Page 6451 – Christianity Today (2024)

At its United States Faith and Order Conference in Oberlin, the World Council of Churches drew up a series of section reports which it referred to member churches for study. The issues debated in ecumenical circles today are issues that involve the churches at large. While ecumenical conferences need not supply the orbit around which biblical and doctrinal study revolves, it is heartening to see such concerns raised with new earnestness. The neglect of biblical and theological studies by any church or association of churches quickly results in ambiguity and misunderstanding. Evangelicals within the ecumenical movement have a special obligation to scrutinize the faith and order reports, and evangelicals outside the movement will also do well to familiarize themselves with the precise positions adopted and rejected, and to engage in earnest theological study on their own account.

Of the twelve sections into which the Oberlin conference subdivided, that on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict” was in some respects the most significant. The reports of all the sections will be published in January by Bethany Press under the title The Nature of the Unity We Seek. By special permission, CHRISTIANITY TODAY in this issue carries the report of the section dealing with doctrinal issues. For evangelical Christians, the center of interest is here. They are eager to discover in what sense the ecumenical movement understands its confession that Jesus Christ is God and Saviour.

The report on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict” singles out three special areas “in which further agreement needs to be reached before we can move toward closer oneness.” They are: the nature of the Church, its ministry and its sacrament; the nature of the authority and inspiration of the Bible; the nature of the unity we seek. Evangelicals will appreciate the realistic view that honest, intellectual agreement in these areas must precede any unity in which there can be mutual confidence. An unrealistic view would assume that genuine and essential unity exists apart from such questions, and that their solution may be deferred pending closer fellowship.

As the evangelical Christian scans the Oberlin report on doctrine for special study, he will be inclined to press certain questions for special examination. Among them are these:

a) Is it proper to speak of “a common faith” and of “a common witness” in the absence of common doctrinal beliefs? Does not the extent of doctrinal unity define the extent of common faith and witness? Is genuine faith really devoid of intellectual content?

b) What view of Atonement is implied by “the sacrificial Saviour of the world in whom God bore the sins of mankind.…”? Does “sacrificial Saviour” mean the sacrifice of the Saviour on the cross, i.e., the propitiation, or is this phrase intended to deny such a sacrifice?

c) What view of the person and natures of Christ is implied by “the Incarnate Word of God … the divine-human Lord and Saviour”?

d) Why are some members of the ecumenical movement dissatisfied with the formula that Jesus Christ is “God and Saviour”? What are the several meanings these words can be made to bear? Are all interpretations of this formula equally valid?

e) Is it an illustration of destructive conflict springing from sin when churches remain outside the ecumenical orbit because they require satisfactory answers to such questions (as religious knowledge and the nature of the human and the divine in Jesus Christ)?

f) What bearing on the Protestant principle of authority has the emphasis on “the centrality of the biblical revelation in Christian doctrine … both as the record of the mighty acts of God … and also as the source of intelligible truths expressed in inspired words, whereby the message of our redemption can be spelled out”? How also is the Protestant principle of authority affected by “the witness of Holy Scripture, confirmed and interpreted by the witness of the Holy Spirit in the Church, as the sine qua non of authentic Christian doctrine”? Does this or does it not halt short of the historic evangelical emphasis on divinely revealed truths constitutive of authoritative Christian doctrine? Does it not seem that “revelation as witnessed in Scripture and received in the Church through the Spirit,” and that “the authority of the Faith … is located in the Scriptures, the historic tradition of the Church, and the continuing work of the Spirit” differ from the traditional view of Scripture revelation? Does it mean that the supreme norm for judging all controversies of religion can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures; or does it mean that there is a living voice in the church organization and that some contemporary majority vote is the voice of God?

g) Does “diversity of doctrine” really reflect “the riches of God’s grace and the diversity of his gifts to the Church” or does it reflect the limitations, the finitude, and the sinful nature of the human mind? Is there “Christian liberty and responsibility” to “interpret Christian truth in varied ways.…”? Is the idea of authoritative doctrine to be excluded? Does not Christian unity ideally seek an unchanging system of doctrine?

Such questions could be multiplied at length. But these at least will indicate some significant points of contact for the evangelical effort to appraise present ecumenical thought in the realm of doctrinal considerations. As a service to readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, the Oberlin report is printed below.

REPORT OF SECTION 2 DOCTRINAL CONSENSUS AND CONFLICT

I. Introduction

In reporting the results of its discussions on “Doctrinal Consensus and Conflict,” the members of this section wish first to record their gratitude for the privilege of having been participants in an earnest doctrinal discussion involving representatives of so many of the Christian communions. The breadth of its official and unofficial representation alone constitutes a significant historical event and an ecumenical accomplishment.

The section was specifically asked to study a) the degree and kind of consensus in faith which binds us together, b) the extent and significance of our common use of the historic confessions, c) the degree of conformity and freedom in faith which should be considered essential to Christian unity, d) the points of conflict in the realm of doctrine, e) the kind of consensus which should precede union as distinguished from that which can only develop after closer fellowship, and f) the diversity which is appropriate in view of our allegiance to Jesus Christ.

The section had at its disposal the findings of three study groups which had engaged in discussions and studies related to the specific assignment of the section over a two-year period (Saskatoon, Vancouver, Minneapolis). The Saskatoon group arrived at a very high degree of consensus, centering in the Person of Christ and the Word of God, and extending into many aspects of the doctrine of the Church. This group holds that “the unity we seek to express under God should be sufficiently elastic to permit varieties of doctrinal expression provided that they all maintain the Christological faith of the historic Church, with its Biblical foundation.” The Minneapolis group discovered by the use of its “check-list” a considerable homogeneity of doctrine running across denominational lines, a large agreement on the importance of doctrine to the unity of the Church, and at the same time a wide range of variant teaching both among pastors and laymen, even even in the most doctrinally-minded churches. It finds that “neither clergy nor laity feels any great urge toward organizational unity,” and concludes that “the movement toward unity cannot rely heavily on the desire for unity in the contemporary churches,” unless the churches become more aware than now of an “imperative” to unity growing out of “the very nature of the Christian faith.” The Vancouver group notes that there is a large measure of agreement in the statements of Faith and Order meetings, but feels that they reflect “a tendency to be too complacent about agreement,” and obscure the presence in our churches of “disagreements … far more fundamental than most of the statements of ecumenical gatherings would suggest.”

In addition to the reports of the study groups, a statement on “Christian Unity As Viewed by the Eastern Orthodox Church,” submitted by representatives of the Greek Orthodox Church in the U.S.A., was available to the section for study and discussion. It defined the general ecumenical position of the Eastern Orthodox Church with specific reference to the theme of this Conference.

Of the four papers presented to the evening Plenary Sessions by chairman of the respective Faith and Order Commissions, this section found Dr. Robert L. Calhoun’s paper on “Christ and the Church” particularly relevant and helpful to this work.

II. Some General Observations

A. The members of the section are impressed with the gift of unity which is already evident in the willingness of all participants to engage in this theological encounter on an ecumenical basis. This is the fruitage of many years of Faith and Order studies and conversations.

B. Discussion in the section was characterized by a readiness to face central and crucial issues in the realm of doctrine instead of ignoring or by-passing them. There seemed to be a common feeling that sincerity in our desire for unity calls us not only to confront one another but to confront together the Truth of the Gospel in all its fulness. We seemed agreed that “The way to the center is the way to unity.”

C. The members of the section found that when they thus faced “the center” and spoke of “Jesus Christ,” the “Word of God,” the “Gospel,” the “Church,” there was a rather large body of common discourse which made for meaningful and fruitful discussion in spite of diversities in other areas and in the theological explication of this common vocabulary.

D. The section found the wide range of tradition represented by the membership both an obstacle and a challenge. The various traditions have developed differing and sometimes distinctive ways of clarifying and formulating the faith in theological systems and doctrinal statements. They have also developed varied institutional structures and practices, many of which have doctrinal implications. This variety adds to both the problems and the promise of fruitful communication.

E. As we have engaged in this discussion of “Consensus and Conflict” we have been made aware of the necessity of having some comprehensive perspective which can include both our consensus and our conflict without doing injustice to either. Such ecumenical discussions as that in which we have engaged may be particularly helpful in achieving such a perspective.

F. A pronounced emphasis which recurred throughout the discussion was the importance of the “servant-image” for the Christian Church, its theology and its mission. The judgment was expressed, and broadly affirmed, that in the Bible the image of the “servant” has a centrality and significance which Christianity in our time needs to rediscover. It was as the “servant of the Lord” that Israel was called upon to fulfill her destiny. Jesus Christ Himself glorified in fulfilling the role of a servant who lived “to serve, not to be served.” Paul interpreted the significance of the Incarnation and work of Jesus Christ by affirming that in Him the Eternal Son of God decisively and exultantly took the form of a servant. In the Church of today as well as in the world of today, it is of first-rate importance that the significance of the “servant-image” be discovered by persons, groups, and institutions. It was held that unity will be promoted among the churches in their apprehension of Christian truth and in their dedication to the Church’s mission under the Lordship of Christ when they take seriously the normative character of the “servant” for Christian thought and action.

III. Doctrinal Consensus, Conflict and Diversity

A. The Degree and Kind of Consensus in Faith that Binds us Together

We have found ourselves bound together in a common faith that impels us to a common witness, despite the variety of doctrinal standards found in our churches. “Faith” here means something more than “doctrine,” though closely related to doctrine; it means the trustful response of the whole man to God’s self-revelation in Christ. Primarily, the faith we share is a common commitment to the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, and a common mission to bring to all mankind the message of the great salvation He offers. When this faith becomes a message (kerygma) it demands an intellectual expression and begins to be articulated into doctrine. The articulation of doctrine must never become an idol (i.e., an end in itself) but is ministerial to the Church’s inner life of worship and nurture and her out-going mission to the world. The Church needs a massive and vertebrate form for her faith, and finds abundant material in God’s self-revelation for such a reasoned-out message, but Christian doctrine must never be divorced from Christian devotion and obedience, and must therefore never wholly abandon the poetry of faith for the prose of doctrinal elaboration. If this partnership between faith and doctrine is maintained, we may expect consensus in faith to be accompanied by a high degree of consensus in doctrine, and this is indeed what we find among ourselves.

The center of our doctrinal consensus is Christ Himself as the Incarnate Word of God and the sacrificial Saviour of the world in whom God bore the sins of mankind and founded a new humanity. At the beginning of the Faith and Order Movement, faith in the divine-human Lord and Saviour tended to stand in a sort of splendid isolation, as the one clear point on which we were united. It is still the center of our consensus, but under the influence of the Biblical renewal there is now a growing sense of its connection with other basic Christian doctrines: God’s Covenant with His People Israel, fulfilled and renewed in Christ; the Church and the new People of God, the Body of Christ, the Community (koinonia) of the Holy Spirit, pressing on toward its consummation in a new community of mankind and a new heaven and earth. The stern events of our time have taught us to see new meaning in the dramatic conflict between the Kingdom of Christ and the God-opposing powers, as portrayed in the New Testament; but our faith in Christ’s ultimate Lordship over the world as well as the Church, stands firm as the final capstone in the arch of faith that now begins to tower over the wreckage and confusion of our time. There has been a great recovery in recent years of the centrality of Biblical revelation in Christian doctrine—though this has not penetrated all the curricula of Christian education—both as the record of the mighty acts of God leading up to our redemption in Christ, and also as the source of intelligible truths expressed in inspired words, whereby the message of our redemption can be spelled out. While we differ in our theories of revelation, reason and Biblical inspiration, we are united in looking to the witness of Holy Scripture in the Church, as the sine qua non of authentic Christian doctrine.

B. Extent and Significance of Our Common Use of the Historic Confessions

When we compare the actual use of historic confessions in different churches we find them sharply divided between creedal churches, where they are largely used for catechetical instruction and in public worship, and non-creedal churches, where there is grave objection to using them at all—except as historical documents. When we examine the significance of the use of creeds and confessions, we find this sharp polarization much diminished. For example, some non-creedal churches of the “covenant” type express their opposition to confessionalism by declaring that they use creeds only as “testimonies not tests” of faith. Yet there are churches of the creedal type which use the very same word, “testimony,” to define their own use of their historic confessions. All our communions agree that their creeds and confessions are subordinate to Scripture, at least in the negative sense that they must not contradict Scripture. They further agree that these confessions must be interpreted and reinterpreted in the light of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Those churches which make no use of historic confessions actually use “tests” or norms of other sorts (such as the Quaker “queries” or the “covenants” of other churches) to keep up standards of Christian commitment and Christian instruction among their members. We agree with the Lausanne call (1927) to re-examine the content, the historical significance and the meaning for us of the great ecumenical definitions of the early church councils; and we also agree that when the Church’s very existence is challenged again, by anti-Christian trends and dangerously perverted versions of the Christian message, such threats need to be countered by similarly pointed confessions of the mind of Christ. A good recent example of such a contemporary confession, formulated with specific reference to the current renaissance of Hinduism and the deluge of communism, is that of the Batak Protestant Church in Indonesia.

C. Conformity and Freedom in Faith

The section wishes to reassert as sufficient ground of membership in the Ecumenical Movement the confession that Jesus Christ is “God and Saviour.” While some of us are dissatisfied with this form of words, all of us recognize that loyalty to Christ as God’s Incarnate Word and our Saviour is the very heart of our given unity. Every church will wish to supplement and interpret this central faith; none can repudiate it without ceasing to be united to her sister communions. This common confession is rooted in revelation as witnessed in Scripture and received in the Church through the Spirit. The authority of the Faith, then, is located in the Scriptures, the historic tradition of the Church, and the continuing work of the Holy Spirit.¹Orthodox and Protestant churches will name these factors in different order, but it was already agreed between them at Edinburgh (1937) that the living Word of God (Christ) precedes the Church’s tradition while the written Word of the New’ Testament existed as verbal proclamation and tradition before it was written. Diversity of doctrine not contrary to this authority reflects the riches of God’s grace and the diversity of His gifts to the Church. The unity we seek is not to be found in enforced conformity to a detailed, complete, unchangeable system of doctrine. Our only absolute captivity is to Christ and His mission; this captivity sets us totally free to realize the purpose for which we were created. Freedom to interpret Christian truth in varied ways, as the Spirit guides us to apply it to changing situations and different men, is part of Christian liberty—and responsibility. Against what seem to be real perversions of the Gospel, all are bound to protest in the name of the truth; but none of our churches is so “authoritative” that it forbids all difference on special points of doctrine (theologeumena).

D. Points of Deepest Conflict

We have to distinquish between desirable diversity, creative conflict which helps to get truth stated, and destructive conflict which obscures the truth. Diversity and creative conflict spring from our finiteness; destructive conflict from our sin. Destructive conflict in matters of doctrine exists at various levels between member churches within the fellowship of the World Council of Churches, and also between the member churches and others which find it impossible to seek membership in it. All conflicts which keep churches in opposition are serious because they make it hard to hear the voice of Christ above the clamor of rival churches; but the latter type of conflict, which now keeps Roman Catholics and some Protestants out of official ecumenical confrontation, is most serious. Continued study and conference are recommended, to see if it is really necessary for all such groups to stay out on doctrinal grounds, when other groups, quite as different from the Protestant majority (e.g., certain Eastern Orthodox churches) are already in. Conflicts also exist among the member churches in the World Council, sometimes dividing them from one another, sometimes cutting across denominational lines and sometimes reducible to differences of emphasis. Examples of such conflicts may be found in varying theories of religious knowledge, theories concerning the nature of the union between the divine and the human in Jesus Christ, varying concepts of the nature of the Church, and varying ways in which the Lord and Head of the Church is related to the concrete life of the Church and its members (e.g., in the various “means of grace” specially preferred in different communions). The conflicts center, as has often been noted, in the part of Christian doctrine dealing with the Ministry and the Sacraments, while they are at a minimum in the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ.

