Vol. XXVI Summer, 1962 No. 2 THE SPRINGFIELDER is published quarterly by the faculty of Con- cordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois, of the Lutherail Church-Missouri Synod. EDITORIAL COkINlITTEE ERICH H. HEINTZEN, Editor J. A. 0. PREUS, Associate Editor MARK J. STEEGE, Associate Editor RICHARD P. JUNGKUNTZ, Associate Editor Contents Page EDITORIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Convention Post Scripta 3 IMPLICATIONS OF THE HISTORICO-CRITICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETING THE OLD TESTAMENT (conclusion) ......................... . .... . . . . . . . 6 Raymond Surburg, Professor, Old Testament THE DAVIDSMEYER MEMORIAL LECTURES, 1962 I. WHAT I EXPECX OF MY PASTOR IN THE PULPIT ......................................... 26 Norman A. Graebner, Urbana, Illinois 11. WHAT I EXPECT OF MY PASTOR OUTSIDE THE PULPIT ................................ 36 Hon. Norman A. Erbe, Des Moines, Iowa BOOK REVIEWS ................................................................. 43 BOOKS RECEIVED ............................................................ 60 Cle~gy changes of address reported to Concordia Publishin House, St. Louis, Missouri, will also cover mailing change of The ~pringfielAr. Other changes of address should be sent to the Business Manager of The Springfielder, Con- c o d a Theological Seminary, Springjield, Illinois. Address communications to the Editor, Erich H. Heintzen, Concordia Theo- logical Seminary, Springfield, Illinois. Business correspondence should be addressed to Peter Mealwitz, Director of Seminary Relations, Concordia Theological Seminary, Springfield, Illinois. What I Expect Pastor the Pulpit (Condensed) NORMAN A. GRAEBNER Professor Norman Graebner, son of a Lutheran pastor, i s Chair- man of the Department of History at the University o f Illinois. He received his Ph.D. from the University o f Chicago; taught at Iowa State College, Stanford University, and the University of Illinois; delivered the Commmwealth Fund Lectures at the University of London, 1958. The author of numerous books and articles on American politics and foreign policy for popular and scholarly jour- nals, he is at present Contributing Editor of CURRENT HISTORY, He was formerly a member of the Missouri Synod's Board for Missions in Foreign Countries. N LARGE measure my presence here . . . is an act of courage 1 as well as indiscretion. For me to speak on the subject of what a layman might expect of his pastor in the pulpit is presumptuous. The questions raised by this theme must be answered in theologi- cal terms, and I have at best but an inadequate layman's knowledge of Luther's theology. Nor can a layman properly speak for anyone but himself. . . . In large measure, the words of the individual clergyman, spoken from the pulpit, cannot be separated from the declarations of those church leaders who speak the mind and will of the church as a national and international body of believers. All clergymen, whatever their role, face the problem of dis- covering the relationship between the complex elements in Christian thought and the requirements of individuals in their earthly search for a proper relationship with God and man. If the answers to such questions are beyond me, I can take some comfort from the fact that I was not invited to appear here as a theologian, but rather as an historian and layman with a broad interest in a changing world-a world, it would seem, that is not always changing for the better. It may be true that our best years as Lutherans, as Christians, and as Americans already lie in the past. Today we find ourselves as members of Western civilization assailed by forces which threaten to destroy our values, our security, What I Expect of My Pastor in the Pulpit 2 7 our freedom, our traditional role as the dominating force in world society. In this there is tragedy, for we, as Christians, cannot be totally absolved from all responsibility for what has occurred. The modern world as we have known it was created, planned, and gov- erned by a Christian-oriented Western civilization. . . . Wherever missionaries entered such teeming countries as China and India, they enjoyed the support of established political power. This West- ern-dominated world of remarkable stability, therefore, was charac- terized not only by the vast internal development of the Western nations themselves, but also by the European-styled structures that lined the boulevards of Cairo, Bombay, Saigon, and Manila. It was not strange that Western Christian churches and missionary societies supported the colonial policies of their nations as well as the liberal democracy on which Western society was built. . . . That the Western democracies achieved far more than the triumph of middle class ideals and democratic processes is obvious. But they were also guilty of failure. In the wake of their successes they left a tradition of white dominance, colonial repression, poverty, disease, maldistribution of income, low business and political ethics, and poor statesmanship that led to World War I. One might won- der what a powerful Christianity did to mitigate the unresolved challenges of that age, for there are few problems of human relation- ships which do not have ethical implications. Did the spokesmen of Western Christianity, enjoying unprecedented prestige and o p portunity, identify themselves with human betterment or business profit? Perhaps they favored both, but in retrospect it seems clear that the latter too often took precedence over the former. For churchmen as much as businessmen material success became the major standard of value. In their partisanship they courted the