Page 6386 – Christianity Today (2024)

NEWS

CHRISTIANITY TODAY

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary trustees sought to close debate on one of the most embarrassing squabbles in the annals of U. S. theological education when, climaxing a dramatic March 30–31 meeting, they rescinded dismissals of 12 professors. The professors were asked, instead, to resign.

In a resolution, the trustees admitted procedural “mistakes” in dismissals last June which followed a long-standing feud between nearly half the 27 School of Theology professors and Dr. Duke K. McCall, scholarly seminary president.

The Louisville institution, mother seminary of the second largest U. S. denomination, is observing the 100th anniversary of its founding this year.

Dissident professors have consistently charged McCall with maladministration. McCall, in turn, claims that the major issues have revolved on whether the faculty is largely independent, both academically and administratively.

One of the dismissed professors who is now pastor of the First Baptist Church of North Wilkesboro, North Carolina, Dr. Heber F. Peaco*ck, has been acting as spokesman for the dissident group. All now have churches or are teaching or studying elsewhere.

Seminary trustees called their latest meeting after a special committee of Southern Baptist Convention presidents laid groundwork for what had been billed as a possible “reconciliation.” The dismissed professors replied that their interest was the welfare of the seminary. They made clear that they did not seek reconciliation.

The March 30–31 proceedings, which began with a 6 p. m. supper and did not adjourn until 4:30 a. m., were influenced by a warning last December from the American Association of Theological Schools, which threatened to withdraw accreditation. Present were the entire seminary staff, trustees, members of the special presidents committee, as well as the dismissed professors.

Here is the text of the resolution:

“Whereas, the action of the Board of Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on June 12, 1958, when thirteen faculty members were dismissed, has been criticized by the AATS Accrediting Commission; whereas, the Board of Trustees has made a restudy of its action and its procedures; whereas, the Board of Trustees desires to repair damage done to the former faculty members and to the seminary, and to any other persons involved; whereas, there was neither precedent nor procedure by which the Board of Trustees might have been better guided; therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Trustees of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, meeting in extraordinary session in Louisville, Kentucky, on March 31, 1959:

“1. That we express appreciation to the committee of Convention presidents for its prayer, efforts, and leadership for the extraordinary session.

“2. That we express appreciation to the former faculty members for their willingness to be present for the extraordinary session, and for their desire to be helpful.

“3. That we express appreciation to the faculty for its presence in the extraordinary session, and for its fine statement and spirit.

“4. That we assure the former faculty members that there is no bitterness in our hearts toward any one or all of them; we love each of them.

“5. That we admit errors in the dismissal procedure followed, and express our regrets for such errors.

“6. That we rescind the June 12, 1958 action in which the former faculty members were dismissed; and, that we respectfully request the resignation of each as of this date.

“7. That the faculty and the president are at liberty to consider by current faculty acquisition procedures any person deemed appropriate for faculty membership.

“8. That we encourage the trustee subcommittee on faculty acquisition … to continue its work, looking to adoption in May of improved faculty acquisition and tenure procedures.”

The resolution notwithstanding, issues were not resolved. Many felt that the disputants merely “agreed to disagree.”

The dispute at the Louisville seminary dates back to May 4, 1943, when its board of trustees adopted a committee report which began, “The president of the seminary shall be recognized as the executive head of the institution.…”

In reviewing the controversy for the board last year, McCall noted that although the 1943 report removed the seminary from faculty control, the change never was “fully accepted” by the faculty. He said the rejection caused tension during the administration of his predecessor as well as his own, adding, “The ability of the wisest board of trustees, made up of those not engaged in theological education, to determine the [seminary life] is questioned by some.”

After smouldering inconspicuously for nearly 15 years, the dispute was given formal expression in March of 1958 when a School of Theology faculty report noted “low morale” among professors and asserted that “it is virtually impossible for seminary teachers to provide their families with adequate housing, educational opportunities and an acceptable standard of living without the assistance of outside remunerative activity.”

McCall confirmed “regretfully” the existence of the situation, but insisted that “the occasion for such a situation is temporary disappointment, frustration, and depression.” He asked the board to state “clearly and unequivocally precisely what is the trustee position on the problems and questions raised by the faculty.”

The board gave McCall a vote of confidence. “We do not believe it necessary to alter the structure of the seminary or any instructions given to the seminary administration,” a board statement said.

Last April 28, 13 School of Theology professors presented to a special trustees committee a “supplementary report” which the seminary administration subsequently labelled “libelous.” The report questioned McCall’s honor, charged him with “deceit,” and asserted that he “attempted to rule the faculty by coercion and threat.”

Direct negotiations between McCall and the dissidents failed.

On June 12, the board of trustees voted 32 to 9 to dismiss the 13 faculty members. A special reinstatement committee was named and authorized to reinstate “any one or more of these 13 men upon the basis of full confidence of the committee that the reinstated member can cooperate with the administration and work harmoniously within the framework of the charter and by-laws of the seminary and serve in good conscience as part of the faculty.” Salaries of the dismissed professors were extended.

The reinstatement committee invited the 13 professors to a meeting July 9 in hopes of effecting a reconciliation. Only one came, Dr. J. J. Owens, who was reinstated retroactively to June 12.

During the same committee meeting, Dr. Charles Taylor, executive director of the American Association of Theological Schools, appeared. He had but one request: that financial provisions for the dismissed professors be extended. Accordingly, the seminary continued to pay the dismissed professors and is still making up any differences in earnings.

Five months later, the Louisville seminary was visited by an investigating committee of the AATS, the recognized accrediting authority among U. S. seminaries. At its annual meeting in December the AATS put the seminary on virtual probation for a year, warning that another inspection would be made within twelve months. The implicit threat was that accreditation might be withdrawn. McCall was asked to resign his AATS vice presidency and his membership on the Commission on Accrediting.

The AATS never has specified how the seminary is to “repair the damage.”

Protestant Panorama

• Design of the Air Force Academy Chapel is being simplified to cut construction costs. The Air Force rejected all contractors’ bids, observing that they were “far in excess of official estimates of construction costs,” originally about three million dollars.

• One of every four younger clergy of the Anglican Church of Canada was discouraged from entering the ministry by one or both parents, according to a survey run by the denomination’s recruitment commission.

• HLKT, first Christian relay station in the southern part of the Republic of Korea, went on the air in Taegu shortly before Easter. The new 250-watt transmitter will be operated by HLKY, Christian broadcasting station in Seoul, in cooperation with Taegu’s Keimyong Christian College.

• A ceremony was scheduled for April 15 in Beirut to initiate the merging of Protestant mission work in Syria and Lebanon. Control and ownership of American missionary facilities, development of which was fostered by Presbyterians and Congregationalists, will pass to the National Evangelical Synod of Syria and Lebanon, the indigenous Protestant church.

• Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company of Des Moines, Iowa, last month became the first company in the United States to write fire insurance exclusively for non-drinkers.

• Midwest Bible and Missionary Institute is changing its name to the Midwest Bible College.

• Among first refugees to arrive last month under a new U. S. law which admits displaced Dutch citizens from Indonesia were a young couple sponsored by the Christian Social Relations Department of the Episcopal Church’s Diocese of Colorado.

• The Graduate School of Theology at Oberlin College is beginning an internship and field work program in cooperation with the Cleveland Inner-City Protestant Parish. The program is designed to train ministers for service in urban areas characterized by large proportions of low-income people, racial and minority groups, and overcrowded substandard housing.

• President Eisenhower was on hand to see his wife receive an honorary doctor of laws degrees from Roman Catholic St. Joseph College at Emmitsburg, Maryland, last month.

• The Church Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, in a resolution passed last month, expressed disapproval of congregation-sponsored social dancing.

• The Pennsylvania Baptist Convention is purchasing a 205-acre private resort near Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, for some $250,000. The property will be used for a year-round camp and conference grounds.

• Beginning in June, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association will produce a monthly publication for distribution among those particularly interested in world evangelism. Editor is Dr. Sherwood E. Wirt, who resigned as minister of Hillside Presbyterian Church, Oakland, California, to take the post.

• More than 60 U. S. television stations have shown “Martin Luther,” according to Robert E. A. Lee, executive secretary of Lutheran Church Productions, distributors of the film. Another 60 stations, Lee said, will televise the movie within a year.

• Eight stations of the United Christian Missionary Society (Disciples of Christ) in the Belgian Congo will soon be linked by a radio network if the government approves the plan.

• Three major Protestant denominations now have their largest congregations in Dallas. Highland Park Presbyterian Church is the largest in membership in the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. First Baptist Church of Dallas is the largest in the Southern Baptist Convention. Highland Park Methodist Church holds a similar distinction.

• The Bible Institute of Los Angeles broke ground last month for a $125,000 student commons building on its La Mirada, California, campus site.

Mass Evangelism

Bad And Mad

Billy Graham’s Australian timetable called for the start of a month-long crusade in Sydney, the continent’s largest city, this week.

Graham was to fly into Sydney after concluding short series of meetings in principal cities of New Zealand. On the eve of the New Zealand campaign, he reported that his vision was “the best it has been in nine months.” Doctors had ordered him to get as much rest as possible to relieve a rare affliction which caused blurring in his left eye. The evangelist relaxed at a seaside resort following his climactic Melbourne meeting which drew a crowd estimated as high as 150,000 for a new record in Christian evangelistic efforts.

“After Melbourne,” many were asking, “what was the prospect for Sydney?”

Melbourne is a relatively conservative city, while Sydney’s population of nearly 2,500,000 is called “bad and mad.” Sydney has seen its share of a church building boom, but the average congregation attracts little more than 50 worshippers per service. Known as Australia’s most cosmopolitan city, Sydney generally represents indifference to religion. Materialism seems to prevail.

Graham’s meetings were scheduled to begin Sunday afternoon, April 12, in the Sydney Showground, which was being modified to accommodate 80,000. Chairman of the Sydney crusade executive committee, Bishop R. C. Kerle, said that the governor of New South Wales, Lieutenant General Sir Eric Woodward, has granted his patronage to the crusade and expressed willingness to chair the opening meeting.

The actual start of the crusade was preceded by weeks of prayer and training among volunteers. More than 10,000 people were crowding into Sydney’s largest buildings six days a week for counsellor training. Thousands of cottage prayer meetings were also held daily.

In New Zealand, likewise, Graham found that great preparations had been made, even though an extended campaign had not been planned. “It is a raid,” wrote Professor E. M. Blaiklock, CHRISTIANITY TODAY correspondent in Auckland, “an all-out brief attack on evil things for which the church has made magnificent preparations.” Rugby football grounds were booked for the Graham rallies.

“New Zealand has never known the genuine breath of religious revival,” Blaiklock said. “The witness of evangelical Christianity is strong, the church is not without life and vigor, and in common with the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world in this decade, there has been a stirring of activity. But over the century or more of history, no one voice has moved the country, no sudden fervor ever came.

“Hence it was with astonishment that experienced observers watched Graham. The sanity and relevance of his preaching won the interest of a folk so averse to emotional demonstration that they are content to clap, rather than cheer, even at the sight of royalty.”

Communism Vs. Buddhism

No Surprise

A former missionary to Tibet says he was not surprised at an anti-Communist revolt in the capital city of Lhasa.

Marion Duncan, who served at the Tibetan-West China border for 13 years with the Disciples of Christ, declared that Communists could have expected trouble from devoted Buddhists in the sparsely-populated, mountain country.

“It was a natural gesture of mountain people,” he said.

He speculated that the insurrection had its roots with wealthy nobles who oppose distribution of their lands under the Communist system. Peasants would have fought on orders from their lords, he observed.

Duncan said Communists have had great difficulty in setting up communes in Tibet. A contributing factor, he noted, was the small population scattered over a wide area.

Tibet has little more than token Christian witness, he added, and there is little hope that the revolt will result in any missionary opportunity.

Duncan now works as a consultant with the U. S. government.

World Religious Populations

The world’s major religions gained numerical strength last year largely in proportion to increases in population, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year for 1959, out this month.

The Britannica’s figures show no unusual spurts in numbers of adherents. All the statistics are estimates gathered from authoritative surveys.

Last year, the Britannica yearbook listed 835,564,542 Christians in the world, including Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant. This year, the figure was 848,659,038.

Here is the Britannica breakdown: Roman Catholic, 509,505,000; Eastern Orthodox, 129,192,755; Protestant, 209,961,283; Jewish, 12,035,774; Moslem, 424,813,000; Zoroastrian, 140,000; Shinto, 30,000,000; Taoist, 50,053,200; Confucian, 300,290,500; Buddhist, 150,310,000; Hindu, 325,929,809; Primitive, 121,150,000.

Weather Phenomenon

History Repeating

It was now about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour, while the sun’s light failed …—Luke 23:44–45

Metropolitan Washington experienced a Good Friday this year which alluded meteorologically to the day Christ died.

Rain-laden skies suddenly grew wholly dark over the U. S. capital and surrounding suburbs at 3 p. m., the time generally associated with the Bible’s “ninth hour” and the suffering Christ’s last words. Matthew, Mark, and Luke record three hours of darkness immediately preceding the climactic cries of Jesus.

Worshippers emerging from traditional 12–3 p.m. services found a nightlike atmosphere. Most who stayed home or worked took up vigils at windows. Telephone lines were flooded with calls, many of them directed to the Weather Bureau.

The intense, midafternoon darkness, which lasted for several minutes, was reported to have stretched over an area 50 miles wide. Skies gradually took on an eerie, pale yellow glow, then turned into the ordinary gray of rain clouds. A heavy thunderstorm followed.

Four flights at Washington National Airport were delayed in the squall.

The Weather Bureau explained that the darkness was the result of an unusually heavy cloud build-up accompanying a cold front. The ceiling was zero, a spokesman said, and the cloud layer was estimated to have extended to an altitude of 30,000 feet.

