KEY TO ECCLESIAN
Many readers will be vacationing in areas where High Ecclesian is spoken in metropolitan pulpits, and a brisk refresher will make it possible to distinguish the language from ecclesiastical Latin or political English. (Ecclesian has much more affinity with the latter.)
Earlier approaches to Ecclesian through rhythm analysis have been abandoned. Compare the following examples:
“The dynamic relevance of this climactic event, which illuminates by its essential brilliance the peaks and vales of history’s horizon, burns also in your confrontation with the mystery of existence.”
“You exist. Now. In the event. The world event. The you event.”
These sentences mean roughly the same thing and provide some impression of the stylistic flexibility of Ecclesian. The sense in which Ecclesian is a tonal language is more debatable. Many masters of the tongue use decided falling inflections. Ecclesian has characteristic pronunciations of “static,” “scholastic,” and “creedal.” The cultivated pronunciation of “factual” creates an image of a contemptible little brute, deplorably dense and useless.
Less gifted speakers, however, may also use Ecclesian. Its secret lies in the classic statement of Humpty Dumpty to Alice, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” Ecclesian impenetrability vanishes when Humpty Dumpty’s principle is understood. (The learned egghead defines impenetrability in that same passage, by the way.)
Occasionally a speaker of Ecclesian will say right out what he chooses to mean, which is appallingly bad form, but helps us get the hang of it. In a recent sermon the preacher chose to distinguish between “event” and “sheer event.” Only the second actually happened, but the first is “true history.” Can what didn’t happen be true history? Certainly, because history is the meaning of sheer events, and truth is expressed in fiction.
As Humpty said about his use of words, “The question is, which is to be the master—that’s all.”
EUTYCHUS
RIGHT TO WORK
Your editorial on Right To Work laws (Apr.25 issue) is fair and objective. Right to Work does not often receive this treatment in church publications. As a union member who was once fired for refusing to join a union, I strongly oppose the position of the Methodist Board of Social and Economic Relations on this issue. They take the position that the rights of the union are more important than the rights of its members.
Anyone desiring more information about this should write to the National Right To Work Committee, 1025 Connecticut Avenue, Washington 6, D. C.
L. A. HOOSER
Indianapolis, Ind.
I wrote an article endorsing the principle of voluntary unionism and sent it to our denominational magazine: Presbyterian Life. They have refused to publish the article. If the “yellow dog” contract was morally wrong, then so is compulsory unionism. I personally believe it is that simple.
… Voluntary unionism [is] a principle which every freedom loving individual should endorse.
FREDERICK CURTIS FOWLER
The First Presbyterian Church
Duluth, Minn.
SUITING THE PULPIT
Mr. Petrie (Mar. 14 issue) points up a telling fact that with so many parishioners in evangelical denominations the acceptance of Unitarian preaching is because it is unrecognized. While this may be said for parishioners, I do not think it can be said for pastors and church administrators. The inroad of Unitarianism into denominations that are historically and officially evangelical is due to the knowing approval of those administrators, educators and ministers who manifest their approval either by overt promotion or by craven silence.
One thing Mr. Petrie’s article has done for me: it has substantially raised my estimation of those Unitarian ministers who have chosen to seek Unitarian pulpits.
C. GORDON CLEWS
Williamsport Methodist Church
Williamsport, Md.
I enjoy receiving CHRISTIANITY TODAY and feel rather flattered that a magazine of such size and stature would spend so much time, space, and concern on Unitarianism, relatively a tiny denomination.
CLARKE D. WELLS
St. John’s Unitarian Church
Cincinnati, Ohio
MARX AND DARWIN
Regarding the relationship between Marx and Darwin, mentioned by Dr. C. G. Singer (Mar. 14 issue), I enclose my translation of passages from the December, 1959, issue of Russia’s popular science monthly, Priroda. Almost every Russian periodical had an issue and a full page portrait dedicated to Darwin during 1959, the 100th anniversary of the appearance of Origin of Species.
“As to The Origin of Species Marx wrote Engels: ‘While the exposition is obscure and in English, this book provides a natural scientific basis for our doctrines.’ Vladimir Ilyich Lenin held Darwin’s doctrine in high esteem as having laid the groundwork for a beginning, and as having established the mutability of species and (their) interrelated lines of descent” (p. 10).
“In the Russia of the Soviets, Darwin’s doctrine found its second fatherland” (p. 11).