danger of destroying allegiance of one or more elements in the socie- ties to which they spoke. Warning against the perpetuation of this tradition, Professor Alfred M. Rehwinkel wrote a decade ago: "The Church must beware lest it become a tool of any social class that happens to be in power, ready to condone, sanction, bless, or de- fend the wrongs of such a social class. The Church must remain above class and party and impartially, without fear or favor, censor, correct, or condemn when fundamental moral principles or divine precepts are violated." For thoughtful Christians of this century the writings of the prophets are not without meaning. For them it was God who created all things and held all individuals and nations in His hands. What He demanded of His creatures'was clear. Those persons and na- tions who failed to respond to human misery with justice, mercy, and love were in danger of destruction. As Isaiah warned the chil- dren of Israel: 'Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; to tun aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!" Later prophets dwelt on the same theme. To them the enemy was as much within as without. It was the human weakness of the Christiandemocratic world of the nineteenth century, not its successes, that today has placed it on the defensive, challenged by the two dynamic movements of the century-nationalism and communism. . . . This altered world comprises an inescapable challenge to us as Americans, as Christians, and as Lutherans. Yet in a sense we have not responded positively as a Church to these changes. We have not developed any body of social thought which would identify the Church with any of the problems which have arisen either at home or abroad-problems that have given rise to the ideological challenges which we face. Perhaps our church's emphasis on individualism and individ- ual salvation has served as a strong inducement to avoid the necessity of creating a social philosophy. Yet it is doubtful if any church can remain so aloof from its environment that it can exist without declared and vigorous attitudes toward things mundane. It seems quite clear that the Lutheran church's devotion to individ- ualism has created and sustained a social philosophy of extreme individualism. This is not without benefit, for the church has not succumbed to the social gospel movement. It has maintained its historic gospel mission. Challenging the tendency of many churchmen to speak out too often on too many subjects, Ralph W. Sockman, formerly of NBC's Radio Pulpit, declared recently: "Churchmen act as though they feel they have to pontificate on any problem and, having spoken, tend to assume that there is little more to be said. This is boorish behavior as well as bad theology. It leaves little alternative to those What I Expect of M y Pastor in the Pulpit 29 who disagree but to stay away. Thoughtful members of contem- porary society are doing tbis in droves." But in rejecting the social gospel the church has continued to accept many elements of the American "Gospel of Wealth." TOO often our clergymen have paraphrased these nineteenth century views of Bishop Lawrence on wealth and morality: "Put ten thou- sand immoral men to live and work in one fertile valley, and ten thousand moral men to live and work in the next valley, and the question is soon answered as to who wins the material wealth. Codli- ness is in league with riches." Often it seems that the Lutheran church, in its identification with Modem America, has adopted the Puritan concept of steward- ship, expressed so well by Daniel S. Gregory in his Christian Ethics: "By the proper use of wealth, man may greatly elevate and extend his moral work. It is therefore his duty to seek to secure wealth for this high end, and to make a diligent use of what the Moral Gover- nor may bestow upon him for the same end. . . . The Moral Governor has placed the power of acquisitiveness in man for a good and noble purpose." If there has been within the Church no wide- spread acceptance of the concepts of social Darwinism, its emphasis on individualism has often made the church appear as one of the most powerful proponents of the views of Herbert Spenser and Wil- liam Graham Sumner in American society. Its tendency to laud wealth has made the Church appear unduly materialistic. Its re- fusal to concern itself positively with the great changes that have been wrought in modem society by the impacts of population, in- dustry, urbanization, and other forces which tend towards confusion, insecurity, and impersonalization have not demonstrated a lack of interest but rather the acceptance of a philosophy of laissez faire in preference to a philosophy of social change. This absence of any feeling of obligation to the specific prob- lems of our society illustrates more than a traditional theology of individualism. It reveals as well a lack of knowledge among our religious leaders in the fields of economics, sociology, political sci- ence, and history, for without such knowledge i t is impossible to frame a considered and meaningful response to the challenges of a changing environment. Without such knowledge, one must either deny the existence of change or assume that all fundamental politi- cal and social pressure is illegitimate and thus does not merit the attention of the Church. This absence exposes a fundamental dilemma suggested by Dr. Sockman's observation of a decade ago: "A sermon will convey life to its hearers in proportion to the amount of life the preacher has put into it." Preaching has been defined as "discourse developed from divine revelation and designed to move men through and to- ward the divine