Page 6324 – Christianity Today (2024)

A program to recruit social workers and other personnel for Lutheran health and welfare agencies was authorized by the National Lutheran Council at its 43rd annual meeting, held in Detroit January 31-February 3.

The council is a cooperative agency for six U. S. Lutheran bodies that represent about 5,483,000 members, or about two-thirds of American Lutheranism. The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, which has 2,387,000 members, is not officially connected with the NLC, but cooperates in some of its programs.

The recruitment service will be launched next July in an effort to alleviate the shortage of qualified personnel in the field of Lutheran social welfare. A major aim of the program will be to develop and maintain a common registry of Lutheran social work personnel for referral on request to church welfare boards and their allied agencies and institutions.

At its opening session, the council welcomed as a new participating body The American Lutheran Church, formed last year by a three-way merger. The churches which went into the merger all had been NLC members.

A guest at this year’s NLC meeting was the Rev. Kurt Schmidt-Clausen of Geneva, acting executive secretary of the Lutheran World Federation.

Schmidt-Clausen declared that church mergers not based on sound theological doctrine may increase instead of reduce the number of Christian creeds.

He said the “essence” of some interdenominational mergers is to be found “in the attempt to make the merging churches give up not only autonomy of their church organizations but also their doctrinal ties with their fellow-confessional churches in other countries.”

This loss of international doctrinal ties, he asserted, will lead “inevitably” to the creation of national churches “all bound together by the name of ‘Christian Church’ and nothing else.”

A statement on “Religious Faith as a Factor in American Elections” was adopted by the council and recommended to its participating bodies for use as they may determine. The document stresses that the religious affiliation of a candidate for any office is a “valid concern” of the voter, “but it has to be balanced against all the qualifications of this candidate and other candidates and should not be taken out of the context of the total political situation in which the voter has to make his decision.”

Also approved by the NLC was a statement on “Church Hospitals and the Hill-Burton Act.” The statement urges religious groups to “make every effort” to finance their hospitals completely with their own resources and other voluntary contributions, accepting public funds “only when the possibility of providing much-needed facilities under community auspices has been thoroughly explored and found not feasible.”

The council also adopted a budget of $2,068,422 for regular work and certain special phases of its program in 1961, a budget of $2,214,428 for 1962, and a tentative budget of $2,327,269 for 1963. Funds totalling $4,179,000 were allocated for distribution from the 1961 Lutheran World Action appeal.

A report from the Lutheran Immigration Service said that nearly 60,000 refugees had been resettled in the United States since 1948 by the agency and its predecessors. The LIS, operated jointly by church bodies participating in the NLC and the Missouri Synod, was inaugurated in January, 1960, combining activities of the former Lutheran Refugee Service, the Lutheran Resettlement Services, and the immigrants’ service bureau of the NLC.

Dr. Robert W. Long, executive secretary of the council’s Division of American Missions, called for finding “new and imaginative ways to witness together” in an effort to win the unchurched.

He said the task which looms before the Christian forces at the beginning of the sixties is “monumental,” as some 350,000 persons annually are added to the unchurched millions of the United States. But, he said, the task is also “fraught with opportunities and glowing potentialities.”

Nazarene Gains

The Church of the Nazarene counted 10,792 new members on profession of faith following a four-month “Try Christ’s Way” campaign which ended February 1. They were among 92,831 persons who sought spiritual help at Nazarene altars during the church’s evangelistic thrust.

The crusade began with a church-wide prayer and witnessing campaign in which about 1,800,000 persons were contacted with the Christian message and invited to church. It was in keeping with the Nazarene quadrennial (1960–1964) theme of “Evangelism First.”

The Church of the Nazarene is one of the larger Protestant denominations that stands for “scriptural holiness in the Wesleyan tradition.” Emphasis is given the doctrine of sanctification as a second work of grace. The church claims the best record of growth among Holiness denominations in the United States during the last 50 years (current total: approximately 318,500 members in 4,741 churches).

Unity Movement

Presidents of seven major Baptist bodies are being asked by a Providence, Rhode Island, minister to appoint committees for a “grand convention” launching a movement toward Baptist unity.

Dr. Homer L. Trickett, pastor of historic First Baptist Church in Providence, in a recent sermon called for union of all Baptists in America and for a return to the New Testament as a “common point of beginning” by all groups “seeking the road to unity.”

Now he has sent letters to Baptist leaders urging action on his proposal. The messages went to heads of the American Baptist Convention, National Baptist Convention, U. S. A., Inc., National Baptist Convention of America, Baptist General Conference, North American Baptist General Conference, Seventh Day Baptist General Conference and Southern Baptist Convention.

Trickett asked the presidents to “appoint a representative committee on the unity of Baptists in the United States and to authorize this committee to carry out negotiations that shall be aimed at securing a significant unity of fellowship, of program and of action among all Baptists in this country.”

He suggested the convention take place in his church, which is the oldest Baptist sanctuary in the country and the first church of any denomination in Rhode Island.

EUB-Methodist Merger?

A proposal definitely for or against merger with The Methodist Church will be presented to the next General Conference of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, according to Dr. Reuben H. Mueller, senior EUB bishop. The conference will meet in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in October of 1962. Between now and then, regional conferences will discuss the possibility of union.

Methodists favor a merger with the EUB Church. But EUB leaders have in the past voiced concerns about such factors as the difference in size (Methodist, 9,000,000; EUB 760,000) and “questions of absorption” into the episcopacy and the Methodist organizational structure.

End of a Row

Vanderbilt University’s Divinity School announced a successor this month to Dean J. Robert Nelson, who resigned last year in a row over sit-in demonstrations and racial integration.

The new dean, who will take office in September, is Dr. William C. Finch, president of Southwestern University, a Methodist-related school in Georgetown, Texas.

Nelson had resigned, along with 11 members of the Vanderbilt Divinity School faculty, in protest against the school’s dismissal of a student, the Rev. James M. Lawson, Jr.

Lawson, now a Methodist minister in Shelbyville, Tennessee, was ousted following his arrest as leader in the sit-in demonstrations in Nashville.

Of those who resigned with Nelson, all subsequently withdrew their resignations except Nelson and one faculty member who had committed himself to another position. Nelson is now professor at Princeton Theological Seminary.

The Parish Level

Harvard Divinity School is establishing a new academic department on church history and traditions to strengthen training of young men and women for the parish ministry.

In the school’s three-year course of study leading to the B.D. degree, the new Department of the Church will concentrate on church history and traditions as they relate to actual ministerial work at the parish level.

J. Lawrence Burkholder, faculty member at Goshen (Mennonite) College, is the first appointee to the new department. Burkholder has been named associate professor of pastoral theology.

Relocation Leader

Dr. Benjamin P. Browne will begin a two-year term as “Administrator and President-Elect” of Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Chicago, beginning September 1.

Browne, who is resigning as executive director of Christian publications for the American Baptist Board of Education and Publication, has been a part-time acting administrator for the seminary for the past year.

His new post will entail special leadership to the school as it relocates its campus in suburban Chicago.

Currently president of the Associated Church Press, Browne is one of the nation’s most distinguished Christian journalists. He founded six writers’ conferences, including the famous National Christian Writing Center of Green Lake, Wisconsin.

Browne has studied at Boston University, Andover Newton Theological School, and Harvard University.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Retired Methodist Bishop William T. Watkins, 65; in Louisville, Kentucky … Dr. John L. Seaton, retired educator, Methodist; in Short Hills, New Jersey.

Appointments: As general secretary of the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, Dr. Leland A. Gregory … as moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the Rev. W. A. A. Park.

Elections: As chairman of the National Council of Churches’ Broadcasting and Film Commission, Dr. Harry C. Spencer … as president of the Protestant Federation of France, Pastor Charles Westphal.

Grants: To the following, fellowships ranging from $1,000 to $4,000, fifth of an annual series (made possible by a $500,000 Sealantic Fund grant) aimed at stimulating advanced faculty study and strengthening sabbatical leave policies, administered through the American Association of Theological Schools: Ross T. Bender, Goshen College Biblical Seminary; Lowell P. Beveridge, Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia; Thomas J. Bigham, General Theological Seminary; William H. Brownlee, Southern California School of Theology; Joseph A. Callaway, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Paul K. Deats, Jr., Boston University School of Theology; Vinjamuri E. Devadutt, Colgate Rochester Divinity School; Edward A. Dowey, Jr., Princeton Theological Seminary; Allan L. Farris, Knox College; Charles R. Feilding, Trinity College; Reginald H. Fuller, Seabury-Western Theological Seminary; James H. Gailey, Jr., Columbia Theological Seminary; Brian A. Gerrish, McCormick Theological Seminary; Harvey H. Guthrie, Jr., Episcopal Theological School; Ray L. Hart, Drew University Theological School; R. Lansing Hicks, Berkeley Divinity School; Edward C. Hobbs, Church Divinity School of the Pacific; Bernard J. Holm, Wartburg Theological Seminary; Charles H. Johnson, Perkins School of Theology; Robert C. Johnson, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary; Gordon D. Kaufman, Vanderbilt Divinity School; Charles F. Kraft, Garrett Biblical Institute; William S. LaSor, Fuller Theological Seminary; Paul L. Lehmann, Harvard Divinity School; Harvey K. McArthur, Hartford Theological Seminary; Frederick W. Meuser, Evangelical Lutheran Theological Seminary; Paul W. Meyer, Yale University Divinity School; John H. Otwell, Pacific School of Religion; Harold H. Platz, United Theological Seminary; William L. Reed, The College of the Bible; McMurray S. Richey, Duke University Divinity School; Ray F. Robbins, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary; Jim A. Sanders, Colgate Rochester Divinity School; Richard L. Scheef, Jr., Eden Theological Seminary; James D. Smart, Union Theological Seminary; Charles W. F. Smith, Episcopal Theological School; Lawrence E. Toombs, Drew University Theological School; Paul M. van Buren, Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest; Arthur Vööbus, Chicago Lutheran Theological Seminary; John von Rohr, Pacific School of Religion; Herndon Wagers, Perkins School of Theology; John T. Wayland, Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; John R. Weinlick, Moravian Theological Seminary; David J. Wieand, Bethany Biblical Seminary; John F. Wooverton, Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary in Virginia.

By 8 a.m. on February 9 nearly all of the 950 guests had crowded about damask-covered tables in the ornate Grand Ballroom of Washington’s Mayflower Hotel. A side door opened, and guests stood to their feet as a line of distinguished men filed up to the head table. Army choristers sang softly, “Sweet Hour of Prayer,” and Chairman Boyd Leedom of the National Labor Relations Board stepped forward to lead the invocation. The bowed heads represented perhaps the highest concentration of U. S. governmental leadership ever to assemble for a hearing of the Gospel, in this case the ninth annual Presidential Prayer Breakfast of International Christian Leadership.

Sitting to the breakfast (eggs, ham, bacon, fried apples, grits, et al) were New Frontiersmen in such abundance that in sheer numbers they had outdone eight years of Eisenhower administration representation. The delegation to the first Democratically-dominated Presidential Prayer Breakfast was led by President John F. Kennedy, Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, U. N. Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson, and six other Cabinet members.

The breakfast program included testimonies which would equally have fit a revival service. Jerome Hines, Metropolitan Opera soloist, and William C. Jones, Los Angeles publisher who has picked up the tab for the last four breakfasts, both told of their conversions. Evangelist Billy Graham arrested attention by quoting from the famous message on labor of Pope Leo XIII: “When a society is perishing, the true advice to give those who would restore it is to recall it to the principles from which it sprang.”

Graham stressed that the nation’s problems are primarily personal and spiritual, that they amount to “heart trouble,” and that the problems will never be solved apart from a spiritual transformation of the human heart. In the Bible, he explained, the heart refers to the total man. He quoted Jeremiah as saying that the heart is “desperately wicked … above all things.” The key to a change in the human heart, he said, is found in such verses as John 3:16.

Kennedy’s four-minute address underscored the thesis that every U. S. president has “placed a faith in God” and that religious freedom has no meaning without religious conviction.

“Every President,” he said, “has taken comfort and courage when told as we are told today, that the Lord ‘will be with thee. He will not fail thee nor forsake thee. Fear not—neither be thou dismayed.’”

Kennedy was the first to rise when Graham was introduced.

Following the benediction, which closed with joint recital of the Lord’s Prayer, Kennedy, Johnson, and Graham stepped across the Mayflower lobby to greet 600 women who had participated in a similar “First Lady Breakfast.” The Vice President’s wife headed the list of notables. Mrs. Kennedy did not attend.

In 20 state capitals across the nation simultaneous gubernatorial prayer breakfasts were being sponsored by International Christian Leadership chapters. Some had a strong “inter-faith” leaning, as in Minneapolis, where a Jewish rabbi spoke, a Roman Catholic priest gave the invocation, and a Lutheran minister pronounced the benediction.

The program at the main breakfast in Washington began with a recital of the ICL credo by Dr. Richard C. Halverson, the group’s associate executive director who is pastor of Fourth Presbyterian Church in suburban Washington. The credo identifies ICL as “an informal association of concerned laymen united to foster faith, freedom and Christian leadership through regenerated men who in daily life will affirm their faith and assert their position as Christians, believing that ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself … and has committed unto us the word of reconcilation.’”

The following Sunday The Washington Post carried a picture of books which Kennedy keeps on his White House desk. Among them was Halverson’s Perspective.

The breakfast prefaced ICL’s 17th annual four-day Christian Leadership Conference, high spot in the calendar year for the 26-year-old organization (see CHRISTIANITY TODAY, March 14, 1960).

