SALVATION IS THE WORK OF GOD IN OVERCOMING EVIL AND GIVING LIFE TO MAN. THIS LIFE HAS DIFFERENT ASPECTS. There is an individual life which each man lives with God and in a world of his own. There is a social or associated life, a life lived with others in manifold relations. There is a historical life, significant for the individual as well as for society. There is a life that is eternal, beginning here in time, transcending time and death.

These aspects, however, belong together; they form a whole. It is one life with which we are dealing. No aspect of that life can be achieved separately. There is no salvation for society except as men are brought individually into saving relation with God. There is no salvation which is purely individual; always it involves life in fellowship and a fellowship which roots in history. And the life beyond must first be a life within, an eternal life that begins here and now, just as the kingdom of God in heaven is the consummation of God's work in history here on earth.

The Meaning of Historical-Social Salvation

Historical-social salvation is perhaps a better term than salvation in history. Social and historical are inseparable aspects of one movement, and each depends upon the other for its full meaning. The words call for closer definition and first the word social. All being is being in relation; there is no pure atomism. The story of evolution is that of a process of relating and whole-making, ¹ The process increases in significance with each rise in the level of being. Thus for all animate beings it involves a relation to the past in heredity (the biological), to environment (the ecological—the particular oikos, or "home"), and to the group of its own kind (the social). With man this social life reaches its highest meaning and possibilities. It is a society of rational beings, sharing ideas and ideals, with common interests and activities of manifold nature, economic, political, scientific, aesthetic, intellectual, religious. It varies in scope from the intimate and limited ties of home and friendship to the more general bonds of community, nation, and now increasingly of world relations.

Is this associated life a possible subject of redemption? Can we speak of social salvation? Not a few deny this. Modern premillennialism declares that the total life of man is to be redeemed but that this is not in the purpose of God for this age; the Church is simply to preach the gospel to individuals and to point to a hope in the future. There are those who are deeply concerned with social problems and who believe in the possibility of a transformation of society, but who envisage only human action in social reform and do not see a saving action of God in society. The neo-orthodox group raises its voice in protest against the latter, emphasizing the sinfulness and impotence of man. Many of this group, like Earth and Brunner, demand that Christians face social evils and work against them. But this is not social salvation. Society, we are told, is abstract and impersonal; salvation is individual and personal. The concern with social justice and human welfare belongs to ethics, not to salvation. These matters are "irrelevant to man's attitude toward God" and not the real theme of the New Testament. The theme of the gospel is individual salvation; society cannot know forgiveness of sins, cannot be in Christ. ²

The objection to the idea of social salvation hinges in part upon the conception of salvation, in part upon the view of the method and scope of God's saving work. It is right that salvation be clearly differentiated from ethics. The former is God's work for man and in man; the latter concerns man's responsibility and effort. But it is wrong to separate the two. Man's moral life, individual and social, needs God's grace and help. It is wrong to speak of a social "gospel" when all that is meant is social reform through human effort. We must learn to see God's saving work in all the life of man, social as well as individual.

We note first the error of thinking that only individual life is personal. It is true there are large elements of the impersonal in man's associated life, especially in the complex, institutionalized society of today. In its collective nature and in the control from above, a large measure of which obtains even in "free enterprise" lands, the social life tends to lose its personal and responsible character. But this is not the whole picture and not the ideal. The associated life can be personal. The personal is present when men say "we," wherever reflection, moral ideals, free action, and the sense of responsibility enter in. Obviously these are present in the life of the home and the Church. They belong to any true democracy as well.

But where there is a personal-ethical life like this, there the Christian faith sees the need and the possibility of saving help. God comes to this life with a demand for righteousness, love, truth, and the acknowledgment of his rule. He calls for confession of common sin and for repentance. But here, as always, demand and gift go together. God offers to men and nations his forgiveness and his help. That is salvation. The prophets saw this in their message to the nation. Christianity purified and deepened the Old Testament concept of salvation, but it did not abrogate this aspect.

Today as never before the Church is challenged to make plain her message of salvation in this field. Various causes enter in to make this crucial. The swift advance of science, industry, trade, communication, and travel has brought a rapid growth of man's associated life. There has been an unparalleled development of institutional life and control, not simply in the state but in the economic world and in other spheres. The development of democratic thought and life has brought a deepening conviction of the worth and rights of the individual, while the technical-institutional development has threatened to submerge the individual and to make the personal secondary. In all this the mind of man has wavered between confidence in his prowess and despair in the face of forces which he seems unable to control. In neither case have the masses of men turned to religion, to the God of individual help or the Power working for man in this turmoil that we call history. Once more the challenge comes to the faithful: "Where is now your God?"

