Theology Today - Vol 16, No. 2 - July 1959 - TABLETALK

245 - Theological Table-Talk

Theological Table-Talk
By Hugh T. Kerr

THE MINISTRY OF THE LAITY

The fact that a phrase like that is not immediately questioned indicates how far we have come in rehabilitating the laity into the life and work of the Church. Still it would be a mistake to claim too much. Clergy and laity are popular opposites or at least commonly regarded as different in kind and not only in degree or function. It is not surprising to read in a new book, bearing the title A Theology of the Laity (Westminster Press, 1958, pp. 192, $3.00), that the author discovered almost no resource literature on the subject whatever. The author is Hendrik Kraemer, who knows what he is talking about, for he served as the first Director of the Ecumenical Institute at Bossey, Switzerland, where the laity has been a special subject of discussion for years.

Dr. Kraemer complains that the ministers and theologians, the professionals, who make up the working committees of the Faith and Order Department of the World Council of Churches seem unaware of a lesser known and quite unpublicized sister-department in the World Council, namely, the Department of the Laity. It is, he says as strongly as he can, "an inexcusable lack and an indication of a partly mis-oriented understanding of the Church."

The Department of the Laity, quietly but methodically, has been moving forward and making itself and its voice known. It publishes a "Bulletin" called simply Laity (address W.C.C., 17 Route de Malagnou, Geneva, Switzerland), and in the December, 1958, issue we read that the Department henceforth will have associated with it in the publication of its journal the Department on the Cooperation of Men and Women in Church and Society. Hans-Ruedi Weber is Executive Secretary of the Laity Department and Madeleine Barot of the Men and Women Department.

246 - Theological Table-Talk

The editorial in the December issue begins with a quotation from a reader:

You seem to be fascinated by your so-called frontier experiments. You always speak about the training centers, laymen's rallies, daring ventures in industrial evangelism, new community projects, etc That is all very well. But where does the quite normal, you may say "traditional" local Church come in, my parish or congregation with its church building where my wife and I go to worship and where my kids have their Sunday School? You know, this is my Church and not so much all the experiments and conferences you are talking about.

In answer to this justifiable question, the editors of this number undertake to show in a series of vignettes just how local churches different denominations and countries operate and function, especially as to the laity.

Roman Catholics are also interested in the modern place of the laity, though they have different problems and in some ways more difficulty than Protestants in making even a theoretical place for the layman. It is suggestive, for example, that in Gustave Weigel's latest book, Faith and Understanding in America (Macmillan, 1959, p. 170, $3.75), almost nothing is said of the laity. In a chapter on "An Introduction to American Catholicism," Father Weigel, who is Professor of Ecclesiology at Woodstock College, Maryland, and one of the most articulate apologists of the Roman Church, discusses three traits of American Catholicism which distinguish it from some other geographical varieties. These he lists as follows: (1) "Catholicism is not something traditionally inherent in the American way of life," (2) in America the Catholic tends to be "more activist than contemplative," and (3) "American culture is highly respectful of religion and piety" contrary to the European conviction that this is the land of materialism, "the proper home of the tawdry and the vulgar." But nowhere in this chapter does the laity appear as a distinguishing mark of Roman Catholicism either in America or elsewhere.

Another Roman Catholic, who also comes from abroad, and is at present in the United States, picks out this special topic for the subject of a little book, and it takes off where Father Weigel stops. George H. Tavard, ordained in France but currently Lecture in Theology at Assumption College, Worcester, Massachusetts, has just published The Church, The Layman, and the Modern World (Mac-

247 - Theological Table-Talk

millan, 1959, pp. 84, $2.00). "An increasing section of the Catholic laity is awake to the problems of liturgical participation, of apostolate, of temporal responsibility. This increasing section still forms a minority. Those who have yet to experience this awakening have missed something that rightly belongs to them."

Questions about the laity involve prior questions about ministry, priesthood, Church, and congregation, and these distinctions are not always clear and unambiguous in the New Testament itself. T. W. Manson, Professor at Manchester, England, delivered two lectures recently which have now been put together in a little volume called Ministry and Priesthood: Christ's and Ours (John Knox Press, 1959, pp. 76, $1.50).