The spokesman described the phenomenon as very unusual for the eastern part of the United States. He added that such blacking-out does occur, however, in advance of tornadoes and is seen more frequently in plains states.

Religious Assemblages

The Issue: Red China

U. S. attitudes toward Red China claimed the floor of debate last month at the annual meeting of the National Council of United Presbyterian Men.

Dr. Will W. Orr, president of Westminster College, called on 3,000 delegates to repudiate a recommendation by the Fifth World Order Study Conference in Cleveland last fall. A message from the conference urged steps toward recognition of Red China and its admission to the United Nations.

Taking issue with the message, Orr said he found himself “sick at heart at some of the statements made by prominent churchmen regarding what should be our country’s relationship to Communism.”

Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, stated clerk of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., stood to the defense of the controversial Cleveland recommendations. Blake asserted the “present political stalemate in Asia is, month by month, making democracy weaker—not stronger—in East and Southeast Asia.”

He charged that “one of the results of the present policy is that during the last six months, repressions and persecutions of the Christian churches in China have increased in scope and severity.”

Representing 400,000 members, the council is the laymen’s organization of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.

Missionary Enterprise

The World Scene

The most encouraging aspect of today’s world-wide missionary scene is a surge of activity among lay Christians, according to Dr. Clyde W. Taylor, executive secretary of the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association, who returned March 27 from an 80-day, 35,000-mile global tour which took him to 18 countries.

Taylor said lay participation in church work is the outstanding feature of missionary work in many areas. He added that layman zeal often matches or surpasses that of the clergy.

Taylor urged more attention toward evangelizing youth around the world.

He called present ministries among youth “inadequate,” adding that young people are “most receptive to the Gospel.”

He said latest on-the-spot surveys indicate that the number of Christians in the Far East has increased by nearly 100 per cent during the past five years.

These studies show, according to Taylor, that there are now 5,200,000 Christians in Formosa, Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, and the Philippines, compared to 2,600,000 five years ago.

The missions expert noted that Japan is lagging behind other Far Eastern countries in numbers of converts. He blamed this largely on cultural patterns which limit church activities of laymen. Another contributing factor, he said, was the Japanese custom to regard marriage as a secular matter. Such attitudes inevitably lead to a large number of marriages between pagans and Christians, he said.

World Of Islam

A Holy War?

Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, a top Moslem leader, is calling upon the world of Islam to declare a jihad, or holy war, against communism.

The rector of Cairo’s 1,000-year-old Al Azhar University, Islam’s chief theological seminary with an enrollment of more than 2,000 students, has previously said that “Arab soil will not bear Communist feet.”

Sheikh Shaltut’s appeal climaxed a war of words between stations in Cairo and Baghdad which developed after Communists in Mosul, Iraq, were reported to have burned Korans and murdered a number of learned Moslems.

Moslem sources in Cairo said that a call for a holy war—only one has been declared since the days of the Crusades in the Middle Ages—would ordinarily come from the Caliph of Islam. But they said since the caliphate was abolished by Ataturk of Turkey, the declaration of a jihad now rests with the governing body of Al Azhar.

Baghdad Radio denied that incidents in Mosul were organized by the government and asserted that “the freedom of religious beliefs in Iraq is safe.”

The Baghdad station charged United Arab Republic President Gamel Abdel Nasser’s regime with “committing the ugliest crimes in the name of religion, at the same time hypocritically pretending to show concern for religion in Iraq.” Religious leaders in Iraq, the station added, have often denounced “the attitude of the Egyptian rulers.”

Wives’ ‘Decalogue’

Mrs. John Osborn, whose husband is pastor of the world’s largest Seventh-day Adventist congregation (Sligo Seventh-day Adventist Church in Takoma Park, Maryland) has a list of “Ten Commandments” for clergymen’s wives.

Addressing wives of delegates to a church meeting in Atlantic City last month, Mrs. Osborn gave this list:

1. Thou shalt love all your members at all times and under all circ*mstances.

2. Thou shalt learn to live as the most observed woman in the church.

3. Thou shalt always remember your family obligations first of all.

4. Thou shalt learn to develop a remedy for loneliness for the many nights your husband is away from home.

5. Thou shalt learn to live on a limited income and a strict budget.

6. Thou shalt learn how to meet discouragement.

7. Thou shalt learn how to be adaptable and willing to learn.

8. Thou shalt develop your natural talents and abilities.

9. Thou shalt have a definite interest in the daily work and program of your preacher husband.

10. Thou shalt often renew your personal consecration to the task of the church.

In the plenary session of the controversial NCC World Order Study Conference, delegates from major denominations projected a year-long peace offensive in the 144,000 churches to which Cleveland conferees addressed recommendations that the U.S. recognize and the U.N. admit Red China. The peace drive, it was said, would begin in June and would cost $35 million in manpower alone. A Rockefeller Foundation grant is to underwrite staff personnel coordinating the drive with American higher education.

Sweeping plans were announced by key denominational delegates. This summer, leadership training gets underway in conferences, camps, and assemblies under denominational and ecumenical sponsorship. In September and October, state councils of churches will sponsor leadership training institutes. In November and December, local councils of churches will promote leadership training institutes. From January to June, 1960, an education and action program is projected for every church across the nation. The sponsoring agency is NCC’s Department of International Affairs, which arranged the World Order Study Conference.

The peace drive, it was noted, would be thrust into the mainstream of the separate denominational programs, the Cleveland conference and other ecumenical sources supplying study materials. The Methodist Church, giving special attention to students and youth, a representative reported, will sponsor schools of missions nationwide, plus thousands of study units on the role of the U.N. in world affairs. In addition to cooperating with a steadily expanding program of U.N. seminars, Methodists will emphasize certain legislative objectives, including repeal of selective service and increase of foreign economic aid. United Church of Christ (formerly Evangelical and Reformed, and Congregational), steadily enlarging interest in international affairs through denominational journals and pulpits, and through Asian interpreters of world events making an American tour, will then hold regional five-day social action institutes to train seminar leaders in cooperation with local councils of churches. The Southern California-Nevada Council of Churches has arranged a pilot-project with two major universities. Indiana Council of Churches will promote an institute and discussion groups for high school and college students, foreign students, denominational leaders, World Federalists, and representatives of International Fellowship of Reconciliation, with advance assurances of special interest from press, radio and television media.

Announced objective of the peace program is action, and not mere discussion. In this respect, the city of Denver is to serve as an example. Not only will study materials be distributed from Social Science Foundation and adult education sources, and special emphasis be given the theme of the Christian faith and peace during the Religion in Life program at University of Denver, but the peace drive will be geared to community political action. Instead of one central meeting, the peace program will be promoted in church institutes in each of nine aldermanic divisions of the city. Special peace rallies will precede the election of a mayor, so that Christian social action is fully meshed with political decision.

It would be tragic indeed if the Christian concern for peace in our time were either to fade away or to miscarry. The problem of war remains one of the terrifying social issues of our era. In the face of it the Christian movement dare not remain silent, nor dare it say the wrong thing.

George V. Allen, director of U.S. Information Agency, recently told the North Carolina Council of Churches that he would like to see the churches “take over” America’s foreign relations by working for peace. The determination of some Protestant spokesmen to dictate American foreign policy seems to be shaping new opportunities of direct ecclesiastical intrusion into state affairs.

The tide of opposition to NCC World Order Study Conference commitments on crucial issues discloses a growing spirit of anxiety over ecumenical positions and pronouncements in international affairs. In a leading editorial titled “Who Says 38,000,000 Protestants Want to Recognize Red China?,” The Saturday Evening Post recently commented that “American Protestantism has been taken for a propaganda ride by a group of ‘progressive’ leaders whose titles suggested that they represented more Protestants than they did.” In the aftermath of the Cleveland commitments, American Protestants will critically review the presuppositions of the peace drive projected in the churches by NCC’s Department of International Affairs.

We must clear the air of propaganda sallies by left-wingers who boldly identify social progress (“Christian social action”) with their private aims, and disparage all opposition as uninformed, reactionary, fundamentalist, separatist. The facts are that World Order positions on foreign policy do not reflect the majority conviction of NCC’s own constituency; that critics of these positions are stationed in diverse theological traditions; that on these issues these critics are more informed and less reactionary than most of the Cleveland delegates.

The Christian Century bluntly dismisses criticism of World Order commitments this way:

Catholics are joining Protestant fundamentalists and ‘Formosa Firsters’ in condemning the Cleveland action. The differences which prevent a united front go to the roots of our beliefs about the nature of society and the nature of the church. Liberal Protestantism is firmly committed to the principle of reconciliation: in its own household, among the races, among the peoples of earth. It will continue in the prophetic tradition to offer its considered judgments on foreign policy matters (Feb. 18, 1959, issue, p. 189).

The first sentence is so transparent that further comment would waste precious space. The third sentence does not, we hope, carry any implication that evangelical Protestantism is disinterested in reconciliation—central as this doctrine is in biblical theology—although evangelicals are often wary, and with good reason, of liberal dilution of redemptive facets of this sacred term and of liberal injection of social and politico-economic overtones not infrequently borrowed from quite debatable social philosophies. The fourth sentence—if it implies that the Cleveland plea for recognition and admission of Red China authentically reflects “the prophetic tradition”—leaves us wondering just which biblical prophets justify the corporate Church’s promotion of this particular foreign policy as a divinely-imposed duty. The heart of the matter lies in the second sentence, reminding us that liberal Protestantism indeed has its own special view of “the nature of society and the nature of the church.”

In coping with problems of world order and peace, modern formulas of “reconciliation” show the outlines of speculative theories of man and society, and betray their neglect of the biblical view of the Church and its sacred task in the world. Recent issues of CHRISTIANITY TODAY have pinpointed the peril to the Church of neglecting its basic commission to call out a new race of twice-born men, of relying on world systems (softened by religious idealism) for reconciliation and redemption, of pragmatic pursuit of social change. Corporate Protestantism stumbles into these unhappy lines of thought and action through its indifference to the great principles and precepts of revealed religion. In this issue CHRISTIANITY TODAY makes available a series of significant articles relevant to current discussions of Christianity and war and peace. They are written by men who have earned a right to speak on their respective themes. Churches will do well not to ignore their plea for a profounder and more biblical approach to the problem of reconciliation.

The Christian religion, above all others, is on the side of peace. Its faith is fixed upon “the Prince of Peace” who in turn has pronounced a special benediction upon the peacemakers.

Repugnant to Christianity, however, and contradictory of it, is the “peace at any price” philosophy that infects a self-indulgent people too often, bent on immediate ends.

The blood of the Cross is a reminder that peace, in Christian dimensions, carries its distinctive price. War is no Christian weapon for world conversion, nor is foreign aid. The world’s predicament is moral and spiritual; this calls for moral and spiritual redemption.

The Christian revelation strikes deeper than modern notions of social order based on sentimental theories of brotherliness and love. It elevates the timeless demand for love of God and of his holy commandments. Almost all foibles of ecclesiastical “social actionists” today spring from their neglect of justice as the cardinal problem of society, and their substitution of some other center of primary social concern. Some crusaders elevate “elimination of poverty” into social objective Number One; others exalt “elimination of war.” This disregard of the fundamental importance of righteousness works great havoc in the sphere of social ethics. The restriction of war, the promotion of peace, is then unwittingly pursued to the advantage of unjust nations and to the disadvantage of decent nations. Unless justice is honored as the primary social concern, peace and plenty become canopies beneath which perverse powers promote their evil ends.

Dr. Russell Kirk, editor of Modern Age, recently stated that the United States is rapidly losing any class capable of just leadership qualified to make the great choices in national life. The reason is our misunderstanding of justice—due in large measure, Dr. Kirk thinks, to the impact of Dewey’s philosophy upon American intellectuals. Whether Dewey is the fountainhead or not, there can be little doubt of our modern loss of the vision of justice as the primary social problem of our era. That this vision should be lost by the churches, or at least by those who profess to speak for the churches to the nation and to the world, marks this as America’s saddest hour, and gives reason for great anxiety as Protestant ecumenical leaders move the corporate Church more and more into direct political commitment and action.

END

Simple Paths Through A Complex Age

Confronting the technical terrors and challenges of the nuclear age, churchmen are sometimes tempted to contrive new systems and even novel doctrines to command the attention of the populace. And some of them have yielded. But there are also churchmen like the rector of Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh, the Rev. Samuel M. Shoemaker, in 1957 and 1958 speaker for the national “Episcopal Hour” and in 1955 named by Newsweek one of the ten greatest preachers in the United States.

Speaking recently in Washington, Dr. Shoemaker noted that man does indeed face the question of extinction or survival. In answer, he affirmed the primacy of the organic over the organizational and declared man’s real need to be a great awakening through the Holy Spirit. Calling for a new reformation, he named three rediscoveries the church needs to make: the Holy Spirit as the “life and soul of the Church,” the fellowship of the Spirit through oneness in Christ, the obligation of Spirit-impelled witnessing to Christ. “There is a simple law,” said the preacher: Aim first at spiritual conversion, gather into fellowship, and thrust forth witnesses. “I think the Holy Spirit will go on using these simple ways.”

And so do we. These ways led to the first century accusation that the apostles were turning the world “upside down.” The correct term was “right side up.” These simple ways alone are profound enough to right us and to save us.

END

Those In Peril On The Sea

The inexorable movement of time continues to pull a reluctant world closer to the potential May 27 showdown decreed by the Kremlin. No amount of feet-dragging will avert its arrival, though Communist backtracking may. Some leaders wonder out loud whether this is to be the ultimate showdown. Although the Communist strategy of proceeding from crisis to crisis is well known, one may now muse whether June will hear the song of birds mockingly echoed back by the ruins of Western civilization, or whether there will be any birds.

