Full Text for The Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry (Text)

ion Inquiry MAIER, W. A .: Archeology - the N emesis . . KBETZMANN, P. E.: Znr Ge chichte der 1 teinischen Bibel KRETZMANN, P . E. ' W here and What Is Heaven? KRETZMANN, P. E.: Propositions on the Sabbath-Sunday Question LAETSCH, THEO.: Malicious Desertion KBETZMANN P E. : Die Hallpttchr:ften Luthers in chro- nologischer Reihenfolge Dispositionen u eber die altkirchliche Epistelreihe Miscellan eu Theological Observer. - Xirchlich-Zettgeschichtliches . Book Review. - Ltteratur Page 16 1 171 176 18 4 189 195 197 205 206 212 218 233 Ein r'recliger mw 01 t alleln 10 ,vIM!, .lise) da er die Schafe unterwel;tO, wl~ de reebte Chrl ten !IOlIen seln, ondem .ucb daneben den Woellen ICeMen. du .Ie die Schafe nlcht angreifen und mit faIRCher Lehre ,'erfuebren uud Imum ein· fuebrrn. - LH hr,. r ,t keln Ding, d' die J.eutl' mehr bel der Klrcbe behaelt deon die flUte l'redigt. - dpolo, ie, Art. ~ If the trumpet g1VI' an un~'ertahl loOund, who sbalI prepare bllll8elf to the battle? 1 Cor 4 , 8. Published for t he Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other 4tates CONCORDIA PUBLISHDlG HOUSE, St. Lo Mo. [ l I The Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry. 171 The Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry. The almost unprecedented amount of discussion which the press of the country allots to the report of the undertaking known as the Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry seems to demand that in addition to the brief appraisal of the report in our last issue our journal devote an article to this subject. The book which constitutes the report, having the title Rethinking Missions (published by Harper and Brothers), is now being spread far and wide and will quite likely be a prominent factor in religious debate for some time to come. The foreword informs the reader of the origin of the whole project. In January, 1930, a number of laymen, all belonging to the same denomination, met in New York and spoke of the diminution of in- terest in Foreign Missions at home and the many grave problems facing mission boards and missionaries in the field abroad. Laymen of other denominations were invited to come and join in the study of the situation. "As a result, seven denominations, each unofficially represented by a group of five men and women, joined to constitute the thirty-five directors of the Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry. These denominations are Baptist (Northern), Oongregational, Meth- odist Episcopal, Presbyterian Ohurch in U. S. A., Protestant Epis- copal, Reformed Ohurch in America, United Presbyterian. The chairmen of the denominational groups form an executive committee of seven." It was resolved to make an exhaustive survey of the whole missionary enterprise, not, however, through the boards, but through special agencies, so that objectivity might be insured. The coopera- tion of the boards was asked for and given, as the foreword tells us, The inquiry was limited to India, Burma, Ohina, and Japan. What the co=ission thought essential was, first, the assembling of all per- tinent facts and, secondly, the proper evaluation and interpretation of these facts. To obtain the facts, the Institute of Social and Religious Research was employed, which sent a number of trained research workers to the fields mentioned, and after devoting about a year to this part of the undertaking, by September, 1931, had printed reports ready to be utilized in the second step of the inquiry, the evaluation and interpretation of the facts. This task was entrusted to a co=ission of fifteen people, most of them belonging to the laity, all of eminence in their respective fields, who, sailing from New York in September, 1931, visited the missions in the four countries and, with the charts and remarks of the research workers before them, endeavored to arrive at pertinent conclusions. The points receiving special attention through subcommittees were: The Mission and the Indigenous Ohurch; Primary and Secondary Education; Higher Education; Literature; Medical Work; Agriculture and Rural Life; Industrial Developments ; Women's Interests; Administration and 172 The Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry. Organization. "The method of work was to hold group conferences in the larger cities with representative bodies of missionaries, Ohris- tian nationals, and non-Ohristians and then to disperse for the more intimate conversations which a large group cannot carryon." (P. XII.) Since it is this so-called Oommission of Appraisal which composed the report, its p'ersonnel ought to be given here, especially because the identity of the members and the positions which