E. Consensus Which Should Precede Unity and That Which Must Await Closer Fellowship

There is of course a given consensus already existing, concerning which we have already spoken under (A). This given consensus does not yet fully express the oneness of the Church which it is God’s will for His people to realize. We call attention, therefore, to those areas in which further agreement needs to be reached before we can move toward closer oneness. (The necessity of agreement will vary, of course, according to the nature of the unity we seek; “mutual recognition” requires less than “corporate unity.”)

1. The nature of the Church, its ministry and its sacraments. Here greater agreement is needed, based on much further study and conference between the various types of churches, before some of them can consider intercommunion, and others can consider reunion.

2. The nature of the authority and inspiration of the Bible. Here is one of the chief causes of disunity among Protestants. The relations between the Bible and reason, and the nature of revelation (whether expressed in “propositions” or “events,” or both) need particular study in this connection.

3. Finally, the nature of the unity we seek. On this, as noted above, will depend the degree of doctrinal unity necessary beforehand. It is quite plain that participants in the Ecumenical Movement are hoping for different outcomes. It is good to make these differences conscious and try to resolve them.

After the unity we seek (or which God wills for us) reaches each stage of realization, the ministry of the Holy Spirit will lead (in the process of growing together) to a profounder appreciation of the gift of the Church and a profounder understanding of the meaning of its worship, its sacramental koinonia, and its mission in the world. Some united churches have deliberately left the drafting of a longer doctrinal statement of faith until after they have merged upon a very simple “basis of union,” including a short declaration of their common faith.

F. “Diversities to be Welcomed” in the Expression of Our Common “Allegiance”

We have already distinguished “diversity” from “conflict” under (D) above. Our common allegiance to Jesus Christ means a loving obedience to Him, which may be expressed in diverse ways. In his missionary work, the Apostle Paul became “all things to all men” that he might “by all means win some.” We welcome such diversity in the life and thought of the churches, as a manifestation of the “fruits of the Spirit” and a contribution to the “fullness of Christ.” Diversities of this sort are found in liturgical practice, in cultural tradition, in types of Christian service, in styles of Christian art, in ways of proclaiming the faith. Whether diversity in theological doctrine can be encouraged without endangering the Christian faith itself, is questioned by some of us. Diversity of faith has often resulted from diversity of theology. It is important to distinguish the divine revelation which is the center of our common faith from the human systems of theology which relate this revelation to contemporary schools of philosophy and changing world situations. The purity of the common faith is better preserved by encouraging creative conflict between theological systems than by prematurely finalizing any one of them. (Doctors of divinity are stewards of divine revelation, but the history of doctrine proves that they do not possess divine omniscience.) As Dr. Calhoun remarked in his address on “Christ and the Church,” the mystery of God’s infinite Being can never be fully resolved by finite minds, for “God as self-disclosed to us men remains mystery, not only in some secrets of His Being that remain undisclosed, but also in His self-revelation itself.” We cannot therefore hope or desire to eliminate all diversities from Christian doctrine. We walk together in the light of the same divine-human Face; we bow together before the same ineffable Mystery, content to argue with one another’s best judgments, since none can claim to have plumbed the infinite depths of the Godhead.

In the work of this section we have repeatedly verified the Lausanne principle of “comprehension.” That is, when the seemingly conflicting doctrines of different churches are carefully defined in face-to-face conference, they are first found to be less contradictory than they appeared to be, and then found to be diverse aspects of a comprehensive truth which all need to consider in order to deepen and correct their own favorite views. (See point (B) above.) Every American in our day needs to be a world citizen in order to be a good American, so every confessional theologian needs to be an ecumenical theologian in order to be a good representative of his own confession. The sparks of comprehension that flew between Baptists and Lutherans, Quakers and Orthodox, will continue to illuminate the minds and hearts of all of us who took part in these discussions.

Not all doctrinal differences can speedily be turned into fruitful diversities so as to be resolved by mutual comprehension. The doctrinal differences concerning the ministry, the sacraments and others mentioned under (D) above cannot be overcome at this time, and constitute an impasse which must be examined and re-examined by all the methods recommended at the Lund Conference. However, the progress that has already been made by the Faith and Order Movement, and our experience in this section, give us confidence that here too, destructive conflict may someday be transformed through creative conflict into a more comprehensive truth that will include us all. For us all, Jesus Christ is the Truth. Theology or doctrinal labor is the service of our minds humbly and joyfully offered to Him, and therefore to one another. Our hope in seeking unity resides not in endeavors to master the other man with our superior insights, but in love to serve our brother and to be served by him as servants together of the Word of God.

IV. Recommendation

The section records its conviction that there is need for a continuation and extension of the kind of theological exchange which has here taken place, to all sections of our continent. The work of the sixteen study groups which made preparatory studies for this Conference give evidence of both the possibility and fruitfulness of such a project. It is hoped that the encouragement which has been given to Faith and Order studies through this Conference will establish the work of Faith and Order as a proportionally larger part of the total ecumenical enterprise in this area.

A little girl is said to have offered this prayer: “Dear God, make more people Christians and more Christians nice.”

Whether this anecdote is apocryphal or not, the underlying thought should concern all Christians. Only too often we Christians seem to overlook the niceties of human relations at the personal level. In so doing we are of little credit to the faith we profess.

The present usage of the word “gentleman” carries the connotation of one who is kind, gentle, considerate and thoughtful of the feelings and sensibilities of others. Unfortunately, the words “Christian” and “gentleman” cannot always be used synonymously.

A Christian should be one who exercises control of temper, speech and action. Yet some lose their tempers and even make an unfortunate exhibition of themselves in public places. Furthermore, Christians are often regrettably guilty of harshness of speech in speaking of others, including fellow Christians. And, Christians often act in such a manner that the worldling would never guess that they are other than pagans with more or less of a cultural veneer.

It is obvious that many, who, by the standards of this world are gentlemen, are in no sense Christians. It is equally true that some Christians can hardly be classed as gentlemen.

One of the things this world needs is people who combine both—people with the spiritual insights and morals of a Christian and the manners of a gentleman.

Why should we who profess the name of Christ, the One “altogether lovely,” disgrace that Name by failing to meet the standard such an allegiance demands?

The answer is we fail to make Christ the Lord of our lives. Furthermore, we fail to appropriate to ourselves the Christian graces and to show the fruit of the indwelling Spirit when with others.

This is a matter of grave concern. The witness for Christ in a needy world is so often lost because of the behavior of the very people to whom men should look. That this is a scandal no one should deny. That it can be changed we all should admit. That some of us do not stop to recognize our own share in this unhappy situation is the occasion for writing this article. Let us consider:

A Christian gentleman will be slow to lose patience, despite the fact that people may be very trying. This ability to be patient is a Christian grace which will carry us over some very difficult experiences and enable us to rise above them to the satisfaction of our own souls and also to the glory of God.

A Christian gentleman will look for a way to be constructive when provoked to be the very opposite. How easy to quench the smouldering flax or destroy the bruised reed, but how very worthwhile to conserve and strengthen that glimmer of good we can find in others if we but look for it.

A Christian gentleman will not envy the good fortune of others, nor will he belittle the achievements and recognitions others may receive, even when he feels that they might have been more fittingly bestowed upon himself.

A Christian gentleman will refrain from trying to impress others with his own importance. The worthy qualities of character and his achievements in life will eventually become known. To boast of them or to try to make them obvious is but to tarnish their original beauty. Nothing so detracts from a man as conceit and, because God hates pride, it can prove our complete undoing.

A Christian gentleman will have good manners. One does not have to be born in a palace to observe the amenities of life. Some of the most courteous people we have ever known were those to whom had been denied many of the social advantages possessed by others. But the courtesy, sense of propriety, and the demeanor they exhibited to others showed beyond a doubt that true culture is a matter of the heart and not of social standing.

A Christian gentleman will refrain from being “touchy,” even when he feels strongly that he has a right to resent the attitude of others. Many a Christian testimony has been lost by those who are easily provoked. Self restraint is needed, also a willingness to take an injustice on the chin if in so doing we can honor Christ.

A Christian gentleman will think the best, not the worst of others, and he will look for good and not for the evil. He will try to be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove in handling others.

A Christian gentleman will not gloat over the wickedness of other people. In the theological realm he will rejoice whenever the Truth is preached, regardless of where or by whom, and he will not rush to expose every error he may discover but will try to cover it with the Truth itself.

A Christian gentleman will exhibit, above all else, the love of Christ in his heart and life, exercising by God’s help the graces necessary to show that this love is practical and unselfish.

If in the foregoing paragraphs there has been a paraphrasing of parts of the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians (with the help of Phillips), we make no apology for having done so.

A Christian and a gentleman must do two things: take the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and make him the Lord of life and appropriate to daily use the fruit of his indwelling Spirit.

We have seen many exhibitions of temper, of lovelessness, of harshness, of ill advised language, of just plain bad manners on the part of people who are unquestionably Christians. We shudder to think of the loss of Christian witness which is involved. The obvious reason is that too many of us remain babes in Christ, never growing to be mature Christians and by that failure miss great blessings for ourselves while we dishonor the name “Christian.”

This side of eternity none of us can be perfect. We are still in the flesh and we know only part of the picture, seeing even that as a baffling reflection. But this is no excuse for behaving as children, nor is it an excuse for failing to live by the grace and strength of the living Christ who wills that we should honor Him in every avenue and contact of life.

This is a matter of grave importance because it touches on a weakness of so many of us. A little courtesy, tact, good judgment, restraint, loving consideration of the feelings of others; all of these things can go so far to commend the faith we profess. Nor are we speaking of a kind of “satanic sweetness” which is nothing but sugar-coated pride.

The world needs more Christian gentlemen (and gentlewomen) who, for the glory of the Lord who has redeemed them, will let their lights shine before men.

With spiritual understanding and high morals? Yes. And in addition, with what the world will recognize as good manners in all of our personal contacts with others.

L. NELSON BELL

Until about a century ago virtually all knowledge of the ancient Near East stemmed ultimately from the Bible. Nearly all history of Egyptian, Babylonian, Hittite and Persian empires and monarchs was derived either directly from biblical accounts or indirectly from ancient literature, which itself went back to early biblical records. It is difficult for us today to appreciate this significant fact, since we now enjoy possession of hundreds of thousands of original documents from these lands, some going back almost 3,000 years before Christ. In addition, the major museums of the world contain fabulous collections of utilitarian and artistic objects, fashioned by people living in this region, which cover an even longer period of time.

Lands and people once known to us only from biblical references and, strangely enough, sometimes considered mythical or fictional for that reason only, are now known in greater detail upon the basis of the very artifacts those people made and the documents they inscribed. All this has resulted from the archaeological researches in ancient Bible lands, first carried out in a scientific manner as distinguished from earlier treasure hunts or reports of curious but unskilled travelers—in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Accordingly, it is now possible to reconstruct in remarkable detail the ritual worship of Egyptian priests, the curriculum of Sumerian schoolboys, and the court life of Assyrian kings who lived and died ages ago. In truth, much of the world of Abraham, Moses, David and Daniel has come alive again through the diligent skills of the excavator’s spade and the scholar’s pen.

Perhaps the most important question to which these discoveries have given rise is their bearing upon the historical records of the Bible. In general, there are two opposite opinions. Some hold that although many historical statements in the Bible agree with the facts determined by archaeological studies, in at least as many instances the new findings point up errors in the Bible, especially in the earlier periods and the prophetic books. Others believe that there is perfect and complete agreement between the two sources of data. In fact, however, both positions are incorrect. The fundamental error of the first is its assumption of equal or superior validity and consequent authority for the partial data of science over the records of the Bible. The fallacy of the second is its assumption that human interpretation of observed data in archaeological science is as reliable as divine revelation concerning historic events recorded in the Bible. Such false assumptions have inevitably led both opponents and proponents of the Bible to make improper use of archaeological data in relation to the biblical text.

Bearing On The Bible

This tendency manifests itself characteristically in the use of the word “prove” when describing the function of archaeology with relationship to the Bible. It has led, for example, to such statements as “recent excavations at Jericho have shown that this city did not exist as a significant settlement at the time of Joshua, thereby proving that the biblical tradition of Joshua chapter six is false,” or, on the other hand, “flood deposits at Ur prove that the biblical flood actually occurred.” As a matter of fact, neither the chronological data regarding Jericho nor the interpretation of “flood” evidence at Ur are so certain that they can be cited as superior to and hence either corrective to or confirmatory of the Bible.

To illustrate: let us suppose that the citizens of a small town begin to question whether they are getting full measure when they purchase in the local shops. They feel they are getting less than the yards of goods they pay for. Having been informed that all standards in use in the town must conform with the national standard in Washington, D. C., the skeptical citizens decide to check the national standard for accuracy. In order to do so, one citizen acquires a cloth tape measure, another a steel measuring tape, and yet another a wooden yardstick. And they all entrain for Washington. Upon arrival they proceed to the Bureau of Standards and request the opportunity to apply their several manifestly approximate measures to the platinum meter bar, which is the accepted national standard of accurate measurement, in an attempt to discover whether or not their measures are, in fact, long enough. Such insane behavior would certainly have been detected at an early stage and the travelers would have been hurried off to confinement, reserved for persons of known mental aberration. Yet, this identical procedure is followed by multitudes of respected scientists and misguided Christians who are apparently unaware that it is folly to apply final criticism of the Scriptures by use of the, at the very best, relative criteria of scientific truth.

Value And Function

What then is the value and function of archaeological materials as related to the Bible? There are two areas where this rich body of data, so recently discovered and still accumulating, is very useful. It provides the Christian with abundant material to fill in the background of biblical history, thus giving better perspective. It also helps to correct many mistaken concepts regarding biblical history, which have raised honest questions in the minds of persons seeking to understand the Bible.

In the first place, we must recognize that although the Bible gives a true picture of the history it records, it does not necessarily convey a balanced picture of ancient Near East history, and for very good reasons. The purpose of the Bible is not to record ancient history but rather the history of God’s redemptive plan for fallen man. Therefore, it treats general history selectively, incorporating only those events bearing on God’s special dealing with men for salvation. As a result, the most important periods of Egyptian and early Babylonian history receive no mention whatever while relatively minor rulers in Egypt and Syria are often featured prominently. Had we no other material at hand than that which the Bible affords, our picture of general history in the ancient Near East would be seriously distorted and out of proportion. Archaeological data, on the other hand, allow us to appreciate the development of biblical history against the total background.

For example, we now recognize that the dynasty of David and Solomon witnessed the only significant local empire in recorded Palestinian history, and this fact throws light on the biblical ascription of glory to the reign of Solomon. Furthermore, we now appreciate the political climate in which this empire flourished when archaeology shows that the major powers surrounding Palestine at that time were in marked decline either through internal upheaval or general disintegration. In short, we see how God prepared the times for his people.

In later periods archaeological records help us to visualize the power of the Assyrian empire and the might of its vast armies campaigning far and wide. Official records and reliefs from the royal palaces make it easy to sympathize with Hezekiah as he trembled at the thunderous approach of the invading host. They also highlight the power of God to deliver his embattled people when they placed their firm trust in him.

These same materials can be used to destroy the common misconception that the Bible is at worst simply religious myth and at best chauvinistic, unreliable local history, by demonstrating the numerous remarkable and detailed parallels between biblical history and the contemporaneous secular records of the same events. But it must be pointed out and strongly emphasized that approval or agreement of the secular documents can only lift the biblical records to their own level—that of relatively accurate accounts of current events made by fallible men—and by no means establish the complete reliability of the biblical text. There are sufficient evidences of error and bias in archaeological records to show their limitations in this respect. But even within these limitations much helpful material abounds and is a welcome corrective to the irresponsible extreme criticisms of earlier days, which, strangely enough, still live on in the popular mind long after their refutation by solid facts.