Presiding at the breakfast was U. S. Senator Frank Carlson, Republican of Kansas, who with Leedom is an ICL president. Chief Judge Marvin Jones of the Court of Claims quoted Proverbs 3:1–10 and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara read Romans 8:28–37. Representative Bruce Alger, Republican from Texas, and Senator Frank J. Lausche, Democrat from Ohio and a Roman Catholic, also spoke. Dr. Abraham Vereide, ICL founder, gave the closing prayer.

Sticks and Stones

“The day for using sticks and stones in dealing with Protestants has ended.”

So commented a Roman Catholic priest of Colombia last month in remarks to a Protestant missionary in Cali. They were together for a Bible study which embraced both Roman Catholics and Protestants, latest of a series of events ostensibly aimed at ushering in an era of rapprochement in a country where more than 100 evangelical Christians have been martyred since 1948.

The new approach was highlighted in a huge religious rally in Cali last December 6 when Protestant ministers and Roman Catholics appeared on the same program before 9,000 persons crowded into the city’s Gimnasio Cubierto.

First speaker was the Rev. Hugo Ruiz, a Baptist, who spoke on “The Message of the Bible.” Concluding his address, Ruiz held high his Bible and began to quote from the Spanish hymn, “Santa Biblia para mi eres un tesoro aqui.” A thunderous applause drowned him out.

Ruiz was followed to the rostrum by a Jesuit priest, the Rev. Florencio Alvarez, who delivered an address on “Literary Types in the Bible.” Others who spoke included the Rev. Jose Hajardo (Cumberland Presbyterian), “The Personality of Jesus Christ;” the Rev. Carlos Alvarez (Catholic), “Baptism by Sprinkling;” and the Rev. Harry Bartel (Assemblies of God), “Baptism by Immersion.”

An occasional “Viva la Virgen” punctuated the proceedings, but on the whole the crowd was orderly. Never before in Colombia had Roman Catholics been confronted with the Gospel on such a scale, and Protestant missionaries rubbed their eyes in disbelief.

Some observers are convinced that the new approach is genuine and that Roman Catholic strategy for Colombia is undergoing radical change. One of the first inklings was in 1959 in a book by a Bogota priest who called for an ecumenical approach to supersede eras of “repression” and “tolerance” which had proved unfruitful for Catholicism. He appealed for practicing love in an effort to win over Protestants.

The recent developments seem to indicate that the new approach is being implemented at a remarkable rate, at least in urban areas. Some incidents of persecution have been reported recently, however, indicating that the “violent repressive” era is not wholly history. But an ecumenical spirit predominates, and the recent elevation to cardinal of Colombia’s ranking Roman Catholic prelate indicates Vatican sanction of the reversal.

Protestantism in Colombia has thrived under persecution. Though still small in relation to the country’s population (14,000,000), the Protestant community has seen an average 16 per cent annual growth for the past eight years, according to statistics newly-released by CEDEC (Evangelical Federation of Colombia). Nearly 166,000 Colombians now call themselves Protestants, including 33,156 baptized church members.

Haiti and Rome

Ernest Bonhomme, Haitian ambassador to the United States, cited improved relations between the two countries in an address this month before a regional convention in Washington, D. C. of Full Gospel Business Men.

Bonhomme, a Methodist, said recent spiritual concern and material aid from the United States has reduced anti-American feeling in Haiti and has helped to check Communist influence. He specifically referred to a public rally sponsored by American Protestants which drew 35,000 persons and to foreign aid grants from the U. S. government.

He did not mention the deportation in past weeks of several of the highest-ranking Roman Catholic prelates from Haiti. He did imply gratification over the U. S. State Department’s decision last year to recall ambassador Gerald Drew, a Roman Catholic. Drew was succeeded by Robert Newbigin, a Protestant.

Some reports have linked tension between the Roman Catholic church and the Haitian government with the refusal by President Francois Duvalier to renew a 100-year-old concordat with the Vatican which expired last year.

Miami Crusade

Evangelist Billy Graham opens his Miami crusade this week with addresses to University of Miami students, to a combined civic club luncheon, and to a breakfast ministers’ meeting.

Next Sunday, March 5, the Graham team will begin a three-week campaign in Miami Beach Convention Hall.

Graham and his associate evangelists have been holding week-end meetings in key Florida centers, in conjuction with the height of the tourist season, since early January. Totals to date:

The Congo Question

U. S. missions boards are keeping a close eye on developments in the Congo, where the slaying this month of deposed Premier Patrice Lumumba spelled new trouble for the strife-torn, eight-month-old republic.

Last month’s mass missionary evacuations were limited to the eastern sections of Congo. As of the middle of February, a relatively stable situation still prevailed in western sections.

African Slaying

Edward Adkins, 64, an American Methodist missionary, was fatally injured this month when he and his wife were attacked by a group of thugs while walking home from a Sunday evening church service in Krugerdorf, South Africa.

Mrs. Adkins suffered a possible skull fracture.

A U. S. State Department spokesman speculated that robbery may have motivated the attack. Missing were a briefcase and purse which the couple were carrying.

Halted at the Gate

Seven bishops and about 30 laymen from West Germany were barred by East German police from entering East Berlin to attend a special service in St. Mary’s Church marking the opening of the week-long Synod of the Evangelical Church in Germany. The churchmen were told by police at the Brandenburg Gate barrier between East and West Berlin that their presence was “indesirable.”

Mayor Willy Brandt of West Berlin called the police action “a breach of law and a violation of existing agreements.” The service was the only synod event scheduled for East Berlin, the main sessions having been arranged to take place at the St. John Foundation in West Berlin.

For some unexplained reason, however, Communist authorities made an exception in the case of Bishop Hermann Kunst of Bonn, Chaplain General of the West German armed forces. Others permitted to enter East Berlin included Bishop Otto Dibelius and Pastor Martin Niemoeller.

Some observers saw the East German restriction as a bad omen for the next Kirchentag, now scheduled to be held in Berlin in July.

The Rockefeller Plan

Students of the Church-State scene are attaching great significance to New York Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller’s proposal to give tuition-aid payments of up to $200 a year to college students in his state, even those in church-sponsored schools.

The Rockefeller plan has been widely criticized as a violation of the principle of Church-State separation.

Observers are pondering possible political repercussions of Rockefeller’s position, which carries the favor of most Roman Catholics. The Republican governor is often mentioned as a presidential contender in 1964, perhaps opposite President John F. Kennedy, who—despite the fact that he is a Roman Catholic—has taken a strong stand against government aid to parochial schools.

The New York State Catholic Welfare Committee has endorsed the Rockefeller tuition plan, which would help students defray tuition costs in excess of $500 a year (graduate students would receive up to $800 in assistance), as “reasonable” and constitutional. Walter J. Mahoney, Senate majority leader in the state legislature, has warned that he will not support any expanded financial aid for higher education in New York unless it includes both private and public colleges.

Sharp criticism came from many Protestant quarters. Rockefeller himself took his proposal before the State Council of Churches’ annual legislative seminar. He denied his program was designed to aid the colleges rather than students. Asked if it was not an effort to subsidize private colleges, he replied: “No, and I resent your saying that.”

The council had charged that the Rockefeller program attempted to “circumvent” the state constitution, which prohibits the use of public funds to aid sectarian institutions.

Expressing confidence that the council would agree to the legality of his proposal, he also chided the group for criticizing the plan before he had outlined it in a special message to the legislature.

“You judged me and condemned me before I got my message out,” he said.

Public Policy

The ramifications of a school’s acceptance of government funds were underscored in a statement issued by the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs last month.

The statement cites a report from the Civil Rights Commission urging the Federal government to use disbursem*nt of Federal funds to public institutions as a weapon to force compliance with segregation decrees. The commission split 3–3 on recommending that such pressure also be exerted on private schools.

Commenting on the report, C. Emanuel Carlson, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, said that “we must expect” that in due time “public policy” must prevail in institutions that use “public funds.” The statement added that integration happens to be the focal point at the present time, but in due course other policies will develop and will be enforced in institutions using public funds.

“If funds are accepted in 1961,” Carlson warned, “public policy will certainly control the institutions before 1971. The churches cannot both eat their cake and still have it. The freedom of the churches has always had a price tag—pay the cost. While integration is in harmony with positions taken by our Baptist conventions, we cannot assume that public policy always will reflect church insights.”

POAU Parley

The 13th National Conference on Church and State heard a declaration that it is morally wrong for “any religious institution to accept a subsidy” from the government when “it declines supervision and regulation.”

The statement was made by the Rev. Charles R. Bell, Jr., pastor of First Baptist Church in Pasadena, California, in an address to the conference this month in Portland, Oregon. The conference is sponsored by Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Bell declared that state funds accepted by a church “inevitably breed indifference” and “no amount of money can give vitality to a church.”

Elder R. R. Bietz, president of the Pacific Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, described “clericalism” as a great danger to religious freedom in the United States. He defined it as “the pursuit of political power by a religious hierarchy carried on by secular methods and for the purpose of social domination.”

“We do not object if a church believes it is the only true church,” he said. “However, when a church wants to use the power of the state to silence others who might differ from it, we would reply, ‘Your liberty ends where my nose begins.’”

Dr. W. A. Criswell, pastor of Dallas’ First Baptist Church, at a conference public rally said that “the way to prevent clericalism is to make churches free, independent, self-supporting, redemptive in their mission and not agencies for political domination.”

Criswell labelled as the greatest danger to Church-State separation “the campaign to shift the cost of Roman Catholic schools to the American taxpayer.” He contended that Francis Cardinal Spellman’s bid for federal funds for parochial schools was “a declaration of war against separation of church and state.”

“It presents a dramatic challenge to Mr. Kennedy at the very threshold of his term in office,” Criswell continued. “Millions of voters will want to know immediately whether our new President will bow to the wishes of Cardinal Spellman or respect his magnificent pledges given in the last campaign.”

Spellman, Archbishop of New York, has condemned as “unfair” to the country’s parochial and private school pupils a proposed federal aid to education program restricted to public schools.

Dr. W. Kenneth Haddock of Church-land, Virginia, a Methodist district superintendent, told the conference that “the Church-State separation battle must continue to be done on the real issues of public tax support for Roman Catholic schools, tax favoritism for Roman Catholic nuns who teach in public schools and clergy who serve as chaplains in the armed forces, and Roman Catholic baking, brewing and broadcasting industries, as well as insistent demand by the Roman Catholic church that its views on birth control shall be forced upon the United Nations policy and the U. S. foreign policy.”

Pre-Marital Agreement

The Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court is studying a child-custody appeal by a Baptist mother legally separated from her Roman Catholic husband. She contends that her premarital agreement to bring up any children as Catholics is unconstitutional.

Mrs. Ruth Begley of Brooklyn is seeking to reverse an earlier ruling by Supreme Court Justice Charles J. Beckinella placing her three sons in the custody of their father, Hugh Begley, Jr.

In his decision last July, when the separation was granted, the judge ruled as binding the pre-marital agreement made by Mrs. Begley as required by Catholic church law when a Catholic marries a baptized non-Catholic.

Under this agreement the non-Catholic promises that the Catholic party shall have complete freedom in the practice of his religion and that all children born of the marriage will be baptized and reared as Catholics.

Morris Shapiro, Mrs. Begley’s lawyer, told the Appellate Division that the premarital agreement had been signed by the wife under duress. Mrs. Begley, he said, had been pregnant when the agreement was made and Begley had warned that he would leave her if she did not agree to a Catholic wedding.

Shapiro also said that the mother was a “fit person on moral and other grounds” to have custody of the children, while the father was not.

Begley’s attorney, Vincent J. Malone, denied that his client was not morally fit to have the children and said the agreement had been “freely made and ratified by Mrs. Begley.”

A “friend-of-the-court” brief in support of Mrs. Begley was filed by the American Jewish Congress. In it the congress said that the lower court’s order awarding custody of the children to the father because of the pre-marital agreement is an “infringement on religious freedom and an impairment of the Church-State separation principle.” Such agreements were called unconstitutional.

Assuring Missionaries

Sixty-two Baptist missionaries paid a visit to President Kennedy in the White House this month.

Kennedy assured them that he is concerned for religious liberty both in the United States and around the world. He expressed appreciation for the contribution Baptists are making to the ideals of religious and political liberty upon which this country was founded.

The visit with the President was made during a school of missions in the churches of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention. The missionaries were from the American and Southern Baptist Conventions.

Kennedy greeted the missionaries with handshakes.

Capital Orientation

Some 95 students from 14 evangelical colleges assembled in Washington this month for a four-day seminar on the prospects of government employment and its special meaning for committed Christians.

It was the sixth annual Washington Seminar on Federal Service sponsored by the public affairs office of the National Association of Evangelicals. Through such seminars the NAE hopes to whet interests of Christian college students in taking up federal service careers and to outline the opportunities therein, both from a secular and spiritual standpoint.

This year’s seminar included a 40-minute tour of the White House and numerous other visits to places of interest in Washington. The program featured talks and discussions with government officials, including an economist with the Housing and Home Finance Agency who was introduced to government service as a college student in a similar seminar four years ago.

Losing a Bid

Christian Scientists lost a bid this month to have the Ontario legislature place their healing practitioners on equal legal standing with medical doctors.

The bid was made by Leslie Tufts of the Christian Science Committee on Publication while a legislative committee was considering amendments to the Coroner’s Act. One of the amendments specified that every person who believes someone has died from a disease or sickness for which he has not been treated by a duly qualified medical practitioner must so advise the coroner.

