Page 6394 – Christianity Today (2024)

Donate
Subscribe
My Account

Advancing the stories and ideas of the kingdom of God.
About Us
Donate
News
Ideas
Theology
Books
Church Life
Culture
Pastors
History
Our Latest
Current Issue
Archives
Podcasts
Videos
Translations
All Topics
Newsletters
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Donate
My Account
Log In
Log Out
CT Store

Eutychus

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

G.G., B.G., & M.G.

According to our newsmagazine, Good Guys and Bad Guys are part of a TV myth that is disappearing. Soon existential man will be in the saddle. He shares in a larger identity of Good and Evil, and is neither hero nor villain. He is more than a myth, a Free Man. As I remember Olympus, the myths were not too strong on pure types of Good and Evil. Modern thinkers will make the mythical purely good to make the purely good mythical.

Western writers may need help in building up this mixed hero/villain to the point where kids will buy his autographed cap pistols. Perhaps he should be introduced between the G.G. and the B.G. and the M.G. (mixed, muddled, modern).

Scenario for M.G.

B.G. These knots is tight. You won’t get out of this. Light the fuse, M.G.!

G.G. (Gagged) Awg … ahlwahch!

M.G. Why don’t you tie me up too?

B.G. Like to oblige, but I need ya on my next job, M.G. Light the dynamite!

G.G. (Still gagged) See above.

M.G. You’re a dynamic man, B.G., but are you as free as you think? Why must you kill? You’re punishing yourself!

B.G. You got it wrong, kid. You’re the dynamite man in this outfit. And I ain’t killin’ G.G. You are. Light the fuse or I’ll ventilate ya.

M.G. Certainly. I was just looking for a match. You know I’m your partner. But couldn’t we take the gag out? No one will hear him in this abandoned mine. Besides your mortido urge …

B.G. Okay, okay. Take out the gag. Here! Now let me bung that big mouth of yours. There. Now light that fuse!

G.G. While that fuse burns, B.G., I want to say I never knew you salted the mine.

B.G. Why then … M.G., you rat … I will lace you up too, pardner! Gotta hurry. Keep still, or I’ll … WHOOM! BOOOOM! (etc.)

G.G. That was a break. I must have been blown clear up the air shaft.

B.G. (Muffled) Help!

G.G. You too! Here, I’ll drop this rope down to you. Where’s M.G.?

B.G. He’s done for. All mixed up, kinda.

G.G. Maybe it’s better that way. C’mon, hombre, I’m takin’ you to the sheriff.

SECOND TO NONE

Permit me to thank you very much for the magnificent statement of justification (Mar. 16 issue). I try to keep up with the best in the Reformed and in the Lutheran writings on this significant matter, and the article by Dr. Packer is second to none! It has my hearty amen! Our students here are grabbing up the issue … like hot cakes. Thanks be unto God for his great grace which justifies us sinners per fidem propter Christum.

Columbia Theological Seminary

Decatur, Ga.

COMING OR GOING?

Have just read your editorial comment on Markus Barth’s The Broken Wall in which he breaks down the wall between heaven and hell (Mar. 16 issue). As far as I am concerned, your analysis is well taken. I have always supposed that the purpose of preaching was to persuade sinners to enter into the ark, not to prevent them from jumping out of it.

Fuller Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

EASTER POETRY

I don’t know who Rod Jellema is, but I have a feeling that this writer knows Barabbas and Mary Magdalene (Mar. 16 issue). Here is the kind of insight and poetic ability that warms the heart and kindles the mind of the reader. I hope sometime that the writer will give us something on John the Baptist, Paul, and John the Apostle.

Superintendent

The Akron District

North East Ohio Conference

The Methodist Church

Akron, Ohio

I read the Easter poems by Rod Jellema … and liked them.

Grand Rapids, Mich.

I am wondering … if you … carefully read this poem before it was accepted. If so, my disappointment and distress are increased.

Staten Island, N. Y.

Very literary and beautifully constructed verses.…

Newark, N. J.

NO OFFICIAL VIEW

I should like to correct a misconception fostered by Harold B. Kuhn in the first paragraph of his article, “Christian Surrender to Communism” (March 2 issue). He clearly states that “a segment of the (Central) Committee” of the World Council of Churches “went on record as favoring a free world surrender on the terms of the enemy in case of a threat of hydrogen warfare.” The fact is that this particular sentiment was advanced in a minority report by certain members of the Commission on “Christians and the Prevention of War in an Atomic Age—a theological discussion.” A majority of the members of the Commission were unable to accept this position, as the principal text of the document makes clear.

The Commission had been appointed by the Central Committee of the World Council, but no member of the Central Committee was himself a member of it. When the document came before the meeting of the Central Committee at Nyborg, Denmark, last August, the Executive Committee finally took the following action with respect to it: “The ensuing statement is but a first-step in a continuing study process. It is offered to the churches for their reflection and discussion. No point here expressed is to be understood as an official view of the World Council of Churches. This document is in no sense a statement of World Council policy. The statement is that of a contribution to Christian research and inquiry on a vital issue of our time.” The World Council of Churches has no control over a Commission, composed mostly of distinguished theologians asked by it to address itself to a particular question. By the same token, no statement that results can be construed as an official interpretation of the views or policies of the World Council of Churches, unless it is adopted as such by the appropriate body of the World Council itself. The Divinity School

Yale University

New Haven, Conn.

PROTESTANT WITNESS

I should be sorry … if any of your readers were left with the impression that … the Protestant Pavilion at the Brussels World’s Fair … was not a very strong witness for Protestantism (Nov. 24 issue, p. 31).… It was seen by every visitor to the fair. Since the walls of the chapel were of glass, even passers-by were aware of the services of worship and other activities which were constantly being held. Ten to fifteen million people visited the Pavilion.… One of the greatest surprises to everyone was the very large number of Roman Catholic priests and nuns who visited the Pavilion and asked many questions.… Pastor Pieter Fagel, the director of the Pavilion, said that he was convinced that this was the most effective piece of evangelism that was being carried on in any part of the world during those months.…

Washington, D. C.

SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE

I was especially interested in your article “Perspective for Social Action” (Jan. 19 issue). Thank you for the clear interpretation you gave of past interest in this field. I found it stimulating.

First Methodist

Belzoni, Miss.

NCC

Your article “Why Is NCC Prestige Sagging?” is a masterpiece! It is sensibly presented, precisely stated, and justifiably critical. Your diagnosis and prescription for Protestant ecumenism in America are at once safe, sane, and scriptural.

Cooper Avenue Baptist Church

Yuba City, Calif.

Did you call the attention of your readers to the fact that the vote of the Conference, two thirds of whose members were laymen (and of all of whom were expected to express their own opinions and not seek to represent the National Council of Churches), included two conditions which would have to be met before any approach would be approved to recognition of China? The first was the security of Formosa; the second was the security of South Korea.… You and other critics of the National Council have completely committed yourselves apparently to the idea that the only kind of Study Conference the National Council should hold would be one whose decisions were dictated to it or whose conclusions were repudiated if they did not agree with the predetermined views of the body responsible for the Conference.

Missions Council of the Congregational Christian Churches

New York, N. Y.

The Cleveland Conference on World Order, convened by National Council mandate, does not speak for all of its affiliated churches. I do not conceive that to be its purpose. Its purpose is rather to speak to those churches.

First Christian

Alhambra, Calif.

If the denominations did not send the right delegates to the study conference, that is not the fault of the NCC. It is possible that some denominations are not so organized that they can send delegates representing the diverse viewpoints within that denomination.

Wheaton, Ill.

Probably overlooked by many who register their disapproval of the Cleveland Conference is the fact that most of the 600 delegates had studied the facts and had a better knowledge of all the facts at issue than most people.

St. James Evangelical and Reformed

Saline, Mich.

Each issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY is worse, in that you seem to have been captured by those who have no other purpose than to malign the National Council of Churches.

St. Paul’s United Church of Christ

Petersburg, Ill.

Nothing but wholesale condemnation.…

Philadelphia, Pa.

Could charity have written the paragraph “Tilting to the Left?” Is there no place in Christian journalism for love?

St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church

Durham, N. C.

The big difference between these two groups at their formation and through the years has been that the NAE refused to call for separation from the FCC while the ACCC did, and the NAE included in its membership evangelical churches still inside the FCC while the ACCC included in its constituent membership only evangelical churches outside the framework.…

We also would appreciate it when you refer to the American Council if you would include the word “Christian” in our title.

President

International Council of Christian Churches

Collingswood, N. J.

If the pronouncements of the conference had taken standpat political positions, had endorsed Mr. Dulles and all his works, I doubt that we should have had a whisper of complaint from such churchmen as Dr. Poling, Carl McIntire, and yourself.

