(ttnurnr~iu mqtnlngiral .nut1}ly Continuing LEHRE UNO ~EHRE MAGAZIN FUER Ev.-LuTH. HOMILETIK THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY-THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY Vol. vm November, 1937 No. 11 CONTENTS Page The Pastor and His Guide. o. A. Geiseman ............. _ .... .... ........... ............ 809 Luther, seine Kaethe und seine Kinder. P. E. Kretzmann ................... 815 A Christian's Certainty. H. Warneck .................. _ ................. _ ........ _ ...... 8%4 The Aims of Christian Education. P. E. Krefzmann ......... ...................... 842 Outlines on the Eisenach Epistle Selections ........ ............................... 849 Miscellanea .................... ...... .................................... ........................................ 859 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich Zeitgeschichtliches ...................... 867 Book Review. - Literatur .............................................................................. 881 Eln Predlger muss nieht allein wei- den. also dass er die Schafe unter- weise. wie sle rechte Christen sollen leln. sondem auch daneben den Woel- fen we'~Ten. dass ale die Schafe nicht angrelfen und mit talseher Lehre ver- fuehren und Irrtum eln1uehren. LutheT Es ist kein Ding. das die Leute mehr bel der Klrche behaelt denn die gute Predlgt. - Apologie. ATt. 24. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound who shall prepare hirnaelf to the battle? -1 COT. 14. 8. Published for the Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States CONCORDIA PUBLISIDNG HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo. ARCBI ., Theological Observer - seitd)nd)~3eitgefd)ic£)md)e5 867 Theological Observer - Sl'itdjndj~3eitgefdjtdjtIidje~ I. ;Amertlm What Is the Meaning of St. Paul's Statement "All Scripture is Given by Inspiration of God"? - Do not ask Dr. H. C. Alleman of Gettysburg. He refuses to discuss the term "inspiration." A book review published in The Lutheran of August 4 reads: "The Inspiration of the Scriptures. By Lorain Boettner. The reading of this little book strengthens our con- viction that the framers of the Augustana did well in not including an article on inspiration. The inspiration or the Bible is what makes it a Bible, and when that is said all is said that can be said. We do not strengthen the case by definition or by controversy. The Bible is its own witness. In so far as that is the position of this book, we com- mend it. No affirmation, however positive, adds to the authority of the Bible. H. C. Alleman." This amounts to saying: We theologians of the U. L. C. are ready to teach that the Bible is inspired, but we refuse to say what that means. In other words, when Dr. Boettner declares: "By 'verbal inspiration' we mean that the divine influence which surrounded the sacred writers extended not only to the general thoughts, but also to the very words they employed, so that the thoughts which God in- tended to reveal to us have been conveyed with infallible accuracy- that the writers were the organs of God in such a sense that what they said God said" (The Inspiration of the Scriptures, p.13), "they have held that the Bible does not merely contain the Word of God as a pile of chaff contains some wheat, but that the Bible in all its parts is the Word of God" (p.19); when Dr. P. Kretzmann declares: "The Bible is a series of books which plainly show the peculiarities of the writers and yet are, word for word, the product of God Himself" (Popular Commentary, on 2 Tim. 3, 16); when Dr. Luther declares: "The entire Holy Scriptures are given to the Holy Ghost," "you are to deal with the Scriptures so that you think God Himself is speaking" (III, 1890, 21), Dr. Alleman declares that such statements are out of place in discussing inspiration and weaken the case.- We cannot see that there is much strength in the case of the men who hold: We believe that the Bible is inspired, but we must not say that the words of the Bible, all the words of the Bible, are inspired; Now comes Pastor Harold L. Creager to tell us what St. Paul meant when he wrote that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. An article written by him for the Lutheran Church Quarterly, July, 1937, bears the caption: "How God Inspired the Prophets." It states, in the first place, that inspiration does not insure the infallibility of the Bible. "We cannot ascribe to the prophets the infallibility that would be ac- corded to the stenographic report of the utterances of a supernatural visitor .. " In foretelling events they were not speaking out of a miracu- lously imparted supernatural knowledge of the future. Their predictions of doom were simply the result of a combined spiritual and political in- sight. And their predictions of blessing were the result of an insight into the mercy as well as the righteousness of God." And, in the second 868 Theological Observer - ~itd)Iid)~.8eitgefd)id)tlid)e~ place, the article defines inspiration as the influence exerted by God upon the musings of pious minds. "There is also in the case of a prophet one even more pronounced divine element, which differentiates his 'in- spiration' from that of a Milton or a Webster. The prophets had a first- hand impression of a Character - a feeling of direct contact with a Per- sonal Influence, an intimate communion with a Living Spirit. . .. It was because God was such a vivid reality to these great souls that they could learn His thoughts ... , As these men grappled with problems, - their own and the nation's, - their minds came in touch with the Supreme Mind, which was working out its purposes in the affairs of the world, and so learned to think His thoughts after Him and perceived the truth for which they sought. . .. We see Amos (8,1-3) looking at a basket of qayis (a Hebrew word for 'fruit'); and, constantly alert as his mind was, he musingly says: 'Qayis - qayis qes!' (qes being the Hebrew word for 'end'), - and immediately he has a message to proclaim that the end is about to come upon Israel (the quickness with which ripe fruit de- cays probably contributing to the genesis and application of his idea) .... The subconscious mind is an even more helpful theory on the method of divine contact. Germinal conceptions slowly developing there would surge