Columbia Theological Seminary Bulletin, 49, number 1, April 1956

BULLETIN OF
COLUMBIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Inaugural Addresses

Delivered November 1-4, 1955, by

Rev. James H. Gailey, Jr.
Professor of Old Testament Language, Literature, and Exegesis

Rev. Richard T. Gillespie, Jr.
Professor of Homiletics

Rev. Hubert Vance Taylor
Professor of Hymnology and Public Speech

Rev. Thomas H. McDill, Jr.
Professor of Pastoral Theology and Pastoral Counseling

COLUMBIA THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY BULLETIN

Volume XLIX April, 1956 No. 1

Published quarterly by the Directors and Fac-
ulty of Columbia Theological Seminary of the
Presbyterian Church, U. S.

Entered as second class matter, May 9, 1928,

at the post office at Decatur, Ga., under the

Act of Congress of August 24, 1912.

Foreword

During the period of November 1-4, 1955, four members of the
faculty of Columbia Theological Seminary were formally inducted into
office as professors in various departments of the institution. In
accordance with immemorial custom, after assuming the obligations
stipulated in the Plan of Government of the Seminary, each professor
delivered an inaugural address dealing with his particular field of study
and instruction these messages being delivered on successive days in
connection with the program of the Ministers' Week, which is a regular
feature of the Seminary Year. The addresses are here presented to the
Church in printed form.

Consideration was given to the possibility of publishing these
messages in four separate bulletins. Since there is a definite interrela-
tionship between the subjects discussed, however, and since, in certain
instances, the professors concerned have referred to statements appear-
ing in the remarks of their colleagues, it has seemed best to publish the
addresses together. It is hoped that the considerable size of the bulletin
which has resulted will not discourage readers from giving to these
discussions the careful consideration of which they are worthy by
reason of their contents and of their importance to the life of our
Church. On the contrary, their availability in a single publication
should make it more easily possible to preserve them for future
reference and study.

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://archive.org/details/columbiatheologi4956colu

THE BEGINNING OF WISDOM

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom"

Proverbs 9:10

Inaugural address of Rev. James H. Gailey, Jr., upon being inducted
into the chair of Old Testament Language, Literature, and Exegesis
at Columbia Theological Seminary. Delivered in the chapel of the
Seminary, Nov. 1, 1955, at 8:00 P. M.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. President, members of the Board of Trustees,
colleagues, fellow students, and friends: The time-honored custom of
the inaugural lecture provides the new professor with a coveted oppor-
tunity to review the work of his predecessors, to state his own aims
and deepest convictions about his work, and to set down some of these
thoughts and to present them before those with whom he is to labor.
Obviously what can be said in the compass of one lecture will not
touch upon all the points of interest in the broad field permitted on this
occasion; what will be said must be a selection of the deepest convic-
tions and most basic presuppositions which will undergird and support
the structure of courses of study and determine methods of instruction.
For this it is natural for the theological professor to turn to a text:

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I would like to
apply this text to some of the aspects of the problem confronting the
Professor of Old Testament Language, Literature and Exegesis as he
undertakes the duties of his office in this formal ceremony.

The first aspect of the problem which confronts the serious student
of the Old Testament today is the wealth of material bearing on this
part of the Bible which is available to him from secular researches.
His "beginning of wisdom" may seem a very poor beginning indeed as
he reviews the voluminous material relating to the ancient Near East
which has been published during the last hundred years. I confess I
face this task with a very strong feeling of diffidence as I consider the
tremendous amount of research going on, and as I observe the quantity
of books being published and of journals being issued in my own and
related fields both in this country and abroad. How much simpler it
was or seems to have been in the days of the founders of this
Seminary! Then, one man could undertake to serve as Professor of
Biblical Literature. Now, we recognize the need for separate professor-
ships of Old and New Testament languages and literatures; we have a
professor of English Bible; and we are beginning to add a guest
professor of Biblical Theology and an instructor in Languages.

Of course, the fundamental problem is not confined to the Depart-
ment of the Old Testament, but is apparent in all departments of the
Seminary. The question is whether the Seminary Professor shall try
to be a specialist in the sense that a University Professor is expected
to be one, and whether the Seminaries shall be imitators of the
Universities.

1

Enough material is available to confront the Professor of Old
Testament with a serious problem. One who would make any claim to
wisdom in this field must master the elements of more than one
original language, for both Hebrew and Aramaic are a part of the
sacred text; he must know his New Testament Greek and be able to
make use of the old Testament in Greek and in Latin. In addition he
must have at least some acquaintance with other languages related to
Hebrew in order to make full use of the resources of his Hebrew
dictionary. He may well want to explore Assyrian and Babylonian
cuneiform and to learn Arabic and Syriac as professors of Old Testa-
ment have been doing for a number of years. Within the last 30 years
the previously unknown Ugaritic language has been added to the list.
And with the widening horizons of ancient historical study there lie
before the eager student the Hittite, Egyptian, Sumerian and Persian
languages and many other possibilities. But one who makes languages
his beginning in wisdom will before long find himself a specialist in
linguistics.

The Professor of Old Testament may be enticed into the field of
historical study. In this area he must, of course, be conversant with
methods of archaeology, geographical research, the techniques for
establishing ancient chronology and other related procedures. He must
at least be able to evaluate the researches of specialists in a wide variety
of fields and know which results are acceptable to the specialists. But
if he pursues these studies far enough, the student will find himself a
specialist in historical research.

Or he may particularize his interest to fields of economic or political
or legal development, to philosophical, literary or religious movements
of ancient times. He may concentrate his attention on social or psycho-
logical study or on medical or mechanical progress in ancient times.

If his interest takes another direction, he may become particularly
interested in the establishing of correct and accurate texts. For this he
must become familiar with forms of ancient writing; he may apply
statistical methods or other techniques to the comparison of readings
from manuscripts or versions. But if he centers his attention on the
criticism of the text, the Professor of Old Testament will inevitably
become a specialist in this field.

Or, he may prefer to study questions relating to the date, authorship
and production of the ancient Scriptures, or to study the theology,
religion or philosophy of the Old Testament, and thus he would become
a specialist in one of these developing fields of study.

As "professor" in his field, the Professor of Old Testament Lan-
guage, Literature and Exegesis must have some acquaintance with all
these special fields at least as much as an average member of his
class! The fact is that no field of study to be found in the modern
university is of such a nature that its territory cannot conceivably be of

interest to the study of the Old Testament. The most unlikely candidate
for such contact with the Old Testament is perhaps the field of atomic
energy, but even this has been made to serve the purposes of the
archaeologist (and hence of the Old Testament student) through the
method of dating ancient materials by calculating the amount of radio-
active Carbon 14 present in a fragment of ash. Obviously the teacher
who makes any claim to wisdom in the field of the Old Testament can
be only a modest beginner in many of the fields we have mentioned. If
he becomes too much of a specialist in any one, he will slight others.

It is my deep and earnest conviction, however, that the beginning
of wisdom is not to be found in these diverse fields, important as they
are to an adequate interpretation of the Old Testament. The beginning
of wisdom is not to be sought in mastery of all literature and sciences
available in the modern university, but in accepting the Bible, Old and
New Testaments, as God's inspired revelation of Himself. It would be
possible to make a distinction here between knowledge and wisdom;
perhaps the better word is understanding. The beginning of wisdom is
not the beginning of a process of accumulating knowledge in all the
fields of a university ancient or modern. The beginning of the wisdom
of which we would speak is the beginning of acquaintanceship with a
Person who is revealed in part through a written communication.
Wisdom is understanding the nature, purposes, acts and preferences of
that Supreme Being, who is the God revealed in the Old Testament.

Our wisdom begins in accepting the recorded revelation as inspired
Scripture and in setting this in its own rightfully distinctive place as
"the only infallible rule of faith and practice." In our field we take the
Old Testament as providing an account of "what man is to believe
concerning God and what duty God requires of man," a partial account
which is seen to be completed in the New Testament.

The primary text book of the Old Testament Department is the Old
Testament in its original Hebrew and Aramaic languages, for it is here
that "God ... at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time
past unto the fathers by the prophets" (Hebrews 1:1). The beginning
of wisdom is in the study of the ancient scriptures through which God
has made Himself known to men.

Acceptance of the Old and New Testament scriptures as the basis
for an understanding of God does not, however, relieve the serious
student of a responsibility to seek an adequate interpretation of the
writings. And the problem of relating the Bible to the wide variety of
researches available in the modern university remains. One who would
make a beginning in wisdom must not only determine for himself a
top priority among various fields of study, but he must decide whether
he may rightly reject any field as irrelevant.

It is my firm conviction that the teacher who would begin in
wisdom in any field of interest in the seminary dare not discard as

irrelevant any study which offers a possibility of helping in the inter-
pretation of the Sacred Scriptures. The beginner in wisdom must
actively seek and eagerly cultivate acquaintance with even- valuable
tool which comes to hand for the task of interpreting the Scriptures.

In making this declaration I confess that I lean very strongly upon
the principles laid down by my illustrious predecessors, particularly
Dr. William M. McPheeters, who has provided in written form his
views on the interpretation of Scripture. 1 Interpretation of written
documents is possible, and may be viewed both as a science and as an
art. The original and entire context determine "and will disclose the
significance and force of the symbols which together constitute a given
writing.""- The science of interpretation is constituted of five pans
which are the grammatical, literary, historical, logical and psychological
aspects of the process.

The significance of the contribution of the various fields of study
in the modern university to the interpretation of Scripture can be seen
when the student seeks to develop specific techniques along the lines of
the five constituent parts of interpretation. Grammatical interpretation
is impossible without an understanding of grammar, both that of the
original language of the Scripture and that of the common language of
his own people. Psychological interpretation is impossible without an
understanding of the human personality: our understanding of the
Scripture will be greatly enriched as we make use of the tools for the
understanding of the human personality now being developed in this
department of the university. Logical interpretation cannot be carried
on without some systematic understanding of the rational approach
which man takes to his world: here again the schools, ancient, medieval
and modern, have much to offer to the science of interpretation. The
study of literary- forms, which is properly a feature of the curriculum
of the university, has much to offer to a proper interpretation of the
various literary forms to be found in the Old Testament. And historical
interpretation is impossible without a willingness to master techniques
of historical investigation and to examine thoroughly the sources from
which a history is to be constructed. In every case the university
provides the working tools with which the student of the Holy Scrip-
tures approaches the task of interpretation.

Frankly it is distressing to detect any unwillingness to seize upon
some or all of these tools for the task of interpreting the Scripture
adequately. The serious teacher or student who seeks to interpret the
Bible will make even- effort to develop his acquaintance with the fields
within his grasp, using them as tools for a richer and fuller under-
standing of the Scriptures and of the God who inspired them. This is
the practical way to reconcile the wealth of available material with the
priority of the Scriptures. If a field of study offers possibilities of
improving the interpretation of the Scripture, the student will seek to
cultivate it; if such a projected study threatens to divert him from the

1 W. M. McPheeters, The Science of Interpretation. Privately printed, no date.
2 Op. cit., p. 19.

4

actual work to which God has called him, he must set it aside with
reluctance for the time being.

I speak of setting aside such study because the practical needs of
pastoral responsibility severely limit the possibilities before most
ministers in the cultivation of special tools for the interpretation of
God's word. The man in a busy church cannot ordinarily be an expert
in handling all the possible tools for interpretation; he should probably
cultivate one or more as his own particular inclination and the Spirit
of God lead him. We must trust in the wisdom of God to see that we
have at hand the tools we need for any particular opportunity, and
we may depend on God to provide the Church with the specialists it
may need. But may I point out to students of the Seminary who are
present this evening that no required field of study in the theological
curriculum including the study of Hebrew can be considered a
diversion from the actual work to which God has called you now!
Now, you have the opportunity to collect tools in these five basic areas
of interpretation, and you should use your time here at the Seminary
to make certain that your tools are sharp. Here is a specific beginning
of wisdom for you all: the fear of the Lord has brought you to this
place; let that same fear make you faithful at your tasks!

Another aspect of the problem which confronts the serious student
of the Old Testament is the relationship of his study to the other fields
of study within the Seminary. It may appear to the student that each
department of the theological school is so busily engaged in pursuing
its own particular interest and specialty that the other departments are
for all practical purposes in another world. The teacher or student who
would make a beginning in wisdom through serious and intensive study
of the Old Testament may appear to have lost contact with the Church
and its vital activity in the contemporary world. This charge requires
consideration whether it be leveled at him by members of the Seminary
community or by those outside this circle.

It is my own sincere and earnest conviction that a true beginning
in wisdom demands that the student seek the movement of God's Spirit
in the life of His people in all times and in all places where the Power
of the Spirit has been felt. In a real sense every department of the
theological curriculum is part of one whole, which is the study of the
activity of God's Spirit in all ages of human existence and in all phases
of human experience. The study of Old Testament history is continuous
with the study of New Testament history and with Church history; Old
and New Testament doctrine may be seen as continuous with the study
of systematic theology, apologetics and the history of doctrine; the
study of the preaching of the prophets is continuous with that of the
apostles and New Testament evangelists and with that of preaching
and evangelism in all ages; educational efforts of ancient and modern
times, the pastoral office, the conduct of worship and the organization
of religious communities are likewise subjects for continuous study

which cannot be broken logically at any point. Our division into fields
is a human effort to limit our work to an area we can cover reasonably
well. At best this division must appear artificial and somewhat arbi-
trary; it is not divinely inspired.

Our purpose in the study of the Old Testament should be to seek
the movement of the Spirit of God in the whole life of God's people,
from the working of that Spirit in the ancient community of Israel
through the whole life of the Church into the twentieth century. We
can implement this purpose through the practice of exegesis of particu-
lar passages, through surveying the acts of God in relation to the
Hebrew people, by studying the way in which the Old Testament came
to be written, by studying interpreters of the Old Testament in all
periods of the Church, by noting the bearing of Old Testament texts
and passages upon theologies, by seeing the use made of the Old
Testament in sermons and in pastoral and educational activities of the
Church, by experimenting with such uses for the contemporary Church,
and by seeking to make clear the relevance of all parts of the Old
Testament to the various phases of life in this generation.

This effort to seek the movement of God's Spirit will not only
bring unity to our Seminary curriculum, but it will help us to avoid a
pitfall which may have occurred to you as I spoke of cultivating the
tools of interpretation. The mere cultivation of tools of interpretation,
like the development of the separate departments of the Seminary,
could very easily become a one-way street with a dead end. The only
way in which any undertaking in life may avoid the danger of
becoming such a one-way street is through a prayerful seeking of the
movement of God's Spirit and a willing following of His guidance. In
the Old Testament department we therefore approach our task with
the prayer that we may "hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches"
(Revelation 3:7). We desire that every avenue of effort in relation to
other departments of our curriculum and in the phases of interpretation
may be two-way channels of communication. We may all thus share
in the beginning of wisdom as in the fear of the Lord we seek the
guidance of God's Spirit for the Church in this twentieth century.

