, into such a living relationship, how can it prepare pastors to lead others into a living fellowship with Jesus?

Consider the plight of a student who becomes a pastor, and whose primary function is now to preside at the birth of souls into the kingdom of God, and to nurture spiritual infants to maturity. How is he to proceed? From what spiritual plane is he expected to lead others—and to what plane?

The burden of responsibility in this matter cannot be shucked off by the Christian teachers who prepare pastors for our pulpits and churches. They are undoubtedly the ones who are shaping world Protestant thought, and they are the ones who must in turn reexamine the methods of pastoral instruction used by our Lord. The blueprint he left in his relationship with the apostles consisted of a trinity of disciplines: private prayer, public worship, and small group fellowship.

Curiously, modern Protestant church life would indicate that the major emphasis in pastoral training centers has been chiefly upon one of these three: public worship. Christian teachers assume the adequacy of the personal devotional life of their students, and the spiritual power of the small group fellowship has been lost by default. When the theological seminaries and Bible colleges recover some of the New Testament disciplines in their fullness, we can expect a corresponding increase in the power of the trained pastorate. The Church, as the Body of Christ, will then become irresistible.

The new decade upon which we are entered could be a decade of world-wide redemptive grace, flowing out of training centers for pastors from the faculty fountainhead. Therefore the thesis is that there should be a radical re-examination of the method and substance of pastoral instruction, until it is solidly based upon the pattern Jesus Christ provided for his twelve disciples. It has been available for nearly two thousand years. We need simply to dust it off and begin to build again on the only foundation that God promises to undergird. Either we accept without reservation the authenticity of the New Testament blueprint, or we discard New Testament revelation in behalf of a naked, bold, self-sufficient human reason. A religious house divided against itself cannot permanently stand. Either an aggressive rationalism will destroy revelation, or reason must become the humble and obedient servant of biblical revelation.

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

Suicide is taking place across America at the rate of 60 deaths per day, with a toll of more than 20,000 last year alone. Attempted suicide, according to current estimates, is occurring every four minutes and possibly oftener. Another classification known as “hidden suicides” may reach the startling estimate of 100,000 this year. Obviously suicide is a mental health problem of the first magnitude, yet no concerted effort to reduce the mounting rate has ever been undertaken by any reputable agency.

The happiness and well being of the individual is evidently not determined by the superficial appearances of his life, but rather, as Beulah Bosselman has suggested, “by the struggles that go on deep within his mind, hidden from the world, hidden often from himself.” Hence, victims represent all social strata, and the I.Q. ranges from the lowest to the highest. Suicide occurs frequently among those who have everything to live with, but apparently little to live for. Even church affiliation seems to be no real deterrent.

CAUSES AND TECHNIQUES

Causes of self-destruction are usually bracketed as unhappy love affairs, emotional maladjustment, chronic illness, and economic problems. Norman L. Farberow, Ph.D., of the Los Angeles Suicide Prevention Center, says that “psychologists have long since learned to look beyond the superficial overt reasons given in newspapers.” The causes they finally select, he suggests, “will depend upon the theories entertained, ranging from intensive psychiatric theories (e.g., psychoanalytic) to sociological (e.g., Durkheim).”

The techniques of self-destruction are as labyrinthine as the human mind, yet they can be grouped into standard methods: firearms, poison (barbiturates), gas, drowning, hanging, and jumping. The ratio of attempts to successful suicides in Los Angeles County, Dr. Farberow reports, is eight to one. The reason for the high ratio is sardonically expressed in a well-known verse of Dorothy Parker:

Razors pain you;

Rivers are damp;

Acids stain you;

And drugs cause cramp.

Guns aren’t lawful;

Nooses give;

Gas smells awful;

You might as well live.

(from The Portable Dorothy Parker, reprinted by permission of The Viking Press, Inc.)

Although the Bible covers thousands of years of history and records the lives and deaths of hundreds of descendants of Abraham, it tells of only five suicides. King Saul, after vainly trying to get his armor bearer to dispatch him in the midst of defeat, fell on his own sword. The armor bearer, sensing the tragedy of the occasion, destroyed himself in like manner. Ahithophel, whose speech had once had the authority of the divine oracle, turned against King David and when faced with a lost cause, hanged himself. Zimri, the fifth king of Israel, usurped the throne of Elah and reigned seven days. Fleeing into the palace from Omri, he set the building afire and perished in the ruins. Judas Iscariot, following the betrayal of Christ and his rejection by those who had bribed him, hanged himself.

Two others who might be included in the list are Samson and Abimelech. Samson dislodged the pillars of the Philistine palace at the climax of an adventurous, foolhardy, and sensual life, and destroyed himself and 3,000 Philistines. Abimelech, mortally wounded by a woman’s blow, ordered his armor bearer to draw his sword and finish him off, “that men say not of me. A woman slew him” (Judges 9:54).