Tufts had urged the legislators to add after the words “medical practitioner” the phrase “or by a duly accredited religious practitioner of a well-known church or denomination, through prayer or spiritual means alone.”

The legislative committee turned down the request.

To the Convent

Yvonne Dionne, 26, one of the world-famous Dionne quintuplets, plans to become a nun.

She will enter Baie St. Paul, Quebec, convent of the Little Franciscan Sisters, a Roman Catholic order which operates schools and hospitals in Quebec and New England.

Miss Dionne will be a postulant until August when she advances to a two-year novitiate before taking final vows. She has been serving as a nurse in Montreal.

One of the Dionne sisters, Emilie, died in 1954. The other three sisters are married.

Eyeing Hollywood

Keeping an eye on the products of Hollywood film factories is an implicit responsibility of the Los Angeles office of the National Council of Churches’ Broadcasting and Film Commission. But what to do in cases where the West Coast office people don’t like what they see is yet to be determined.

The Los Angeles office headed by George A. Heimrich has been a source of controversy since 1959 when Heimrich spoke out sharply against the increasing portrayal of sex and violence in U. S. movies. He stressed that “something very definite must be done about this situation.” Some interpreted his remarks as suggestive of boycott or censorship, and criticism was heaped upon him even by members of the Commission. Dr. S. Franklin Mack, executive director of the NCC’s Broadcasting and Film Commission, dissociated himself from Heimrich’s position.

Last December the BFC Board of Managers’ executive committee recommended closing the Los Angeles office by transferring it to the jurisdiction of the NCC’s Department of Public Relations in New York. This month the full board met, however, and reversed the executive committee decision, urging instead that the Los Angeles office be strengthened, thereby assuring it of additional financing.

The board met in connection with the commission’s annual meeting. A proposal by the agency’s West Coast Committee that the NCC or one of its units set up a board to review and rate movies was referred to the executive committee for study.

The Bible institute movement has grown rapidly since 1882 when Nyack Missionary College was founded, and 1886 when Moody Bible Institute was begun. More than 200 Bible institutes and colleges are presently in existence.

The movement has been hailed by its friends and alternately condemned and pitied by its foes.

On the asset side of the ledger an emphasis on sound doctrinal belief has been paramount. Bible schools have positively proclaimed the virgin birth and deity of Christ, man’s sinfulness, redemption through the substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection, the imminent return of Jesus Christ, and the full inspiration of the Bible. This doctrinal emphasis was a bulwark against the onslaught of nineteenth century rationalism which impatiently waved aside biblical supernaturalism.

Strong emphasis also was placed on the direct study of the English Bible. The logic of the early Bible school leaders demanded that no peripheral interest should supplant the firsthand study of Scripture, the written Word of God. Such methods as inducive Bible study and Bible synthesis have largely been popularized in Bible institutes.

Equipping the layman and laywoman with a practical knowledge of the Bible for use in teaching in Sunday Schools, supervising rescue missions, and in other areas of Christian service was the original purpose of the Moody Bible Institute. The goal of Nyack, on the other hand, was to train recruits for a practical and evangelistic ministry on the foreign mission field.

Complications soon set in because students looking forward to the pastorate began to apply in large numbers, and the pressure mounted to increase the range of subjects and to deepen the content. This type of training began to register a marked effect on some phases of the religious life of America. Many trained in liberal seminaries did not know their Bibles. In countless churches across the country, everything from politics to community welfare became the pulpit diet. The fact was ignored that the unregenerate man in the pew needs a message from God to redeem his soul and transform his life. A goodly number of Bible institute graduates had this message, and spiritually hungry people responded to their ministry. These preachers were not always scholars, but they usually had a grasp of basic Bible themes and doctrines, and an insight into practical Christian living. The layman was encouraged to study the Bible and to carry it to church. Such churches became enthusiastic Bible-teaching and evangelistic centers.

The mission field, too, felt the impact of Bible institute training. These early graduates with admittedly meager training became witnesses on the frontiers of the world, by engaging often in pioneer work. Authoritative missionary sources substantiate the fact that even today the majority of missionaries on the field have had some of their training at Bible institutes and Bible colleges. The battles won by Bible institute graduates were not won in the scholastic arena but in the pragmatic fields of the pulpit and pew, and in the primitive mission wilderness.

Then, too, the Bible institute fostered an emphasis on personal piety and devotional dedication. This warm-hearted campus atmosphere encouraged personal spiritual development.

A Look at the Liabilities

Not all of the facts, however, registered on the asset side of the ledger. There were serious shortcomings in the Bible institute movement, and some liabilities remain. Its most ardent advocates would, I think, be willing to admit this. In the early years of the movement there was an aversion to high academic principles. By way of reaction against the intellectual pride of nineteenth century rationalism, there arose a disposition to glorify a lack of formal education for faculty members. A “good working knowledge of the English Bible” was all that was required.

Sometimes easy answers to difficult problems were proposed. Oversimplification often became the rule of thumb. Armed with memorized proof texts, young graduates were supposed to be adequately equipped, mentally and spiritually, to rescue the perishing world. Stereotyped explanations of difficult texts were given more than occasionally. Not enough time was devoted to serious study of the Greek and Hebrew texts themselves. Liberal arts subjects were derided as “of the devil.” In some quarters a decided spirit of anti-intellectualism prevailed. In certain areas of theological thought even spiritually-minded men were sometimes adverse to logical procedures.

Unfortunately, the Bible was not always allowed to speak for itself even in the Bible institutes. Mimeographed notes and outlines were frequently substituted for personalized study of the Scriptures. Special “pet” interpretive points of view were given the importance of creedal belief. Of course these abuses were not all characteristic of every school, but frequently were found in the movement as a whole.

However, the Bible institute movement grew much as a baby does. Boundless newborn energy manifested itself at first in clumsy actions, and then became constructively active with disciplined coordination and, by and large, produced good results. Many of the abuses were frankly recognized, and constructive steps were taken to correct them. Serious self-appraisal by the leadership of the movement is still going on in schools that value constructive criticism.

The Rise of Accreditation

The main core of the Bible institute was and is, as the name itself suggests, the English Bible. This emphasis differentiates the Bible institute from the Christian liberal arts college. As academic standards were raised, the level of work soon became comparable with that of some Christian colleges. In some instances it was higher. Yet no accreditation for this work existed on a national level to recognize it as of collegiate level for credit transfer purposes. In 1947, representatives of the leading Bible institutes and Bible colleges met to discuss this vexing problem.

The Accrediting Association of Bible Colleges was born and was recognized by the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in Washington. Interest multiplied in correcting the weaknesses of the movement while conserving its basic good qualities and objectives. Degree standards for instructors, more rigid requirements for libraries, standardized business and bookkeeping procedures, as well as sound administrative principles, were set up.

Many institutions added a fourth year to their three-year curriculum and granted a bachelor’s degree in Bible. The additional year usually provided more liberal arts subjects. Methods of effectively communicating the Gospel were studied as well. Even with the addition of selective courses in liberal arts, the central core of the curriculum remained a minimum of 30 to 40 hours of Bible and theology.

With accreditation came the ability to transfer credits to graduate schools and other colleges. This added to the stature and effectiveness of the Bible school graduate. Without compromising the uniqueness of its original purpose and aim, the Bible school thus markedly increased its prestige and appeal. Large institutions like Moody turn away hundreds of applicants each year. To its firsthand study of the Bible, adherence to sound doctrine, and emphasis on missions, the Bible institute has added a new measure of academic respectability.

Bible institute training is not a panacea for Christian education. Nor can one substitute a three-year Bible institute course for four years of college and three of seminary. Each has its own place and function in the Church of Christ. However, the Bible institute can and does meet a real need in the total picture of Christian education. Its fruit over the last 90 years has been good. The addition of academic status and the progressive elimination of obvious weaknesses are strengthening its approach to Christian training. Spirituality and orthodoxy are no longer associated with ignorance and anti-intellectualism. The Bible institute movement has come of age.

WESLEY A. OLSEN

Executive Vice President

Northeastern Bible Institute

Essex Fells, New Jersey

A consultation of scholars discussing Christian educational distinctives recently located the glory of the Christian campus not in compulsory chapel, classes opened with prayer, spiritual overcomments on secular textbooks, but in faculty and student dedication to the whole truth. Secularism stands to gain more from suppression and fragmentation of truth than Christianity. Ignorance of some facts and revolt against other facts explains the isolation of education in general from the Christian world-and-life view. Scripture covets a universal knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Tim. 3:7), and Jesus Christ is himself the Truth (John 14:6). To lose a devotion to the whole truth, therefore, is to forsake the God of Truth.

Although Christianity has nothing to fear from non-Christian theories, it loses cultural relevance when it refuses to explore contemporary false alternatives to their depths. In evangelism, the preacher may well ignore objections to belief undisturbing to his hearers; the Holy Spirit can convict by a single shaft of truth and regenerate the penitent sinner. But Christian apologetics can hardly rely on this method for preserving and reinforcing truth. Nor can Christian education use this approach in the classroom if it wishes to engage seriously in the twentieth century battle for the minds of men.

One sign of reviving vigor in Christian education is the probing of evangelical academic distinctives by some small church-related colleges. In a convocation address at Trinity Christian College, a new Christian Reformed institution in Worth, Illinois, Dr. Calvin Seerveld, professor of philosophy, offered observations that CHRISTIANITY TODAY believes merit approbation from educators on other evangelical campuses:

A college [said Dr. Seerveld] is not an advanced high school; the whole sphere, structure, and attack is different. The college is a center for scientific studies: searching investigation which aims at depth and precision, the concentrated attempts to grapple with a problem, whether it be chemical, literary, or whatever, grapple with it until you have analyzed it, related it to other knowledge and come up with a simple, hard won contribution of your own. College is the beginning of serious, exacting investigation which assumes both dedicated determination and this, that the elementary matters of the subject at hand already have been learned. Old and New Testament studies at college do not repeat Bible stories and rehearse catechism but assume such knowledge and build enriching theological research upon it. Historiographical studies at college do not drum on dates, data, and anecdotes, but assume some grasp of chronology and retention of events so that the probing interpretation and critical relation of key men and historical movements can be begun. College study depends upon the completion of high school work and does not, cannot prolong it and stay college.

We too are so-called ‘liberal arts minded’ in that of the several basic kinds of studies required here no one of them is permitted a preponderance over the others; belles-lettres, biology, Greek, history, all are considered equally important, integral factors of a liberally rounded college education. Despite the runaway success of Russian technology, for example, we will not join the widespread attempts to out Russian the Russians by overbalancing the curriculum with mathematics, physics and technological studies; such a pragmatic maneuver might get a man on the moon but it is still narrow-minded, il-liberal education.… But we are not ‘liberal arts minded’ into thinking that study of language, chemistry, literature, philosophy—the liberal arts, will liberate one from ignorance, prejudices, and a humdrum mentality, as the credo goes; we do not believe that application to the famous trinity of the Good, the True, and the Beautiful will set man free, create a higher type of individual able to change society and relieve the world of its ills.

Rather, we study everything because man does live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, and since God has spoken and speaks here, there, everywhere in the world and its development, his sustained creation, it is man’s privilege, it is God’s command to those who are qualified, to search through all the areas of creation and all the varied aspects of human activity—nothing of God’s playground is off limits—it is our task to seek out everywhere the wonders of God Almighty’s work and enjoy the discoveries with childlike surprise day in and day out forever.… All the arts and sciences and theoretical studies of creation disclose the handiwork of our Triune God when the languages of these varied and complex fields are heard and seen by biblically honed ears and eyes; thus, in the time-consuming job of learning these special languages of God’s creation and of training the eyes and ears, unless the professor and student get to see the handiwork of God, unless professor and student grow in the fear and adoration of the Triune God, realizing more intimately that Jehovah covenant God does hold all things in his hand, that all things were created by Jesus Christ and for Jesus Christ, that it is indeed the Holy Spirit who leads into all Truth, unless professor and student grow in this scintillating awareness, grow in grace, the diligent pursuit of knowledge and wisdom is in vain no matter what gets done; whether we learn to speak with the brilliant tongues of orators and angels and throw a satellite halfway to heaven, it is still a meaningless, Towering Babel and clanging cymbals, it is empty, vanity.…

This unrelenting Christian religious focus of every theoretical study here does not make education a pious powder box affair of moralism and ill-timed devotionals. So-and-So will not say everytime sodium chloride dissolves in water, ‘You see, it was providential.’ Miss And-So-Forth will not say, ‘All right, today we are going to cut up Christian frogs.’ At the same time, never forget that simple classroom biology is always subtly couched in a God-fearing perspective or dominated by some such godless religious view as the positivistic macro-evolutionary dogma.… The problem is complex, yes, but the direction is clear: out of every college classroom study in this building, biology, chemistry, mathematics, philosophy, history, psychology, theology, literature, German, Latin, and if we taught Chinese you would hear it in Chinese, comes the quietly moving, almost unobtrusive, subconscious but strong, pulsating song, ‘This is our Father’s world … we are here for Jesus’ sake … come, Holy Spirit, with all your quickening powers.…’

Here also is a singular intramural communication and rapport among the different branches of study, because each faculty member is jealous for his own discipline yet fascinated by the other fields around him, thankful for their enriching complementation and correction, happy that he does not bear the brunt of having to say it all, secure in the realization that all of his colleagues, in their own ways, are trying to project the same total picture at which he is working. This invigorating, concerted study of the faculty which works its way down to the students too is not just an esprit de corps on campus, not even just plain communion of the saints, but is the full-fledged, peculiarly Reformational reality of the Christian community in collegiate action. A Christian college is only as big as a mustard seed but it is a live fragment of the civitas Dei, and that will be the secret of whatever impact it makes as a Reformed Christian center of scientific studies upon its surroundings.