This leads us to consider another problem which confronts the
serious student of the Old Testament. Whether they profess it or not
a great many Christians practice an almost total disregard of much of
the Old Testament. The teacher's "beginning in wisdom" with the
study of the Old Testament appears to be largely irrelevant to many
in modern times.

A Sunday School teacher, supposed to teach a lesson on one of the
later Judaean kings, spent about 2 minutes of a 25-minute period on
the actual text of the lesson; in that time she mispronounced at least
two names of Judaean kings; then she moved on into the more com-
fortable territory of the New Testament and presented to her class an
exhortation on the duties of Christian life and witness. A minister of
another denomination brought a question raised by a member of his

congregation to a Sunday evening gathering of ministers and their
wives: Is there a place in the Bible where somebody was supposed to
blow upon some bones? Did any member of the group know of such a
reference? The question was a genuine request for information in what
was obviously considered to be a realm of curious ancient superstition.
Ignorance of the Old Testament has led many laymen and some
ministers to accept the false idea that the God revealed in the Old
Testament is of a different character from the God who is the Father
of our Lord.

By this time it should be obvious how such a point of view can and
must be met. Only careful study of the actual content of the Old
Testament can lead the student to an adequate appraisal of the value
of the Old Testament. The layman must be led by competent ministers
to a clear understanding of the meaning of the Old Testament Scripture.
If the Christian has questions about the nature of God, he must
approach his Bible including his Old Testament seeking the nature
of God and His purposes for men.

My immediate predecessor, Dr. E. D. Kerr, whose memory we
have sought to honor today, used to say that the study of the Old
Testament would show the student what he could not preach. The
proper study of the Old Testament will show all of us some things we
cannot preach from the Old Testament. If the minister would begin
in wisdom, he must recognize that the revelation of God in the Old
Testament does not attain to the completeness which is to be found in
the New Testament. But the Old Testament is nevertheless God's
message and it has something to say to every generation of men, to
good times and to bad, to good men and to bad, and to those who
know much about its background and to those whose knowledge is
limited.

In all times, and to any men who will read it, the Old Testament
declares that God has plans for the world He has made, that in so far
as the world rejects or resists those plans, He is thwarted but not
defeated, and that His good purpose will ultimately triumph over the
resistance of men. The Old Testament proceeds to particularize regard-
ing the plans of God, specifically referring to His choice of the Hebrew
people from among the nations of men, to His dealings with them
through some thousand years of ancient history, and to His selection
of a particular dynasty among them through whom His rule (or
kingdom) is to be exercised on earth. Further, the Old Testament is
very specific regarding the kind of human behaviour which is viewed
as acceptable by God.

These basic affirmations and declarations of the Old Testament are
neither shaken nor affected in any way by all the controversies which
have centered around this part of the Bible. If anything, they are
clarified and made sharper as the history of Biblical times is brought
into its proper historical context and as the literature is viewed in its

own proper context that is as all the available tools are used for the
interpretation of the Sacred Book.

One of the by-products of the study of the Old Testament is the
key to the proper understanding of much of the New Testament. Such
vitally important words as "covenant," "kingdom," "love," "sin," and
a host of others have been shown in recent studies to have profound
Old Testament backgrounds as they appear for use in the New Testa-
ment. The Christ of the New Testament is God's promised Messiah,
and Jesus is also declared to be "kurios," the Greek translation of the
Hebrew sacred name of God. The minister who would interpret Peter's
first sermon on the day of Pentecost must draw upon his understanding
of two Old Testament words, "Lord" and "Christ." The New Testament
is full of the Old Testament in ways too numerous to mention this
evening. The beginning of wisdom for one who would understand and
preach and teach the Christian gospel is surely, as the early Church
clearly understood it to be, the fear of the Lord who is revealed in the
Old Testament scriptures.

As he pursues his study the beginner in wisdom will find in the
Old Testament as well as in the New Testament a record of the activi-
ties of a Holy and Just God in relation to unholy and unrighteous men.
But beyond this he will be led by the Spirit of God to hear the voice of
that same Holy and Just God speaking to him in his own personal state
of unholiness and unrighteousness. And, led by the Spirit of God, he
may perhaps voice his own personal confession in words from the Old
Testament. He may use the words of Isaiah: "Woe is me! for I am
undone; because I am a man of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen
the King, the Lord of hosts" (Isaiah 6:5). Or he may find words to
express his confession of penitence and faith from the Psalms of the
Old Testament.

Let us here confess our faith in the power of God to work such
miracles of repentance and confession whether the inquirer comes
with all the theological presuppositions or not. The cure of the disre-
gard of he Old Testament is to be sought not in argument about the
validity and relevance of the Book but in the actual reading and study
of it. All that we need to ask the doubter is that he read it. We may
leave the issue to God, for He has declared that His word will not
return to him without its spoil and that it will prosper in the business
to which He has sent it (Isaiah 55 : 1 1 ) .

Actually we will not choose the Old Testament for every evange-
listic task, but we may confidently express the conviction that God has
many uses for this part of His revelation in this twentieth century. Let
me illustrate what I mean from my own personal experience in
receiving God's call. As I faced my own profound feeling of inade-
quacy especially in the area of ability to stand before a group and say
anything which might contribute to the saving of souls or their growth
in grace, words from the 4th chapter of Exodus came to me as clearly

8

as though Someone spoke them in my mind: "Who made man's
mouth?" That was it; as God had made me and had provided for my
daily bread, so He promised to provide for the need of preacher and
congregation the Word which is more than bread alone. In a very real
sense this experience has been a beginning of wisdom for me. It is one
to which I have returned many times, and in the strength of which I
stand today.

For all of us the beginning of wisdom is bound up with the pro-
found convictions which relate to the fear of the Lord. For the
particular situation of the Professor of Old Testament Language,
Literature and Exegesis these conictions relate to the supreme priority
of the Word which God has spoken, to the urgency of cultivating every
possible tool for the interpretation of that Word, to the fundamental
need to seek the movement and guiding influence of God's spirit in all
times, and to a personal willingness to hear God speak in and through
the Holy Scripture. Thus for us the beginning of wisdom is truly in
the fear of the Lord whom we serve and whom we seek to serve more
effectively through growing mastery and use of the tools which in His
providence He has provided for men of our generation.

James H. Gailey, Jr.

November 1, 1955.

10

GOD MAKING HIS APPEAL THROUGH US

Inaugural address of Rev. Richard T. Gillespie, Jr., upon being
inducted into the chair of Homiletics at Columbia Theological
Seminary. Delivered in the chapel of the Seminary, Nov. 2, 1955,
at 1 1 A. M.

I shall never forget a certain May morning in 1950 when I was
sitting in my office at the Board of World Missions in Nashville. The
phone rang and my secretary told me it was a long distance call from
Atlanta. The voice was the familiar voice of Dr. McDowell Richards.
He did not waste time with preliminaries. He asked me right off the
bat, "Would you consider coming to Columbia Seminary as professor
of homiletics?" I almost fell out of the chair. I had a great love for
Columbia Seminary, for reasons both personal and academic, and I
had always loved to preach, but to become professor of homiletics at
Columbia that almost bowled me over.

I spent a full month in making the decision. During this time I
made a trip to the Massanetta General Assembly with my beloved
friend and colleague at the Board, Dr. Darby Fulton. He was kind
enough to urge me not to go. He tried by devious ways to show me
the superior importance of the work I was doing for the Board to the
work that was proffered. He found many ingenious ways to belittle
and berate the whole subject of "homiletics." He almost gave me a
contempt for "homiletics." We even engaged in an argument as to
whether "homiletics" was singular or plural. I have since found that
"they" are plural.

Finally I made the decision to accept the call. It was with real
trepidation that I made the decision. One factor which doubtless
helped me overcome my sense of fear was a message which came
indirectly from a friend of mine. He was quoted as having said, "Dick
ought not to hesitate. He should remember that Knute Rockne never
made the varsity." So here I am, just now being formally inducted
into the chair, in which I have been serving informally for nearly
five years.

I am glad that I was not asked to deliver an inaugural address in
the early stages of my work here. I feel that these years of study and
experience have been essential for the clarifying and deepening of my
thought on the subject of preaching. All during these years I have had
to face daily in class, and in the preaching exercises of the students, the
question, "Just what is a man doing when he stands up to preach?"
That is a healthy question for any preacher to ask himself, and it is a
question that every preacher ought to ask himself regularly.

As I have sought an answer to this question, there is a verse from
the apostle Paul which has laid hold upon my thought as giving the
best answer to it. It is the 20th verse of II Corinthians 5, and the
translation is from the Revised Standard Version. This is it: "So we

11

are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We
beseech you in behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

There it is. Preaching is the act by which God makes his appeal
to the world his appeal to a world of sinful men, to be reconciled
unto Himself.

Whence comes this spirit of alienation from God which the apostle
here has in mind? Does it not go back into the dim pages of pre-
history? Is it not related to the glorious fact of freedom, which marks
the life of man? Is it not man's inherent tendency to overleap the
bounds of his finitude and to exalt his ego to the place of God himself?
In plain language, is it not the sin of pride? Is not man's deepest
instinct the instinct to "save face"? Yes. And in the Garden of Eden
story we have a true picture of ourselves, as our first parents yielded
to the temptation to become as wise as God himself, and to "take
over" his Creation. And likewise, in the equally pointed story of Babel;
here we have the wild impulse toward self-exaltation exhibiting itself,
as the men of that ancient city sought to build a tower that would
reach to heaven, that at last they might climb the tower and push God
off his throne. Here we have the story of another effort by men to
"take over." And has this story not been repeated down through all
the years? Yes. And as this wolf-like spirit has trickled down all the
generations, every area of life has become infected. This is what we
mean by "original sin," and the result is a whole world of men in
rebellion against God, and his rightful claims over them.

The Psalmist draws a picture for us in the Second Psalm:
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain

thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take

counsel together, against the Lord and against his

anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords

from us!

Jeremiah cried out in bitterness against a sinful and adulterous
generation, declaring in the name of God that their city would be
destroyed and that they would be carried off into captivity, for, "They
have turned unto me the back and not the face : though I taught them,
rising up early and teaching them, yet they have not hearkened to
receive instruction" (Jer. 32:33).

And Paul well nigh exhausts the vocabulary of dark language in
describing the wickedness of the heathen world of his day. As we
have it in the Phillips translation:

They knew all the time that there is a God, yet they refused
to acknowledge Him as such, or to thank Him for what He
does. Thus they became fatuous in their argumentations, and
plunged their silly minds further into the dark. Behind a facade

12

of "wisdom" they became just fools, fools who would exchange
the glory of the Eternal God for an imitation image of a mortal
man, or of creatures that run or fly or crawl. They gave up
God. . . (Rom. 2:21-24a).

Here then is a picture of the fallen sinful world a world in revolt
against God. What should God do with such a world? Well, of course
he could have withdrawn from it and left it to go spinning on its
course spinning on its course to Hell. But in his vast Mercy that is
not what God chose to do. He chose rather to enter into this maelstrom
of confusion and wickedness, and to create within it a new center of
redemptive life, a center in which a great company might come back
into fellowship with himself and with each other, a center in which
they might begin to experience in the here and now that kind of life
which awaits them in fulness out yonder.

The Bible contains the record of that redemptive work, beginning
with the call of Abraham and moving on in the life of a chosen people,
until at last it finds its focal center on

that green hill far away, outside a city wall,

where the blest Redeemer died; there died to save us all.

"God hath visited and redeemed his people" cried Zacharias, when
at last his son was born. Yes indeed! "God hath visited and redeemed
his people, and raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his
servant David" (Lu. 1:68-69).

This is what we mean by "the Gospel." This is the "good news"
we are called to proclaim. It is the good news that in Jesus Christ the
eternal God has invaded history, living a life of perfect holiness,
suffering an atoning death on the cross, rising on the third day,
returning to heaven to reign in glory, until the last day when he shall
come again and claim the final victory. It is the good news that in
Christ God has opened the gates to an abundant life both here and
hereafter to all who by faith and repentance will enter in. This is the
good news of which Paul was speaking when he says in the passage
from which our text is taken, "God was, in Christ, reconciling the
world unto himself . . . entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
So then, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal
through us."

How can we, who are called to preach, be effective ambassadors?
How can we make effective this appeal of God to men to be reconciled
unto himself? How can we through a preaching ministry truly build
the Christian church in our day, "the community of the reconciled"?
This is the problem which faces each one of us who stands behind the
sacred desk. This is the problem which faces me with particular
urgency as a professor of homiletics.

As I have cast about in my mind for those elements which make
for effective preaching, I have been led to turn to the history of the

13

early church, for there has never been a time when the Gospel was
more effectively proclaimed than then. As I have considered the story
of this early period there have emerged in my thought five words,
connected with this period, which have helped me to a clearer under-
standing of my mission as a preacher and as a teacher of preachers. I
will give these words to you as they are found in the Greek, and then I
will come back and deal with each one separately.

The first is the word kerygma, which simply means proclamation.
It is derived from the verb form kerusso which means to proclaim, and
from the substantive kerux which means a herald. The second word is
didache which means teaching. The third word is homilia which means
familiar conversation. The fourth word is diakonia, meaning service.
This is derived from the noun diakonos which means simply a servant.
And the last word, in some ways the most beautiful of all, and by far
the most difficult to translate, is koinonia. We really have no good
equivalent in English. The nearest we can get to it is fellowship, or
community, or commonality. It comes from the adjective koinos which
means common, or belonging equally to several.

Now let us come back to the first and look at each of these words
to see if we can find in them something that will be of significance
for this hour.

Preaching in the earliest and most original sense of the word was
a kerygma. It was a proclamation of that great event which the first
preachers had witnessed, viz., the life and sufferings of the Lord and
of his resurrection. It is closely related to another Greek word, aggelo,
and its compounds, which mean to announce. Hence we are dealing
with a proclamation or an announcement of that which men had
actually experienced in their company with Jesus of Nazareth.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon
and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life . . . that
which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that
you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the
Father and with his Son Jesus Christ (I John 1:1, 3, R.S.V.).

New Testament study has concentrated much attention in recent
years on what is known as the kerygma in the Book of Acts, and the
kerygmatic sections in the Epistles. Dr. C. H. Dodd, sometime
professor at Cambridge, has taken the lead in these studies in his
well-known work, The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments.
Peter's sermons in the first part of Acts, which Dodd holds are a
reflection of the kerygma of the Church at Jerusalem at an early
period, give us an idea of how the early proclamation was made.

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man
attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and
signs, which God did through him in your midst, as you your-

14

selves know this Jesus delivered up according to the definite
plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the
hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed
the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be

held by it Let all the house of Israel therefore know

assuredly that God hath made him both Lord and Christ, this
Jesus whom you crucified (Acts 2:22-24, 36, R.S.V.).

Here we have a recitation, not of the familiar details of the life of
Jesus, as recorded in the gospels, nor of his teachings, but a cursory
statement of his wondrous life, followed by a forthright delineation of
his death, resurrection, and exaltation to heaven.