Spiritual Greatness

But the multitude of data collected by a century’s research into the past history of the ancient Near East also emphasizes the sharp contrast between the people of Israel and their neighbors. Always and in almost every form decidedly inferior to the surrounding pagan nations around in technical skills and material culture, Israel nonetheless possessed an ethical religion far above them all. Egyptian papyri, for example, witness to a highly developed science of both medicine and surgery long before Israel’s national history began, and one which continued long after the southern kingdom had ceased to exist. Moreover, temples and sculpture of Egypt demonstrate architectural and artistic skill and feeling far beyond anything ever produced in Palestine. It is noteworthy that almost without exception when skilled craftsmen were needed for public works in Israel and Judah, the biblical text points out that they were imported from outside. Nevertheless, the host of confused and often conflicting gods of Egyptian religious texts and the worship of them bespeak concepts of deity far below the material achievements of the same people, and woefully inferior to the theology of the Hebrew Scriptures, whose concept of “ethical monotheism” is acknowledged by all scholars as unique in the ancient world.

Likewise, we marvel at the advanced stage that Babylonian mathematical science had reached well before the time of Moses, as hundreds of clay tablets indicate familiarity with many principles long thought to have been Greek contributions to science. In addition, we find such technical skills as metallurgy, sculpture in various materials, and gem cutting developed in Mesopotamia even before the days of recorded history, to a degree never approached by the people of Israel. Once again, however, as in Egypt, the picture of squabbling, scheming gods seen in the Babylonian documents evidences a religious morality quite opposite to that of the Bible.

Morality And Technical Skill

The truth established by these sharp contrasts is a highly significant one, cutting across the basic assumption in the interpretation of anthropology. The marked disparity between cultural and psychical achievements in Egypt, Babylonia and Israel should teach us not to assume any necessary link between the two in the course of human history. Yet an axiom of anthropological science is the assumption that psychical development in man will follow closely his improvement of technical skills. Ancient man with simple tools, we are told, have naive ideas concerning religion. As his tools became more complicated, his theology became more sophisticated. The basic premise for such reasoning is the broad concept of organic evolution implicitly held by the majority of present-day scientists. Therefore the line of argument is understandable, but not acceptable. The Bible tells us of a man whose level of culture development was absolutely minimal. He would be described in scientific terms of today as a simple agriculturist with, so far as we can determine, a primitive tool industry, no knowledge of fire, and actually no domestication of selected animals (all were obedient to him). Yet this man had intimate personal converse with God in a way not possible for anyone today. Can any contrast be greater than that?

This account of Adam is often rejected today. But the principle that no necessary correlation exists between technology and theology has been demonstrated over and over again.

We might even cite here examples of the exact opposite to Adam, namely, cases of extremely advanced technical skill and yet incredibly retrogressive religion and morality. During World War II scientists from a nation in the forefront of technology committed barbaric atrocities unknown in the civilized world for centuries, while the nation itself, once a cradle of Protestant Christianity, officially reintroduced the worship of long forgotten pagan deities. The biblical pattern of human development agrees with history, even if both contradict the theories of anthropology.

Both opponents and proponents of the Bible err when they reverse the order of authority, which distinguishes the data discovered by scientific investigation and facts received by divine revelation. Whether their purpose is to attack or to defend the historicity of the Bible makes no difference. Neither archaeology nor any other science affords evidence of a character equal to the task.

Francis Rue Steele was Assistant Professor of Assyriology at University of Pennsylvania from 1947–53, and also Assistant Curator of the Babylonian Section of the University Museum. Since then he has led the North Africa Mission as Home Secretary. Twice he has been annual professor of the Bagdad School of the American Schools of Oriental Research. He holds the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from University of Pennsylvania.

It is sometimes said, “The Bible was not given to teach us science.” Most people would agree. Yet the very vagueness of the terms employed has led to two very doubtful inferences. Some students of what is now called the “Liberal School” interpret the phrase as though it meant that the realm of religion and the realm rather vaguely called science had no connection whatever. A prophet may be completely astray as to scientific and historical data, yet may give us very profound thoughts on God. Pressed to its logical conclusion that would enable us to regard the Bible at once as historically untrustworthy and scientifically inaccurate, yet as providing real insight into spiritual reality. The average man instinctively rejects this dichotomy. He holds strictly to the view that a book which is discredited in one aspect is discredited in all. The average Christian views with distrust this division. He remembers our Lord’s appeal, “If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things?”

The second inference emerging as early as the days of Origen is that while the Bible employs accurately historic incidents and certain scientific facts of nature, it is intended that these should be interpreted allegorically as pointing to a deeper hidden spiritual meaning. Origen gravely misapplied the words, “The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life,” and has a multitude of followers who at their pleasure discount the historical and scientific in the interest of what they call the spiritual.

An Important Reflection

Without making either of these valiant efforts to cut the Gordian knot, the ordinary thoughtful person reflects that a great company of distinguished scientists have been humble believers in the Bible. He even goes further and reflects that modern science had its origin and development solely in Christian countries. The early scientists who studied nature argued that since God was one, the whole area of organized being would reflect a certain unity of purpose.

While, therefore, we admit that the Bible was not given to teach us science, we would seek some adequate explanation of the relation of revelation to ascertained scientific facts.

The word “science” itself is rather ambiguous. It conveys to the uninitiated the idea that there is one sphere of experience covered by the word. But it is only a general term used for convenience to cover very many diverse and sometimes apparently conflicting experiences.

In its wider application science may be defined as an accumulated mass of data resulting from a diligent use of the principles of observation and reflection. If we accept that definition we may freely concede that the scientist and the theologian are alike subject to the distorting influences of error and prejudice. Either party may observe incorrectly, and either party may lean towards a conclusion as the result of preconceived notions. The true scientist is so well aware of this that he invites a friend to check his observations. The theologian is only too well aware of the many friendly critics that question his deductions.

We have defined science in its wider application as an accumulated mass of data. Indeed, in modern times the range of study in any particular subject has become so extensive that it is not possible to rest in a vague general term. The student can only study his special branch and endeavor to meet the difficulties that result from other branches of study where these infringe on his particular subject. In doing so he is, naturally, dependent on information received from experts or reputed experts in other lines of investigation. The possibility of misinterpretation is thereby increased, but it is the only method of treatment open to a patient investigator.

The popular idea in some quarters that the Bible has been exploded by science does not command the assent of scientists themselves. Haeckel, for example, pays a tribute to the cosmogony of Moses though he professes to find errors in it (History of Creation, Vol. I, p. 38) [See the reference in James Orr’s The Problem of the Old Testament, and the reply there to Haeckel’s exceptions.] We must distinguish between scientific speculation, valuable as it has often proved, and the facts established by science. Nor must we confuse the assertion that “the Bible was not given to teach us science” with the assertion that the Bible contradicts science. The Christian view is that all truth is one and all truth comes from God.

Phenomenal And Scientific Language

In order to clarify our thought we must distinguish between what is called phenomenal language and what is called scientific language. The former describes things as they appear to the beholder. The latter makes an effort to indicate important relations that are not apparent. Carlyle gives an interesting illustration of the difference when he says that both Newton and Newton’s dog saw the apple tall. Only Newton deduced therefrom the law of gravitation that profoundly affected future research. The interesting thing about phenomenal language is that it remains fixed. So long as we have eyes and ears like our present ones, we must see and hear as we do now, however much science may advance. We can correct focal irregularity by means of carefully adjusted lenses but we cannot prevent a man from seeing double without such aids. For that reason phenomenal language is preserved side by side with the more technical phraseology developed through the advance of science. No one questions the competence of a scientist because he remarks that he feels in rather low spirits. It is no reflection on the accuracy of the Bible to assert that it employes phenomenal language.

Limitation Of Range

If, however, the use of phenomenal language imposes certain limits on biblical phraseology, we do well to remember that the range of science imposes necessary limits on it. It has repeatedly been pointed out that creation cannot be demonstrated by purely scientific methods. Science can only deal with the given. As it has been expressed, “Science can only ask, How? It is the province of theology to ask, Why?” Hume imperfectly perceived this relation between science and creation when he declared that inferences from creation were doubtful since “the world is a singular effect.” Followers of Hume like Mill and Spencer did not pursue this particular theory with any ardor. Given a world, we can investigate its character. But that leaves wide open the intriguing questions—Why should a world such as we interpret come into being? How did such a world come into being?

Keeping these simple cautions in mind we can confidently assert that the Bible, so far from being discredited by science, has been a prime influence in directing men’s minds towards a closer investigation of the things of nature.

The Hebrew people viewed this aspiration in the words of the Psalmist: “O Lord how manifold are Thy works, in wisdom hast Thou made them all; the earth is full of Thy riches” (Ps. 104:24). St. Paul expressed the same truth: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead” (Rom. 1:20).

Consistency Of Scripture

Space permits the enumeration of only a few remarkable features in the Bible presentation. The Bible places man at the summit of creation. This is also an implied axiom of science. It is through man’s observation and reflection that the secrets of the universe are disclosed. But why should man be able to interpret a world which he did not make? The Bible’s answer is: Man was made in the image of God. Job tells us that God “hangeth the earth upon nothing” and “compasseth the waters with bounds.” Science discovers that the law of gravitation holds the earth in place and that a due proportion of land and water is essential if living creatures such as we are to continue to exist. Peter tells us, “the elements shall melt with fervent heat.” Science, since its previous picture of the last men living in snow huts on the equator, now by the discovery of nuclear fission at least affords the possibility of such a cataclysm.

Sir James Jeans asserted that the best statement of the origin of our world was contained in the words, “Let there be light” in the Genesis creation story.

We have to guard against importing scientific technicalities into the ordinary language of the Scriptures, but the few instances given are sufficient to demonstrate that the supposed scientific errors in the Bible are the consequence of a too-rigid demand that ordinary speech should express precisely the findings of natural science. A schoolmaster who counseled his class to remain still would be tempted to take the cane to a smart youngster who said, “I cannot, sir, because I am formed out of protons and electrons that move with incredible rapidity.”

The Bible was given to lead us to the “First Great Cause least understood.” It suited its message to the simple apprehension of the ordinary reader and yet it exhibits a caution in utterance that impels us to seek further and further into the mysteries of time and sense.

T. C. Hammond was Principal of Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia, from 1936–53, and continues his ministry as Rector of St. Philip’s in that city. He holds the B.A. and M.A. degrees from Trinity College, Dublin, and the Th.D. degree from Australian College of Theology. He is author of Authority in the Church, In Understanding Be Men, Perfect Freedom, New Creation, and other apologetical works.

When one has passed the age of sixty, aware that more than two-thirds of his life has gone by, and that probably not more than ten or twelve years remain for work at any task worth mentioning (and when, of these years, twoscore have been spent in one profession) he is compelled to ask himself two questions. If the answers do not satisfy him, the questions may torment him the remainder of his life.

The first is this: If I had my life to live over again, and had any choice in the matter, would I devote myself to the same work that has engaged my time and strength these forty years? And the second: How shall I most satisfyingly occupy myself in the years that remain, should God grant this further period of time? This question in turn poses a supplementary one: Is the work in which one has labored all these years (if I may now use the third person rather than the first) of such a character that life’s greatest joys will be found in continuing in these same tasks; or is one convinced that he has more or less exhausted what his chosen field of labor offers, and that new joys will be found only in the exploration of some other area of knowledge or activity?

Unless in this article I purpose to face such questions impersonally, and thus merely spin out a few pious platitudes, it is necessary to be somewhat autobiographical—a line I have not normally pursued in my writings. In the fall of 1918, I began my first pastorate, among the beloved, hospitable folk of the Eastern Shore of Maryland, at Ocean City, and there realized that the great passion of my life was the study, preaching and teaching of the Word of God. In all the years that have followed, there have been other secondary interests in life, but I believe there has never been a rival passion with me.

The gifts and inclinations which God gives one man in the Christian ministry are not, I am fully aware, necessarily those which he bestows upon another, but of this I am sure today: God has so ordered the duties and obligations of my life that it has not been necessary for me to forsake at any period of time this first love, the study and exposition of the Holy Scriptures. I have no administrative gifts, and it has never been necessary for me to spend two or three years, as pastor of a church, wrestling with the financial problems involved in the erection of an ecclesiastical structure, and arguing day and night with contractors, stone masons and plumbers—all of which I realize someone must do. I have no talents for playing musical instruments, for painting or for singing. I would be utterly bored in spending afternoons making imitation antique furniture, and friends who have asked me to play golf have never extended a second invitation after one afternoon on the links, for reasons that need not be mentioned. This does not mean that I do not enjoy music, or art, or a football game, but I have no gifts in these directions. Nor should this be interpreted as meaning that I live the life of a hermit, for no man could possibly enjoy more than I the rich fellowship of Christian friends.

The Torment Of Regret

It is now time to consider the two questions we have posed. All will readily admit that nothing could be sadder in the life of a Christian minister, apart from gross malfeasance, after having given the best years of his life to the ministry, than coming to the conclusion that he should have been engaged in some other major work during those years. It is then too late. Never will I forget that afternoon, twenty years ago, when I visited for the last time a beloved friend in Newcastle Presbytery, the most brilliantly educated minister on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, with a Ph.D degree from Harvard under Munsterberg and William James, a man of wholesome Christian character and a diligent scholar (though perhaps he had never preached to more than two hundred people at one time in his life). Pointing to a bookcase holding some of the major tomes of philosophy he had once mastered—Hamilton, Berkeley, and others—and placing the other hand on the Bible, he said regretfully, in the rapid manner in which he always spoke, “Smith, I wish I had given less time to these philosophers and more time to this Book in which we read, ‘Thus saith the Lord.’” My own personal conviction is that the man who spends his life, believingly, in the study and interpretation of the Word of God will never be tormented by such regrets as these.

Inexhaustible Themes

It is hard to conceive how anyone who makes the study and interpretation of the Scriptures the pre-eminent labor of his life could possibly be tempted to believe that some other area of study and work would bring deeper satisfaction. For the loftiest themes that can ever occupy the minds of men are set before us in the Word of God, with fullness and certainty, as in no other literature of the world. The student of the Scriptures is continually confronted with such vast subjects as the creation of the universe, the divine purpose of history, the origin, nature and destiny of man, Messianic prophecy, a divinely-given legislation for every major area of life, the Incarnation, character, work, teachings, death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the organization and activity of the Church, the profound factors of salvation, the consummation of the age, and the meaning and certainty of eternal life. No one man, or even the whole Church, has exhausted such themes as these, and it is in understanding these subjects that the heart of man comes to rest and the mind is delivered from darkness, doubt, and despair.

The faithful student of the Scriptures will find increasingly true the words of Augustine, written to his son in A.D. 412, “Such is the depth of the Christian Scriptures that even if I were attempting to study them and nothing else from early boyhood to decrepit old age, with the utmost leisure, the most unwearied zeal, and talents greater than I have, I would still daily be making progress in discovering their treasures; not that there is so great difficulty in thumbing through them to know the things necessary to salvation, but when anyone has accepted these truths with the faith that is indispensable as the foundation of a life of piety and uprightness, so many things which are veiled under manifold shadows of mystery remain to be inquired into by those who are advancing in the study, and so great is the depth of wisdom not only in the words in which these have been expressed but also in the things themselves, that the experience of the oldest, the ablest, and the most zealous students of Scripture illustrates what Scripture itself has said.…”

The statement of David in “the Psalm of the Word of God,” “I rejoice at thy word as one that findeth great spoil” (119:162), can be echoed in the experience of anyone who faithfully labors in the Holy Scriptures. His is a life of constant exploration and discovery. He has the opportunity, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, of discovering in the Scriptures not only those truths which many other Christian students have previously seen, from century to century, but things which perhaps no one else has noted. One would think, for example, that the subject of the birth of Christ, with all the hundreds of volumes that have been written around it, would have been exhausted long ago, but actually no one has as yet presented to the Christian Church a volume which completely covers all the various aspects of this epochal theme. The number of treatises on the subject of the Virgin Birth is ample, but there are scores of other topics embraced in this single event—witness Hastings’ Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, which includes 71 articles relating exclusively to the birth of Christ! Who would want to leave the study of the Word of God at any time of life, and give his prime strength to the exploration of any other themes, when such divine subjects are before him, inviting to years of exciting research and discovery?

