Dr. Wand, Bishop of London, expressed himself more wittily than wisely when he said that there were three things wrong with the Evanston Conference of 1954. "Too much American money, too much German theology, and too much Dutch bureaucracy."
However, the conference did emphasize the current disagreement in the Protestant churches between the modernist, activist school of thought and the German preoccupation with what has been called neoorthodoxy. One is inclined to see in the emergence of this emphasis a prevailing dissatisfaction with the humanistic, socialized preaching of our time. It is significant that it found its lodgment in Germany, which in recent times has suffered enough, and has seen enough of sin in the highest places, to feel the need of something more authoritative than the speculations of a group of socially-minded churchmen.
To catch this trend fully, it needs to be set alongside the rather extraordinary results that Billy Graham is still securing in various parts of the world. Many rather inadequate explanations are currently being given for the success achieved by Evangelist Graham, but the truest would seem to be that he is making his appeal to that large section of the population in every land that looks back nostalgically to the ardent preaching of such evangelists as Gypsy Smith, the Woods brothers, Billy Sunday, et cetera. The basic fact is that modernism has failed to satisfy, and the generation that passed through the stirring events of the second world war is finding it far too anemic and rather pointless. However, there are certain features of the new German orthodoxy that are suspect. There is a large measure of truth in the criticisms of the activist type of churchman that this new concept has been created in a vacuum. It is very doctrinal and very theological, but some claim it is far removed from the areas of real life where men and women live. Unkind critics of the German philosophers and humanists of the early eighteenth century used to say, "England rules the waves, France the land, and Germany the air." This new theology has quite a lot of the same kind of attributes. It seems to be artificially created, and does not appear to be based upon a genuine philosophy of life. This may be a hard judgment, but it would be fair to ask whether the teachers and disciples of this concept really believe in a literal creation and fall as taught in the Scripture. And if they do not, how can they reconcile the apparent contradiction in their beliefs?
Growth of Hostility Between the Ecumenical Groups and the Fringe Sects
Some prominent churchmen felt that the most baffling harassment for ecumenical Protestantism lay in the phenomenal growth of the fringe sects. Some of these men were fair enough to take note of the spiritual ardor, the intimate fellowship, the intense apocalypticism, and the sevenday-a-week religion of these groups.
Among other things, the excellent financial practices and welfare work of Seventh-day Adventists were singled out for praise. Some writers even went as far as to say that possibly some historian of the future might sense a new reformation in some of these groups. Others felt that it was essential for the ecumenical church to get to know these "new" Christians. However, this attitude was not very general.
In most practical ways any form of lone denominationalism met considerable hostility from ecumenically-minded churchmen. In India, which has been the birthplace of early ecumenicalism, Dr. Moses attacked the whole question of the missions of denominations. He suggested that the Indian attitude toward Christianity could be eased by the recognition of ecumenicity and the proscribing of individual religious groups that refused to fit into the main pattern. At the time when the Evangelical Lutheran churches in India were discussing the concept of the Real Presence with the other already-merged groups, this was particularly significant. The events at Bandung and the unfortunate relations of Christianity with a discredited and outworn colonialism illustrate how dangerous a development the growth of this attitude in Eastern lands might be.
The Extension of Roman Catholic Enterprise and Aggression
The Marian Year has been followed by an increased stringency of Catholic interpretation in a variety of areas. During 1955 Pope Pius XII rebuffed the growth of the ecumenical spirit in the French priesthood, gave an extremely narrow aspect of scholarly freedom in Human ii Generis, and proposed the beatification of Pope Pius IX. Vatican sources indicated that Pope Innocent XI would be finally beatified in the spring. The emphasis upon these two popes at this time is particularly significant in view of their historical background. Innocent XI was the pope who struggled against the all-embracing state as personified by Louis XIV of France, whereas Pius IX faced the rising nationalism and liberalism of the era of Garibaldi, Cavour, and Bismarck. The twentieth century has seen the emergence of the totalitarian state in its most complex and powerful form, so the beatification of these two pontiffs illustrates a new attitude on the part of the Papacy. It demonstrates that she is no longer adapting herself to the great forces of nationalism and liberal thought in the passive sense. She now actively asserts the traditional and unchanging aspects of Catholic doctrine and thought, which both of these popes represented. This same policy has been borne out by interpretive Catholic writing during 1955. Also we have seen attempted scientific vindication of the alleged miracles at Lourdes and vigorous promotion of Marian-type apparitions, the year closing with the official announcement that the present pope has seen a vision of Christ. "Usually reliable sources" also indicate that "the actual bones of St. Peter" may now have been found!
