CHRlSTiANITY TODAY AND THE ESSBES OF THE RACIAL CONFLECT ANB ECGNOMIC CAPITALESEE EETWEER 1956 AN!) E968 “taste {in}? (“Em Degree ‘3? M. A. WCHMM SUITE UHIVERSYI'Y Robert Stephen Zawoysky 1972 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 1293 10474 5397 I LIBRA‘Q ‘3, MIChlg3l‘1 Siam? University ABSTRACT CHRISTIANITY TODAY AND THE ISSUES OF THE RACIAL CONFLICT AND ECONOMIC CAPITALISM BETWEEN 1956 AND 1968 By Robert Stephen Zawoysky Christianity Today, a theological journal founded in 1956, was one of the most significant publications of its kind to appear in the last half of the twentieth century. By circulation figures alone it ranked near the top for religious publications in the United States. The large circulation precipitated criticism from other religious periodicals, however, since Christianity_Today carried an extensive free subscription list during the first years of its publication. The criticism was that Christianity Today was insti- tuted by certain wealthy industrialists to promote their own conservative views on religious, political, social and economic issues. J. Howard Pew, chairman of the board of Sun Oil Company, was named as one of the wealthy opportunists. Carl F. H. Henry, journalist, theologian, and editor of Christianity Today from its inception until 1968, was significantly involved in the controversy. Critics of Christianity_Today_predicted that Henry and the financial subsidizers could not work together since they supported opposing views on many important issues. From the basis of this controversy, an intensive Robert Stephen Zawoysky study was initiated. The editorial columns of Christianity Togay_were perused from the first issue in 1956 to the last issue of Henry's editorship in 1968. Every editorial deal- ing with the racial conflict in the United States and eco— nomic capitalism was noted carefully. A study of the writings of Carl F. H. Henry was also undertaken. This included reading most of his eighteen published volumes. Part of this study was under the guidance of a professor in the Department of Religion at Michigan State University. Personal correspondence was used to clarify some issues that were uncovered in the reading. This included cor- respondence with Henry and other prominent staff members of Christianity_Today, The study revealed a static editorial policy con— cerning economic capitalism. Biblical theology and economic capitalism were linked with an undefined inner logic. In one instance, Henry's View expressed in a speech prior to his becoming editor of Christianity Today was more critical of economic capitalism than anything published in the edi- torial columns of Christianity Today during his editorship. A distinct change in editorial policy with regard to the racial conflict was discovered after 1963. Before that date the issues of individual choice and state's rights were emphasized in most editorials dealing with the racial conflict. The rights of the individual and the state were pre—empted by a concern for the constitutional rights of Robert Stephen Zawoysky the Negro minority after 1963. Henry even acknowledged this change in personal correspondence. This study endeavors to establish Christianity Today as an important voice in United States Protestantism by its extensive circulation and the attempt of the editors to involve the conservative Protestant church in contempo— rary problems. CHRISTIANITY TODAY AND THE ISSUES OF THE RACIAL CONFLICT AND ECONOMIC CAPITALISM BETWEEN 1956 AND 1968 By Robert Stephen Zawoysky A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism College of Communication Arts 1972 Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master Director of Thesis' of Arts degree. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am greatly indebted to W. Cameron Meyers, my major professor and adviser, for the many hours he devoted to conversation with me and reading drafts of the thesis. His suggestions and encouragement were greatly appreciated. Much valuable information was received through personal correspondence with Carl F. H. Henry and L. Nelson Bell. The technical aspects of form and typing were capably handled by my wife, Maree. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I. CHRISTIANITY TODAY: . ITS BEGINNING IN CONTROVERSY Fundamentalist Renascence The Inception of Christianity Today The Controversy II. THE CHURCH AND THE ECONOMY. The Concept of Labor Labor-Management III. THE CHURCH AND RACIAL CONFLICT. The Role of the Church in Racial Conflict Critical Comment on the Racial Conflict Positive Comments on the Racial Issue Solutions to the Racial Issue IV. CONCLUSIONS Economic Capitalism The Racial Conflict BIBLIOGRAPHY iv 26 57 9O 99 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1. Comparison of Subscriptions 3 CHAPTER I Christianity Today: Its Beginning in Controversy "God must love religious publications; He makes so many of them."1 To this peal of skepticism, Newsweek, a weekly news magazine of general circulation, welcomed the first issue of Christianity Today in October, 1956. But Christianity Today was by no means another aver— age religious publication. The projected circulation figure of the interdenominational Protestant theological journal attested to that fact. "Christianity Today, charging that liberal theology has failed, calls for return to 'truly biblical preaching' and hopes its evangelical message will reach 200,000 readers.”2 Other prominent interdenominational religious publi— cations in the United States in 1956 included in the Newsweek article were the Christian Herald, circulation A27,957; Chris— tian Century, 37,1A7; and Christianity and Crisis, A,750.3 The Christian Herald, however, is a popular magazine for 1"The Word in Print," Newsweek, Oct- 22, 1956, P- 73- 21bid. 3N. W. Ayer & Son's Directory 9f_Newspapers and Periodicals (Philadelphia: N. w. Ayer & Son, Inc., 1957), pp. l3SA-l390. general circulation, and cannot be considered a theological journal as are the remaining two. It is therefore evident that in terms of circulation alone, Christianity Today pro- posed to become one of the nation's most widely read theo- logical journals. Table 1 compares the circulation figures of Christianity Today_with those of Christian Centugy. The free subscription list totals are also included for Chris— tianiteroday_as reported in N. E. Ayer & Son's Directogy of Newspapers and Periodicals. Under the contention that Christianity Today_became one of the most influential theological journals in the United States from its first issue to the time of this study, it is the purpose of this study to investigate the editorial policy of Christianity_Today_with regard to economic capi— talism and the racial conflict. These two issues were of national significance during the years of Carl F. H. Henry's editorship of Christianity_Today, 1956-1968, which