Through a current film, the tragedy of the Titanic has gripped the public imagination once again. The 1912 disaster displays a microcosm of society, the rich and the poor, how they lived their last hours and how they died. The vulnerability of man’s “unsinkable”.… But the Titanic taught its lessons, and transport on the high seas subsequently became safer.

The question is now asked whether any will survive the world’s next lesson—one not of water but of fire. Or has mankind been too delinquent in its study of such lessons as Nagasaki, Buchenwald, Munich, Sarajevo, and Pompeii, Carthage, Marathon, Philistia, but most of all—Calvary.

In light of the possible approach of humanity’s “moment of truth,” what better time for a Presidential call for nationwide prayer?—perhaps on May Day, when the Kremlin will parade its missiles and might. Not that there should be a parade of piety, but rather a proclamation of this nation’s sources of strength. In the balances are the cannons of destruction and death, and the canons of faith and of life.

The early Celtic May Day symbolized the defeat of winter and the return of life. It was thus associated with human sacrifice, and only two hundred years ago the customs of leaping over fire and of driving cattle between two fires yet persisted.

If the symbolism appear depressing, and if a fiery cataclysm is near, the Christian may lift up his head in the assurance that his redemption draws nigh. But he dare not be flippant in the face of human events of truly titanic dimensions. The human sacrifice of body and breath may well be prevented by the hard human sacrifice of prayer and repentance. It would avail this country little to provide as its only counterpart to the Kremlin’s May Day militarism a day of preoccupied materialism. Official prayer day or no, let the populace pray!

END

A Plea For Morality In American Fiscal Policy

Taxation and morality would seem to have a growingly tenuous relationship in American government.

In recent weeks we have seen pari mutuel betting, liquor addiction, bingo gambling and public lotteries proposed as sources of new tax revenue by states and municipalities.

Such proposals dignify these evils and tacitly approve them. Furthermore, they take unfair advantage of human weakness to fill the public treasury and balance the budget.

Take gambling as an example. To the rising generation a law authorizing a tax on games of chance says, in effect, that government approves the achievement of success without merit and the acquirement of wealth without labor. Gambling is thus recognized as legally respectable and justifiable. It is classified with vindicable luxuries and accustomed pleasures.

The state thus contributes to the moral delinquency of its citizens and puts the halo of good citizenship on the brow of its taxpaying sinners.

The church with a social conscience should speak out against this travesty on justice and morality and plead for a new respect for basic moral principles in the fiscal policies of government.

END

The potentials of destruction in nuclear warfare are such that there is a crescendo of demand for some type of organization or machinery that will insure peace in our time.

But these appeals for peace on the part of political and ecclesiastical leaders involve considerations which few people are prepared to face.

Peace is not something that man can will for himself. It is a God-conferred blessing based upon obedience to God-ordained moral laws. Man cannot defy these laws and claim the blessings of peace.

Furthermore, while self-preservation may be the first law of nature, it is not so for the Christian. His chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, regardless of the consequences on earth. Once a man makes peace the prime goal of human existence, other things of infinitely greater worth are sacrificed in the process.

Someone has said: “When for truth man should die, it is his perdition to be safe.” The demand for peace at any price, so much the part of certain current philosophies, is a far cry from the righteousness that should be man’s highest goal.

Part of man’s confusion today is due to his failure to understand what peace really means. The average person of the world desires peace only so he may continue, unharmed and uninterrupted, in serving the devil.

Our Lord made it plain that the peace of which he spoke had little in common with that concept of peace held by the world. He affirmed that he had come not to bring peace but a sword and that the peace he gives is foreign to, cannot be understood by, nor conferred at the behest of the world. And an understanding of this is possible only to those who are taught by the Holy Spirit.

Peace is an inclusive term. There is peace with God which is the foundation of all true peace, and is acquired solely by faith through the merits of the redeeming work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

The immediate corollary of this peace with God is the peace of God which dwells in the hearts of believers. This is a peace of conscience which stems from our knowing that all is right between us and our Creator because of the finished work of Christ. It is an inner sense of peace emanating from the fact that all is well, not because of anything we have done but through that which our Lord has done for us.

Finally there comes to our hearts a peace with our fellow men. This is twofold. We share an abiding love and consideration for those who love Christ with us. And then we have a peace of compassion for those who do not believe—peace which is a love for their temporal and eternal good.

This is what the Bible means when it speaks of peacemakers. Paradoxical as it may seem, however, this peace may involve strife on our part against evil. In fact it is this paradox that can cause us to misconceive the character of true peace.

In the Sermon on the Mount, our Lord said: “Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

However, when struck by one of the officers of Pilate’s court, Jesus did not turn the other cheek but rather said: “If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?”

Had our Lord changed his attitude? Assuredly not. How then do we explain his injunction—“turn the other cheek,” and his refusal to do so in protest against unlawful and unjust action?

Is not the answer to be found in the implications of two unrelated matters? The Christian ought to suffer in silence when the matter is one of personal affront. But where the question is one of basic righteousness, he should protest.

Christianity must bring conflict into the world, for it is antagonistic to the world order. Because the principles of right, freedom, and justice flow from it, there are times when forces, encroaching on these principles, must be resisted. Our Lord’s action in cleansing the Temple is an example.

We see a robber attack a woman on the street. We hasten to her aid and do not hesitate in using force to drive off or capture the criminal. Police are employed for the very purpose of enforcing our protection.

If our homes are invaded, our loved ones attacked, we use every force at our command to protect and deliver them.

On the international scene, there have been times when we have engaged in wars with the only consideration of delivering weaker nations from the oppression of stronger powers. No one would affirm that all wars are justified; but to deny there is ever any justification for war is to deny the reality of righteousness itself, and to play directly into the hands of the most evil force in the world.

It is significant that our Lord said we can have peace in the midst of tribulation, and that the Apostle Paul tells of a time when men will boast of a peace and safety of their own devising only to have sudden destruction fall upon them.

James tells us that wars come from the lust to have, which lurks in every human heart. Men fight and war to obtain power and things, but such wars can only generate more strife.

Much of the agitation for world peace today stems from a deep but misplaced concern. We see loss of life, property, and moral and spiritual values on every hand and conclude that there surely must be a better way. And there is, but it is a way that the world has rejected—the way of Jesus Christ and his Cross of redemption. The unbelieving world continues to fight and strive for the things which satisfy not, that they may consume them on their own lusts.

Paul gives a perfect description of the peace which belongs to the Christian: “And God’s peace (be yours, that tranquil state of soul assured of its salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing from God and content with its earthly lot of whatsoever sort that is, that peace) which transcends all understanding, shall garrison and mount guard over your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:7, Amp. N.T.).

ZOO, PLEASE!

James Younger, our new Minister of Christian Education, organized our Sunday School pilgrimage to the Metropolitan zoo. Former zoo outings were hectic and exhausting, punctuated with an occasional lost child or lost lunch (before or after the picnic in the grove). But this year Mr. Younger made the whole project a Planned Learning Experience And Social Event (Project Zoo PLEASE).

After three staff conferences, a teacher workshop was set up to discuss correlation with the Sunday School curriculum. Miss Fixture refused to modify the lesson suggestions in her quarterly, but the others decided to prepare their children for shared experience in the zoo. Mr. Burns projected a series of Junior lessons on animals of the Bible: Eve and the serpent, Balaam and the ass, Samson and the lion, Elisha and the bears. No one else followed this lead, and it was found that a flexible lesson plan was important once the zoo trip was mentioned in class.

The Saturday morning departure time was delayed when an exuberant Junior let air out of the bus tires, but our two busses and small fleet of cars left well filled. Another slight delay resulted when one of the boys threw Patsy Miller’s shoe out of a bus window. Fortunately, Mr. Younger was on the bus, and when the loss was discovered, it became a learning experience. The group decided that this was thoughtless behavior, and the bus returned to the Parkway where the loss occurred. Traffic patterns made it difficult to reconnoiter the spot, and when the bus reached the zoo an hour later, it was found that Miss Fixture had already retrieved the missing shoe, which had cracked her windshield.

For more spontaneous learning, the children were not lined up as before in touring the zoo, but were free to investigate in pairs of “buddies.” This method developed many informal learning situations in encounters with zoo fauna and personnel. The zoo superintendent expressed to Mr. Younger appreciation of our visit and offered to provide a fully guided tour if our group should wish to come again after a year or two. He graciously furnished zoo guards to assist in reassembling the students when we were ready to go. The children had responded so actively to the project that it was after closing time before the last two were found in the moat around the elephant yard. The zoo chief himself saw us off with a pleasantry about turning his animals loose in our Sunday School.

A SOCIETY AT BAY

Harold Kuhn (Mar. 2 issue) … criticizes correctly the naive idealism of advocates for U. S. unilateral disarmament and/or surrender to communism. But is it not more naive idealism to hope that U.S. bravado will win us survival? “Christian” courage—to go to a nuclear hell! Is it not even more naive still to think that our TV-and-beer society can rise to Kuhn’s ideal? Suppose these pagan Americans would rather survive and exist a dozen more years, even under communism, than go to a nuclear and spiritual hell, even for Kuhn’s lofty ideal, today? Choice irony! For Christian surrender to communism we are offered the alternative of Christian surrender to Americanism. When will Kuhn offer us the chance to surrender to Christ?

Garrett Biblical Institute

Evanston, III.

One of the best articles on the subject ever written and published. Let’s have more straight thinking like that!… Worth the price of a subscription.…

The Florence Congregational Church

Northampton, Mass.

ON BROTHERHOOD

In the editorial “Brotherhood for a Week” (Feb. 2 issue) … you say “Biblical religion declares that all men by creation are children of the one Creator” (Acts 17:28 f.). That is the only text I can possibly see as support for the original sonship of man, but in actuality Adam was a creature and not a son. Paul is using the pagan metaphor merely to meet the Greeks on their own ground. But it seems that here is where the proponents of “brotherhood” make their false assumption—that all men are children of God. They are all creatures of God (Acts 17:26), but God had only one Son and through Him the new race of Spirit-born sons are adopted. And Jesus never spoke of universal brotherhood, but rather “neighborhood.”

Ridgecrest Methodist

Muskogee, Okla.

On the point of NCWC’s warning Catholics not to attend Billy Graham’s New York Crusade.… NCWC, as an entity, did not officially or unofficially issue any such warning. Nor did any of the various NCWC departments or bureaus.… That the identification for my wholly personal article listed me as belonging to the NCWC, does not warrant the CHRISTIANITY TODAY conclusion.…

Director

National Catholic Welfare Conference

Washington, D. C.

• CHRISTIANITY TODAY regrets the confusion. Since Father Kelly’s warning to Catholics not to attend the New York crusade carried his NCWC identification, the inference seemed natural that he was speaking ex cathedra.—ED.

I’ve spent more time with … Roman Catholics … than with my own family.… If I mention … the Bible, my church, or a good sermon, they start to squirm.… There is only fellowship when we talk about different drinks, good food, or bingo!

Covington, Ky.

FLUCTUATING AUTHORITY

Gordon H. Clark’s excellent review (Jan. 5 issue) … exposes the fallacy of Dr. Ferré’s position. In the summer of 1957 it was my privilege to become personally acquainted with Dr. Ferré and to hear him lecture to young college teachers for a week. I have also read several of his books. He is not only a brilliant thinker but also a humble, sincere, and lovable man. He left the impression, at times, of longing for greater fellowship with adherents of historic Christianity. This goal he seems unable to attain, primarily because he possesses no final authority in matters of faith beyond the fluctuating findings of his own reason. As a result, his writings are often confused and contradictory. Only as men submit to the full authority of the Word of God, as expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:18–25, may they become qualified interpreters of the divine mind.

Minneapolis, Minn.

CHRISTIAN YEAR OPTIONAL

What gives Mr. Shepherd (“Eutychus,” Feb. 16 issue) the idea that in the Lutheran Church it becomes mandatory to follow the Christian Church Year?… What St. Paul condemns is not the observing of times and seasons, as such, but making them a law for Christians.

Hope Lutheran Church

Muskogee, Okla.

The main thing that bothers me about any High-Low church discussion is that each side ordinarily is so rude to the other as to betray a lack of love. As for myself, as a Lutheran, I have learned to love the discipline of the Church Year. I don’t follow it slavishly, nor am I required to.

Mizpah Lutheran

St. Louis, Mo.

OPTICAL DELUSION

If “Billy” Graham … would try an ophthalmologist instead of an opthom*ologist (Feb. 2 issue, p. 28—two of them mentioned), he would probably improve rapidly. God bless him anyway!

St. George’s Church

New York, N. Y.

• Many of our readers have manifested Mr. Davidson’s keen vision. Ours was blurred.—ED.

Not to recognize Red China is like refusing to recognize a change of administration in our own country.

First Christian

Lemoyne, Pa.

CALVINISM AND BAPTISM

Professor John H. Gerstner’s article (Jan. 5 issue) awaked my special interest, since I am an ardent admirer of Calvin … and use his writings more than those of any other in my ministry. As a conservative Baptist, I consider myself also a Calvinist. However, Professor Gerstner seems to classify as neo-orthodox all who reject anything peculiar to Calvin’s original Calvinism. Under his treatment of neo-Calvinism, he asks, “What correspondence can there be between a theology (neo-Calvinism) which … denies infant baptism … (and) the theology of John Calvin?” I … resent the implication of neo-orthodoxy, as would another 20 million Baptists and numerous other anti-pedobaptist groups.…

Calvin devotes a long chapter in the Institutes (book IV, chap. 16) to the question entitled “Pedobaptism Perfectly Consistent with the Institution of Christ and the Nature of the Sign.” Both the wording of the title and the contents of the chapter indicate that pedobaptism is not an essential feature of Calvinistic theology.… It may be that Professor Gerstner was thinking of Presbyterians who have abandoned covenant theology and no longer find good reason or adequate justification for the practice.… But not all Calvinists are Presbyterians.