In the political and social sphere the Papacy has assumed her position as the chief and natural opponent of Communism.
In Australia the church continued her struggle to capture the labor unions from Communist influence. Dr. Evatt headed a strong combination against the growing power of the church in labor relations. In France the considerable growth of Communism, particularly in the working classes, has offset the historic influence of Catholicism in that country. The cultural, economic, and political life of both Belgium and Holland have been saturated by the religious issues. The struggle concerning religious instruction in the schools of Belgium had reached its peak by August, with the socialists in power at the time. In nearby Holland the Catholic National Party and the Catholic People's Party came together. The issues were somewhat more clouded in Germany. The Evangelicals under Niemoller made common cause with the Social Democrats against the rearmament plan. In the course of the struggle, Dr. Heinemann, of Essen, was removed from his office as president of the synod of the Evangelical Church in Germany. Both the German Evangelicals and the Social Democrats in West Germany protested against the importation of Italian and Catholic labor into the nation. Behind the confused picture it appeared to many German Protestants as though Catholic pretensions were far too strong in that hitherto strongly Protestant land. The dramatic reversal of the French Popular Republican Movement vote in the Assembly at the time of the debates concerning the German question highlighted the failure of the scheme of Archbishop Montini to create a Catholic federation of Western Europe. The pattern is not completely clear as yet, but the picture of Catholic influence and intrigue in Europe is continually rising.
The Philippine Federation of Christian Churches protested concerning the question of religious instruction in the schools. By October a full-scale church-state crisis loomed in the Philippines. For some months the Catholics had been agitating the religious department in the state-owned university. Particular stress was laid against the showing of the film Martin Luther in the Protestant churches of the state, and this was done in spite of the fact that a variety of Catholic films had been shown.
In Latin America the situation was somewhat different. Here the church faced the problem of the rather undeveloped industrial machine, and in consequence relied much more upon the time-honored linkage with the army. This was particularly evidenced in Argentina during the struggle with Peron. By June the dictator had influenced Congress to disestablish the church, the church replying with his excommunication. In July the popular press in most countries of the world was querying whether General Peron was headed for Canossa, but had come to the conclusion that whatever happened, liberal opinion would not be benefited. Lonardi, Peron's successor, restored Catholic prerogatives in Argentina, but by November his government also had toppled. In Chile the Catholic Church was talking plainly of her three major enemies: Communism, Liberalism, and Protestantism; while in Brazil it became the common practice to denounce Protestants as the agents of "Yankee" imperialism. In Colombia the same church was persecuting them on the basis of their being agents of Communism.
The problem of apartheid beset all churches operating in South Africa. The Bantu Education Act threatened the basis of the primary education of the African national. Here the Roman Catholic Church contrasted very favorably with the rather cowardly and pusillanimous policy of the British Council of Churches. Strongly supported by her national African teachers, and by British Catholics, she fought the act with all means at her disposal. In this policy she was not alone, for smaller groups such as the Seventh-day Adventists were trying to maintain their schools on a basis that would afford the greatest possible development for the hard-beset national.
In the United States the Roman Catholic Church maintained a similar position on the vexing question of desegregation. At New Orleans, as well as in some other places, the church took a disciplinary attitude regarding some of her own churches that refused to practice the recent decision of the Supreme Court. This consistent policy balanced her position in South Africa, and more importantly, it focused attention on her claim to be the great counterforce to Communism. This was particularly true in those vast areas of the world that resent some of the past colonial practices, and that are now discovering their own national genius and destiny.