upward across the threshold of consciousness - pro ba bly with the assistance of direct spiritual influence from God to reinforce them and 'put them across' - when the appropriate occasion came." The article concludes with the sentence: "The prophets acquired and could force- fully present that idea" ["religion as a matter of Living According to God"] because their minds were open to God and ready to absorb and use His Spirit." There you have a definition of inspiration. H. L. Creager knows that when you say that the Holy Scriptures were inspired by God you must tell people what you take inspiration to mean. Dr. Alleman does not want to tell it. He must do so. And he will do so, sooner or later. Will he accept the definition elaborated in the article "How God Inspired the Prophets"? His colleague, Prof. W. C. Berkemeyer of Mount Airy (Philadelphia), also is ready to define inspiration. In the same issue of the Lutheran Church Quarterly he writes on page 314: "In recommending this com- mentary (The Pastoral Epistles, by E. F. Scott) to Lutherans, we would commend especially an excellent interpretation of a passage which seems to have become a modern American Lutheran crux interpretum, 2 Tim. 3,16. Dr. Scott writes: 'To the Greek ear the word "Scripture" conveyed no idea but that of a "writing"; and the adjective "inspired" is attached to it to guard against possible misunderstanding. . .. The idea is simply that each of the sacred books has something to reveal to us of the mind of God.''' Will Dr. Alleman accept this definition of inspiration - "in- spiration" means that the Bible has something to reveal to us of the mind of God? Sooner or later he will have to give a· definition of inspiration. He has already given it. In the Lutheran Church Quarterly of July, 1936, p. 240, he tells us that inspiration cannot mean that everything in the Bible is true, but that the Bible is an inspired book because portions of it deal with the saving truth. He writes: "The Bible contains the Word Theological Observer - .!tit4Jli4J~8eitgef4Ji4Jm4Je~ 869 of God. It is the rule of our faith because it enshrines the Word. Luther saw that it was this which made it an inspired book, without the neces- sity of claiming for it verbal inspiration. He is not the author of that theory. The Bible is not of uniform value and equal perspicuity. It has carried with it the husk as well as the kernel. There are many things in the Old Testament, and some in the New Testament, which are tem- poral and even provincial. When we read Old Testament stories of doubtful ethics and lex-talionis reprisals, with their cruelty and venge- fulness, their polygamy and adultery, it is difficult for us to sympathize with the theory of verbal inspiration, however much we may sympathize with the motive which led to it." Dr. Alleman said that in defining in- spiration you must avoid "affirmations." Here he is stating that in- spiration does not mean that the Bible is true throughout, but that it only means that the Bible contains truth. That is a very definite "affir- mation." E. )IDnlJ fte~t bet mereinignng im )IDege? ~n einem 0:rlifeI, oeiUeH: ,,(fin neuer englifd)er Si?ommen±ar aum meuen :itef±amen±" (Herbert C. Alleman, Editor, New Testament Commentary), ber in ber 0:uguf±nummer ber "Si?ird)Hd)en ,8eitfd)rij't" erfd)ienen iff, fd)reio± D. m. meu un±er anberm: ,,@lo fjaf aud) bie noeraIe :itfjeoIogie S\)eu±fd)IanM im 19. ~afjrfjunberl an~ gefangen; fo fagt ~eute nod) bieImaI5 bie lioeraIe :it~eorogie um un5 ~er im eigenen QanD. 0:oer roafjrenb borl roie fjier eine f±arfe meaftion bagegen eingefett ~af, mUf3 nun ~intennad) ein .2ut~eraner 0:merifa5 £Ommen unb mUf3 mefe grunbftilraenben @ebanfen aIs (frlrag feiner ,roiffenfd)aj'tHd)en' 0:roei± in bie Si?reife ber @lonn±agsfd)urre~rer ~inein±ragen. 'For the benefit of the more conservative Christians' fann man ja nad) ~o~annis [5oroHb aud) ~eute nod) 'the older form of the hope' erroa~nen unb ben !1Suffus ,bon bannen er fommen roirb, au rid)±en me .2eoenbigen unb bie :ito±en' im 0:j:wftofifum ftefjenIaffen, roafjrenb man augleid) roeif3, baf3, 'strictly speak- ing, Judgment is a present process' unb bas Si?ommen (iffjrifti ein inroen~ mge~, bM fid) 'im Si?ommen bes @eif±es ins ~era bollaiefj±l" ,,'(frfjeOt ber ane mationalismus, bem me 0:ufetroecfungsl1JUnber (~iingling au main, ~airus' :itod)tet) nut (ftroad)en aus Ofjnmad)± unb @ld)ein±ob roaren, in bet Iu±~etifd)en SHrd)e unfers .2anbes aufs neue fein ~aupt? lffier roeif3 es oeffer, bet bom @eifte @ottes infpirierte QuIas ober fein neuefter 0:usIeger in @ettl)sourg?" "lffienn nur fonft feine [@ltamtM] 0:usIegung neoen mand)en feinen (finaefailgen nid)t fo biefes entfjiefte, roM bomg unfjartOar ift unb einen @ltanbpunfi berra±, ber in ber Iu±fjerifd)en Si?ird)e unfers Qanbes feinen maum geroinnen barf 1 fBei ber 0:uferroedung bes :itod)±errein~ bes ~airus Iefen roir: 'There can be no doubt that Mark meant to narrate an actual raising from the dead. It would have been inconceivable to the Christians of his day that Jesus had not done as great things as they read in the Scriptures about Elijah and Elisha. Similar stories are told of Jesus' contemporaries and followers. In Acts 9, 36-42 Peter is re- ported to have raised Tabitha from the dead, and according to Acts 20, 8-10 Paul was thought to have restored the life of Eutychus. (The italics are ours.)' meoen @ltamm, !1Srofeffor in @ettt:)50urg, nann±en roir ooen lffi. (if. fBerfemet:)er, Fellow unb Instructor am @leminar in !1SfjHa~ beTpfjia. S\)erfefoe ift bet fBearoeUet ber !1SuftoraThriefe. . .. (fr fomm± in 870 Theological Observer - ~hd)ad)"8ettgefd)id)tlid)es ftatfem \1l:nf~luf3 an llnoffa± au bem ffiefuUa±, baf3 infonDet~eit bie ~eologie bet g:jtiefe bie \1l:nna~me bet pauIinifdjen 58etfaffetfdjaf± betbiete. Gft ge~ ftelj± ~odjfteni3 au, baf3 bieUeicljt 'some Reliquiae Paulinae' bem 58etfaffet aUt 58etfugung gef±anDen ~aben. ~n Det 58etbinbung ljoten roit: 'It seemed legitimate in that age to put words on the lips of a man whose mind was being interpreted.' ... :81t 1 5tim. 2, 9-15 Tefen roit: 'Whatever conclusions we may reach on the point in question, we ought to regard such an allegorical exegesis of Genesis, with the belief in the literal his- toricity of the Biblical account of the creation of man and woman which is implied, as part