is the period here considered. But before the two issues can be analyzed, the place of Christianity Today in the religious life of the United States must be established. Christianity_Today made its appeal to the conserva— tive wing of the Protestant church, often called Fundamen- talists or evangelicals. These conservatives were constit- uents in the memberships of most of the large Protestant denominations in the United States as well as in many of the smaller denominations. They lacked a common voice to reach across denominational lines and unite the conservatives as TABLE 1 COMPARISON OF SUBSCRIPTIONS Christianity Today Year Christian Century Paid Free Total 1958 162,429 37,147 1959 163,271 37,000 1960 29,212 130,456 159,668 36,000 1961 35,010 141,178 176,188 36,500 1962 38,208 140,657 178,865 37,500 1963 36,422 139,138 175,560 38,000 1964 36,422 139,138 175,560 38,000 1965 94,642 128,792 223,434 40,000 1966 141,137 108,573 249,710 43,000 1967 132,211 107,906 240,117 43,000 1968 151,137 88,083 239,220 40,000 Sources: Helen Koch to author, Dec. 2, 1971. N. W. Ayer & Son‘s Directory of Newspapers and PerIodicals_(Philadelphia: NT—W. Ayer & Son, Inc., 1958-1968). Christian Centu§y_had united the liberals. This unification became one of the goals of Christianitnyoday-—to be the united voice of the Protestant conservatives. The New York Times confirmed accomplishment of this goal in 1967 when it reported that "the journal [Christianity Today] is to evan- gelicals what the Christian Century is to liberals.“I Chris— tianitnyoday_followed closely the format of Christian Century in 1956, using a similar quality of stock with 8 1/2— by 11—inch pages and varied column width between two and three columns per page. Christianity Today, however, con— sistently carried more pages per issue, averaging between forty and sixty, while Christian Centu§y_carried between thirty and forty. Both were published bi—weekly. Appealing to the conservatives was not an easy task, for being scattered throughout the divisions of Protestantism their beliefs varied as much as their denominational affili— ations. Conservatism became a Visible movement within the Protestant church in the United States about 1910, with the publication of a series of books entitled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. These professed to set forth the five fundamental Christian truths. More than 2,500,000 copies of the twelve volumes were published. "The doctrines set forth as fundamental were the Virgin birth of Christ, the physical resurrection, the inerrancy of the Scriptures in every respect, the substitutionary theory of the atonement, ”New York Times, Dec. 30, 1967, p. 11. and the imminent, physical Second Coming of Christ."5 The emphasis of these fundamentals received enthusi— astic welcome by many conservative Protestant clergymen. The battle against the scientific attitude and the social gospel of modernism or liberalism also attracted more con— servative followers. It was a battle against liberal Christianity as it sought to relate meaningfully to modern life. The Liberal Movement in Protestantism has been an attempt to rethink Christianity in forms that are meaningful for a world that is dominated by science and subject to rap- id change. Protestant liberals-—more than other Chris- tian groups--stress the right of individuals to decide for themselves what is true in religion, and they react to the challenge of modernism and science by refusing to accept religious belief on authority alone. All be- liefs must pass the test of reason. The Liberal, there— fore, accepts biblical criticigm, discoveries in the new sciences, and human evolution. The Fundamentalist movement was a reaction against liberalism's denial of the supernatural in religion and its emphasis on human reason. The philosophies of such men as Kant, Hegel, Scheiermacher, and Ritschl led many Protestants away from biblical Christianity. These philosophers, com- bined with the rising prestige of the natural sciences and technological advancements, influenced many educated people to consider Christian supernaturalism a relic of the past.7 5William Warren Street, The Story of Religions in America (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1930), p. 511. 6W. Seward Salisbury, Religion in_American Culture (Homewood, 111.: Dorsey Press, 1964), p. 120. 7Ronald H. Nash, The New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 19637: pp. 21, 22. Fundamentalism could not accept the test of reason as a basis for religious faith. But in its zeal to protect traditional Christianity against a movement toward rational— ism, the Fundamentalists often went to such extremes as to alienate other conservative theologians, especially in the Lutheran and Presbyterian bodies. In their reaction against the principle of Modernism that the Bible is subject to the same literary criticism as every human document, many conservatives . resorted to a theory of mechanical inspiration and extreme litgralism, which brought discredit upon Fundamental1sm. The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy raged between 1910 and 1930. Darwin's theory of evolution was a direct contradiction of the Bible, according to the Funda— mentalists, and they fought to keep the teaching of evolu— tion out of the public schools. Their battle with science and scientists was not a battle of wits. The Fundamentalists had no leaders with impressive training. Their champions were men of zeal and conviction, primarily from the rural South where academic standards fell far below those existing in most parts of the country. Ignorance was a feature of the movement. It be- came a badge that was often worn proudly. Higher education was considered a handicap in seeking the Kingdom of God.9 8F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies oi America (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p. 482. 