The wise men who first conceived the curriculum decided to make explicit what lay implicit in its peculiarly Reformational nature. They made philosophy and history requirements of freshmen and sophom*ore studies along with biblical theology, composition, and American literature. Maybe you wonder why?…

All this painstaking historical and philosophical study of centuries of world events, ideas, men, and movements, is done here not for its own cultural sake but to make unmistakably clear the basic religious struggle in the world to find meaning and the terrible meaninglessness of all directions outside Christ-centered endeavors. A sense of tradition, a sense of the biblical Christian tradition is what we are after, so that as a people we do not get lost like squatters in secular America, do not flirt with the perpetually accommodating Romanist line, or succumb to the touchy pietistic Christian approach, but on the solid ground of Reformational Christianity, with a host of witnesses—Augustine, Luther, Holbein, Calvin, Bourgeois, Bach, Kuyper—we go out to attack and reform as a united body and build as a testimony to the Lord on earth a peculiarly powerful, contemporary, apocalyptic culture. All this searching and struggling investigation within a scandalously open dedication to Jesus Christ is meant to leave those so trained impassioned for the concrete glory of God and unafraid, because they have been instilled with the fear of the Lord and given respect for a heritage of great price.…

For what has the faculty called you together? In Greek it is called paideia: disciplining, breeding, formation, unfolding, chastisem*nt, nurture, paideia. Each professor wants to see the student find paideia in his classroom, but he cannot give it to him. A habit of disciplined thought, a hammered out decorum of Christian warmth, a chastised character, a competence to lead and follow intelligently, a perspective, paideia: for a student to get that takes time, and he has got to catch it himself.… The Holy Spirit who broods around the corners and classrooms knows all of our shortcomings. After several weeks of faithful work, after a hard beaten semester or even a year on our part, maybe He will blow gently and a new look at things will come upon one here and one there, unawares, a vision of what we actually are doing, and there will be a rush of joy and determination in the hard work, a sudden thankful gladness that you are busy about your Father’s business! That is paideia kuriou, the fear of the Lord, and it is that for which the faculty has called you together. If you fail to get paideia, if you fail to get educated, if you fail to become a genuine Christian student, we teachers fail too. A teacher is nothing without a student. You have got us there. We are in this affair together.

EDUCATION, DEMOCRACY, AND GOD: WHERE ARE THE SCHOOLS HEADED?

American education is at the crossroads. It is nothing short of disastrous when the traditional policy of separation between Church and State is so interpreted that education becomes the special concern of the State and religion the concern only of the Church, and that education and religion therefore are kept in rigid isolation from each other. Such a road leads to education which is godless, and which, in principle if not in intention, sooner or later approximates the atheistic education of communism. Through its irreligion, such public education may prove to be an unwitting method of conditioning the minds of American youth to be receptive to the doctrines of communism. Such an outcome, of course, is the very opposite of the national purpose, for it ill befits a state whose motto is “This Nation under God.”

In this connection we draw attention to a recent convocation address at Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary by Dr. Cyril D. Garrett, professor of Christian Education, on the theme “The Nature of Man—Some Implications for Education.” Said Dr. Garrett:

One of our gravest dangers is that the American public will blindly accept a nonbiblical view of man in education. Christian parents, teachers, and church workers must reject educational statements that would lead the young to believe that they can fulfill their essential being in this present sociological, biological, technological process.… Christianity maintains that man understands himself best when he sees himself in relationship with the eternal Creator-God. Herein lies one of the basic differences between our Christian view of man and the communistic view of man. In the communistic state, there is nothing beyond this present biological, sociological, technological process. Theirs is a one-story universe and proletarian man occupies the highest status. Man, especially corporate man, assumes gigantic proportions. He replaces deity.… Democracy is a great way of life, but it is not all of life. If American man “emancipates himself from God by assuming that democracy is a self-existent and self-sustaining ideology and by defining education to care for “all of life” in this life, he can degenerate as far and as quickly as the communist. The biblical view claims that man cannot treat his educative experiences as ends in themselves. While man is an earthly creature who must learn many facts and skills, he fulfills his highest capacities and abilities best when he is living in proper spiritual relationship with God. Such a view of life that grounds man’s greatest happiness in his proper spiritual relationship with God does not discount the values of this present social-life process. Rather, it capitalizes upon them.… Our day-by-day educative experiences must be related to God’s eternal will, for God has entered our day-by-day experiences in Christ, and given them significance through his eternal plans. A world and life view which teaches our young to interpret their social life processes as ends in themselves will produce a race that sends each man seeking his own in selfish plunder and vicious destruction.

I Believe …

Both the fragmentation of Protestantism and the disunity of Christendom are indeed lamentable. Not everything however that churchmen decry deserves the blanket denunciation of “schism.” Unfortunately “the sin of schism” has become a serviceable stigma for promoting novel notions of church amalgamation and for rebuking “the outsiders.” Protestantism’s sickness today is not only its divided body, but also and perhaps more serious its divided schizophrenic mind. While modernist deviation from revealed doctrine once divided the churches, modernist ecclesiology now pushes their unity on the premise of theological inclusivism. Let our prayers and labors show constant awareness that for Christian unity healing of the mind and of the body go together.

It is time to ensure that current concepts of Church and State, religion and education, do not unthinkingly prepare the soil for planting the seeds of godless communism in the minds of the young. A religiously “neutral” democracy may swiftly compromise the conflict of religious pluralism, but it may also prove only one step removed from an atheistically militant communism.

LET THE STUDENTS OF CHILE GRIP THE REAL ISSUE: THE IMAGE OF GOD

In its winter number, the Columbia University Forum carries a statement by Samuel Shapiro, assistant professor of history at Michigan State University, that sets the Latin American situation in perspective. According to Professor Shapiro, “a poll of several hundred Chilean university students taken last year found that only one out of four favored siding with the West in the cold war; one out of seven favored the Sino-Soviet bloc, and the overwhelming majority were neutralist.”

To be precise—unless our early training in fractions has failed us—the professor’s report indicates that out of every 28 students in Chile, seven choose the free world, four choose communism, and 17 profess to steer a perilous via media under the slogan, “A plague o’ both your houses.” The latter policy would, as we understand it, conveniently leave the door wide open for friendly loans from the United States, and also for delegations of “technicians” from Moscow and perhaps even for Skoda ammunition from Prague.

So in the universities of Santiago and Valparaiso the margin of popularity of freedom over enchainment, of the dignity of man over the knock-at-the-door-at-midnight, is reduced to three-twenty-eighths.

Granted that the economic imbalance in Chile is a lighted fuse. Granted that living conditions among a large segment of the population are deplorable. Granted that reports of luxury living in the United States have made the people restive, and that Communist cells are multiplying among academic groups through the importation of shiploads of literature from Moscow. The fact still remains that today the Chilean is a free man. He is a citizen of the Americas. Harsh as his lot may be, we doubt it would be improved in the regimen of a Chinese commune. For as a free man, the Chilean lives on the side of hope. The future belongs to him, under God. He can sell his birthright if he chooses, but he can only choose once.

Probably the young men and women of the intellectual classes of Chile are being told that we North Americans desire only to exploit their country and to use it as a pawn to protect our own interests. Certainly many of them do not see what is at stake in the future of man as an independent spirit or, to use theological language, as the image of God. They do not see that nations have indeed obtained economic blessings from political liberty but that never once in the history of man has it worked the other way around. The benevolent despot who feeds his wards has not the slightest intention of freeing them.

Tyranny, in other words, has always maintained an interest in freeing the masses from starvation but has yet to follow its good intentions for the human body by freeing the mind and spirit—the characteristics of essential manhood—from the bonds of coercion. A country can buy communism but it cannot sell it. It can vote itself under Marxist rule, but it cannot vote itself out again. The street goes one way and there is no return, not even by backing up.

The political freedom we know today—the right of a general populace to exercise its franchise and to make its own choices—is not a legacy from the French or even from the American revolution. It is the gift of God and the achievement of some God-fearing English puritans who dared to beard King James I and King Charles I in the House of Commons, by taking the nation’s purse into their own hands. It was a slow, risky and dogged battle, absolutely unique in the history of the human race. The freedom these unsung heroes won was based not on essays of Montaigne and Montesquieu, but on John 10:10 and Galatians 5:1.

Who will tell the students of Chile that the issue goes far deeper than American foreign policy? Who will explain to them that as Christians we love them for their own sakes, not for ours, and that because we love them we want to see them reach their stature as God’s free men?

SENTIMENT RISING FOR PARISH DAY SCHOOLS

One detects a growing disposition of Protestant churches in the United States to support the parish day school as the best means of recovering the unity of religious education in a secular environment. This concern is especially apparent in congregations aware that secularism no less than communism is a rival faith.

Mounting interest in the parish day school—every Protestant church is a potential schoolhouse, someone has said—springs from two considerations. One is a feeling that public school policy, by tapering education increasingly to minority pressures, serves the children of humanist and secularist—that is, of the irreligious—more than the community as a whole. So “the few” are able to impose their preferences on a tax-supported institution at the expense of “the many”—who are now increasingly disposed to establish their own schools. The late president of Columbia University, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, said as early as 1934: “The separation of church and state is fundamental in American political order, but so far as religious education is concerned, this principle has been so far departed from as to put the whole force and influence of the tax-supported schools on the side of one element in the community—that which is pagan and believes in no religion whatever.”

The second influence prompting a new look at parish day school possibilities is the Christian obligation to preserve and to transmit Christian truth and culture. As the Rev. J. Hood Snavely of The Woodside Village Church in Woodside, California, points out in a highly readable sermon on “Education—Whose Lordship?,” the tool of transmission is education. In it he pointedly asks: “How long can a society, such as ours, endure that cannot indoctrinate its children in the vitality of a faith that made their fathers strong?” Any educational program that makes no room in its curriculum for the Living God is indifferent, if not hostile, to the Christian premise that Jesus Christ is the truth of God incarnate. In his book God and Education, Dr. H. P. Van Dusen quotes a student in a leading Eastern school as follows: “Personally I fail to understand how you can expect us to become ardent Christians and committed to democracy when the vital postulates on which these faiths are supposed to rest are daily undermined in the classroom.” A single visit to a Russian schoolroom, on the other hand, will remind us that their deletion of God and Christ from the curriculum is an integral part of a philosophic overview of life and the world. What of the Christian world-and-life view in American education?

The American Christian is a taxpayer and has an obligation in respect to public education whether his children are in its classrooms or not. Yet, as Mr. Snavely reminded his California congregation, “Unless we do more than mouth pious phrases … (such as) ‘our historic support of the public school,’ without knowing the history of what historically we supported but is now past history … then we deserve the unhappy results.…” Mr. Snavely doubtless had one eye on the fact, almost forgotten today, that Horace Mann, generally recognized as the founder of our public school system in 1837, went on record: “Our system earnestly inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible and, in receiving the Bible, it allows it to do what it is allowed to do in no other system, to speak for itself.”

In their support of the parish day school program today, many Protestants feel they are really redressing the failure of the public school to fulfill this goal.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism beautifully describes God as “Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth” (Question 4). The Belgic Confession of Faith begins similarly: “We all believe with the heart and confess with the mouth that there is one only simple and spiritual Being, which we call God; and that He is eternal, incomprehensible, invisible, immutable, infinite, almighty, perfectly wise, just, good, and the overflowing fountain of all good” (Article I). Most of these terms are called the attributes or the perfections, of God.

The attributes may be defined as those perfections of God which are revealed in Scripture and which are exercised and demonstrated by God in his various works. Reformed and Evangelical theologians have frequently distinguished communicable and incommunicable attributes. The communicable attributes of God are those which find some reflection or analogy in man who was created in God’s image, while the incommunicable attributes of God find little or no analogy in man. The latter-unity, independence, eternity, immensity and immutability—emphasize the transcendence and exalted character of God.

Preliminary Considerations. 1. It is important to recognize that all of the attributes, both communicable and incommunicable, are the attributes of the one only true and living God—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The attributes of God may not be discussed as if they were attributes of deity in general, in order then to move on to consider the triune God as one God among many. Christianity is rightly monotheistic, and therefore all the attributes are attributes of the only true God of Scripture. The recognition of this uniqueness of the living God has sometimes been discussed under the incommunicable attribute of the unity of God (unitas singularitas). (Cf. Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:28 ff.; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5.)

2. Since the only true God is the triune God of Scripture, the communicable as well as the incommunicable attributes belong equally to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. There is therefore no absolute necessity for discussing the attributes prior to the doctrine of the Trinity. There is a good reason for doing so, however, since the attributes characterize the divine nature of the triune God. However, the incommunicable attributes of God must not be confused with the “incommunicable property” of each divine Person, that is, with generation, filiation, and spiration.

3. Discussion of the attributes must also acknowledge the incomprehensibility of God. Finite man can never comprehend the infinite God. The believer will not even be able fully to understand all that God has revealed concerning his attributes.

4. The attributes must be regarded as essential characteristics of the divine being. It is not man who attributes these perfections to God. God himself reveals his attributes to us in Scripture. The attributes are objective and real. They describe God as he is in himself. Hence they are also exercised or demonstrated in the works which God performs in creation, providence, and redemption.