Vernon Grounds writes in Baker’s Dictionary of Theology that “widely varying and sharply conflicting attitudes” have been entertained towards suicide in different times and cultures. The Stoics (Zeno, Cleanthes, Epictetus, Seneca) embraced it. Socrates and Cicero disapproved of it. While the Bible does not expressly prohibit it, prohibitory implications have been drawn from Romans 14:7–9; 1 Corinthians 6:19 and Ephesians 5:29. Both Judaism and Christianity have strongly opposed the practice; so likewise have other faiths, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Mohammedanism, and even the Dyak headhunters.

Many “hidden suicides” are never listed as such, although the motive can be clearly, if indirectly, traced. Psychologists speak of an “unconscious death wish” which, they say, accounts for many deaths, notably in wartime. According to Dr. Bosselman, self-destruction does not necessarily express itself in suicide. “Chronic physical illness and disability, neurosis in its manifold forms, drug and alcohol addictions, ‘martyrdom,’ life patterns of repetitious failure, accident proneness, are all to variable degrees motivated by the tendency of the human being to turn his aggressive drives upon himself, to act in more or less overt ways as his own executioner” (Self-Destruction, Chas. C. Thomas Publishers, Springfield, Ill.).

Those who wish to die but are unable to take the step themselves, trip and fall in front of trains, starve themselves, or like King Saul and Brutus, ask someone else to slay them. Dr. Karl A. Menninger in Man Against Himself points out that the components of suicide are (1) murder of self, (2) murder by self and (3) the wish to die. One could speculate that perhaps the reason for the popularity of death-defying acts of the Houdini type is that so many project their self-destructive views into the act. Even accident proneness can be a form of partial suicide.

Doctors Shneidman and Farberow of the Los Angeles General Hospital believe that only a small portion of the annual suicide toll is actually psychotic. They state further that depressed persons represent only 30 per cent of the self-destructions. A study of the family histories of a completed-suicide group showed that 33 per cent of the families had members who had been in mental hospitals at some time, compared with the average of about six per cent. Another study of potential suicides who had been adjudged by professional opinion to be on the way to recovery showed that 69 per cent of the discharged “well” or “recovering” people successfully destroyed themselves within one year.

The recent evidence of suicidal intent in airplane disasters heightens the seriousness of suicide as a social problem. Danger signals that pastors could well consider are, as Dr. Farberow suggests, the overt communication of intention; depression accompanied by restlessness or agitation; insomnia; marked changes in the habits of living; severe emotional trauma; feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and uselessness.

From the scriptural viewpoint suicide is seen as unwillingness to trust God to care for us and our needs. Jesus during his temptation was taken to the pinnacle of the temple and challenged by Satan to cast himself down and permit the angels to bear him up. His answer was, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” Paul brought out the fact that deliberately to choose death is to ignore life and its opportunities to help our fellow man: “For me to live is Christ … to die is gain … nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you” (Phil. 1:21, 24). (Augustine also condemned suicide under any circ*mstances because it precluded the possibility of repentence and therefore became murder, violating the sixth commandment.)

The Bible is clear in its teaching of the sacredness of life and the meaning of stewardship. According to the commandment we have no right to take life, even our own, for to do so is to usurp the place of God. Suicide betrays an impatience with God and man, and hastens men unprepared into the Divine presence.

Perhaps our churches are to blame for the sense of futility that seems to possess some of our communicants. If our preaching is truly spiritual it will lift men to the maturity and strength of godly faith. However, if our preaching is on such a level that it causes men to regress to immature supports, we leave them in the posture of frustration, a sort of adolescence in which they waver between adulthood and infancy. The churches’ ministry needs to be positive and uplifting in establishing a mature faith, overcoming the futile and hopeless outlook of the potential suicide.

As pastors and religious leaders we face a responsibility to our people. Our ministry must direct men to the real source of hope, Jesus Christ. When men tell us, “I might as well be dead,” a way must be found to help them to talk out their problems, and then to look to God in prayer for the power that will make them “free indeed.” We can show them the social implications of every man’s life—and death. Each of us must be a guardian of those who are losing their grip on reality, whose hope and courage are being shattered in the experiences of life. Our own bright, hopeful faith will inspire others, as we point to him who as the fountain of our faith is also the foundation of our reason: Jesus Christ, who said, “I am the way, the truth and the life.”

Creator of All Things

Now earth grows cramped, and restless man

Would venture high and far,

Would brave illimitable space

And board the nearest star.

Yet what though star and moon be gained

And distant planets trod,

Still would he merely glimpse a fringe

Of the magnitude of God.