9Norman F. Furniss, The Fundamentalist Controversy, 1918—1931 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), pp. 38, 39. The Fundamentalists met defeat after defeat, and finally lost hold of the major denominations of Protestant- ism in the United States. Many Fundamentalists withdrew to form separate denominations that continued to subdivide as Fundamentalist fought Fundamentalist. Theologically, Fun- damentalism appeared to be dead.10 But this was a premature pronouncement. In the period during and following World War II signs of life be- gan to appear in various Fundamentalist circles. Seminaries began receiving more students with Fundamentalist beliefs. Much of the growth of church membership was in the more conservative Fundamentalist churches. And although their congregations were drawn from lower-income groups, Funda— mentalist churches usually raised more money per member than more liberal congregations. There were signs of new life in many areas of Fundamentalism.ll Fundamentalist Renascence This surge of new life in the Fundamentalist move- ment was termed a "Fundamentalist Renascence" by Arnold W. Hearn, writing in the Christian Centugy, Something has been happening within Fundamentalism. Away from centers of ecclesiastical power and theologi— cal education in the major denominations, there has been a remarkable renascence of intellectual activity among Fundamentalist scholars, several of whom have studied in centers like Basel and Zurich and hold doctorates from lOWilliam Hordern, New Directions in Theology_Today (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966), p. 75. lllbid. such places as Harvard and Boston. The periodical Christianity Today has made its appearance, counting President Eisenhower's pastor among the contributing editors. The latest volume of apologetics from the pen of the president of Fuller Theological Seminary [a Funda— mentalist Seminary] has been put before the public by a front rank publisher. And Billy Graham storms city after city under the auspices of "respectable" churches. 2 Christianity Today became one of the leaders in this Fundamentalist renascence. And the editor of the journal for its first twelve years, Carl F. H. Henry, became an activist in the movement. He was typical of the young rena— scence scholars across the country, who rejected the term Fundamentalist as both abusive and meaningless in describing their theological position. They were conscious of the short- comings of their theological fathers and wished to remold tradition. "They were as concerned as the liberals of an earlier day were to make Christianity relevant to the modern age, but they were determined not to repeat what they saw as the errors of liberalism."13 These scholars returned to their denominations and their seminaries to revitalize the theology that had hard— ened during the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. They can be classified as conservative because they desired to preserve the truth and values of the past, while keeping their minds open to change. The designation "new con- servative" or "evangelical" was preferred by the young renascence scholars and may help distinguish this group l2Arnold W. Hearn, "Fundamentalist Renascence," Christian Century, LXXV (April 30, 1958), 528. l3Hordern, New Directions, p. 75. from the movement that continued to be referred to as the Fundamentalists. "This latter group was the 'radical right' of the theological world, and it is often allied with the radical right of the political world."1LI Writing in the Catholic World, Carl F. H. Henry called these Fundamentalists the "hard rock" variety because they refused to engage in dialogue with those of differing views, whom they considered unfaithful to the Gospel. Dr. Carl McIntire of the American Council of Christian Churches (A.C.C.C.) was a good example of the extreme right in Fundamentalism. He condemned the National Council and World Council of Churches and all members who belonged to the organizations as apostate. Evangelicals outside his organization, the A.C.C.C., were frequently misrepresented, along with their institutions and projects. Fundamentalists like Carl McIntire, Bob Jones, Sr., and John R. Rice had stamped the Fundamentalist movement with the image of irresponsible criticism from which many evangelicals eagerly dissociate themselves. Such a climate of emo- tional and distortive propaganda supplies little promise of dialogue aimed at understanding; the "hard rock" Fundamentalists promote the "conversion" of outsiders to attitudes that many evangelicals are eager to avoid.15 The young renascence scholars had not wavered on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy or any of the other basic doctrines of Fundamentalism. But neither did they exhaust themselves in their theological defense. luIbid. 15Carl F. H. Henry, "Fundamentalists and the Faith," Catholic World, CCV (June, 1967), 149, 150. 10 The writing of such men as Bernard Ramm, Edward John Carnell, Dirk Jellema, Carl F. H. Henry, Warren C. Young and Paul K. Jewett, the publications of the Evan— gelical Theological Society and some of the volumes of the Pathway Book series [Eerdmans] reveal thought which has a theological concern, is abreast with developments in philosophy and theology, endeavors to deal honestly with the findings of natural science, manifests an interest in social ethics and is striving to attain a more tgan moralistic approach to literature and the arts.1 The new approach was critical of the ethical stance taken by earlier Fundamentalists. Henry's book, The Uneasy Conscience 9£_Modern Fundamentalism, published in 1948, was one of the beginnings of the Fundamentalist renascence. It charged earlier Fundamentalism with neglect of its obliga- tion to society. Fundamentalism had come to mean more than a particular theology. It became a puritanical form of personal ethics. And while Henry's book was one of the first expressions of the new conservatism, he developed an ethical concern that has not been matched in evangelical l7 circles. The Inception of Christianity_Today In this climate of effort toward understanding in evangelical Protestantism, Christianity_Today_was born. The young renascence scholars were scattered throughout many denominations and educational institutions in America. They needed a national voice to unite them and to serve as a means of both self-expression and of propaganda. l6Hearn, "Fundamentalist Renascence," p. 529. l7Hordern, New Directions, p. 78. 11 The idea for an outspoken evangelical theological journal was attributed to Billy Graham, international evangelist, as early as 1953. Graham, however, must have realized that he had neither the time nor the educational background to head such a journal. He therefore shared his idea with his father-in—law, L. Nelson Bell, a medical doctor, who said he had a similar idea. Dr. Bell soon gave up his medical practice to become the new journal's first promoter and later executive editor. His first major task was to establish financial support for the publication. Dr. Bell noted that there were over a thousand individuals who con- tributed to the work of Christianitnyod_y_during the first years of its publication. The donors were members of every major Protestant denomination. Only about $300, ,00% had been pledged by the date of the first issue. The close family relationship between Dr. Bell and Billy Graham brought some criticism of the journal as being a pulpit for Billy Graham from which he could express his views. Graham frequently had articles published in Chais- tianity Today. In the beginning it was even suggested that Graham should make Christianity Today the official publica- tion of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association. But he decided against such action, and soon after he founded Decision magazine to serve the needs of the B.G.E.A. By 1965, the monthly publication Decision had a circulation of 18L. Nelson Bell to author, July 16, 1969. 