Again these various attributes must not be regarded as so many parts or compartments of God’s being. Each of the attributes describes God as he is, not just a part of his being, or simply what he does. Furthermore, there is no scriptural warrant for elevating one attribute, such as love or independence, to pre-eminence and making others mere subdivisions of it. While there is a mutual relation and inter-relationship between the various attributes, there is a divinely revealed difference between the eternity of God and the immutability of God, between the love of God and the holiness of God, for example. These themes are often considered under the attribute of simplicity (unitas simplicitas).

Discussion of Specific Attributes. Attention will now be directed to a brief consideration of specific incommunicable attributes. The unity and simplicity of God have been discussed. We shall now consider the independence, eternity, immensity, and immutability of God. (The source and norm of our assertions here, as everywhere in theology, must be exclusively the inspired and inerrant Word of God.)

1. Independence (Aseity). Scripture indicates the independence of God in various ways. When Moses was sent to Israel and Pharaoh, it was “I am that I am” (Exod. 3:14) who sent him, the living God who has “life in himself” (John 5:26). God is not “served by men’s hands, as though he needed anything, seeing he himself giveth to all life, and breath and all things” (Acts 17:25). He works “all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11) and his counsel “standeth fast forever” (Ps. 33:11). In this light the independence of God may be defined as that perfection which indicates that God is not dependent upon anything outside of himself, but that he is self-sufficient and all-sufficient in his whole being, in his decrees and in all his works.

Although God has the ground of his existence in himself, he is not self-caused or self-originated, for the eternal God has neither beginning nor end. The independence of God includes more than the idea of God’s aseity or self-existence. His independence characterizes not only his existence, but his whole being and all his attributes, his decrees and his works of creation, providence, and redemption.

The biblical view of God’s independence does not permit one to identify the God of Scripture with the abstract philosophical concept of the Absolute of Spinoza or Hegel. The self-existent, independent God of Scripture is the living God who is not only exalted above the whole creation, but is at the same time its creator and sustainer. And in governing the world, God entered into fellowship with man before the fall, and after the fall he established a new fellowship in the covenant of grace. Although God works all things according to the counsel of his will, he sometimes performs his will through intermediate and secondary causes. He uses men, for example, in the all-important task of publishing the Gospel.

2. Eternity. The infinity of God is sometimes considered as an absolute perfection which characterizes all God’s attributes as limitless and perfect. In this sense all the communicable attributes would be characterized by the incommunicable attribute of infinity. It is primarily with reference to time and space, however, that the infinity of God is considered as the eternity and the immensity of God.

Scripture speaks of “the eternal God” who is our dwelling place (Deut. 33:27). He is “the King eternal” (1 Tim. 1:17) existing before the foundation of the world “from everlasting to everlasting” (Ps. 90:2), “the Alpha and the Omega” (Rev. 1:8). He “inhabiteth eternity” (Isa. 57:15); his “years shall have no end” (Ps. 102:27); and “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet. 3:8).

Eternity may be defined as that perfection of God which expresses his transcendence with respect to time. God has neither beginning nor end. He does not undergo growth, development, maturation. He existed before the world, he dwells even now in eternity, and he will continue as the eternal God even when history has ended.

Although we must acknowledge that God is not subject to the limitations of time, we must also recognize that time is God’s creation and that he is the Lord of history. History is the unfolding of his sovereign counsel. It was in the “fulness of time” that “God sent forth his Son” (Gal. 4:4). Time is meaningful for the eternal God, for it was on a Friday that Christ died on the cross and on Sunday morning that he rose from the grave. The risen Christ told his disciples, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matt. 28:20). The Christian, therefore, confidently confesses: “My times are in thy hand” (Ps. 31:15).

3. Immensity and Omnipresence. God is both a God at hand and afar off so that no one can hide himself in a secret place: “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith Jehovah” (Jer. 23:23 f.). Heaven is his throne and the earth is his footstool (Isa. 66:1). Therefore no one can escape the omnipresent and omniscient God (Ps. 139). “He is not far from each one of us: for in him we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:27 f.).

In the light of such passages the immensity of God may be defined as that perfection of God which expresses his transcendence with respect to space. And omnipresence expresses the fact that this transcendent God is yet present everywhere in heaven and earth.

Here again one must seek to grasp the positive implications of this incommunicable attribute. God is spirit; he has no body and hence is not limited by space. Therefore we are not bound to Jerusalem or any other place in our worship of the true God (John 4:21 ff.). On the other hand it was into this world that God sent his only begotten Son. And Christ who now governs the whole cosmos will come again physically at the end of history to judge the living and dead.

4. The Immutability of God. God is described in Scripture as “the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning” (James 1:17). “For I, Jehovah, change not” (Mal. 3:6) is his own affirmation. And by an oath he has “immutably” witnessed to the “immutability of his counsel” (Heb. 6:17 f.).

Immutability is that perfection which designates God’s constancy and unchangeableness in his being, decrees, and works. He remains forever the same true God, faithful to himself, his decrees, his revelation and his works. He undergoes no change from within, nor does he undergo change due to anything outside of himself.

It is necessary to ask whether the immutability of God can be maintained in the face of several scriptural assertions concerning a certain “repentance” of God. For example, with respect to the unfaithfulness of Saul, God told Samuel: “It repented me that I have set up Saul to be king” (1 Sam. 15:11). However, there is a specific statement in the same chapter which indicates that God cannot repent. After telling Saul that God was taking the kingdom from him and giving it to another (David), Samuel adds: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (1 Sam. 15:28 f.; cf. Num. 23:19). It appears then that God’s “repentance” must be understood in an anthropomorphic sense to describe the depth of his displeasure and grief in relation to the horrible sins of men. At the same time the faithfulness, constancy, and immutability of God stand out in taking the kingdom from Saul and giving it to David for the sake of keeping his faithful covenant.

There are also instances in which the “repentance” of God is related to a condition, either expressed or implied. The general rule in such instances is expressed in Jeremiah 18: “… If that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them … if they do that which is evil in my sight, that they obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them” (vs. 8 ff.). Thus with respect to Nineveh, Jehovah “saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil which he said he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10; cf. 3:9; 4:2). Similar references to God’s “repentance” occur in Amos (7:3, 6) and Joel (2:13 f.). In these instances also the word “repentance” it used in an anthropomorphic way to express God’s faithful response to the meeting of a condition, either expressed or implied in his promise, or threat. Rather than contradict the immutability of God, this “repentance” in the total context of Scripture emphasizes that God is faithful and true to his word and promise forever. There is no “holy mutability of God” as Karl Barth claims. “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent” (Ps. 110:4), and his “counsel shall stand” (Isa. 46:10).

The immutability of God does not mean, however, that God is immobile or inactive. The Christian God is always active, never unemployed, or incapacitated. He not only sustains or preserves all that he has created, but he actively governs it in accord with his sovereign and immutable counsel. In all his works the eternal and sovereign God executes his decree and shows himself “the same yesterday, and today, yea and forever” (Heb. 13:8).

Conclusion: The incommunicable attributes describe the transcendent greatness of the Triune God. He is self-sufficient and all-sufficient, transcendent above time and space and yet present everywhere in heaven and earth; he remains forever the same true God, unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth. Since all theology concerns God and his relations with men, one’s entire theological position is reflected in the doctrine of the attributes of God. Therefore, a biblical doctrine of the attributes of God should reflect itself in the whole of one’s theology.

Bibliography: Reformed: H. Bavinck, The Doctrine of God; L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology; S. Charnock, The Attributes of God; A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. I; W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. I. Neo-orthodox: G. Aulén, The Faith of the Christian Church; K. Barth, Church Dogmatics II/1, E. Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God.

Associate Professor of Systematic Theology

Calvin Theological Seminary

Grand Rapids, Michigan

REVIVAL

The Church needs a spiritual earthquake to arouse her and send her out on her God-given task.

There is a good deal of talk about “revival” these days, but few persons realize that it is a personal matter, a movement within the Church rather than some manifestation of the work of God outside the bounds of organized Christianity.

To revive means to bring new life to something which is dormant, to bring about activity where all has been quiet, to return to consciousness of life, to restore vigor and strength, to raise from languor or depression, to recover from a state of neglect or disuse, to awaken out of slumber.

A spiritual revival must begin in the Church and one of the aftermaths and corollaries of such a renewing is a new sense of mission, of telling the good news to those who have not heard it.

In many ways the Church today resembles the church in Laodicea—prosperous, rich, and self-satisfied. But in God’s eyes that church was wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked. It was a church neutral in matters where there should have been conviction, a church which probably majored on minors and relegated the essential things to a place of secondary consideration.

Frighteningly, she was a church which our Lord was about to cast out of his presence because of her lukewarm attitude to those things about which there should have been burning zeal.

Today too many in the Church are concerned about her organization but indifferent to the content of her message. But in the Scriptures we find that the concern of the New Testament Church was centered on the message of Jesus Christ crucified and risen, while her organization was of secondary rather than primary import.

It is the willingness of some ecumenical leaders to play down Christian doctrine for the sake of a compromised unity which gives many others serious pause. While the Church is an organization, that organization is inexorably based on the faith of those who make up her number, and this faith centers in the person and work of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures.

There has always rightly existed a latitude for different views on many questions of interpretation. Some are strongly convinced that one mode of baptism is essential, others believe in a different method. But few on either side will question the true Christian faith of the other with whom they disagree.

In the Scriptures, there are doctrines which make up the essential content of our faith, and all of them have to do with the person and work of Christ, the Son of God, and these doctrines are to be preached, taught, believed, and obeyed.

Could it be that there is no evidence of wide-spread revival in contemporary Protestantism because, for the sake of an uneasy ecumenical peace, we have played down those things on which the spiritual life and health of the Church depends?

There are two areas where revival must take place—the pulpit and the pew, and it is not a matter of which one can rightly judge the other. We all need a renewal of a vital Christian faith and a complete dedication of our lives to the living Christ.

Because Christianity is a faith to believe and a life to live, it must be founded on the great verities which have their source in the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Everyone is ready to admit that spiritual power does not depend on organizations, programs, money, great edifices, or unremitting activity. All of these have their rightful place in the economy of the Church, but they are secondary to the faith and commitment of those who bear the name Christian—and there are no true Christians apart from a vital relationship with Christ.

That is why a revival is necessary within the Church, a work of the Holy Spirit which revitalizes listless Christians and converts unconverted church members. To those who think such a statement a reflection on the Church, we would reply that if we, the members of the Church, do not evaluate our own situation and take corrective measures where necessary, rectification will not be done for any other source. Furthermore, we could stand in jeopardy before God if our lukewarmness is not replaced by the healing and empowering outpouring of God’s blessing through repentance and confession of our sins of both omission and commission.

One of the things desperately needed is a fresh understanding and sense of sin, which can never be attained apart from a realization of the price God had to pay to redeem men.

Involved in such a revival is a new understanding of the necessity for and the historical fact of the Son of God’s coming into the world to die for sinners. The “murder of the Son of God” is not a catch phrase but one of deepest significance, for that is exactly what the sinfulness of man necessitated.

The Church through a spiritual revival needs to recapture the significance of words like “repentance,” “confession,” “faith,” “redemption,” “cleansing,” “consecration,” and “turning from sin to righteousness.”

We are now guilty of an unbelievable smugness in regard to our desperate state as sinners confronted by the judgment of God.

There are times when it almost seems as though we consider that we are doing God a favor by attending church and participating in some program of the Church. We need a Spirit-sent jolt out of this sin of pride and indifference, and it can come through a genuine revival within the Church or by the judgment of God on a church which does not recognize her own blindness and nakedness.

If such a revival comes, what will happen?

First of all the Church herself will be transformed from a cold, often largely secular organization, into a living organism which breathes the love and concern of the living Christ.

The outstanding effect will be the shedding forth of the love of Christ in our own hearts and lives and an outreach of that love to others.

Furthermore, such a revival will restore to the Church spiritual power. No longer will we depend on organizations and programs for success. These will continue but we will look to our living Lord to empower and implement our Christian work and walk.

Finally, such a revival will inspire and empower the Church to bear her rightful witness to a lost and dying world. No longer will we try to force men into a mold; rather we will lead them to Christ who makes all things new to those who surrender to him.

Such a revival is possible, and we should pray for it—that it may begin first in us.

L. NELSON BELL

GOSPEL BLIMP

Former Book of the Fortnight selections have been limited to fictional fiction. The current selection is real fiction, a low-altitude space tale named (actually christened with Seven-Up) The Gospel Blimp, by Joseph Bayly.

This inflated windbag (the blimp) is the most ingenious evangelistic publicity stunt since the man who worked the human arc angle, keeping several thousand volts at his fingertips. The founders of International Gospel Blimps, Incorporated, are typical suburbanites who conceive of this obvious mass-media device for reaching the next-door neighbor.

The lesson of their fateful experiment is unloaded on the reader with all the delicate indirection of a cargo of “fire bombs” dropped from the blimp. Just to be sure that everyone gets the message, the author takes one more run over the satire-saturated subject, dragging a final chapter with the moral spelled out in a blimp-high streamer.

This is sound blimpsmanship; without that last chapter Mr. Bayly would have had to make a career of answering inquiries about IGBI.

Please stop here and buy a copy of The Gospel Blimp before reading the moral I have in tow. This book will not be distributed free on our Fortnight plan; I only have one copy, and I refuse to part with it.

The moral, of course, is the threat of the Christian organization man. Herm, the gold-braided Commander, caricatures more than the operator in free-wheeling fundamentalist organizations. There are presumably Herms with doctor’s hoods. But the little man who feeds Herm’s appetite for power and plants pansies around the blimp hangar after work is no less an organization man.