And what were the results produced by this proclamation? Hear
the record as it continues:

Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and
said to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what
shall we do?" And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that
are far off, everyone whom the Lord God calls to him." And
he testified with many other words and exhorted them, say-
ing, "Save yourselves from this crooked generation." So those
who received his word were baptized, and there were added
that day about three thousand souls (Acts 2:37-41, R.S.V.).

The element which breaks through in this preaching, and is
instructive for us today, is the element of "face-to-face encounter."
There was no reading of an essay here. This was no stilted address. As
Peter stood to preach he was conscious of an intense "I - Thou" rela-
tionship with those who stood before him. He was the bearer of God's
claim upon them. Peter was preaching, not in the classical tradition of
Greek and Roman oratory, as practiced and taught by Aristotle, and
Cicero, and Quintillian, but in the prophetic tradition of the Hebrew
prophets, who out in the market place, or by an aquaduct, or on the
Temple steps, confronted the people wherever they were with a "thus
saith the Lord."

As God makes his appeal through us today, we too must stand in
the prophetic tradition and recount before the people "the mighty acts
of God in Jesus Christ." Furthermore, the divine claim of God which
is inherent in these acts must have so laid hold on us, that we shall be
able with power to so press it home to the hearts of those before us,
that they too like these people in days of old will cry out "Brethren,
what shall be do?"

The second element from the life of the early church which will
help us to a better understanding of our ministry today is that of
didache or teaching. In the very earliest stages of the church's life

15

there was probably not a great deal of didache. The kerygma was
enough. For the earliest Christians, caught up into the life-changing
experience of the apostolic preaching, might be said to have lived
through a "honeymoon stage" of spiritual experience. So great and
overwhelming was their experience of God's grace that they did not
ask many questions. But in time there came the natural desire to share
their experience with others. And before they could do this they must
be able to answer questions about it. Hence we have the beginnings of
Christian theology and of Christian teaching. What was the meaning
of this mighty "Christ-event"? As Karl Barth has said, "Theology is
naught but the Church reflecting on her Gospel."

This leads me to say that while the kerygmatic element is essential
for effective preaching today, the didactic is likewise. There is nothing
more tragic than for the sheep to look up and not be fed. Nor was
there ever a grander day for men to enter the ministry so far as
teaching possibilities are concerned, for we are living in an era of
theological ferment and reconstruction. The blasting effects of two
world wars have revealed both the ineffectiveness of nineteenth century
liberalism and the sterility of traditional scholasticism. And thanks to
the leadership of outstanding thinkers on the Continent and in Britain
and in this country we are no longer forced to choose between the two
extremes. The dialectical trends in contemporary theology, together
with the research that has been done in the lives of the first Reformers,
especially Luther and Calvin, have created an entirely new atmosphere.
On the one hand we are freed from the humanistic and secularizing
tendencies which caused many liberals to give up the Gospel, and on
the other from the heavy hand of scholasticism which sought to confine
the Gospel to a set of rigid and rationalistic formulae. The existential
elements in the thought of the great Augustine are today modifying and
easing the Aristotelian type of rationalism that crept into the Protestant
orthodoxy of the seventeenth century, and has continued almost to the
present. The later Protestant writers in struggling against the perver-
sions of Roman orthodoxy took up some of the philosophical weapons
of Thomas Aquinas himself. The present reconstruction in theology is
largely a protest against the liberalism of the left and the scholasticism
of the right, and is sure to lead to a deeper understanding of the Gospel.

Not the least among the tools now available for this deeper under-
standing of the Gospel are those which have been forged during the
last hundred and fifty years in the field of Biblical study. Thanks to
the science of Biblical criticism, the Bible is no longer a book of proof
texts, by which almost any point can be bolstered, nor is it a book of
mystery whose meaning can only be obtained by a doubtful resort to
allegory. But now, through the development of grammatical, historical
and critical disciplines, the world of the Bible can be made to move
before us as a living panorama. It is true that most of these tools were
forged by scholars of the liberal school who had no care for the
uniqueness of the Biblical revelation, or for revelation at all, for that

16

matter. It is true that for years false philosophical presuppositions
vitiated much of the work done in the field of Biblical studies so that
most of the results were negative. It is true that for a while the
discipline of Biblical theology was buried beneath an avalanche of
radical, analytical criticism. But thanks to the workings of a Divine
Providence which can cause even the wrath of men to praise him, a
better day has come. The destructive phase of criticism has largely
passed and a constructive phase has set in. As Dr. John Bright said
in his inaugural to the chair of Old Testament at Union in Virginia
some years ago, "The dead hand of Hegel is relaxed. There is a
growing tendency among scholars to accept the religious development
of Israel as given in the Old Testament as a fundamentally correct
picture. The basic historical accuracy of the Old Testament needs
no defense." 1

The leading Biblical scholars of today are not "lone wolves" working
outside the bounds of the Christian church, as was all too often the
case in the former liberal period, but are evangelical churchmen,
working together within the bounds of the Christian community, and
particularly within the fellowship of the ecumenical church. While
using the tools of historical and literary criticism, yet they are using
them positively and constructively to lay hold more effectively on the
pearl of great price, which is the Gospel. The discipline of Biblical
Theology has risen from its grave!

These developments in the fields of theological and Biblical studies
are beginning to have their effect on the pulpit. There is noticeable in
some areas a trend away from so much topical preaching toward a
preaching that is based more solidly on Biblical exposition. Let me say
here that the major stress in my courses is on this kind of preaching. I
seek to stress the importance of sound exegetical work, and the use of
the original languages. I am guided in my methods of interpretation
by the hermenutical principles which I learned from the venerable Dr.
William McPheeters, with his great emphasis on the significance of the
context for the interpretation of a particular writing. It is my hope
and prayer that we can send out from Columbia a company of men who
have learned to hear the Word of God in the Scriptures, who are
skilled in Biblical interpretation, and who can make the message of the
Bible "come alive" to the people of this generation.

I have been discussing the opportunities that are before the rising
generation of ministers to make their preaching ministry also a teaching
ministry. But there still remains the task of making the transition from
the halls of the Seminary to the parish pulpit. A recent editorial in
The Christian Century entitled "Preaching, Hodgepodge or Gospel"
voices the complaint that the transition is not taking place. So signifi-
cant in my opinion is this editorial, I want to quote a paragraph or
two from it:

^'The Preacher's Old Testament: Recent Developments and Continuing Reali-
ties," Union Seminary Review, Vol. LII, No. 3, Apr. 1941, p. 205.

17

Not for a long time has seminary training been as engrossing
and exciting as in the last two or three decades. Battles were
fought and there have been theological giants in the earth. There
has been a revival in theology, a renaissance, a new Reforma-
tion. Students have had the thrill of living through that, being
in on it, participating in a new grounding and statement of what
we should think about what we should believe. But what
happens to all that insight and wisdom in too many who go to
the pulpits? All this that could enlighten and inspire sinks
without a ripple in the first year of the new pastorate. . . . The
theological revival we talk about isn't getting through. 2

And then the editor in seeking a solution continues :

Another chair in every seminary may be the solution. We
don't know what it would be called. You name it. But it would
stand between theology and homiletics. From the systematic
theologian, and the Old Testament theologian, and the New
Testament theologian, the new professor would receive the
precise last word. He would be charged with clarifying the
significance for parish preaching of all this learning. Com-
municability would be his problem. He would have to give
order, system to all this: translate propositional sequence into
dramatic narrative. One reason the seminary's contribution is
abandoned so early by the graduate is that he never saw how it
all fit together, and so it never became a standard for his own
theological discrimination. His seminary slanted him toward
hodgepodge. 3

I have taken the observations of this thoughtful editor to heart, and
since our Seminary has not yet set up this unnamed chair, I am trying
so far as my time and ability permit to do something along this line in
my required course for Seniors, which for the want of a better name
is entitled The Philosophy of Preaching.

"God making his appeal through us." God must make his appeal
today through our proper use of kerygma and didache.

The third element in the life of the early church which I want to
use a a point of departure is that of homilia. The word homilia in
Greek means intercourse, communication, converse. The verb form
means to be in company with, to associate with, to converse with, to
talk with. The root noun form homilos means simple a multitude, or
a crowd. This is the word of course from which our English homiletics
is derived.

Dr. E. C. Dargan, in his History of Preaching, points out how
sermons in the early church soon came to be called homilies, which in

*The Christian Century, Vol. LXXII, No. 17, Apr. 27, 1955, p. 494.
s Op. Cit. p. 495.

18

terms of etymology means conversations or talks. Perhaps the reason
for the shift from the great public kerygma, as in the days of Peter and
the other apostles, to the more informal and private conversations was
the rising tide of persecution which soon set in. The church was driven
indoors and sometimes underground. But this was no insuperable shift
for the Christians, especially for those with Jewish background who
had their synagogue experience to draw on. 4

Here then we are brought to a consideration of the sermon as the
instrument through which God makes his appeal to the people. The
one purpose of the required course for Juniors is to teach them how to
prepare a sermon. This is a three-hour course offered in the fall quarter
of the first year. In the winter quarter of the first year each Junior is
required to write out and deliver a sermon before his class with the
professors of homiletics and speech giving public criticism for purposes
of instruction. Also this exercise is repeated in the Middle Year. In the
third year the Seniors preach during the chapel period before the
whole student body, and a faculty committee discusses their sermons
with them in a private conference.

I shall not try to discuss all the aspects of sermon-making as I try
to teach them, but only a few of the more significant. Perhaps the
most significant is the way in which the professor of speech and I
collaborate in trying to teach the men to translate their thought from
the abstract realm of the cognitive to the functional realm of life
experience.

The bane of most preaching is its abstractness. Many a congrega-
tion has left the holy place oppressed by a feeling of "oblong blur,"
and so confused that they are not even certain about the points of the
compass. The blessing of all effective preaching is its concreteness.
Hence the importance of speaking in pictures. When Jesus wanted to
teach about neighborliness he did not give an abstract discussion. He
told the unforgettable story of the Good Samaritan. And when he had
finished the story he did not insult the intelligence of his hearers with
an anti-climactic exhortation in which he sought to explain the obvious.
Rather his conclusion was the brief and pregnant "Go thou and do
likewise." So also with the Sermon on the Mount. This was not
concluded with a pious-sounding exhortation, but rather with the
picture of two men and two houses.

I have found that one of the best methods of teaching homiletics is
through a study of the sermons of the master preachers not a hurried
superficial study which would lead to plagiarism, but a careful, thor-
ough study, such as an artist makes when he dwells upon the works of
his masters.

I conceive the work of sermon-making in terms of craftsman-
ship. I remind my students that Jesus himself was likely a carpenter's

*E. C. Dargan, A History of Preaching, Vol. I. (New York: Hodder & Stoughton,
George H. Doran Co., 1905) p. 41.

19

apprentice, and hence a craftsman. I urge them to be good craftsmen
as our Lord must have been, and to take pride in their work. I urge
them to write out at least one sermon per week, and to look upon the
act of preparing the sermon, as well as its delivery, as an act of worship.
In the spirit of David of old, I would not have them offer unto the Lord
that which costs them nothing.

I have no way of telling how seriously my students have been taking
these admonitions. Only the years ahead will tell. I am confident that
in the rising generation of preachers, God will most effectively make
his appeal through those who give themselves diligently to the making
of sermons. As Dr. James I. Vance said years ago, "the preacher, in
the last analysis, is judged by the sermon, and he cannot hope to
retrieve by scoring on some side line."

One of my former students who is taking seriously this part of his
work rewarded me with a letter last summer. May I quote an excerpt
from it for the edification of those who are still students in these halls :

I want to add that for some time I was skeptical of the value
of sermons, and considered myself an inept preacher. I feel no
longer this way in either respect. You helped me to see that
sermonizing is a craft and an art, and I will always so regard
it. You encouraged regular work hours, and keeping records. I
have done both these ever since Junior homiletics. I spend
well over twenty hours a week on my one weekly sermon and
it is not only worth it but is a must. I wonder how some
people can pretend to declare the word of God without putting
more work into it than they do? I could run on for hours, but
must quit here. Thank you again for your help and guidance.

I have received only one other such letter during my years at the
Seminary, but these two are worth all my labor.

"We are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through
us." The fourth element which I want to use from the life of the early
church is diakonia. It is the word which means service, and comes
from an original root which means servant. We remember that in the
sixth of Acts, when the duties of administering the church's work
became too heavy for the apostles they appointed seven men of good
repute "to serve tables," and particularly to care for the needs of the
Hellenistic widows, while the apostles gave themselves fully to the
preaching of the word. This office later evolved into the official office
of diakonos or deacon, as is implied in the later Epistles.

Who can gainsay that this spirit of service must impregnate our
whole life as ministers, and must find its full expression in our pulpits,
if God is to make an effective appeal through us today. Phillips Brooks
set down in his notable Yale lectures many years ago the conviction
that a genuine desire to be of help to others is a prime requisite for

20

the ministry. Likewise Bishop Arthur Moore, in our own Smythe
Lectures, set forth this truth just two nights ago.

Some years ago Dr. John Mackay of Princeton spoke from this
pulpit. I recall a striking picture he gave us. He read the account of
Jesus washing the disciples' feet, and then looking up from the Scrip-
tures he added, "Here we have the central picture of the Christian
faith, the Lord of life, girded with a towel, bathing the tired feet of
his disciples." And though I do not recall, I presume that he must have
reminded us that "a servant is not above his Lord."

To me, there is no more graphic picture than that given in Matthew
9:36-37 where it is recorded that "when he saw the multitudes, he was
moved with compassion on them, because they fainted and were
scattered abroad, as sheep having no shepherd." I remember in the
early years of my ministry hearing Dr. James Fowle of Chattanooga
address a gathering of ministers in the Central Church of Atlanta on
"The Pastor with a Shepherd's Heart." I do not remember the details
of what he said, but I have never forgotten the picture.

No man with experience in the ministry will dispute the fact that
all real preaching comes out of the pastoral relationship, as a man
moves in and out among his people. I have had this truth particularly
impressed upon me during my years here at the Seminary. During my
first three years all the preaching which I did was as a guest preacher,
with no pastoral responsibility. But for the last two years I have been
helping a new congregation become established on Memorial Drive
near Decatur. In this latter case my life and the lives of my family
have become deeply involved in the lives of the people we are serving.
We share with them their joys and their sorrows, their successes and
their failures. As I compare these two types of ministry I am made to
realize that the first type of preaching can scarcely be called preaching
at all. It is more the delivering of an address. But the latter type is
preaching in the true sense of the word, for it is done in a pastoral
context.