12 more than three million, which included several foreign language editions.19 "Christianity Today, therefore, has been independent editorially and in every way from the start, but it owed much to Graham's judgment in its early days."20 Graham "is considered an 'evangelical' but not a 'Fundamentalist.'"21 The author of Billy Graham's authorized biography praised Christianity Today, saying, "It [had] stimulated new writers and thinkers, provided a forum for the sifting of ideas, [had] helped lift evangelicals out of their anti- intellectual mire, and [had] directed or clarified the theological views of many ministers and laymen who were "22 trudging aimlessly in a welter of second-hand liberalism. The only criticism of Christianity Today recorded by Billy Graham was that in its desire to be thoroughly theo- logical, it had become almost obtuse. "It has settled down to become a strong, intelligent medium of news and opinion ,"23 Graham's biographer suggests. Aside from gathering financial support, L. Nelson Bell was also instrumental in the organization of a board of trustees for Christianity Today, which was formed in 19John Pollack, Billy Graham: The Authorized Biography (New York: McGraw—Hill, 19667, p. 241. 20Ibid., p. 171. 21Salisbury, Religion in American Culture, p. 121. 22Pollack, Billy Graham, p. 172. 23Ibid. 13 1955.24 A list of more than fifty contributing editors was composed of Protestant churchmen from center to right in theology. A broadened appeal was attained through an in- creased editorial menu, adding a larger variety of articles, departments, and features than one religious periodical usually carried. But the most astute move of the organizers, the editor of Christianity and Crisis observed, "was their choice of the editor-in-chief: the eminent conservative theologian and Baptist minister, Carl F. H. Henry who holds a Th.D. from Northern Baptist Seminary and a Ph.D. from Boston University."25 Henry originally had agreed to be editor for only one year. He later decided, upon the request of the Board of Directors of Christianity Today, to retain the editorship for twelve years.26 Henry wanted to create a publication to compete with the liberal Christian Centugy, which [said] Henry, "always spoke out of the left side of its mouth, whether on theological, political, or economic matters." From the start, Henry found a large readership among conservative Protestants who nonetheless belonged to liberal, ecumenical Protestant denominations. "There was little point in fishing in only Fundamentalist waters," he [recalled]. "Except for internal conflict, the Fundamentalists had hardened into a monologue. So we fished for evangelicals where the ecumenical whale had inconsiderately swallowed Ehem, and it was remark- able how many Jonahs emerged." 2uIbid., p. 171. 25Christianityand Crisis, XVIII (Oct. 27, 1958), 148, 149. 26 L. Nelson Bell to author, January 22, 1971. 27"Mr. Inside," Newsweek, Jan. 15, 1968, p. 71. 14 After twelve years of his editorship, Newsweek re- ported that he had combined the rationalism of the medieval scholastic philosopher with the polemics of a Protestant sectarian in his doctrinal defenses. "He can-—and has—— argued the merits of theologians like Rudolph Bultman and Paul Tillich; but in the same breath he is apt to bury more recent, radical theologians in fancy denunciation."28 The Newsweek article, announcing Henry's resignation from the editorship of Christianity_Today, characterized him as "Mr. Inside" of conservative Protestantism, while the "flamboyant" Billy Graham was "Mr. Outside." Graham char— acterized Henry as the professor, while he himself was the student. And through his researching and writing more than twenty published works, as well as his influence as editor of Christianity_Today, Henry had become the arbiter in de- fining and defending conservative Protestantism.29 Christianity Today editors, after Henry's resigna- tion, credited much of the journal's success to Henry's sensitivity to the importance of a comprehensive news sec— tion. That they said, could be attributed to Henry's back- ground as correspondent and newspaper editor on Long Island.30 Henry had edited the Smithtown Star and the Port Jefferson Times—Echo and was suburban correspondent for the New York 28Ibid. 29Ibid. 3OChristianityToday, XII (Sept. 27, 1968), 29. 15 Times, the New York Herald Tribune, and the Standard News l Association.3 He gave up his newspaper career to enter seminary. Under Henry's direction, Christianity Today_became one of the few religious publications that "demonstrated that it is possible to work theologically within tradition and at the same time to keep the mind of the whole church on the vital context of theological reflection."32 It is ap- parent that Christianity Today_has been successful, and that it has both fostered and been fostered by the Fundamentalist renascence. But the movement came at a critical time in the history of the church. It was able to provide an alterna- tive to neo—orthodoxy and post—Barthian liberalism. The success of the renascence movement and of Christianiteroday confirmed the fact that the trend after 1914 was prevail— ingly conservative.33 The founding of Christianity Today occurred in the right place at the right time. With the generous financial backing of industrialists such as J. Howard Pew, chairman of the board of Sun Oil Company, Christianity_Today was able to be circulated to most American Protestant clergymen without charge for almost twelve years. And while some clergymen did not appreciate the free literature, "it attracted a 310ar1 F. H. Henry to author, Jan. 26, 1971. 32Daniel Day Williams, What Present-Day Theologians Are Thinking_(New York: Harper & Row, 1959), p. 47. 33Stephen Neill (ed.), Twentieth Century Christianigy (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1963), p. 269. 16 large segment of American church leadership because it [was] a voice that this segment wanted to hear, a conservative voice for 'historical and evangelical Christianity.'"3u The generous financial backing and excellent quality of the magazine and its staff made it possible for Chris- tianity_Today_to take a role of leadership in the progres— sive Fundamentalist renascence. The Controversy The response of the secular press to Christianity nggy, as cited previously, was for the most part favorable, both in the early years of publication and toward the end of Henry's editorship in 1968. But the religious press seemed skeptical and suspicious of the aims of the publication. Christianity and Crisis, a periodical established in 1941 with a tradition of liberal theology and extensive con— cern with the social aspects of the Gospel, cited what it believed to be a basic conflict. The magazine editors questioned whether the new publication could survive with the diverse opinions of its editor and financial subsidizers. Carl F. H. Henry was characterized by the editors of Christianity and Crisis as representing "a sophisticated and irenic theological conservatism."35 They said that in his 3“Christianity_ahd Crisis, XVIII (Oct. 27, 1958), 148. 