of the intellectual-philosophical milieu of the writer, which we need neither accept nor consider as the testimony of his re- ligious consciousness as an inspired Christian prophet.''' - ~et ~rr±ifel fdjriet± mit Den @?iiJ,len: "m3iitbe ei3 fidj um bie !j3tiba±cttbeit cinei3 cinaefnen ljanDeln, Dann fiinnte man bei Den be±tubenben !j3atiien barauf tedjnen, baf3 Die offiaieUe 58e±tetung fie abfdjiHtert unD bafUt fotg±, bat fie feinen Gfinfluf3 aUf bai3 @anae bet Shtdje aUi3iiben fonnen. \1l:'fJet ber S\)ommentat gelj! ali3 (\)anaei3 im JJCamen ber !j3ublifationi3beljotbe ljinaUi3, !jat alfo offiaiellen ~ljatafter. m3it futdjten, ei3 roitb cin j)Jeadftein in bet @efdjidj±e bet Iutljerifdjen SHtclje unfeti3 2anbei3 roetben unb aUf ~eaennien !jinaUi3fdjieben, roai3 mandje in unmit±e1bate Niilje geriiclt glaubien. m3ai3 alnifdjen cinet S\)it:dje mit foldjem offiaiellen S\)ommen±at unb bieIen anbern Iu±!jetifdjen S'i'itc!jen aIi3 @:ldjciiJeroanb fte!jt, ift nidjt me!jt 61013 bie ~ta(!e nadj ber 5BetbctI~ in fpitation, bie man jeJ,lt - oljne fie niiljet au befinictcn - bei feber @c; Icgenljei± bei3nboll ieti; ei3 ljanbelt fidj jeJ,lt um bie ~rage nndj bet @iirtigfeit ber @:ldjtif± feIbet, nidj± e±roa blof3 in antiquntifdjm unb natutfunbigen ~ingen, fonbern audj in teIigiofen. . .. ~ai3 fdjteiben roit mit grof3em @:ldjmeta. m3ir gcljotien au benen, bie aUf bie gegenf eitige 2fnerrennung bet \1l:mctifanifdj~2ll±ljcrifdjen SHtdje unb ber )8etcinigten 2u±ljerifdjen S'i'itdje in \1l:mcrifa geljoff± ljaben. . . .i5dj rodt, baB audj roeiter'ljin bon bieIen iljtet @Iiebet ±ten lu±ljetifdj geleljti unb geptebi(!t unb bon iljnen nimmetme~t cine etf± burdj ftitifdje ~eutung ljinbutdj'(!egangene unb geteini(!±e g:jilieI ali3 Norm fut 2eljte 11nb 2eben anedann± ttJetben roitb. 2f6et all bai3 batf nlclj± abljaUen, 2engnii3 gegen cine ffiidj±ung abaufegen, berm ftitifdje ®te(~ lung allt @:lcljrijT, i1Jenn fie bie :Obetljanb geroinn±, nut sum @:ldjaben bet S'i'itdje aUi3f djlagen mUf3." ~iefe @:ladjlage ftefjt ber 58etdnigung im m3ege. P. @etljarb Gf. 2eni3fi fiefjt bie @:ladje anbeti3 an. ~n feinem \1l:tiifel "The Road to Lutheran Unity" (The Lutheran Church Quarterly, July, 1937, p. 237 ff.) fng± et un±et anbetm: "In regard to a highly debatable doctrine like that of in- spiration, if one set of official committees cannot bring about an under- standing, let us appoint another that can." (§. The Leaven of the American Lutheran Church at Work. - Our readers are aware of it that the American Lutheran Church is one of the constituent synods of the American Lutheran Conference, which latter is composed of the following bodies: the American Lutheran Church, the Norwegian Lutheran Church of America, the Augustana Synod, the Danish Lutheran Church of America, and the Lutheran Free Church. The American Lutheran Church is a conservative body, and it endeavors to uphold the banner of confessional Lutheranism in the Theological Observer - .Ritd)lid)~8eitgefd)td)tlid)8g 871 American Lutheran Conference. Does it meet with success? That its influence is being felt is evident from an article in the Lutheran Com- panion of September 2 having the title "Whither Augustana?" The writer is Rev. C. A. Wendell, pastor of Grace Church, Minneapolis, Minn., a member of the Augustana Synod. We shall quote significant para- graphs from this article, regretting that space does not permit our re- printing all of it. "At its meeting in Omaha last June the synod was informed that several of its clerical members had been accused of violating the Gales- burg Rule at both points: they had permitted non-Lutherans to speak to their people, and they had allowed non-Lutherans to come to the Lord's Table. "The official reprimand which followed this report should have sealed all lips, but some of the men did not seem to remember the rumor that Mussolini had declared democracy dead. They talked as if they thought they had a right to their own opinions. Some of them did not seem to be sure that the Galesburg Rule (alias Minneapolis Theses) is a product of plenary inspiration. One said that he would feel in duty bound to do as' he has done in the past, regardless of what the synod may decide. Another' explained how in his community, - a small country town in illinois, where everybody knows everybody else and where the church people and the pastors of various denominations meet and mingle as Christian friends, - how in that community the Galesburg Rule would work havoc and do the Lutheran Church itself no end of harm. A third pointed out that one of the five synods which constitute the group to which we now belong has never paid much attention to the 'Rule'; while a fourth said (in private conversation), 'If that affair is pushed, I am through with the synod.' "'The pulpit,' we were told, 'is not merely a piece of wooden fur- niture. It is a symbol of preaching, regardless of where the preacher stands.' Thereupon, like the voice of many waters, the Synod voted its adherence to the 'Rule' which forbids all non-Lutherans to speak to Lutheran people. . .. And a few hours later a Presbyterian was in- troduced to the Synod and courteously granted the floor, which he occupied for ten or fifteen minutes. At the great Lutheran Youth Con- ference, which took place in Minneapolis a little later, a Methodist woman missionary was on the program, a Mission Covenant pastor spokQ words of cordial welcome, a Congregationalist presided at the organ, and a non-Lutheran sang a solo. And the whole great event was sponsored by the American Lutheran Conference, mother of the Minneapolis Theses! Verily, it is easy to be neighborly, and hard to live in a vacuum. "Whither Augustana? Just now we are moving rapidly in the direc- tion of a doctrinal emphasis. We are working ourselves into a hectic fear of all who cannot see the truth as we see it. Some people praise- or blame - our new associates for this trend. Others point also to cer- tain neighbors who are so orthodox that they would scorn association with us and will not even meet us at the throne of grace in prayer, yet somehow influence us. Whatever may be the source of the power which is moving us, one thing is clear to every alert observer, and that 872 Theological Observer - Ritd}nd}~3eitgefd}id}tnd}e~ is that we are not only moving, but are moving in the direction