There is another aspect of diakonia which deserves far greater
emphasis than time premits here. It is that of our responsibility as
preachers for the social order in which we live and move and have our
being. Many problems of first magnitude press upon us in these days.
To come immediately to the most sensitive question of all, what answer
will the church give to the race problem, particularly the negro
problem, here in our Southland? Or another, how can the church once
again make contact with the vast multitudes of organized labor, who
in too many cases are living out their lives in complete separation from
the church and her Gospel? And again, what shall we say concerning
the dark threats of political and ecclesiastical tyranny that hang over
the world today? There are those who hold the pulpit is no place for
dealing with controversial social issues, but should be limited to the
so-called "pure gospel" of individual salvation. But, as John Bennet has

21

reminded us, the social order is damning souls faster than the church
is saving them. It is not a question of either the individual or the social
gospel but of both . . . and. The preacher is not to be simply a barom-
eter, reflecting the atmosphere around him, but a pilot flame, capable
of changing it. The great Preacher from Nazareth was no gentle advo-
cate of the status quo but preached in the great tradition of the eighth
century prophets of Israel, who demanded that in all relationships of
life, men do justly and love mercy and walk humbly with their God.
And in this modern age the pioneers like Walter Rauschenbusch and
Washington Gladden have taught the church lessons that she will
ignore at the peril of her own soul.

"So then we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal
through us." There is a fifth word from the New Testament church
which has helped shape my thinking on the subject of preaching. It is
perhaps the most beautiful word of all, koinonia. As I have already
indicated, there is no good equivalent in English. It represents the
spirit of fellowship, of commonality, which arises spontaneously
wherever the church is established. I think that I first came to see the
significance of koinonia during my six years with the Board of World
Missions. As I studied the life and work of the younger churches which
have arisen across the world, this fact of koinonia was always the fact
that impressed me most. Sometimes in the complicated life of the older
churches and admist all the machinery which has evolved, this quality
is lost, or at least obscured. But out there in mission lands where
equipment is meagre and where life is usually simple, this quality of
koinonia shines out like a bright light in the midst of surrounding
darkness and it is a thing beautiful to behold.

During my years in Nashville I had the privilege of making a study
of the great missionary conferences of the present era, and of the
ecumenical movement that has arisen from them. I covet for the men
who study under me a vision of the world-wide Church and of the
ecumenical koinonia that has arisen out of the vast missionary expan-
sion of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There is nothing that
will so deepen their insight into God's ways with men, and there is
nothing that will so deliver them from the spirit of narrow sectarianism
which marks some areas of our Protestant church-life today.

Dr. Stuart Oglesby, speaking in our chapel this year, stressed the
importance of this element of koinonia. "We report to the Presbytery,"
he said, "figures on additions to the church, and dollars and cents to
the causes of the church. But the thing that really counts is not these
tangible matters, but rather the quality of the koinonia that exists
within the congregation."

Why is koinonia so important? It is because it is that divine element
in the life of a congregation which makes the congregation a seed-bed,
in which lives can be rooted, and in which, under the power of the

22

Holy Spirit, they will grow in spiritual maturity and into the likeness
of our Lord and Saviour.

"So then we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal
through us." I have discussed five factors from the early church which
I consider essential for an effective preaching ministry today : kerygma,
didache, homilia, diakonia, koinonia proclamation, teaching, sermon-
izing, service, and fellowship. There is one thought in the passage from
which my text is taken with which I want to bring this address to a
close. It is the 17th verse of II Corinthians 5. "Therefore if anyone is
in Christ he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold the new
has come. All this is from God . . ." (R.S.V.). I must say a word in
closing concerning the quality of manhood required for the high call
of serving as Christ's ambassador. No mediocrity of life or commit-
ment will suffice in these days. The splendor of the times must be
matched with the splendor of lives fully dedicated to Christ. Nothing
short of a "new creation" will suffice.

May I illustrate what I have in mind with a very personal illustra-
tion? It comes from the life of one who was dear to me, and for whom
this institution was his heart and life. Before coming to Columbia as
President in 1925 my father served the cause of Christian Education
in the Synod of Kentucky where at the time he held a pastorate. The
particular project to which he gave his greatest effort, outside his own
parish, was serving as co-chairman of a committee to raise $1,000,000
for the schools and colleges of Kentucky. It was a joint project with
the U. S. A. Synod. His colleague in this undertaking was Dr. Benja-
min J. Bush of the Second Church, Lexington. Some years after my
father's early death I was writing a Master's thesis at Emory University
on his life and work in the field of Christian Education. I wrote Dr.
Bush, asking for some personal recollections which might help with the
paper. And this is the way he closed his letter in reply:

I often said that he gave too richly of himself. This attitude
however bound us to him with hoops of steel. It must have
been the day he died that I was reading of one who with great
heroic effort had given his life. In appreciating her husband his
wife said of him, "He always gave everything he had, and when
at last it was necessary to give his life, he also gladly gave
that." And then Dr. Bush added, "Richard and this man were
glad comrades in a great redemption fellowship."

Yes, God loves this broken, sin-cursed world. And it is his purpose
to redeem it. "All this is from God who through Christ reconciled us
unto himself and gave unto us the ministry of reconcilation. ... So we
are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us."

23

24

THE SPIRIT AND THE UNDERSTANDING

Inaugural address of Rev. Hubert Vance Taylor upon being in-
ducted into the chair of Hymnology and Public Speech at Columbia
Theological Seminary. Delivered in the chapel of the Seminary,
Nov. 3, 1955, at 11:00 A.M.

Two prominent professional men of my acquaintance were chatting
about teachers. The general tenor of their thought was that professors
are impractical, their thoughts are far removed from the real issues of
life, and their solutions to problems posed are seldom to be trusted.

Lest my discussion of the subject, "The Spirit and the Understand-
ing," seem merely academic and I fall immediately before the indict-
ment of these two friends I present first my reasons for interest.

There is deep concern abroad today for vitality and reality in
Christian worship. The procedures adopted to achieve this desired end
vary greatly. Among the sects and the fringe groups there is much talk
about the Spirit, though as some of us view their practices we wonder
whether this is spirit with a large or a small S. Among the established
denominations, on the other hand, an emphasis has been placed on
the understanding and the forms of worship. Which way leads to the
desired vitality?

In the second place, we have in this generation an opportunity to
communicate the Gospel to men and women outside the church,
beyond the bounds of any congregation, which is unequaled in history.
Modern media for mass communication challenge us to claim their
resources for Jesus Christ. Much is being done to meet this challenge.
A vast number of programs are produced. There are some, however,
who feel that our efforts are inadequate, that our communication of the
Gospel leaves much to be desired. In her book, "THE GOSPEL AND
OUR WORLD," Dr. Georgia Harkness writes:

The communication of the gospel "is the most important
task, under God, that any person can undertake. Upon its
appropriation hang the issues of life and death certainly
spiritual life and death, and in the atomic age physical life and
death as well for countless millions of individuals in our time.
Yet its communication is on the whole so inadequate that the
greater part of our society, whether within or outside of our
church, fail to get any real awareness of the gospel's meaning
or its power." 1

If it is important that we worship God "in spirit and in truth," if it
is important that we communicate both the meaning and the power of
the Gospel, both the understanding of its content and the spirit of the
new life in Christ Jesus, if these are really important concerns then at
least the subject of our discussion should be exonerated by our profes-
sional friends.

ll 'The Gospel and Our World," Georgia Harkness, Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1949, pgs. 23, 24.

25

THE APOSTLE PAUL

Our subject was of great interest to the Apostle Paul. The problem
of tongues in the Corinthian church was discussed in the fourteenth
chapter of his first letter to that church. This spiritual gift, this outburst
of sound without apparent meaning, was popular in Corinth. Paul did
not condemn it. He said it was a genuine evidence of the work of the
Spirit of God and he thanked God that he spoke in tongues more than
all the rest of them. But he raised a question about the purpose of such
speaking. He asked how it benefited others if the listeners were unable
to understand the meaning. He was ready to grant that the one speak-
ing in a tongue edified only himself, and that he spoke for the glory of
God, yet he maintained that for the speaker himself this had value.
But of what benefit was this speaking for other people? If they did not
understand the message, if nothing was communicated to those gath-
ered in the congregation, if non-believers were not instructed, what
worthy purpose was served? The purpose of communication, of speak-
ing and singing in the church, as Paul put it positively, is to edify the
people gathered there, to reveal to them the knowledge of God, to
teach and instruct them, to build up the church. It is to build men up
in the faith, to encourage one, to comfort another. It is to give a revela-
tion of the truth, to convey knowledge of spiritual things, to give some
message from God, some teaching about Christian life. In short, the
purpose of Christian communication is edification, the opening of the
eyes of the understanding of both believers and non-believers.

But this emphasis on the understanding does not cancel out the
validity of spiritual gifts. Paul gives the conclusion of the matter in
these words:

"What is it then? I will pray with the spirit and I will pray
with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, and I
will sing with the understanding also." Vs. 15.

It is not then an either, or choice between the spirit and the under-
standing. It is a matter of both the spirit and the understanding.

Dr. Henry B. Swete, in his book, "THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT," helps us to understand the significance of this
discussion by Paul. He writes:

"The spiritual element in the primitive glossolalia lay not in
the strange utterances themselves, but in the elevation of heart
and mind by which men were enabled to 'magnify God,' to
'speak mysteries,' to 'pray in the spirit,' even at moments when
the understanding was unfruitful, and the tongue refused to
utter intelligible sounds." 2

He points also to Paul's letter to the Ephesians, the fifth chapter,
where the apostle urges :

2 "The Holy Spirit in the New Testament," Henry B. Swete, Macmillan & Co., London,
1919, p. 382. _

26

"Be not drunken with wine, in which there is excess, but be
filled in spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns
and spiritual songs, singing and making music with your heart
to the Lord."

Their spirits were to be filled with the wine of God, their hearts
were to rise under the power of the Spirit of Christ.

These utterances must have resembled somewhat the alleluias of
the devout Hebrews and yet they had a new power and a new
eloquence as they were motivated by a new quality of spirit. It is not
difficult for us to understand the existence of such expression when we
remember the wordless crooning of a mother to her baby. There is a
love here that needs no words for understanding. The mother sings
and the child quietly sleeps. The person privileged to behold the scene
and hear the sweet song needs no interpretation. This love is a
wondrous thing but how much more wonderful is the desire for
expression of the new spirit implanted in the heart by the indwelling of
the Spirit of God. There are times when the heart sings but the
understanding is unfruitful and the tongue refuses to utter intelligible
sounds.

FORMS OF COMMUNICATION

Is it possible, then, that words alone are not always adequate to
express our deepest desire, our highest praise? Does language have
limitations? Are there other means of communication and expression
than the symbols that we call words? Does the spirit sometimes find
the medium of words inadequate? Is our understanding of the meaning
of words ever increased,, or even made possible, by the agency of
non-linguistic symbols such as pitch, pause, gesture, color, pictorializa-
tion, dramatization, or musical interpretation?

In his Commentary of First Corinthians, Dr. H. L. Goudge writes:

"Language at its best lags behind thought, and fails to
express our deepest emotions . . . the language of a savage
people cannot expres the thought of a civilized people. And if
that be so, still less can any language really express the thoughts
and emotions of the new life of the spirit." 3

If language lags behind thought, if it fails to express our deepest
emotions, what other means of expressions have we? The Corinthians
expressed their new spirit in tongues and Paul upheld the validity of
this expression. Today, students in the general area of communications
are recognizing non-linguistic ways of conveying meaning. Presenta-
tional forms of symbolization have achieved such status that Audio-
Visual education is an important part of the teacher-learning process.
Painting, sculpture, symbolic movement, music these are some of the
non-verbal means of representation of meaning that confront us.

3 'The First Epistle to the Corinthians,' H. L. Goudge, Methuen & Co., London, 1915,
pg. 136.

27

This study of communications is linked with a new understanding
of the functions of the human mind. We know that men think in these
non-verbal, presentational forms of sounds, movements, colors, and
shapes. We have learned that it is a mistake to seek for meaning only
in systematic, explicit reasoning in words. We now seek to understand
the meaning of a man's words, his linguistic symbolization, within the
context of his total personality. We know that a man is a combination
of a rational and an emotional being and that the normal man has no
lead shield around the atomic pile of his emotions confining them and
their tremendous power to some nether region of the personality. The
normal man thinks, speaks, acts, communicates his thoughts and
reactions to his fellow men through a variety of types of symbolization
in which the rational and the emotional sides of his being actively
co-operate.

Susanne Langer, in her book, "PHILOSOPHY IN A NEW KEY,"
writes:

"Language is a poor medium for expressing our emotional
nature. It merely names certain vaguely and crudely conceived
states, but fails miserably in any attempt to convey the ever-
moving patterns, the ambivalences and intricacies of inner
experience, the interplay of feelings with thoughts and impres-
sions, memories and echoes of memories, transient fantasy,
or its more runic traces, all turned into nameless, emotional
stuff." 4

This may be true of language in its written form at times buf
language spoken takes on new dimensions. This is readily illustrated
(vith the words "yes" and "no." Each can only be written one way.
When they are spoken, however, they immediately have almost infinite
possibilities. "Yes" can mean a positive affirmation, a hesitant assent,
or even a question. The basic sounds of the symbol are the same in
each case but the spirit with which the word is spoken can change the
meaning of the word drastically.

If this be true, notice the increase in communicativeness as we
move from a projected picture in black and white to a color picture on
the same screen. Then note the difference when we project a moving
picture in color, then add the spoken word, then music and sound
effects, then gradually enlarge the screen until it becomes Cinemascope
with stereophonic sound. Here we have the combination of many types
of symbolization of meaning in forceful communication. It is possible
to say that we understand that which is projected in black and white
without sound but when the other symbols are added we gain a deeper
understanding as the spirit of the idea is more adequately conveyed.

But you have a right to ask why such understanding is necessary.
In reply, I direct your attention to the most convincing illustration of

^"Philosophy in a New Key," Susanne K. Langer, Harvard University Press, 1942, pgs.
100-101.

28

the necessity of adequate communication. It is found in God's plan
for the communication of His Word. He gave His Law to Moses, He
revealed His will in the guidance of the history of His people Israel.
He spoke to the prophets in varied ways. The Jews had the Old
Testament Scriptures Scriptures holy and divinely inspired. But God
considered these an inadequate revelation.

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and
we beheld his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the
Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:14

In the fullness of time the Word became Incarnate in the person of
our Lord Jesus Christ. He was the full revelation of the Word. In
Him the Word came to men with all the dimensions of full and vivid
life. So John wrote in his first epistle:

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard,
which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon,
and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear
witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with
the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto
you..." I John 1:1-3

And what was it that they saw and heard as they walked with Jesus
during His earthly life? They saw Him demonstrate the love and
compassion of God in His ministry of healing so that ever afterwards
men have been able to preach, "God loves you like this." They heard
Him declare profound truth in parable form so that embodied in a
tale, with the color and drama and full dimensions of life, with the
spirit of the truth exemplified in the relationships of the characters of
the parable, the truth might enter into the minds and the hearts of even
the simplest people. They saw Him stretch out His arms in invitation
to men of all stations in life and heard Him say:

"Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and
I will give you rest." Matthew 11:28

They heard, they saw, they felt His arms about them, the touch of His
hand in theirs and they recorded these experiences so that for all time
men may say, "God is like this."