Supt.

The Methodist Church

Springfield District, New England Conf.

Springfield, Mass.

The Literary Genre

The particular literary form an author selects as the vehicle of his message can be the most important single clue to his true intent.

1. Love Song: It is being more and more recognized as archaeological discovery enlarges our library of ancient literature that the biblical Song was not a novel literary phenomenon in the world in which it appeared. In its general framework and in numerous individual motifs and metaphors it is seen to be stylistically similar to what is found in ancient love lyrics. An Egyptian love poem, found on one of the Chester Beatty papyri dating about 1100 B.C., consists of seven cantos in dialogue form with the lovers addressing each other as “brother” and “sister” (For a partial translation see J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 1950, pp. 468, 469). There are enough parallels to Canticles in structure, situation, and imagery in such love songs of the New Empire in Egypt to convince W. F. Albright that they “demonstrate the Egyptian origin of the framework of Canticles” (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1942, p. 21). Other scholars are more impressed with parallels to the Song found elsewhere in Near Eastern or in primitive love poetry.

One variety of love song is the epithalamium or wedding song. From the time of Origen many have held that Canticles was composed for the occasion of Solomon’s wedding to Pharaoh’s daughter (1 Kings 3:1) and from the end of the seventeenth century expositors have tried to explain the character of the Song in terms of customs followed at ancient Jewish marriage festivals. In 1873 J. Wetzstein published his study of the marriage-week customs of modern Syrian peasants, and directed attention to the facts that bridegroom and bride played the roles of “king” and “queen,” a mock throne being set up on the threshing floor; that poems of praise (wasf) were sung extolling their physical beauty; and that on occasion the bride performed a sword dance. The obvious comparisons were then drawn with Canticles where the hero is several times called “king,” the lovers repeatedly sing the praises of each other’s charms, and the Shulammite maiden performs a dance (7:1 ff.). Efforts were made too to demonstrate that the Song was composed of seven parts, one for each day of the wedding week, but with little success.

Critics of the epithalamium view have questioned both the existence of such a “king’s week” among the Arabs in Palestine and the reliability of modern Syrian practices as a guide to Judean wedding customs of the first millennium B.C.

They also argue that some of the poetry in Canticles is clearly prenuptial and that even the wasf type of song was not confined to wedding festivals. Furthermore there is an obvious reason for calling the hero “king” (1:4, 12; 7:5) if he is “king Solomon” (3:9, 11) and his beloved, it must be noted, is never designated “queen.” Certainly she is not a princess from Pharaoh’s court but a maiden from the village of Shunem.

R. Gordis in his excellent study, The Song of Songs (1954), seeks to meet some of these criticisms of the relevance of the “king’s week” (p. 17); but he too joins the majority of those who regard Canticles as love poetry in concluding that it was not composed for a wedding but is an anthology of various types of love songs—“songs of love’s yearnings and its consummation, of coquetry and passion, of separation and union, of courtship and marriage” (p. 18).

2. Drama: In the eighteenth and especially the nineteenth centuries the view was developed and popularized that Canticles was dramatic in structure. The beginnings of this view were much earlier. Origen, for example, considered it “a nuptial poem composed in dramatic form” and Milton called it a “divine pastoral drama.” Extremists treated the Song as a theatrical piece actually intended for the stage. In this they succeeded more in displaying a flair for creating musical comedies than in manifesting a gift for exegeting ancient texts. But nineteenth century exegetes of the calibre of Franz Delitzsch, H. Ewald, and S. R. Driver also championed the dramatic view of the Song and this approach continues to enjoy some support in our century.

The dramatists are divided over the question of whether the Shulammite’s true love is Solomon or a rustic lover to whom she remains faithful in a triumph of pure love over the seductions of Solomon’s royal court. The second plot obviously has greater dramatic tension and that perhaps is why it is the more popular; but it has little else to commend it.

Critics of the dramatic view correctly observe that full-fledged drama was unknown among the Hebrews or the Semites in general; some of them also protest, but incorrectly, that the Song cannot be a drama because it is not a literary unity. The real question vis-a-vis sober proponents of the dramatic view is whether Canticles traces the love of Solomon and the Shulammite through a temporal sequence of scenes from courtship to their wedding and marriage life.

Expounding the thesis that such a sequence does emerge in the Song, Delitzsch locates the wedding in the third of six acts. The successive acts end at 2:7; 3:5; 5:1; 6:9; 8:4; and 8:14. Each act is divided into two scenes, the first scenes ending at 1:8; 2:17; 3:11; 6:3; 7:6; and 8:7. Hand in hand with the temporal sequence Delitzsch traces a thematic movement: “Solomon appears here in loving fellowship with a woman such as he had not found among a thousand (Eccles. 7:28); and although in social rank far beneath him, he raises her to an equality with himself.… We cannot understand the Song of Songs unless we perceive that it presents before us not only Shulamith’s external attractions, but also all the virtues which make her the ideal of all that is gentlest and noblest in woman.… Solomon raises this child to the rank of queen, and becomes beside this queen as a child. The simple one teaches the wise man simplicity … [he] wanders gladly over mountain and meadow if he has only her” (Commentary on The Song of Songs, Keil and Delitzsch series, 1950 ed., p. 5).

Though not persuaded by A. Bentzen’s contention that the many possibilities advanced to explain the book as a drama prove its impossibility (Introduction to the Old Testament, II, 1949, p. 181), the present writer is not convinced that the scenic-chronological structure has been satisfactorily demonstrated. The criticism that the dramatic view is almost as guilty of eisegesis as the allegorical view goes much too far; but it does seem to contain an element of truth.

It is a virtue of the dramatic view that it recognizes the unity of the Song. That unity, however, is unfolded in cyclical rather than chronological fashion. The divisions suggested by Delitzsch for his six acts mark the bounds of these cycles; observe, for example, the recurring opening and closing refrains of these divisions. Within each of these cycles the dominant love motif is that of longing and fulfillment. Each cycle closes with the satisfaction or consummation of love. Even though the Song is not structurally a drama, this recapitulated theme of seeking and finding does impart to it a certain dramatic quality.

3. Cultic Liturgy: In the present century the theory has appeared that Canticles is a liturgy belonging to the widespread Near Eastern cult of the dying and reviving god. This is part of the current fad of discovering cultic vestiges everywhere in the Old Testament. The interpretation rests primarily on alleged terminological similarities to the Song in extant texts of the fertility cult and on corresponding ritual themes in the cult, such as the goddess’ search for and finding of the slain god and the sacred marriage. Proponents disagree as to the extent, if at all, that the original pagan liturgy was camouflaged to make it acceptable in the cult of Yahweh.

The Old Testament indicates that apostate Israelites, whoring after pagan deities, engaged in the rites of the Tammuz cult. But those who share the prejudice concerning the Song acknowledged earlier cannot entertain it as a serious possibility that the covenant God adopted as a legitimate element in the worship of his name a liturgy from such an idolatrous source with all its sexual associations. Suffice it then that the great majority of all scholars is unconvinced by the liturgy theory and that it has been effectively criticized by Eissfeldt, Rowley, and others. Bentzen suggests that the ancestry of love songs as a literary form may in part be found in the ritual of the hieros gamos, just as T. Gaster traces the drama through the medium of myth to cultic ritual. If so, the liturgy theory contributes something to the history of the literary genre represented by our Song, but it still contributes nothing as an interpretation of the Song itself.

Allegorical Or Natural

Beyond the question of the literary genre of Canticles, but certainly not divorced from it, lies another issue which concerns our understanding of the book as a whole: To allegorize or not to allegorize?

1. Allegorical: That the Song deals primarily with human love, the mutual love of a man and a maid, is the least that must be deduced from the facts that it is cast in the mold of ancient human love poetry and confronts us with the human figures of Solomon and the Shulammite as the lover and the beloved. But is there warrant for seeking a second message hidden in the Song, one concerned with the mutual love of God and his people?

As is well known the allegorical approach is ancient. Mishnah, Talmud, and Targum treated the Song as an allegory of Yahweh’s dealings with Israel. From Judaism the allegorization of the Song passed over into Christianity, the Church as bride of Christ replacing Israel as the beloved. The later popularity of the allegorical method is reflected in the chapter headings assigned to Canticles in the Authorised Version.

The allegorists are not, of course, agreed on particulars. Some, for example, interpret Solomon’s beloved not as the Church but as Wisdom; others, as his kingdom of loyal subjects. Indeed, there is no limit to the plausible possibilities. And there is the rub! Anyone with a knack for autosuggestion can readily convince himself that his latest flight of fancy is the true decipherment of the Song’s esoteric sense.