Mexico, D.F., Mexico

INSULT TAKEN

The CBS network program “The Business of Sex” by Edward R. Murrow should not be taken seriously against business but as an insult to private enterprise.…

Oakland, Calif.

READER FOR READER

V. R. Edman, president of Wheaton (Ill.) College, hit the nail on the head when he said in his letter (Feb. 16 issue) that education is not the province of the federal government. Amen, amen. The need for more clear thinkers like President Edman is great.

Birmingham Post-Herald

Religion Ed.

Birmingham, Ala.

STIMULUS FOR FELLOWSHIP

Thank you for the article, “Barth: A Contemporary Appraisal” (Feb. 2 issue).… I think more good, objective theological debate … could be a stimulating and healthy thing for our ministerial fellowships, as well as in publications such as yours.

Lidgerwood Church

Evangelical United Brethren

Spokane, Wash.

ON IDENTIFYING REBELS

One of the letters … printed in your issue of February 2, would include me among some rebels who should lay down their arms. [These comprise, according to Methodist Superintendent Stanley H. Mullen, Christians who hold the Bible, rather than the church, to be their final authority.] If this is true, I shall do so, but I am far from convinced of the truth of the charge.

Upon taking my first step into the Methodist ministry, it was required that I state publicly my reaction to the following ‘official’ position of the church:

“The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” This sounded to me as though it made the Bible the final authority of the Christian. I still believe it.

When a young man taking his first vows of ordination kneels before the altar, the bishop holds an open Bible before him. The candidate places his hand on the Bible. The bishop places his hand upon the candidate’s head and says: “Take thou authority to read the Holy Scriptures in the Church of God and to preach the Word.” No other authority is recognized.

When a bishop is consecrated, the first question given him is this: “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all Truth required for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?”

Who are the rebels who should lay down their arms?

Superintendent

Wabash District

The Methodist Church

North Indiana Conf.,

Huntington, Ind.

REPENTANCE

I am … surprised that … John F. Walvoord, in his statement of “What Is the Gospel?” (Jan. 19 issue), left out any mention of repentance. In this he sets aside all the messages of the Old Testament prophets, including John the Baptist, the life ministry of our Lord (Matt. 4:17), and the preaching of the Apostles (e.g. Acts 2:38), including … Paul (Acts 20:21; 26:20).… This is no small matter.

Seattle, Wash.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

Your reader Ernest V. Liddle (Jan. 5 issue) gives a misleading impression about the Church of England. By reason of the fact that it is the State Church it has unique opportunities for Christian witness. If it is desired that any form of religious observance shall form part of an official function, be it anything from the coronation of the sovereign down to the appointment of a chaplain, it is the Church of England to which officialdom turns. Rarely do the free churches get any such opportunity. This is regrettable, but true. And these chances of witness are just as available to evangelicals as to those of other traditions.

As a Briton, Mr. Liddle should know that the Church of England is currently experiencing an evangelical revival. At a recent ordination service in St. Paul’s Cathedral two thirds of the ordinands were evangelicals. He should also know that in the Billy Graham crusades in this country in 1954 and 1955 evangelical Anglican clergy and laymen led by the Bishop of Barking formed a high percentage of the sponsoring body.

Redhill, Surrey, Eng.

THE SYNOPTICS

Concerning the article, “More light on the Synoptics” (Mar. 2 issue), why not take the words of Christ found in John 14:26: “But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”? That is, each Synoptic wrote independently under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The dependence idea, that of one writer on another, borders on the “Documentary Theory” which is only a figment of man’s imagination.

United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.

Sparta, Ill.

Those comments by Dr. Ned B. Stone-house (Feb. 16 issue) … seem to present a massive indictment, but in fact they can be easily answered.…

Indictment No. 1: “I do not believe that he has solid understanding of Form Criticism. He, for example, seems to judge that Form Criticism is rather exclusively concerned with Mark.” … There are two opinions on the subject. The first is before us. The second is that of the entire department at Yale which passed me with honors in seven final oral examinations. One of them was entirely devoted to the subject in question and was designed to bring to light whether or not I was qualified to teach the subject at graduate level. Either opinion may be right, but there are two opinions.

As to the particular fault specified, I did not attempt in my articles to discuss Form Criticism as such other than to mention its method and to raise a question as to its validity.… What I really discuss is its relation to source criticism. Indeed, I thought when I wrote, and I still think, that I was saying in my own words only what Bultmann says (History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 1). Speaking of the work of Wrede and the conclusion he reached, Bultmann says: “The gospel of Mark is the work of an author who stands inside the pale of the Christian community’s theology. He arranges and edits the tradition transmitted to him in accordance with the viewpoints of the Christian Community’s faith. That was the result. And the task for historical investigation which arose out of that result was to separate and to recognize the layers in Mark which contain the old historical tradition that the author is editing.” And again Bultmann says (same work, p. 3): “The result of comparative study of the Synoptics, the Two-Source-Theory, is pre-supposed in this work.” … the trouble would disappear if Dr. Stonehouse’s sentence were changed to read: “He, for example, seems to judge that Form Criticism is rather exclusively built upon the Mark-hypothesis.” This statement is accurate. My contention, and this conclusion is unavoidable, was that if Source Criticism had concluded that Matthew was the earliest gospel, then Wrede would have exercised his “annihilating criticism” on Matthew.… I think that Bultmann’s understanding of this matter, not mine, has been impugned …

Indictment No. 2: “He also seems to identify the Markan Hypothesis simply with the idea of the priority of Mark.” There are two distinct ideas here. One is primary, the other secondary. The first is the idea that Mark is a more original documentary source, which was used as the foundation of Matthew and Luke. This I called, carefully and consistently, the Mark Theory, or Mark-hypothesis. The second is a distinct question which arises after it has been concluded that Mark came first and was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke: namely, what is a legitimate way to use what we find in the Mark-document in writing a Life of Jesus? There is a theory that we may rely on Mark in writing a “Life” of Jesus. I call this the Marcan Hypothesis. I do so because others call it that. I always apologize for so doing and point out the confusion that easily arises and must be averted. These are two entirely separate matters. I was, as Dr. Stonehouse says, and I meant to be concerned in my articles only and exclusively with the first.…

Indictment No. 3: “He is far from taking account adequately of the arguments which have been presented on behalf of the priority of Mark, seeming to say that it is largely a matter of words used, whereas the argument is based upon many other considerations including especially subject matter and order of materials.” The first part of this statement is correct so far as the articles are concerned, but is not new. The articles themselves say so and give the reasons why I left the matters undiscussed. I quote: “As much as I might like to discuss some of the reasons given by the books, it is not possible to attempt to deal with them in the present short article. There are many different arguments.… It is, however, with great reluctance that I forego such a discussion.… If Dr. Stonehouse will tell me an argument he thinks valid, I will try to show why in my opinion he should not so regard it. What is “the” argument—specifically—of which he writes?… What I “seemed to say” I do not know. I did say I could find no internal evidence of any kind favoring Mark’s priority.

Indictment No. 4: “His contention that the theory is strongly astray in terms of percentages is incorrect since the assertion is not that 90 per cent of the words of Mark are found in Matthew but rather that 90 per cent of the subject matter of Mark is found in Matthew.” The only fair way in my judgment, Mr. Editor, is to interpret my comments in the light of a full statement I have worked out and mentioned in my articles. But let me say one or two things which are important. My contention regarding the percentages is that the 90 per cent statements are misleading. First, they almost always assume that the transfer of material went on in one direction, and, as I think, they pick the wrong direction. Secondly, they obscure the fact that between 40 and 50 per cent of Mark’s contents are not found in Matthew. An accurate and scholarly statement, should, in my judgment, run as follows:

If we eliminate the last verses of Mark, and then compare Mark with Matthew in the roughest way possible, taking sections as wholes and making a verse-count of all the verses in the sections that have something in common, we find that 90 per cent of Mark has, in the loose sense stated, corresponding elements of some kind or degree in Matthew. But if we establish an exact parallel layout and count words, we find that 4,573 words are the same in Matthew and Mark (40.6 per cent of Mark’s total words), 868 more words are nearly the same in Matthew and Mark (7.71 per cent of Mark’s total words), 904 more words in Mark (8.03 per cent of the total) are different but synonymous with some 884 corresponding words in Matthew. So that it is correct to say that the substance of 4,918 words in Mark (43.66 per cent of the whole) is not paralleled in Matthew in any strict sense; but 6,345 words in Mark (or 56.34 per cent of the whole) do have distinct correspondents of some sort in Matthew.

This statement covers both figures, is accurate, and is not misleading. I think, Mr. Editor, with all due respect for everybody’s special involvements and preferences, there is virtue in a clear statement of facts which does not prejudge the question of literary dependence, and which does not obscure the quantity (I will not now mention the extraordinary quality) of material that is peculiar to Mark. The real complaint seems to be that I am unfair to organized theoreticians.

Indictment No. 5: “My impression also is that the appeal to manuscripts of Judges overlooks the fact that we have to do with essentially different situations when, in one case, scribes copy a manuscript or even translate a manuscript and so might use many of the same words and, in the other case, authors are understood as making substantial use of another work.” My use of the texts of Judges rests on the assumption that two men, independently of each other, have translated from Hebrew into Greek. Their independently created translations (in which presumably they were not able to know or borrow each other’s words) are compared and found to contain numerous exact agreements in Greek. You will note that this is distinctly not the situation contemplated in part of Dr. Stonehouse’s first alternative (“when in one case scribes copy a manuscript”). Two things are confused in that statement of the first alternative case. I bring the data from Judges, where copying in Greek is not insisted on as a necessary explanation into a well-defined situation in New Testament studies where a theory of copying in Greek is insisted on as a necessary, and the only possible explanation of the same kind of facts, namely, exact agreements in Greek. The theory has long been current in Gospel study. European writers, who are grounded in a tradition of such studies all know of it. The theory involves and implies copying in Greek. This is clear (and even indisputable) from the fact that in proving it scholars give lists of Greek words that they say could not have been used by two writers independently. My argument was aimed at that theory, an aspect and part of modern criticism of the gospels that has always been understood by the well-grounded scholars of Europe. And I claimed that N.T. scholarship had wrongly asserted the necessity of holding the Benutzungshypothese, that is, a theory of one special kind of literary dependence, namely copying in Greek. The point, therefore, Mr. Editor, is that quantities of exact agreements can arise, and apparently have arisen, in at least two different ways, namely, by independent translation and by copying. Therefore, I have claimed, it is wrong to insist that they can only arise from copying a Greek text. This is my whole point. May I speak my mind freely? I fail to see how any difference in the two (really three) situations which Dr. Stonehouse contrasts has any direct connection … to my point as I argued it in the articles.

Indictment No. 6: “The use of the term ‘plagiarism’ seems to me to be out of place in this situation.” As to this, I think that three or four, perhaps five or six, generations of scholars may be chided, but not me. They invented and used the term Benutzungshypothese. A German engineer, an immigrant to America, suggested that “Plagiarism Hypothesis” was the proper translation of Benutzungshypothese. The only question here, I think, is for the German professors (or better still, for native Germans like my engineer) to decide. If they give an adverse decision, I will be content to stop using the term. There are many who will administer you a severe whipping if you presume to call literary borrowing for the purposes of pseudonymous authorship “plagiarism” in connection with New Testament writings. I personally consider it the precise right word. But … I do not use it in describing what I think happened, as I hope to make abundantly clear when I come to publish my own views. At the same time, I think that it conveys very precisely the exact idea of those who invented and used the term in gospel criticism. Yes, right from the very first, and most clearly and irrefragably of all in the work of Griesbach.…

Community Church on Hudson Avenue

Englewood, N. J.

A LUTHERAN VIEW

West Point … cadets should be given the choice of attending either … [chapel] … services or those of their own denomination.

St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church

New York, N. Y.

Recently opened in Ashkhabad, the capital of Turkmenistan, near the U.S.S.R.-Iranian border, is a University of Atheism now offering a six-month course to further the spread of scientific-atheistic knowledge. Graduates are expected to continue “the struggle against religion.”

The teaching content of this university is undoubtedly structured by Marx-Lenin atheistic materialism. The article on “Atheism” in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (second edition, 1950, Vol. III, pp. 347–354) surveys this theory. We summarize it here and evaluate the ideas in its introductory paragraphs.

1. Definition: “Atheism—godlessness, that world-view which denies religion, faith in supernatural powers, in God or gods, in a world beyond, explaining all processes occurring in nature and society by natural regularity [conformity with law—tr.], and leading the struggle against religious outlooks.”

This definition, it will be noted, reveals the basic philosophical assumptions of communism.

The world of reality is equated with nature; beyond matter there is no reality. Therefore, man is a time-bound creature and has no eternal purpose; his soul is meshed to the material world.

All phenomena are to be explained exclusively from data gathered and classified from nature. To explain the processes of matter, no appeal to supernatural forces may be made. (An elemental trustworthiness of sense perception is assumed.)

Explanations of nature are founded on laws inherent in matter and discoverable by man. Phenomena are measured by natural laws. Thus the existence and validity of natural law are avowed. This in turn assumes either that natural laws are immutable, or that, if changing and merely descriptive, no ultimate unchanging principle of explanation exists. If, however, natural laws are immutable, from whence comes their immutability? What guarantees their changelessness? If natural laws are mutable, conditioned by the changing flux of sense data (so that nothing is really changeless), by what right does atheism claim to be the absolute and final explanation of reality? So-called scientific atheism, whether affirming the mutability or immutability of natural law, must assume eternal fixed principles before it can speak confidently about itself. Communism has unconsciously borrowed certain “corrupted” notions of an absolute, despite its denial of dependency on absolutes. Most notable is the very foundational dogma of Marxism: dialectic materialism. In brief, atheism must assume eternal principles in order to disprove them.