But it was at the end of His earthly life that they witnessed the
most meaningful and significant presentational form of communication
in the history of man. This was the tremendous drama of redemption.
An earlier act, of course, had taken place about the town of Bethlehem
and the Incarnation was basic as the first event in the earthly life of the
Only Begotten Son of God, but the drama reached its climax in the
events of the Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. The events of that
Friday at Calvary are recorded in words, the meaning of the events

29

has been defined in words, but if we are to know the full significance,
the full impact of this mighty act of God, we must stand again as they
did at the foot of the cross.

"See, from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down;
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?"

Isaac Watts

The words through which the Gospel writers have described this
divine drama of redemption must lead us to stand where they stood, to
see what they saw, to hear what they heard, to feel what they felt. The
Scripture gives us the interpretation of this act and when we grasp
these definitive statements of the meaning of the cross we have an
understanding, a cognitive knowledge. If this leads us to the foot of
the Cross, and we kneel there and gaze upon it, we add to the under-
standing the spirit, and our response, under the power of the Holy
Spirit, is such that language will very probably lag behind thought, and
some other form of expression will unconsciously be called into service
to help express the depth of our response.

JOHN CALVIN

When we turn from this study of forms of communication to look
at the church and to discover what forms it has used through the years
we of the Presbyterian church are led to turn our attention to John
Calvin.

We look first at his Commentary on Corinthians. We find what we
would expect to find in his discussion of the fourteenth chapter of the
first epistle. He underlines Paul's emphasis upon the use of gifts of the
Spirit for the edification of the church. In the matter of prayer he
insists that there is no fellowship in it unless all take part with the
understanding. The mind is to be occupied in prayer and the expres-
sion uttered by the lips should proceed from the inmost soul.

This is the emphasis we expect from a man of Calvin's intellectual
stature and historical contribution. It is the emphasis that the Reformed
tradition has maintained through the years.

When we turn back to the first chapter of Corinthians I, the
seventeenth verse, we find some interesting comments. This is the
verse that reads:

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:
not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be
made of none effect."

In commenting upon Paul's reference to "wisdom of words" Calvin
infers the apostle's controversy with the wicked and unfaithful ministers

30

of the Corinthians who, being puffed up by ambition, thought they
might secure the admiration of the people by a great show of words
and a mask of human wisdom. They were substituting eloquence for
the simplicity of the gospel. But Calvin insists that it is not Paul's
intent to thus condemn eloquence or art.

"It is quite unreasonable to suppose that Paul would utterly
condemn those arts which, it is manifest, are excellent gifts of
God, and which serve as instruments, as it were, to assist men
in the accomplishment of important purposes. As for those
arts, then, that have nothing of superstition, but contain solid
learning, and are founded on just principles, as they are useful
and suited to the common transactions of human life, so there
can be no doubt that they have come forth from the Holy Spirit
and the advantage which is derived and experienced from them,
ought not to be taken as throwing any disparagement upon the
arts, as if they were unfavorable to piety." 5

He insists that true eloquence is not at variance with the simplicity of
the gospel when it is in subjection to it as a handmaid to her mistress.
Moreover, he ascribes to the Spirit of God an eloquence that shines
with an intrinsic lustre peculiar to itself. He finds this lustre shining in
the eloquence of the Prophets and sees some sparks of it emitted in
the writings of the Apostles.

Since this is the verse of Scripture that is sometimes quoted to
justify a simplicity and even an unlettered crudity in preaching it is
interesting to note that Calvin here takes occasion to defend conse-
crated eloquence and to point to the Holy Spirit as the origin of this
and other arts founded on just principles. God has chosen to call men
through the foolishness of preaching. He has chosen to speak through
the medium, the imperfect medium, of human language. The preacher
is not a passive instrument. He must be an intelligent, active spokesman
using language that is governed by the laws of rhetoric in the way that
legal and political speech is governed.

Yes, salvation is the work of God alone. There is truth in the
assertion that because the preacher must depend upon the power of the
Holy Spirit in convicting the hearts of his hearers, he has no need of
rhetoric. But this is only a part of the truth. Although the preacher is
powerless of himself to change men's hearts God has chosen to use the
preacher's voice as a means of communicating with men. The Spirit
works through the intelligence of the man and through the clarity and
the force, color, and power of his words.

Turning again to Calvin's comments on the fourteenth chapter we
read:

"It is not credible (at least we nowhere read of it) that any
spoke under the influence of the spirit in language that was to

Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians," Vol. I, John Calvin,
Trans. John Pringle, Edinburgh, 1848, pg. 75.

31

himself unknown. For the gift of tongues was conferred not
for the mere purpose of uttering a sound, but, on the contrary,
with a view of making a communication. For how ridiculous a
thing it would be, that the tongue of a Roman should be framed
by the Spirit of God to pronounce Greek words, which were
altogether unknown to the speaker, as parrots, magpies, and
crows, are taught to mimic human voices!" 6

Certainly nothing more need be said to prove that Calvin believed the
preacher of the Word needs a mastery of the language in which he
speaks and an acquaintance with and an habitual artistic use of the
laws of rhetoric.

Dr. Abraham Kuyper, in his lectures on Calvinism, makes an
excellent presentation of the importance of art in the reformer's
thought. He holds that art was no side-shoot on a principal branch of
life for Calvin. It was, rather, an independent branch that grew from
the trunk of life. It was no fringe attached to the garment and no
amusement that was but an addition to life. It was considered a serious
power in our existence and it was necessary that it maintain a close
relation with all of the experiences of life. The experiences of our lives
are dominated by our relation to God and therefore art cannot be
detached from the tap root of all life. This main tap root is God.

Such a view of art was part of the Calvinistic view of the world.
The old dualism of the pre-reformation world was replaced by a one
world view. The old idea of the Church against the world with its
corollary of the church dominating the world by political and clerical
stratagems gave way to a view of the whole world as the creation of
God's making in which He operates by two kinds of grace. By his
special grace He calls and saves men. By His common grace He main-
tains the life of the world. This grace relaxes the curse of the world,
arrests the process of corruption, allows the untrammeled development
of our lives in which to glorify Him as Creator. In place of the
emphasis on flight from the world into the monastery there is the
emphasis on serving God in the world in every area of life. There is
a new emphasis on Christian activity in scholarship, science, and art.
Man is given the high calling of pushing the development of the world
to ever higher stages. The life of the world is to be honored in its
independence, and we must, in every domain,

"discover the treasures and develop the potencies hidden by God
in nature and in human life." 7

Calvin did not set art, science, and religion against each other as
competing and antithetic areas of life and activity. Rather, he desired
that all human life be permeated by these three vital powers together.

J Ibid, ?g. 445.

T "Calvinism," Dr. Abraham Kuvper, Wm. B. Eerdman's Pub., Grand Rapids, 1943,
pg. 75.

32

In a recent address on Christian Education, Dr. R. McFerran
Crowe echoed this Calvinistic concept of life when he referred to the
value of Christian culture and the right of the Christian to enjoy
God's world:

"Bible study is not the only worthwhile activity of the mind;
evangelism is not the only proper motive for conversation; and
hymns are not the only good music. Reformed higher education
brings all things and knowledge into its purview, because all
things and knowledge are from God." 8

Certainly it becomes clear then that art had status in Calvin's world
view. We have yet, though, to discover the Calvinistic understanding
of the nature of art. Let us turn again to Dr. Kuyper as an interpreter
of Calvin. He insists that:

"Art reveals ordinances of creation which neither science,
nor politics, nor religious life, nor even revelation can bring
to light." 9

Furthermore, it is not merely an imitator of nature. It has been given
the power to disclose to man a reality that is higher than that offered
by this sinful and corrupted world.

When we turn to look at music as an art in which Calvin had
particular interest we read interesting statements in the foreword to
the 1543 Genevan Psalter.

"In truth we know by experience that song has great force
and vigor to move and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and
praise God with a more vehement and ardent zeal. . . . There is
hardly anything in the world with more power to turn or bend,
this way or that, the morals of men, as Plato so prudently con-
sidered, and in fact we find by experience that it has a secret
and almost incredible power to move our hearts in one way or
another. ... It is true that, as Saint Paul says, every evil word
corrupts good manners, but when it has a melody with it, it
pierces the heart more strongly and enters within; as wine is
poured into the sack with a funnel, so venom and corruption are
distilled to the very depths of the heart by melody." 10

So Calvin saw tremendous power in music which could be turned
to the service of either good or evil. He chose to use it on God's side
and he brought Louis Bourgeois, one of France's foremost musicians,
to Geneva to set the Psalms to music and to teach the people of Geneva,
particularly the children, to sing them. And with what success did this
venture meet? Historians tell of the crowds that gathered in the late
afternoons in Geneva to sing Psalms, of the heroic singing of the
Huguenots as they faced death at the hands of their persecutors, of
Psalm singing as the badge of the Reformation movement.

8 "Southern Presbyterian Journal," Vol. XIV, No. 22.
e "Calvinism," pg. 163.
""Source Readings in Music History," Oliver Strunk, W. W. Norton Co., 1950,pgs. 346-7.

33

And what of Calvin's own personal participation in this sung praise?
Theodore Beza reported that Calvin attended his last service on Easter,
April 21, 1564. He received communion from Beza and afterwards
joined in singing the Nunc Dimittis with faltering voice but with a
cheerful countenance.

Need we say more to prove that John Calvin was a man who made
place for non-verbal as well as verbal forms of communication? He
himself used one of the arts, music, and furthered its use in the church
by editing Psalters and fostering the musical education of the people.
Like Paul, his aim was edification, but he found that the spirit and the
understanding were joined together for the purpose of edification when
the word was sung.

THE WORD SUNG

This recognition of the power of the Word sung of the power of
the combination of these verbal and non-verbal forms of communica-
tion was not new with John Calvin. His interest is of particular
concern to those of us of the Reformed faith. We need only to look
briefly at song in the Scriptures to see the practice of earlier fore-
fathers. The hymnal of Israel lies at the very center of our Bible. These
great songs form the incomparable foundation of our Christian
hymnody. Our Lord's birth was announced by the angels' song over
the Judean plain. Certainly Jesus was accustomed to participate in the
singing of the Psalms in his regular worship in the synagogue. At the
close of the Last Supper he sang a hymn with his disciples. He ascended
to heaven where he is surrounded by the wondrous song of the angelic
choirs so magnificently described in the Revelation by John.

The early church took up the Hebrew custom of Psalm singing.
We read in the works of the early fathers that the main musical interest
in this time was in a simple melodic line of song that would enforce and
convey a verbal text. As music developed, this emphasis on words
continued. It was not always a constant or continual interest but its
ebb and flow may be traced throughout the history of music and the
church. Throughout the first twelve centuries of the church, music was
primarily a handmaid to her mistress, the Word. In the Renaissance
period (1300 to 1600) there developed a new interest in poetry. With
this interest there was a new attempt on the part of composers of music
to make powerful presentations of the words. In the Netherlands a
musical style grew up that was very probably derived from faithful
observance of the text. Italian composers developed a refined technique
of pictorial presentation of the text in the madrigal form. Musical
figures were invented to present the affections suggested by the poetic
words. The musician was seeking to find the inner spirit of the words
and to communicate this spirit in his songs.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries this interest is particu-
larly notable. Perhaps this is why Luther, an amateur musician and
perhaps a composer himself, had such a high regard for the art. Luther
and Melanchthon both believed that music served the purpose of the

34

propagation of the Lord's Word. They believed that tone and word,
music and speech, were naturally united, and that God's Word took
music for its medium. Melanchthon said that music is an instrument
with which to preach the Christian doctrine, the Gospel; the end of it
is to bring the doctrine to sound in the world. For him, the singer, the
musician, is, in fact, a preacher of the Gospel.

Against this background we can grasp some understanding of the
great Heinrich Schutz, a devout composer, whose works are enjoying a
well-deserved revival in our day. Schutz inherited this solemn attitude
towards the marriage of music and the Word. He was a part of the
seventeenth century development of individualism in which emphasis
was placed on the subjective interpretation of Scripture. By the grace
of God the individual experienced the meaning of the text. So Schutz
sought to interpret the meaning of the Word in terms of music. Tone
and word were inseparable for him. Music without words did not
inspire him to creative activity. His compositions derived their very
foundation from the text. They were veritable musical exegesis of
the text.

Lest someone think there is little connection with theology and
Bible study here let us take a further look at this man. He was con-
vinced that a musician should not attempt to compose on Old Testament
texts without thorough familiarity with the Hebrew language. The
interpreter, he thought, could not discover the truth of the text without
a mastery of the original Hebrew. One has little difficulty, therefore,
in understanding why his works have been called Word-bound music.

Against this background, also, we can begin to understand the rich
treasures of the baroque period. Renaissance composers had favored
the depiction of the affections of restrained and noble simplicity. These,
however, did not run the whole gamut of human emotion. The baroque
composers expanded the musical vocabulary by dealing with the more
extreme emotions as well as those more restrained. Musical figures or
images were developed until a whole set of so-called affections was
catalogued.

The great genius of this period was Johann Sebastian Bach. His
"Little Organ Book" is a catalogue of these musical figures. One cannot
fully appreciate his works without acquaintance with these figures.
When an understanding of them is gained, a study of the works of Bach
leads to the realization that he is the supreme example of the musician
who sought to preach the Word. Bach had an extensive library and it
was composed almost exclusively of theological works. His hundreds
of cantatas setting forth the Word, his monumental Passions that lead
us to the very foot of the cross, and his organ works based on the great
hymn tunes of his church, set him on a pinnacle as the greatest musi-
cian of all time and as the greatest example of the composer who seeks
to communicate the Word. His devotion to his task of presenting the
Word with the communicative powers of music added to those of

35

language should lead more serious students of the Word to a serious
study of his works.

Time does not permit a more exhaustive study of music history to
document our point. This is sufficient to suggest that musicians have
sought to use this gift of the Holy Spirit to express a kind of thought
and meaning which lies beneath and within words, to combine the
cognitive and experiential elements in communication.

CONFLICT OR COLLABORATION

If a proper relation is to be maintained between the spirit and the
understanding there must be a proper balance maintained between the
textual and musical elements of sacred song. This is particularly true
in the matter of our congregational songs, but also true in all sacred
music.

Music as art peculiarly equipped to serve as a handmaid to her
mistress the Word played a particularly significant part in the Reforma-
tion. Here both the chorale tune of the Lutherans and the psalm tune
of the Presbyterians were powerful instruments of congregational
expression. Here there was collaboration rather than conflict between
words and music.

For the chorale, this balance was destroyed when the Pietists
introduced the music of the secular Italian opera into the church and
music was promoted for its own sake as entertainment rather than as
significant communication. Congregational singing began to disappear,
elaborate ornamentation of tunes on the organ became the fashion, and
the ruggedness of the Reformation chorale disappeared. Eighteenth
century rationalism stripped off these florid elaborations of Italian
innovation but reduced the tunes to plodding movement of notes of
equal duration. The original strength and syncopation of the chorale
was not restored. Rather, it was denuded, dehydrated, and the death-
knell was sounded by the slow, spiritless droning of the congregations.
Here the text became the all-important consideration and while musical
extravaganzas of the previous period needed correction these corrective
measures failed to strike a balance of the textual and musical elements.
Throughout the past hundred years, though, research into the nature
of the original chorales has brought to light their rugged and rhythmic
character and we are witnessing a restoration of them in the true
balance of music and text.