Is there, however, amid all the allegorical abuse a proper, verifiable, allegorical use of the Song? The most cogent argument for allegorizing Canticles is the alleged analogy of Psalm 45. This Psalm is an extended metaphor picturing Messiah and his bride, the Church, under the imagery of an ancient royal wedding such as the Psalmist might have witnessed in the court of one of David’s successors.

There are, however, decisive differences between Canticles and Psalm 45. The Song speaks about king Solomon and a particular woman from Shunem. The Psalm describes directly a divine king in language which would be utterly extravagant if intended for any merely human king of Israel. Nothing in the historical narratives of the Old Testament supports the idea that the flamboyantly flattering oriental court style was adopted in Israel. Psalm 45, therefore, does not provide an analogy for a royal epithalamium with a double meaning. It is moreover most important to observe that in Psalm 45 and in every other biblical passage where the figure of marriage is used to depict the covenantal relationship of God and men the context leaves no doubt that such is the meaning. But there is not even the slightest hint anywhere in Canticles that it was intended as an allegory of things divine. Finally, the Song differs from Psalm 45 and all other alleged biblical parallels in that the Song abounds in detailed praises of the two lovers’ bodily charms and in allusions to the intimacies of conjugal love. As a song of human love this might surprise the modern Western reader of holy Scripture but it should not offend him. To interpret such imagery as a song of God’s relationship to his people, however, appears to involve irreverence. Certainly it ignores the care manifested everywhere else in biblical anthropomorphism to avoid attributing to the holy One of Israel the erotic passions and sexual functions characteristic of the gods of pagan mythology. Observe by way of contrast to the Song the restraint exercised in carrying out the nuptial metaphor in the Messianic Psalm 45.

2. Typical: There is another view, the typical, which would also find a Messianic meaning in Canticles. But whereas an allegorist might ignore the natural meaning of the language, esteeming the mystical meaning as the only message of the Song, the typologist must always insist there is a double meaning—a typical and an antitypical. The typologist shares the allegorist’s appeal to the biblical use of marriage as a literary figure for Christ’s relationship to his Church, but the typical view, as its name implies, appeals particularly to the historical status of Solomon as a type of Christ. Typologists differ further from the allegorists in not groping after a mystical reinterpretation of every detail in the Song. They are satisfied to discover a more general correspondence between type and antitype.

The fallacy in the typical view is that while Solomon in his royal office typified the kingship of Christ, nothing in Scripture justifies our regarding all and sundry aspects of Solomon’s life as divinely appointed historical types. Certainly Solomon’s love relationship with one or all of his wives was no more a Messianic type than the marriage life of any other Israelite or Gentile. Since then the supposed typical elements in the Song are illusory, the typical view is not a genuine option. The only real alternatives are the allegorical and the natural.

3. Natural: “Natural” is preferable to “literal” as a designation for the correct interpretation of Canticles since “literal” is liable to suggest a lack of appreciation for the Song’s erotic symbolism.

This view, though only in modern times enjoying ecclesiastical respectability, can be traced as far back as the evidence for the history of interpretation goes. And why should the Church stumble at the presence in her inspired canon of a song extolling the dignity and beauty of human love and marriage? Considering how large the subject looms in the attention of men, had it not been remarkable if there were not such an extended treatment of it in the volume God has given us for “reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”? And all the more so when we think how sordid is the world’s attitude towards the matter and how dim had become even the Old Testament saint’s apprehension of the paradisaic ideal of marriage. Thus understood, Canticles unites with the other poetical books of the Old Testament in displaying the inspired fruits of godly reflection upon the Law and especially in eliciting the relevance of the Law for the great issues of human life.

The heading assigns the authorship to Solomon and there is no compelling reason for not regarding this certainly very ancient tradition as an original part of the inspired text. Advocates of the love song view often treat Canticles as an anthology of poems by many authors but Rowley has well observed: “The repetitions that occur leave the impression of a single hand, and there is a greater unity of theme and of style than would be expected in a collection of poems from several hands, and from widely separated ages. It is probable, too, that there is artistry in the arrangement of the pieces” (op. cit., pp. 212, 213).

There is a puzzle of the selection of the Israelite most notorious for his departure from the marriage ideal to compose the biblical tribute to true love and this is not solved by facetious remarks about Solomon’s superior experience in the arts of love. More helpful is the consideration that the arts of poetry and song were branches of Wisdom and the wisdom of Solomon needs no introduction (cf., 1 Kings 3:5 ff.; cf. 4:32).

That, however, does not solve the enigma of why Solomon of all people should be this Song’s hero as well as its author—which raises the problem of historicity. Now it should be observed that the personal perspective in the Song is consistently that of the beloved, not of the king (cf., e.g., 2:10; 5:2). If, therefore, Solomon (or for that matter, anyone other than the Shulammite herself) is the author, Canticles is, as Ecclesiastes seems to be, fictionally autobiographical. Such a fictional literary garb permits that the historical element consists in little more than that one of Solomon’s favorites was from Shunem. The mutual love of the king and this Shulammite would then have been freely adapted to the ideal, and idyllic design of the Song and this would explain the purity of the affections of the Song’s king Solomon, as well as his romantic shepherd’s role.

If this is so, the choice of Solomon as hero is not enigmatic but indicative of Canticles’ Edenic milieu. With true insight the poet Herder observed: “The Song is written as if in Paradise. Adam’s song: Thou art my second self! Thou art mine own! echoes in it in speech and interchanging song from end to end.” In the unfolding divine plan of redemptive history God appoints Canaan to his people Israel as an earnest of Paradise regained. And who better than Solomon—not in his personal but official character and glory as theocratic king set over the paradisaic land of milk and honey—to recall Adam, vicegerent over the garden of God?

The Song confronts us with love as it was in the beginning and it lets us hear again the divine marriage benediction first addressed to the lover and his beloved in man’s home primeval (Gen. 1:28a). What the incarnate Word did for the sanctity of marriage by his presence at the Cana wedding, the written Word does by dwelling with joy upon conjugal love in the Song of Songs.

MEREDITH G. KLINE

Assistant Professor of Old Testament

Westminster Theological Seminary

- More fromMeredith G. Kline

Ideas

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

Christianity Today promotes the meeting of contemporary life with the eternal Christ.

Each fortnight the magazine’s message is centered in the great doctrines and precepts of the Bible. Its forty pages are devoted to biblical theology … biblical ethics … biblical evangelism … biblical studies. Its witness is dedicated unreservedly to Jesus Christ as the incarnate, crucified, risen, ascended and exalted Redeemer, the world’s only Saviour and Lord.

For this very reason CHRISTIANITY TODAY touches all the major areas of modern life. The timeless truths of revealed religion hold vital relevance for the swift-moving scenes of our fast-ebbing century.

The great struggle between law and injustice, bondage and liberty, war and peace tenses these taut times. God’s sovereignty and man’s spirituality are neglected priorities of our era. What message is more vital, more urgent, than the revelation of redemption and life in the midst of modern sin and death?

Freedom is a basic concern of our century. Freedom comes from above, not from below; God is its living source. “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36, RSV). And freedom is one—not many. The splintering of freedom into many fragments—religious, political, economic—is the first blurring of Jesus Christ as Lord of life. All human liberties depend in a crucial way upon the fate of revealed religion in this generation.

If Jesus Christ is Lord, religious freedom is a divine imperative: man dare not be compelled to worship false gods, and must be free to worship his true God. If Jesus Christ is Lord, political freedom is a divine imperative: state absolutism (or totalitarian government) is condemned, and every state is properly limited in its powers. If Jesus Christ is Lord, economic freedom is a divine imperative: no welfare state (the half-way house to socialism) is to restrict man’s responsible stewardship of his talent in the earning of his bread, nor to preclude his good and wise use of his own wealth as a spiritual trust.

The loss of man’s freedoms, the rise of the all-powerful modern state, the neglect of the Living God—these developments stand intrinsically connected. The totalitarian state is neither conducive to Christianity nor tolerant of it. Communism perpetuates its doctrine of state absolutism by its assault on supernaturalism and by tolerating the Christian religion only in an attenuated form. As trust in God wanes, men more and more approve the state’s power of compulsion to provide guarantees of human well-being in the absence of spiritual means. But dependence upon state paternalism dissolves voluntarism and freedom and invariably leads to the exploitation of the many by the few.

Freedom endures only in a nation whose citizens live by the rule of truth, justice, charity and generosity. Wherever untruth, injustice, enmity and greed prevail, the strong exploit the weak, might displaces right, and social order sooner or later gives way to anarchy. Without the constraints of divine moral law, human life becomes corrupt and human government becomes unjust. The virtues of truth and justice and love of neighbor are the virtues of revealed religion. Where the virtues that spring from redemptive religion are long neglected, freedom itself is soon dissolved. The rule of God in the lives of men remains the only enduring alternative to the reign of tyrants.