Atheism cannot be defined merely abstractly; it always includes active hatred for religion. Thus atheism, to be atheism, must lead “the struggle against religious outlooks.” This discloses the “uneasy conscience” of the atheists. They lack calm confidence that their convictions will ultimately triumph through the sheer power of truth. Rather, atheism is always constrained to propagate its views by the sword. The initial arguments of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans remind us, relevantly, that men in revolt are forced to wage constant warfare against the convicting knowledge of God that burns in their consciences.

2. Atheism and society: “The manifestation and development of atheism is bound with the development of class struggle and with the development of (our) knowledge concerning the laws of nature and society.”

Here again, we note, the atheists make certain assumptions. Atheism is not primarily a theoretical or logical deduction; rather, it is assertedly the product of social needs. This view fits the anti-intellectual atmosphere of Marx’s times. The revolt against Hegelian rationalism led the founding fathers of communism not only into materialism, but into doubt concerning the very reliability and competence of reason to exhibit an all-inclusive world view. Communistic atheism is therefore not based on calculated philosophical speculation (which enters later only to support its conclusions); rather, it is existential: it breathes the air of social reform, hunger, and poverty.

“The laws of nature and society” are incompatible with religion, we are told. As comprehension of the processes of nature and society increases, man assertedly becomes aware that religion contradicts his findings. At very best, religion is seen to be useless as an explanation of life. But these claims call for comment.

We note, first, that any philosophy hammered out in the flames of social upheaval is likely to bear the scars of passionate but careless reasoning. In the writings and actions of the Communists contradictions abound. This is no concern to them, since their revolt against Hegelian confidence in reason brought with it a lack of concern for philosophical consistency. “Social consistency” is considered far more important: what advances the Communist social ideal is the “true.” However, can that which is inconsistent philosophically prove itself consistent socially?

Moreover, communism’s lack of primary concern to prove its atheism philosophically leads us to suspect that this is for them impossible. We have yet to be convinced that atheism is the basis of communism, as they claim, and not one of its many rationalizations.

Furthermore, if the laws of nature are relative and hypothetical, how can communism prove the absolute irrelevance of religion? How can it be shown that studies in natural law necessarily lead to atheism? Should not the atheist at least suspend judgment? Yet communism’s existential social commitment will not allow it to suspend judgment.

3. Atheism—the only road toward social reconstruction. In developing this theme, the Encyclopedia views religion as a “brake” on society, holding back the powers of production, science, and culture by those “foremost social classes, striving to cast off the old, outlived … orders.” “As far as religion justified the existing social order, so for each new class coming into power the battle was an inevitable one against religion as the ideological sanction of the old order. This struggle has been usually carried out under the slogan of a cleansing and a reformation of the old order, but in a more revolutionary manifestation it grew into present-day militant atheism, into the complete disavowal of religion. Although the history of nations gives not a few clear examples of the struggle against the religious narcotic, consistent scientific atheism became possible only with the development of the proletariat, with the emergence of the Marxist-Leninist scientific theory: dialectical materialism.”

Here again the atheists make sweeping assumptions. Religion assertedly justifies most of the ills of society. We must admit that, according to history, many social enormities were sanctioned or condoned in the name of religion.

However, let us note that to commit a crime in the name of a religion does not necessarily make the religion itself guilty of the crime. Many of the crimes performed in the name of religion are actually condemned by religion; this is especially true of Christianity. Those who have sought to glorify the Cross by means of bribery, the sword, economic injustices, the suppression of learning, and the like, all stand condemned by Christ. It is wrong to judge Christ by the disfiguring portraits that have been sketched of him; man must evaluate him as he is and what he can do in society if men will but submit to him. A religion must be evaluated in terms of its first principles, not according to perversions of its teachings in history.

To hold Christianity responsible for social sins of established churches is unjustified. Nowhere in Communist writings do we discover the pure and passionate sense of social justice that is found in the New Testament. Christ never sanctioned what communism calls the “religious narcotic in society.” Who can read the Prophets, the Sermon on the Mount, or the Epistle of James and say this?

Nor are Christ’s methods impotent for our times. He does not seek simply “to reform the old order.” In fact, he is far more revolutionary than communism. Communism seeks to reform man from without, by changing his environment, his economic setting. Christ’s revolution begins within, changing society by transforming the individual.

Christ proposes no mere “cleansing and reformation of the old order”; rather, he requires a rebirth of every man, a sweeping away of those prejudices and egocentric passions from which spring all social injustices, inaugurates a relationship with God that produces love and a new sense of justice and human value.

Should men accuse Christ’s methods of social reconstruction as being too slow, we would remind them that if they are (slow insofar as men fail to apply them), they are as thorough as any that can be utilized in this corrupt world. Christ reconstructs the soul first. Then society’s rebirth is given an immovable foundation. Communism seeks to renovate society superficially, and the individual is left bewildered and unconvinced.

By denying God, communism has fallen prey to the fluctuations of the material world. As such it lacks a well-reasoned and consistent argument against religion. Moreover, because of a denial of God, its definition of man is superficial and unsatisfactory.

Communism’s basic goal is the reconstruction of society. Yet, because of its weaknesses it is unable to rise above the vexing problems it seeks to resolve.

Christians should soberly judge themselves in the light of biblical standards. We have much for which to repent. But the Christian faith does what communism, no matter how hard it may try, can never do: Christ gives life eternal significance and a God-orientated purpose, and Christ alone can revolutionize man in society with a real fitness for eternity.

END

David V. Benson is President of Russia for Christ, Inc., which broadcasts the Gospel weekly to Europe and Russia from Voice of Tangier. He holds the B.A. from University of California, and the B.D. from Fuller Theological Seminary. Translations from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia are by Mr. Benson, who took graduate work in Russian at Harvard.

Christianity is the answer to Communism.” Few slogans are more certain to gain an enthusiastic response from any typical gathering in America than this one. It can be used with the widest variety of groups—Catholic or Protestant, evangelical or liberal, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon or Christian Scientist—and the response is always favorable.

Even superficial investigation discloses that the Christianity which is the “alleged” answer to communism is differently conceived by the representatives of these various groups. Each interpret Christianity in the context of its own peculiar creed.

Some Distressing Facts

Using the term Christianity in its widest and loosest connotation, the claim that it is the answer to communism is extremely difficult to substantiate. The following facts are high hurdles to surmount.

1. In little more than a generation the Communists have brought under their control more people than the total world population that today has heard the story of Christ in minimal detail. Approximately one billion people are now under Communist control. It is true that the great majority of them are not Communists. Nevertheless, the entire younger generation of this one billion is being taught the doctrines of communism in schools which are Communist-organized, directed, and controlled. Many of them can articulate the doctrines of communism far more coherently than the majority of youth living in so-called Christian countries can articulate the doctrines of Christianity.

2. The Church has failed in the basic task committed to it by the Lord Jesus. He said, “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.” This we have utterly failed to do. Take India as an example. This nation has an approximate population of 400 million. Of these, 10 million are nominal Christians. This means that 390 million know nothing of the gospel of Christ. We have not obeyed the command of our Lord; many of us are not even conscious of our failure; more are totally unconcerned. Yet we still proclaim that we are faithful and obedient servants of our Lord.

3. In 1957, in the Indian elections, a Communist government was freely chosen in Kerala, the best educated and the most Christian of the Indian states. One third of the population professes to be Christian. It is widely reported that a majority of the Christians voted for a Communist candidate.

Meeting Ignorance And Indulgence

We are impelled to a restatement of two basic propositions we tend to overlook: An ignorant Christianity is the answer to little. “Study to show thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15) remains an imperative. A self-indulgent, lukewarm Christianity is an offense to God. “Because you are lukewarm, I will spue thee out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16).

Before Christianity can meet the Communist challenge, some things are urgently required. Instead of parroting slogans, which are frequently boastful, we need a deep sense of our failure to obey our Lord and to heed his command. This realization of failure should lead to repentance, and this repentance in turn to a deep search for the causes of our failure and a determination to remedy them.

The Great Barrier

Recently, in a meeting in the Los Angeles area, a man rose and asked: “What is the greatest barrier to Communist advance?… The greatest barrier everywhere, in all countries, under all conditions?”

“I think I know what you want me to say,” I replied. “I wish I could say ‘Christianity,’ but the record is against it. For example, the most Christian Indian State has just elected a Communist government by free election.”

“Your brand of Christianity is different from mine.” I realized he was a Roman Catholic.

“I presume you believe the Roman Catholic religion is the great barrier to communism. Again the facts contradict this. Italy, the home of Catholicism, has the largest percentage of Communists in its population of any country in the world: larger than Russia, larger than China.”

“The Communists are the enemies of God and Christ. They are atheists.”

“I know they are; you know they are; the Communists know they are. But Indian Christians don’t.”

“They must know!”

“Why must they? Who told them the truth about the real nature of communism? The democratic governments have not done so; the churches have not done so; the Communists certainly have not done so. All the Communists have told them is the false promise of abundance, happiness, and freedom. This freedom allegedly includes religious freedom. This promise is proclaimed in beautiful and most convincing literature. Consequently they are unconscious of any offense to their Christian conscience when they vote a Communist into power.”

The Need Of Understanding

It is easy to convince evangelicals that Catholicism is not the answer to communism. Many of us, however, are equally convinced that we have the answer, “the pure Gospel.” Preach the Gospel and you have the answer to communism. Recently in a meeting in an Episcopal church, I was warmly supported by a fine Baptist brother. During the question time he rose to ask a question: “When all is said and done, would you not say that a true, born again experience is the real answer to communism?”

I fear I could not have hurt him more had I lashed him across the face. “No, I wouldn’t. A born again experience is the answer to the question of the possession of eternal life. It is not the answer to the question of safety on the highway. You need to know the rules of the road and to obey them. Nor is it the answer to poliomyelitis.”

Ignorance is dangerous, and frequently sinful. The ignorance of leaders, even Christian leaders, of the true nature of communism is appalling. Superficial observation of local Communist behavior is no substitute for a knowledge of the philosophy, motives, morals, and organization of this evil enemy.

Consider this visitor to a tuberculosis sanitarium. He is conducted around beautifully landscaped gardens. Tuberculosis certainly creates an environment of beauty. He is escorted through the marble columns into the reception hall and met by a charming receptionist who takes him on a tour of the institution. He is impressed by the pride of the institution, the kitchen with its most modern cooking equipment and its superb sanitation. Next, the plumbing fixtures impress him. Finally, he is escorted into the wards. In preparation for his coming the patients have all been given a dose of anti-pertussive mixture so that coughing is minimal. The linen is snowy white. The nurses are neat, beautiful, and attentive. Many of the patients have a rather attractive flush—a type of ethereal beauty. Many of them have the optimistic outlook characteristic of the disease, the famous “spes pthysica.”

Duly impressed, he makes his report. “I am impressed by what I have seen. It seems to me there are many features to tuberculosis equal, if not superior, to health. It has created an environment of beauty; the patients have all achieved the goal for which most healthy people strive—economic security. They don’t have to rise from bed early in the morning and undergo the dangers and frustrations of modern peak hour traffic. They are liberated from the competitive aspects of modern life; no hotel provides the intimate personal service the tubercular patient receives from the nurses. I think we ought to allow tuberculosis to go its own way; coexist with it.”

An astonished listener asks, “What about the Tubercle Bacillus?” The reply is prompt. “I did not see one. I looked under the beds and behind the doors and saw no trace of a single one. I think rabble-rousers have invented them for their own selfish purposes.”

In any circ*mstances such a report would be ludicrous; from a medical man it would be insane.

In the spiritual realm, ministers and church leaders are analogous to physicians in the bodily realm. They should appreciate the evil nature of the germ of godlessness. They should see beneath the superficial symptoms to the underlying spiritual pathology.

The record of many leaders of the National and World Council of Churches in relation to communism is reprehensible indeed. Their judgments have been predominantly superficial and symptomatic. Many religious delegations to Russia and China give reports appropriate to second-rate sanitary inspectors. One well-known ecclesiastic visited Russia in 1938. This year climaxed the Stalinist murder orgy during which Stalin soaked the soil of Russia with the blood of the Communist elite. This visitor reported that Russia was fulfilling the kingdom of God on earth.

What Communism Involves

The Christian attitude to communism should be lucidly clear. Communism believes, teaches, and practices the doctrines that:

1. There is no God.

2. Man is a beast, created by evolution and molded by the economic environment.

3. The Communist Party has been historically ordained to conquer the world and environmentally to regenerate mankind.

These doctrines are in fundamental conflict with every fundamental and vital evangelical Christian truth.

God’s Word is lucidly clear concerning the consequences of godlessness. Psalm 14 says, “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.” The consequences are specific, “They are corrupt; They have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good; They have shamed the council of the poor.” Godlessness and contempt for human life are linked in Romans 3: “Their feet are swift to shed blood” (v. 15), “There is no fear of God before their eyes” (v. 18).

Christian leadership should have proclaimed the truth that all the evils of moral degeneracy and mass murder that have characterized Communist conduct are inherent in Communist doctrine. The trumpet should give a certain sound. To rationalize Communist conduct—to pardon and excuse and justify simply because Christians also have failed—is evidence of spiritual blindness and abdication from Christian leadership. To praise communism because of material achievements is treason to spiritual truth.

The unbridgeable gulf between communism and Christianity, both in theory and practice, is obvious to the average thinking Christian. It takes someone skilled in the mental gymnastics of theological semantics to see in communism merely a “Christian heresy.”