In the second of Professor Manson's lectures, the Biblical basis of "the priesthood of all believers" is examined. "Whatever may have been the position in the Church of the New Testament," he writes, "there could certainly be no opposition between priests and laymen in the Reformed [Calvinistic] Church, since no real place was left for priests to exist in it. In the Zwinglian ideal there is no opposition either, for there are no laymen. Every member of the Church is his own priest and his own offering. In Lutheranism also the opposition has been done away: all are priests, and the priestly task is that of intercession. The sharp contrast between Calvinism, with no priests, on the one hand, and Zwinglianism and Lutheranism, with no laymen, on the other, arises from different conceptions of the priestly functions."

The Reformation confusion which contemporary Protestants have inherited is rooted in Biblical difficulties, and Professor Manson holds-though not all would agree here-that "priest" in the Bible is an administrative rather than a sacerdotal term." Thus he stresses the "pragmatic" test, since what is important is the "function" of the ministry and laity, and "no ministry is essential to the Church in the sense that the Church could not exist without it."

WHAT IS CHRISTIANITY?

One way to realize how times change, in theology as in other matters, is to note how fashions in questions set one age over against another. Tillich has reminded us anew of the inevitable relation be-

248 - Theological Table-Talk

between questions and answers. Before him, Thomas Aquinas constructed a massive structure of theology on an intricate network of questions and answers. And much before that, some of the most, treasured of the sayings of Jesus are set in the Gospels as replies to questions. Perhaps no theology is worth much if it does not rise out of questions. But questions have a way of becoming dated like a Prince Albert coat. A theology built in response to questions no one is asking will scarcely be able to present the Gospel as startling Good News.

The query-"What is Christianity?"-is fast becoming, if it has not already become, a dated question. That is not to say it is unimportant, or that it should not be raised, or even that there are not many still who do ask the question. The point is that this question which once seemed so basic and crucial is no longer clear itself and is, in fact, so ambiguous that it produces a chain reaction of other questions. When Feuerbach and Harnack and Loisy asked the question, it was unmistakably the question that had to be raised and answered. But a little later Troeltsch began to question the question, and Kierkegaard introduced a subtle but profound change in the question's inflection by asking not what is Christianity but "what is a Christian?" Walter Lowrie once observed that Harnack's question is open to several possible meanings. Does it mean what was Christianity, or what it became, or what it is now, or what it ought to be? The Biblical theologians answer the first question with ready unanimity as the kerygma; the historians can tell us what Christianity became; the sociologists can compute its current status and role; and everyone can speak his mind on what he thinks Christianity ought to be.

These random reflections are provoked by reading a little essay by the late, beloved Donald Baillie of St. Andrews, Scotland. His brother, John, has edited a new collection of sermons and lecture which covers a wide range of topics, and the book will be eagerly read by all those who know in advance what to expect (Out of Nazareth, by D. M. Baillie, Scribner's, 1959, pp. 211, $3.50). The lecture to which reference was made is entitled "What is Dead and What is Living in Christianity." It is the old question again, but Donald Baillie observes some of the contemporary problems which have a way of redirecting the question or at least of posing additional questions.

249 - Theological Table-Talk

He observes, for example, "that it is impossible to distinguish between what is living and what is dead in Christianity by selecting home doctrines and dropping others." We simply do not have this kind of freedom because the Christian faith is bound up with "the unity of 'the organism of Christian truth.' " Another method of answering the question is to drop whatever in Christianity is merely historical in order to emphasize the eternal and timeless truths of the faith. But this won't do either because "Christianity in its very essence is an historical religion." Is, then, the method of "demythologizing" a possibility for us? Yes, it is, but Donald Baillie shows considerable resistance to and criticism of this position and clearly does not advocate it as the answer.

The lecture is a good one, and yet there is something dated about it even though it comes up to the Bultmann controversy. Baillie's conclusion is that "the task of theology has to be undertaken over and over again," which is only another way of saying that last generation's answer won't satisfy our generation. It is also true, and this Baillie doesn't seem to sense, that the questions themselves change. Perhaps for our day the big question is not so much what is dead and living in Christianity as a faith, or ultimate concern, or even as New Testament kerygma-but what is dead and living in Christendom as an historical continuum, or as institution, or as Church, or even as theology.