Scope For Investigation

We have had a number of books on Christ’s prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem, and we are now witnessing the publication of considerable literature, long overdue, on our Lord’s Olivet Discourse, but no volume known to me has attempted to examine all the prophecies of the Lord Jesus. A number of scholars have given us the results of their study of the influence of the Book of Genesis in the New Testament, but who has done something on the influence of Exodus and Deuteronomy in the New Testament, or of Genesis in the remaining books of the Old Testament?

There has never been a time in my own ministry when I have not had before me lists of subjects or passages in the Bible that I hope soon to investigate. What does Isaiah mean, e.g., when he says that God has “declared the end from the beginning and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (46:10)? What is meant by “the deep things of God” in Daniel 2:22 and 1 Corinthians 2:10? I long for time, extended periods of time, in which to study carefully the deeper meanings of the oft-recurring phrase, “the Word”; to examine exhaustively the work of the Spirit in revealing “the things of Christ”; and to know thoroughly every aspect of the message of the Book of Revelation. Also, for some time I have wanted to give extended study to the doctrine of good in this divine volume. Here is a word that occurs more than 800 times from the second chapter of Genesis to the Third Epistle of John, many of the passages being of great doctrinal and ethical importance.

I do not have space in this autobiographical fragment to speak with fullness of one of the never-failing joy that comes to one who immerses himself in the oracles of God, namely, the privilege of living with the greatest society of authors that has ever gathered around one literary masterpiece, that glorious company of expounders of the Word of God, and theologians of the Church, from the days of the Apostles to this very hour. What wonderful works are those to which the study of the Scriptures so often leads us: the writings of Augustine and the Venerable Bede, Dante and Wycliffe, the monumental works of Luther, Knox and Calvin, the quickening pages of Hooker, the cleansing lines of Lancelot Andrewes, the inspiring poems of Milton, the unexhausted treasures of Richard Baxter and John Owen, the sermons of Flavel, Thomas Chalmers, South, Guthrie, Liddon, Parker and Alexander Whyte, the theological works of Jonathan Edwards, Tholuck, Robert Candlish, Charles Hodge and Robert Flint, not to mention the thousands of books that have been written on the life and work of Christ, and that vast library of the more important biblical commentaries. What field of study and research in this whole world can draw an earnest student away from the ever-fascinating, compelling, transforming pages of the Word of God?

The Book And Our World

One born near the beginning of this twentieth century—a century which has seen the advent of radio, television, the airplane, of atom and hydrogen bombs, the rise and fall of three evil dictatorships, the fanatical devotion of more than a third of the world’s population to materialistic and atheistic communism—who has made the study of the Scriptures the major concern of his life, now finds himself in a period of more worldwide interest in the Word of God than has been known probably since the days of the Apostles. The recovery of interest in the whole field of biblical theology, the archaeological explorations in the Near East, the excitement created by the unexpected discoveries at Qumran, Jericho and Byblos, the phenomenal sale of the Revised Standard Version, the work of Wycliffe and other agencies in Bible translation—all have brought the Bible again to the front pages of our newspapers.

The establishment of Israel itself, and the effort to reintroduce the Levitical code as it pertains to land, food, the Sabbath, etc., has compelled the citizens of that state to re-examine the Word of God. Congresses are now being held frequently in cities in Palestine, attended by hundreds of scholars from all over the world. The fruitful evangelistic labors of Dr. Billy Graham, whose messages are so constantly interspersed with the phrase, “the Bible says,” have caused multitudes to recognize anew the power and meaning of the Word of God. Courses in subjects directly related to English Bible are more numerous and assigned more importance in the curricula of theological seminaries these last few years than at any time in this century. Economists and statesmen have gone back to the final book of the New Testament to find the right word to describe this terrible hour in which we live—so frequently designated, particularly since Hiroshima, “this apocalyptic age.” So manifold and vast are the areas of Biblical investigation today that even the most serious scholar finds it difficult to keep abreast of the important literature appearing year by year in his own circumscribed field of biblical knowledge.

Crumbling Modern Altars

How comparatively inconsequential are the other so-called great classics of literature, even those of our modern age. When I was in college, in the realm of literature we worshiped at the shrines of four of the outstanding writers of the last half-century, and some of the professors almost trembled with excitement and adoration as they opened books by these men. There was the playwright Henrik Ibsen (1828–1906), the greatest of modern German dramatists and poets, Gerhart Hauptmann (1862–1946), the French essayist and novelist, Romain Rolland (1866–1944), and the English poet, Alfred Noyes (1888–). What message for today has the man who in the second decade of this century dedicated his life to the study of any one of these writers? How many students in our universities today are gathered around their voluminous writings? How often do we hear lines quoted from their once-stirring pages? I still love the poetry of Alfred Noyes, but how irrelevant are his words today—“It is lilac time in London”—in view of the frightful bombings that London knew, and may know again (may God forbid)? What contribution did Goethe make to Germany when that nation came under the demon power of Adolf Hitler? The strength for German faithfulness to high principles came in those days from the inexhaustible wells of the Word of God. The man who comes from his study with that one Book in his hand, in his heart, and on his lips, has the only message that can bring comfort and hope and deliverance in this mid-twentieth-century hour. This alone fills his heart with joy, and he thanks God for that divine guidance that has peritted him to spend his days in searching the oracles of God.

Spirit Of Expectancy

A look into the future must conclude this brief and inadequate testimony. It may seem almost fantastic, and I would not have believed it possible if someone had predicted this ten years ago, but the truth is that today I personally have a greater spirit of expectancy regarding the tasks I want to undertake in Bible study in the years that remain than I have known in any preceding years.

It is in the habitual, lifelong study of the Word of Truth that we begin to enter into the experience of the Psalmist, an experience of which the world knows nothing, “In thy presence is fullness of joy” (Ps. 16:11). The Word Incarnate is revealed to us in the Word Written, and the more we know of this written Word, the richer and deeper is our knowledge of Christ; and the more we know of him, the more we love him; and the more we love him and keep his commandments, the more do we come into a revelation of his great love for us. Is not the persistent study of, and obedience to the Word of God the key to the words of our Lord recorded in John’s Gospel (15:7–11): “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; and so shall ye be my disciples. Even as the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you: abide ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be made full.”

The name of Wilbur M. Smith has been synonymous for a generation with the study of the English Bible. Born in Chicago on June 9, 1894, he ministered in Presbyterian pulpits in Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania before teaching at Moody Bible Institute (1938–47) and then at Fuller Theological Seminary, where he has served the last ten years as Professor of English Bible. He is Editor of Peloubet’s Select Notes on the International Sunday School Lessons, and is currently featured in a Sunday night television series (Los Angeles, Channel 13) on the fulfillment of biblical prophecies. An indefatigible writer, he is author of over a dozen books.

What we know about Babylonia is mostly derived from clay tablets. Tens of thousands of these cuneiform texts have been found in the last century and for some periods these tell us a great deal about the inhabitants of the lower Tigris and Euphrates river valleys, about their religion, customs and business affairs. But as yet comparatively few of these texts are historical in the more direct sense of the term.

By a curious coincidence a number of texts that are historical have come to light in recent months, all relating to a comparatively short period of some seventy years—from about 609 to 539 B.C. Between these dates, as it happens, lies the last period of Babylonian greatness. In 612 Nineveh, the ancient capital of Assyria, was taken by the Medes and Babylonians and the latter inherited the former Assyrian empire; Babylon now ruled all Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine and, for a brief while, perhaps part of Egypt itself; Jerusalem fell and the Jews were carried off to exile. At the end of these 70 years, in 539, Babylon fell in her turn. She was taken by the Persians under Cyrus.

Although many of these happenings are known from the Bible or from classical writers such as Josephus and Herodotus, we have had few contemporary Babylonian records. Take the Battle of Carchemish, early or in our period; it was at Carchemish that Babylon won Syria and Palestine from Egypt, and its sequel was the capture of Jerusalem nine years later. Until now great events such as these have been known only from the Old Testament and Josephus (who often derived his history from the Old Testament) and their dates and many details have been lacking. The history of Egypt at this time is almost a blank and the doings of even major Babylonian kings like Nebuchadnezzar have had to be reconstructed from a few building inscriptions supplemented by later classical allusions. Scarcely anything is known of the Medes, the northeastern neighbors of the Babylonians, as they pushed their frontier north and westwards to the Halys River. The clash between the two great powers in Asia Minor—the Medes and Lydians—remains a history to be read only in Greek literature. It was of obvious importance that we should find contemporary documents to explain the relationship of the Babylonians with these peoples.

The Babylonian Chronicle

At last, in 1923, two clay tablets were found of the class commonly known as the Babylonian Chronicle. They described the combined Medo-Babylonian sack of Nineveh at the beginning of the period in 612; they described the Medo-Persian advance on Babylon in 539 at the end. But for the next 30 years no further texts of this kind turned up. Then last year I completed the translation of four small inscribed clay tablets found in the Babylonian Collection of the British Museum. They were among a lot of ordinary contract tablets, looked exactly like them, and had been there for over 50 years. It now turned out that they were part of the same unique, reliable and contemporary Babylonian Chronicle, written in Babylon itself. One text tells how Babylon struggled to free itself from the Assyrian yoke, inspired by the leadership of Nabopolassar who was later elected king. Then in 605, it says, the aged and sick Nabopolassar handed over the army to his eldest son and crown prince, the vigorous Nebuchadnezzar. The very same year Nebuchadnezzar won the battle of Carchemish and turned three years of defeat by the Egyptian forces into a glorious victory. He marched boldly up the Euphrates bank to the Egyptian stronghold; then, says the Chronicle:

He crossed the river to go against the Egyptian army which lay in Carchemish. The armies fought with each other and the Egyptian army withdrew before him. He accomplished their defeat and beat them to non-existence. As for the rest of the Egyptian army which had escaped from the defeat so quickly that no weapon had reached them, the Babylonians overtook and defeated them in the district of Hamath so that not a single man escaped to his own country. At that time Nebuchadnezzar conquered the whole of Hatti-land.

The Book Of Kings

Hatti-land was the name for Syria and Palestine; the biblical Book of Kings puts these same events this way:

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came up and Jehoiakim became his servant three years. And the king of Egypt came not any more out of his land; for the king of Babylon had taken from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates all that pertained to the king of Egypt.

The new Chronicle even gives the precise date of Nabopolassar’s death, the 8th of Ab, that is the 16th August, 605 B.C. and the date, three weeks later, when Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne in Babylon. It was the very day he entered the capital after his victory, having ridden in from Palestine. This confirms what we already know from another source: from Berossus, who was a priest of Bel in Babylon, in the third century B.C.; fragments of Berossus’ history are incorporated in Josephus. Berossus tells how Nebuchadnezzar, hearing of his father’s death, “set affairs in Palestine in order and committed the prisoners he had taken to some of his friends while he went in haste, having but few with him over the desert to Babylonia.” It can be estimated now that the young crown prince made the arduous five-hundred-mile journey in about ten days. The chronicle goes on to give details of the Babylonian operations in Palestine during the first years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. He now received the submission of all the kings of Syria and her neighbors, including Jehoiakim of Judah who was to be his vassal for the next three years. Ashkelon was sacked. Fragments of a letter, written on papyrus, show that the city urgently appealed for help from Egypt but in vain. I think that all these successful operations were part of a carefully conceived plan. Nebuchadnezzar must have realized that, like many of his predecessors, he would have to consolidate his hold over the many city-states of Syria and Palestine before carrying the war across the Sinai desert into Egypt itself. He knew too that this step would have to be taken quickly if he were to free his armies for the defense of their own homeland from any possible invasion from the opposite direction—from the east. For in the Persian hills the first moves to unite the tribes were already taking place. The Medo-Persian confederation was no sudden achievement. It is not surprising then to learn from the new Chronicle that four years later, in 601, Nebuchadnezzar marched right through Palestine and fought a fierce battle with Egypt. There had hitherto been no hint of this from Egyptian, Babylonian or biblical sources, nor was it known that Egypt was so strong a military power at this time.

Defeat For Nebuchadnezzar

The communique giving the Babylonian version of this battle says rather vaguely that the Babylonian and Egyptian armies “clashed in open battle and inflicted heavy losses on each other”; it is obvious though that it was really a defeat for Nebuchadnezzar, for he had to spend the next 18 months re-equipping his army. This revival of Egyptian prestige may explain why Jehoiakim of Judah now ceased to pay tribute to his Babylonian overlord despite repeated warnings of the prophet Jeremiah. The inevitable punishment followed: three years later Nebuchadnezzar set out for Palestine, having previously safeguarded his line of march by punitive raids on the Arab tribes of Kedar and Hazor, south of Damascus. The siege and capture of Jerusalem, well known from the Bible, is graphically reported in the Chronicle:

In the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, the month of Kislev, the king of Babylon mustered his army, marched to the Hatti-land and besieged the city of Judah. On the second day of the month Adar he captured the city and seized the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice, received its heavy tribute and sent it to Babylon.

An Extra-Biblical Account

So for the first time we have an extra-biblical account of this historic event which began the period of the Jewish exile in Babylon. Jerusalem fell on the second of Adar, that is the 16th March 597 B.C., and so we now have a fixed point in both biblical and Babylonian history. Jehoiachin’s captivity in Babylon, by the way, is also confirmed by ration tablets which were found at Babylon in 1917 but were not published until 1949. These tablets name the king, his family and some fellow-Judeans, and list the amounts of oil and barley issued to them by prison officials. The Jewish king chosen by Nebuchadnezzar to succeed him was Zedekiah, whose rebellion eleven years later was to result in the desolation of Judah, the destruction of Jerusalem and further large-scale deportations. But of this the new Chronicle tells us nothing; the text breaks off after describing the suppression of an army revolt in Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar’s eleventh year—that is, in 595. Except for one interesting tablet the Chronicle is only resumed in 556 for the reign of Nabu-na’id, better known perhaps as the classical Nabonidus, the last native king of Babylon.

Discovering A Clue

While I was working on these small documents, another piece of the jigsaw puzzle was found to fit into the growing picture of this period. Last autumn Dr. Rice of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London uncovered three unusually large paving stones in the floor of the Great Mosque of Harran in Southern Turkey, the city where once the patriarch Abraham had stayed before moving on from Ur to the promised land. These stone blocks proved to be inscribed in Babylonian and are now being read by Professor Gadd, to whom I owe much of the information concerning this most recent and important discovery.

The three Harran texts all tell of events in the reign of the same Nabonidus. One of the newly found inscriptions purports to be the autobiography of the Lady Adad-Guppi, the mother of Nabonidus. This remarkable old lady enumerates her pious deeds done at Harran to the gods Sin, Nergal, Nusku and Sadarnunna; it seems she gave great gifts to these gods in return for the benefits bestowed on her during her many years of service. She names the eight kings of Assyria and Babylonia in whose reigns she acted as the high-priestess of the moon-god at Harran.

The other two monuments found at Harran are a more direct continuation of the events I have described. They are duplicates. They show the king himself holding a distinctive notched staff and above him the emblems of the moon-god Sin and other deities. A third copy of the same stele, by the way, has long been in the British Museum but so mutilated that it could not be read. In contrast to his mother’s account of her life Nabonidus describes his own affairs in an unconventional manner with an appearance, at least, of much candor and modesty.

I am Nabu-na’id who has not the distinction of being somebody, and kingship is not within me, but the gods and goddesses begged for me and the god Sin raised me to the king-ship. In the depths of the night the moon-god caused me to behold a dream saying, “Rebuild Ehulhul, the temple of the god Sin, which is in the city Harran, immediately. All the lands are entrusted into thy hands.”

This introduction was no doubt intended to explain several things—how Nabonidus reached the throne (he was an irregular successor, what the Assyrians earlier called “the son of a nobody”), and why he was so devoted to this remote and distant sanctuary. His fanatical obsession with Sin’s temple and worship was perhaps inherited from his old mother; it certainly led to his concentrating all his resources there for the first two years of his reign.

From Nabu-na’id we now learn for the first time of an unexpected turn of events.