A revealing misprint in an ecumenical document found “committee fellowship” rather than “committed fellowship” at the heart of the church. With just the breezy style to keep the Blimp aloft, Bayly’s hilarious spoof perceives this danger and makes the earnest point that Spurgeon found in Elisha’s raising of the Shunammite’s son. In raising the spiritually dead, there is no substitute for close personal contact.

EUTYCHUS

ON BISHOP PIKE

We, the Archdeacon and Clergy of the Associated Mission of Brooklyn, commend you for the honesty and clarity of your editorial in the January 16 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY relative to Bishop Pike’s statement appearing in The Christian Century of December 21. In our opinion such an outlook is far more contributory to strong ecumenicism than the views of Bishop Pike which you criticize in the article.

It is to be hoped that the spirit which you exemplify will prevail in ecumenical circles. Certainly, it will only be in this way that true Christian reunion can be effected, members of the hierarchy and their views notwithstanding.

A. EDWARD SAUNDERS

Archdeacon of Brooklyn

ARTHUR L. J. FOX HARRY J. SUTCLIFFE WILLIAM T. WALKER EUSEBIO ESCARIZ ALBERT H. PALMER ALFRED B. BURKERT ANGEL FERNANDEZ G. LINN FERGUSON JOHN W. EDWARDS DONALD L. IRISH H. L. MICHAEL COWAN ESTEBAN REUS

New York, N. Y.

As Priests of the Episcopal Church, we wish to thank you for your fine editorial on Bishop Pike’s Change of Mind. Your conclusion that his “new-found position represents a break with … the historic church” is quite correct, and most courteously stated.

O. D. REED, JR.

Danville, Ill.

A. W. HILLESTAD

Oconto, Wis.

DAVID E. NYBERG

Granite City, Ill.

HARRIS T. HALL

Ripon, Wis.

A. MEEREBOER

Monroe, Wis.

BENJ. W. SAUNDERS

Racine, Wis.

JOHN R. EDWARDS, JR.

Greendale, Wis.

THEODORE A. BESSETTE

Harvey, Ill.

DAVID J. REID

Michigan City, Ind.

G. COLYER BRITTAIN

Wausau, Wis.

ROBERT S. SWEETSER

Sheboygan, Wis.

GEORGE E. HOFFMAN

Paris, Ill.

ROBT. E. BLACKBURN

Kenosha, Wis.

EDWARD JACOBS

Milwaukee, Wis.

ROY A. F. MCDANIEL

Algoma, Wis.

EDMUND R. WEBSTER

Waupaca, Wis.

ROBERT S. CHILDS

Madison, Wis.

EDWARD C. LEWIS

Stevens Pt., Wis.

R. J. BUNDAY

Marshfield, Wis.

ROBERT PIERSON

Evanston, Ill.

JAS. W. SAMTER

Sheboygan Falls, Wis.

I do not know why you have it in for Bishop Pike, but I do know him well enough to be disappointed in your false inferences, and “double talk.”

BRADFORD W. KETCHUM

Secretary and Registrar

Diocese of New York

New York, N. Y.

What concerns me is when a supposed “critique” is really a subjective heckling.

EUGENE L. LOWRY

First Methodist

Wichita, Kan.

Bishop Pike is to be commended for his openly declaring his change of mind. For those who keep an open or changing mind, new truths may enter in.… I don’t believe God has stopped talking since His book went to press. We must take into consideration that the authors of these books being human, were impressive, emotional and fallible like any man of today.

ELLA G. CEBIK

Stratford, Conn.

Why all this negative talk? Why worry about the ideas of the liberals?

H. P. DUNLOP

Long Beach, Calif.

What will happen to the faith of thousands within the church who have been taught that the creed is the foundation stone upon which our faith is built, that belief in the Holy Trinity, the virgin birth, the sacraments of the Christian faith, are essential to Catholic belief, if statements of belief, as recorded in “Bishop Pike’s Mind has Changed: The Creed Becomes Poetry” are permitted to be broadcast throughout the religious world? I have been a priest for 36 years. Is the faith of the hundreds whom I have trained to be destroyed by a small group of people who revel in the glory of sensationalism at the expense of the Catholic faith?

WALTER P. CROSSMAN

Vicar

St. Francis Church (Episcopal)

Fair Oaks, Calif.

The Bible does say there will be a falling away in the last days.

SOLOMON MILLER

Orrville, Ohio

This, simply, is to say “bravo” and thank you for your skillful autopsy on Bishop Pike’s dead faith. It would be interesting to know if he also sings Ephesians 4:14 (Phillips); 1 John 2:22, 23.

ELBERT D. RIDDICK

Portland, Ore.

The Episcopal Church has always had her eccentrics. Bishop Pike speaks for himself, even as did Dr. Pittinger a few years ago in Look.… The unfortunate aspect is that both are considered men of authority and many accept their words as spokesmen for the Anglican Communion.

It is worthy that both should be considered for deposition which is the way the Church has always dealt with heretics.

It seems that Bishop Pike has become not a “high”, “broad” or “low” Churchman, but a liberal—the worst possible form.

SAMUEL E. BLACKARD

Calvary Church (Episcopal)

Batavia, Ill.

Our vocal Bishop of California is not only in danger of moving out of the historic Church of Jesus Christ, but is also busily removing himself from the Episcopal Church, in thought, if not through an actual trial for heresy.

Your editorial provides an opportunity for me as an Episcopal priest to stand up and tell the Christian Community that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, literally taken, i.e., not mythologized, are the bed rock of our profession of Faith. I am sure that in so doing, I speak for the vast majority of priests whom I personally know. The Virgin Birth, the Trinity, all of it, are by me and others whom I know believed thoughtfully, devoutly and completely. We do not have mental reservations, intellectual doubts, nor private interpretations of the most clear and deliberate language of the Creeds. Should there be some portion of the Creeds in our intellectual pilgrimage that temporarily baffles us, we still do not teach our own personal interpretation, but strive to separate our private opinions from what the Church teaches.

Fortunately, our House of Bishops, in their recent Pastoral Letter, has affirmed anew, in the face of such heretical declarations as that made by Bishop Pike and others, that the Nicene Creed is a “part of the essential core of the continuous, historic tradition of the Church” and that the Apostles’ Creed is the “minimal Baptismal Confession.” The Creed is described by our Bishops as essential dogma, narrative in nature, and not abstract or propositional. It is clear that the Bishops’ statement is not so much a defense of what stands without need of defense, as it is a warning and a disciplining of those who verge on heresy in attempts to make the Creeds intelligible to the modern day Christian.…

Such modest disciplinary action of heretics is typical of our Communion. Despite the fact that the Bishops’ Pastoral declaration was stimulated by a petition charging various people with heresy, signed by 4500 members of our Church, our heretics are not brought to trial as they could be, but only admonished as constructively as possible.

And why not use moderation? For Bishop Pike is, after all, only one of more than 100 Bishops, though rather noisy about it. He is not regarded as infallible, nor will he live forever. As long as we parish priests continue to proclaim our faith in the Creeds, his heresy will be forgotten, even more quickly than he will himself, as time and the Church march on.

JOHN A. RUSSELL

St. George’s Episcopal Church

Helmetta, N. J.

CRUX OF THE MATTER

I want to congratulate Dr. Berkouwer for his penetrating yet irenic statement of the true issues separating Reformed and Roman Catholic elements in Christendom (Review of Current Religious Thought, Jan. 2 issue). Having pondered this whole question for several years, I feel convinced that Dr. Berkouwer has put his finger on the crux of the matter.

EDWARD JOHN CARNELL

Fuller Theological Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

WINTER WONDERLAND

Thanks for what you wrote on the winter in Europe (Jan. 2 issue). I agree with your observations. To understand the development one must take into account that all leaders of Barthian and neo-orthodox theology came from liberalism. This was a counter-movement. But the liberal heritage was still a power in these men. Even Karl Barth always feels closer to the liberal school from which he came (Berlin, Marburg) than to the “orthodox,” conservative theology of his father (Fritz Barth) and that generation. In my review of your interesting symposium Revelation and the Bible I say something about that. The triumph of Bultmann and Tillich (who is the son of an ultra-conservative church councillor in Berlin) is quite remarkable. No serious historian takes Bultmann seriously. This way of disposing of historical facts has nothing to do with sound historical research. A historian has to believe the documents he investigates until he finds out where they are wrong. Bultmann treats the gospels like a prosecutor treats the defendant, believing him in nothing until the truth has been proved.

… You write of me that I “was thrown into prison by the Nazis and rescued by American troops”.… I have been penalized in other ways, but I was never in prison.

HERMAN SASSE

Prospect, South Australia

The issue … of the German Church is not theological, in the decline of the loyalty of the people to the Church. It is a case of power-church, or organization, of The United Church, which always stagnated the life of the Church, anywhere and any time in Christian history.

Nor is the Nazi-era the sole trouble. Nor is the Confessional Church the hope of the Church. On the contrary, it is alienating the loyalties of the people thoroughly and completely. The Confessional people were and are a power-group. They were never elected to office; they walked in. And they elected each other.

Nor was the resistance of the Confessional people to Nazism so much a religious factor as a political one. A strong element in that resistance was plain treason. Their martyrs—at least a number of them—deserved to be executed for collaborating with the enemy of the country: one of them Bonhoeffer.

Another, Niemoeller, always was of doubtful value. Bishops Dibelius and Wurm once appealed on his behalf to Hitler. Hitler asked: “Bitte, meine Herren, ein Moment” (“Please, gentlemen, a minute.”) He then played back a tape of Niemoeller’s telephone conversation. The bishops then said: “Bitte, entschuldigen Sie uns, Herr Fuehrer; wir haben nichts mehr zu sagen” (“Please excuse us, we have nothing more to say”).

JOHN F. C. GREEN

Evangelical Congregational Church

McKeesport, Pa.

Your … article has given me reason to think I should more seriously apply myself to the task of working out intellectually the implications of my personal faith so that I may more intelligently stand for Christ in the intellectual world.

CHARLES YOAK

Chicago Theological Seminary, ‘63

Chicago, Ill.

In your editorial of November 7, 1960 you refer to “some Baptist seminaries” as being “theologically on the move.” Then you state that, “In the North (Philadelphia, for example) and in the South alike, neo-orthodoxy has registered gains.”

If the above comment has reference in any way to The Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary, I should like your readers to know that our faculty has to a man disavowed the implications made in the statement. The doctrinal statement of our Seminary has remained unchanged since the founding of the school. Every member of the faculty, as well as every trustee, moreover, annually renews his endorsem*nt of this statement.

GILBERT L. GUFFIN

President

The Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Philadelphia, Pa.

ECLECTIC LUMP

In listing the religious affiliation of Mr. Kennedy’s cabinet nominees … (News, Jan. 16 issue) please don’t lump Lutherans, Reformed, and Mormons under one head.

GLENN C. LASHWAY

Trinity Lutheran Church & School

Fort Dodge, Iowa

MORMONS AND KING JAMES

Re “Mormonism” (Dec. 19 issue), the extracts from the Bible contained in the Book of Mormon are said to have been inscribed on brass plates found by Joseph Smith and translated by him. As these passages are in the exact words of the King James Version, either the K.J.V., so miraculously revealed a thousand years before its appearance in 1611 A.D., must be the only perfect Bible or the plates and their translation were an imposture.

I. N. BECKSTEAD

Ottawa, Ont.

FREEDOM IS INDIVISIBLE

“Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel” (Matt. 23:24). There has come to my attention a booklet prepared by the National Council of Churches for use as a study guide by the social action units of its constituent denominations. Edited by Harold C. Letts, it is entitled “A Case Book on Christian Responsibility for Freedom,” this being the coordinated emphasis of the National Council’s member denominations for 1960–61.

The booklet, which is being widely circulated as part of a well-organized project, treats in a topical manner of what its editor conceives to be various salient threats to freedom. The first case-study deals with freedom in the local church, and implies that any congregation which declines to support social action programs instituted by its pastor, is to that extent unfree. The second case-study has to do with extra-legal restrictions upon the freedom of members of minority groups to live in neighborhoods of their own choosing. The third case-study addresses itself to religious limitations suffered by Protestants in certain Roman Catholic countries. The fourth case-study deals with the problem of the use of public schools for religious purposes. The fifth case-study concerns itself with threats to freedom which are seen as being implicit in legislative investigation of alleged subversion among American churches and churchmen. The sixth case-study reviews the famous incident of the Air Force manual which contained inimical statements about the National Council of Churches and certain clergymen. The seventh and final case-study deals with infringements upon the rights of conscientious objectors.

It is not my purpose here either to question or endorse the legitimacy of these topics for concern. But I am profoundly disturbed by the fact that the most insidious and virulent threat to freedom in America today is not even mentioned. In nearly a hundred pages of material there is not the barest hint that freedom might conceivably be endangered by the increasing intervention of government into the economic sphere. Such an omission makes one wonder!

For the first time in history a major American political party has openly embraced the theory that the consumer is not competent to decide what to buy with his money, and that the “public sector” of the economy must be enriched at the expense of the private. Granted, we have had administrations which have acted according to this theory, but never before was it boldly enunciated as an official party creed. With the imposition of Professor Galbraith’s formulas, the United States and the Soviet Union would cease to differ in principle but only in degree in the matter of government controls. As for the other major party, its candidate’s answer to the advocates of collectivistic planning was to repudiate Secretary of Agriculture Benson, the leading spokesman for the free market in the … [Eisenhower] administration.

A minister I know once preached a sermon on “Majoring in Minors.” It was an indictment of those Christians who neglect the great central doctrines of the faith in favor of an emphasis upon such peripheral concerns as the precise date of the millennium or the question of whether or not jewelry should be worn in church. It seems to me that Mr. Letts and the National Council of Churches’ study booklet are majoring in minors.