A similar process took place in the history of the psalm tune. The
original French tunes had as many as one hundred and twenty meters.
These were developed from the rich variety of meters used in the
French poetic versions of the Psalm texts. However, these fell before
the dry winds of rationalism as understanding was emphasized to the
exclusion of the spirit. This was the period, you will remember, when
inscribed on a new church bell in England were the words:

"Glory to the church and damnation to enthusiasm."
36

So it seemed that understanding must be in conflict with spint. Only
recently have we seen a revival of these tunes in their original vitality.
The new joint Hymnbook of the Presbyterian churches contains two of
the tunes by Louis Bourgeois that give a taste of these tunes in their
earlier form: COMMANDMENTS and NUNC DIMITTIS.

Let it not be thought that a man of musical interest cannot have
interest in the understanding. I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Louis
Benson, our great Presbyterian Hymnologist, in the importance of the
devotional reading of the hymn texts. He insisted that hymns should
be printed in poetic form in hymnals so that people could read them
readily. He warned that hymns that have not been made personally
familiar by such reading cannot have much spiritual value for the
singer.

On the other hand, the theologian who places emphasis on the
understanding needs a knowledge of and an interest in the musical
setting of the text if he is to receive a blessing from a tune that under-
lines the meaning of the words and conveys the spirit of the idea.

If we, then, have a proper balance of the spirit and the under-
standing, if we have neither shoddy emotionalism nor dehydrated
rationalism, if we have the deep feelings of sound religious emotion
coupled with the words that set forth the great doctrines of our faith
we can confidently say with Paul :

"I will sing with the spirit
And I will sing with the understanding, also."

I covet for us, in our beloved church, a proper use of the gifts of
the Holy Spirit in speech and in music. I pray that we may find them
so suited to each other and so eager to work together that a new vitality
shall be found in our worship practice today as both spirit and under-
standing have proper emphasis and balance. I pray that we may learn
to communicate the gospel with such eloquence that those who hear
us and see us through the means of any modern channel of communi-
cation will know that the Spirit of the Lord is upon us, and that they
will confidently seek and expect His presence with them that the eyes of
their understanding may be opened and that a new spirit in their hearts
may send a new song soaring from their lips. Yes, I pray for statement
of the Gospel in our day that shall combine the eloquence of the Holy
Spirit with the understanding that comes to us only under His guidance
so that men may be led to Jesus Christ who alone is the Way, the
Truth, and the Life.

37

38

CALVANISM AND THE CURE OF SOULS

Inaugural address of Rev. Thomas H. McDill, Jr., upon being
inducted into the chair of Pastoral Theology and Pastoral Counsel-
ing at Columbia Theological Seminary. Delivered in the chapel of
the Seminary, Nov. 4, 1955, at 11:00 A. M.

Mr. President, members of the Board of Directors, colleagues,
fellow students, and friends: In assuming the obligations of a professor
of pastoral theology, many serious concerns press in upon me. The
modern pastor faces an ever-increasingly complex task, and to afford
him an adequate orientation for the work to which he has been called
appears to be staggering. The modern pastor must not only be a
Biblical scholar, he must be a sound theologian as well. He must recog-
nize his work as a part of the historical continuum, and that he labors
in the vineyard of God as a member of the Body of Christ. He is a
man with a message which must be communicated to a world that is
often calloused and indifferent. This means he must understand fully
those to whom he endeavors to communicate the message committed
to him, the world view that is held, the reasons for failure to hear him
or heed him, and the means by which he may best fulfill his responsi-
bilities.

Needless to say, when we consider the task of preparing a man for
such a ministry, we are staggered by the responsibility confronting us.
Recognizing that no man can be trained specifically in every field of
knowledge in which he must work, our goal can be no more than one
of giving the student initial direction with a concentrated effort on
leading him to learn how to learn. But how shall we achieve this
purpose?

The accomplishment of this can be found, it seems to me, by an
endeavor to see pastoral theology in its proper setting. Pastoral
theology is the theology of the pastor. The curriculum of Columbia
Theological Seminary has four major divisions: Biblical Theology,
Systematic Theology, Historical Theology, and Practical Theology.
Actually, we must recognize that these divisions are made for the
purposes of systematic study, recognizing that the ministry of the pastor
is a whole ministry and that it is not fragmented or compartmentalized
in four ways. This means that the student himself must be assisted in
integrating the several fields of study, recognizing that when he makes
a call in the home of a parishioner he is no less a Biblical Theologian
than when he prepared an exposition to be delivered at a special Bible
study being conducted in the church. Neither does he cease to be a
pastor when he comes to grips with his own theological affirmations,
rather seeing the stated doctrines as serving the purpose of understand-
ing the ministry he performs daily. In like manner, there is a wholeness
which must be achieved in the several divisions of Practical Theology.
We may refer to these in the classical terminology of the Reformed
tradition: homiletics, liturgies, apostolics, catechetics, poimenics and

39

psychologies; or we may use the modern terminology: preaching,
worship, evangelism, Christian education, pastoral care and counseling.
In the same way, we need to lead the student to a successful integration
for a whole ministry. His preaching and educational understanding are
not automatically excluded in a pastoral care or counseling relationship,
nor is his understanding of pastoral care and counseling compart-
mentalized in such a way as to be irrelevant to his pulpit presentation
and administrative concerns. We would conclude that pastoral theology
is an integral part of the whole ministry of the parson, and such an
integrity will prepare the way for further learning and development as
he pursues his appointed task.

Secondly, there is a need to constantly re-evaluate the content of
pastoral theology in the light of our growing knowledge and under-
standing of man and the world in which he lives. As we study some of
the methods of the great pastors of the past, it is clear that the particular
things they did cannot very well be emulated in the modern scene with
any expectation of an effective ministry resulting. The truth of the
message the pastor is endeavoring to convey to the world may remain
unchanged, but the world does change, and an effective presentation
must be altered accordingly.

Thirdly, as we face the present task of training ministers for the
serious business of shepherding the flocks to which they are called, we
need to face honestly the ways in which our culture may influence and
even cripple our procedures. We have in mind primarily a charge
hurled at the American church from the Continent that we are guilty
of activism. That is, we are the busiest churches in the world, doing
many things, with numerous wheels turning, but our accomplishments
are superficial. Whereas we have large attendance, increase in acces-
sions, and expansion of interest, there is lacking theological depth and
understanding. The inclination we have when faced by such an accusa-
tion from the Continent is to respond in kind, pointing to empty
churches, and noting that although profound theological discourses
emerge from the continental pulpits, people are not being reached.
Thus, in typical American manner, we reply, "Our way works, and
that's that." However, in replying in this manner, are we adequately
evaluating ourselves, or are we so culture bound as not to be able to
see our situation objectively? One wonders if there is not truth in the
Continental accusation of activity with superficialism. One wonders
also if there is not truth in the American countercharge that the conti-
nental churches are not reaching and adequately caring for the people.
Is there not a need to re-evaluate the whole matter with the serious
question of the effect of our culture upon our procedures? Perhaps we
do need a greater depth in theological thought, and perhaps the Conti-
nental churches need more activity. It seems to us that the answer to
such a matter as this might proceed from our consideration of a more
integrated ministry. If the pastor sees his work as integrally related to
theology, and his theology to his work, there might very well be a

40

greater depth in pastoral care and at the same time theology begins to
be seen as relevant to the modern world.

Having seen some of our problems and concerns, it would now be
my thesis that the system of theology commonly called Calvinism
affords an adequate structure for an integrated ministry which is
effective in making theology relevant to the lives of the people whom
we serve. Calvinism and the cure of souls have moved and must
continue to move hand in hand.

In using the term cure of souls, we have in mind the ancient termi-
nology for the pastoral responsibility. The Latin word cura from which
our English word is derived signifies both care and healing. The cura
animarum designated the full responsibility of the pastor toward the
people for whom he had responsibility, including evangelism, discipline,
instruction, assurance, and support.

By the word Calvinism, we have in mind that structure of theology
which we as a denomination of the Church have embraced as being the
most adequate systematic statement of the Biblical revelation. More
particularly, it is my conviction that the works of John Calvin not only
provide a significant interpretation of the Biblical revelation, but that in
his works he has provided a structure in which we may work as pastors
for the greatest good of the people we serve in fulfilling the responsi-
bilities delegated to us by our vocation.

In making this presentation, we need to understand that Calvin
made no claim to complete knowledge but rather opened the doors to
the further pursuit of wisdom. We are not to assume that the final
word has been written in regard to man or God, nor that we are to
blind ourselves to the development of the sciences and their contribu-
tion to our understanding. Rather, the emphasis is on the further
pursuit of knowledge, but with a point of view firmly grounded in the
Word of God. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and
the knowledge of the holy is understanding."

We must also remember that Calvin himself was not infallible, and
when we speak of Calvinism we recognize that the end to theological
development has not been attained. To so argue would be to say that
no further theological discussion may take place and that our various
addresses and papers can say nothing new. It would be to deny the
place of further works in theology and of the advancement of our
understanding. Further, to so argue would be to contradict the basic
character of Calvin's theology.

We need also to consider the fact that in the Commentaries it is
quite clear that Calvin used the best tools he had for an adequate and
critical exegesis and exposition of the Scriptures. We say with convic-
tion that on the basis of Calvin's work we would have to assume that
were he alive today, he would employ to the fullest extent the critical
procedures for understanding the Scriptures that Professor James

41

Gailey discussed last Tuesday night. That our wisdom and understand-
ing is expanded by these advances should be clear.

At the same time, we approach the works of this Reformer with the
deepest respect and admiration. He knew less about the physical world
in which he lived than does our average high school graduate, but he
was able to discern the Scriptures and interpret them with such excel-
lence that although multitudes have rejected the principles of his
theology, he now has such confirmation for his theological formulations
in the advancement of our knowledge that we stand amazed at his
depth of wisdom and insight. A man of genius and power, we admire
him who "feared God so much, he could fear nought else."

It would be impossible to document fully this thesis in the limita-
tions of the present hour. We can only cover certain significant points,
answer a few objections to Calvinism as a foundation for modern
pastoral theology, and indicate some ways in which an understanding
of Calvin, and the Scriptures, may meet the needs of modern man and
the modern world view.

I. CALVINISM PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK FOR UNDER-
STANDING THE PERSON.

In order to fully comprehend the significance of Calvin's work, it
is absolutely essential that we consider his writing contextually. We
will never grasp the significance of particular emphases or methods of
presentation unless we understand that which Calvin was opposing and
the kind of orthodoxy he had to break in order to prepare the way for
the advancement of man's knowledge and wisdom. He recognized the
basic necessity of a full understanding coming through divine revela-
tion, for neither man nor the purpose of his existence could ever be
adequately comprehended apart from the Creator. He recognized fully
that God was revealed in his whole creation, and particularly in man,
whom he called a "microcosm." 1 At the same time, he recognized the
distortions of reason which he attributed to the Fall, and noted that no
interpretation of empirical data could be adequate apart from the Bible
and the work of the Holy Spirit in Biblical interpretation.

Calvin opened his Book I of The Institutes of the Christian Religion
by observing: "True and substantial wisdom principally consists of two
parts, the knowledge of God and the knowledge of ourselves. But,
while these two branches of knowledge are so intimately connected,
which of them precedes and produces the other, is not easy to dis-
cover." 2 Concluding his discussion of this intimate relationship between
the knowledge of God and self understanding, Calvin affirmed, "The
knowledge of ourselves, therefore, is not only an incitement to seek
after God, but likewise a considerable assistance toward finding him."*

1. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, I, v, 3.

2. Ibid., I, i, 1.

3. Ibid.

42

With keen insight into the reasons for man's lack of self-under-
standing and the processes of rationalization which have been illumi-
nated in recent years, Calvin observed the impossibility of an adequate
self-understanding by reason alone. The Fall involved the whole man,
meaning that reason is effected thereby, a radical departure from the
thought of his time. In fact, to the present hour, Cavinism has been
resisted on the assumption that man's reason is sound and sufficient. It
may be important here to be reminded that Calvin regarded free will
as the possibility of reason to ascertain good and evil and the power
of the will to choose between the two. Yet, because of the Fall, there
is lack of real ability for either, particularly in matters pertaining to
salvation.

One of the problems in accepting the Calvinistic position was the
influence of Aristotelian thought, especially as developed by Thomas
Aquinas. Reason was defined as logical ability seen in the syllogistic
formulations worked out in detail by the Greek philosopher. In such a
syllogism, the mind of man would construct rational thought on the
basis of a premise. The great difficulty in the Aristotelian system is not
to be seen in the inadequacies of the construction of his syllogisms, but
rather on the source of the premise from which the logical course of
thought followed. It has taken our modern development to convince a
still sceptical world that Aristotle and Aquinas were wrong and Calvin
was right.

An illustration will help us to see this point. For our purposes, we
may consider a woman of 56 years of age confined in a mental hospital
in which I worked for a time. Her medical diagnosis was paranoia. She
was a delightful and intelligent woman, and being assigned to her for
her care and supervision, I came to respect her ability in many areas.
She was an accomplished poet, had taught school for many years, and
was very gracious and unassuming. Nevertheless, she was mentally ill,
and a careful observation over a period of time only confirmed the
accuracy of the original diagnosis. On one occasion, we were seated
on a bench in the spacious grounds of the institution. We heard the
laundry whistle sounding the signal for fire, giving a series of blasts
indicating the area of the grounds where the fire had broken out. In a
moment, the dilapidated hospital fire truck came rumbling down the
street where we were seated, siren screaming. Immediately, my friend
jumped to her feet, obviously terrified, ran behind some shrubbery near
the bench and crouched low until the fire truck had passed. I followed
her, assuming that the noise of the engine and siren had caused her
sudden terror, but in the conversation that followed, I found that I was
in error. Noise never bothered her, but what had struck fear into her
mind was the red color of the truck. Red to her meant but one thing:
Communism. Her interpretation of the truck was that the Communists
were coming to get her. Her premise was: "Red always symbolizes
Communism." Another premise: "Communists hate Republicans,"

4. Rollo May, Man's Search for Himself. N. Y.: W. W. Norton and Co., 1953, p. 50.

43

and she was a Republican. A third: "Communists destroy what they
hate." If we grant the validity of these premises, her terror was justi-
fied. With the second and third statements, the patient would have a
great deal of company, for they have coherence and some empirical
justification, but it was the first premise that was isolating by its very
nature. For example, she could reason on the basis of the second
premise through such a syllogism as this: "Communists hate Republi-
cans; I am a Republican; Therefore, Communists hate me." But on
the first premise, she could follow the same process of reason, but note
the construction of the syllogism: "Red symbolizes Communism; The
fire truck is red; Therefore, the fire truck is Communistic." If all of
these premises are understood, and others derived from the patient's
personality, then the patient's behavior is understood. This means, that
the patient's behavior is not illogical in the Aristotelian sense. Never-
theless, we would truthfully affirm that the patient's behavior is
irrational.