But the people, sons of Babylon, Borsippa, Nippur, Ur, Erech and Larsa, both priests and people of the chief cities of Babylonia sinned against his great god-head. They created disturbance, they acted evilly, they paid no heed to the command of the king of the gods, Sin. They forgot their duty, they talked rebellion, falsehood and disloyalty. Like dogs they devoured one another. Thus they caused plague and famine to be in the midst of them, and it diminished the people.

Nabonidus then did a strange thing, he says.

I went far away on the road to the towns of Tema, Dadanu, Padakku, Hibra, Iadihu, as far as Iatribu; for ten years I went about among these and entered not into my city of Babylon.

Light On Nabonidus’ Exile

The exile of Nabonidus to Tema in Southern Arabia has long been an event as celebrated as obscure and here at last is new light on it. He left the administration to his son Belshazzar—the same Belshazzar whose fate we know from the Old Testament Book of Daniel.

During his ten-year voluntary exile Nabonidus seems to have occupied Tema by force and settled there, building himself a palace in the Babylonian style. His new kingdom, if such it was, lay in the Arabian desert some 500 miles south of Babylon. It covered a wide area, for Dadanu is obviously the biblical Dedan named by the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel as the neighbor of Tema and as a center trading in cloth with Tyre.

Now the most controversial and enigmatic aspects of the exile of Nabonidus are his motives for it. The new text seems to imply that he left because plague and famine were rife in Babylonia; we do in fact possess numerous Babylonian contracts which allude to the famine itself and show how sharply the prices of staple commodities rose as a result. Yet one suspects that plague can scarcely be the main reason for so long an absence. Perhaps the Babylonians thought that the plague itself was due to the king’s religious heresy. One feels that at any rate the priests at Babylon must have thought his exile to be a just retribution for substituting Sin, the moon-god, for their local Bel-Marduk, as head of the pantheon.

Now by a singular coincidence another account of the same event has come to light within the last few months. This is a fragment of an Aramaic scroll found at Qumran in Jordan, which forms part of the “Dead Sea Scrolls.” This fragment probably dates from the first century B.C.; that makes it about four centuries later than the events recorded by Nabonidus himself. It tells how “Nabu-na’i,” here called king of Assyria and Babylonia, was smitten with a severe disease by the Most High God. At length God sent him a message from one of the Jewish exiles in Babylonia. This man told the king that the protracted sickness was a divine punishment because he had transgressed by praying to gods of silver, gold, bronze, iron, of wood, stone and clay. The king thereupon repented and was healed. Then, as a result of a dream, he returned to Babylon where he proceeded to establish the worship of the one true God. His reign ended in peace and prosperity. Obviously, to the monotheistic Jews the moon-god Sin could never replace Yahweh as the Most High God.

Remarkable Agreement

There is a remarkable agreement between this Aramaic second century document and the Book of Daniel—so different in origin and inspiration. In Daniel you have an almost identical story told not about Nabu-na’id but about Nebuchadnezzar; how he was afflicted for seven years, repented and was restored to his kingdom. The similarities cannot be explained by mere literary borrowing, for, as we shall see, the story also reflects historical facts concerning the end of Nabonidus’ exile. Incidentally, Herodotus himself refers to both Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus by one name—Labynetus.

If the reason for the king’s exile was not primarily the desire to avoid the plague or ostracism on religious grounds, Professor Sidney Smith may be right in his view that by going to Tema, Nabonidus sought to restore the dwindling fortunes of his country; his plan would have been to gain control of the rich trade routes passing through Arabia to Egypt and to the north. We know that during his absence he kept contact with his capital by camel caravan. But even if this move was prompted by economic necessity it does look to me as if the main reason for Nabonidus’ absence was personal pique toward opposition to his pet project at Harran, and, perhaps, to the religious innovations which accompanied it. For on the stele Nabonidus tells us that at the end of ten years he found his subjects in a better frame of mind, being now willing to do the gods’ will.

They rejoiced in abundance and the kings of Egypt, of the Medes and of the Arabs, who had been hostile, sent messengers to me to make an alliance involving peace and friendly relations. The gods made the peoples of Babylonia and Syria to be united with me in word and heart … they kept watch and fulfilled my commands in the remoteness of distant mountains and in the remote paths I travelled.

The Identity Of Darius

Nabonidus had won his own way, but not for long. “The king of the Medes” in the tenth year of Nabonidus’ reign can be no other than Cyrus the Persian, for he had incorporated the province of Media in what became the greater realm of Persia. We know that at the end of our seventy-year period—in 539—Cyrus captured Babylon; both Nabonidus and Belshazzar died soon after the fall of the city and the Babylonian empire passed under the sway of the Achaemenid rulers. It now seems that in Babylonia Cyrus used the title “King of the Medes” in addition to the more usual “King of Persia, King of Babylonia, King of the lands.” On the other hand, according to the Book of Daniel, the conqueror of Babylon was an elderly Median named Darius who succeeded Belshazzar. The biblical text, if you remember, says: “So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.” There is no place in Babylonian or Persian history for any such predecessor of Cyrus, and attempts to identify this “Darius” have been a source of controversy for years. In fact, the majority of scholars doubt his historicity. But this new text reopens the whole question. Is it too bold an hypothesis to suggest that the “King of the Medes” of our Babylonian text may yet prove to be the “Darius the Mede” of Daniel’s day? Cyrus, at the age of 62, might well have taken another name as king of the Medes and even have been the son of an Ahasuerus, as was the biblical “Darius,” so obscure is his ancestry. The biblical reference can as easily be translated “Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, even in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.”

Donald J. Wiseman, O.B.E., M.A., is head of the Department of Western Asiatic Antiquities of The British Museum. This article abridges a recent BBC broadcast talk given on “Nebuchadnezzar and The Last Days of Babylon.”

“But why should I get a new Bible, when the words of my Bible speak so sweetly to my heart?” an elderly lady said, as it was suggested to her that perhaps she would like to obtain one of the more modern translations. On the other hand, another person, who had recently purchased a modern-language translation of the New Testament, declared, “Why, in the few months since I’ve had this new version, I’ve read the Bible more than for ten years. Now, it makes sense.”

These two responses are typical of the differences which have always existed between the old and the new—the continuing conflict between loyalty to the past and concern for the present and the future. It would be quite wrong to imagine that these diverse attitudes concerning different translations of the Bible came into being only after the recent publication of the Revised Standard Version. The accompanying publicity, both pro and con, no doubt threw the spotlight upon certain underlying tensions between “traditionalists” and “contemporaries” (if we may apply such names), but conflicts over new and old translations of the Scriptures in English preceded even the King James Version. In fact, the strong adherents to the Geneva Version, published approximately fifty years before the King James, first opposed the Bishops Bible, published some ten years after their Geneva Version, but when the King James Version appeared, they spared no words of bitter criticism in denouncing the scholars whom they contended had distorted the Word of God.

500 English “Translations”

Between the time of the King James Version, published first in 1611, and the present time, those opposing new English translations and revisions have had plenty of opportunity to denounce the work of persons attempting to put the Scriptures in a more intelligible form, for since 1611 a total of more than 500 translations of the Scriptures have been published in English. These have consisted of twenty-seven full Bibles, over seventy-five New Testaments, more than 150 publications of less than a New Testament, but not printed as parts of commentaries, and the rest, often consisting of major portions of the Bible, printed as new translations to accompany expositions of the meaning of the Scriptures. Even during the last fifty years there has been an amazing increase in revisions of the Scriptures into English, so that scarcely a year passes without some new revision of the Bible or New Testament coming off the press.

This almost unbelievable interest among English-speaking people in new translations of the Scriptures (their interest is manifest by the fact that most of these translations have proven to be profitable publishing ventures), is, however, not an isolated phenomenon. There is scarcely a major language in the world in which Scripture revision is not now going on. These include not only such major European languages as German, French, Norwegian, Russian, Polish, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Greek, Spanish, and Dutch, but almost all the important so-called “missionary languages” of the younger churches throughout the world, e.g. Chinese, Tagalog, Cebuano, Indonesian, Thai, Nepali, Tibetan, Bengali, Hindi, Marathi, Zulu, Swahili, Chiluba, Hausa, Bulu, and Cuzco Quechua. In fact, there are major revisions now going on in more than 90 languages in the world, and further translating in another 175 languages, with other translators at work to produce the Scriptures in at least 200 languages which have never had anything of the Word of God.

In the light of so many revisions being made throughout the world, one is inevitably led to ask two kinds of questions: (1) Do all of these revisions tend to meet with the same types of opposition from those who insist, whether rightly or wrongly, that the old is better? and (2) What are the reasons for so many revisions, especially at this time? Is this the result of liberal theology, especially in the mission field? Or is this possibly a genuine “return to the Bible”?

In reply to those who may question the widespread nature of opposition to revision, one can only say that in greater or lesser degree it has always been present. Even the King James Revisers had to deal with the same kinds of complaints, as their Introduction to the Reader (unfortunately omitted from practically all modern editions) so ably testifies, for their work had already encountered strong opposition and they knew it would meet with ungrateful bitterness. Accordingly, they wrote in the Preface:

Zeale to promote the common good whether it be by devising any thing our selves, or revising that which hath bene laboured by others, deserueth certainly much respect and esteeme, but yet findeth but cold intertainment in the world.…

For he that medleth with mens Religion in any part medleth with their custome … and though they finde no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to heare of altering …

Many mens mouths have bene open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and aske what may be the reason, what the necessitie of the employment: Hath the Church bene deceived, say they, all this while?… Was their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?…

It is quite understandable that those who have been led to a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ through a message communicated to them in a particular version should feel that such a translation was not only fully adequate for themselves but equally valid for everyone else. Moreover, those who by long habit or because of vested interests become attached to a particular form of the Scriptures are very unlikely to give up the old without a struggle. It should not be surprising, therefore, that revisions of the Bible have in general been condemned from the time of Wycliffe and Tyndale right down to the present.

Reasons For Revision

Certainly there must be some important reasons for the fact that at present there are more revisions and new translations in process throughout the world than at any other time in the history of the Christian Church. One cannot, however, point to any one reason as being either the exclusive or the principal factor in any one revision. Persons who have felt led to undertake such tasks have usually been induced to do so by a number of reasons, including (1) the existence of more accurate textual evidence, (2) important new information as to the meanings of biblical terms, (3) significant improvements in the interpretation of passages, (4) the inevitable changes which occur constantly in any living language and (5) a re-emphasis upon the principle of intelligibility as the valid basis for legitimate translating.

Better Textual Evidence

In John 1:18 the King James Version and all traditional translations read, “the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father.” However, some of the important manuscripts discovered during the past century have what was regarded by many as a strange reading, for instead of “only begotten Son” these manuscripts read “only begotten God”—such an unmistakable declaration of the deity of our Lord that certain persons insisted that this must have been a change introduced by some overzealous scribe. But in the recently published Bodmer II papyrus, which dates from the second century A.D., the reading of “only begotten God” is unmistakably confirmed. It would be impossible, of course, to declare unequivocally that “only begotten God” was the reading of the autograph of John’s Gospel, but it is most important that this significant variant be incorporated into modern translations, whether in the text itself or in the margin, for a translation which fails to provide its readers with this important new light is robbing them of some of the most important evidence from the best manuscripts.

There are some instances in which textual differences seem only very slight, but may be highly meaningful. For example, in the traditional rendering of John 7:52 there has always been a problem for exegetes, for it would appear as though the Greek meant, “No prophet ever comes out of Galilee,” which, of course, was not true of Jewish history. To help to remedy this situation Owen suggested some years ago that the text should be amended at this point and that a single article should be added, so that the passage would read, “The prophet (meaning, of course, the Messiah) will not come out of Galilee.” Imagine the keen interest of scholars who in going through the Bodmer II papyrus discovered that in this earliest extant text of John the article, suggested by Owen, is present. Undoubtedly, this passage in John 7:52, instead of being a rather oblique reference to the Messiah, is a direct one, and completely in keeping with the obvious intent of the Gospel account.

In addition to these two minor details, coming from the most recently available textual evidence, there are of course numerous other instances in which better biblical manuscripts have immeasurably improved the sense of passages. For example, in 1 John 5:18 we are no longer constrained to believe that “he that is begotten of God keepeth himself” (speaking of the effort of the redeemed to keep themselves from sin). Because of the absence of a single letter in the better Greek manuscripts, this passage should be translated, “He who was begotten by God keeps him” (indicating clearly that it is Christ Himself who keeps those who trust in Him). Rather than being fearful of the results of textual research, we who place our confidence in the inspiration of the writers of the Scriptures, rather than in the inerrancy of scribes, can be not only intellectually thankful for such greater accuracy but spiritually blessed by the more meaningful message.

It might seem anachronistic to speak of new meanings for words of the Bible, when obviously these words only had meanings in a society of at least 2,000 years ago. Nevertheless, during the last century an immense amount of study and research has gone into the careful examination and evaluation of masses of information coming from the Bible lands. The most important sources of our information are to be found in the tens of thousands of papyri fragments and scrolls, including everything from grocery lists to funeral orations. These scraps of paper have contained many examples of the words also found in the Bible, and thus have provided clues to meanings which were unknown to early translators of the Scriptures into English. For example, the Greek adverb ataktos (and the related derived verb) translated in the King James Version as “disorderly” in 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 7, and 11 really refers to people who “live in idleness.” The meaning of idleness fits the context immeasurably better than “walking disorderly,” for it is in this passage that Paul insists that if one does not work he should not eat. Furthermore, Paul calls attention to his own practice of working for a living with his own hands, as an example of one who was “not idle” (verse 7).

Another term which in the papyri suggests the possibility of a significant difference in meaning is the Greek word hypostasis, rendered as “substance” in most translations of Hebrews 11:1. This same word, however, has been found to be the term for a “title deed” to property. This passage, therefore, may have a meaning which is much more concrete than what has often been assumed. Accordingly, faith may simply be “the title deed of the things hoped for,” for it is faith which makes future hope a present possession.

The careful study of words has resulted in removing several instances of apparent contradiction from the Scriptures. In Galations 6:5 the King James text says, “every man shall bear his own burden,” but in the same chapter, verse 2, the text reads, “bear ye one another’s burdens.” Such renderings are understandably confusing to many people, but a close examination of the two different Greek terms employed in these verses soon clears up the difficulty. The word used in the second verse refers to excessively heavy burdens, and the word in verse 5 means one’s legitimate load. Contemporary Biblical studies have clarified the meanings of hundreds of such passages of Scripture, and it is thus little wonder that people throughout the world are demanding that they have revisions which will reflect certain of these more accurate renderings of the Word of God.

More Accurate Interpretations

All improvements in text and the meanings of individual words inevitably add up to more accurate interpretations. However, there is a class of changes which is somewhat distinct from these other two, for though the text remains the same and the meanings of the words are not significantly altered by lexical research, nevertheless, modern translations have profited by important exegetical suggestions. In John 1:9, for example, the traditional rendering of “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” implies a kind of automatic enlightenment of each person on being born. However, this is not really the import of this passage. The theme of this Gospel is the coming of the light into the world, not the coming of men. Accordingly, most modern translations have followed an alternative rendering, “the true Light, which enlightens every man, was coming into the world.”

Similarly, in Romans 1:17 and Galatians 3:11 the traditional interpretation has been “the just shall live by faith.” This is, of course, quite a possible interpretation of the Greek expression, which is itself a literal rendering of the Hebrew original in Habakkuk. However, there is an equally valid rendering which is much more in keeping with the theme treated in Romans and Galatians, for in these two Epistles Paul was not dealing primarily with “living by faith” but with “being justified by faith.” Hence, the interpretation of “those who through faith are just shall live” should certainly be recognized, whether in the text or in the margin.

There are, of course, some persons who object to marginal notes in the Bible, for they think that these tend to detract from the authority of the Word, thus depriving the message of its full force. Interestingly enough, the translators of the King James Version were faced with this same accusation, and in an effort to forestall such criticisms they said in their introduction:

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point … Therefore as Saint Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needs doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.

It is unfortunate for the average reader of the Scriptures that in so many editions of the King James Version the hundreds of marginal notes introduced by the translators have been omitted (except for certain reference editions which include them in the reference column), for their continued printing would have done much to correct false ideas and attitudes about biblical revelation.