The power of the federal government assumes ever more monolithic proportions. Its tentacles reach into the homes and pocketbooks of even the humblest families. The Bureau of Internal Revenue, with its retinue of paid informers, has become such a hellish juggernaut that its own commissioner a few years back resigned his office in disgusted protest against the graduated federal income tax and the monstrous system of bureaucratic tyranny to which it has given rise.

We read increasingly about farmers being fined for raising grain to feed their own livestock, about employers being penalized by federal boards for not acceding to union demands, about liens being placed upon the bank accounts of business people who demur at serving as involuntary tax-collectors. We are fast approaching, if indeed we have not already passed, a point from whence the recovery of economic freedom ceases to be a live possibility in any foreseeable future. Yet none of this, apparently, falls within the scope of the Christian responsibility for freedom, at least according to Editor Letts’ understanding of that responsibility.

Mr. Letts is touching in his solicitude for the right of pastors to run their churches independently of the desires of their parishioners, of minorities to reside in neighborhoods where their presence is not wanted, of persons accused of Communist affiliations to enjoy a fair hearing, of conscientious objectors to avoid military service. But where is his solicitude for the Finn twins, the Kohler Company, Vivien Kellems, and the countless obscurer victims of the Leviathan State. Why does his casebook not include the slightest reference to the violation of their freedoms?

Freedom is indivisible. Let us by all means be zealous in cherishing and guarding religious liberty, civil rights and academic freedom. But let us also remember that, as Wilhelm Röpke has so sagely said, “It is hardly forgivable naïvete to believe that a state can be all-powerful in the economic sphere without also being autocratic in the political and intellectual domain.”

ROBERT V. ANDELSON

Executive Director

Henry George School of Social Science

San Diego, Calif.

THE MESS WE IS NOW IN

The words “existentialism” and “existential” seem to be variously understood. When they first appeared in theological discussions, a D.D. connected them with the philosophy of seizing life’s pleasures while they are still available—carpe diem, for short. More recently, these words have been taken as having reference to theological adjustments on behalf of relevancy to changing world conditions. Still another impression is that they have to do with the assertion of personality against the depersonalizing influences of present-day life. Again, we find these terms associated with the existing situation, defined by a colored brother as “the mess we is now in.”

Light on this “existential” problem would no doubt be welcomed by many readers.

I. N. BECKSTEAD

Ottawa, Ont.

• Modern existentialism is a phase of the philosophical revolt against Hegelian rationalism. Its premise is that the supernatural cannot be grasped in rational categories but (insofar as the supernatural is relevant) is experienced in subjective decision. Perhaps reader Beckstead has heard Nels Ferré’s story of the three baseball umpires—an objectivist, a subjectivist, and an existentialist. The objectivist says, “I call them just as they are”; the subjectivist, “I call them just as I see them”; the existentialist, “They aren’t balls and strikes until I call them!”

—ED.

Recently while finishing some play equipment for our toddlers’ room in our new church school building I was reminded: “Be sure to sand off all the rough edges. The kiddies might get hurt!”

Aside from the fact that a public institution should not knowingly have any dangerous toys for children, I wonder whether we parents aren’t going a bit too far in sanding the rough edges off life for our children?

We want to bring them up with no heartaches, no troubles, no wants, no delay in having the things we didn’t have as children, and when they get married—no delay in getting all the expensive gadgets we parents had to save and scrimp 20 years to acquire.

In our over-love we want to save them the bumps and falls which are, or should be, a part of growing up. Our hearts go out to them as they struggle. So we even want to save them the pain, and also the joy, of struggle.

One sad thing I witness every day of the school year is the line of heavily-loaded public busses which go from all parts of our small city to the two junior high schools and one senior high school in the city. Parents rake and scrape and do without in order to give their children a bus ride to and from school, which is not only unnecessary but actually harmful to their bodies. While they boast of how they, the parents, used to trudge three miles to the district school through snow drifts, they allow their own children to ride in an overheated bus just ten city blocks. And any person who tells them they’re pampering and really hurting their children’s health by this indulgence gets short shrift. One dollar a week it costs these parents of Watertown for Johnny or Mary to ride to school—one dollar often taken out of a meagre family budget, and all in the name of giving our children advantages. How quickly can parental love, misdirected, become a harmful thing!

By our insistence on automatic devices in our homes, we Americans have taken out not only inconveniences for ourselves but many of the household and backyard chores which once were automatic instruments of discipline and character training for our children, and we have done all this in the name of love.

In our church life also, we are taking out too many of the rough edges. In places of sharp demands that may prick the conscience, produce guilt feelings, and face children and youth up to conscious, radical decisions as to what they shall do with their lives, we have substituted a gradual, yet somewhat too comforting, process of Christian education which gives a vast amount of information, and even inspiration, yet leaves the child undisturbed and unchallenged, especially in the adolescent years when youth yearns to devote all to something or somebody. Many modern Christian educators would even go so far as to say of Jesus’ demands of the rich young ruler who chose his wealth against discipleship: “We cannot blame the young man. He was a product of his environment.” Jesus knew of his environment, yet he made the sharpest demand he could think of—give up your money and all that goes with it.

How long has it been since any clarion call was made in your church or Sunday School to the young people to commit themselves to Christ? This is a disturbing demand, it is upsetting. To be asked to give up your life, to put your self second, to yield your own interests to another’s—this is tough business.

In many churches and church schools this demanding quality of Christianity is either glossed over or omitted. We want our children to have happy years, playful years, years of smooth contentment and pleasure, for, as adults, we know these years never return.

So, while the Communists are demanding and getting supreme loyalty from millions of youth, we are content, in the name of love for our children, to leave them half-committed or uncommitted to Christ.

But, as Sigmund Freud once said, “Throw nature out with a pitchfork and she’ll come right back every time.” We cannot omit this sharp edge of Christian commitment without serious jeopardy and final judgment. To raise a generation without commitment is to raise a morally flabby and indecisive leadership for the future. No cross, no crown—this ancient Christian adage applies to our children as well as to adults.

It is a great tragedy to see millions of fine American youth grow up today in the hot house environment of city culture with no primary experiences of either joy or pain—to know so few of the elementary, first-hand feelings of having one’s skin cut by rough bark of trees and brier bushes and sharp stones, to know the fear of wild animals, snakes, and high places, to experience the fear of dark woods at night with no one near, to know intimately extreme exhaustion, hunger, privation, cold, exposure, wet feet, soaked clothing, and searing sun. We no longer want to expose our children to the elements which, harsh though they be to the body, are kind to the soul, for they come from God.

So we expose them to the apparent kindness but final cruelty of overstuffed reclining chairs to watch endless television programs which involve no effort but a fastened, hypnotized eye, no demands except physical presence. We give our children overstuffed furniture, even at the dining room table. We let or make them ride to school where they sit in overheated classrooms. At public expense, we pay professional recreation directors to teach them in small play areas instead of leaving vacant space where boys can play and quarrel by themselves, but develop on their own.

In all this process, we hurt them in the name of love. Leave some sharp edges, parents and teachers! And where they have all been taken out in the guise of affection, restore a few, so that when adulthood comes pain will not be something novel, but an old friend and dear teacher.

“It must needs be that the Son of Man be crucified.…” So spake the Master.

It must needs be that our children undergo experiences, thoughts, demands, and teachings which will jolt, hurt, or agonize at the moment of enduring but which will make them finer, stronger, and less selfish.

Let’s not level all the rough edges.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.

A BASIC BOOK LIST AT THE LOCAL CHURCH LEVEL

This bibliography is intended to meet the practical needs of workers in Christian Education at the local church level. The list of one hundred books should be helpful as a guide to understanding and requisite skills. More emphasis has been placed on methods of work than on the nature of Christian education. There is a serious lack of distinctly evangelical works of high quality and philosophical and theological depth—a situation which needs to be remedied. Many basic books were omitted because of liberal bias, some because of their restricted denominational serviceability. Limitations of space dictated the widely inclusive divisions. Choices made were with the counsel of specialists in the field of Christian education.

GENERAL SURVEY

GAEBELEIN, FRANK E., Christian Education in a Democracy. Oxford, 1951, 305 pages, $4.05.

HAKES, J. EDWARD, editor, Introduction to Evangelical Christian Education. Moody, 1961, 460 pages, $7.95.

MURCH, JAMES DEFOREST, Christian Education and the Local Church. Standard, 1943, 1958, 416 pages, $3.50.

PERSON, PETER P., An Introduction to Christian Education. Baker, 1960, 224 pages, $3.75.

TAYLOR, MARVIN J., editor, Religious Education: A Comprehensive Survey. Abingdon, 1960, 446 pages, $6.50.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

BENSON, CLARENCE H., A History of Christian Education. Moody, 1943, 355 pages, $3.50.

SHERRILL, LEWIS J., The Rise of Christian Education. Macmillan, 1944, 349 pages, $4.25.

PHILOSOPHY OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

BENSON, CLARENCE H., The Christian Teacher. Moody, 1950, 288 pages, $3.50.

BUTLER, J. DONALD, Four Philosophies and Their Practice in Education and Religion. Harper, 1951, 1957, 618 pages, $6.

BYRNE, HERBERT W., A Christian Approach to Education. Zondervan, 1961, 326 pages, $4.95.

CLARK, GORDON H., A Christian Philosophy of Education. Eerdmans, 1946, 217 pages, $3.

COOKE, ROBERT L., Philosophy, Education and Certainty. Zondervan, 1940, 392 pages, $2.75.

JAARSMA, CORNELIUS, Fundamentals in Christian Education. Eerdmans, 1953, 482 pages, $5.

LEBAR, LOIS E., Education that is Christian. Revell, 1958, 252 pages, $3.75.

MILLER, RANDOLPH C., The Clue to Christian Education. Scribner’s, 1950, 211 pages, $2.75.

SMITH, H. SHELTON, Faith and Nurture. Scribners, 1941, 208 pages, $2.

PSYCHOLOGY AND CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

BARUCH, DOROTHY W., HOW to Live with Your Teen-ager. McGraw-Hill, 1953, 261 pages, $3.75.

BENSON, CLARENCE H., A Guide for Child Study. ETTA, 1956, 96 pages, $1.25.

MURRAY, ALFRED L., Psychology for Christian Teachers. Zondervan, 1938, 245 pages, $2.50.

NARRAMORE, CLYDE W., HOW to Understand and Influence Children. Zondervan. 1957, 61 pages, $1.50.

WHITEHOUSE, ELIZABETH, The Children We Teach, Judson, 1950, 304 pages, $2.50.

THE TEACHING PROCESS

BENSON, CLARENCE H., Teaching Techniques for Sunday School. ETTA, 1959, 98 pages, $1.25.

EAVEY, CHARLES B., Principles of Teaching for Christian Teachers. Zondervan, 1940, 351 pages, $3.

EAVEY, CHARLES B., The Art of Effective Teaching. Zondervan, 1953, 298 pages, $3.75.

EDGE, FINDLEY, Teaching for Results. Broadman, 1956, 230 pages, $3.

GREGORY, JOHN M., The Seven Laws of Teaching. Baker, 1886, revised 1957, 129 pages, $1.75.

HUTCHINSON, ELIOT D., How to Think Creatively. Abingdon, 1949, 237 pages, $2.75.

Learning and the Teacher. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1959, 215 pages, $3.75.

LEAVITT, GUY P., Teach With Success. Standard, 1958, 160 pages, $2.95.

LEBAR, LOIS E., Children in the Bible School: The How of Christian Education. Revell, 1952, 382 pages, $4.50.

LITTLE, SARA, Learning Together in Christian Fellowship. John Knox, 1959, 104 pages, $1.25.

ROZELL, RAY, Talks on Sunday School Teaching. Zondervan, 1956, 150 pages, $1.50.

ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

ARMSTRONG, HART R., Sunday School Administration and Organization. Gospel Publishing, 1950, 215 pages, $1.25.

HARNER, NEVIN C., The Educational Work of the Church. Abingdon, 1939, 257 pages, $2.

HEIM, RALPH D., Leading a Sunday Church School. Muhlenberg, 1950, 368 pages, $4.75.

LEAVITT, GUY P., Superintend with Success. Standard, 1960, 143 pages, $2.95.

MUNRO, HARRY C., The Director of Religious Education. Westminster, 1930, 214 pages, $1.50.

PERSON, PETER P., The Minister in Christian Education. Baker, 1960, 134 pages, $2.95.

VIETH, PAUL H., The Church School. Christian Education Press, 1957, 288 pages, $3.50.

DEPARTMENTAL ORGANIZATION AND METHODS

CALDWELL, IRENE S., Adults Learn and Like It. Warner, 1955, 112 pages, $1.

CHAMBERLIN, J. GORDON, The Church and Its Young Adults. Abingdon, 1943, 124 pages, $1.

GRIFFITHS, LOUISE B., The Teacher and Young Teens. Bethany, 1954, 176 pages, $1.75.

HARNER, NEVIN C., Youth Work in the Church. Abingdon, 1943, 222 pages, $2.

LEAVITT, EVELYN L., The Beginner Bible Teacher and Leader. Standard, 1942, 124 pages, $1.10.

MARTIN, MARY G., Teaching Primary Children. Judson, 1942, 104 pages, $0.30.

TRENT, ROBBIE, Your Child and God. Harper, 1941, 157 pages, $2.

WESTPHAL, EDWARD P., The Church’s Opportunity in Adult Education. Westminster, 1941, 209 pages, $1.25.