This says two things. The first is that in spite of the mental illness,
the logical mental processes of the patient were unimpaired. This is
based on the fact that if we grant the premise, the reasoning which
follows makes sense to other people, i.e., it possesses coherence. The
second thing this says is that the formulation of the premise in the
logical structure is crucial and will govern the outcome of the behavior
and socialization of the person.

These premises rest upon presuppositions of life and its meaning.
Our understanding of man, God and salvation also rest upon basic
presuppositions. Unless these presuppositions are critically examined
and understood, our logical processes of thought may be correct, but
conclusions will invariably differ. It is our contention that we are
finally pushed back to certain a priori which are contingent upon what
we are in our relationship to God and man. Unless we define reason
in such a way as to consider the whole personality and the source of
presuppositions for logical thought, our definition remains inadequate.

What can readily be seen in regard to the mentally ill is an exag-
geration of the general condition of man. The whole man must be
considered when speaking of rationality. This understanding enables
us to see far more objectively the difficulties that the emphasis on
rationalism has created for us. However we may disagree with some
of the conclusions of Rollo May, practicing psychoanalyst and member
of the faculty of the William Alanson White School of Psychiatry, yet
he has with keen insight analyzed our modern situation noting that
rationalism has plagued us and contributed to our modern age of
anxiety by destroying man's sense of values. In his book, Man's Search
for Himself, he said in part, "For the late nineteenth- and early
twentieth-century man, reason was supposed to give the answer to any
problem, will power was supposed to put it into effect, and emotions
well, they generally got in the way, and could best be repressed. Lo,
and behold, we then find reason (now transformed into intellectualistic

44

rationalization) used in the service of compartmentalizing the person-
ality, with the resulting repressions and conflict between ego and the
instinct and ego and superego which Freud so well described. When
Spinoza in the seventeenth century used the word reason, he meant an
attitude toward life in which the mind united the emotions with the
ethical goals and other aspects of the 'whole man.' When people today
use the term they almost always imply a splitting of the personality.
They ask in one form or another: 'Should I follow reason or give way
to sensual passions and needs or be faithful to my ethical duty?' "

As May rightly points out, this nineteenth century fragmenting of
the personality was prepared for by the dichotomy of Descartes who
in turn was under the influence of the Socratic-Platonic division
between soul and body. With the dominance of such thought, the unity
of the personality upheld by Calvin was completely rejected. Calvin in
treating the age-old theological question of the union of two natures in
Christ insisted that both natures are real. "He who was the Son of God
became son of man, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of
person. For we maintain that the divinity was so conjoined with the
humanity, that the entire properties of each nature remain entire, and
yet the two natures constitute only one Christ." 5 To comprehend this,
he followed his method as originally set forth of looking again at man
for understanding, noting that the properties ascribed to the soul in
Scriptures cannot be ascribed to the body, nor the properties of the
body to the soul. Nevertheless, he rightly concluded a psychosomatic
unity which is essential in the understanding of the personality. He
continued, "Yet he that is composed of these two parts is no more than
one man." 8 In the face of such a unity of the person, in contradiction
to the Greek position, he saw correctly that in considering the Fall, not
one part of man was affected, but the whole man. Any effort to under-
stand man apart from the irrationalities of his existence, or by abstract-
ing logical thought from the emotional and other non-cognitive aspects
of the person, will prove erroneous.

In following this course, it is our position further that Calvin has
provided a framework for understanding the person because he has
emphasized the importance of the perspective utilized in observation.
Man must be viewed in the light of eternity, as a creature of God. The
divine purpose can be known only as God has chosen to reveal Himself
to man. Once this perspective is gained, the perspective made possible
by the revelation of God and the present work of the Holy Spirit, then
empirical observations can be profitable as an implementation of man's
theological understanding. The way was opened for the exploration of
the sciences, and if the Calvinistic position had been more adequately
understood, the mythical gulf that has existed between science and
religion might have been bridged long before. Calvin foresaw a unity
of knowledge in his treatment of epistemology, a unity made possible

5. Calvin, op. cit., II, xiv, 1.

6. Ibid.

45

by the integrating center of a rightly determined theological perspective.
As the Reformer put the matter, "Of his wonderful wisdom, both
heaven and earth contain innumerable proofs; not only those more
abstruse things, which are the subjects of astronomy, medicine, and the
whole science of physics, but those things which force themselves on
the view of the most illiterate of mankind, so that they cannot open
their eyes without being constrained to witness them. Adepts, indeed,
in those liberal arts, or persons just initiated into them, are thereby
enabled to proceed much further in investigating the secrets of Divine
Wisdom. Yet, ignorance of those sciences prevents no man from such
a survey of the workmanship of God, as is more than sufficient to
excite his admiration of the Divine Architect. . . . Thus it belongs to a
man of preeminent ingenuity to examine, with the critical exactness of
Galen, the connection, the symmetry, the beauty, and the use of the
various parts of the human body. But the composition of the human
body is universally acknowledged to be so ingenious, as to render its
Maker the object of deserved admiration." 7

Following this lead toward greater understanding of man and the
cosmos, the curricula of the early theological schools of the Reforma-
tion carried required subjects in astronomy and in psychologies, the
latter subject subsumed under the systematic theological treatment of
anthropology.

II. CALVINISM OFFERS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE
PROCESS OF THE CURE OF THE SOULS.

The cure of souls is understood in the light of Calvin's treatment
of soteriology. Naturally, the doctrine of salvation cannot be under-
stood apart from a doctrine of man, a doctrine of God, and a doctrine
of sin. Salvation involves a right relationship to God through the
reconciling work of Jesus Christ. We must, therefore, be concerned
with man who is reconciled and God to whom he is reconciled, together
with the need of reconciliation which involves an understanding of sin.

Again it is not our intention to recapitulate Calvin's entire theology,
but rather to suggest ways in which we can see more clearly how
Calvin's discernment of the Scriptures, his theological method, and his
insight into the advancement of knowledge with a theological perspec-
tive as an integrating pole enables us better to understand the process
of the cure of souls.

Calvin made another radical departure from his day in placing
primary emphasis upon sin rather than upon sins. In his treatment of
the Fall, he saw man in a state of separation both from God and his
fellowman. By this, we mean that man's ability to relate himself ade-
quately to either God or man was lost. Thus, being in a condition of
sin, the eruptive behavior referred to as sins can be understood as
resulting from his internal condition. This is a profound truth with

7. Ibid., I, i, 2.

46

significant implications not only for pastoral counseling, but for all men
and especially those professions that deal with the problems of man's
isolation and failure in adequate interpersonal relationships.

Some years ago, Dr. Karl Menninger, eminent Topeka psychiatrist,
paraphrased a popular proverb, "Hell hath no fury like a woman
scorned, except a neurotic deprived of his symptom." The truth Dr.
Menninger has conveyed in this statement is that if we concern our-
selves only with the symptoms of neurotic behavior without a correction
of the internal condition which underlies the symptom and which is
causal, then the latter state of the man may very well be worse than his
first. The structure of thought here bears a marked similarity to the
position of John Calvin set forth in the sixteenth century. Dakin, in
his book Calvinism, offers a good summary of Calvin's point: "But
for the purpose of establishing the doctrine of original sin logic
demanded that the parent root of sin should be found in the parent of
the race. Here we must discover the hard core of human intractibility.
And it is the Reformer's merit that he sought this in the realm of
affection and will, in the inner disposition rather than in some outward
act. He sees it as an activity of mind against the supreme mind. Conse-
quently it remains an abiding state of the soul, and therefore it is a
soul-state which has to be dealt with in the work of salvation. Thus,
like Paul, Calvin puts the emphasis not on sins but on sin. He is
working with the concept which the apostle indicates in the phrase 'the
carnal mind which is enmity against God.' This it is, with its effects in
personality, which from Adam is transmitted to the whole race." 8
Calvin defined original sin as "a hereditary corruption and depravity of
our nature extending to all parts of the soul, which first makes us guilty
of the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture
are termed works of the flesh." 9

This provides a sound orientation for our pastoral counseling.
Departing from the basic principles involved in such an understanding,
our counseling has tended to be centered in the presenting problem of
the parishioner. Thus if we have a marital difficulty, we talk in terms
of marriage as though the right understaning of marriage will correct
the difficulty. If the person comes to the pastor and talks in terms of
difficulties in his job, we are inclined to believe that we can either set
external circumstances aright or converse only in terms of the job and
assume that this is adequate. These procedures completely overlook
the causes for the marital and the work difficulties. For example, a
man seeks his pastor and tells him that he has withstood the persistent
nagging of his wife as long as he cares to, and he is contemplating a
divorce. If the pastor then launches into a dissertation of the Biblical
treatment of marriage and divorce, he is obviously on the wrong track.
Why can this man and this woman not get along? Is it not because of
the internal condition of the two rather than external circumstances?

A. Dakin, Calvinism. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1946, p. 30.
Calvin, op. cit., II, i, 8.

47

The same man might be having the same kind of difficulty with his job,
but if the pastor held him to the marriage and divorce question, this
would never come to light. With a different approach and a deeper
understanding of what is involved, he might hear the man say, "I have
stood the nagging of my supervisor all I intend to, and I'm looking for
another job." Let the man find another wife and another job, and the
difficulties would continue. The problem is that he has not yet looked
into himself, and until the internal condition of the man is corrected,
external problems in relationships will persist. The procedure of such a
problem-centered approach also assumes a rational approach to the
situation, disregarding the irrationalities of human existence which we
have already discussed. It is doubtful that Calvin understood the full
implication of his own treatment, but it is to his credit that he had a
depth of understanding far ahead of his time.

As we have indicated, this point of view was quite alien to Calvin's
environment. Thomistic theology provided a structure in the cure of
souls based upon sin as act. The confessional of the Roman church for
centuries had been content with the treatment of specific sin rather than
evidencing a primary concern for the "soul-state." Even today, it is
difficult for man to see his particular behavior in depth, and the treat-
ment of difficulties in the Reformed churches as well as in other
denominations of the Church has been one of superficial concern for
symptoms rather than cause, and with sin as act rather than as internal
condition. This is not to say that we are not concerned with the
external behavior of the person, but it is to say that if we concentrate
on external behavior and proceed with logical arguments and presenta-
tions, our help will be of the most superficial order.

The way of help is seen in Calvin's whole treatment of salvation,
involving not only the moment of conversion, but the entire consequent
course of the Christian's life. The Christian is not to be made dependent
upon the pastor, but has free access to God through Christ. In
renouncing the formalized auricular confession and the pejorative
casuistry that had laid its legalistic hold upon all pastoral care proce-
dures, Calvin emphasized that confession need be made only to God.
This does not close the door to the need of confession to the pastor, a
procedure which not only possesses a cathartic value but which may be
the means of greater understanding of the self. The emphasis in
Calvin's Institutes needs to be understood in relation to that which he
opposed. 10

Of tremendous significance in the cure of souls, contrary to many
modern popular beliefs, was Calvin's emphasis on unmerited grace and
salvation by faith alone. Nor is faith itself to be understood as issuing
from man, for then faith would become another good work. Faith is
engendered as a power within man, the gift of God.

10. Ibid., Ill, iv.

48

To understand something of the significance of this in the light of
modern research into the depth of man's nature is enlightening indeed.
One way of approach to the question is through the concepts of normal
or ontological anxiety and neurotic anxiety. With profound insight,
Calvin recognized what we now distinguish as normal anxiety as an
aspect of man's finitude. It is not to be equated with sin, but as we
read his treatment of this affect, it is clear that he did see anxiety as a
precondition of temptation and of sin. In this, his observations fore-
shadowed the work of the modern depth psychologists. Further, he
saw clearly that anxiety rightly understood could become for the
Christian the source of growth and creativity. Thus, in discussing
faith, he wrote, "When we inculcate that faith ought to be certain and
secure, we conceive not of a certainty attended with no doubt, or of a
security interrupted by no anxiety; but we rather affirm, that believers
have a perpetual conflict with their own diffidence, and are far from
placing their consciences in a placid calm, never disturbed by any
storms." 11 He further declared, "Indeed, he who, contending with his
own infirmity, strives in his anxieties to exercise faith, is already in a
great measure victorious." 12 How like the modern depth psychologist
Gordon W. Allport Calvin sounds, "It is characteristic of the mature
mind that it can act wholeheartedly even without absolute certainty. It
can be sure without being cocksure." 13

Perhaps the clearest and most emphatic interpretation of the anxiety
of human finitude is found in his treatment of the humanity of Jesus.
If Jesus could not have sinned, then the temptations he experienced
were a farce. If Jesus could not have lost his soul, then the significance
of the cross was lost. Facing his objectors, he wrote in no uncertain
language, "Here some contentious, though illiterate men, impelled
rather by malice than by ignorance, exclaim against me, that I am
guilty of an atrocious injury to Christ; because it is utterly unreasonable
that he should have any fear concerning the salvation of his soul. And
then they aggravate the cavil, by pretending that I attribute despair to
the Son of God, which is contrary to faith. In the first place, it is
presumptuous in them to raise a controversy concerning the fear and
consternation of Christ, which is so expressly asserted by the evange-
lists. For, before the approach of his death, he experienced a perturba-
tion of spirit and depression of mind; but, in the actual struggle with
it, he began to feel a greater degree of consternation. If they say that
this was pretense, it is a most paltry subterfuge. . . . They pretend, that
what is intrinsically bad cannot be justly attributed to Christ; as though
they were wiser than the Spirit of God, who connects these two things
together, that Christ 'was in all points tempted like as we are, yet
without sin.' "" We are led to see, then, that the anxiety of human
finitude is not in itself to be construed to be evil. Nevertheless, it is

11. Ibid., Ill, ii, 17.

12. Ibid.

13. Gordon W. Allport, The Individual and His Religion. N. Y. : Macmillan and Co.
1951, p. 72.

14. Calvin, op. cit., II, xvi, 12.

49

clear at this point that it is the precondition of temptation, but in like
manner, it may be the concomitant of the greatest good. Calvin makes
the point doubly clear by asserting, "These objectors, however, are
deceived in one point: they do not perceive that this infirmity of Christ
was perfectly free from every stain of guilt, because he always kept
himself within the limits of obedience." 15 The implications of this same
affect for good in us are seen in his treatment of prayer as the exercise
of faith, among many other things noting the example of David who
worshipped in fear. Calvin explained, "Under the 'goodness of God'
he comprehends faith, though not to the exclusion of fear; for his
majesty not only commands our reverence, but our own unworthiness
makes us forget all pride and security, and fills us with fear. I do not
mean a confidence which delivers the mind from all sense of anxiety,
and soothes it into pleasant and perfect tranquility; for such a placid
satisfaction belongs to those whose prosperity is equal to their wishes,
who are affected by no care, corroded by no desire, and alarmed by no
fear. And the saints have an excellent stimulus to calling upon God,
when their necessities and perplexities harass and disquiet them, and
they are almost despairing in themselves, till faith opportunely relieves
them; because, amidst such troubles, the goodness of God is so glorious
in their view, that though they groan under the pressure of present
calamities, and are likewise tormented with the fear of greater in the
future, yet a reliance on it alleviates the difficulty of bearing them, and
encourages a hope of deliverance. The prayers of a pious man, there-
fore, must proceed from both these dispositions, and must also contain
and discover them both . . ." 16

Obviously, Calvin knew nothing of neurotic anxiety as we under-
stand it today, although we are certainly not satisfied even with our
present knowledge on the subject. Neurotic anxiety is evident apart
from ontological or normal anxiety in the sense that it is incapacitating
and crippling. Normal anxiety may lead on the one hand into tempta-
tion and the eruption of man's sinful nature, or on the other hand to a
creative struggle with the factors of human finitude resulting in growth
of the person. Neurotic anxiety paralyzes.