The Christian Church has come for such a time as this. It has a witness to bear which includes not only God's saving help for the single soul and within the Christian fellowship, but the gracious purpose and saving power of God in history.

Philosophies of History

A review of the different conceptions of history may well precede our study of the Christian position. They fall into a few main groups.

We may note first the views which deny meaning to history. Agreeing at this point, they differ radically from each other. There is the view of Platonic idealism for which the only real world is that of ideas and ideals, a world that is eternal and unchanging. The world of sense and time and change has here no value or validity, and history no real significance. In sharp contrast is the modern materialistic-mechanistic view or that of a simple undogmatic naturalism, but there is agreement in the denial of meaning to history. This view knows only time and ceaseless change in a visible world. We can, indeed, discern a certain order or law, but the world, alike of nature and of man (who is just one element in nature), shows no meaning in its endless change, no*purpose or directing power.

There is a pessimistic view of history. It recognizes the world of human happenings as real and significant and as joined together in a certain pattern, but it denies to it any positive value and finds no place for hope. Man is evil. History moves inevitably downward. The cause may be sought in some initial fall of the race—Hesiod held that as well as the writer of Gen. 3. The pessimism may apply only to this age, as with apocalypticism, or it may declare itself to be simply realistic, asserting that man is naturally selfish, that he is dominated by the animal side of his nature, a creature in whom the "ape and tiger" will not die. Essentially pessimistic is also the so-called cyclical theory of history. Here history is simply the story of the rise and fall of civilizations, following the same pattern, an endlessly recurring cycle of events such as we see in nature, a movement which shows no basic meaning and offers no ultimate hope.

In marked contrast is the humanistic-idealistic-optimistic view. It may rest upon a theory of inevitable progress (a pseudo-evolutionary philosophy) or upon a belief in the innate goodness of human nature which suffers simply from wrong social conditions. In general this type of thought sees man as his own savior. There is no higher power for him to call upon, and he needs none. The way seems clear. It is that of increasing knowledge, mastery of nature, mastery of self, freedom joined to the sense of human solidarity and the need of co-operation, reverence for human personality, concern for justice, the spirit of good will. The logic of events, especially in the past half century, seems to refute this optimism; yet men still work on, fight on, refusing to accept fatalism or pessimism.

Here may be cited also the two great social philosophies which oppose each other today, Communism as found in Russia and Western democracy. Though primarily political-social movements, there is implicit in each a world view and a philosophy of history. Both are avowedly concerned with the welfare of man, of all men, irrespective of race or class. Both would set men free from domination and exploitation, the former viewing this as economic, the latter as first of all political. But the differences in basic viewpoint are radical.

In theory Communism is an apocalyptic view of history, deriving from its founder, the German Jew, Karl Marx. The world is evil but not hopeless. Deliverance will come, not by gradual change and peaceful means, but by revolution achieved through force. The interim will be a time of conflict, of power vested in a special group or an all-dominating state. But the new era, thus brought in, will be one of peace, of a classless society, where state and external control will pass away, where all dictatorship will cease, even of the proletariat

Within this apocalyptic framework there are radical differences from Jewish apocalypticism. There is no God here; only man's might at arms will bring deliverance. There is no recognition of moral-spiritual authority, no place for religious faith. Religion is an "opiate," stilling the needed movement of revolt. There is no authority but self-interest; justice, truth, good will, reverence for man as man—these have no word to say. The goods sought for are material. This philosophy of history rests firmly on a secularistic, materialistic, militaristic world view. There is little if any sign of concern with a future society which shall differ radically from the present Soviet regime. In that regime we must seek the real philosophy. Its marks are plain: a materialism that has no room for the ethical or spiritual; a militarism that knows no power but force; no concern for truth, for real education and intelligent co-operation; propagandism but no free access to the truth or call to understand; a fascist state ruled by the few with no place for freedom; a totalitarian state that would dominate every aspect of life.