The Russian Orthodox Church and the Soviet Union
The rulers of Russia have discovered that the church, like the state, is not going to "wither away." In October, 1955, Mobtoy announced that Russia's revolutionary period was over. Though it is true that this was part of the new Soviet policy of coexistence as signified by the recent attitudes shown at Geneva and in other places, it was also in tune with a consistency of change influencing Russian life for a considerable time. The Russian peasant and farmer has never accepted Communism, and neither have the Russian people as a whole turned away from the fundamental Russian preoccupation with matters of religion. The Netherlands Ecumenical Council of Churches sent a delegation to visit the Soviet Union and found evidences of a strong religious life there. And Canada was visited in December by a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church headed by Archbishop Boris. The Soviet Union is not only tolerating religion, but is heaping honors upon the Russian prelates. Obviously impressed by the power of the Papacy as a political as well as religious force in the world, it would seem that the Soviet Government is giving some thought to the potential possibilities resident in the great Eastern Church. In August the World Council of Churches meeting at Davos, in Switzerland, sent a letter to the Russian Orthodox Church. Hungary sent an invitation for the next World Council to be held at Budapest. Thus attempts were being made to bridge the historic gulf between the churches of the East and of the West. Some complaints were made that the Russian Orthodox Church was using occasions of meeting for the promotion of her teaching rather than to find a basis of unity, but notwithstanding, it does appear that churches are coming together on a global scale.
Continuation of the Ecumenical Movement
During the month of July the Anglican Church was exploring the possibility of uniting with the British Methodists, while at the same time possibilities of intercommunion with the Russian Orthodox Church were being discussed. In the United States the Southern Presbyterians continued to stand aloof from the United Presbyterians and the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. At the newly formed Atlanta Radio Center there was unity of effort between the Methodists, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S., the United Lutherans, and the Protestant Episcopal group. Even among the Quakers the rift of the last century was healed when the Inward Light group and the Evangelical group came together at Philadelphia. The United Evangelical and Free Lutheran churches in America continued to push toward unity, while the Unitarians and the Universalists moved toward a full merger. A more sinister development in this phase of church life could be detected in the matter of public contributions to church needs. Churches that continued an individual policy in asking the public for help came in for some degree of ostracism. A healthier sign, however, was evidenced by the criticism directed to the practice of bingo in the churches.
An Evaluation of Our Own Position
It is really only fair that, having considered the position and some of the attitudes of other churches and movements, some thought should be given to our own at the end of 1955. Naturally, anything set down here could be classified as personal opinion. But the impressions of other churchmen concerning our progress and work have been quite impressive and pleasing. Even those once hostile to us have come to recognize our vigor and keen promotional activity. Some reasonably valid criticisms have been made, however, and if taken note of could be of some real value to us. Excluding those criticisms that proceed from either misunderstanding or prejudice, the remainder are chiefly in two areas:
I. The feeling of some that our witness has not been primarily Christian in its nature.
2. The belief that we have a tendency to quote both the Scripture and other important facts out of context.
The first criticism could probably grow from the practice of approaching a doctrinal theme from an Old Testament setting. It would be certain that much would be gained by a method of presentation that begins from the teaching of Christ and branches out from there. Christ is shown as the central figure in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks, and the light shed by each lamp illuminates Him. The clearest counsels of the Lord to us are that Christ must be central in our whole concept of truth. Evidently some have not received that impression from our presentations.
The almost universal method of citing quantities of texts drawn from all parts of the Bible, has given some real validity to the second criticism. So frequently these references are quoted without heed being given to their context, to the time to which they refer, or to their setting and relationship to each other. No historian could possibly use this method, and there is really no inherent right given to a theologian to do so. We have been given the counsel that one text studied in all of its bearings is of more use to us than the reading of a large section of Scripture. The revival of the almost-dead expository method of preaching would go far to indicate better methods of presenting our saving message to the world.
In our use of history the same criticism is to some extent justified. Although we have gained some justified reputation by the scholarly works that some of our brethren have published, yet our pulpit use of history has left us open to attack. The strange impasse to which our world has come is fast awakening a new interest in interpretation. The great success of Arnold J. Toynbee's work is indicative of the new and growing attitude in this respect. Probably second only to the need for better methods of Bible study is the need for a much wider reading in the field of history. That would give so much added power both in our preaching and in our interpretation of the affairs that are vital to the people of this needy generation.
Malachi said of the work of Elijah the prophet that he would turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers. It is probable that the greatest difficulty between two generations grows out of the feeling of fathers that their children are forsaking the traditional values, and of children that their fathers are hopelessly out of date and unaware of new modes of thought. It would indicate that one of our vital needs is a cementing together of the great doctrinal values of our church and a keen awareness of the great field of interpretive writing in historical areas. Then we could justly speak of "the present truth."
Perhaps the outstanding religious trend of our time is toward greater tolerance of those who differ in belief, and at the same time toward a keener appreciation for true analysis of what is truth. Thus the world is ripe for the third angel's message in all its clarity.