they occupy serve to explain more than one feature of the report. The members are:- Dr. William Ernest Hocking, chairman; Alford Professor of Philosophy at Harvard University. Dr. Frederick O. Woodward, Vice-Ohairman; vice-president of the University of Ohicago. Dr.Olar- ence A. Barbour; president of Brown University. Mr. Edgar H. Betts; business man and banker of Troy, New York. Dr. Arlo A. Brown; president of Drew University. Dr.Oharles Phillips Emerson; Pro- fessor of :Medicine and dean of the Medical School of the University of Indiana. Mrs. William E. Hocking; founder of Shady Hill School, Oambridge, Massachusetts. Dr. Henry S. Houghton, dean of the l\£ed- ical Oollege of the U ni,. '~_Jity of Iowa. Dro Rllfus M. Jones; Pro- fessor of Philosophy at Haverford Oollege. Dr. William Pierson Merrill; pastor of the Brick Ohurch in New York. l\1:r. Albert L. Scott; president of Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc., New York. Mr. Harper Sibley; lawyer and business man of Rochester, New York. Mrs. Harper Sibley; religious leader and speaker of Rochester, New York. Dr. Henry O. Taylor, agricultural economist of Wash- ington, D. O. Miss Ruth .F. Woodsmall; specialist in work for women, Y. W. O. A., New York. The Summary of Principal Oonclusions appended to the report is valuable for quick orientation. It contains ten paragraphs, which we endeavor to condense in as few words as possible. 1. Missions must be continued; but there is danger that through adherence to aims and methods "which impede the communication of living in- sight" the success of missions will be thwarted and even their useful- ness be ended. 2. The aim of missions to-day must be "to seek with people of other lands a true knowledge and love of God, expressing in life and word what we have learned through Jesus Ohrist and en- deavoring to give effect to his spirit in the life of the world." 3. Evangelism must not be exclusively stressed; social work must be looked upon as one of the legitimate functions of the missionary enterprise. 4. The good in non-Ohristian religions must be recog- nized; condemnation of these religions must be avoided. 5. The work of the missionary being so difficult and calling for such a great measure of devotion, boards should be more critical in their selection of candidates. 6. Ways must be found how people in the Orient that are followers of Ohrist without belonging to one of the present-day The Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry. 173 denominations "may be regarded as disciples." 7. A policy of con- centration of personnel and resources is urgently needed. There are too many weak Ohristian institutions and merely nominal Ohristians throughout Asia. 8. It is time that missions progress from the temporary stage of crude efforts performed in pioneer fashion to the exalted level where "relatively few highly equipped persons" carry on the work, especially through institutions for the study of theology and civilization. 9. As soon as possible responsibility for the newly planted Ohristian Ohurch must be transferred to the hands of the nationals. 10. The commission believes that a "single organization for Ohristian service abroad" should be established "in place of the complex, costly, and duplicative machinery which now exists." There has to be a "new alinement of forces, rising above denominational and doctrinal barriers." From this summary the reader can easily gather the drift of the whole report, which, by the way, is a formidable opus of 349 pages. In stating our view on this work, we need hardly say that there are some matters embodied in it which we accept without debate- matters which rather belong to the commonplaces of mission en- deavor, such as the necessity of exercising great care in selecting missionaries and the desirability of placing control of the newly founded churches in heathen countries into the hands of the nationals as soon as possible. Oertainly the great effort which was put forth in this inquiry was not needed to bring home these somewhat axiomatic principles to the Ohristians of the homeland. What we wish to remark in the first place is that we were amazed at the comprehensiveness and thoroughness and the vast machinery with which the inquiry was conducted. We observe here the application of the methods of big business to religious problems. Involuntarily our thoughts run back thirteen years or so to the enormous activities which were planned and in part begun when the Interchurch World Movement had been conceived, the prospectus of which "called for a united study of the world field, a united budget, a united cultivation of the home church, a united financial appeal, and a united program of work." (Dic- tionary of Religion and