of orthodoxism. Perhaps we should rejoice over this. Perhaps we should read a certain chapter in church history. At all events may God have mercy on us if we allow the trend to draw us away from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus." It is evident that the leaven of the American Lutheran Church is asserting itself and that certain sections of the American Lutheran Con- ference are feeling uncomfortable. The famous "Four Points" are again in the forefront of theological thinking, and, what is interesting to ob- serve, Ohio and Iowa, which urged them in discussions in the sixties of the last century when membership in the General Council was at issue, are now, associated with Buffalo in the American Lutheran Church, striving for adherence to confessional Lutheranism in the matter of pulpit and altar fellowship and urging their brethren in the American Lutheran Conference to be loyal to the flag of our Church. History is repeating itself. We say, More power to this leaven! A. Why the Presbyterian Church of America Split. - A brief explana- tion of this regrettable occurrence - regrettable chiefly because it so greatly endangers the splendid work of Dr. Machen against Modernism- is given by Christianity Today (July, 1937). Substantially the cause may be sought in the departure by the group now known as the Pres- byterian Bible Fellowship from the doctrinal sanity which Dr. Machen has usually evinced and emphasized, a remarkable sanity, rooted in God's Word, which led him to repudiate both premillennialism and total ab- stinence, but which evidently was not shared by the group which has now left and weakened the Presbyterian Church of America. In its re- port on the split Christianity Today sums up the schism as follows: "At the close of the meeting of the General Assembly, June 1 to 4, which had been given over to dissension between the group now in control of Westminster Seminary and the group in control of the Independent Board, the latter group withdrew from the Church and formed the Pres- byterian Bible Fellowship. This split was the culmination of the struggle between the two groups over the two questions of premillennialism and total abstinence. The group which remains in the Presbyterian Church of America on May 31, at the meeting of the Independent Board, resigned from the Board. At the meeting of the General Assembly, this group, being in the majority, succeeded in passing motions repudiating the In- dependent Board and setting up a Committee on Foreign Missions of the Presbyterian Church of America. The question of total abstinence came before the Assembly in an overture from the Chicago Presbytery, asking that the Church affirm the historic position of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. in advising its members to practise total abstinence. The overture was decisively defeated. A statement was then adopted declar- ing that the West-minster Standards speak with adequacy and force on the subject of Christian life and conduct, including the use of intoxicat- ing beverages, and that no further statement was required." It is likely that both groups will now forget the great offensive against Modernism, which originally caused them to leave the mother church, and engage in endless wrangling. Meanwhile the Presbyterian League of Faith, which Theological Observer - Ritd)Hd.H3eitgefd)id)tltd)es 873 is opposed to Modernism, has held two meetings at Columbus, 0., at which Dr. Macartney presided and Dr. Burrell of Williamsport, Pa., was elected president for the ensuing year and Dr. Gantz of New York City secretary and treasurer. The sixth and last of the paragraphs of the "Testimony" adopted reads: "We testify anew to our loyalty to, and our firm purpose to defend, our historic and Scriptural Confession of Faith, especially in its declarations as to the complete inspiration of the Scrip- tures, the virgin birth of our Savior Jesus Christ, the miracles which He worked to show His power and glory, His death on the Cross to satisfy divine justice and reconcile man to God, His resurrection from the dead in the same body in which He suffered, His ascension into heaven and His present intercession at the right hand of God for all believers, and His return to judge men and angels at the end of the world." The first paragraph setting forth the "objects of the Association" reads in part: "The objects ... shall be 1) to promote loyalty to the Scriptures and to the standards of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. on the part of all its ministers and members." The third paragraph says: " ... to work within the Church for the eradication of such tendencies as are destruc- tive of her life and witness, to the end that the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. may be faithful to her divine Lord and fruitful in her wit- ness to Him." J. T. M. ~- Pitfalls for Faith in Modern Magazines.-Under this heading Dr. Dan Gilbert (San Diego, Cal.) , in the Sunday-school Times (Aug. 8, 1937) publishes a report so alarming in its nature and scope that every Chris- tian pastor ought to take notice of it. The Sunday-school Times writes on Dr. Gilbert's article editorially: "It is bad enough when Christian young people have to meet the insinuations of unbelieving teachers in schools and colleges. But there is another channel by which false teach- ing is filtering into the homes. Many good secular magazines today are publishing clever, well-written, plausible articles by Modernists and evo- lutionists. In a recent editorial (May 29) a Christian mother showed vividly what a menace this is to the Christian family life. In this fourth article of his series Mr. Gilbert gives more light on the same subject, tak- ing his facts from official documents, and he suggests something that can be done about it." In his article Dan Gilbert writes: "Christians have during recent years come more and more to realize that the most widely circulating American magazines are increasingly expressing an attitude of antagonism toward fundamental Christianity. This evil is one which needs thoroughly to be understood in order effectively to be combated. The most reliable source of knowledge as to the extent of the growing antichristian content of popular magazines lies in the statistical survey made by Ex-President Hoover's Research