END

Lutherans And Jewish Evangelism

The Jew is unique. The long sweep of history affirms this. He now tends to be a displaced person in a new sense. Some ecumenical leaders seem uncertain whether to evangelize him or welcome him as a fellow believer. Some denominational programs tend to reflect this mood, and independent groups have assumed a large part of the work of Jewish evangelism by default.

In contrast to this development is the vigorous literature distributed by the Department for the Christian Approach to the Jewish People of the National Lutheran Council.

The Apostle Paul’s declaration that the Gospel is “to the Jew first” is emphasized along with a denial of the common idea that the Jews already possess “a good enough religion.” Also stressed is the challenge implicit in the fact that half the world’s Jews live in America. To preach the Gospel to others and neglect the Jew is “to discriminate against him.”

Appreciation is expressed for the historic role of the Jews as a divinely appointed channel for the Word Incarnate and Written. Modern Jewish viewpoints are delineated in order to effect a more sympathetic Christian witness. For example, if baptism and the crucifix are repugnant to the Jew, it must be remembered that during periods of persecution, “hundreds of thousands of Jews were given the choice between baptism and death” and that the crucifix was “worn or carried by their persecutors.” Again, the Christian minister’s sermon must convict of sin. “Judaism does little of that, but tends rather to strengthen a man in his self-confidence.”

Would that every denomination shared the Lutheran refusal to abandon the Jew to his vain reach for God apart from Christ—condemn him to seeing Christ as a false Messiah or, at best, a stranger.

END

Revolutionary Developments On “The Roof Of The World”

All Southeast Asia is deeply concerned about developments in the crisis precipitated by Red China’s invasion of Tibet.

When Communist authorities reached an agreement with the theocracy in Lhasa incorporating Tibet in the Red China orbit, certain limits were placed on “foreign” aggression. These restrictions have now been ruthlessly repudiated resulting in revolution against Red authority inside Tibet and widespread fear among Bandung nations that Mao’s promises are worthless.

Since the Tibetan issue has strongly religious implications it is possible that a reviving Buddhism in the Far East may now realize the threat of atheistic communism and stir the Orient to organized resistance.

The death of reactionary Llama Buddhism in Tibet might be a blessing under other circumstances. It has kept a nation under vile superstition and spiritual slavery and denied freedom and progress to its people. But the system which would replace it is far worse. If it succeeds all Asia is doomed.

The Church’S Dual Loss: Great Preaching And Hearing

Some weeks ago we had the privilege of hearing Dr. William Fitch, gifted minister of Knox Presbyterian Church, Toronto. Dr. Fitch (softening the oft-voiced complaint about “the disappearance of great preachers” to a “lack of great preaching”) ventured to say something also about a change that has come over the pew. If preaching today is different from that of yore, perhaps the art of responsive listening has deteriorated as well. We quote some aptly phrased words.

You will hear on many sides today people lamenting the lack of great preaching. The days of great preachers are gone, they say. And no doubt what they say is true. Perhaps there are reasons for this state of affairs. For one thing, the very lack of great preaching could be a judgment on the church for preacher idolatry. It is not difficult to find instances where congregations have worshiped the creature—even though he was a preacher—more than they have worshiped their Creator. But probably there is a deeper reason for this alleged lack of great preaching. It could be a judgment of God on the refusal of men to listen when he speaks. There were days in the Bible when there was a famine of the Word. And it came because the people refused to hearken to the preacher God had sent. There is therefore a very vital connection betwixt hearing and preaching. One of my teachers in seminary, Professor A. J. Gossip, would occasionally quote with relish the words of R. W. Dale, the great Congregational leader in England. Dale was discussing with a friend the work of the church a generation before when the other said: “There were great preachers then, Dr. Dale.” “There were,” answered Dale, “and there were great hearers too.” It is good for us to say with the Psalmist: “Cause me to know the way wherein I should walk for I lift up my soul unto Thee.” But it is of the first importance that we also learn with David to say: “Cause me to hear Thy loving-kindness in the morning, for in Thee do I trust.”

END

The Nizam Of Hyderabad: Paternity And Parsimony

A man said to have everything is the Nizam of Hyderabad. He has ruled a state almost the size of Great Britain with a population of more than 18 million. Competent guesses have pegged the value of his jewelry collection at no less than $2 billion. A devout Moslem, his legal wives have numbered four, but 42 other companions rounded out the harem. He has had 50 children.

But he has also been called the Miser of Hyderabad. His palace has been described as shabby; he drives old cars. He has been said to save laundry bills by using one old white suit so constantly that he waits in his bath while it is being washed or patched.

One of his daughters recently married. The wedding was not up to the lavish standard one might expect of an Oriental potentate, but the Nizam did celebrate with a monthly grant of $21 to a couple of local orphanages. Years ago, another daughter’s wedding had been canceled on the prediction of a holy man that her father would not long survive her marriage.

This picture should constitute a good object lesson for the materialist. Apparently the “everything” possessed by the Nizam includes some undesirable things and omits some great treasures.

Our Lord warned long ago that “a man’s life consisteth not in the abundance of the things that he possesseth.” Christian missionaries in Hyderabad and elsewhere know that such things can be lost by a slight twitch in the course of history, and that true riches are constituted in what a man is—not what he has. This wealth endures through eternity.

A Christian is what he is because of Christ. And because of Christ, “all things” are his, whether “things present, or things to come,” and he is Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

END

L. Nelson Bell

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

It is obvious that there must be some foundation on which the Christian faith rests, and that a knowledge of this basis is of greatest importance to man.

The Bible has held this unique place in the Christian religion, and because of its centrality there has been an unending debate as to what the Christian’s attitude should be to it.

Anyone who has recently studied in a college, university, or seminary knows something of the relevancy of this question. In some quarters the Bible is considered merely a human document. Elsewhere it is accorded a higher status but accepted with reservations because, it is assumed, the human element in the agents who wrote and compiled the writings was susceptible to error, even willful distortion. With others the Bible is truly the written Word of God in its entirety.

How shall a young Christian reconcile these differences in his own mind? Can they be reconciled?

We all know that there are many Christians, ordained and otherwise, who have no power from God nor convincing message to man.

There are many reasons for this lack of spiritual power, and one cause is the failure of Christians to believe God’s Word as the Sword of the Spirit.

Pull And Tug Of Feminism

It is quite understandable that this question of feminine ordination to church offices should have arisen in our modern era. Feminism, or the modern theory of “women’s rights,” has impressed us so thoroughly with what women have been able to accomplish, that one is likely to feel boorish if he obstructs the modern advance. In fact, one feels that there is a kind of inevitability about opening offices to women. One advocate of the plan stated that it will come into general practice “when the cultural pattern of the day has removed the bias which is present.” In other words, the difficulty women had being accepted into the professions once reserved for men will have to be experienced again in reference to the eldership and the ministry.

In all this debate, however, few people have inquired whether feminine elders and ministers would not be something different from feminine doctors and lawyers. The assumption is that if women have achieved success and status in secular professions, why should they not have the same opportunities in the church? There is a curious reasoning process here that involves two fundamental fallacies: first, that everything included in the modern feminist movement is unquestionably good (“Give the little woman credit for anything she can get, man”), and second, that our modern day demands that we think like modern men.

The first supposition may be questioned on the ground that some women may be occupying positions today which ought to be held by men, and that they are in those spots only because men have not been available. The second fallacy rests on the idea that what is “up-to-date” is necessarily an improvement over what has previously stood as truth. Nondiscernment in this respect has tended to favor secularistic thinking above “biblical reasoning,” the kind of reasoning that is oriented in divine order and revelation.

There is general agreement that churches ought to be governed in thought and practice by the teaching of the Word of God. This means that there must be no easy capitulation to modern ways of thinking simply because they are modern. Rather, we should endeavor to determine God’s will and way. With respect to the question, therefore, let us search the Scriptures to see whether God has revealed his mind on the matter.

Is there any revelation that will help in determining whether we shall ordain women to the offices of the church? Both sides agree that there is, but there is disagreement as to interpretation. Care must be given to examining relevant passages and allowing Scripture to speak for itself. A biased attitude against women could cause an interpreter to conclude that women ought not be ordained, just as a feminist enthusiast could assume an opposite conclusion.

Difficulty Of Interpretation

It is important for us to recognize that Scripture deals with both permanent and temporary matters, and that our most difficult task is discerning which is which. The commandment “Thou shalt not steal” is looked upon by everyone as permanent; yet there has been considerable disagreement over whether the Sabbath commandment is permanent (as prescribed, for example, in Exodus), or whether it is temporary with some aspect of permanence. Features of New Testament Church practice, like foot washing and the bestowal of the holy kiss, are recognized by the greater part of the Church today as ordinances no longer obligatory. Sometimes the temporary and the positive are intertwined with one another in the same Scripture passage as in 1 Corinthians 11:1–16 where the ordination of women to church offices is not actually discussed (nor is it discussed anywhere else in the New Testament), but rather the proper behavior of Christian women in public gatherings.