35"The Resourceful Mr. Pew," Christianity and Crisis, XVI (June 11, 1956), 75. 17 book, The Unea§y_Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism, Henry had criticized the Fundamentalist movement for its tendency to ally itself with a one—sided reactionary social point of view. But that was exactly what Henry was doing in assuming the editorship of this journal, according to the editors of Christianity and Crisis.36 The executive editor of Christianity Today, Dr. L. Nelson Bell, was characterized in an editorial in Chris- tianity and Crisis as being one of the most intransigently conservative leaders of the southern Presbyterian Church, who fought bitterly and successfully against the union of that church with the northern Presbyterian Church. Dr. Bell is also the father-in-law of Billy Graham. Since Billy Graham is reported to disagree with Dr. Bell about the Presbyte— rian union and other issues, there should be no point in mentioning that relationship if Dr. Graham himself were not one of the contributing editors and a contribu— tor to the first issue. J. Howard Pew, the major financial subsidizer of Christianity_Today, was said to be obsessed with the threat to America in all deviations from a pure laissez faire economic individualism . a fighter for freedom of the small businessman against government and private monopoly . . . unable to recog— nize the need for many new forms of social control in an interdependent technological society and he identifies this concern for unqualified economic individualism with the Christian concern for personal freedom . . . a sincere crusader, who wrongly identifies Christianity with his own version of economic individualism.3 Christianity and Crisis concluded that the positions of the editor of Christianity_Today and its financial 36Ibid. 37Ibid. 38Ihid. Ink fl... l8 subsidizer were opposed to each other, and the magazine questioned whether the two could work together. The possi- bility of this controversy was important since Christianity Today was distributed to a large majority of its circula— tion list on a non—paying basis. If the Christianity and Crisis charge that the periodical was just another propaganda medium being used by Mr. Pew were accurate, the subscribers had a right to know. The editors of Dialog: A Journal gt Theology also questioned the purpose of the extensive free circulation list in an editorial in its Winter issue of 1962. They classified Christianity Today with Christian Economics, the Word Alone, and Through t9 Victory, religious publications that apparently carried large non-paying circulations. In a cutting criticism, an editorial, "The Price of Free Literature," concluded: It is significant that all of these other free papers carry the same ideological tendencies. They have the same message whether they are writing on the Supreme Court or the Supreme Being. God and America are pack- aged together. They are rightest, reactionary, romanti- cist, republican (Old Guard) and even Roman. They are Very confident that the will of God is more compatible with the past than with the present or future. . . . Religiously, politically, socially and economically, they are prudishly moralistic, legalistically censorious, and biblicistically fundamentalist. The editors of Dialog did not recognize the rena- scence in Fundamentalism, and they indiscriminantly classi- fied all free literature together. They did not recognize 39"The Price of Free Literature," Dialog: A Journal gt Theology, I (Winter, 1962), 12. 19 the possibility that clergymen could be receiving free publications from liberal and leftist groups as well. The editorial implied that little confidence could be placed in the discretionary powers of the clergy; it made clergymen sound like a most impressionable group, in need of strict protection from the invasion of new ideas, or old ones, for that matter. Those who invest thousands of dollars in reactionary propaganda are worldly wise. They know what they are doing. Their dollar is buying what they want. For pastors do read some things in their hasty search for sermon materials, and they transmit what they read. It can hardly be doubted that their minds, and there— fore their messages are being shaped by what they read. While many are reading this free literature, only a few subscribe to journals and magazines of more lofty goals. . . . The protestant pulpit today is threat- ened by a flood of free literature, for it cannot be assumed that the average pastor is a discriminating reader nor that he subscribes to other periodicals which might couflter—balance this retreading of old, out—worn ideas. 0 There seems to be some question concerning when the free subscription list was dropped. A. W. Ayer & Son's Directoty_gf_Newspapers and Periodicals lists an extensive free subscription circulation (88,083) in 1968. Mr. David Kucharsky, associate editor of Christianiteroday, asserts that "the free list was phased out over a period of a year—— December, 1966, to December, 1967."IIl The only free sub— scriptions currently active go to seminaries. uoIbid., p. 13. ulDavid Kucharsky to author, January 28, 1971. 20 Much of the initiative for the extensive free sub- scriptions came from the Christianity Today Board of Directors. "There were always Board members who wished the magazine to go to certain blocks of ministers, if they did not subscribe, to keep them informed of evangelical con- 42 H cerns, and their gifts indirectly made this possible. The concern of liberals that Christianity Today was being read by many on the free circulation list was not without foundation. In 1958 Christianity Today engaged an independent research corporation to conduct a representa- tive survey of what Protestant clergymen were reading. Christianity and Crisis published the results. They in- cluded the estimate that 46 per cent of the clergymen inter— viewed said they read Christianity Today regularly, while 35 per cent said they read it occasionally. One clergyman in three said he had a paid subscription to Christianity Today, which was a higher subscription rate than any other publication tested.lI3 Although Christianity Today had received harsh criticism from some editors of religious publications, the popularity and significance of the relatively new periodical could not be doubted. While other popular religious period- icals, such as Christian Herald and Presbyterian Life, enjoyed larger circulations than Christianiteroday, these uZCarl F. H. Henry to author, Jan. 26, 1971. “BChristianity and Crisis, XVIII (Oct. 27, 1968), 148. 