will." By this definition a sermon is not a call for an immediate and overt response, but an attempt to challenge the listener to a more responsible personal and social life. I t dismisses the emotions of hope and fear in favor of responsibility and service. It emphasizes the common appeal to a fuller life. Today we h d ourselves as Americans and Lutherans assailed as much by forces abroad as by those at home. Whether we have in the past been sufficiently cognizant of the new forces in world politics which seem to threaten our security, our freedom, and our traditional values is doubtful; our reaction as a church seems to parallel that of many elements in American society. During the twentieth century the United States has conducted an experiment unique in the annals of diplomacy. Unlike the great nations of the past, which sought always to wield effective power in defense of their own interests, the United States has con- ducted its foreign relations for the declared purpose of serving humanity. Woodrow Wilson admonished the American people in 191 5 that they "created this nation, not to serve themselves, but to serve mankind." American leadership in this century has an- chored this messianic purpose not to the nation's material strength but to abstract principles of freedom and justice. . . . That the American effort to achieve this rational world of freedom and democracy has failed is evident from the experience of the century. This globe looks far less like Utopia today than it did fifty years ago. . . . This failure of good intentions does not mean that the ethical principles of Christianity are inapplicable to world politics; it means simply that the fundamental principles of Christianity have been misunderstood in this century. To the ex- tent that Lutherans have made no effort to counter the liberal Protestant philosophy to which these notions have been anchored, they have contributed nothing to the preservation of that environ- ment which, in retrospect, appears so superior to that of today. . . . What I Expect of My Pastor in the Pulpit 31 It is not the primary task of Christian ethics to sit in judgment of the past; rather it is to find the rules of present conduct that will best mitigate the dangers of personal and national conflict. From Christianity's profound truths on human relationships must emanate principles that will contribute to some resolution of international conflict. Even in the world of sovereign nations where the stand- ards of individual morality do not apply, Christianity still speaks with a powerful voice. For historic Christianity has never taught men how to create a perfect world, but how to live in one that in- sists upon being imperfect. . . . Christianity above all asserts the sinfulness of human beings. I t places upon men the duty to be tolerant toward one another. Christianity more than any other religion accepts the view that there is something worth saving in every human creature. Although it brings to bear a consciousness of sin, it forces no man to be a slave to his own evil past. It seeks not to encourage but to destroy the limited feeling of guilt which modern man often desires to impose on his defeated enemy. Perhaps it is paradoxical that the highest and most spiritual view of life is that which begins with the assertion of universal human depravity. It is this realization that causes men to set limits to their dreams and to their legitimate demands on others. To Christ, as the gospels reveal, it was the self-righteous who most flagrantly defied the spirit of His teachings. . . . Jesus' attitudes toward sin were exceedingly subtle. He was no Puritanical crusader. It was His way to overcome evil with good. This explains why Jesus devoted more effort to arousing the respecta- ble than to restraining the disreputable. The Gospels gave little attention to the flagrant physical vices, but much to the subtle sins of the respectable. In the parable of the man who fell among thieves on the road to Jericho, Jesus did not denounce the crime of robbery, but the lack of sympathy and neighborliness in the respectable. In the story of the prodigal son, Jesus did not condemn the wayward youth for his licentious living, but rather the brother for his refusal to forgive. Perhaps Jesus found it unnecessary to condemn the more flagrant physical sins, because such vices have a way of begetting their own punishment. Jesus attempted to awaken the so-called good people to those shortcomings which were oEten not obvious either to them or to others. . . . It is a fundamental wealmess of the self-righteous that they view sin as not against God but against themselves. Perhaps the greatest menace to our civilization today is the application of self- righteousness to affairs among nations. Each infraction of what a well-meaning nation chooses to call its moral principles is employed as a pretext for instilling deeper hatreds and animosity. It has been this feeling of moral rectitude that has brought so much barbarism to recent conflicts, for each nation uses the supposed wickedness of the other as an excuse for its own determination to unleash the maximum of destruction. Under the conviction of innocence puni- tive action ceases to be vicious but becomes a reasonable measure of judgment. When nations finally drop completely the notion that sin is a crime against God and regard it as a crime against man, when man arrogates to himself the power which Christ specifically denied him-the right to determine and punish sin-there can be no end to the resulting atrocities. It seems strange that many Lutheran spokesmen have refused to challenge those tendencies in foreign affairs which