Democracy is the other social movement which calls for study if we are to understand the modern world to which the Church must bring its message. We consider democracy here as a movement. The grasp of its ideals and their achievement in practice are in process, and the process will be long for it means a reshaping of age-old institutions and practices. Our concern here is with its implicit principles. These are in sharp contrast with Communism. Like Communism its avowed concern is with man, without regard to race or status. But it sees man as more than an economic being with only material needs, though recognizing the importance of these. It demands reverence for man as moral personal being, with a right to freedom of thought and worship as well as political freedom. It joins social obligation to individual rights. It sees an authority which is above majorities and above rulers, the authority of truth and justice and good will.

There is a democratic faith: faith in man, in the way of freedom for social advance, and in the ultimate power of ideal forces—truth and justice and good will as against physical force, even though the latter may be provisionally needed. In this confident hope for the future, this belief in spiritual forces as against physical force, in the way of truth and freedom, in this fellowship of justice and freedom which includes social obligation with individual rights, there is Implied a philosophy of history as well as a moral faith. There is no direct assertion of a particular religious faith; religious freedom is assured to all. And yet the reality of a higher world of values and authority is clearly involved, and the great leaders of democracy have again and again voiced their faith in God as part of their faith in the democratic way. It is clear, logically and historically, that democracy owes these basic ideas and ideals to Christianity.

Israel's Philosophy of History

The first real philosophy of history appeared in Israel Its source was in the conception of God. God is creator and ruler; therefore the world of matter and time and change belongs to him. God is personal spirit; he is not abstract idea or ideal. He is the God of action, the living God; transcending the world in holiness and power, he yet works in it, alike in nature and in history. He is ethical being, dealing with men in righteousness and mercy, working for the good of men. He is the God of purpose, a purpose that appears in action and that gives meaning to history and hope to men of faith. The whole conception is dynamic, not static; and the world of events belongs to it and takes meaning from it.

Here was the background and basis for a philosophy of history: from this standpoint Israel sought to understand her own problem as a nation. What is the purpose of God? When and how will he bring his goal to pass? Why is there evil and suffering, and why the long delay? Who will share in this coming good? We note here how philosophy of history and doctrine of redemption go together. For Israel salvation was historical.

In its earliest form this hope of salvation was national-political. God had chosen this people for his own. He had delivered them and given them their home. Israel suffered now from the nations about her, but there was to be a day of judgment upon her foes, "the day of the Lord." Then she would be established in power and prosperity and peace.

The teaching of the prophets transcended this view. Their doctrine of salvation was still historical; they hoped for God's redeeming action in history and for the salvation of Israel. But they had a new and higher vision of God and that led them to the larger view alike of the goal of God's saving work and of its way. The advance came not through any one prophet nor all at once, but it moved clearly toward this higher goal and gave to Christianity a great religious heritage.

First came the truer realization of the character of Jehovah; indeed it all flowed from this. Jehovah is righteous and merciful; his concern is not the glory and might of a people but that righteousness of life and the knowledge of God may obtain in the earth. Hence the demand for righteousness and the judgment on iniquity belong to Israel as well as to the nations. Indeed, to Israel first of all and that because of her special favors (Amos 3:2; 9:7-10). The transformed nationalism of the prophets expresses itself positively, notably in the Suffering Servant passages of Isaiah. Israel is privileged in order that she may be, not the master, but the servant of the nations. There is the movement toward universalism, rooting again in the vision of God. His righteousness which makes its demand on Israel as upon other peoples, his mercy which takes in all nations, these lead to Amos' vision of a God who is redemptively present in the history of Ethiopians and Philistines and Syrians as truly as in that of Israel (Isa. 19:19-25).

To the emphasis on the ethical and universal there was added in Jeremiah's great message an insight into the spiritual goal and the spiritual way of God's redemption. Israel's restoration and God's coming rule would be marked by a new relation between Jehovah and his people. The old covenant was one of laws, with Jehovah as ruler and Israel called to obedience. The new covenant would be that of a redeeming God who would write his law in the hearts of his people (Jer. 24:7; 31:31-34; 32:38-40). So Israel's life and that of the nations would be transformed; peace would succeed war, justice take the place of oppression. And in harmony with the new humanity nature herself and the very beasts of the field were to be made over (Mic. 4:1-4; Isa. 11:1-9). The inner rule of the spirit was to become the inclusive rule. So, at its highest, there came in Israel the vision of a salvation in history which included individual and social, inner and outer, nature as well as man. This conception of God and his salvation was background and basis for the Christian message.