Perhaps the most complete and thorough work in the field of
anxiety has been accomplished by Rollo May. 17 Examining alike the
theological, philosophical and psychological explorations of the subject,
he carefully differentiates between normal and neurotic anxiety, noting
that the theologians and philosophers have generally concerned them-
selves with normal anxiety, whereas the psychologists have been
primarily concerned with neurotic anxiety. A failure to differentiate
the two has led to misunderstanding and failure of adequate communi-
cation between these several groups of scholars.

15. Ibid.

16. Ibid., Ill, ii.

17. Rollo May, The Meaning of Anxiety. N. Y.: Ronald Press Co., 1950.

50

May concluded that neurotic anxiety occurs in personality develop-
ment where a condition exists of subtle rejection together with hypo-
critical acceptance of the child on the part of the significant persons in
the child's life, generally the parents. In other words, neurotic anxiety
develops from the experience of rejection by those whose favor the
child desires, whose favor the child continues to seek, and whose favor
the child can never have no matter what the child may do to earn it.

From birth, the child reaches out for affection and acceptance. If
the child is genuinely loved, then the child's capacity for affection is
developed, not by an intellectual presentation or definition of love as an
abstract concept, but by the experience of security born of warmth and
affection. The child loves because the child is first loved. However, if
love is pretended and not genuine, it lacks the depth, warmth and
security of real love. At the same time, the child is constantly assured
that he or she is loved, but this assertion is hypocritical making it
impossible for the child to have a realistic conception of the actual
situation.

One of the studies made by May was of a girl named Frances, a
victim of neurotic anxiety. She suffered no obvious rejection and
emphatically denied that she had been rejected by her foster parents.
At the same time there were constant subtle denials of the overtly
expressed affection. Frances was led to believe that if there was any-
thing wrong with the relation sustained to her foster parents, it was all
her fault. She could only try harder to win their affection, but this
could not be done, because the absence of affection was not her fault.
If her parents had overtly rejected her, and had openly declared their
hatred for her, she would have been in the greatest danger at the time
of such rejection, but the possibility of her psychic recovery would be
far better than the intolerable situation in which she found herself.

This material tells us much about the nature of man. If Calvin was
right in asserting with the ancient philosophers that man is a microcosm,
and if he was right in affirming that a search within the depths of man's
nature with a Christian theological perspective would lead to a greater
understanding of God and His work, then we may assume that such
studies as this may implement our understanding of God and his way
with man. This is not to say that neurotic anxiety is to be confused
with damnation, nor that the absence of neurotic anxiety is in itself an
assurance of salvation. Nevertheless, we would expect by our explora-
tion of this microcosm to find a structure of experience similar to
salvation with much enlightenment as to the significance of the plan of
salvation as revealed to man.

Such seems to be precisely the case. Our emphasis is salvation by
faith alone, a faith born not within man as another good work, but a
faith which is the power of God working in man. "We love, because
he first loved us." The deliverance of a child from a personality fraught

51

with neurotic anxiety is dependent on parental love, not on the basis of
what the child does or does not do, but love given freely simply because
the parents love. Our salvation rests not upon what we do or do not do,
but significantly rests on the fact that without any merit whatsoever of
our own, God loves us. To believe in salvation by works would be to
place man in relation to God precisely as Frances was in relation to her
foster parents, always saying God loves him, but never being certain
nor having any assurance of that as a fact, and always believing that if
there is anything wrong in the relationship he must compensate by what
he as a man must do.

Man has the responsibility of responding to the love and mercy of
God freely given, and if such love is not received it is because man has
not responded to the divine love. At the same time, man cannot
respond to the divine love without the work of the Holy Spirit within
him. Thus, we are brought inevitably to the paradox of predestination
and free will, always inescapable and always mysterious from our finite
perspective.

Nevertheless, here as elsewhere, our understanding of the process
of the cure of souls is illuminated, and unless the paradox of bondage
and freedom is accepted, we are the more confounded. As in the
situation of neurotic anxiety, so is the basic structure of this paradox
seen in man's entire experience, and no effort in pastoral work is
positively effective unless the paradox is accepted explicity or at least
implicitly.

Carl R. Rogers, a leading clinical psychologist, has made significant
observations from his psychotherapeutic experience. He has written,
"For some time I have been perplexed over the living paradox which
exists in psythotherapy between freedom and determinism." He noted
that in therapy the client appears subjectively to be confronted by
"naked choice." At the same time, as a scientist, he noted the causal
sequence of the existential moment leading to a complete determinism.
He concluded, "The fully functioning person . . . not only experiences,
but utilizes, the most absolute freedom when he spontaneously, freely,
and voluntarily chooses and wills that which is absolutely determined." 18
He commented further, "I am quite aware that this is not a new idea to
the philosopher, but it has been refreshing to come upon it from a
totally unexpected angle, in analyzing a concept in personality theory.
For me it provides the rationale for the subjective reality of absolute
freedom of choice, which is so profoundly important in therapy, and at
the same time the rationale for the complete determinism which is the
very foundation stone of science. With this framework I can enter
subjectively the experience of naked choice which the client is experi-
encing; I can also as a scientist, study his behavior as being absolutely
determined." 19 The implications of this for the pastoral theologian are
obvious.

18. Carl R. Rogers, "The Concept of the Fully Functionizing Person." Unpublished
paper, The University of Chicago, 1953, p. 21.

19. Ibid.

52

This predication tells us that the structure of the universe accords
with God's revelation of himself. It informs us that what we have
affirmed theologically is observable. It demonstrates the usefulness of
a theological understanding for pastoral care. It illustrates the imple-
mentation of empirical observations to theological understanding, and
also that theology can and should provide an understanding of the
process of caring for our people. Theology does offer understanding to
the pastor in his daily rounds of service, and it has something of tre-
mendous profundity to offer the scientist in his exploration of man and
his world. We would continue to hold in making these assertions that
the scientific data to be rightly understood must be viewed from a
Christian theological perspective. We would also admit at this point
that this is no effort to explain what is obviously a paradox, i.e., pre-
destination and freedom, but rather to demonstrate the acceptability of
our theological understanding to the situation of modern man.

At this point we would conclude that Calvin's development of
theology does afford an understanding of the process of the cure of
souls, indicating what is involved in the aberrant behavior or sinfulness
of the parishioner and the way in which the Holy Spirit works in and
through the pastor for the salvation of his people.

III. CALVINISM OFFERS AN OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE
FOR THE CURE OF SOULS

These observations lead us to the question: What must the pastor
do in his daily ministry? Granted that he has a framework for under-
standing himself and others; granted that he understands the process
of salvation and its implications for this life and for eternity; what is
the function of the pastor with this understanding?

Again, we emphasize that all the ramifications of such a question
will not be followed. We are not capable of answering all the questions
that arise, and even with our limited understanding, we do not regard
this as the time or place to go into great detail. Rather, our purpose is
to indicate a few ways in which the answers may be found within the
general framework of Calvinism.

Our task, stating it as simply as possible, is to get our theological
affirmations into the stream of life and to see the relevance of what we
declare in faith to the common experiences of man. Our task is to
derive from our work a greater theological understanding as we find
ourselves to be "co-laborers with God."

Calvin has been described as a harsh man, cold and unfeeling. We
believe that such conclusions can be understood but that they are not
justified. They can be understood by reason of the fact that much that
has gone under the name of Calvinism is not true to the work of John
Calvin. He has been greatly misrepresented. We say this with some
reservation, recognizing the difficulty in adequately understanding him,
and that we ourselves may be in error regarding our picture of him.

53

Nevertheless, that Calvin was a pastor can be readily demonstrated not
only in the concern expressed in the Institutes, but also in the Com-
mentaries, and more particularly in his sermons and letters. Jean
Daniel Benoit, French theologian who has done considerable research
in Calvin's pastoral theology, "states boldly that the Geneva Reformer
was more pastor than theologian, that, to be exact, be was a theologian
in order to be a better pastor. In his whole reforming work, he was a
shepherd of souls." 20

Calvin's task was not to seek palliatives, sedatives or aspirin, but
rather to know the truth about man, believing firmly that the greatest
good for man could be accomplished by knowing the truth. That
foundation for truth so essential for his work must come from God and
must be for the glory of God. That which is truth and dedicated to
the glory of God will be for the greatest good of the pastor and those
whom he shall serve.

Calvin wrote in the Institutes, "By means of his ministers, to whom
he has committed this office, and one whom he has bestowed grace to
discharge it, he dispenses and distributes his gifts to the Church, and
even affords some manifestation of his presence, by exerting the power
of his Spirit in this institution, that it may not be vain or ineffectual.
Thus is the restoration of the saints effected; thus is the body of Christ
edified; thus we grow up into him who is our Head in all things, and
are united with each other; thus we are all brought to the unity of
Christ; if prophecy flourishes among us, if we receive the apostles, if
we despise not the doctrine which is delivered to us. . . . For neither the
light and heat of the sun, nor any meat and drink, are so necessary to
the nourishment and sustenance of the present life, as the apostolical
and pastoral office is to the preservation of the Church in the world." 21

As to the nature of the pastoral function, he points out that our
commission is to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments.
Here Calvin has to this day been grossly misunderstood. The misunder-
standing is derived from our lack of comprehension regarding the
phrase "preach the gospel." We have narrowed the conception of
preaching to a pulpit deliverance once or twice a week, and such a
conception constitutes a gross corruption of the pastoral office. Here I
would remind you of the exegetical treatment on preaching delivered
two days ago by my colleague, Professor Richard T. Gillespie. I would
further remind you of the excellent discourse on communication of the
Gospel involving consideration of non-cognitive and non-verbal forms
of communication as explicated by Professor Hubert Vance Taylor. I
would add that the most profound truths of the Gospel must be com-
municated in ways both verbal and non-verbal. This is made quite
clear in the various writings of Calvin, but his example furnishes us a
greater understanding of what is meant.

20. John T. McNeill, A History of the Cure of Souls. N. Y.: Harper and Bros., 1951,
1951, p. 198.

21. Calvin, op. cit., IV, ii.

54

Benoit, examining the life of Calvin, refers to him as "director of
souls." For Protestants, this may sound objectionable because the
phrase is a characteristic title of the Roman Catholic pastor, especially
in France. Benoit 2 " notes however that many Protestants in fact offer
the same spiritual guidance as many of the Roman masters such as
Fenelon and Jean Grou. Fenelon held that spiritual guidance takes
place when one "takes an advice that tends to perfection." The way
Benoit interprets this is that there is not a prior decision to follow the
advice before it is given. Here is the vital distinction between the
advice given by Calvin in the democratic structure he sought to estab-
lish and the authoritarianism of the Roman Church. The parishioner
must be free to accept or reject the advice of the pastor, and thus the
control of the clergy was abolished. John T. McNeill in commenting
on this wrote, "The Protestant director does not claim so much of
authority; nor seek to make permanent the relationship in which he
gives counsel. He is a physician for a crisis who expects his patient to
recover and normally to control his own health; he does not expect to
continue in attendance, examining and prescribing for the patient with
every visit, over an indefinite period." 23

Although this difference in Protestant spiritual direction and the
authoritarianism in the Roman Catholic body is crucial, yet it is subtle,
and we cannot be certain that Calvin or any of the rest of us to the
present hour have escaped some of the pitfalls of this. Still the principle
is understood, and we must seek to follow it. Calvin's manner in this
may be seen in one of his letters to Antoine de Bourbon, King of
Navarre, dated December 14, 1557. He asked the king to read a book
he had addressed to the German Estates fourteen years earlier. He
added, "Not that I desire to lay down rules for you, but because I am
confident that you will not disdain to be instructed." 24 A typical closing
of a pastoral letter is that found in one dated June 10, 1555, addressed
to a French princess, Renee Duchess of Ferrara, "On my part I will
also pray Him that He may always have you in His holy keeping,
increase you in knowledge, zeal and constancy, and in all good, that
you may contribute more and more to His glory." 25 In a later letter
(May 10, 1563) to the same person, he warmly commended her as "a
nursing mother to those poor persecuted brethren" who had sought
refuge in her castle which he referred to as "God's hostelry." 26 In the
same letter, and characteristic of his way of giving advice, he called
her attention to the importance of dealing firmly with a young fellow in
her service who had put aside his wife and taken a mistress. He then
proceeded to remind her of a promise she had made earlier to an old
scholar that she would try to find a husband for his daughter.

22. For the treatment of Benoit's work, I have relied on John T. McNeill, op. cit., 198 ff.
For an excellent treatment of the personality of Calvin, a significant contribution has
been made by McNeill, The History and Character of Calvin. N. Y.: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1954, Chapter XIV, "Calvin's Personality and Historical Importance,"
pp. 226 ff.

23. John T. McNeill, A History of the Cure of Souls, p. 200.

24. Ibid., p. 202.

25. Ibid., p. 203.

26. Ibid.

55

Among his letters were many offering consolation in time of
bereavement. These are not unlike the letters of consolation of the
Church Fathers. McNeill observes "the humanity" of these letters and
has noted, "Calvin, like Cicero, puts no stoical restrain upon natural
grief, while he disapproves irrational mourning, in which he knows his
correspondent will not indulge. "*

From this we would conclude that Calvin in various ways and
especially by example had the same pastoral spirit as that of Martin
Luther who summed up the whole pastoral function by saying, "Be a
little Christ to your neighbor." Here then rests the secret of the cure
of souls. The pastor must seek by the power of God and for the glory
of God to be like Christ, forgiving as he has been forgiven, accepting
as he has been accepted, loving as he has been loved. This we know:
no technique or procedural operation is in itself adequate for the cure
of souls. "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and
have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."

If Calvin appears too stern and a believer in a God too stern, let
us not forget that he also loved and believed in a God of love. He
delivered us from the weak sentimentalities often associated with the
idea of love, and presented us with a course of courage and strength.
To say that Calvin was without feeling, however, is not to understand
him. Consider his hymn:

"I greet Thee, who my sure Redeemer art,
My only Trust and Saviour of my heart.
Who pain didst undergo for my poor sake;
I pray Thee from our hearts all cares to take.
"Our hope is in no other save in Thee;

Our faith is built upon Thy promise free;
Lord, give us peace, and make us calm and sure,
That in Thy strength we evermore endure. "^

27. Ibid., p. 204.

28. John Calvin, Genevan Psalter. 1551. Translated by Elizabeth L. Smith, 1868.

56