Committee on Social Trends and published in Volume I of Recent Social Trends in the United States (McGraw-Hill Book Co. 1935). The Committee found that in periodicals listed in the Reader's Guide the percentage of articles indicating an 'approving attitude' toward 'traditional' or 'fundamental' Christianity de- clined from 78 in 1905 to 33 in 1930. To quote directly from the Commit- tee's report: 'In Reader's Guide periodicals, as thus sampled, the infal- lible Bible, traditional creeds, church organization, and the propagation 56 874 Theological Observer - ~itdj1idj~3eit\iefdjidjtlidje~ of organized Christianity have dropped from relatively high 4favor into a state of being severely criticized and opposed. This group of concepts will hereafter be referred to in brief as 'traditional Christianity.''' These findings, as is next shown, were confirmed by analysis of several sets of samples independent of the set just cited. In a group, comprising the American, Collier's, Cosmopolitan, Ladies' Home Journal, Literary Digest, Saturday Evening Post, and Woman's Home Companion, the percentage of material "approving traditional Christianity" was 90 per cent. in 1900 but only 60 per cent. in 1930. In a group comprising the "intellectual" magazines, such as the Atlantic, World's Work, Survey, the "approval" of traditional Christianity declined from 57 per cent. in the period 1912-1914 to 18 per cent. in 1931. But that is not all. Dr. Gilbert continues: "In its survey of a number of selected representative maga- zines the Committee found a large majority of the articles antagonistic to Christianity. The report states: 'In analyzing these articles careful record was kept of every indication of favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward each of 148 different concepts or values related to religion. Toward the Church and ministers there were recorded 131 indications of favorable attitudes and 83 of unfavorable in 1905. The corresponding figures in 1920 were 38 favorable and 109 unfavorable, while in 1930 only 22 favor- able and 90 unfavorable were recorded. The percentages of the attitude indicators which were favorable to the Church and ministers were there- fore 60 per cent. in 1905, 26 per cent. in 1920, and 20 per cent. in 1930 .... Closely related to the attitudes just discussed have been those toward the divinity of Jesus, the inspiration of the Bible, life beyond death, creeds, dogmas, theology, atonement, Baptism, Sunday-school, evan- gelism, and missions. On these topics, 282 favorable and only 35 un- favorable indications of attitude were noted in 1905. In 1920 there were 125 favorable and 37 unfavorable, while in 1930 there were 58 favorable and 76 unfavorable." The tendencies of our common magazines still regarded as of high class are therefore away from, and antagonistic to, the traditional Christian faith. But the statistics of the Committee go only to 1930, and quite plausibly Dr. Gilbert suggests: "The survey of this Com- mittee of course does not cover the period from 1931 to 1936. But there is every indication that the trends disclosed in its report have continued unabated during the past several years. The probabilities are that, on the whole, magazines today have an even larger content of articles un- favorable to traditional Christianity than they did in 1930." On the danger lurking in the study of these magazines Mr. Gilbert says: "All thinking people will agree that vast multitudes, especially of young people, are being alienated from the Christian faith by contact with present-day periodical literature. College students in different courses are obliged to study the contents of the so-called 'intellectual' magazines; and after graduation they frequently continue to read regularly these periodicals, which, according to the committee's report, contained in 1931 five times as many articles opposed to fundamental Christianity as they did in favor of it. The percentage of approving articles was only 18 in 1931, although in 1912--1914 it was 57. But more important even than the 'intellectual' magazines in their influence are what the Committee Theological Observer - .ltird)Hd) • .(leitgefd)id)tlid)es 875 calls the 'huge-circulation magazines,' such as the American, Collier's, Cosmopolitan, Ladies' Home Journal, Literary Digest, Saturday Evening Post, and Woman's Home Companion. One or more of these magazines probably goes regularly into the vast majority of American homes. In 1930 these magazines were rated as still being 60 per cent. favorable to traditional Christianity; yet in 1900 about 90 per cent. of their articles 'approved' of traditional Christianity. From 1928 to 1930 the decline was 25 per cent., and if this trend has continued, it is plain that the majority or articles in these magazines today are unfavorable to the old-fashioned Christian faith." "But what can be done about it?" Mr. Gilbert asks and says in reply: "The question of what Christians can do to combat and correct this con- dition of such a large antichristian content in popular magazines pre- sents a difficult problem. They can and should of course keep out of their homes the more sensational and blatantly antireligious magazines of the miscalled 'intellectual' type. But the genuine family magazines that contain wholesome stories as well as valuable articles on household management have a place which it is hard to fill in many homes. That these magazines should contain a marked percentage of articles opposed to traditional Christianity presents a condition that Christians can and should endeavor to correct." And in what way? Mr. Gilbert suggests: "Christian subscribers to magazines should make known to the editors the fact that articles assailing traditional Christianity are not acceptable to them. It is a known fact that religious as well as political liberals and radicals have frequently altered the whole policy and content of certain magazines by the exertion of 'subscriber pressure' upon them. When articles 'unacceptable' to their state of mind have appeared, they have protested en masse to the editors. Editors of popular magazines have frequently said that the 'public' does not have any interest in articles favorable to fundamental Christianity. They have expressed the belief, and put it into effect in their magazines, that there is no 'reader interest' in articles on religion save those which treat Christianity from a modernistic and critical standpoint. This impression has grown in edi- torial offices simply because Christians have remained silent when ar- ticles antagonistic to their faith have appeared in the very magazines to which they subscribe. Christian public opinion should make itself felt! It is tll.e only medium whereby the rising flood of antichristian propa- ganda in periodical literature can be stemmed." The question certainly is one of tremendous importance. J. T. M. The Scriptures in Nearly 1,000 Languages.