The Permanent Element

The permanent element, of course, is the “natural subordination of woman to man,” to which should be added “in the divine order of creation.” This is set out in the third verse of the chapter as follows: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.” God was the “head” (sign of authority) of Christ, for Christ had subjected himself to the Father in order to achieve our redemption. Jesus says in John 5:30: “I can of mine own self do nothing. As I hear, I judge … because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.” The Son was not inferior to the Father, but for the sake and requirements of our redemption, he made himself subordinate (cf. Phil. 2:5–11).

Hence, Christ is called the “head of man,” whether every man accepts this headship or not. Ultimately, “every knee” shall bow before him, and “every tongue” shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil. 2:10, 11).

By the same token man is considered the “head” of the woman. The woman, of course, has Christ as her spiritual head. Paul in his letter is affirming the double authority that rests over her.

Many people have held that the Apostle is speaking in 1 Corinthians 11:3 not of the original created order, but the order of redemption—God’s “scheme of things” after man had fallen into sin. This interpretation may be granted if we consider that after sin had become a reality God declared to woman, “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16). It is odd that proponents of the ordination of women have used this fact to argue that the case would be otherwise in an ideal situation. They also cite Galatians 3:28 (“there is neither male nor female, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus”) to assert that with Christians subordination of women to men no longer holds.

Paul in writing to the Galatians refers to our position in the spiritual kingdom of Christ; and with regard to our redemption in that respect, he states that God makes no distinction between the sexes. In the created, natural order, however, the principle of subjection is permanent, even with Christians. It belongs also to creation itself. “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11:8, 9). The basis for this statement is that the man “is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man” (v. 7). The woman has also the image of God (Gen. 1:27), but having been made from man, hers is an “intermediate” one. She was created to be man’s “help meet”; “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh.”

Temporary Features

Set in the midst of these permanent principles in Paul’s argument are certain temporary features. In the passage of 1 Corinthians 11, we note a reference to the wearing of the veil or headcloth by women in public gatherings. This was proper custom for that time. Women of honor were always to appear with their heads covered, for this signified that their proper sphere was in the home, and that they were under the authority of the man (whose proper sphere was in public life). Women today show their natural subjection to men in other ways.

In 1 Timothy 2:11–13 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 we note that women were enjoined to keep silence in the churches. Apparently some women at the time had been abusing their privileges in Christ and were making it appear as though the principle of subordination no longer existed. The principle could only be protected when women observed the rule that held within the general cultural situation.

It must be emphasized that the Bible does not teach a doctrine that men are by nature superior to women, any more than God the Father was superior to God the Son. Yet as the Son became subordinate to the Father in order to secure our redemption, so in the created order the woman is intended to be functionally subordinate to man. Only sin can turn a natural subordination into a subjugation on the part of man over woman. It is in the Church of Jesus Christ then that we expect to find the best expression of God’s order of human relationships. Where the gracious influences of the Gospel have not been laid, we often find women the mere property of man and, too often, regarded as of little value.

Perhaps we might conclude by saying that those who are subordinate must not attempt to bear rule or authority over people whom God has placed in authority (Heb. 13:7, 17; Acts 20:28; 1 Pet. 5:2; 1 Tim. 3:5; 5:17). A woman who by divine ordinance is subject to her husband in the home can hardly bear rule over him in the house of God. She may, however, exercise authority over those who are subordinate to her, such as children or in official capacity other women. The principle of subjection is with us on every hand: wife to husband, children to parents, citizens to the state, and congregations to elders or bishops. This is not our arrangement, but God’s.

END

Elton M. Eenigenburg is Professor of Historical Theology at Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan. He holds the Th.M. from Princeton and the Ph.D. from Columbia University. He has written The Second Coming of Christ and A Brief History of the Reformed Church in America.

- More fromElton M. Eenigenburg

Cover Story

Charles C. Ryrie

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

The apostolic age is the period from Pentecost to the end of the first century, or the period covered by the New Testament except for the gospels. During this period women had an important part in the founding of the church—a phase of their activity which is often overlooked. I suppose that in their thinking about this subject many Christians never get past certain passages in Paul which deal with the status of women, and consequently they miss seeing the large place women occupied in the early missionary activity of the church. Harnack rightly says that “no one who reads the New Testament … can fail to notice that in the apostolic and subapostolic age women played an important role in the propaganda of Christianity and throughout the Christian communities” (Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries, 1908, II, p. 64). Yet some do fail to notice this.

Immediately after Christ’s ascension women gathered with the apostles and disciples in the upper room in Jerusalem. They were not there to cook for the men but to pray with them, and there is certainly no reason to believe that they were not included in the group who prayed for Judas’ successor. Nothing could be more unlikely than that Mary and the other women were asked to withdraw at that point in the proceedings. The group probably included those women who ministered to Jesus, and there is no reason to exclude them from the number of 120 disciples.

In the very first weeks of the history of the Church there were not many women converts, but that condition did not last long. After the death of Ananias and Sapphira “believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women,” and by the time of the first scattering women were mentioned as particular objects of the persecution. All of this gives some indication of their increasing number. One of these early Jerusalem converts, Mary the mother of John Mark, donated her house as a meeting place for part of the church in that city. Indeed, it must have been an important meeting place, because Peter made his way there almost automatically after his release from prison. Some authorities believe that the upper room was in her house.

When the Gospel reached Samaria, again the record mentions the women who believed it and who were baptized along with the men. Why is it not true, too, that they were among those upon whom the apostles laid hands and who received the gift of the Holy Spirit? When the Christian message went into Europe, women again were prominent in the record. The first European convert was a woman named Lydia, “a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira.” Because she is mentioned as head of her household she was probably a widow, and evidently she was a wealthy one. Shortly after her conversion another woman, a demon-possessed slave, also believed the message—an illustration of how the Gospel is able to reach all classes. It is not at all unlikely that among the women who gathered with Lydia at the Proseuche and who were converted in the early days of the mission in Philippi were Euodia and Syntyche. Lightfoot suggests that at the time of the writing of the Philippian letter they were deaconesses in that church (Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, 1896, p. 55), while Harnack (op. cit., II, p. 67) and Vincent (Philippians, 1897, p. 130) both suggest that two congregations met in their respective houses. Whatever was their position in the Philippian church, they held a place of honor and usefulness—perhaps even in evangelistic work—since they are said to have wrestled together with Paul in the Gospel.

Both in Thessalonica and Berea there were honorable women among those who believed. “Honorable women” likely means wives of leading citizens of the community who were probably reached with the Gospel simply because the social position of women was higher and more free in Macedonia than in most parts of the civilized world. In Athens one woman, Damaris, is mentioned among the few converts whom Paul had in that city. She was probably one of the hetairai since no Greek woman of respectable position would have been present in St. Paul’s audience on Mars’ hill.

It is, however, in the story of the work at Corinth that one of the most interesting women of the period is introduced. Priscilla is mentioned along with her husband six times in the New Testament, and in four of these instances her name stands first. Although there can be little doubt that she was a woman of culture and education, her precedence is due primarily to “her greater fervency of spirit or ability of character” (R. J. Knowling, The Acts of the Apostles, 1900, II, p. 384.) Her ability to instruct the cultured Greek Apollos is probably only one of the many ways in which she served the church. One would like very much to know exactly in what ways she ministered or was active in the church in her house, for she could hardly be excluded from the ranks of a teacher, though whether she exercised a public teaching ministry is an unanswerable question.

One of the most startling evidences of the prominence of women is found in the last chapter of the epistle to the Romans where eight women are named among the 26 persons specifically mentioned in that chapter. The question is, however, what kind of work did they do? Priscilla in verse three is called a helper, sunergos, of Paul. Probably the term is to be understood as signifying the help she gave the church by furnishing a meeting place for the local group and whatever private instruction she gave as in the case of Apollos. Admittedly it would be difficult to prove that the “helping” did not include public teaching and even possibly missionary work. And yet, if this were the case one is surprised not to find mention of it elsewhere in the New Testament.