Practical Program

Communism is very largely a triumph of organization. It must be combatted with an organized program. With deep humility and an acute awareness of our failure to obey our Lord, with a clear picture of the godlessness, immorality, bestial*ty, and tactical mobility of our spiritual enemy, we must find a way to work actively against the Communist danger.

The great weapon at our disposal is the Truth. From their ideological base in the dialectic, the Communists can emerge in any guise. They wear the uniforms of their enemies and appear devoted to all manner of contradictory causes. They can assume the contour and color of any environment. They become all things to all men that they may enslave all. A Christian missionary working in a Moslem country could not embrace the Moslem faith, live a life of apparent matchless devotion to all Moslem causes for the sole purpose of opening a door for the Christian Gospel. To the Communist this is normal conduct, righteous and honorable. They assume the mantle of Christian, Moslem, or Jew, worker or business man, traitor or patriot, libertine or puritan, with equal facility.

Since the great majority of people in the unconquered areas of the world meet communism, not in the form of abstract doctrine, but in the form of passionate advocacy of their immediate self-interest, they are very likely to be deceived by it. Vaccination is necessary or they will succumb as the unvaccinated fall prey to the smallpox virus. The effective vaccine is the truth concerning the ultimate reality of communism. As a loving mother warns her child never to accept candy from a stranger and then get into his automobile, so the children of God should be warned never to accept the Communist candy, however sweet and nutritious it may be. Behind it lurks limitless evil, slavery, and death.

Every preacher and missionary should administer this vaccine of truth. The tragedy is that so many simply do not possess the requisite knowledge or even the desire to secure that knowledge. The leadership in the battle against godlessness is the prerogative of the ministers of God. Adequate knowledge of Communist deceitfulness should be the possession of every preacher and Christian teacher and should be woven into the fabric of their entire ministry. When we consider the missionary, the need is unspeakably urgent. To send missionaries to the field today without adequate knowledge of the philosophy, organization and strategy of communism is like sending out an Arctic expedition unequipped to meet ice.

The hour is late. The enemy is gaining on all fronts. Christian civilization appears in its death throes. To confront this danger with pious phrase-mongering is to substitute garrulity for spirituality. To take refuge in prophetic fatalism is escapism. Nevertheless, our confidence is in God who took a boy’s lunch and fed five thousand. He took all the food there was available and then performed the miracle of multiplication. As we give to the limit of our intellectual, spiritual, and material assets, we may yet with the eye of faith see the approaching victory.

END

A Brighter Hellas

Our sun-born schools have reared in Ocean Stream

A snakeless isle where in the quiet glade

On Rousseau and romance graced youths may dream,

On golden joys ere sin made man afraid,

In native honour girt, a gleaming knight,

Our Wilson rode to Versailles’ mirrored hall;

But witchery of Wales and Gallic sleight

His dazzled reason gently did enthrall.

Our Roosevelt at Yalta chinked his glass

Gainst Stalin’s cup with guileless bonhomie;

The charming son of Groton smiled, alas,

And wrought a wastrel’s peace unwittingly.

The north blows grey, and we awake, to find

Dire wars before us, vanity behind.

DAVID S. BERKELEY

Fred C. Schwarz, surgeon and psychiatrist from Sydney, Australia, is Executive Director of the Christian-Communism Crusade with headquarters in Long Beach, California. In his world lecture tours he has addressed the nation’s largest civic, professional, student and industrial management clubs on the menace of communism and the Christian answer.

The dominant fact about the Far East is that the Communists are threatening to absorb it.

They already control mainland China. They are pressing to complete the conquest of China by liquidating the noncommunist Chinese government in Taiwan. And they seek to control the other 10 free nations that extend from Burma to Japan.

The Communists are striving constantly in this direction, and are shifting from one type of thrust to another in their probing for weak spots in the free nations’ resistance.

The immediate target of the Communists is the free countries of the Far East, eight of which have become independent since World War II. The region has vast undeveloped resources, physical and human, but there is a general lack of adequate technical know-how, a shortage of capital for industrial development, and some of the countries have not yet achieved the political stability necessary for economic and social growth.

They would have little hope of having time to grow strong were it not for their anticommunist Western friends. Communist China has emerged strong and hostile. It is closely allied with the Soviet Union. It is dynamic, and it is expansionist. The reality of this makes it urgent that the free world build up the power of noncommunist nations while taking such measures as are available to curb the growth of Communist power and influence. It is the policy of the United States to do just this.

Our policy requires persistent action on two fronts—with reference to Communist China, and in regard to the free areas of the Far East. We must do all that is possible to prevent the Peiping regime from attaining its objective. We must maintain military strength in the area at a level sufficient to deter the Chinese Communists from employing their growing military power. We also must avoid any step which would add momentum to the Chinese Communist drive for increased influence and status in Asia.

Recognition Of Red China

General diplomatic recognition of Communist China and allowing it to shoot its way into the United Nations would have a dramatic psychological effect throughout Asia; it would appear as a major Chinese Communist victory, a sign that we had capitulated before the Communist pressures. This would discourage resistance to communism throughout the area and deal devastating blows to the morale of noncommunist Asian nations. The penetration of Chinese Communist influence throughout the area would be immensely facilitated. The important Chinese of the area would have no choice except to swing to support of Red China.

Economic moves must be continued in order to deter the Peiping regime. Communist China utilizes its manufactured goods for political purposes in trade arrangements in Asia and the Middle East, and any relaxation of our economic controls would facilitate their efforts to establish a heavy industrial base and add to their ability to manufacture armaments. Such relaxation would make it difficult for noncommunist Asia to industrialize at a rate comparable to that of Communist China. A relaxation that permitted Chinese Communists to release goods from controls and to use them in construction of airfields, strategic railways, and other military purposes would contribute to the Peiping regime’s military buildup.

Blocking Communist Aggression

In respect to the noncommunist Asian nations, we must first of all seek to maintain a military counterpoise through strengthening indigenous forces. A system of alliances also is necessary to assure outside support in event of Communist aggression. United States military aid programs and the disposition of United States forces in support of defense commitments are designed to provide this counterpoise.

Furthermore, we and other Western anticommunists must strengthen the free Asian nations’ resistance to the infiltration and subversion of Communist Chinese and also the latter’s blandishments and attractions. A program of economic assistance and various political measures are intended to encourage the growth of strong and healthy noncommunist governments.

The United States resolution in the above respects is a major barrier to the Chinese Communists’ foreign policy objective of destroying the free Asian governments. That is why Peiping attacks the United States so bitterly—domestically in a venomous “hate America” campaign, in propaganda to free Asia branding us as “imperialists,” and in direct efforts to expel our strength and influence from the western Pacific so that the Chinese Communists might seize Taiwan and thus pierce the free world’s Far Eastern line of defense. The Chinese Communists’ attack upon Quemoy and Matsu last summer, proclaimed by them to be only the first phase of an attempt to “liberate Taiwan,” was a manifestation of their attempt to remove the barrier U. S. policy has erected against their expansionism.

About Other Courses

There are some who argue that there are other courses of action for the United States in the Far East that are “more realistic” or “less rigid” or “more imaginative.” On examination, however, these other courses of action prove actually less realistic and naive rather than imaginative, and would lead to compromise and retreat rather than being merely “less rigid.” All Americans would naturally reject as unthinkable the alternative of mustering outside military effort to overcome the regime.

However, two courses of action other than the one we have chosen are sometimes advocated: 1. change the hostile nature of the Chinese Communist regime, and 2. alienate Communist China from the U.S.S.R. Let us examine these alternatives:

1. It is unlikely that a policy aimed at overcoming the basic hostility of the Chinese Communist regime would succeed. This is not a defeatist conclusion; it is based upon several realistic considerations. The Chinese Communists have shown that they are dedicated to the communization of Asia. In February 1950, two months after their take over of the mainland, they called upon all the peoples of Southeast Asia to overthrow their governments because, they proclaimed, their leaders were puppets of the imperialists. Before the year was out they had invaded Tibet and Korea. They have stubbornly refused a political settlement in Korea and are continuing their control of North Korea through a puppet regime. Stepping into the Indochina war, they added North Vietnam to their controlled territory. They are demanding major concessions in Taiwan, on which they reject all compromise. To grant concessions and give respectability to their aggressions would undermine the whole position of the free world in Asia. Lesser concessions of an economic or prestige nature would not alter the Communists’ basic objective. They would only encourage the Communists to step up their demands. Also, unless such minor concessions were balanced by satisfactory quid pro quo, they would create confusion and misunderstanding in much of free Asia that would help the Communists’ cause there. Concessions by the free world without suitable Chinese Communist concessions would be appeasem*nt. Appeasem*nt always brings new demands. The world has learned bitter lessons from attempts to appease a powerful totalitarian foe.

We must not forget there is a vast difference between the intelligent and friendly Chinese people and their Communist masters. The people have no say in their public affairs. Less than two per cent of them are even members of the Communist party, and the party is a highly disciplined organization directed by a very few fanatical international Communists basically knit together by deep ideological convictions. The Chinese Communists believe that the Communist world outlook is the only correct one and they argue that China’s welfare depends upon the advance of Communism. They know the United States opposes that advance. They accept the thesis that their doctrine is infallible, and under this doctrine the United States is the archenemy.

They are closely linked to the Soviet Union by common ideology and military dependence. Even in the unlikely event the Chinese Communists should decide to shift away from a hostile policy, they could not do so without gravely weakening their tie to the U.S.S.R. This alliance is important to both, so there is little likelihood the Chinese Communists will choose any course not espoused by the U.S.S.R.

Expressions of hostility toward the United States are a useful tool of the Peiping regime to divert attention of the Chinese population, particularly of the youth that lacks long association with Americans. This diversion is necessary in view of the regime’s own shortcomings. It provides a rationale for insisting on a sacrifice by the population for the state’s benefit. Other totalitarian systems have employed this device. It is scarcely credible the Chinese Communists would feel able to abandon this tool which has been of such tremendous political value to them.

2. To alienate Communist China from the U.S.S.R. would require pressures or inducements which the free world is in no position to advance. The mortar of ideological affinity would need to be dissolved, as would the shared objectives and the Chinese Communist military and economic dependence on the U.S.S.R. which cements the Sino-Soviet alliance.

The fact that the Soviet Union’s leaders have indicated they once tried and then abandoned the commune experiment while the Chinese Communists seem determined to pursue it does not indicate any rifts in the partnership. On the contrary, there are many events that suggest the opposite. Peiping’s endorsem*nt of Russia’s Hungarian massacres is one example. Its denunciation of Tito is another. There are indeed various signs that the two realize more clearly than ever their mutual interdependence.

Chinese Communists have made it clear that their major domestic aim is the building of a modern industrial system capable of supporting their gigantic war machine. Given the growing complexity of modern weapons, it will be many years before the Chinese Communists can become militarily self-sufficient. Meanwhile, they must depend upon the Soviet Union for modern weapons and replacement parts, and also for machinery and equipment necessary to construct such weapons. Integration of the Chinese Communist forces with those of the U.S.S.R. is essential to preserve the effectiveness of the combined Communist striking power.

Increased trade with the West would not wean the Chinese Communists away from the Soviet Union. It would, rather, permit them to enjoy the best of both worlds. They would still rely upon the U.S.S.R. for highly strategic goods while obtaining from the West a much wider range of commodities than they receive today and at a lower cost. This would help them accelerate their industrialization and militarization programs, and would have no appreciable effect upon their alliance with Russia.

Political inducements would only enhance the Chinese Communists’ international prestige and influence. There is little reason to believe this would interfere with its relationship with the Soviet Union. Instead, it probably would confirm to the Chinese Communists the value of their Soviet alliance. Thus, the partners’ drive to extend Communist influence in Asia would then be immeasurably strengthened.

A Deadly Threat

The essential fact remains that Chinese Communist policies pose deadly threats to the collective security of the free world. It is clear that American interests and those of other free world nations are best served by opposing the advance of Communist power in the Far East, by withholding diplomatic recognition from the Chinese Communists and opposing its seating in the United Nations, by supporting a noncommunist China, and by continuing to help build strong free nations in Asia that are dedicated to improving the way of life of their peoples.

The force that we oppose in the Far East is a materialistic force. It denies the validity of those moral and spiritual principles upon which our own civilization is based. It challenges the philosophical concepts we have written into our basic law. It repudiates the individual as of intrinsic significance. It despises religion. It denies the existence of God.

If this force were to change its character, its meaning to us would change. We do not think this is likely. But we are ready to react to whatever transpires in a way that would protect our interests and those of other freedom-loving people who, as we, are determined to preserve that freedom.

END

Because of recent heavy demands upon the time of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, augmented by hospitalization because of a recurrence of cancer, the subject of the recognition of Communist China is handled for Christianity Today readers by Walter S. Robertson, Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, who is intimately acquainted with the position of the United States vis-a-vis Communist China.

Christians should be definitely concerned with the peril the world faces in this day of war risks. Nuclear weapons, if used to their full extent, would have a devastating effect upon all mankind and civilization. With such a possibility, is it any wonder that Christians ask themselves what they can do to help prevent such a catastrophe and establish a basis for real peace among nations? Surely Christianity has the answer to this problem. But what is it, and how can it be put into effect?

Specifically, our immediate threat is Soviet Russia. The United States and Russia are the chief military powers today, and in their mutual antagonism and arms race lies the potential of a world war, despite the fact that both peoples fear and would avoid such war. Regardless of the numerous economic and political elements that lead to conflict, war itself results from a decision on the part of the ruler of a state to launch his military forces against a nation which he considers his enemy. The latter has only two choices: to fight or to surrender. Unless the ruler on the aggressive side makes the decision for war, there is no war, except in cases where a subordinate military commander has precipitated action through panic or mistake. In the United States such a risk is slight because of the precautions that have been taken against the danger. Far more likely is the event that extreme difficulty of keeping a defensive force or nation on the alert may some day lead to a relaxation of watchfulness, thereby offering to Russia her opportunity for successful surprise attack.