This does not mean that editions of the Bible should be filled with the differences of scholarly viewpoints, but complete honesty and integrity dictate that those who are aware of such legitimate diversities in rendering should indicate to the reader when there are alternatives. Anything less than this is not only misleading, but a betrayal of our Protestant heritage, which looks to the Scriptures rather than to human tradition for its authority.

Changes In Living Languages

Another important reason for continued revisions is that no living language stands still. It is in a state of constant change in every aspect, whether in the pronunciation of words (as reflected often in spellings), in grammatical forms, syntactic arrangements of words, or the meanings of terms. People of the seventeenth century had no difficulty understanding “prevent” in the sense of “go ahead of” (1 Thess. 4:15) or “let” (2 Thess. 2:7 and Romans 1:13) with the meaning of “hinder” (compare the legal phrase “without let or hindrance”). They rightly preferred “Holy Ghost” to “Holy Spirit,” but during the intervening years since 1611 the words ghost and spirit have completely changed meanings, for now ghost is understood by us as an apparition, precisely what spirit meant in the time of King James. People of that day could reckon by cubits, rods, furlongs, and firkins, but we need some equivalent in feet, yards, miles, and gallons. For the sake of greater accuracy and intelligibility we must use different words, e.g. “morsel” instead of “sop” (John 13:30), “prune” instead of “purge” (John 15:2), “rooms’ instead of “mansions” (John 14:2), and “Counselor” instead of “Comforter” (John 14:16), to mention only a few.

Rather than “changing the meaning” of the King James Version, as some have claimed, such modern words serve more to “restore the meaning.” In many instances the fault is not with the traditional translations, but with the English language which has changed, but most people are relatively unaware of what has happened.

Re-Emphasis Upon Intelligibility

The importance of communication in our contemporary world has made it fully evident that if a translation does not communicate the meaning of the original it is not really a translation, but a string of words. Accordingly, an idiom such as “children of the bridechamber” (which can be grossly misinterpreted) has usually been changed in modern translations to “wedding guests,” or more specifically “friends of the bridegroom.” Similarly, the strange phrase “bowels of mercy” has been rendered more meaningfully as “tender compassion.” However, in order to make for greater intelligibility modern translations have not only modified the forms of idioms, but have often simplified the complex structure of difficult sentences.

In John 1:14 the phrase “full of grace and truth” obviously refers to the Word, earlier in the verse, but when it is placed at the end of the verse, even though after a parenthesis, its meaning may be readily confused. Accordingly, a rearrangement of order is not only fully legitimate but helps to convey the meaning of the original, which in Greek is quite clear because of the grammatical forms, but which in English can be entirely misleading if the words are left in their Greek order. It is often necessary that long, involved sentences be broken up into shorter, more intelligible ones. Compare, for example, the traditional translations of Ephesians 1:3–14 (which is usually one long sentence, even as it is in Greek) with modern translations, which may use as many as half a dozen sentences, with considerable improvement in sense.

One must not imagine, however, that this striving for greater intelligibility is purely a contemporary development. The King James translators were for their day real pioneers in this field, and as a result they suffered from their critics. On the one hand, they shunned the newfangled ultramodern terms of the time proposed by the Puritans, and on the other, they rejected a host of traditional words used by the Roman Catholics and the strict conservatives. Their ultimate purpose was intelligibility, and in stating their intent, these translators wrote, “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” (By which, of course, they meant the common people.)

This basic principle employed by the King James revisers, namely, that the message in English should be as intelligible to the common man as the original was in its setting in “Canaan,” cannot be improved upon. This means, however, that if one is to follow the same principle one must not hesitate to revise the Scriptures or to use such revisions.

Today, even as in the seventeenth century, there are those whose basic suspicion of learning and scholarship has prompted them to decry revisions of the Scriptures, whether of the King James Version in that day or of various modern revisions in our own. Moreover, there has been in some circles the impression that revisions are generally the outgrowth of scholarly perversity in trying to upset people’s faith. Such charges have been made not only against various English revisions, but perhaps even somewhat more against revisions on the mission field. The truth of the matter is that most revisions are promoted primarily by a desire for evangelistic outreach, and this is especially true for the mission field. When a church is spiritually dead—content with its ritualistic practices and its liturgical forms—there is no life to encourage any revision. It is only when the church becomes aware of its need to communicate the Word of God with greater effectiveness that there is an urge to revise or to translate afresh.

Perhaps, however, the strangest contradiction in certain phases of contemporary Bible translation and revision is that some of those who most loudly proclaim their belief in literal inerrancy cling most tenaciously to traditional translations which in many instances are not based on the best manuscripts, and which at times contain inaccurate interpretations. Apparently, for fear that to give in an inch to modern scholarship will result in complete capitulation, those who affirm so strongly their acceptance of the truth as “God-breathed” frequently have resisted attempts to introduce any changes into the traditional forms. However, rather than being fearful of what might come from research in matters of text and interpretation and hence reluctant to participate in or promote such endeavors, conservatives should be in the forefront of any such undertakings. We have everything to gain and nothing to lose (except perhaps a few pet sermons) by the discovery of the truth as revealed to us in the earliest manuscripts and through the most reliable interpretations. Because the Bodmer II papyrus agrees with the best ancient manuscripts in not containing John 5:4 (the story of the angel disturbing the water in the Pool of Bethesda) and John 7:53 to 8:11 (the story of the woman taken in adultery), we should not be disturbed. Such facts should not prejudice anyone against textual studies, especially when the Bodmer II papyrus does contain such an important reading as “only begotten God.” However, our reactions to scholarship must not be dictated by whether or not present-day discoveries confirm or deny our own theological views. It is the “truth which shall make us free,” and it is this truth which alone can free us from our past errors (regardless of how precious they may have seemed) and reveal to us God’s Word and will. This new appreciation of truth, as expressed in the processes of revision and translation, is the only basis for a common rallying point for all those who love him who declared himself “the way, the truth, and the life.”

Eugene A. Nida is Secretary of the Translations Department of the American Bible Society. He holds the Ph.D. degree, in linguistics, from University of Michigan, and is author of Morphology, the Descriptive Analysis of Words, as well as of Learning a Foreign Language, and Customs and Cultures.

What of preaching in current thought and practice? What is the general character of twentieth-century preaching, judging from present-day pulpit men and literature?

Perhaps we can get an historic perspective by glancing at Harry Emerson Fosdick, who is regarded by many as the greatest preacher of our time, and Jonathan Edwards, who is regarded by virtually all as the greatest preacher of the eighteenth century (at least in America).

Though always a candid opponent of historic, creedal Christianity, which he usually dubbed “Fundamentalism,” Dr. Fosdick receives high praise from Dr. Ganse Little (The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, February 1957). “We must hasten to add,” he remarks, “as Dr. Fosdick does himself, that here is a man literally ‘saved by grace’ for a ministry of unsurpassed helpfulness to men in every walk of life for well on towards fifty years.” Dr. Fosdick believes in “grace” in essentially the same way Pelagius believed in “grace”—and as Augustine proved that Pelagius’ “grace” was not the Bible’s grace, so Machen proved the same of Dr. Fosdick’s “grace.”

With respect to Dr. Fosdick’s “unsurpassed helpfulness,” a remark is in order. It probably would be generally granted that Dr. Fosdick was the most influential American preacher of the first half of the century (at least on ministers and the intelligentsia). Whether he was the most useful would depend, as he would gladly admit, on the soundness of his message. If it was the truth of God, as he no doubt believes and Dr. Little with him, then it would follow that his usefulness was probably unsurpassed among preachers. If his gospel was “another gospel,” as many believe, then the effect of his life requires drastic re-evaluation. This is all obvious and no one would admit it sooner, we suppose, than Dr. Fosdick. Dr. Little, though giving a positively delightful review of the autobiography (The Living of These Days) does not wrestle with this problem, apparently because he believes it self-evident that Fosdick’s message is basically true and wholesomely liberating.

Of especial interest to us is the turning point in Fosdick’s life. One of the early and pivotal events was his repudiation of the preaching of the coming wrath of God (hell). Such preaching turned him from “orthodoxy” permanently and accounts for his lifelong crusade against “Fundamentalism.”

Now the turning point in the career of Edwards was precisely the opposite. He had sore problems, as a young theological student at Yale, about divine sovereignty and particularly its exercise in the damnation of some men. However, from feeling this was a “monstrous” doctrine he was inwardly persuaded of the “sweetness” of divine sovereignty and yielded himself absolutely and unquestionably to it. It became the dominant note in his preaching that God “was sovereign in the matter of salvation” and the sermon which he regarded as most fruitful in conversions is entitled “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.” Edwards preached much more than this theme and other than this theme, but he did preach this theme.

And certainly this is a striking contrast, that the most eminent preacher of 1750 stressed the absolute sovereignty of God, even in salvation and damnation, while the most eminent preacher of 1950 found himself in lifelong rebellion against such sovereignty.

What is true of these two champions of the pulpit is an epitome of others, and the cue to twentieth-century preaching in general. It reveals itself in the very way in which most sermons begin. Never did Edwards, or virtually any Puritan, begin with other than the Word of God and its close exposition. Present-day homilies, by contrast, seldom begin with serious exposition unless the text is narrative in character and affords opportunity to tell an interesting and unfamiliar Bible story. Early Puritans used illustrations sparingly even when they, like the parables of Christ, were basically analogous to the revealed truth. In most sermons we now read or hear, the text illustrates the illustration rather than vice versa. The homiletical tail is wagging the homiletical dog, and most of the time the tail itself is only pinned on. But the illustrations—independently considered—are usually very good. As far as the biblical content of modern sermons is concerned, there is simply no comparison with Puritan preaching. One learned something about the Word of God then, while now he usually comes out of church better informed about Saroyan, Ibsen, Freud or Eisenhower. We are having a preaching of the word indeed—but it is the word of man.

The eighteenth-century pulpit was quite down-to-earth and practical, but preaching was always related to eternity—sub specie aeternitatis. This century seldom rises above an obsession or probes any deeper than a frustration. Here is the flyleaf of a current book on preaching: “Emphasizing that good preaching is doctrinal preaching applied to life, this book will assist pastors of all denominations to prepare sermons that will minister to the anxiety, insecurity, loneliness and frustration that beset our times.” Preachers seem to dabble more in amateur psychology than exegesis; they would be embarrassed by a person under conviction of sin, would talk a man out of feelings of guilt, and if confronted by someone fleeing from the wrath of God would be sure he was a paranoic.

It is no wonder that a layman has the courage to write: “What’s the Matter with Protestant Preaching?” (Church Management, September 1957.) This would take as much audacity, we should think, as it would take for us to write “How plumbers may improve their skill.” Men recognize that education, medicine, bricklaying and the like are the work of those specially trained in such subjects. But any one who hears sermons seems qualified to issue canons to direct the preacher who has usually had four years of general and three years of special training in this divine business. We are concerned to note that such supposed lay competence is a symptom of the breakdown of the awareness of the high calling of the ministry on the part of those to whom they minister. It hardly needs saying that this breakdown on the part of the laity is at least in part occasioned by the ministry’s own loss of a sense of specian vocation.

If preachers insist on competing with psychiatrists as counselors, with physicians as healers, with politicians as statesmen and with philosophers as speculators, then these specialists have every right to tell them how to preach. If a minister’s message is not based on “Thus saith the Lord,” then as a sermon it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of the specialists in the department with which it deals.

Do-It-Yourself Religion

Stay Alive All Your Life, by Norman Vincent Peale, Prentice-Hall. $3.95.

The writings of Dr. Peale are easily criticized, but the importance of his work cannot be underrated. As pastor, he has attempted to deal specifically and remedially with the problems of his people. By the use of psychiatrists as a part of the church counseling program, he has emphasized the relation of mental and emotional health to spiritual health, and by his stress on such a healing as revivifying ministry, he has brought back into focus the fact that salvation includes the redeeming and enjoying of our lives here and now. All this constitutes a program of major importance and one deserving of study and commendation. Unfortunately, Peak’s thinking does not live up to the promises implicit in his program.

First of all, any emphasis on biblical faith is utterly lacking. Peak’s God is the God of all religions, and all men have “the instinct of God and immortality” (p. 300). God is never presented as Judge, nor even as Saviour. In the process of attaining help, God is essentially passive and is appropriated by men. Jesus Christ is quoted by Peak, though not so often as his many great friends, but there is no expressed regard for his Person and his atoning work. Man works, not God, nor Christ.

Testimonials abound in the book, but they are not to Jesus but to Peak and his friends of “inner power.” What we have here is not religion, nor is it even moralism. Peak does not deal with problems of good and evil, but only of “right and wrong” (p. 144f); moral categories are replaced by neutral ones, correct and incorrect. The “supreme personal test at all times” is not, Am I a saved man, or even, Am I a good man, but rather, “‘Am I a right person?’ If you are ‘right’ things tend to go right” (p. 156). Peak defines religion thus: “Religion is a scientific methodology for thinking your way through problems” (p. 147). There is here neither religion nor moralism, but only self-help.

It is significant that only twice does Peak deal with guilt feelings (not sin or guilt in itself or as related to God), and on the first instance he urges its suppression. “Allow no sense of guilt to take the luster off your spirit. It’s the greatest of all causes of ennui”; rather, enthusiasm, “meaning ‘God within,’” is to be cultivated (p. 43). In the second instance he merely observes “the close relationship of guilt to tension” and finds it strange that the personality retains indiscretions like “pockets of spiritual poison” (p. 165f). He has no answer to this other than to have affirmative thoughts relieve your tensions. Peak speaks much of faith, but it is not faith in God, but “faith in faith,” which means in your capacities (pp. 1, 12, 22, 263, etc.).

Second, any real relationship to medical and psychiatric knowledge is lacking. There is a seeming reliance on psychosomatics, but actually Peak reverses the opinions of such theory. Instead of leaning on psychosomatic medicine, he favors the reverse, i.e., the body’s determination of the mind. By physical exercises and enacted routines, the mind is given spiritual power. Peak is thus closer to Yoga and Hinduism than to anything in Scripture or in psychosomatics. To develop “dynamic life … put animation in your daily work” (p. 110). To be vital, act vital. To be happy, practice joy (p. 172, 221f, etc.). Significant is his extended citation of “the practical program for maintaining continuous energy” of the late Lawrence Townsend, which meant nude sunbathing, the “emptying” of the mind of all “thought poisons” (we should “flush negatives” away, p. 33), plus the following affirmation, spoken aloud, standing tall:

I breathe in pure, beautiful, positive thoughts of God and Jesus Christ, which entirely fill my conscious and superconscious mind, to the total elimination of all hatred and malice, which, with God’s help, I dismiss completely from my conscious, unconscious, and superconscious mind.

This gave Townsend “conquest of the aging process, and … demonstrated conclusively the validity of his method” (p. 132 ff).

It would be easy to go on and cite ridiculous instances of Peak’s thinking (e.g., the possibility of the power of positive thinking in fishing, p. 16), but it is hardly necessary. This is neither religion, moralism, medicine, or anything more than self-help baptized with a sprinkling of devout-plus-medical phrases. For those who believe in self-help, this is the answer. For those who believe in the God of Scripture, the reality and validity of good and evil, and the grace of God unto salvation, there is nothing here but the frenzy of guilty life and the misery of creeping death.

R. J. RUSHDOONY

Significant Collection

Selected Letters of John Wesley, by Frederick C. Gill (editor). Philosophical, New York, 1956. $4.75.

John Wesley has left to the Christian world a collection of letters significant not only in their quantity, but in the range of subjects with which they dealt. Some 2,670 of them have been collected, written over a period of seventy years, and addressed to every type of person living in the England of his day and to some in the New World. It is in these letters that he often expressed himself more truly than in the more precise discourses which he left in writing.