deny the con- cepts of sin and which assume rather a perfectable world in which unusual criminals in positions of power stand in the path of uni- versal peace and freedom. Historic Christianity, because it recog- nizes human frailty, should be able to face challenges from abroad without evasion-without the fundamental utopianism of those who believe that all would be well with the world if it were not for a few misanthropic leaders always identified with the nation's enemy for the moment. . . . To attribute all wickedness to a political enemy and regard one's own cause as righteous denies both the Christian concept of humility as well as the evidence of history. . . . Today the quest for a world in which Christianity might pros- per finds its great impediment in communism. To challenge those Christian leaders now involved in preaching a crusade against the communist menace is not to deny the troublesome implications of that ideology. I t is comparatively simple to catalog the tyranny and misuses of power which have characterized the actions of commun- ist leaders wherever they have been engaged in a struggle to estab- lish or maintain their authority. . . . What I Expect of My Pastor in the Pulpit 3 3 For many Christian leaders, Lutherans among them, the only Christian answer to this special challenge to Christianity must lie in an intensive program of education to acquaint American Chris- tians with the tyrannical and anti-Christian aspects of communist society. . . . This crusading approach to the communist challenge raises questions of concern to students of world politics. First of all, dwelling solely on the evils of communism ignores the failures in western society which have made its successes possible. Recently the Rev. John C. Bennett, dean of the faculty of the Union Theologi- cal Seminary in New York City, warned Christians that it cannot be assumed that God is always on the side of the west. "It is our temptation," he said, "to assume that, because our opponents are atheists, God must be on our side, and to overlook the extent to which communism itself is a judgment upon the sins and failures of the middle class world, upon the Christian world. The very atheism of communism is a judgment upon the churches which for so long were unconcerned about the victims of the industrial revolu- tion and early capitalism and which have usually been ornaments of the status quo, no matter how unjust it has been." The persistent condemnation of communism as the one great evil of this age re- inforces rather than challenges an individualistic philosophy, and tends to concern those who join the crusade with matters beyond their control permitting them to ignore the problems at hand. . . . It is not clear how a victory over communism is to be achieved except through the superior example and performance of a Christian- oriented western society, operating through evolutionary historical processes. Any other approach will lead to war, for communism cannot be divorced in world politics from the military structure of the Soviet Union. . . . Those who have attempted to turn the cold war into a holy crusade are destroying the toleration and hu- maneness which must come to international relations if there is to be a future for mankind. . . . The Rev. Ralph L. Moellering has warned in Christianity and Communism that communism wiJl not be destroyed by military might or by hatred and suspicion. "The antidote," he writes, "lies in evincing genuine Christianity to the world, rather than the Marxist caricature. It lies in the doctrines and the life of Jesus Christ. It lies in the application of vital Christianity to social living." v. One can hardly portray, from the limited knowledge and time available to a single layman, the total response of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod to problems which beset a Christian society both at home and abroad. That response has not been monolithic, Nor is it within the competence of any individual layman to deter- mine what that total response should be. Reflecting as it does a primary concern for the salvation of the individual rather than the perfection of human society the church's response appears Biblical indeed. I t has reflected historic Christianity in its truest sense. I t has sustained the concept of salvation in a world which has in large measure rejected its need or denied its efficacy. It has preached high standards of personal conduct in a world of crime and delin- quency. Yet the church's emphasis on individualism has sustained a social philosophy which rejects the obligation that the church need respond thoughtfully and positively to the challenges of contem- porary society. This philosophy has permitted the church to ad- vance through the century officially unmindful of the world in which it has existed, as if the changes in that world could neither aid nor hinder its work. In adhering closely to the principle of rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, it has tended to be exceed- ingly uncritical of national policies even though those policies are the creation of institutions that have no Christian purpose and in- volve the nation in problems which detract from God's purposes upon this earth. What then might the Lutheran layman expect of his pastor in the pulpit? Certainly no diminution of the Gospel message. But beyond that one might anticipate an awareness of the world en- vironment and the implication of Christian ethics to the church's response to the challenge of that environment. This is not a plea for partisanship, for the church has long harbored a partisanship which transcends that of any other American church. The great