Ethics.) This movement as designed re- sembled a structure of truly gigantic proportions, but without an adequate foundation; and hardly had building operations begun, when the few timbers that had been put in place collapsed and the sheer folly of the undertaking became visible to all. In the inquiry before us, it seems, we behold the first step of a similar project; tremendous labors have been expended on a survey which looks to united efforts. and a united program of work. What will happen when the second step is essayed? Repeatedly the co=ission speaks of the kingdom of God, the coming of which is to be hastened by what this inquiry seeks to accomplish. How little mere outward activity will usher in 174 The Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry. this Kingdom, how absolutely its spread depends on the proclamation and acceptance of the Gospel of Jesus Ohrist, is in the report left out of account. Is there really a big gap between the Jewish Zealots of the first century of our era, who impatiently and vehemently toiled and fretted and organized and fought to force the arrival of the Kingdom, and these modern promoters, who engage the wisdom and the talent of the day and think that by employing such heavY artillery they will be enabled to level the wall of Satan's fortress ~ The laymen's report is a frankly unionistic document. It had its origin in the spirit of unionism, and this spirit it would like to put on the throne in the mission-fields. What it desires to help establish is stated, besides in the summary, on page 318 iI., where the need of unity on a comprehensive scale is dwelt on : "We be- lieve," says the commission, "that thoughtful Protestants will not longer insist upon imposing a particular theology and polity upon the Ohristians of Asia." Hence it proposes that denominational dif- ferences, which until now quite generally prevented the various Ohristian bodies from uniting in their missionary endeavors abroad, be disregarded and that by all the denominations willing to cooperate a council be organized "for the administrative direction of missionary effort in all fields. The functions of the council should include the formulation of general policies for their representatives on mission- fields, the appointment of executive officers, field directors, and by confirmation of all field personnel. The executive officers should be salaried specialists. . .. They should form a cabinet of executives ... . Field directors should supervise the work of regional divisions .... " For the denominational boards there will remain the task "of inter- preting and promoting the work of Foreign Missions among their own churches in America .... " What is outlined here is a replica of the Federal Oouncil of Ohurches, invested, however, with vastly greater authority and powers than the original. Doctrinal differences are blithely ignored. The report here, as elsewhere, fails to talm into account the majesty of the divine Word, which must not be added to nor sub- tracted from if we wish to be faithful to our God and Savior. In its view, apparently, the truth that a little leaven of error will leaven the whole lump may safely be disregarded as long as this course will help to make the leaven large and cohesive. The view which a con- vinced Lutheran will take of this part of the report is evident at once. Since it provides that he connive at, and assist in, the promulgation of teachings which he rejects as ullScriptural, he will refuse to be identified with it. But as the commission consisted of men of differ- ing religious beliefs, what other kind of report could be expected ~ Still more serious than the error just pointed to is the evident elimination of the sacrifice of Ohrist from the Ohristian message and The Laymen's Foreign Missions Inquiry. 175 the substitution of the so-called social gospel in its stead. The authors of the report indeed say that they do not wish to deny the uniqueness of Ohristianity; but that which really makes it unique, the great and glorious truth of the vicarious death of Ohrist, is simply sup- pressed. The "spirit" of Ohrist is lauded, and it is stated (p.58) that "through Jesus and through such wills as His God works throughout human history, bringing men toward unity in love which is uniyersal in its sweep." But what of the tremendous truth that God was in Ohrist and reconciled the world unto Himself and that He has given to us the ministry of reconciliation? On this subject the report is ominously silent. It is not unfair to say that in this document the cross of Christ is taken down and hidden from sight and that the only thing left our Lord is a lecture platform from which He can proclaim the Sermon on the Mount and other dis- courses that