This collection of 275 letters has been made to offer to the busy reader something of a cross-section of this correspondence, and particularly, to exhibit the wide range of Wesley’s interests. The most that can be given in a review is an indication of the major subjects with which the letters published deal. First of all, they sketch for us the life of a disciplined man, selfless in his labors for his Societies. He appears before us as tireless in his travels, intensive within his extensive labors, for he pursued his calling by house to house visitation and by constant personal interviews.

His correspondence with kings and prime ministers grew out, not of a desire to curry favor, but to maintain the cause of his Societies, particularly against the charge of disloyalty. The people called Methodists were at the same time a joy and a surprise to him. As he writes (p. 105), “… the more I attend the service of the Church in other places, the more I am convinced of the unspeakable advantage which the people called Methodists enjoy … The church where they assemble is not gay or splendid … but plain as well as clean. The persons who assemble there are … a people most of whom do, and the rest earnestly seek to, worship God in spirit and in truth.”

Wesley’s letters reveal foibles, very human foibles; he can be sentimental, or he can be withering; at times he seemed to be whimsical. The letters dealing with the question of his marriage are selected with a view to giving an over-all picture of this event in his career. The reader will admire a great deal in the side of Wesley’s character which this correspondence reveals. The range of his other interests amazes us; he had a very practical interest in diet, in electricity, in psychology and in the use of herbs for their curative properties. He kept a hand upon movements of thought no less than upon trends in the religious practices of his time. Best of all, he was a man of tremendous force and unquestioned dedication.

This volume can be recommended for its balanced insight into the life and work of this cosmopolitan figure. The Editor is correct in his statement at the end of the Preface: “His letters still live, and are characteristic of the man, showing unsuspected angles of his mind, reflecting vividly the life and spirit of the age, and revealing the birth and growth of a nationwide revival …” Here is a collection of the most significant of them.

HAROLD B. KUHN

Sunday School Methods

Informal Talks on Sunday School Teaching, by Ray Rozell, Grand Rapids International Publications, distributed by Kregel’s, Grand Rapids. 160 pp., $2.00.

Do you consider yourself a capable Sunday School teacher—one who possesses knowledge concerning the technique of teaching? Read this book and you will find how much can still be learned.

Here is a book that is true to its title. It presents a wealth of plain and intensely practical hints on teaching. The meaning of teaching and the importance of knowing the pupil’s needs and the teacher’s aims, the know-how of the pupil learning process and the methods to be followed—all this and more is systematically discussed. The treatment given these matters by the pedagogically astute author is as interesting as it is extensive.

The author rightly states that it is essential that the teacher be motivated by a Christian philosophy of life. But it is at this point that we find it difficult to follow the author. His philosophy—like too much present-day Sunday School material—is off-center. Instead of being God-centered or Christ-centered, it is pupil-centered. The whole teaching program is directed to supplying pupil needs. Even the Bible is said to be a “tool” to this end. Says the author, “It is the pupil that we are teaching and not the Bible.… In all of our lesson planning and presentation we must keep the pupil at the center” (p. 33). To make the pupil central in our teaching is to teach the pupil that he is the center. To make one who is an image of God central is an affront to him of whom he is an image.

To be sure, we must analyze the needs of our pupils and seek to supply them. We also agree that teaching should be impelled by a specific aim. But just what is this need and aim? Is it the need and aim envisioned by the mother of James and John who requested Jesus that her boys might be leaders in his kingdom and share his glory? The teacher who is so minded should be told in the words of Jesus, “You know not what you ask.” To share Christ’s glory is to drink Christ’s cup of death on the cross. Not the promotion of the individual, but the daily crucifixion of this individual with Christ, is the basic need of our pupils and the fundamental aim of Christian teaching. The “I” as a center must be crucified that the resurrected Christ may be central in their lives (Gal. 2:20).

MARK FAKKEMA

Valuable Tool

The Church in Soviet Russia, by Matthew Spinka. The Oxford University Press, New York, 1956. $3.25

A problem in the world church today is that of the church in Eastern Europe. A scholar who has made a careful study of this problem is Matthew Spinka of the Hartford Theological Seminary. His thesis in the volume before us is that the Soviet state, in the early years of the Bolshevik revolution wholly antipathetic towards the church in Russia, now utilizes the church as a valuable tool for its own purposes and policies (p. 94 et al.).

A disastrous event hardly equalled in “the whole course of church history” was the resolution of the Karlovtsi conference in November, 1921, in which a large number of Russian emigre ecclesiastical leaders called upon God to overthrow the Bolsheviks and to restore the House of Romanov to the throne (p. 24ff). The revolutionary Communist leaders, remembering the earlier slavish subservience of the church to the Tsar, interpreted the resolution as further proof of reactionary church political policies and the church itself between the anvil and the hammer. In his struggle for church autonomy Tikhon, who was the first leader of the post-revolutionary church (1917–25) and became patriarch, at first fought the regime. Within a year, however, he saw that that policy could only end in defeat so he altered it to secure for his church autonomy within the state. Tikhon became convinced, especially during his imprisonment (1922) that non-interference in politics was the policy necessary for the church’s survival. The reward for this change was that the state gave him the legal right to administer the church.

Tikhon’s successor, Sergei, sought increasing state recognition and in 1927 signed a pact with the state which made the church subservient to it. The year previous 117 bishops were exiled and the whereabouts of 40 others was unknown. “By this systematic weeding out of the best elements of the Russian episcopate the GPU in the end succeeded in purging the church of all who posessed moral courage to oppose the policies of the state” (64). Sergei himself spent three and one-half months in prison that year during which he decided to sign the historic document, the most notable incident of his eighteen-year tenure of office. The “Declaration” stated that the Soviet government was guiltless of any wrongdoing in its relations to the church and placed the blame instead on church leaders themselves. Therafter patriarch Sergei cooperated increasingly with the government even declaring that “in the Soviet Union no religious persecution has ever existed, nor does it now exist”; that “churches are closed not by governmental order but because of the will of the inhabitants, and in many cases even the decision of the faithful”; that “the reports concerning cruelties of the agents of the Soviet government in relation to certain priests absolutely do not correspond to reality and are lies”; that “priests themselves are guilty of not making use of the freedom of preaching granted them”; and that “the church itself does not desire to open theological training institutes” (p. 78f).).

Sergei’s subordination to the state won for the church certain privileges. In 1937 the Soviet government for the first time since the revolution included in its census a statement concerning religious affiliation and revealed that 57% of the adult population was related to the church and that those persons declared themselves to be believers (p. 80). Other considerations were given the church. The shift in Soviet policy is shown by the author to have been greatly accelerated when Nazi Germany broke its pact with Russia in June 1941 and invaded the country. “The (Soviet) regime was now faced not only with a powerful foreign invaded, but also with the possibility of revolt at home” (82). To the surprise of many, including the regime, the church remained steadfastly loyal and Sergei used everything at his command to serve the “holy” Soviet cause, his “sycophantic glorifications of the ‘great, God-given leader of the Russian people’—Stalin—(being) notorious. The church thus ceased to be a Church, and became an adjunct of the state. This is the tragedy of the Russian Church and its leadership” (p. 863. Spinka believes that the present state of the church in Russia is, in “many particulars, worse than ever before.”

The present Patriarch, Alexei, continues Sergei’s policy of unconditional service to the state. His first official act was a letter to Stalin, dated May 19, 1944, in which he pledged unswerving loyalty to the “God-appointed leader.”

Second to Alexei in the Russian Church is Metropolitan Nikolai who has striven to outdo his superior in singing the praises of the Soviet communist regime. Professor Spinka avers that his eulogy of Stalin on the 26th anniversary of the October Revolution has been “rarely exceeded by the most notorious communist sycophants.” “Our church members,” it says, “along with the entire population, discern in our Leader the greatest man that has ever been born in our country. For he unites in his person all the characteristics mentioned above in connection with our Russian ancient heroes and the great military leaders of the past” (p. 110). One wonders whether de-Stalinization has meant anything to Alexei and Nikolai, the present leaders of the Russian church. (cf. Matt. 15:14)

The author’s thesis includes the proposition that the Soviet government encourages intercourse between Russian Church heads and those of “satellite” countries as a means of extending and strengthening Soviet influence over those countries (last chapter). Alexei’s ambition of becoming head of all Orthodox people coincides with the political aims of the Soviet government and “Church and state can work hand in glove to gain these objectives” (p. 121).

The report of the delegation of the National Council of Churches which visited the Soviet Union last March is in no way contradictory to the positions elaborated by Dr. Spinka but rather agrees therewith (Christian Century, vol. 73, p. 428; cf. an interpretation, p. 480). One wonders then what prompted The Chicago Daily Tribune to editorialize that the leader of that delegation “came back talking nonsense about the position of the churches in Russia” (Dec. 1, 1956), or if the writer had read that leader’s report (summary in Presbyterian Life, April 28, 1956).

Spinka’s claim that the Soviets use the church to Soviet advantage is true not only of Orthodoxy. One needs only to read the monthly reports published by the Foreign and Information Department of the Ecumenical Council of Churches in Czechoslovakia, or the tightly-controlled Hungarian Church Press, to observe the same there.

In closing I wish to mention another essay of Prof. Spinka, Church In Communist Society: A Study in J. L. Hromadka’s Theological Politics (Hartford Seminary Foundation Bulletin, 1954), the reading, and re-reading, of which has been to this person, a former student of Dr. Hromadka, a painful, but necessary, experience.

M. EUGENE OSTERHAVEN

Church And State

The Christian and the State, by H. M. Carson, Tyndale, London, Is, 6d.

This 48-page pamphlet is published in a series entitled “Foundations of Faith,” planned to cover a wide range of subjects, and particularly to answer questions which may arise in the minds of intelligent Christians “who have reached the final stage of their school course or have recently begun studying at a university.”

The subject of the Christian’s relationship to the state is one which is increasingly important when the state is accepting larger responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens and expecting in return a fuller recognition of its position. Mr. Carson obviously regards Scripture as the final court of appeal, and in that court he ably enforces the duty of prayer for the state, and of obedience to it, limited only where the state’s demands are in clear conflict with conscience.

He is on more debatable ground when he maintains that Christian participation in politics is not ruled out by Scripture and discusses particularly the Christian’s use of the vote in elections. He has no hesitation in accepting capital punishment as a right which, however sparingly it may be used, is included in Paul’s reference to rulers “bearing the sword.” But he states the arguments for and against Christian participation in war without declaring definitely for one view or the other.

The final chapter, “Lessons from History,” ends with a serious warning against the danger of the church becoming “a subsidiary department of the state” in lands where totalitarian government prevails. The booklet should go far towards clarifying the thinking of young Christians who are asking, or ought to be asking, “What does the Bible teach about the relations of the individual Christian, and the church as a whole, to the state?”

FRANK HOUGHTON

Christianity in the World Today

The Filipino pastors, many of whom had suffered great persecution at the hands of the Japanese during World War II, had a common bond with the big American who was singing to them.

He also had known sorrow.

Fague Springmann, who has sung for the last three Presidents of the United States, had taken a brief vacation from his position as professor of music at the University of Maryland to appear in a series of pastors’ conferences sponsored by World Vision, Inc.

Before singing, Fague told the listeners about Pamela, his seven-year-old daughter.

When Pamela was two weeks old, the doctors said she had a rare blood disease and could not live. She is alive, after 170 blood transfusions, each of which required from 10 to 12 hours to administer.

After each transfusion, Pamela’s temperature goes as high as 104 and she has to be packed in large amounts of ice.

It may be that she will have to take such transfusions as long as she lives, but Pamela grins through the suffering and touches the hearts of healthy people. For the last two years she has been the beautiful little girl smiling at you from the Red Cross posters.

From the time she has been big enough to talk, she has knelt by the bed with her mother and father to say her prayers.

Once, at a Red Cross rally, one of the minor speakers told a joke that was a little off-shade. Because of the occasion, it left a bad taste with many in the audience. The speaker was followed by Pamela. She said:

“First, I want to thank Jesus for giving me life, and second, I want to thank the Red Cross for giving me blood.”

That was all, but it was enough. The people cheered within their souls.

At another rally, Pamela was asked by a thoughtless reporter why she hadn’t been healed by all the blood transfusions. She replied, sweetly, “You see, if I didn’t have leukemia, I’d be the same as any other little girl. Now I have a special testimony for Jesus.”

Fague was attempting to explain some of the mysteries of the Bible to Pamela one night and, like many fathers, wasn’t doing too well. Then Pamela, in her own direct way, explained in one sentence what others have used up books trying to say:

“Are you trying to say, Daddy, that what people need is a Jesus transfusion?”

—GEORGE BURNHAM

Objectives Met

Billy Graham was limping badly and had to drag his best foot forward when he left New York Oct. 29 after the biggest spiritual battle of his ministry, but objectives of the Crusade had been met head-on and conquered, under God.

As he boarded the train, he may have gained small consolation in recalling that the limp was caused by an unimpressed ram that butted him off a North Carolina mountaintop and not by the expected pride, indifference and sophistication of America’s largest city.

During a testimonial dinner the night before, more than 800 guests, including top church and industrial leaders of the United States, told the evangelist how much they appreciated what had been accomplished.

The Rev. Phillips P. Elliott, speaking as president for the 1,700 churches of the Protestant Council of the City of New York, said objectives had been met far beyond expectations. He added:

“Those objectives were to win men to Christ, to make our city God-conscious, to strengthen the churches, to make New York City conscious of moral, spiritual and social responsibilities.”

The 16-week Crusade at Madison Square Garden, combined with outdoor rallies, attracted a total attendance of 2,149,700, with 66,577 decisions for Christ.

During the final week, 1,000 churches participated in a visitation campaign, with 6,000 members going out two-by-two to visit their neighbors. Dr. Jesse M. Bader, chairman of the visitation evangelism committee of the Protestant Council, said the teams made 24,000 calls on unchurched persons and reported more than 6,000 decisions for Christ. The concluding rally on October 27 at the Polo Grounds was attended by 40,000 on a bitterly cold afternoon, and 1,295 decisions were made.

In speaking about the results at the testimonial dinner, Dr. Graham said:

“I want to begin and end by giving God the glory. This was his doing. I believe God did these things because a number of spiritual laws were obeyed.

“The first law obeyed was the tremendous amount of prayer centered on New York. Prayer was organized in 109 countries.

“The second law obeyed was unity among churches of many different backgrounds. There has seldom been such unity for anything in the history of New York.

“Another was the authoritative preaching of his Word. When I quoted from the Word of God, it was like a rapier. I could feel the power. When I resorted to my own logic, I could feel the power leave.

“The fourth law obeyed was that there was dependence on the Spirit of God to do what it was impossible for man to do.”

In the wake of the Crusade, the Protestant Council announced an expanded program of evangelism calling for a budget of nearly $1,000,000. The General Assembly, in addition, approved the establishment of a Protestant Chapel at New York’s International Airport, costing $250,000.

The Council has signed a lease to take over the Graham Crusade offices, 165 West 46th St., for its evangelism head-quarters.

The Rev. Dan M. Potter, executive director of the Council, said plans call for a stepped-up integrated youth program.

Also visualized, he said, was the continuance of the noon radio program and the telecast entitled “Impact.” A crusade for church attendance will be conducted throughout the metropolitan area during January, February and March.

Dr. Graham enthusiastically endorsed the program with this comment:

“We think nothing of spending $1,000,000 for one fighter plane that will be obsolete in three years. How can we do less for God?”

Killed In Africa

Dr. Sidney Robert Correll, medical missionary from Dayton, O., suffered fatal burns from a gasoline explosion in French West Africa on Oct. 15.

He attended the University of Dayton, Harvard, Wheaton College and Boston University Medical School.

People: Words And Events

Auca Lances—A partially destroyed house, with Auca lances crossed in the doorways, greeted Plymouth Brethren missionary Wilford Tidmarsh when he returned recently to the advance station he was opening down the Arajuno River inside Auca territory. Tidmarsh had started to build a house and clear a landing strip when he suffered an accident which necessitated his absence for two weeks. Conjecture centered on whether this was a kindly warning from “George,” the Auca contacted by the five missionary martyrs, or a threat from the more bloodthirsty members of his tribe.