The Soviet And War

The danger of nuclear war results from the possibility that Soviet leaders will some day launch their armed forces either directly against the United States or against some object which the United States wishes to defend. To these Soviet rulers, war, when favorable to them, is a legitimate and necessary means of action.

The means by which they have gained and maintained their own political positions and control over their own people reveal the nature of these men. They have proven to be ruthless criminals—murderers, thieves, traitors—in spite of the fact that they hold positions of prestige and great power. Khrushchev survived Stalin’s bloody purges only to participate himself in and profit by them. The social amenities and diplomatic phrases of these leaders have been merely a cloak over their real character. They have demonstrated their true disposition in past dealings with other nations, a fact that is known to all who read newspapers. The pages of history are full of tyrants and conquerors. Soviet leaders are no different. Communism is the ideology or propaganda that motivates these men, and by it they justify their actions. Their actions, acceptable by Communist standards, have been violent, deceitful, and ruthless. Any American policy that views Khrushchev and his kind as other than the most treacherous of criminals is endangering not only the United States but the whole noncommunist world.

Strategy For Peace

Undoubtedly the Soviets consider American military power, bases, and alliances to be a threat to themselves. Nevertheless, can we avoid recognizing the fact that the only reason the United States spends billions of dollars on such projects is out of a fear inspired by past Soviet aggressions, subversions, broken promises?

To return to our original question, what can be done to preserve peace, let us consider some of the ideas that have been advanced by men of authority.

One argument holds that nuclear weapons have outmoded war. This statement probably assumes that because war would only result in destruction of both sides, neither will go to war. Such reasoning is hazardous. One nation, prepared to wage nuclear war against an unalert nation, could fully expect to defeat its victim with one massive strike of nuclear weapons, or by the threat of attack compel the latter to surrender. To rest in a belief that war is outmoded would inevitably put the United States in the role of the sacrificial lamb offered on the altar of Soviet tyranny. And who would doubt that rulers, who have so little concern for their own people, would not hesitate to destroy millions of Americans in order to gain their own ends?

As a corollary to the first idea is another that maintains we should unilaterally reduce our armaments in order to demonstrate good will and both lessen Soviet suspicions toward us and reduce our own burdens. The fallacy of such a premise should be obvious when we consider that the Russian rulers care little for our good intentions. They seek their own objectives, and unilateral reduction of American armaments would mean a great reduction of risk to the Communists in their endeavor to strike the United States. By unilateral disarmament we mean a reduction of military strength on our part that is not accompanied by equivalent disarmament in Russia. Were the Russians to agree to disarm without displaying definite and effective means of doing so, it would leave us open for disaster.

A third idea, suggested by Soviet leaders, is that we should transfer our cold war to an economic and social competition which would include aid to backward nations. Aside from the fact that we are already up to the hilt in such competition, this suggestion rather implies that the criminal who has his knife at our throats will be willing to put it away and settle the difference by a game of billiards. If that method worked, wars would have been eliminated long ago. Furthermore, if the United States were to gain a major advantage in the trade war, it might even be an incentive to the Soviet to use force to gain what they could not gain by trade.

Another proposal is that by acquainting the masses of Russian people with our peaceful and friendly intentions we would make them dissatisfied with their status and they in turn would compel their rulers to change their objectives and tactics. That such action has had some effect is seen in the efforts Soviet leaders have exerted in jamming American broadcasts. However, it must be remembered that propaganda is successful only where the actual conditions in a given country spur the people to believe indictments of their own government and arouse in them the desire to rebel against it. There is to this date no indication of any such situation in Russia.

Some persons propose that we rely more on the United Nations for our security. Should the noncommunist states sympathize with the United States in this, could the U.N. accomplish anything worthy in a Security Council where Russia has the veto power, or in an Assembly which proved its impotence a few years ago with regard to Hungary? Even if the veto power were to be eliminated, how would the U.N., without resorting to war, compel Russia to obey its commands? And could the United States be certain of the sincere, effective support, to the point of war, of completely self-interested nationalistic governments? Nothing in years past would indicate an affirmative answer. The question is largely academic anyway, because in case of war some of the many nuclear weapons would probably be aimed at the heart of New York and destroy among other things the U.N. headquarters and all persons in it.

The preceding approaches to world peace are essentially pacifist. Were the United States to reject war and refuse to arm or fight, then we would have to accept passively all the acts of a Communist tyranny. With sincere respect for persons who, for reasons of conscience, believe in pacifism and are willing to suffer the consequences of their belief, their individual convictions would not save our country from war, because the new rulers would not be pacifist. They would be tyrannical, and would employ war whenever they chose. So national pacificism would initiate an overthrow of all that we hold dear, and in the end it would not gain peace.

It is to be noted that many of the pacifist ideas mentioned above appear in some form in the reports and recommendations of the Fifth World Order Study Conference held by the National Council of Churches in Cleveland in November, 1958, as reported in CHRISTIANITY TODAY. That such ideas should be seriously advocated by leaders of this organization is incomprehensible. The best that can be said for these men is that they are incredibly naive. It is to be fervently hoped that pastors and laymen of the NCC who are able and willing to think independently will see the facts realistically, and will repudiate such disastrous proposals.

Contrary to the foregoing pacifist proposals is the thought that we can gain peace only by a powerful military force constantly ready to retaliate with deadly effect. Any force of less strength than this is ineffective. But is not military power only a deterrent against Soviet attack? It possibly has the advantage of putting off war until the time domestic conditions in Russia cause a change in the kind of rulers there. This is faint and not very dependable hope. An armament race causes psychological and financial tensions which cannot endure indefinitely. Eventually explosion occurs. Were the strength of nuclear armaments to give hope for victory, such a victory would be of doubtful value.

Christ The Hope Of Peace

The fact of the matter is there never has been a human way of gaining and maintaining peace. If men who call themselves Christians would believe the plain language of the Bible, which is the sole basis of Christian faith, they would understand the reason for men’s futility. It is sin, the sin of rebellion against God, the determination to live independently of him, and in enmity with their neighbor. Therefore, God has given them up to those moral evils which cause war among men (cf. Rom. 1:18–31). Men cannot undo what God has done. The Bible tells us clearly that our civilization will come to a disastrous end, involving, among other judgments, terrible wars, famines, disease, death, and destruction (cf. Matt. 24; Rev. 6–18). Our Christ-rejecting civilization is doomed (cf. 2 Thess. 1:7–9). The only hope for a peaceful world is in the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. Any attempts to find other solutions by efforts of human will and action will be futile.

What can Christians do in view of this analysis? First, we can surely use whatever influence we have to see that our country deals honestly and, as far as possible, peacefully with other nations. Second, we ought to warn people of the coming judgment of God which will fall inevitably on wicked humanity, including our United States. Third, we must spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation of individuals from that final and eternal judgment of God, of which earthly sufferings and tribulations are only a vivid warning. Fourth, by God’s grace we should live in a way that proves that we have conviction in our preaching. Finally, we may pray for peace in the hope that God will delay his judgment on it.

The very dangers and fears of our times should convince those who refuse to believe the plain declarations of Scripture that the world is living in sinful and deadly error. If the Bible were not the true Word of God, man would have no divine revelation of truth and would be left to his own speculations. In his guesses, how could he be sure he was getting near to the truth: What is more futile than the blind leading the blind? What is more vain than for a man who denies objective divine revelation to profess that he can perhaps inform us about the things of God and his purposes for mankind? If the current world situation does not convince men who reject Christ and his Word of God’s judgment on unrighteousness, then only one course remains to them: Prepare to meet thy God, for our God is a consuming fire (cf. Amos 5:12; Heb. 12:29).

END

In the long months of the latter part of the Armistice negotiations when peace hung in the balance in Korea, Lt. General William K. Harrison (U.S. Army), now retired, served as senior United Nations delegate at Panmunjom. At that time Chief of Staff of the Far East Command, this distinguished Protestant layman carried the anxieties of a war-weary world. In this article he speaks his heart about the search for peace.

The basic needs and problems of mankind in this atomic, space-conquering age are no different than they were when our Lord was on earth, or even when the kingdom of Israel was established one thousand years before the Advent. Man first needs food and shelter, and, as men congregate in groups, there must be government and law enforced by that government. The needs of man’s inner life are expressed in the same words now as they were in the days of the Hebrew kingdom and of Greek culture—joy, love, self-control, hope, and peace. While often missing from life, these factors were longed for nevertheless.

Each of these basic needs of mankind, individually and corporately, is discussed repeatedly in the Word of God, and is promised to those who are obedient to His will. God who made man in his image stands ever ready to satisfy man in these areas of deep and constant need. One of the greatest and most persistent longings is for peace, first in the inner life of the individual, then between one nation and another, and ultimately for the world.

Before considering the biblical words for peace, we might look at the three major definitions of this word in the Oxford English Dictionary: 1. “freedom from or cessation of war or hostility; that condition of a nation or community in which it is not at war with one another”; 2. “freedom from civil commotion and disorder; public order and security”; 3. “freedom from disturbance or perturbation (especially as a condition in which an individual person is); quiet tranquility, undisturbed state.” Closely connected is a supplementary definition, “freedom from mental or spiritual disturbance or conflict arising from passion, sins of guilt, etc.;” and finally, 4. “freedom from quarrels or dissensions among individuals, a state of friendliness, concord, amity.” All these definitions contain the elements of conflict, animosity, and enmity that lead to war. Peace, then, prevails when those elements that cause conflict, confusion, and suspicion are eliminated or suppressed, and instead of enmity, we have a state of amity and reconciliation.

This condition of conflict in the human heart, and among nations, did not exist in the original state of creation. The term enmity first appeared at the time of the fall and is really a pronouncement of God, a condemnation on Satan, and an offer of hope to men: “I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel” (Gen. 3:15). Related to this idea of enmity is the truth expressed by our Lord that “the enemy is the devil” (Matt. 13:39; Luke 10:19). The great enemy of God, Satan, in leading mankind into sin, which is anarchy, lawlessness, and rebellion against God, has brought us into the condition we find ourselves. As Paul says, we are “enemies in our minds by wicked works” (Col. 1:21).

From the fall of man at the beginning of human history to this very hour, “the mind of the flesh is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be” (Rom. 8:7). This spirit of war against God has its corollary in men at war with each other, in small groups or large, as individuals or nations. And at the root of this spirit is selfishness. Thus we find conflicts interpenetrating human history and the individual experiences of men. Brunner, in contemplating fallen man’s war against God, was led to title one of his larger works Man in Revolt. We view man’s cruelty to man, his spirit of possessiveness and lust for the things of others (termed covetousness in the Decalogue), and we can well ask with James, “Whence come wars and whence come fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your pleasures that war in your members? Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and covet, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war; ye have not, because ye ask not. Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may spend it in your pleasures” (4:1–3).

In sharp contrast to this state of animosity, conflict, restlessness, and unsatisfied longings stands the great biblical truth that God is a God of peace (cf. Rom. 14:17; 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:9; Heb. 13:20). If men are to have any communion with God whatever, some effort must be made for the cessation of this conflict between a holy God and sinful men. Only God himself can provide the means by which such a reconciliation is obtained—a truth that is repeated frequently in the New Testament. Provision for reconciliation is found in Jesus Christ whom Paul refers to as “Christ our peace” (Eph. 2:14, 15; also John 16:33), and it is made available not simply in the person and character of Christ but specifically through his death. We have peace through the blood of his Cross. The Apostle Paul develops this theme with profoundest depth in Colossians 1:19–22: “For it was the good pleasure of the Father that in him should all the fulness dwell; and through him to reconcile all things unto himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, I say, whether things upon the earth, or things in the heavens. And you, being in time past alienated and enemies in your mind in your evil works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish and unreproveable before him.” This reconciliation from God (Rom. 1:7) is what is known as “peace with God” (Rom. 5:1).

The Peace Of God

As a result of being reconciled to God, man begins to experience in his own heart the peace of God (cf. 2 Cor. 13:11; Rom. 12:18). This peace grows within us as one of the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Peace as thus “the calling and present possession of Christians arbitrating in favor of decisions and actions which produce freedom and love (1 Cor. 7:15; Col. 3:15) is to be pursued in company with fellow Christians (2 Tim. 2:22) and mounts guard over them and preserves them in their inner being until the Parousia (Phil. 4:7)” (Alan Richardson).

Living Peaceably With Men

Inasmuch as the God who reconciles us to himself is the God of peace, those who are his children by regeneration are, as far as possible, to live peaceably with all men (Rom. 12:18). Those who make peace between warring parties reproduce the character of God (Matt. 5:9). This peace of God is to rule in our hearts, and, as a result, Christians are to be of good comfort, to be of one mind, and to live in peace, “and the God of love and peace shall be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11; 1 Thess. 5:13; Phil. 4:9). Even in the Old Testament, the people of God are admonished to “seek peace and pursue it” (Ps. 34:14).

When our Lord had risen from the dead, having dealt a mortal blow to death itself, and obtained eternal redemption for us by his sacrifice, he could say to the disciples, “Peace be unto you”—a peace purchased with his own blood. And he could promise that in the midst of tribulation and persecution they would still have peace (Luke 24:36; John 14:27; 16:33; 20:19, 21, 26).

When the peace of God rules in our hearts, we naturally seek to maintain peaceful relationships with others. The true Christian seeks for peace in the home, with his neighbors, in the organization in which he labors, in his own community, and in the state of which he is a citizen. He shrinks from quarreling and from going to law. The officers of the church are to be free from the spirit of quarrelsomeness (1 Tim. 3:3, margin ARV; Titus 1:7; 3:9). The so-called Wars of Religion of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries can only be counted as marks of disgrace on the escutcheon of the Christian Church. And if a Christian longs for peace in every relationship of life, he will long for the day when peace shall prevail throughout the world.