Mary, mentioned in verse six, evidently performed a personal ministry for Paul like that of the women who ministered to Christ during his life. The problem of verse seven is determining the correct gender of the name Junia which appears in the accusative form Iounian. It might be from Iounias (masculine) or from Iounia (feminine). Some are afraid to see this as a feminine form because that might mean that a woman was “of note among the apostles.” However, the phrase “of note among the apostles,” episemoi en tois apostolois, may mean, it is true, “distinguished as apostles” or, equally accurately, “well-known to the apostles.” Thus before one could say that Junia was a female apostle he would have to prove a feminine nominative from the ambiguous accusative and establish that episemoi meant “of note” and not merely “well-known.” Though Junia is undoubtedly a woman, she was not an apostle. One other woman stands out in this list, and she is the mother of Rufus mentioned in verse 13. Paul calls her “his mother,” which probably means “that this matron—whoever she may have been—had at some time shown him motherly kindness, which he had requited with filial affection” (Alice Gardner, “St. Paul and Women,” The Ministry of Women, SPCK, 1919, p. 43). The import of this passage is well stated by Knowling:

St. Paul has sometimes been accused of a want of due respect towards women. This last chapter of his Epistle to the Romans is sufficient in itself to refute such a charge. From the beginning to the end, the writer chooses with the most apt consideration the title and the merit which belongs to each member of the household of God, and recognizes the special work which a woman, and often only a woman, can do in the church (The Testimony of St. Paul to Christ [1905], p. 466).

Thus in the early propagation of the Christian message women played an important role. The number of times specific women are mentioned in the accounts of the founding of various churches is in itself a striking evidence of this fact.

But, it must be added, to say that women played a leading role is another matter. The Incarnation was in a man; the apostles were all men; the chief missionary activity was done by men; the writing of the New Testament was the work of men; and, in general, the leadership of the churches was entrusted to men. Nevertheless, a prominence and dignity which women did not have either in Judaism or in the heathen world was theirs in the early propagation and expansion of Christianity, the historical record of which would be immeasurably poorer without this prominence secondary though it was.

END

Charles C. Ryrie is President of Philadelphia College of the Bible. This essay is from his book The Place of Women in the Church, published by Macmillan, 1958. He holds the B.A. degree from Haverford College, Th.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and Ph.D. from University of Edinburgh.

- More fromCharles C. Ryrie

Cover Story

Edward John Carnell

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

Orthodoxy does not have all the answers; nor does it always ask the right questions. And when it gives the right answers to the right questions, it often corrupts its claims with bad manners.

But beneath these outer garments is the warm flesh of Christian truth: the truth that love is the law of life; that all men are sinners; that Christ bore the penalty of sin; that repentant sinners are clothed with the righteousness of Christ; that Christ is confronted in and through the written Word; and that the Word is consistent with itself and with the things signified.

We have defined orthodoxy as “that branch of Christendom which limits the ground of religious authority to the Bible.” The testimony of Christ is normative for the Church, and included in this testimony is the assurance that the written Word is inspired of God, and that it has the force of law.

Orthodoxy is often branded as literalism. The charge is that orthodoxy defends the plenary inspiration of the Bible, even though destructive criticism has ostensibly demolished this doctrine. But it is instructive to note that the critics seldom give a precise definition of literalism; nor do they go on to tell what they mean by the Bible as the Word of God. If orthodoxy neglects destructive criticism out of a respect for the testimony of Christ, the critics neglect the testimony of Christ out of a respect for destructive criticism. Not only is the neglect mutual, but it is by no means clear that the neglect of the critics is more praiseworthy, let alone more Christian, than that of orthodoxy.

If we nullify the testimony of Christ at one point, we operate on a principle that leaves the mind free to nullify this testimony at all points. In this case we have little reason to believe that our hope rests on divinely appointed evidences—not even our hope that God sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world. The evidences that support the plan of salvation are precisely the same in quantity and quality as those which support the plenary inspiration of the Bible.

If orthodoxy is literalistic because it honors the rights of language in Scripture, it is in very good company, for Christ and the apostles approach the text in precisely the same manner. Critical reinterpretation may relieve faith of the scandal of plenary inspiration, but it also relieves faith of the scandal of the Cross. Tested by the canons of science and philosophy, the doctrine of justification fares no better than the doctrine of plenary inspiration.

When the Gospel is absorbed into a world system, the minister can no longer stand behind the sacred desk and cry, “Thus says the Lord!” And when the voice of the prophet is silenced, let “Ichabod” be written over the Church: the glory has departed.

The cause of destructive criticism cannot be rescued by contending that revelation is personal encounter with Christ, and that this encounter is valid whether or not the Bible is inspired. Not only is the contention void of proof, but it reduces Christian commitment to a variety of religious experience. By no analysis of personal confrontation could we discover that God made a covenant with Abraham, and that Jesus Christ is the blessing of this covenant. Only propositional revelation can clarify the state of a sinner before a holy God.

Christ taught that the plan of salvation was mediated to the Church through the office of inspired prophets and apostles. If we reject this office, we forfeit the norm by which the limits of valid confrontation are decided. In this case the religious experience of an animist has the same rights as that of a Christian, for neither the animist nor the Christian has any proof that his faith terminates in the mind of God. Religion becomes an exercise in personal feeling.

Critics also brand orthodoxy as fundamentalism, but in doing so they act in bad taste. Not only is it unfair to identify a position with its worst elements, but the critics of fundamentalism often manifest the very attitudes that they are trying to expose. The mentality of fundamentalism is by no means an exclusive property of orthodoxy. Its attitudes are found in every branch of Christendom: the quest for negative status, the elevation of minor issues to a place of major importance, the use of social mores as a norm of virtue, the toleration of one’s own prejudice but not the prejudice of others, the confusion of the Church with a denomination, and the avoidance of prophetic scrutiny by using the Word of God as an instrument of self-security but no self-criticism.

The mentality of fundamentalism comes into being whenever a believer is unwilling to trace the effects of original sin in his own life. And where is the believer who is wholly delivered from this habit? This is why no one understands fundamentalism until he understands the degree to which he himself is tinctured by the attitudes of fundamentalism.

Critics have not performed their full task until they leave the externals of orthodoxy and probe into the heart of the system itself. And once this nobler task has been executed, the critics may discover that orthodoxy is a worthy Christian option. In any case, the problems of orthodoxy are common to all who try to discover the essence of Christianity and to live by its precepts.

In the sweep of history it may turn out that orthodoxy will fail in its vocation. But in this event it should be observed that it is orthodoxy, not the Gospel, which has failed. The Word of God is not voided by the frailties of those who come in the name of the Word of God.

END

This essay is from The Case for Orthodox Theology by Edward J. Carnell (Copyright, 1959, by W. L. Jenkins, The Westminster Press. Used by permission). The work appears in a trilogy with The Case for Theology in Liberal Perspective and The Case for a New Reformation Theology by others.

- More fromEdward John Carnell

Cover Story

William D. Carlsen

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

The mission had been working in one section of the country for 30 years and had given salaries to national pastors and evangelists with funds from abroad. Many local Christians had taken the attitude, “Why should we support our pastors if the mission will guarantee their salaries.” The laity felt no strong imperative to witness for Christ while others were being paid to do it. Since the missionary paid the salaries, he also directed the work of the national pastors and evangelists. Some of them felt the missionary was a contractor and they were day laborers. Others felt that they were mere bird dogs who ran at the missionary’s bidding to spot prospective converts.

Realizing the futility of such a program, the missionaries voted to do away with the “subsidized pastor and evangelist” program over a period of two years. This was carried out not in a cold-blooded, ruthless manner but in love. Some folk, supported by mission funds from the time they had entered Bible school, were not willing to forego their guaranteed salary without a struggle.

The time came for the annual national church conference. Over 200 Christians met for spiritual fellowship and business sessions. Some felt that the greatest need of the church was financial and that “all would be rosy” if only the mission would give them all the money they wanted. Much was said about the mission’s unloving suspension of salaries.

One of the members of the national church committee rose to recommend that the mission be asked to leave their section of the country and that another mission be asked to take over the work. He described what a mission in another section of the country was doing for the people by paying salaries, offering educational and medical benefits, and erecting impressive buildings.

A deacon of over 20 years devotion to Christ stood and, with deep emotion, said, “These missionaries are our fathers and our mothers. They have brought us to Christ. Just because my earthly father doesn’t give me all that I ask for, is that cause for me to disown him and hunt for a wealthy father who will give me all that I crave?” Another deacon rose and read from James 4:3: “Ye ask and receive not, because you ask amiss that you may consume it upon your lusts.” The motion to ask another mission to take over the work was lost.

This situation illustrates a problem that occurs when several missions with divergent policies work in the same area or close proximity to each other. One mission may offer a degree of economic security to converts. Another mission will seek to establish an indigenous church that is self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing from the beginning of the work. Where two such divergent policies are employed in the same country, the national is tempted to follow the group that gives the most material benefits.