21 were not considered scholarly journals of theology. thlty tianity nggy quickly gained the largest circulation of all scholarly theological journals edited for the Protestant clergy. Several articles in the first issues of Christianity Today gave insights into some of the areas questioned in the controversy. In the first issue, the editors set forth the purpose and basic philosophy of the periodical. Christianity Todgy_has its origin in a deep felt desire to express historical Christianity to the present gener- ation. Neglected, slighted, misrepresented-—evangelical Christianity needs a clear voice, to speak with convic- tion and love, and to state its true position and its relevance to the world crisis. In speaking to the world crisis, the fortnightly cleared the way to speak to theologians and Christian laymen about theology and the church and also about social, economic, and governmental issues, since the editors saw these closely related to the expression of Christianity. Christianity_Today will apply the biblical revela- tion to contemporary social crises, by presenting the implications of the total Gospel message for every area of life. This, Fundamentalism has often failed to do. Christian laymen are becoming increasingly aware that the answer to many problems of political, industrial and social life is a theological one. They are looking to the Christian Church for guidance, and they are looking for a demonstration of the fact that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a transforming and vital force. We have the conviction that consecrated and gifted evangelical scholarsBIp can provide concrete proof and strategic answers. “u"Why Christianity Today," Christianity Todal, 1 (Oct. 15, 1956), 20. “5Ibid. 22 The initial position taken by the editors on social issues seems to be the traditional Fundamentalist stand. Essentially the evangelical attacked the social needs on an individual basis. "We believe . . . that the basic needs of the social order must meet their solution first in the redemption of the individual,"u6 the editors said. Christianiterod y considered attacking the mani- festation of social ills as futile. The magazine editors encouraged the church, therefore, to be "person centered" instead of "cause centered." The editors said: "In our desire for social righteousness, by the rectification of the corporate sins of a corporate society we are forgetting that there is no such thing as corporate salvation other than in and through personal, individual salvation.“17 The primary task of the church was to win individu- als to Christ. Critics often charged that the evangelical church had oversimplified the solution to social problems by working to convert the individual to the "evangelical brand" of Christianity. Christianity Today defended the evangelical position by stating that "the GOSpel affects all the powers and capacities of the individual and extends to all relations and conditions of human life."LI8 “51616., p. 21. ”7Ibid. “8"Oversimplifying the Remedy for the World's Woes," ibid., I (March 4, 1957), 24. 23 The editors also cited the fact that the evangelical church has often been unbiblical in her approach by not ac- cepting more of the responsibility for her fellow man. "The evangelical has often hobbled the Gospel unbiblically. He has not shown that the Christian is a new moral creation destined to become the salt of the earth and the light of the world.“49 In assuming greater responsibility in matters of social concern, Christianity Today encouraged increased concern for social justice and righteousness on the founda— tion of Christian principles. It is significant that the editors of Christianity Egggy considered national stability and survival dependent upon enduring spiritual and moral qualities. This gave the editors the priority to investigate thoroughly social, eco- nomic, and governmental issues. Some of the criticism made by Christianity and Cri- Eli against the new publication showed evidence of fruition in the editorials published in the first issues. Qgtttf tianity Today editors flatly asserted that "when the Church, in the name of the Church, enters the secular arena and exerts political pressures for righteousness in the social order, then the Church is prostituting her mission and adding to the confusion of the world."50 “9Ihid. 50"What is the Way to a New Society?" ibid., I (Nov. 26, 1956), 24. 24 But this statement did not restrict the periodical from commenting editorially on social, economic, or politi— cal issues. The rationale for such editorial commentary may have been based on the concept that the members of the church may exert political pressures for righteousness in the social order, speaking out as concerned citizens rather than as members of the church. Much of the editorializing was done in harmony with the Christianity and Crisis sus- picion, however, and one could detect in the language used the promotion of a pure laissez faire economic individual— ism, similar to that promoted by J. Howard Pew. But in a more comprehensive study of the editorial columns through the years of Carl F. H. Henry's editorship, one can discern a growing awareness and dialogue with contemporary problems. Two of the most important national problems during this period were the questions of the racial conflict and national economic stability. This study was an attempt to analyze the editorial position taken by Qflylgf tianity Today_magazine on these two basic problems during Henry's editorship and to establish from what basis this in- fluential periodical propagated its opinion to its readers. This study was written under the assumption that Carl F. H. Henry had full control over the editorial columns of Christianitnyod y during his editorship (1956—1968). Henry himself states that he "wrote many and perhaps most editorials but by no means all. I commissioned some, and 25 staff members wrote others. But I was responsible for editorial policy."51 There was some question about the source of edi— torials that were commissioned. David E. Kucharsky, cur— rently associate editor of Christianity Todgy and news editor during Henry's editorship, indicated that Henry solicited editorials from persons other than staff members. Occasionally we would use an unsigned editorial [a] manuscript that came in (either solicited or un- solicited) and was originally intended for the article section. In Virtually all cases, however, editorials not written by Dr. Henry would be edited by him.52 Christianity Today_editorials were unsigned, and the anonymous authorship was strictly maintained.53 While this could stimulate questions as to the source of Chris- tianity Today's editorial opinion, Dr. Henry clearly takes all responsibility for its content. This study, accord- ingly, was based on the assumption that the editorial voice of Christianity Today and Carl F. H. Henry's opinion during his editorship were synonymous. 