Jewish Apocalypticism

Jewish apocalypticism requires consideration here because of its place in the thought setting of primitive Christianity and its recurring appearance in the later Church. It was a child of prophetism but with marked differences. Strictly speaking it had no philosophy of history; history was a meaningless interlude between creation and the final redemption. There was no salvation in history; the new age was to come after God had put an end to history. The present age was under the domination of evil spiritual powers, Satan and his angels. It was not only evil but was growing worse. God, transcendent, omnipotent, inscrutable, had determined in advance the plan of the ages: the character of this age, how long it should last, when the new age was to come. That age would come with a judgment of destruction upon the forces of evil; it would bring the triumph of Israel, the people of God.

The underlying philosophy has certain clear marks: a strict divine transcendence as against the idea of a living God present and at work in history; a God who mediates his word by angels instead of speaking to his servants; the stress on divine omnipotence working its ends by irresistible power rather than in historical process or by ethical-spiritual means; a divine determinism marking out in advance the course of events; a dualism, not metaphysical and ultimate, but with a kingdom of evil spirits in control of this age and opposed to the kingdom of God and his people which waits for the age to come. More incidental yet not unconnected with the basic viewpoint are features which mark the form of these apocalyptic writings: the pseudonymity which seeks support by use of the names of great figures of the past, the appeal to visions and ecstatic experiences, and the use of mythological figures and events.

One must not overlook the practical aim of apocalyptic and the truths which it asserted. These writings have rightly been called "tracts for bad times." In dark and trying days they sought to give courage to the saints, to maintain faith in the God of might and goodness, and hope for final victory. They faced the fact of evil and its power but did not despair. They saw this evil not as merely individual and subjective but as entrenched might in this world. And in their scheme of the ages they expressed, however inadequately, the truth that history is no even flow of events, no steady movement upward and onward; that there is struggle and constant conflict, that there are epochs and crises.

It is easy to overemphasize the apocalyptic element in the New Testament. Its presence is witnessed by the little apocalypses of the Synoptics, the Pauline passages in which Paul speaks of the Lord's return and the final consummation, and the book of Revelation. The Synoptic passages are probably not the words of Jesus, but it is clear that he expected the early end of this age and establishment of the kingdom of God. And this was the common hope of the early Church.

The thoroughgoing apocalyptic conception of history is found today in the premillennialism of certain church groups, especially in America. Following a strict verbal inspiration theory, finding in the Bible a revealed and predetermined program of the course of events, it seeks to incorporate in its doctrine all the biblical sayings as to the future, making special use of Daniel and Revelation. So it holds to two kingdoms. The first is the thousand-year reign of Christ upon earth, initiated by armed conflict, with the forces of evil subdued but not destroyed and the saints put in the seats of rule—an essentially political-militarist conception. At the close of this kingdom on earth there comes the final conflict and judgment with a general resurrection, the saints of earlier ages having been raised at the beginning of the millennium; and this brings in the eternal kingdom above.

This is the familiar apocalyptic philosophy: a predetermined course of events, history without any constructive meaning, a God who brings in his kingdom by direct action and irresistible force instead of moral-spiritual means such as the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Spirit.

What was new in Christianity and its points of difference from apocalyptic are much more significant than the points of contact, and they give the distinctive Christian philosophy of history. There was the faith that God in Christ had come to this world for its salvation. The consummation, indeed, lay in the future; but the saving work was here and now going on in men made new, in the Church as the body of Christ and the people of God, in the gift of the Spirit. God was at work in the Church and in the world. The new age had already dawned. The kingdom of God was "righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit," and this kingdom was here in their midst and within them. The powers of the new age were already at work. Hence the gospel which they preached was more and more concerned with the new life which was offered to them here and now. And it was the experience of this life in all its power and wealth and promise which enabled the Church to meet the challenge to their faith which came with the delayed return of Christ. Our knowledge of that postapostolic period is scanty, but there seems to have been no serious crisis here, as is suggested by the fact that the New Testament has only a single passing reference to this matter (2 Pet. 3:4).³

1) See Jan Smuts, Holism and Evolution.

2) Emil Brenner, "A Great Time for the Preacher," The Christian Century, July 11, 1951, pp. 816-18.

3) On the general subject of this chapter see H. F. Rail, Modem Premillennialism and the Christian Hope.