A UNITED CHURCH CREED

The Church, it has been said, is not in danger when it writes creeds but when it stops writing them. A new creed of more than local interest has been prepared for the newly constituted United Church of Christ-the merger and union of the General Council of the Congregational Christian Churches and the Evangelical and Reformed Church. This United Church which was formed in 1957 has four major historical and denominational roots, some American, European, some "Presbyterian" in polity, some "Independent," some traditionally creedal, some violently autonomous and anticreedal. Looking from a distance, it might seem that no such mix could yield unanimity on either polity or doctrine. Move in a closer then and take a good look-it has happened!

250 - Theological Table-Talk

A Commission to Prepare a Statement of Faith was set up of ministers, pastors, laymen, and professors, with Elmer Arndt of Eden Theological Seminary as Chairman and Douglas Horton of Harvard as Vice-Chairman. Of the thirty men and women, many names are well-known, as for example, John Dillenberger, Frederick Herzog, Allen Miller, Roger Shinn, Bela Vassady, Beatrice McConnell (the first woman to be ordained in the Evangelical and Reformed Church), John Bennett, Nels Ferré, Roger Hazelton, Walter Horton, Richard Niebuhr, Daniel Williams, etc.

In describing the Statement, James E. Wagner, President of the Evangelical and Reformed Church, has said that it is to be used "as a testimony, not as a test, of faith . . . a true confession of faith, not a cudgel of conformity." It has, he says, a liturgical quality in line with the saying that "a creed ought to be sung rather than said." The Statement is herewith printed in full:

We believe in God, the Eternal Spirit, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and our Father, to whose deeds we gladly testify:

He calls the worlds into being, creates man in His own image, an sets before him the ways of life and death.

He seeks in holy love to save His people from aimlessness and sin.

He judges men and nations by His righteous will declared through prophets and apostles.

In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth, Our crucified and risen Lord He has come to us, shared our common lot, conquered sin and death, and reconciled the world to Himself.

He bestows upon us His Holy Spirit, creating and renewing the Church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of ages, tongues, and races.

He calls us into His Church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be His servants in the service of men, to proclaim the Gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil, to share Christ's baptism and cat at His table, to join Him in His passion and victory.

He promises, to all who trust Him, forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, His present in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in His kingdom which has no end.

Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto Him. Amen.

251 - Theological Table-Talk

NOW YOU SEE IT; NOW YOU DON'T

It is one of the oddities of the television age that matters of taste and censorship are much more complicated for TV than they have been for either the movies or for radio. Many older movies, for example, originally passed by the Motion Picture Code Review Board, are currently censored for TV audiences because of objectionable material. To radio, TV has added the dimension of sight, but stark visual reality is sometimes less acceptable than what can only be imagined by the hearing ear.

A survey of many of these problems and their significance for TV and for our culture today has been made available in one of the "Occasional Papers" published by the Fund for the Republic. It is called Taste and the Censor in Television and has been prepared by Charles Winick, a social scientist who has taught at M.I.T., Columbia and New York University (address the Fund for the Republic, Inc., 60 East 42nd Street, New York 17, New York; single copies free).

A few sample quotations may be of interest. Politics and Government: "Television has been uninterested in providing continuing and significant coverage of the political scene . . . mass media are becoming less emancipated in their presentation of political subjects, as they become more emancipated in their presentation of sex themes."

Religion: "Religion is an area of continuing audience complaint. . . The networks have generally allotted free time to the faiths on the basis of one-half for Protestants, one-third for Catholics, and one-sixth for Jews. Less than one percent of total network time is devoted to religion. . . . References to religion are generally treated with great caution on all programs."

Special Interests: "Among the varied interests that have complained to one network over a relatively short period of time were: dentists� warehousemen . . . gas companies . . . toupee manufacturers� securities dealers . . . leather manufacturers . . . pharmacists� dry cleaners . . . waitresses. . . . The mother of a son called Melvin objected to so many simpletons in television being called Melvin. Labor unions have been one of the very few major groups that have almost never complained. . . . But if the boots of every segment of the television audience were considered, the nation's television screens would be blank."

252 - Theological Table-Talk

Liquor: "A special group to which all media are sensitive is the, prohibitionist element in the population . . . drys protesting alcoholic beverage advertising have probably been responsible for more organized mailing of protest letters than any other group. Television networks and stations do not carry advertising for hard liquor. . . . No other communications medium is currently prohibited from doing so."