ZIEGLER, EARL FREDERICK, Christian Education of Adults. Westminster, 1958, 320 pages, $1.25.

THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

GAEBELEIN, FRANK E., The Pattern of God’s Truth. Oxford, 1954, 118 pages, $3.

GETTYS, JOSEPH M., How to Teach the Bible. John Knox, 1949, 163 pages, $2.25.

HESTER, HUBERT INMAN, The Book of Books. Convention, 1959, 138 pages, $0.75.

SMITH, WILBUR M., Profitable Bible Study. Wilde, 1939, 214 pages, $2.50.

AUDIO-VISUALS IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

BARNARD, FLOY MERWYN, Drama in the Churches. Broadman, 1950, 132 pages, $0.75.

CARLSON, BERNICE W., Act It Out. Abingdon, 1956, 160 pages, $2.

DALE, EDGAR, Audio-visual Methods in Teaching. Dryden, 1946, 546 pages, $4.50.

ELICKER, VIRGINIA, Biblical Costumes for Church and School. Ronald, 1953, 160 pages, $3.

HAAS, KENNETH B. and PACKER, HARRY Q., Preparation and Use of Visual Aids. Prentice-Hall, 1955, 381 pages, $6.65.

MAUS, CYNTHIA PEARL, Christ and the Fine Arts. Harper, 1938, 764 pages, $5.95.

Using Audio-visuals in the Church. NCCC, 1950, 16 pages, $0.75.

WITTICH, WALTER A. and SCHULLER, CHARLES F., Audio-visual Materials. Harper, 1953, 570 pages, $6.

RECREATION AND CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

HARBIN, E. O., Recreation Leader. Abingdon, 1952, 122 pages, $1.50.

EVANGELISM AND CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

AUTREY, C. E., Basic Evangelism. Zondervan, 1959, 184 pages, $2.95.

AVERY, WILLIAM S. and LESTER, ROYLA E., You Shall Be My Witnesses. Muhlenberg, 1948, 144 pages, $2.

DOBBINS, GAINES S., Winning the Children. Broadman, 1953, 172 pages, $2.

ELLIS, HOWARD W., Evangelism for Teen Agers. Abingdon, 1958, 112 pages, $1.

YODER, GIDEON G., The Nurture and Evangelism of Children. Herald, 1958, 188 pages, $3.

MUSIC IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

BENSON, LOUIS F., Hymnody of the Christian Church. John Knox, 1953, 310 pages, $4.50.

MORSCH, VIVIAN S., The Use of Music in Christian Education. Westminster, 1956, 172 pages, $3.

SMITH, H. AUGUSTINE, Lyric Religion. Revell, 1931, 517 pages, $4.95.

PRAYER AND WORSHIP

BOWMAN, CLARICE M., Restoring Worship. Abingdon, 1953, 223 pages, $2.50.

MCDORMAND, T. B., The Art of Building Worship Services. Broadman, 1958, 123 pages, $2.50.

PAULSEN, IRWIN G., The Church School and Worship. Macmillan, 1940, 199 pages, $1.75.

POWELL, MARIE C., Boys and Girls at Worship. Harper, 1943, 198 pages, $2.

STEWARDSHIP EDUCATION

MCRAE, GLENN, Teaching Christian Stewardship. Bethany, 1954, 158 pages. $1.25.

ROLSTON, HOLMES, Stewardship in the New Testament Church. John Knox, 1946, 151 pages, $1.50.

ACTIVITIES IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

CARLSON, BERNICE W., Make It Yourself. Abingdon, 1950, 160 pages, $2.

JACOBS, J. VERNON, 1000 Plans and Ideas for Sunday School Workers. Zondervan, 1958, 157 pages, $1.95.

KEISER, ARMILDA B., Here’s How and When. Friendship, 1952, 174 pages, $2.95.

LEADERSHIP TRAINING

CRANFORD, CLARENCE, The Devotional Life of Christian Leaders. Judson, 1959, 71 pages, $0.75.

DOBBINS, GAINES S., Improvement of Teaching in the Sunday School. Broadman, 1950, 154 pages, $0.60.

GWYNN, PRICE H., Leadership Education in the Local Church. Westminster, 1952, 157 pages, $2.75.

KNAPP, FORREST L., Leadership Education in the Church. Abingdon, 1933, 278 pages, $1.25.

COUNSELING IN CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

BRUNK, ADA and METZLER, ETHEL, The Christian Nurture of Youth. Herald, 1960, 158 pages, $3.

NARRAMORE, CLYDE M., The Psychology of Counselling. Zondervan, 1960, 303 pages, $3.95.

HULME, WILLIAM E., Counseling and Theology. Muhlenberg, 1956, 249 pages, $3.75.

SIGSWORTH, JOHN, Careers for Christian Youth. Moody, 1956, 160 pages, $0.59.

CHRISTIAN EDUCATION AND THE HOME

EAVEY, CHARLES B., Principles of Personality Building for Christian Parents. Zondervan, 1952, 321 pages, $3.75.

FEUCHT, OSCAR E., editor, Helping Families through the Church. Concordia, 1957, 344 pages, $3.50.

JACOBSEN, MARGARET BAILEY, The Child in the Christian Home. Scripture Press, 1959, 200 pages, $4.50.

OVERTON, GRACE S., Living with Parents. Broadman, 1954, 138 pages, $1.50.

OVERTON, GRACE S., Living with Teeners. Broadman, 1950, 85 pages, $1.25.

BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT

ADAIR, THELMA and MCCORT, ELIZABETH, HOW to Make Church School Equipment. Westminster, 96 pages, $1.25.

ATKINSON, C. HARRY, Building and Equipping for Christian Education, NCCC, 1956, 87 pages, $3.50.

FOSTER, VIRGIL E., How a Small Church Can Have Good Christian Education. Harper, 1956, 127 pages, $2.

LEACH, WILLIAM H., Handbook of Church Management. Prentice-Hall, 1959, 504 pages, $8.65.

SUPPLEMENTAL PROBLEMS

ENSIGN, JOHN and RUTH, Camping Together as Christians. John Knox, 1958, 148 pages, $2.95.

HALL, ARLENE S., Your Vacation Church School. Warner, 1956, 96 pages, $1.

SHAVER, ERWIN L., The Weekday Church School. Pilgrim, 1956, 154 pages, $2.50.

EVALUATION OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION

MASON, HAROLD C., Abiding Values in Christian Education. Revell, 1958, 176 pages, $2.50.

VIETH, PAUL H., Objectives of Religious Education. Harper, 1940, 331 pages, $2.50.

Some years ago, I made an experiment in audio-visuals which opened my eyes to a technique that can make the church school a far more effective link in the church’s program. When I moved to Sherman Oaks, California, the nearest Episcopal Church was six miles away; so, with the consent of my bishop, I undertook to start a Sunday School in my home. My use of audio visuals in teaching unfolded for me a vast new world of possibilities for presenting Bible truth in a way that actually makes teaching a pleasure. The boys and girls responded eagerly to “picture teaching.” Indeed, one Sunday morning a prominent composer and conductor asked me what we were doing to make his children want to go to our Church School rather than to Palm Springs for the week-end. My small effort, which started with five children, grew steadily until a mission was established and that mission has become one of the strong parishes in the diocese.

A VISUALLY DOMINATED CULTURE

Out of the experience came a conviction that Christian education had to face realistically the fact that the modern church exists in a visually dominated culture. The motion picture, radio, and television have brought about a veritable revolution in communication.

“Today an average two-year old child has seen more places than his grandfather saw in his whole lifetime,” says Howard E. Tower in Religious Education (Abingdon, 1960). “The same grandfather made up his vocabulary meanings in relation to the word spoken by someone in relationship to the real thing in experience, supplemented by words read in the reader and later the newspaper, magazine, and classic literature. Now the two-year-old grandson sees visual images on the television screen to which meanings are attached which are often unrelated to his actual experience and sometimes unrelated to the corresponding words.… We have experienced a communications revolution. Our culture is visually perceived if not so dominated.…”

The Church School teacher or leader who is not aware of this is severely limited in planning for and carrying out an effective program of Christian education. Certainly the teacher must have such awareness if he is to know the modern vocabulary of his students and what they are thinking and doing. Leaders at the denominational level must be aware of the changed communications situation if they are to develop an adequate curriculum.

THE USE OF MODERN AID

The ideal Church School teaching situation in these times is an adequate curriculum designed to use visual aids. These aids should be made not only to accompany the printed lesson but to be integrated in its very structure. Many denominations are following this pattern in the preparation of their new materials that will come out in 1963 or 1964. A resurrection in teaching effectiveness is on the way, thanks to the pioneers in the churches who have blazed the trail with audio-visual aids.

The teachers’ frustration under old methods lay in the failure of their dialogue to get through to the children. Ordinary Church School teachers are not theologians or Bible scholars or, for that matter, even teachers in the full sense of the word. Yet they feel a sense of duty and loyalty to Christ and the Church that must be met. They offer themselves knowing full well their inadequacies. But God too knows these inadequacies and he also knows that a dedicated person can often be more valuable than one who is merely gifted in teaching ability. The Church School teacher is, and always will be, the living witness of the Christian faith to the children she teaches. Give that teacher the kind of teaching tool that will breathe life into the dialogue and communicate the message, and both teacher and pupil will find themselves in a teaching situation which will achieve amazing results. Such aids must, of course, incorporate a rational dialogue requiring a decision for truth, if they are to be evangelically effective.

It is possible today for audio-visuals to be used in the classroom. The new sound filmstrips are especially designed for this purpose. They fit the “time slot” allotted for “learning time” in the average school. The film with record runs on an average of 10 to 14 minutes, giving the teacher adequate time for discussion in the half-hour usually granted for this purpose. The right tools are now available to help any teacher do a better job. The big teaching advantage lies in such a dramatic presentation of the material that an impact is made which most untrained teachers are unable to accomplish in any other way. The minister knows that what is being taught through the approved audio-visual aid is in keeping with the theology of the church. The children like to learn the visual way. The teacher rejoices to know and feel that the time spent has produced results far and above anything he or she could have achieved without the visual-aid. Discussions are twice as effective because children always react to pictures. After the session the lesson is the chief topic of conversation.

BRIDGING TIME AND SPACE

Audio-visual aids make the Bible a living book. They do not downgrade but rather upgrade the centrality of the Holy Scriptures in the curriculum. Audio-visuals help the pupil to bridge time and distance, to have a new appreciation of the setting in which biblical truth and history transpired, and to obtain a perceptive grasp of the human and divine situations involved. There are dangers here, but individuals, denominations, and educational foundations are engaged in vast programs of research which insure increasingly faithful disclosures of Bible truth.

The superiority of the audio-visual method of teaching may well be illustrated in the presentation of the story of Jonah and the “great fish.” Study of a brief Scripture passage may reveal how God’s mercy saved Jonah from a shipwreck, kept him safely, and eventually deposited him on the beach safe and sound. Yet the real purpose of the Bible story and its vital importance for us today lies in God’s commissioning of Jonah to tell others of God regardless of their race or nationality. God wanted Jonah to realize that religion has life only when it is shared with others, and that not to do this is contrary to the purpose of God. A good sound filmstrip may provide sound effects, storm, shipwreck, and dramatize the story of a man who did not want to do what he was supposed to do as a member of a race God had chosen for a special purpose. The story may end with an illustration in which Jonah finally realizes his responsibility to others of different races and nationalities. A great Bible truth is thus designed and produced to hold attention, deliver a message, and arouse discussion. In the process the teacher discovers an experience in teaching that actually makes the task a pleasure.

Classroom audio-visuals are designed to be used in the most modern classroom techniques. The short focal length throw of the classroom projector allows it to be used at one end of the table. At the other end is the latest lenticular screen which provides perfect viewing at any angle for the children seated around the table. The record attachment is a part of the projector unit. The room does not have to be darkened, for modern equipment will project in normal light. Using the visual-aid tools in this way makes it unnecessary to rearrange chairs when the filmstrip has finished; discussion can begin at once right at the table.

A TOOL FOR EVANGELISM

Strange as it may seem, the 16mm sound film is rapidly becoming a significant educational tool for lay evangelism. A series on the life of Christ or the life of Paul can well be geared into soul winning programs. Indeed the rising tide of religious concern for the nation and the world on the part of laymen has been one of the main reasons for the renewed interest in good Bible films. The layman is serious about his determination to do something in his own way to bear witness to his faith. In presenting a series of films on the life of our Lord or the life of St. Paul, he finds an opportunity to make his witness really count. His friends and neighbors will come to the church to see a good film. Through the experience of viewing the film, an opportunity for real discussion develops. When laymen begin to discuss religion and ask questions, they are going to get more excited about the Christian faith. Ministers are delighted to see laymen enthusiastically take up this method of evangelism. Naturally the minister plays the most important role in this situation. He is the one who must give answers to the questions. Indeed, he may well introduce the film showing, giving remarks pertinent to the content so it will be better appreciated by the viewers. When minister and laymen can thus work as a team, the teaching of adults in the Church School can be more thrilling than teaching children.

Truly a new day is dawning on the horizon of Christian education for both children and adults. Teaching tools such as audio-visual aids are more vital than ever to the program of churches of all sizes. Any Church School curriculum can be supplemented with audio-visual aids to fit lesson content. Reputable and responsible producers assure pastors and teachers that their visual-aids are as theologically and historically trustworthy as any reputable Bible commentary because they are based on sound Christian scholarship.

Samuel M. Shoemaker is the author of a number of popular books and the gifted Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh. He is known for his effective leadership of laymen and his deeply spiritual approach to all vital issues.