problems which confront us as Lutherans, Christians, and Ameri- cans has no relation to party or even to specific social philosophy. Such challenges to Christian complacency as inadequate education facilities, racial conflict, population pressure, urban crowding, na- tional security, nuclear armaments, Germany's future in a divided Europe, world communism, and the fundamental questions of peace and war, have hardly been faced by any political organization on the globe. W h a t I Expect of M y Pastor in the Pulpit 35 For such questions the tolerance and understanding embodied in Christian ethics must have some meaning. To bring Christian thought to bear on them requires a knowledge so profound that the solutions must remain in part a counsel of perfection. But the worldly challenge to Christian leadership cannot be ignored. As Professor Rehwinkel has written: "The only hope for the world . . . is a revitalized, virile, and functioning Christianity." Nicholas Berdyaev, the Russian philosopher, expressed the problem somewhat differently: ''The only thing to pit against integral communism, is integral Christianity; not rhetorical, tattered, Christianity; but renais- sant Christianity working out its eternal truth toward consistent life, consistent culture, consistent social justice. . . ." Only thus can the church discard that traditional complacency which demands no more of the believer than the acceptance of a personal redemp- tion and keeps him unmindful of the admonition that the church wields the potential power for the redemption of society as well. I Expect of My Pastor Out side the Pulpit (Condensed) The Honorable Norman A. Erbe, son o f a Lutheran minister, is Governor o f the Stute o f Iowa. In 1941 his studies at the Univer- sity o f Iowa were interrupted by a tour o f duty as a B-I 7 bomber pilot with the 8th Air Force. His decorations include the Distin- guished Flying Cross. Resuming his law training, he received a J . D. degree in 1947, and entered Imv ractice in Boone, Iowa. Governor Erbe is a member of the Lut !e ran Laymen's League, American Legion, and American Bar Association. Special Assistant Attorney for the Stute Highway Cmmisswn ( 1 954-1 9561, At t~r- ney General ( 1 956), he was inaugurated Governor of the State of Iowa, January 1 2, 1 96 1 . SHOULD LIKE to visit with you for a little while this after- I noon about another role of the pastor outside the pulpit-that of a citizen. I should like to expect from my pastor that he be a good citizen of his community, state, and nation. I t is not suggested that the pastor must take an active part in partisan politics nor to speak out on every issue. The issues on which he takes a public position probably must be left up to the judgment of each individual pastor. However, it may be hoped that members of the congregation wiU draw sufficient inspiration and moral courage from the pastor's preaching and teaching to be good citizens themselves. Good citizens are active ones-to the extent of each person's ability and time available for participation in public affairs. Every community and state, as well as our nation, needs the participation of good Christian men and women. If the people of a nation are to govern themselves, the people must participate in this government. This does not mean that all people must seek public office, but they must vote and make their voices heard in the councils of government. To do this intelligently, they must keep themselves informed. What I Expect of My Pastor Outside the Pulpit 37 A Well-informed Citizen A wise politician once said: "Never underestimate the judg- ment of the people, but never overestimate the amount of informa- tion they may have on any given subject in public affairs." I should like for my pastor M keep himself well-informed about national, state and local &airs. Equally important, he should en- courage members of his congregation and other people in the com- munity to do likewise. The education of all our citizens so that they may have a better understanding of the operations of government and a better knowl- edge of public issues is extremely important. Only with such knowledge can people judge whether their government is good, me- diocre, or poor, whether statements on questions of concern to all are true, partly true or entirely false and whether promises are possi- ble of achievement and at what cost to them. Every citizen must be capable of making such decisions wisely and must be keenly conscious of his duty to keep informed about public affairs and to participate in them if our system of self-govern- ment is to operate at its best. . . . Moral Foundations of Nation When our nation was founded, it drew its strength and being not only from great political and social thought, but from spiritual convictions and from a deep and abiding faith in Almighty God. From our religious faith came the great inspiration that men should be free: Free in worship, free in conscience, free in speech. . . . These liberties cannot be sustained without religious faith. From that faith spring our moral standards. These moral standards are sustained by faith alone. Without these supports liberty degen- erates into license, and is lost. I should like for my pastor to understand the great moral foundation of our system of government. I t is important that a pas- tor understand these fundamental principles underlying a free gov- ernment and be prepared to discuss them, both from the pulpit and in his daily contacts with others. I should like to discuss for a moment a requisite of government in a free people. This is morals in government. It has been dis- uz VLUIUUJ r a ~ 1 a VllgUlJ, u1 LLLUCLCUL