In the deployment of missionaries there is the temptation to multiply missions in areas that have great emotional appeal to the home constituency. The Christian public is usually more moved by tales of life among naked savages than of tedious missionary work in a civilized but yet pagan society. Results are usually more quickly realized among people with a primitive religion such as animism or spirit worship than with a deep-rooted philosophic religion like Buddhism or Mohammedanism.

Some mission executives will be quick to tell you that more candidates apply for work among primitive tribes than for work among civilized societies with a state religion and are suspicious of a foreign religion.

Sometimes Christian leaders, who make world tours that do not allow much time for fact-finding, are guilty of misleading their constituency by misdirected appeals. One such leader spent 10 days in an Asian capital visiting heathen temples and writing about the appalling absence of a Christian witness in such a populated center. After he left the country he stumbled on the fact that he had stayed in a hotel that was 25 minutes walk from a large church, Bible school, and hospital conducted by two alumni of his college.

At the conclusion of World War II an urgent appeal was made to send missionaries to a certain country in Asia. A great host of missionaries responded. The only difficulty was that they represented 143 Protestant missions all seeking to work in a land area the size of Montana, but of course with a much larger population—over 90 million people. Each of these 143 missions had to have its own organization setup and promotional program so that the funds would continue to flow from its home constituency. Of course the local population was confused with the many shades of doctrinal views and patterns of behaviour displayed by people who claimed to be Christians. Thirty-one Bible schools, seminaries, and Christian colleges were established with a combined student body of 987, the teacher-student ratio being less than four students to one teacher. Some missionaries who have worked in such a Babel of organizations have exclaimed that there are “too many chiefs and not enough Indians” or, in other words, too many generals and not enough foot soldiers. The Protestant effort is top heavy with too many missionaries tied up in administrative posts and specialized ministries, and too few missionaries working at the grass roots in pioneer evangelism and establishing the indigenous church.

Some evangelical bodies refuse to work in cooperation with any other evangelical group. They clothe their reasons in highly spiritual language. They want to avoid entangling alliances and be free to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they say, and therefore do not want to enter into mission comity agreements. Their actions imply their disbelief that God can reveal his will to a corporate body of Christians representing members of the same Body with Christ as the Head.

In many instances a group that majors on a minor point of biblical interpretation will not launch into an unevangelized area where there is no Christian testimony, but will feel it is their duty to work among a flock established through the sacrificial labors of another evangelical body in the hope of winning them over to their doctrinal emphasis.

The history of American Christianity reveals the fact that some groups do not owe their existence so much to God-given convictions regarding neglected truth but rather to political and geographical considerations. Is it necessary for evangelicals to export sectarianism? Must we label new Christians with our denominational tags so that our particular outfit will be sure to get the credit in the ledgers of heaven—even if in so doing we steal the glory from Christ and destroy the unity of his Body, the Church?

The answer to the crying need of a host of missionaries to spearhead the evangelization of the world is not the multiplication of mission agencies. This only creates confusion, a waste of funds and personnel, an overlapping of ministries, and an unhealthy type of competition. The need is for an informed Christian public who will not be led hither and yon by mere emotional appeals but will answer facts with consecrated action. The need is for a Christian public that will insist that our leaders promote the unity of the body of Christ before denominational loyalty, and that our leaders display a team spirit in working with all of like precious faith by praying, planning, and accomplishing together. This does not mean that evangelicals should join heretical groups and modernists who deny the deity of Jesus Christ and are enemies of the Cross, but there is certainly a basis of cooperation among all, redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb regardless of race and color.

It was understood that in a large country like China, holding one fifth of the world’s population, the constituency of one evangelical body would not be adequate to maintain a sufficient missionary force to evangelize the entire country in a short period of time. It was necessary that several missions survey the need and divide the territory.

The land area and population is not always a true picture of the need in a country. Consideration must be given to the number of language groups found so that each group may have a witness.

Missions should not stake out more territory than they can adequately occupy within a reasonable length of time. There should be a realistic facing of facts and a determined effort to cooperate with all members of the body of Christ. This problem is not beyond solution. The solution is simple wherever Christians put devotion to Jesus Christ before denominational loyalty and speak and work in terms of “His Church” rather than “our denomination,” “our work,” and “our group.”

END

Time Of Miracles

Now is the time of miracles when God

walks out in fields and—as though they touched His hem—

they heal of brown and barrenness; the sod

is shaken; life creeps up the stem to make a blossom and the dormant earth

is alerted to its sweet re-birth.

The streams and rivers from their Lazarus-tombs

rise up, come forth again at the command

that summons up the world. Sun resumes,

with plows and plowmen, power on the land.

Dark and doubt together are o’erthrown—

Even the spirit cannot bide a stone—

HELEN HARRINGTON

Statistics of the Missionary Research Library disclose a significant increase of missionary activity throughout the world. This poses anew such problems as duplication of agencies, overlapping ministries, waste of funds and personnel. Speaking to these issues is William D. Carlsen who has served the Christian and Missionary Alliance in Kansu Province, China, from 1947–49, and in Thailand to which he returns in June after his present furlough. He is a graduate of Nyack Missionary College and holds the B.A. from Houghton.

- More fromWilliam D. Carlsen

Cover Story

Harold John Ockenga

View Issue
Subscribe
Give a Gift
Archives

By the famed Boston Common stands Park Street Church, whose congregation has taken the whole wide world to its heart. From the hub of New England, which is pervaded by Roman Catholicism, Christian Science, and Unitarianism, the 2,200 members of this historic church bear witness to historic Christianity in the five continents.

What spirit of sacrifice animates this great missionary congregation? What explains its designation of more than a quarter of a million dollars annually to foreign missions? For an authentic account, CHRISTIANITY TODAYinterviewed Dr. Harold John Ockenga, whose ministry at Park Street Church has become a symbol of devotion to the foreign missions enterprise. Questioners included 1. Dr. L. Nelson Bell, 25 years a missionary surgeon and hospital administrator in China, and for a decade a member of the Board of Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church, U. S., and Executive Editor ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY; and 2. Dr. Cary N. Weisiger, one-time missionary to India whose own congregation in Mt. Lebanon (Pa.) U. P. Church has increased missionary giving five-fold in 10 years.

DR. BELL: What is the secret of a great missionary church?

DR. OCKENGA: It rests in the New Testament program given to the Church by the Lord Jesus Christ. When I discovered that program, it revolutionized my ministry.

DR. WEISIGER: Can you spell it out for us?

DR. OCKENGA: As outlined by the Lord Jesus Christ in commandments given to his disciples after the resurrection, the first point of emphasis is that of the world missionary enterprise, repeated at least six times in the resurrection appearances and teachings of our Lord.

DR. WEISIGER: Where does evangelism fit in?

DR. OCKENGA: There is no distinction, of course, between evangelism at home and evangelism abroad. Nevertheless, I believe that the world missionary enterprise receives the primacy for our Lord refers to “every creature, every nation.”

DR. BELL: What else is entailed in such a program?

DR. OCKENGA: Another emphasis is applying the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ to every realm of life, so that in economics or politics or entertainment or family relations or education, the Gospel must be applied as we teach the principles and standards of life given by our Lord. Finally, there is the humanitarian application of these things, emphasized by Christ in his great Olivet Discourse, by Paul in numerous places, and by John in the third chapter of his first epistle.

DR. WEISIGER: What is the result in the local churches?

DR. OCKENGA: If you take missions, evangelism, Christian education, and humanitarianism, and bring your church together on that basis, then you are bound into a fellowship that doesn’t need many of the things on which people depend today for Christian fellowship. You have the fellowship of suffering, of sacrifice, of service, and this is the kind of thing that makes a local church tick and really prosper.

DR. BELL: What has actually happened at Park Street Church as a result of this missionary emphasis?

DR. OCKENGA: In the direct percentage our missionary work has enlarged, so all aspects of our church have been blessed, prospered, and increased. We started in 1936 by giving $2,200 a year to missions. Each year the total has gone higher. Last year we raised $258,000. In the last 20 years we’ve given about $2,750,000 for missions. Whereas in 1936 our budget was only $20,000 for the entire church, including gifts for missions, last year our budget was $465,000. What I’m pointing out is that all other things are blessed as we catch the missionary vision and apply it.

DR. BELL: Has your church seen a corresponding increase in the offering and dedication of lives?

DR. OCKENGA: When we started we had only two or three church members who were missionaries—and we did not support them. Today we have 123 missionaries on the field, 61 of whom are members of our church, most of whom were our own young people, and we support all of them.

DR. WEISIGER: How can we make the people back home more aware of foreign missions developments?

DR. OCKENGA: By annual church missionary conferences in which the major speakers are missionaries.

DR. BELL: Your church regularly sponsors such a conference. Could you tell us about it?