51Carl F. H. Henry to author, July 22, 1969. 52David E. Kucharsky to author, July 25, 1969. 53L. Nelson Bell to author, Aug. 9, 1969. CHAPTER II The Church and the Economy The concern of the American Protestant church with the economy is closely related to the concern of the church for the people. If the people are to be able to live with an adequate supply of the necessities of life, the economy of the nation must be relatively healthy. The American eco— nomy has historically been healthy, providing for most of the people most of the time. But as the economic structure became more complicated and more dependent upon the economies of other nations, the economy became of much more concern to the people than it had been in the past. Since the govern— ment discovered it could by means of specific action control the economy, at least partially, the government's role in the nation's economy came under debate. The sources of American Protestant thought with rela— tion to the economy go back to the Protestant Reformation, a sixteenth century religious movement that profoundly influenced European life. Its indirect influence on the economic, political, social, and religious life has had incalcuable ramifications on the entire world.1 lWilliam Stevenson, The Story of the Reformation (Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 19597: p. 178. 26 27 The two basic tenets at the root of the Protestant Reformation were (1) the right of the individual to inter— pret the Scriptures for himself and (2) justification by faith alone, or primarily, with no dependence on good works. John Calvin (1509—1564) added to the Reformation theory the concept of "divine predestination." Neither of these two currents in Protestantism connected eternal happiness with rewards for works accomplished during the earthly life. The natural tendency was concern for the present life totally engrossing human existence, leaving no time to concern one— self with preparation for the life hereafter.2 Since man no longer had to worry about good works toward others for his own salvation, worldly goods were no longer to be eschewed. Quite the opposite. "Unceasing industry and thrift were erected into virtues. The Puritan virtues of thrift and economy usurped the place of the "3 medieval virtues of justice and charity Economic successes became the manifestation of divine predestination. Not all economists are convinced of the significance of the Reformation in the development of capitalism. ”Where capitalism already existed, it had henceforth freer scope [because of the Reformation]. But men did not become capitalists because they were protestants, nor protestants 2Joseph F. Flubocher, The Concept gt Ethics tg the Histor gt Economics (New York: Vantage Press, 1950), pp. -71. 3 Ibid., p. 72. 28 because they were capitalists."u Protestantism facilitated the triumph of new values in a society already becoming capitalist. Although there is considerable disagreement regard— ing the actual influence of the Reformation on capitalism, the conservative American Protestant church has historically thought of the economic capitalistic system as created by Christian men under the approval of God. The editors of Christianity_Today followed this same line of thought. In an editorial published in 1958, the editors noted that An inner logic has bound the tradition of biblical theo— logy and of free enterprise. As does the whole of life, free enterprise belongs under the will of God, . The theological left, with its repudiation of the sovereignty of God, became vulnerable to a collectivis- tic emphasis on human controls as over against individ- ual rights. Today a new awareness of the perils of collectivism exists in some liberal Protestant circles. Even among college students one may detect a growing feeling that socialism is reactionary, and that most of the current campus egthusiasm is mostly a case of un- critical conformity. The editors of Christianity Today again and again asserted that Christian theology could be used as a basis for the formulation of a valid economic theory; and the use of theology as a basis for one's View of these matters was of extreme necessity to the editors. Christian theology must not be used solely for basic values and ideals, they reasoned; it must be applied in all areas of life as an “David S. Landes (ed.), The Rise gt Capitalism (New York: Macmillan Co., 1966), p. 50. SChristianityToday, 11 (Aug. 18, 1958), 23. 29 expression of the will of God.6 The editors stressed that an economic system could be considered part of the will of God. In an editorial, "Interdependency of Religious and H Economic Freedoms, Christianitnyod y editors reported the results of a poll of American Protestant clergymen with regard to their insights into the relationship between religion and the economic system. The editors noted that 71 per cent of those interviewed thought businessmen had a humane regard for their employees. Rather reluctantly, the editors admitted, however, that only 55 per cent of the clergymen saw any relationship between religious and eco- 7 nomic freedom. This latter finding was a blow to the editors' posi— tion that both religious and economic freedom were essential to complete human liberty. But the editorial reaffirmed the position that the two were closely related and dependent upon each other, as tradition and history had shown. Modern political philosophers are detecting once again that the ideals of limited government and free market economics as a heritage of Western civilization pre— suppose the spiritual and ethical framework of Judeo- Christian religion. It is not enough to observe (true as it is) that political liberty and economic freedom are as important to man's search for spiritual growth and material sufficiency as is religious liberty. Rather to sanction freedom primarily by the pragmatic results of political and economic liberty, some modern thinkers show a growing readiness to premise the case for freedom in its entirety on religious assumptions. 6Ibid. 7Ibid., p. 22. 