LGUWUUJ u n w LUIU UIVCLX political faiths. When such differences are made the breeding grounds of suspicion, antagonism, prejudice, and hatred, they dis- figure American life, impair the social order, and menace the unity of the national effort in peace and in war. I should like for my pastor to be aware of these differences and alert to the problems that may result and to provide the leader- ship outside of the pulpit to prevent them. Religious leaders across the country have become increasingly concerned over infringement on the right to vote and the related problems of racial strife. . . . Many Christian people last year read with great concern about the tenant Negro farmers in Tennessee who apparently were dis- possessed because they sought to register to vote. Until relatively recently, the problems of denial of the ballot box to the Negro people have not been looked upon as a problem of particular concern to the Christian religion. However, I submit that this is of prime concern to the Chris- tian in the community. In the first place, protecting the rights of man is a fundamental precept of Christianity. Moreover, we Luth- erans have every reason to be concerned with the rights of minority groups, for we well remember that Martin Luther in his day was a member of a minority group. Unfortunately, not very many individuals have the inner cour- age to stand alone in the face of social and economic pressure. Here is a place for the Christian in government to stand up for that which is morallv right. And if a few ~eoule stand UD, more and more will W h t I Expect of My Pastor Outside the Pulpit 3 7 A Well-informed Citizen A wise politician once said: "Never underestimate the judg- ment of the people, but never overestimate the amount of informa- tion they may have on any given subject in public &airs." I should like for my pastor to keep himself well-informed about national, state and local &airs. Equally important, he should en- courage members of his congregation and other people in the com- munity to do likewise. The education of all our citizens so that they may have a better understanding of the operations of government and a better knowI- edge of public issues is extremely important. Only with such knowledge can people judge whether their government is good, me- diocre, or poor, whether statements on questions of concern to all are true, partly true or entirely false and whether promises are possi- ble of achievement and at what cost to them. Every citizen must be capable of making such decisions wisely and must be keenly conscious of his duty to keep informed about public affairs and to participate in them if our system of self-govern- ment is to operate at its best. . . . Moral Foundations of Nation When our nation was founded, it drew its strength and being not only from great political and social thought, but from spiritual convictions and from a deep and abiding faith in Almighty God. From our religious faith came the great inspiration that men should be free: Free in worship, free in conscience, free in speech. . . . These liberties cannot be sustained without religious faith. From that faith spring our moral standards. These moral standards are sustained by faith alone. Without these supports liberty degen- erates into license, and is lost. I should like for my pastor to understand the great moral foundation of our system of government. It is important that a pas- tor understand these fundamental principles underlying a free gov- ernment and be prepared to discuss them, both from the pulpit and in his daily contacts with others. I should like to discuss for a moment a requisite of government in a free people. This is morals in government. It has been dis- cussed ever since the days of Socrates in free Athens. George Wash- ington expounded it in his Farewell Address to a free America. . . . Self-government by a people is based upon moral and spiritual concepts. And the government of a free people must in itself ex- press the highest ideals of the people. If it fails in its standards, it injures the morals of the whole people. It destroys its own founda- tions of free government. First, let's look for a moment at the importance of the electoral process and the necessity for absolute honesty and integrity in elec- tion practices. In any discussion of morality in government, I b e lieve that the starting point is the election process. This is the entire foundation upon which our democratic system is founded and all of us have a duty to do everything possible to insure the highest degree of honesty and integrity in the conduct of our sacred demo- cratic process. . . . What can we do? One thing that can be done is for persons of high Christian ideals to work actively within our political parties to clean out those persons who seek to manipulate the ballot boxes or the voting machines. The dishonest politician cannot succeed where he is under the scrutiny of honest workers in a political party. Another thing that can be done is for persons of integrity to volunteer to work on election day to man the voting booths and in- sure that the sanctity of the ballot box is not violated by anyone. If the voting booths are properly staffed with competent persons of high morality, then we won't have vote scandals. Here, there is a role for Christian leadership, for the memory and concern of the public in matters of this kind is relatively fickle. We read about it one day and are greatly angered, but no one seems to do anything about it and sooner or later we tend to forget about such things. The scandals become a thing of the past. What we have here is a lack of sustained moral indignation- a lack of