Ethnic and Racial: "Television seldom shows Negroes as a part of an American crowd, at a sports or political gathering, or in a normal business situation. . . . There is no doubt that the Negro has been the most consistently slandered of all ethnic and racial groups. . . . There has not been one major dramatic show during prime time dealing with the central issue of desegregation."

Comments such as these are not apt to make sensitive viewers settle comfortably in their chairs before the TV screen. There are, however, a few positive gains which also need to be mentioned. The present survey notes that in religious programs viewers by and large fail "to identify the denomination represented on a program they had viewed." This may be bad "advertising," but the fact that audiences are more likely to look upon religious programs as presenting broad truths rather than having the identifying features of any one faith" is not necessarily bad at all. We are told that humane societies are persistent in their complaints against cruelty to animals and that therefore networks "show great deference to the wishes of the humane societies." But this may not be "special interest" pres sure so much as a leveling-up process on the part of the public's attitude toward animals. Again it is said that "bathroom humor, Bronx cheers, nose-thumbing, vulgar language, and spitting represent the kind of program content broadcasters are likely to cut because of its crudity." But why not take into account the possibility that however crude we may be, there has been some public education along this line?

On other matters both great and small, television has raised questions for which we do not yet have adequate answers. For example the question of violence as portrayed on TV with almost monotonous frequency cannot be easily evaluated. If violence "may have an impact on some disturbed young people," it is also a fact that "there is not enough evidence for us to assume that violence a television is automatically and necessarily damaging to the viewer."

253 - Theological Table-Talk

THE BEGINNING AND THE END

"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church." This ancient dictum is usually related with martyrs long since dead and perhaps almost forgotten. The young German theologian-pastor, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was imprisoned and killed under Hitler, has up-dated the old pious statement, and far from being forgotten, his name seems to be known in ever-widening circles. Several of his books, papers, letters, and essays have been published after his death, and it is significant that these writings, so obviously written in haste and with an eerie foreboding of what was in store for the author, seem to speak with special relevance and meaning to contemporary theological students. This is particularly the case with The Cost of Discipleship and the Ethics. Could it be that on both subjects there has been so little said of real value in our generation, and that the present divinity student-with all his domesticity-senses something of the radical perspective of the brilliant but doomed young man who was cut down before his time?

A newly published booklet by Bonhoeffer occasions further reflections along this line. It is Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3 (Macmillan, 1959, pp. 96, $1.50). "That the Bible should speak of the beginning," writes Bonhoeffer, "provokes the world and irritates us. For we cannot speak of the beginning; where the beginning begins our thinking stops, it comes to in end. . . . There can therefore be nothing more disturbing or agitating for man than to hear someone speak of the beginning as though it were not the totally ineffable, unutterably dark beyond of our blind existence. . . . No one can speak of the beginning but the one who was in the beginning."

Bonhoeffer's approach to Genesis is a Christo-centric One, sub specie Christi, and so creation or the beginning is linked in the Church's theology with consummation or the end. "Within the old world the Church speaks of the new world. And because the Church is more certain of the new world than of anything else it recognizes the old world only in the light of the new. The old world cannot take pleasure in the Church because the Church speaks of its end as though it had already happened-as though the world had already been judged."

The commentary moves on this plane through the first three Chapters of Genesis and concludes with a symbolic word about the

254 - Theological Table-Talk

relation of Cain to Christ. "The whole story of death begins with Cain. Adam, preserved on the way to death and consumed with thirst for life, begets Cain, the murderer. . . . Christ on the Cross, the murdered Son of God, is the end of the story of Cain and thus the actual end of the story. This is the last desperate storming of the gate of paradise. And under the flaming sword, under the Cross, mankind dies. But Christ lives."

And then this final doxology, so autobiographical of the author, and so meaningful in his exegesis: "What a strange paradise is the hill of Golgotha, this Cross, this blood, this broken body! What a strange tree of life, this tree on which God himself must suffer and die-but it is in fact the Kingdom of Life and of the Resurrection given again by God in Grace; it is the opened door of imperishable hope, of waiting and of patience. The tree of life, the Cross of Christ, the middle of the fallen and preserved world of God, for us that is the end of the story of paradise."