The Bible And World Peace

The question must be asked, since the subject of war is on the front page of every major newspaper of our land, what hope does the Word of God give for world peace? In considering this subject, we must take the whole of the Bible for our examination, not some fragment of it. I believe there are two lines of approach to this subject: the peace that was obtained in biblical historical events, and the peace that is prophesied for the world. In the Old Testament, peace between Israel and other nations was generally the result of a military victory, such as that which involved the Amorites (1 Sam. 7:14), or the king of Syria (2 Sam. 10:19). Sometimes it was the result of arbitration, as we see in the peace that was made with the Gibeonites (Josh. 9:15), or the peace which temporarily prevailed between Jehoshaphat, king of Judah, and the king of Israel (1 Kings 22:44). God not only commanded Israel to wage war against certain peoples occupying their promised land or threatening their national security, but he himself fought for Israel.

Now, there is nothing like this in the New Testament. At the time of our Lord’s Advent, the earth was enjoying an unusual period of peace. We see no command in the New Testament for Christians to go to war, nor, for that matter, to abstain from war. “The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds” (2 Cor. 10:4). Our wrestling is not with flesh and blood, but with principalities and powers, and the world rulers of this darkness, for which conflict we have a sword, but it is the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:12–17).

It is strange, as Roux has reminded us, that the subject of peace occurs very rarely in the Gospels, and “it is certain that Jesus neither brings nor promises His disciples peace as the world sees it” (“Peace,” in A Companion to the Bible, edited by J. J. Von Allmen, New York, 1958, p. 320). But the statements that our Lord did make on this subject are generally ignored by those who refuse to take their conception of world peace from divine revelation: “Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34; cf. Luke 12:51). The question of defending Christ with weapons of war arose in the Garden of Gethsemane when one of the men with him drew his sword and cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. We observe that our Lord said on that specific occasion, “Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt. 26:52). There is certainly no promise of world peace in this command, any more than there is a command to use the sword at another time when Christ’s disciples said, “Lord, behold here are two swords,” and he replied, “It is enough” (Luke 22:38). Actually, the only specific reference our Lord makes to world peace is in the Olivet Discourse in which he emphatically says that there will be wars, and talk of war, down to the end of this age. He predicts the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by her enemies (Luke 19:42–44), and warns that nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom down through the ages. We should note that this prophecy is not followed by a promise of cessation of war (Matt. 24:6; Mark 13:7; Luke 21:9).

Righteousness And Peace On Earth

There is a promise of world peace, however, in the Word of God. We find in Isaiah this passage: “The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of Jehovah’s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we shall walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem. And he will judge the nations, and will decide concerning many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (2:1–4). Almost the same words are found in Micah 4:1–3. We observe that this condition of world peace will occur when two things have taken place on the earth; the establishment of the kingdom of God, and obedience to the laws of God. God will be recognized as supreme and pre-eminent.

Over and over in the Old Testament, peace is related to righteousness: “Mercy and truth are met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps. 85:10). “And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness, quietness and confidence for ever” (Isa. 32:17). Peace belongs to the upright in heart (cf. Ps. 37:37; 119:165). The writer to the Hebrews concisely expresses this in referring to “the peaceable fruit … of righteousness” (12:11). It is a fundamental of biblical anthropology that “there is no peace … to the wicked” (Isa. 48:22; 57:21).

It is utter folly to talk about the possibility of world peace when such lawlessness as we now see on this earth prevails. How can one talk of world peace when one third of the entire population of the globe has succumbed to the cruel, God-defying system of Marxian communism? President Eisenhower, in his State of the Union address on January 9, used these words: “We can have no confidence in any treaty to which Communists are a party except where such a treaty provides within itself for self-enforcing mechanisms. Indeed, the demonstrated disregard of the Communists of their own pledges is one of the greatest obstacles to success in substituting the rule of law for the rule of force.” There is no more possibility for this earth to have peace when it wars against God, than it is for the human soul to have peace when it is at war with God. While we are not successors to Israel in the particular promises given to her, and have no promised land assigned to us, still there are some fundamental principles in God’s dealings with that nation which abide throughout the ages in his dealings with the peoples of the earth. A good illustration is in the 26th chapter of Leviticus where the Lord says he will give peace in the land “If ye walk in my statutes, and keep my commandments, and do them.” “But” he warns, “if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments … I will appoint terror over you … and I will set my face against you, and ye shall be smitten before your enemies: they that hate you shall rule over you … and I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant.” Lawlessness on the part of men will lead only to wars of aggression and the terrible things that accompany war as we have seen in our twentieth century.

We must never lose sight of this great vision for world peace which these prophets present to us. At the same time we must not ignore the teaching of other prophets, especially that of the Apocalypse which is directly concerned with the concluding chapter of human history. Revelation 12 describes an actual “war in heaven,” Michael and his angels warring against the dragon and his angels, followed by a loud voice saying, “Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accuseth them before our God day and night” (v. 10). In the chapter presenting the final world ruler, a warlike being, we learn that “it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and there was given to him authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation” (13:7). Of the final world federation of 10 kings, to whom the beast gives his power, we read: “These have one mind, and they give their power and authority unto the beast. These shall war against the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them, for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings; and they also shall overcome that are with him, called the chosen and faithful” (17:13–14). In his familiar description of the battle of Armageddon, John says he saw the beast “and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat upon the horse, and against his army” (19:19). This portion of the oracles of God, rather than promising world peace, assures us that to the very end of the age, there will be no abiding peace on the earth.

Reign Of The Prince Of Peace

Another elemental prerequisite for world peace is in the glorious title which the prophet Isaiah gives to our Lord—“the Prince of Peace.” How many foolish things have been said about this title in the vain hope that the world is through with wars. The title concludes the assertion that “the government shall be upon his shoulder … of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this” (Isa. 9:6–7). Note that Christ is “the Prince of Peace,” a word having to do with power, sovereignty, and rule (cf. Ezra 7:28; Dan. 12:1; Hosea 3:4). Christ is the Saviour of the world now, but he is not yet exercising his authority as Prince of Peace: this he will do when he establishes himself as Ruler of the kings of this earth (cf. Rev. 1:5). The time is coming when Christ will bring peace to this earth; but, as the Scriptures repeatedly declare, this will only be when he has put all enemies under his feet, and peace is enforced by his omnipotent power (cf. Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Acts 2:35; 1 Cor. 15:25–26; Heb. 1:13; 10:13).

The many terms of struggle, subjection, and antagonism involved in the description in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28, where the establishment of Christ’s reign is set forth, are often overlooked. There is nothing in this paragraph about a universal peace brought about because all men have been redeemed by the Gospel. Peace will come, and when it comes, it will abide; but it will come only through the Messiah, the One who has reconciled us to God.

It would seem that peace on earth will be directly related to that city Salem (the early name of Jerusalem) which means “city of peace.” We are exhorted to pray for the peace of Jerusalem in Psalm 122:6–9, and the Old Testament prophets associated world peace with that city (cf. Jer. 29:7; Isa. 66:12; Hag. 2:9).

The Church has often succumbed to the same delusion that Judah knew as the destruction of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar drew near. The prophets faithfully warned the apostate and idolatrous Israelites that unless they repented and turned to God, their city was doomed. But false prophets assured the inhabitants of the holy city that they were the recipients of special providential care, and this destruction would be impossible. The true prophets warned them about listening to “peace, peace,” when there was no peace (Jer. 6:14; 8:11; 12:5, 12; 16:5; 28:9). And the Apostle Paul gave the Church a similar warning: “When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape” (1 Thess. 5:3).

Therefore, while we are not to look for world peace brought about by the efforts of unregenerate men, nevertheless we who believe the Word of God do have grounds for a hope that world peace will someday prevail. We have the Word of God, and in this we hope: those without such divine revelation are without hope in the world. In the last few years, books on world peace have been few in number. We are now witnessing an enormous sale of books on peace of mind, peace of heart, and peace of soul. Around the beginning of the twentieth century literature on world peace was very plentiful. Not os now. Pessimism is settling down upon the human race—and rightly so. We who have the Word of God in our hands are the only people in this world who have a throbbing, living hope in a final and glorious peace to prevail on the earth, for in Jesus Christ we know the Prince of peace, and King of kings who will someday reign in the righteousness that humanity today disregards.

END

We Quote:

DIMITRY E. MANUILSKY

Comments in 1931 by the well-known Communist leader Who Later Headed the Russian Delegation to the United Nations Organizational Conference in San Francisco in 1945:

War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30 years. To win we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down we shall smash them with our clenched fists.

Wilbur M. Smith is author of many books and a distinguished Bible expositor and conference speaker. He is Professor of English Bible at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena.

Contemporary theology has raised the question of whether the Christian faith can be defended by reason or whether all a Christian can do is witness to his own faith. The science of apologetics has fallen on bad days in theology. Not only have Protestants been casting doubt on its validity, but Roman Catholic theologians too have been manifesting a growing distrust in the powers of natural reason to offer a defense of the faith. The conclusions of the Vatican Council, to be sure, still stand as a declaration of confidence in the powers of the natural light of human reason. The papal encyclical, Humani Generis, issued in 1950, held the line on the power of reason over against the various forces of irrationalism that had become a popular threat to the traditional conviction concerning rational thought. Still, a reader of Catholic theology can discover here and there doubts within Catholic minds as to the power of human reason to prove effectively the existence of God. Several years ago, Max Scheeler, who at that time was still Roman Catholic, was asking himself earnestly why the proofs for God’s existence, if true, had such little influence on human thought. But, whether in Catholicism or Protestantism, there is a growing consciousness among theologians that God is not a crowning pinnacle in the edifice built by human thought. God is not the terminal of the human pathway, but the beginning.

One may arrive at an idea of a “first cause” or a “prime mover” by way of theoretic proof, but one does not thus arrive at the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. And it is ever more evident that there is a long distance between a “first cause” and the Father of Jesus Christ. I recently heard a discussion in which a certain scholar remarked that in his opinion there was a driving force somewhere behind the entire biological development of life, call that driving force what you will. That illustrates the problem of the first cause. Having proven the existence of a first cause, one may call it what he will. But can he truly call it God? Religion is not the province of rational understanding, but of the whole person, including first of all the heart in its commitment to its Lord.

One comes across the opinion among some people that God does not need defending, any more than does the Bible. Spurgeon’s familiar remark comes to mind. “Defend the Bible?” he said, “I would as soon defend a lion.” Spurgeon meant that we should not forget that the Bible takes care of its own defense through the power of the Holy Spirit. We must not suppose, he is telling us, that the Bible needs our help. There is surely something strikingly true about Spurgeon’s remark. The Bible is not a weak entity that needs our support and defense in order for it to stand. The highest and most influential faith in the truth and authority of the Scriptures is the direct work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts and minds.

Yet, Spurgeon’s saying does not cover the whole truth. Apologetics, to be sure, has sometimes been spurred by fear, and at times has been too quick to sacrifice elements of the truth in order to gain a firm hold on the kernel of truth. But there is another kind of defense that can be carried on to help those who are confused by the impressive sounding arguments of critics. Here, faith and not fear can best defend Christianity against its opponents. That such defense is necessary is apparent from Scripture. We must, says Paul, be ready with weapons in both hands, “By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left” (2 Cor. 6:7). Christ himself countered the Pharisees with more than a warning about the sin against the Holy Spirit. He answered their arguments by exposing them as unreasonable. For instance, the Pharisees said that Christ was casting out devils with the help of the prince of the devils. Christ responded by saying that a house divided against itself cannot stand, an argument to meet a false argument. And when the bystanders at Pentecost said that the apostles were drunk, Peter argued that the critics were without grounds, since it was but the third hour of the day (Acts 2:15). Hence, Peter not only witnessed to Christ, but answered the critics with a reasoned argument.

Defense of the faith against critics is valid or invalid depending on the manner in which it is carried on. We are not the defenders of God’s business on earth in the sense that the kingdom of God depends on our arguments. God himself lets us clearly understand that his program does not hang on our abilities. But an apologetic is possible and useful for our own sakes and for the sake of others. Paul defended himself against those critics who accused him of speaking madness by insisting that he spoke only the sober truth. A boldness, a free courage that dares to respond to critics, even to scholarly critics, is needed. Such courageous resistance to attack is not the same as a presumption that one can offer a reasoned proof for God and a rational argument for redemption through the blood of the Lamb. But it does mean that a person, convicted of the truth and strong in faith, need not wait for history to show that truth is truth and lie is lie. He can act in the confidence that, since the light has begun to shine in the world, the lie has already been exposed and he can show forth that light.

As Christians, we need not fear that every new discovery of science may disprove Christianity. Nor need we, in temptation to be less than honest with the Bible, rush too quickly with the claim that such and such a discovery or new idea is opposed to the Bible. We need not be afraid of critics—surely not of the kind of criticisms that long ago naively assumed that it had already done away with the Word of God. The Word has shown its own power, and it will always do so.

We must not presume that the kingdom of God is borne aloft on our shoulders, nor that it stands or falls with our defense of it. But we must be courageous, nonetheless, in facing the older and the newer critics of the things of God. I do not intend to criticize the remark I quoted from Spurgeon. It contains a powerful element of truth. The Word of God does continue its triumphant journey through the world—through the world of criticism and the world of faith—and wholly apart from our defense of it. But there is still the challenge of the defense of the faith; it remains a challenge just because the truth cannot be defeated. Paul said to Festus that the things of which he spoke could not be unknown to Festus because they were never done in a dark comer (Acts 26:26). So must our defense be—open and clear. There is room for a humble and courageous defense of Christianity. The combination of humility and courage is the combination that Christianity in our day sorely needs.