perseverance-to get rid of this terrible corruption. Here is an important place for leadership by men of religion. I should like for my pastor to understand that this problem can occur and to know what can be done about it. Preserving Our Political Heritage Next, I want to say a few words about our political heritage and equality of rights and the importance of every American having What I Expect of My Pastor Outside the Pulpit 39 an equal right to vote. This area involving our sacred democratic electoral process merits our special attention. It concerns the right of every person to vote regardless of race, creed or color. . . . The numerous differences of her citizens in racial origin, re- ligious faith, and political creed have contributed greatly to the enrichment of American life, to the fertilizing of our culture, and to the fostering of the ideals of religious and political freedom. Na- tional unity in the midst of cultural pluralism has become the ideal of our American democracy. To preserve that ideal it is of supreme importance that toler- ance, respect, good will, and friendship prevail among our citizens of various racial origins, of different religious creeds and diverse political faiths. When such differences are made the breeding grounds of suspicion, antagonism, prejudice, and hatred, they dis- figure American life, impair the social order, and menace the unity of the national effort in peace and in war. I should like for my pastor to be aware of these differences and alert to the problems that may result and to provide the leader- ship outside of the pulpit to prevent them. Religious leaders across the country have become increasingly concerned over infringement on the right to vote and the related problems of racial strife. . . . Many Christian people last year read with great concern about the tenant Negro farmers in Tennessee who apparently were dis- possessed because they sought to register to vote. Until relatively recently, the problems of denial of the ballot box to the Negro people have not been looked upon as a problem of particular concern to the Christian religion. However, I submit that this is of prime concern to the Chris- tian in the community. In the first place, protecting the rights of man is a fundamental precept of Christianity. Moreover, we Luth- erans have every reason to be concerned with the rights of minority groups, for we well remember that Martin Luther in his day was a member of a minority group. Unfortunately, not very many individuals have the inner cour- age to stand alone in the face of social and economic pressure. Here is a place for the Christian in government to stand up for that which is morally right. And if a few people stand up, more and more will Today our American republic faces the greatest challenge in its history from atheistic ~hilosophy whose chief doctrine is that the end justifies the means. Former President Dwight Eisenhower has said: "Telling the stark truth about Communism is the best way to make our own citi- zenry and other peoples appreciate the blessings of liberty. We should encourage all individuals who are well informed on Com- munist tactics and strategy to expound freely and often on this subject. Unless the nation's leaders move with wisdom and restraint, the fanatics of both the right and left so belabor each other as almost to monopolize the issue, leaving the nation to preoccupy itself with the evils of extremists instead of the evils of Communism." If the Christian church is not to fight Communism, then who on earth is left to resist this evil which is determined to destroy all virtue, decency, thrift, love, friendship and the dignity of the in- dividual? If civilization is to be saved, you-and all of us-must fight hardest of all on the front of human decency, on the front to main- tain standards of human rights, behavior, and morals. . . . Most of the action on the front of human decency must be ex- pressed through government. But the driving power behind govern- ment must come from us, the people. From you must come the in- sistence that government reflect our best instincts, or finest ethics. Our public leaders are guardians of our birthright, trustees and pro- tectors of our honor as free men. You must insist that America practice what she preaches. . . . There have been ages of moral confusion before now . . . the world has survived these confusions and men have grown in stature and in safety. But how? Because of some men who stood solid. They stood not because they knew the solutions to all-these confu- sions, not because they even had the power to find solutions. They stood firm and they held the light of civilization until the furies passed, because they individually held certain positive principles of life, or morals, and spiritual values. . . . We may hope that the inspiration and example of the pastor may result in the people standing up for what is right. What are these verities? Despite the growing complexity of civilization they stand out in simple concepts. They can be expressed as truth, justice, toler- ance, mercy, and respect for the dignity and personality of the in- dividual man. They can be expressed as sportsmanship, fair play, self respect, and good taste. They can be more inspiringly expressed in the immortal words of Christ on the Mount. In these concepts alone is the answer to the world yearning for control of these grow- ing powers over matter. The Davidsmeyer brothers, Rudolph H . and Paul J. , were con- secrated and active hymen in Salem Lutheran Church, Jacksonville, Illinois. The cost of these lectures has been underwritten by their sons, Paul, Junior R., Dr. James R.; and William J .