30 The Judeo-Christian tradition insists on the con— nection between religion and economics by relating revealed religion in a determinative way to economic principles. It defines the link between economic liberty and economic duty in terms of the revealed will of God. The editors of Christianity Today tied economic capitalism and the Judeo-Christian tradition closely to- gether; and while these two concepts may have been based on compatible theories, the practical relationship could not be considered altogether harmonious. Capitalists were often indifferent or hostile to the church. They claimed little attraction to the pious boredom of paradise and scorn for a religion that drew people away from earthly labor to dwell on super-earthly thoughts. The church had equal criticism for the capitalist who found meaning not in what he was working for, but rather in the perpetual motion of his work.9 The capitalist had a responsibility to the Judeo— Christian religion, according to Carl F. H. Henry. If he were to enjoy the benefits of the Judeo—Christian philosophy concerning the validity of the profit motive and private property, he should accept the "concept of man as a creature with changeless moral obligations, economic as well as others, to God and his fellowmen alike."lO 8Ibid., p. 23. 9Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit gt Cgpitalism, trans. by Talcott Parsons (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1952), p. 70. 10Carl F. H. Henry, "Christianity and the Economic Crisis," Vital Speeches gt the Day, XXI (May 15, 1955), 1246. 31 Henry wrote that the right of private ownership was a biblical concept, defended by the Old Testament and as- sumed by Jesus Christ.11 Christianity_Today editors also thought private property of enough importance in the theo— logical world, and in enough danger in the political world, to editorialize on the subject. The editorial concluded that the "neglect of high intellectual interest in questions of property and ownership has, in fact, contributed to the climate of indifference in which socialist influences have increasingly modified historic American ideals, institutions, and practices."12 Henry did show a concern for economic justice, but did not see mere rearrangement of property holdings as the answer to the problems of man, or a guarantee of economic justice. The idea that social utopia may be derived simply through the redistribution of wealth is naive from the biblical VieWpoint. It disregards the spiritual predicament of man which requires more than a mere rearrangement of external factors for its solution. Man's basic problem is one of an internal defilement by sin, not merely one of external possessions. Man is a sinner, and the problem of a collectivistic order will remain one in- volving igllectivistic sinners instead of capitalistic sinners. Here Henry seemed to be skirting the issue of eco— nomic justice for the entire society with a digression to the personal needs of individual men. Surely economic llIbid. 12Christianity Today, VIII (Sept. 11, 1964), 32. 13 p. 1245. Henry, "Christianity and the Economic Crisis," 32 justice would not create a utopian society. But it would be a step in that direction. Since utopia was not even a pos- sibility in Henry's theology, the steps toward it were not of great concern to him. The justification for the profit motive followed the same argument. "Throughout the Bible the good life is rep- resented as divinely rewarded, and it is assumed that the industrious investment of talents and possessions also merits its rewards."llI This statement, however, was qualified with the idea that the profit motive cannot be abstracted from other areas of life, or other Christian obligations such as the Golden Rule, brotherly love, and charity.15 The editors came out strongly against preferential treatment given churches owning property used for purposes other than religious worship or education: "The fact is that no country can long tolerate laws that give churches engaged in commercial ventures special competitive advan- tages over secular business establishments."16 On the matter of general taxation, the editors of Christianity_Today_held the position that while it was not good to undertax the people, a greater effort should be made to keep government expenditures within the annual budget acquired by taxation. "It seems never to occur to the luIbid. 15 16 Ibid. Christianity_TodaI, VI (Jan. 19, 1962), 26. 33 political demagogue that it is possible for governments, as well as individuals, to live within their means and to practice the Christian virtue of frugality."l7 The government's role in relation to the economy was difficult to comprehend in an analysis of Christianity tgggy editorials. While President John F. Kennedy was criticized in one instance for not intervening in the New York electrical workers' strike, when labor was asking for a twenty-five—hour work—week, he was also criticized for his attempt to hold the price of steel at a stable level. The editorial showed concern for the tumbling stock market because of its effect on the many small investors who could have been hurt financially. It was emphasized that this instance was no time for government intervention. "Govern- ment pressures which established the current price of steel were clearly based on the judgment of men and not on the enforcement of law."18 But this controversy had much more significance than merely the price of steel and losses on the stock market. It was seen as a trend toward big government control, which was strongly opposed by Christianity_Today. If the freedom of steel men to name the asking price of their products can be repressed by government, what does the widening image of omnipotent government imply? The force of government can be brought to bear on any wage or any price of any product or service. And the handling of the steel controversy supplies the precedent: nothing 17311.01» III (March 30, 1959), 22. 18Ibid., VI (June 22, 1962): 23- 34 more is needed than the decision of a tiny handful of men in the White House. Americans may well ponder the security of their rights and property of every nature under this relationship to government. On the other hand, the government was charged with complete responsibility for the inflationary trends in an editorial published in 1958 which advised manipulation of the economy. Rising prices and wages were not really the cause of inflation, the editors said. It was, rather, caused by the government's increasing the supply of money. The theory advanced by the editors of Christianity Todgy was that if the supply of money was not increased, the supply would be insufficient to pay higher costs, and therefore unemployment would result, which was the inevitable solution. The editors contended that unemployment would have to be stopped, but this would be accomplished by a wage reduction first, a cost reduction second, and finally price reduction. "It now becomes clear that the government must be held strictly responsible for inflation, because government, and only government, is responsible for the money supply."20 Christianity Todgy_editors called for a return to the gold standard to prevent inflation. They also labeled inflation a moral problem, charging that the government profited from inflation by the reduction of the value of its debts. Inflation also directly affected people morally, according to the editors. 19Ibid. 20394., II