-The Bible or some part of it has been translated into 991 languages and dialects, according to a statement issued by the American Bible Society, New York City. Nine new translations were added and published in 1936, seven of these being African dialects and two European, the Gospel of St. Luke in Bern German and the Book of Acts in Moravian Romany. One complete Bible was issued last year, that in the Venda language spoken in the Transvaal and published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, with headquarters in London. The Olunyore New Testaments, one of the six New Testaments now to become available, was published 876 Theological Observer - Stitd)Hd)<,8eitgefdJidJtlidJell in July by the American Bible Society. This is the first complete Testament for some 300,000 natives in Kenya, north of Lake Victoria Nyanza. It required three years after the receipt of the manuscript to complete this publication. The book was proofread in Africa, but the delay was largely due to changes in the spelling which had developed in the language since the writing of the manuscript. - The Presbyterian. May a Church Criticize and Discipline Its Members? - In Chicago an Episcopalian rector was sued by one of his members on account of criticism he had voiced. Since the case is of general interest and importance, we are submitting an account of it as it appeared in the Living Church: "The slander case was based upon a sermon in which the rector publicly criticized those responsible for the music in the church and also, without mentioning names, referred to certain questionable prac- tises on the part of some members of his congregation. One member, putting on the shoe and finding that it not only fit, but pinched, identified himself as one of those criticized and brought the slander suit, in which a former vestryman of the parish acted as his lawyer. "The judge found that the rector's criticism was without malice and that indeed 'the so-called malice appears to be the product of the fertile imagination of gossipy persons in the congregation.' The judge added: "'The uncontradicted evidence would indicate that he [the rector] had some justification in rebuking those responsible for the character of the music rendered, and when he spoke the utterances admitted, the court is of the opinion he did so in good faith and in the belief it was within the discharge of his duty. As to malice, the record is entirely silent. "'In addition, privileges established by long usage in the Protestant Episcopal Church authorized him to deal with members for any mis- demeanor or misconduct and to administer proper punishment by way of rebuke, censure, or suspension, and to this jurisdiction every member by entering into the church submits and is bound when he consents to membership.' "The ruling of Judge Harrington is important in that it clearly rec- ognizes the disciplinary powers of the rector of a parish in the Episcopal Church and his freedom from conviction for slander, provided that the discipline he administers is without malice. Unless this decision is re- versed by a higher court, it will stand as an important precedent, re- enforcing in the civil courts the canon law of the Church." A. A False Truce between lEvolution and Christianity. - Dr. Dan Gil- bert, a leading apologist and zealous protagonist of the Christian faith against Modernism, raises a timely and necessary warning against those who put too favorable a construction upon the assurances of present- day scientists like Dr. Robert A. Millikan that there is no conflict or dis- crepancy between science and religion. Prof. Robert Andrews Millikan, director of the Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics at the California Institute of Technology, is a scientist of note, who was the first to isolate the electron, won the Comstock Prize of the National Academy of Science in 1913, the Nobel Prize in physics in 1923, rendered valuable service as Theological Observer _. gircl)Ticl) • .8ett\Jefd)id)mcl)e~ 877 lieutenant-colonel during the War, and is the author of many scientific books of highest rating. Now, in one of his books, Evolution in Science and Religion, Dr. Millikan, as Dan Gilbert points out in the Sunday-school Times (May 23, 1937), attempts a reconciliation of science and religion, but by no means on a sound basis; for he treats the Bible as "merely the product of natural evolution." Hence a warning is in place on this score, since Modernists today are trying to persuade believing Christians that there is no conflict between evolution and religion, quoting in proof of their contention the assurances and reassurances of just such men as Millikan, who are noted for their high character and deep sincerity and are free from the deeply rooted prejudice and innate hostility toward religion characteristic of so many scientists of our day. Dr. Gilbert writes: "Modernists seem to take the position that because a great scientist formulates a certain set of religious convictions, the people as a whole should immediately follow the formula. We should become 'religiously scientific' like the great masters of science! When Dr. Mil- likan promulgates a 'settlement' of the conflicting claims of evolutionary science and the Bible, we should accept it without question!" Dr. Gilbert then shows that the trouble with Dr. Millikan's "reconciliation" of evolu- tion and the Christian is this, that he exacts from Christianity virtually all the concessions. "According to the terms of the 'settlement,'" he writes, "Christianity, in effect, gives up "Ill claim to authority regarding those problems upon which science has stamped its own solution. Chris- tianity cedes to science all the territory to which the latter has