LESLIE SAVAGE CLARK

Jacob J. Vellenga served on the National Board of Administration of the United Presbyterian Church from 1948–54. Since 1958 he has served the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. as Associate Executive. He holds the A.B. degree from Monmouth College, the B.D. from Pittsburgh-Xenia Seminary, Th.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and D.D. from Monmouth College, Illinois.

The 400th anniversary of the Scottish Confession was celebrated in May at a commemoration held in Edinburgh. While attending the event, I recalled Barth’s 1938 Gifford Lectures on the Scottish Confession. The lectures were certain from beforehand to create a stir in the theological world. For Lord Gifford had endowed the Gifford series with the stipulation that the lectures be on the subject of natural theology and that they should serve the advancement of natural theology. Thus, when Barth was invited to give the lectures in 1938, he stood before a rather unique situation. He was already famous for his zealous opposition to all natural theology, for he had often declared that no theology apart from special, supernatural revelation was possible. The teaching of the Vatican Council, in which natural theology had been defined as Roman Catholic teaching, was in Barth’s view the great error which Reformed theology could only oppose. Barth wrote to the officials of the University of Aberdeen, where the lectures are held, and said that though he was against natural theology, he was willing to speak of another theology. Perhaps, he suggested, he would arouse such opposition to his own views that he would win supporters for natural theology by reaction and thus serve the purpose of the lectureship, though not in a way intended by the founder.

Since Barth’s Gifford Lectures, the question of natural theology has been the constant center of theological attention. Roman as well as Protestant writers have been busy with the subject. The new tendency in Roman theology has brought natural theology in general, and the proofs for the existence of God in particular, into intense discussion. The suggestion has been made in Roman circles that theology must be approached more Christocentrically; the Vatican statements need not be rejected, it is said, but the same matter should be approached with a different slant on the relationship between nature and grace. Thus, it is not only Protestants who have been raising questions about natural theology.

Proofs for the existence of God, apart from the Revelation of God in Christ, have unquestionably less authority now than at any time since Thomas Aquinas. One cannot challenge modern man effectually with a reasoned proof that the world has an “origin,” a first cause. Even should one feel that the argument itself has some inner cogency, he would not be a step closer toward faith than he would have been had he not heard the argument. In our day, the abstract character of the God proven to exist by natural theology is not convincing. Such a God does not sound like the God of Jesus Christ. When Roman Catholic theologians put forward proofs they insist that they are not pleading for an irrationalism that has no respect for human reason. Theirs is not, they say, a plea for truth from feeling or intuition. Outside of Roman Catholicism, the attack on natural theology stems more from the biblical-theological conclusion that the objective proofs are not really serviceable because they never come to men who are neutral to revelation. Natural man is always in reaction to the revelation that comes to him from nature in the world about him.

In Romans 1, Paul says that God has revealed himself, but that man has resisted his revelation, has held the truth down in unrighteousness. Man is not a neutral observer of God’s revelation. He is active with his entire life in reaction against it. Paul’s statement points out to us that there is no neutral position, and that this explains why there is so little convincing power in the neutral proofs for God’s existence. It is also the lack of power in the proofs which many modern Roman Catholic theologians have noticed.

From the very limited influence that the proofs have had on human thought, we see what a hopeless ambition it is to distinguish between a natural and a supernatural theology, and how it is futile to try to bring men to a real though limited knowledge of God outside of Jesus Christ. Natural theology has never been convincing to atheists for the simple reason that its arguments fail to reach the person at the point where his inclinations really lie. No person, as we have said, is ever a neutral observer of nature but is already in reaction to the revelation of God around him. Natural theology fails to reckon with the fact that man’s response to revelation is defined, not simply by objective thoughts but by the heart from which come the issues of life.

The Church of Christ must not attempt to make God appealing to natural reason. Nor should she preach that there is every “reason” to believe in God. There are many people who believe that there is a first cause, that there is something that got everything in creation going, something to which they are even willing to give the name “God.” But this kind of “faith” is that of a stranger to the actual revelation of God which is in Jesus Christ.

The Church must witness in the world to the only real God, the One revealed in Jesus Christ. She must witness, not with proofs, but with word and act. We need always to be aware that coming to living faith is not a matter of reasoned argument but of conversion, of a change of heart. In the secularization of life in our times, we can expect nothing of the power of reason but everything of the power of the Word and of the Spirit.

Natural theology has nothing to say about guilt and atonement, grace and judgment, or about God’s future. It is a secularized theology that will only lead men away from the Gospel. A person who believes in a first cause may well think that he believes in and is confident of his religion, but actually he has missed the real message if this is all he believes. The effect of natural theology has always been soporific rather than awakening. The prophets of the Old and New Testament came with a message to awaken, to disturb, and to call men to conversion.