Sign of Times—New suburban communities place the construction of supermarkets and taverns before churches, according to the Rev. Theodore Conklin of Syracuse, associate secretary of the New York State Council of Churches. Years ago, he said, churches in new communities often were built before the homes of parishioners.

Point of Law—Miami Circuit Judge John J. Niblack ruled that reading the Bible, requiring your spouse to wear skirts instead of blue jeans and insistence on church attendance does not constitute grounds for divorce. The judge said William Connelly, 25, was well within his rights on all three points” and denied Mrs. Martha Connelly, 19, her petition for divorce.

$30 Clergy Diploma—A housewife revealed in Los Angeles how she obtained, for $30.20, a church charter and certificate which permitted her to perform baptisms, marriages and burials as an ordained minister. Mrs. Juanita Purviance, 30, said she received the documents exactly a week after requesting them from the Universal Church of the Master, with headquarters at Oakland. Her testimony launched hearings by a State Assembly subcommittee into California diploma mills.

Christmas Barrage—The most intensive barrage of liquor advertising and propaganda in the history of Christmas is now hitting the American public. Trade journals will be filled with plans for an unprecedented campaign on the $350,000,000-plus holiday liqour market. A major clue to the advertising attack lies in business magazine reports that Christmas liquor sales have been tapering off. When the publication Advertising Requirements listed the Christmas gifts “most appreciated” by businessmen, liquor wasn’t even mentioned.

Alert Lutherans—That the United Lutheran Church has the largest membership among Lutheran bodies in the U. S., was quickly pointed out by readers (Oct. 14 issue). Its baptized members numbered 2,335, 352 in 1956, according to National Lutheran Council statistics, while the Missouri Synod was second, with a baptized membership of 2,152,412.

Seoul Campaign—Despite unseasonably cold weather and a drenching downpour of rain, 31,800 persons attended the final meeting of the (Oct. 4–20) Seoul Crusade of Dr. Bob Pierce, World Vision President. Total attendance was 296,045, with 5,657 decisions for Christ.

More Than Clubs—Congregational brotherhoods should be more than supper clubs, says Dr. Franklin Clark Fry of New York, president of the United Lutheran Church in America. He asserted, “Wide awake brotherhoods will find many types of service that they can do better than anybody else.… Fellowship is fine, but it is not enough.”

Divorced Persons—A minority group of Anglican clergymen in Birmingham diocese protested against a recent statement by Dr. Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, that Church of England law still forbids the remarriage of divorced persons while the former partner is still living. The protest followed a letter by Canon Bryan Green, Anglican evangelist, who said the Primate’s statement “seems to be nearer the idea of an infallible corporate spiritual authority within the Church of England, on the lines of papal infallibility, than to Anglican practice and discipline since the Reformation.”

Power Of Prayer

The following excerpt is from a recent letter written by Mrs. J. Edwin Orr from South Africa to Mrs. Billy Graham in Montreat, N. C.:

“When Edwin was campaigning in a very remote part of New South Wales, more than 500 miles from Sydney, a Christian man approached him and inquired about the Hollywood Christian Group.

“He said he’d been looking at an Australian picture magazine more than four years ago, and his eye was attracted by a photo of an attractive girl with the caption, ‘The Prettiest Girl in England.’ Having had nothing to do with the movies, he was not impressed, but a strange conviction from the Spirit burdened him to pray for her conversion. He personally felt it was a waste of time, nevertheless, he kept on praying for the girl. In 1954, the burden lifted, as if the Lord said, ‘You do not need to carry this burden any longer.’ He had no idea whether the girl had died or was truly converted, for he had never heard of a movie star being converted.

“But he remembered her name—Joan Winmill—and when Edwin checked dates with him, he found that the burden had lifted during the (Billy Graham) Harringay Campaign (in London), when you were actually dealing with Joan! The man’s name is Ellwood Fischer, and he is a great man of prayer. Naturally, he was greatly encouraged to learn that many of the conversions in Hollywood were genuine and Joan Winmill’s also.

“Knowing that you must be in touch with Joan, I thought you might wish to tell her how a stranger in far-off Australia prayed so long for her conversion.”

Staggering Study

Nationwide estimates on the number of fatal highway accidents in the United States involving drinking need to be revised upward to nearly 50 per cent of the total annual motor death toll, according to William N. Plymat, speaking at the Loma Linda Institute of Scientific Studies for the Prevention of Alcoholism.

Plymat, an insurance executive, told the Institute that at least 15,000 lives could be saved annually if all accidents involving alcohol could be eliminated. He based his estimate on recent traffic and laboratory tests, and said that even small amounts of alcohol frequently destroy inhibitions of drivers to restrain themselves from misconduct while behind the wheel.

Bible For Cadets

A total of 503 cadets at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, were presented Bibles recently in a ceremony sponsored by the American Tract Society of New York City.

Dr. Frank E. Gaebelein, president of the society, in delivering the sermon, said:

“The Bible is about history and morality, about human nature and sin. It tells not only about the past but also the future, about heaven and hell. It is about God and his greatness and righteousness, his justice and his love, and what he requires of us men. But, when we come to the more particular question, what is the Bible about, there is just one chief answer. It is this: Above everything else, the Bible is all about Jesus Christ. In the deepest and most living way, its purpose is to tell us about him who is ‘the wav, the truth and the life.’”

‘Peacemongering’

Queen Elizabeth II and President Eisenhower were in the congregation at Washington’s National Presbyterian Church when Dr. Edward L. R. Elson said “careless and irresponsible talk about peace” is “worse than warmongering.”

The pastor added:

“To talk about peace unrelated to moral principles is as dangerous for world order as saber-rattling and scowls at international borders.

“Jesus did not say, ‘Blessed are the peace-wishers.’ He did not say, ‘Blessed are the pacifists.’ He was quite emphatic. He said, ‘Blessed are those who make peace.’”

Others in the congregation included Prince Philip, Mrs. Eisenhower, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, British Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd, Chief Justice Earl Warren, Secretary of the Army Wilbur Brucker and Postmaster General Arthur E. Summerfield.

Benefits Hit

An advisory opinion issued by the Social Security Administration in Washington, D. C., threatens to restrict the benefits of retired ministers and missionaries who are provided homes by the churches and denominations they served.

The agency held that if the rental value of a parsonage is designated as income for social security purposes in computing base earnings for benefits it also must be counted towards the maximum of $1,200 a year that a retired recipient of benefits is permitted to earn while receiving such benefits.

Charles Smith, associate director of the Washington office of the National Council of Churches, said “the new social security ruling disrupts many of the retirement plans worked out by the Protestant denominations.”

He pointed out that nearly all denominations make provision for their retired missionaries and many churches provide for their retired ministers to continue occupying a parsonage.

“As a result, the amount of cash income they can have and stay within social security limitations is not more than $300 a year in most instances,” he said.

Africa

Moslem Prime Minister

A fitful drizzle could not dampen the spirits of thousands of Nigerians who crowded the roads to get a look at their new Prime Minister, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and his newly-formed cabinet. For Nigeria, this was the last big step to independence, which is set for April 2nd, 1960. It opened a new era in the country’s government and is hoped to be the strong unifying force to pull the vastly tribalistic communities into one.

Balewa, who made his first trip to Mecca two months before, has always been the hero of the vast Nigerian North, often labeled the “Golden Voice of the North” because of his pleasing voice and excellent command of English. He once made the prophecy that the North would continue its march to the sea if the South felt it could go on for national independence alone.

In his opening speech to the House of Representatives he constantly stressed the need of unity—“On no account should we allow the selfish ambitions of individuals to jeopardize the peace of the 33 million law abiding people of Nigeria.”

Although a staunch Moslem by faith, the Prime Minister made a point of expressing his gratitude to what Christian missions have done for Nigeria.

“I would particularly like to refer to the Christian missionaries of all denominations who have done so much to encourage the development of the country,” he said. “They have the distinction of being the first in the field in spreading Western education and providing our peoples with modern medical facilities. We greatly admire their efforts and we shall continue to be grateful to them for all that they are doing.”

At the same time, the Prime Minister made it emphatic that “the future of this vast country of Nigeria must depend in the main on the efforts of ourselves to help ourselves.”

What a Moslem’s power will mean to Christian missions cannot as yet be told. But there is indication enough that the new Prime Minister, even though a Moslem, is dedicated most of all to strengthening the unity of the country in an effort to present it as eligible for independence from British rule. And for the present at least, the Prime Minister, in order to accomplish such a task, is doing all he can to bring economic, political, and religious groups into peaceful and harmonious coexistence.

J. L. J.

Going Again

The Nile Mission Press, founded more than 50 years ago in Cairo, Egypt as a center for the printing and distribution of Christian literature in the Arabic language for all of the Middle East, has resumed operations under a new set-up in Beirut, Lebanon. A program of publication work is being organized under direction of D. T. L. Howell there, in cooperation with a committee in England and America.

Nile Mission Press, whose work was interrupted last year at the time of the Suez crisis, was founded in 1905 by Samuel M. Zwemer and others, and throughout its long history has carried on a far reaching literature ministry in all of the Near and Middle East. At one time its catalog carried more than 800 titles of books available in Arabic. Renewal of the work in Beirut is being expedited by the formation of a committee of national Christians and with the cooperation of missions in the area. An office has been set up and the first list of new titles approved for printing and distribution, with George Jamil, a Lebanese, to assist Mr. Howell.

Far East

My Only Regret …

Portrait of a pastor, whose ministry changed from frustration to fruitfulness:

The little Korean, sitting alongside me on the one-hour flight from Seoul to Taegu, was in his 60’s. His face was lined from evident years of a hard life, but a deep calm seemed to radiate from him.

Traveling with the old gentleman was his son, a young man who smiled easily. They were the Rev. Yong S. Rhee, president of the Taegu School for the Blind and Deaf, and Kisu Rhee, his special assistant.

“My father has been the biggest inspiration in my life,” remarked Kisu. I thought of how refreshing this simple statement sounded, compared to the “old man” references heard so often among American teen-ages.

As we rode and talked, there developed the remarkable story of a man who can well be an inspiration to everyone.

The story really began, as is so often the case, with the sacrificial life of a mother who dedicated her son to God after she became a Christian and had her sight restored following seven years of blindness. In order to pay for her son’s education, she walked hundreds of miles year after year, peddling goods throughout North and South Kyongsang. Less than five feet tall and not very strong, she was continually racked by physical suffering as she struggled up mountain trails and crossed fields with her merchandise. But her strength was renewed daily, as she looked at the Cross and remembered the suffering of Jesus.

While at school, the son worked hard and served God devoutly. He showed such progress that he was invited to lead a church service in Taegu. At night he found time to practice his oratory in the market place.

“I was painfully conscious, however,” he said, “that my faith was not genuine, but only disguised.”

He related the troubles which began in 1919, the year of a major upheaval against Japanese imperialism. For his rebellious shouting, he spent one year in jail at Seoul. After release he refused to quit making speeches and spent three more years in jail at Taegu. A jailor’s cruel blow resulted in partial deafness.

“While suffering under this imprisonment,” he testified, “I realized more clearly my mother’s intention that I should be a pastor. I resolved to be a good one. After prison, I left for Japan to study at Kobe Seminary.

“After graduation, I still did not have a true belief in the grace of God. While desperately seeking this belief, I offered my life in the service of lepers. Two years after I joined the leprosarium, however, I resolved that I would quit my ministry unless God bestowed his grace upon me. The decision didn’t come easily. I tortured myself in prayer for several weeks but nothing happened until Christmas eve. During the 3 a.m. service, I asked, ‘Lord Jesus, have you ever seen such a sinner as I? Has there ever been such a wicked pastor? You love these lepers most of all human beings, erected this leprosarium and sent me to love them for you, but I did not love them. I am not a benefactor, but one benefitted.’

“While praying, my eyes overflowed with hot tears. Four hundred patients also shed tears of repentance. The whirlwind of grace sent by God never ceased to blow until the service had lasted five hours.

“After this, I could serve the patients with true love. I served them sincerely for 10 years under the protection and grace of God.”

Rhee, after this service, accepted pastorates in Korea, Manchuria and Japan.

With the liberation in 1945, he came home to Taegu. The leper-relief position was no longer open, but God had another big work for the faithful pastor. Park Yon Saeng, a blind man, impressed him with the importance of education for blind and deaf children. The school was opened on faith in 1947.

Money was hard to come by. To help support his young charges, he took over the job as labor section chief at Taegu jail and devoted the rest of his time to the school. The arrangement wasn’t satisfactory, in view of the great need among thousands, so he quit the jail job after seven months.

Monetary aid picked up slowly. Offerings on Christmas, 1949, from blind men and women across the United States, were sent to the school through Miss Helen Keller. The mayor of Taegu, Han Po Yong, provided desperately needed land.

The work was progressing wonderfully in 1950—when war again came to Korea. By August 30, the enemy was 120 kilometers northeast of Taegu. Refugees below Seoul were streaming southward.

In an attempt to rescue relatives at Songjiu, Rhee crossed the Naktong River on the same day that UN forces pulled back across the river. Shells began to fall all around. He hid in the mountains, among rocks and behind hedges until the day he was captured, Sept. 17—on charges of being a jail chaplain.

He arrived at a compound for prisoners just as those who had been murdered were being taken away. As his time for execution approached, an unusual order for reconsideration came through. But on Sept. 24 he was again sentenced to death.

“I was not troubled by the fear of death,” he said, “but by the fact that I had not been a better pastor and had not rendered more worthy service to the lepers and school for the blond.”

When given a chance to say his last words, he told the Communists why he had become a pastor and ended the little speech with these words: “I fear nothing, since I shall be in the Kingdom of Heaven after my death. My only misgiving is who will be my successor in the education of the blind and deaf.”

God intervened again, as a Communist official was touched by the words. “Set this old man free,” he ordered.

Returning to Taegu, Rhee found over 1,200 lepers and children praying for his safety!

More than 250 blind and deaf children are now taught how to live at the school, with World Vision, Inc., of Los Angeles, paying for the support of 185. World Vision, under President Bob Pierce, has made other valuable contributions to bolster support from Korean groups.

I walked through the corridors and watched the children at their studies. A blind boy smiled at something he was reading with his fingers. A deaf boy, who had never heard sound, struggled with the words, “How do you do … welcome.” Hundreds of hours of patient love and coaching had gone into the effort. Kim Jae Yul, a 14-year-old boy, was with a group of other children. He was blind and part of his right arm was gone as the result of a stray explosive picked up after the fighting, but he smiled as he sang a song, “I Need Thee Every Hour.”

Looking on proudly was the Rev. Yong S. Rhee, spared by God for a great work. He had been as blind in the beginning of his ministry as the children he was helping, but God had opened his eyes with bitter tears on Christmas morning in a leper colony.

—GEORGE BURNHAM

Korean Moderator

The Rev. Chen Pil Sun, pastor of Seoul’s Yong Dong Presbyterian Church, was elected moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Korea at its 42nd General Assembly in Pusan.

The new moderator, a former secretary of the National Christian Council in Korea, won fame for his dramatic escape from Seoul’s notorious West Gate Prison in 1950 when he was being held for execution after capture by the communists. All his fellow prisoners were killed. Koreans call him “the man who jumped from his coffin.”

A highlight of the assembly was the welcome given to the Rev. Pang Chi Il, last Presbyterian missionary to be released by the Chinese communists. Mr. Pang is a second-generation China missionary, the son of one of Korea’s pioneers to Shantung province. He had been in China without furlough since 1937 and had been held with his family for eight years by the communists.

Continuing its insistence on high standards for the ministry, the assembly’s committee on examinations passed only 60 out of 130 candidates applying for admission to the Presbyterian ministry.

—S. H. M.

South America

Overflow Crowds

Dr. Oswald J. Smith, pastor of The Peoples Church, Toronto, has completed evangelistic campaigns at Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo in Brazil.

Overflow crowds were reported in each city, with a total of 1,579 registered decisions for Christ.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY is a subscriber to Religious News Service, Evangelical Press Service and Washington Report.