laid claim. Religion, having been evacuated from the whole domain of thought and reality usurped by science, is supposed to content itself with wandering in the wilderness that science has not yet penetrated. In other words, regarding questions that science has not yet answered - such as the question of immortality - Dr. Millikan leaves religion free to speak. But regarding such a question as the origin of human life on earth, Chris- tianity has no right to speak . because science has already set forth the answer." Dr. Gilbert then goes on to prove his proposition by saying: "In this Evolution in Science and Religion Dr. Millikan explains: 'Con- cerning what ultimately becomes of the individual in the process [of dying] science has added nothing, and it has subtracted nothing. So far as science is concerned, religion can treat the problem precisely as it has in the past, or it can treat it in some entirely new way if it wishes. For that problem is entirely outside the field of science now, though it need not necessarily remain so.''' To this Dr. Gilbert remarks: "So long as the problem of immortality remains outside the field of science, Dr. Millikan is willing that religion should offer a treatment of it; but if and when the time comes that science takes hold of the problem, then, apparently, religion will have no more right to consider it." Here is, as Dr. Gilbert rightly says, "a one-sided compromise" indeed. Science sets itself up as the sole teacher in the whole realm of physical and metaphysical thought, and when it has spoken, then res decisa est; religion has nothing more to say. However, Dr. Gilbert contests Dr. Millikan's claim that science has "subtracted nothing" from religion's teaching regarding immortality. He writes: "While it is true that science 878 Theological Observer - .R'ird;1id;<{jeUgefd;id;tlid;eg has added nothing to the Christian position regarding immortality, it decidedly is not true that it has 'subtracted nothing.' In the last analysis the Christian case for immortality rests upon the belief that the Bible is God's Word. Yet admittedly science, with its dogma of evolution, seriously undermines belief in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Evolutionary science weakens, if it does not destroy, the foundation of our faith in a life beyond the grave. And it adds nothing in place of that which it takes away as the basic support of our hope for eternal life." To this Dr. Gilbert appends a severe indictment of Dr. Millikan's arrogant attitude toward religion. He says: "In 'reconciling' Chris- tianity with evolutionary science, Dr. Millikan repudiates the Christian doctrine of the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures. He treats the Bible as merely the product of natural evolution in the field of religion. For instance, he writes: 'Human sacrifice apparently has been practised by most, if not by all, primitive peoples. You find it in Palestine, where Abraham started to offer up his son Isaac. Now look at the first forward step in the evolution of religion. Somebody arises somewhere, some- how, who begins to do a little reflecting on his own account. In the Bible-story it was Abraham who began to wonder whether nature was after all just a powerful, cruel, vengeful brute like the king of the adjacent tribe, who delighted in, or was appeased by, human blood; whether, in other words, the real God was a being who could be propi- tiated by the sacrifice on the part of a father of his only son. And he answered, No! and decided then and there to break with the past.' Such amazing distortion of the Bible does not appear to be a 'reconcilia- tion' of it with the 'scientific' view of the 'evolution of religion'; rather, it seems to be the assassination and destruction of Christianity. Of course, that is one way of ending Christianity's conflict with, and challenge to, evolutionary science." Omitting other given proofs of Dr. Mil- likan's "one-sided compromise" in the "settlement" of the conflict be- tween science and religion, we wish to add that, according to Millikan, God spoke to Abraham in no other way than He spoke to Lycurgus when that Spartan lawgiver ordered human sacrifice stopped in Sparta; moreover, that he denies Christ's deity and believes he could be a Christ- tian even if Jesus had never lived ("The service of the Christian religion and my own faith in essential Christianity would not be diminished one iota if it should in some way be discovered that no such individual as Jesus ever existed"). Dr. Gilbert closes his enlightening article with the important challenge: "Is it not plain that Dr. Millikan's type of 'essential Christianity' is essentially and irreconcilably in conflict with Paul's? In endeavoring to 'reconcile' religion with evolutionary science, Dr. Millikan has given us a kind of religion that is itself in deadly con- flict with true Christianity." J. T. M. II. 2(u51au~ ~icr~unbcrtjll~rfeicr ilt @Sdjmnlfnlben. Unter l>iefer i't6erfdjrift lieridjtet ,,~a£i @b. ~eu±fdjranb" bon ber Q5ier~unbertja~rfeier, bie man Mefen @:iom~ mer in ber nUeinen @:i±abt am @:iiil>ali~ang be~ ;tljiiringer 2Barbe~" ge~anen ~at. }!Bir Iefen im ~u~6ug: ,,~ie @:i±abt l1lar feftridj gefdjmiiclt; .2ut~er~ l1lorie unl> .2ut~er6i!ber griif3ten bon iiberall ~er. ~n ben @:idjaufenftern ber Theological Observer - Rit~li~,geitl1ef~i~t1icI)e~ 879 ®efd){ifte tooren ftiilje [\ioeIau~gaoen, £eoen~oefd)reiIiungen £utfjer~, aeit" geniiffifd)e t\'IugaetteI mit [\iIbern bon feinem £eoen unb lillirlen au fefjen. \JlTter, forgfam geqiiteter t\'amiIienoefit fam aum ~orfd)ein unb gao dnen [\egriff bon ber £utqeriraMtion Mefer ®tabt. m~ in ben ~lienbftunben ber lieiben Sjaul'tfefttage bie reformation~gefd)id)tIid)en '®rinnerung~ftiitten ®djmaIfalben~, ba~ 2utqerfjau~, in bem D. martin £utqer bamaI~ af§ ®afi be~ fjeffifdjen ffien±meiftet~ [\aliqafar lilliIqeIm geltJoqnt qat, ber Sjeffenqof, bet Me [\eratungen ber ~qeologen lieqerliergte, ba~ ffiatqau~, in bem Me iJiitften unb ®tiinbe fidj berfammeUen, unb Me aUe ®tabtfird)e, ®t. ®eorg, in ber audj £utI;er bamaI~ BlDeimaI gel'rebigt qat, im feftfid)en £idjtglana ftanben, burd}Bog eine ftoljgeftimm±e menge bie ®affen ber ~Uf±abt. Unb aUe Shtnbgcl.Jungen unb ~eranftaI±ungen burd)aog ber lDud)tige strL1ng be~ Eu±ljernebe~ ,~in fefte murg ift unfer ®ott'. S£>~ tuar