DR. OCKENGA: We hold a missionary conference each spring. For a whole week we have services from morning to night featuring 70 or 75 missionaries. The climax of the conference is a pledge offering for foreign missions and an appeal for young people who are willing to become missionaries.

DR. WEISIGER: Dr. Ockenga, do you feel that the congregational form of government in your church affords an essential advantage over old line denominational churches in the selection of guest missionary speakers.

DR. OCKENGA: A vast number of pastors in America serve denominational churches which for the most part are not autonomous. And I feel that money ought to be channeled to denominational work which is worthy of support. But I also think that it is wise to supplement such efforts with support for some of the interdenominational movements, because in some instances these can work more effectively than denominational efforts.

DR. WEISIGER: Do you support denominational missionaries?

DR. OCKENGA: We support a number of Congregational and Presbyterian missionaries, as well as others who work under independent and interdenominational boards.

DR. WEISIGER: Have you detected any recent loss of interest in foreign missions because of increased restrictions in various countries? Are people saying, “What’s the use?”

DR. OCKENGA: Difficulties experienced in some foreign missionary work may change the emphasis in methodology, but they will not alter the content of the message. We believe that the second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ may be imminent. We also feel that the changing world scene stimulates us to a greater evangelistic endeavor than before.

DR. BELL: In view of the changing world and resulting problems for missionaries and national churches, how do you feel about necessary transitions which will preserve world evangelization while at the same time discarding methods or policies which are no longer wise?

DR. OCKENGA: The time has come for a new look in missions that would adjust to the changing day.

DR. BELL: Will you explain?

DR. OCKENGA: Yes. Our missionary enterprise today should give priority to the reaching of foreigners studying in American schools. That’s the first point.

DR. BELL: And the others?

DR. OCKENGA: This new look should also include a new emphasis on more missionary literature, more evangelical radio broadcasts, and the establishment of indigenous churches.

DR. WEISIGER: Is there an immediate prospect for the use of television on the mission field?

DR. OCKENGA: That’s highly debatable. The prospect differs from nation to nation. But soon will come the day when we can bounce beams off satellites and send television pretty well around the world.

DR. BELL: Is it within the province of the free world to do more to reach Russia and Red China through radio?

DR. OCKENGA: I think that is a good possibility and a real responsibility. We could undoubtedly evangelize more behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtain. Take Radio Tangier, for instance. For something like $22 a half-hour program can be purchased. This will carry all through European Russia and will take in the satellite nations where people can hear the Gospel—and in their own languages—if only the money were available!

DR. WEISIGER: Don’t you think we can exploit air travel more effectively? Some churches send young people to work camps abroad during vacation time, or they have some of their young people suspend college courses for a year to help out at a mission station.

DR. OCKENGA: I think that can all be used as a means of recruitment, provided you don’t become wasteful of resources, for we have so many desperate needs on the mission field. I hear of a church that sends 25 young people to the foreign field for a summer yet has a roster of only 10 permanent missionaries. That’s all out of balance. We never sent anyone on a trial basis. Our young people got to the mission field by listening to the Word of God and seeing the need.

DR. WEISIGER: In your view, do you hold the opportunity before young people who are trained for technical professions to go into other lands under something like Point Four or in the foreign offices of American companies—with a missionary motive yet circumventing hostile entrance requirements of various governments?

DR. OCKENGA: Yes. A high official from India has told us that the future of missions there lies in just the thing of which you are speaking. We were told that the Indian government is not going to encourage sheer proselytizing, but that missionaries with practical skills will be welcomed and will not be prevented from propagating their faith.

DR. BELL: What is the greatest threat to the advance of Christian missions today?

DR. OCKENGA: Probably it’s a multiple threat. Communism is a great threat, but I suspect that spiritual indifference, love of ease, or the embrace of materialism can be just as hazardous to the missionary cause.

DR. WEISIGER: From a pioneer missions standpoint, what area in the world presents the greatest missions challenge?

DR. OCKENGA: Well, I’m told that there are more than 500,000 villages in India and that only a small portion of them have been reached with the Gospel. Then, of course, there are areas in Central Asia, New Guinea, and South America that have not been reached.

DR. BELL: Is there a danger in over-subsidizing national churches to the point where they will depend on outside help permanently?

DR. OCKENGA: There is a two-fold danger in looking to the outside for finances that should come properly from inside the church. Any church subsidized from America will be looked upon with great suspicion in the event a communistic philosophy takes over. Moreover, there is a danger in the atrophying of initiative if a church is subsidized from without.

DR. WEISIGER: How does a mission become a self-supporting church?

DR. OCKENGA: It is a gradual process. Brazil illustrates how every type of mission work can be going on in one country. There is a large, completely self-supporting, self-propagating church in city and urban areas. In the hinterlands is where the missionaries work mostly sometimes alone and sometimes with a few Brazilian aides. As a small congregation is formed, it is turned over to the national Brazilian church. The missionary and the missions relinquish all control when congregations find themselves able to have even a part-time pastor.

DR. BELL: What are the implications of ecumenism for foreign missions?

DR. OCKENGA: Today there is a new emphasis among foreign missions boards. We now have the fraternal worker policy and the stress upon the equality of all branches of the church. In a measure it seems a very good tendency, one which will recognize the dignity and equality and efficiency of the national or indigenous church. On the other hand, if we place belief in the ecumenical church to the curtailment of pioneer missionary work, I think it is a mistake! And if we tone down the essence of the Gospel and abandon evangelical Christianity, then again I think that the ecumenical emphasis in missions can be a menace rather than a blessing.

DR. WEISIGER: Can conservatives and liberals cooperate in the missionary enterprise?

DR. OCKENGA: That’s always been a great question. I feel there should be cooperation wherever there is faithfulness to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Saviour as presented in the Bible. Otherwise I could not conscientiously support cooperation.

DR. BELL: Is it becoming easier to be a foreign missionary in terms of increasing conveniences at out-of-the-way places?

DR. OCKENGA: There are two basic kinds of missionaries. Some people believe that we should go to the mission field and live on the level that we do in this country. Others think they should empty themselves and live on the level of the local individuals. My opinion is that ultimately the only way of effectively evangelizing any nation is through the indigenous Christian who speaks the language without a foreign accent and who expresses the culture of the people to whom he ministers. It’s for this reason that I think our greatest work as American missionaries lies in training the national Christian to become the preacher of the Gospel.

DR. WEISIGER: To your way of thinking how do home missions compare with foreign missions?

DR. OCKENGA: In America we are near the time when a billion dollars will be spent on church building annually. In itself that is fine. But when it is compared with the paltry sum that is given for world evangelism it should condemn the American church before God. It seems to me that there are just multitudes of churches that have very little interest in the missionary enterprise. We need to get on fire and catch the vision of the New Testament! If I didn’t have a missionary church I think I’d just have to resign and go to the mission field myself.

DR. BELL: What can the individual minister do to challenge young people to carry the Gospel abroad?

DR. OCKENGA: He should proclaim the Gospel, then present the challenge of consecration, urging that young people be willing to accept the call of God if it comes. I might say that a call for a young person would consist of the understanding of the message of the Gospel which will meet the need, the knowledge of the need, and the internal impulse which is the drive of the Spirit calling him to the field.

DR. BELL: Should a minister count on getting missionary volunteers from among his young people?

DR. OCKENGA: When we get into the position of obedience and we place all that we have in our own hands into the Hands of our Lord Jesus Christ, then there will be placed upon some young people the internal drive that God wants them in the mission field.

DR. WEISIGER: Do you regard the pastor as the one primarily responsible for implementing a promotional program for missions in a local church?

DR. OCKENGA: The pastor is the key to the whole program.

DR. BELL: What can the layman do, specifically, for individual missionaries?

DR. OCKENGA: I hold up to my people that wherever possible a layman should support his own missionary on the field. If a person doesn’t have that much money, then a group should band together to support a missionary. This pattern has been a great impetus to missionary work in our church—in prayer, correspondence, and material help.

DR. WEISIGER: How is lay enthusiasm essential?

DR. OCKENGA: To put a missionary program across, all you need is a few laymen who are thoroughly sold on the idea. In our church I was indebted to a Harvard law professor who had taken a trip around the world. Passionately interested in missions, he led our whole missions program for 10 years before his death.

DR. WEISIGER: What is the implication of the Park Street missionary program for local churches in North America?

DR. OCKENGA: I feel that Park Street Church has performed one of its greatest services in setting a pattern for many other churches. Literally scores of churches look to us for that pattern. Many send delegations to our missionary conferences to study it and duplicate it for their own congregations. Many pastors write, asking information and guidance in conducting a missionary conference. I have dozens of invitations to conduct missionary conferences for other churches. All this shows to me that the ramifications are wide.

- More fromHarold John Ockenga