have to do with the life of the Ohristian. What is presented here is simply the old rationalism which seeks salvation in purity of character and good works. It is the same rationalism which moves the authors to sponsor the id"fl that one of the chief concerns of mi3Sional'ies must be recognition of the good which the religions of non-Ohristian peoples contain. The report actually discusses the question whether the aim of Ohristian missions should be to let Ohristianity supplant the op- posing religions, and its answer is an unmistakable, though somewhat veiled, negative. Witness these words, p. 37: "So far from taking satisfaction in moribund or decadent conditions where they exist within other faiths, Ohristianity may -find itself bound to aid these faiths and frequently does aid them to a truer interpretation of their own meaning than they had otherwise achieved." In brief, the authors hold that Ohristianity may be admitted to be prima inter pares, but it must not be conceived of as being the only true religion. If this view should universally prevail in the world, the days of the Ohristian Ohurch would be numbered. Think of the results if this opinion should be transferred from the printed page into the life and endeavors of the missionaries, not only, as is the case now, by a minority, but by a majority or all of them! Buddhists, Shintoists, Brahmans, and perhaps even Mohammedans, would receive such mis- sionaries with open arms, because they would be strengthened by them in their inherited idolatry. Fraternal gatherings would take place, with much talking and planning about the abolition of war and other evils, but the glory of Ohristian missions, the message of the redemption of Ohrist, would be forgotten. It is sad to contemplate that not all the Ohristian journals of the country utter strong words of protest against such a pernicious conception of Ohristianity and that some, like the Congregationalist, not only approve of the document, but express surprise at the stir 176 .Archeology - the Nemesis. which is caused by it, the paper mentioned observing that what the report voices has in its chief aspects long been held by the mission board of its church-body and by others of its prominent members. There are sharp words of criticism heard in certain quarters. For instance, the United Presbyterian Board of Foreign Missions is re- ported to have declared : "We repudiate any adherence to, or any sympathy with, the report wherein it is a deflection from the fact that Jesus Ohrist is the only and eternal Son of God, who made atonement for the sins of men by His death on the cross, wh~ arose from the dead, who is eternally alive, who by the presence of the Holy Spirit controls and energizes the Ohurch in its divine mission to all mankind." What is distressing is that members of the United Presbyterian Ohurch belong to the committee of thirty-five that initiated and supported this inquiry and, furthermore, that such ex- pressions do not come from all parts of Protestantism in the United States. This leads us to say that the Laymen's Report is symptomatic above everything else, showing the hold which Modernism has come to have on the body of the American Ohurch. Viewed in this light, it is a reminder to all who love the old Gospel to gird their loins ,and to bestir themselves, because the forces of unbelief are threaten- ing to aweefJ the country. W. ARNDT. 4 • ~ Archeology - the Nemesis. (Oontinued instead of concluded.) II. Refuted Claims of Historical Inaccuracies. The second function of avenging archeology has been the tearing down of that amazing scaffold of theories on which a skeptical criticism has sought to reconstruct the Biblical narratives according to the blue-prints of its tendential theorization. Perhaps the most ruthless of the three higher critical procedures of attack on the Scriptural record is the unequivocal assault upon its historicity. Under the patronage of rationalism it became the con- ventional procedure to make the point of departure in the discussion of Old Testament literature the unabashed contention that these Hebrew writings were replete with errors, inaccuracies, contradictions, anachronisms, and other telltale evidences of late authorship. If any one of the classical authors even incidentally suggested a reminiscence which could be twisted into a conflict with the Hebrew Scriptures, this was paraded to illustrate the alleged historical fallacy of the Old Testament. With this purpose in mind all the extant writings of early Greek and Latin authors were gleaned for negative material, their statements marshaled in apparently formidable array, and the whole indictment distorted under an extravagant conception of the -validity of such ancient history.