lDie ein gefungene~ [\efenn±ni~ ber ~erfammelien au £utqer~ gegentuiirtigem lillirfen. ~urm~ blafen unb Shtrrenbefingen leiteten ben Sjaul'tfefttag cin. ~om £u±fjerqau~ a~ aogen ber ffiat ber ®tabt, bie ±ljeoIogifd)en S£>efane ber bei bem iJeft ber~ ±retenen Unibetfitiiten in iqten malerifd)en aUen ~rad)±en unb bie ebangeIi" fd)en ®eif±nd)en in feierIid)em ,Bug Bum t\'eftgotte~Menft. ~n ber t\'eftlJrebigt acid)nete lISrof. ~bt D. IStange, ®iiitingen, ein [\Ub be~ ~on~manne~ 2utqer, ber f eine griif3ten ~aten fUr unf er ~oIf gerabe in ®rfUllung f einer rein fird)" Iid)en ~ufgaben gdan qabe. lillir l.JelDunberten, fo fagte er, an £u±qer feinen manne~mut, feine ungeqeure ~rbeit~Ieiftllng unb bie straft feine~ ®eifte~, ben ®d)IiiifeI al.Jer ilU feinem l:rljarafter lInb au feinem 2el.Jen~tuerll.JiIbe nod) ein anbere~, niimIid) fein ®otte~gIauoe. ®eine ®d)maHalbifd)en ~rtifer fen" nen nur e in en ,BentraIl'unft be~ ®Iau:Oen~, nur e i n e n mseg aur ®e" lDif3!JeU: ~®fu~ ~qrift~ I lJlad) ber lISreMgt iilierorad)te ber ~otf*nbe be~ '\'!.anbe~fird)ena~fd)uffe~ bet feiernben ®emeinbe Me ®riite ber 2anbe~fird)e sturqeffen~msaIbecf. S£>ie Uniberfitiiten marourg, SjaUe~lillittenl.Jetg unb EeijJilig griitten bllrd) furae ~nfl'rad)en iqrer ±qeologifd)en S£>efane. ~n dner ®tunbe qiid)fter jJoIitifd)er ~eranttuortung fUr iqr ~oIf, fo tullrbe betont, qiitten bie miinner bon ®d)maIfalben nad) nid)±B anberm ag nad) ber elDigen msaqrqeit ®otte~ geftagt lInb banadj geqanbeIt. ;Darau~ qiitten wir. au lernen. mit einem grot en gefd)id)trid)en t\'eftaug unb cincr ~uffiif)rung be~ Eutqerbram~ bon Sjann~ ~oqft ,1ISrojJqe±en' in ber ®tabtfird)e tuurbe ber iJeftfonntag befd)Ioffen." S£>~ ®rauben~odenntni~ £utqer~ bon ®djmar~ falben, b~ fid) fo gana ilU bem sola fide ilufjJti,)te unb barin beranferl tuar, fL1m oei ber ®d)maIfalhenfeier allerbing~ eigentridj nid)t aur ®ertung. D. ®tange erfIiide aum meiflJieI nid)t genau, lDa~ er mit feinem ,,~~fu~ ~qriftu~" meinte. ~udj ®d)Ieiermadjer unb ffiitfd)I ojJerierten iiuf3erf± l'ietiit~ boll mit Mefem ®oite~namen, oqne baf3 fie bamit dnen firdjIid)"d)riftrid)en ®inn berIianben. jffia~ foll Bum [\eifjJieI ®tange~ @5~ in ber lISrebigt: "S£>af3 lDir bon £utqer roieher Iernten, bat ber ®Iauoe an ben )ga±er ~®fu ~qrifti ber mscg aum Eeben iftl"? ~ud} ,ljarnacf rebete bon bem ,,®Ialloen an ben ~ater ~®fll ~qrifti" unb toor baliei bod) ein guter Unitarier. ffiedjt Me ~nnaqme ber ®djmaIfalbifd)en ~rtifer feiern fann nur ber, ber be~ ®eifte~ 2uifjerg ift. S£>~ ift aud} etlDa~, tua~ ItJir au l.Jeadj.ten qaoen. ~.~.m. Evolution and Its Danger. Under this heading W. Bell Dawson, M. A., D. Sc., F. R. S. C., gold medalist in geology and natural science, gold medalist in the Institution of Civil Engineers (London), laureate of the 880 Theological Observer - .!Hrd)ltd).,geitgefd)td)tnd)d Academy of Science (Paris), author of The Bible Confirmed by Science, publishes a striking testimony to the Christian doctrine of creation against the pagan doctrine of evolution, in Christianity Today (September, 1937). Because of the importance of the issue and the high standing of this bold confessor we offer our readers the last paragraph of his excellent state- ment. We read: "The outsanding doctrine of Christianity is that man js responsible for his wrong-doing, that he needs to be forgiven and cleansed if he is ever to stand in the presence of a holy God, and that it is only through the atonement made by Christ that this is possible. The central Sacrament of the Christian Church (the Holy Supper) tes- tifies to the truth of this belief. But the evolutionary view of continuous development sets all this aside, because it makes any atonement for sin superfluous and unnecessary. If any of our church leaders are unable to see this, it is at least plain to the atheist, who stresses this outcome of evolution as his most powerful argument against Christianity. Who, then, can gainsay the right of strenuous objection to the instilling of evolutionary ideas into the minds of our young people of school age, when this can only turn them aside from belief in the Gospel? If evo- lution must be taught, its place is among the philosophies in the advanced classes in the university. The student can then make his choice between accepting views which closely resemble the old pagan philosophies or believing the revelation from God which the Scriptures give us as the guiding star of his life." Simple though the statement is, and offering nothing new, it nevertheless sets forth a vital thought which deserves constant emphasis also in our own teaching and witnessing; and it is all the more to be considered since so prominent a man is again directing our attention to it. J. T. M. Untetridjt~iticle in llliiirttemlierg. ~m Wmi£lbiaH be£l hlrih:ttembetgifcgen Sfutiminiftetiunt£l betiiffentricgt bet Sfurtu£lminiftet \lStof. IDletgentljaiet foI~ genben @)daB wet bie @leftaHung be£l !ReIigion£luntetticgi£l: "SElie @)taieljung bet beutfcgen ~ugenb, ljat einljeitlicg im @leift be£l Wationaifoaiali£lmU£l au et~ foigen. ~n bet @5cgule ift hiefem @ltllnbfat in allen g:acgetn !Recgnung au ttagen. @)£l batf nicgt fein, ban butcg' @)inffilffe, hie bet nationalfoaialiftifcgen ~eHanfcgauung entgegenfteljen, itgenbein 2h1iefl:Jart in hie @5eeIen bet jungen beutfcgen IDlenfcgen ljeteingettagen hlitb. SEla bie !Religion otbentIicge£l 2eljr~ facg bet @5cgule if±, ift bief et Wothlenbigfeit aucg im !ReIigion£luntetricgi !Recg~ nung au tragen. SEla£l ljat aUt g:oIge, baB @5toffe, hie bem @5ittricgfeit£l~ eml:Jfinben bet getmanifcgen !Raffe ttJibetfl:Jtecgen, im Untetricgt nicg± au be~ ljanbeIn finb. @lehliffe ~eiIe be£l WHen ~eftameni£l fiinnen baljet fUr ben Untetticg± nicgt in g:tage fommen; anbete hletben ftad in ben ~intetgtllnb tteten milffen. SDa ljeute nicgt bet 2eitI:Junfi gefommen ift, eine in£l ein~ aeIne geljenbe ftoffIicge !Regelung filt ben !ReIigion£luntetticgt au tteffen, mUll icg bon .ben nationalfoaialiftifcgen ecguUeitetn unb 2eljtetn foMe bon ben @leiftricg'en, benen hie beutfcge j8oif£lgemeinfcgafi aI£l ljolje£l @lut am ~etaen Iiegt, etlDatten, ball fie in bet @5cgule ben ticgtigen llBeg finben aUt Weu~ geftaHung bet teIigiiifen Untethleifung im nationalfoaiaIiftifcgen @5inne. @5o~ hleit betartete f8eftimmungen bem entgegenfteljen, gerten fie aI£l aufgeljoben." ~. @). 2. Sf.