LEON H. KELSO
Washington, D. C.
I believe that God in history is going to halt the pending takeover of the U.S.A. by Communism. I believe this will follow the same “history curve” as the waning of Assyria before Jerusalem. From the human side I believe this involves both a wave of personal return to Christ and a revival of the principles of Christian scholarship. Hence what electrified me in the March 14 issue: … the breakthrough against Marx and Hegel … especially.
SAMUEL WOLFE
Santa Barbara, Calif.
CHURCH AND KINGDOM
Since Dr. McClain’s letter to the editor (Feb. 15 issue) involves not only a refutation of my review of his book (Oct. 12 issue) but the charge of “carelessness in handling the facts” at three points, a response is called for.
First, I wonder if Dr. McClain would repudiate Dr. Chafer’s classic definition of Dispensationalism alluded to in my review: “The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity” (Dispensationalism: Dallas Seminary Press, 1936, p. 107). Although McClain does not use this terminology, this is the pattern of his theology, as the quotation in my review proves. McClain does indeed assert that the church will share in God’s theocratic (earthly) purpose; but the point of my criticism is that he has failed to show by what kind of theological logic or necessity this can be.
Second, my review quoted Dr. McClain to the effect that the church now enjoys the spiritual blessings of the future mediatorial (earthly) kingdom. However, critical theology must not only list facts and make statements; it must explain the internal coherence of its facts. This I believe McClain, and all dispensationalists, have failed to do. If the Kingdom by definition is the future earthly Davidic Kingdom, how can its blessings be experienced in advance by the church? A different definition of the Kingdom is called for to include this datum.
Third, McClain does not meet the main issue about the relation of the Cross to the Kingdom. Before the rejection of the Kingdom by Israel, the “few allusions to His death and resurrection … had been indirect, not much more than veiled intimations which could be read with understanding only in the clear light of the accomplished facts” (The Greatness of the Kingdom, p. 330). “If the ‘gospel of the kingdom’ (Mark 1:14) as preached by our Lord and His chosen disciples early in His ministry, is identical with the Gospel proclaimed after the Resurrection, why was the Cross not proclaimed as its central feature from the beginning?” (ibid., p. 332). [Note: I do not think the Gospel of the Kingdom and the Gospel after the Resurrection are “identical” in form; but they do embody essentially the same redemptive reality although expressed in different forms.] McClain does indeed assert that there would be no final Kingdom apart from the death of Christ; this I freely recognize. My criticism is that his discussion on pages 330–334 relates the death of Christ to the Church rather than to the Kingdom. His statement is quite clear: “The objector [to the idea of a Kingdom without a Cross] might well be reminded, however, that there was once in Old Testament history a Theocratic Kingdom on earth before Messiah died, and therefor the possibility need not be rejected on a priori grounds” (p. 333). Certainly in the Old Testament, the death of Christ was implicit in the sacrificial system. Dispensationalists have not defended themselves against the criticism that the Cross is not an integral element of the Kingdom of God.
The central issue remains untouched: are we to interpret the Old Testament au pied de la lettre and fit the New Testament teaching into the Old Testament pattern (Dispensationalism), or are we to reinterpret the Old Testament by the New Testament teaching on the Kingdom of God (classical theology)? Dr. McClain is to be commended that he does not define the issue in terms of the authority of Scripture as some Dispensationalists recently have done. It is a question of hermeneutics, not the authority of Scripture.
GEORGE ELDON LADD
Fuller Seminary
Pasadena, Calif.
HAPPINESS AND THE SAINTS
The Christian Church has virtually taken over the doctrine of hedonism from John Stuart Mill. “Only if you come to Christ will you experience real happiness.” Both evangelistic campaigns and church services have become dominated by an endeavour to sell conversion on the basis that it is the sole means of being guaranteed happiness.
But has the Christian really got this divine right? Maybe it is just a lot of sales talk attempting to cash in on modern misery. The dictionary definition of happiness is “contented with one’s lot.” … Could it conceivably be argued that a Christian should be this?
The desire to feel good inside has almost become a universal compulsive neurosis. Desperate attempts are made to attain this state by dramatic witnessing to strangers and by self-denial as well as by rededication. When, inevitably, the “feel good inside” experience passes there is the inevitable spiritual reaction and in some cases eventual cynicism. The search for happiness is replacing the leading of a disciplined Christian life. It is becoming the touchstone for the validity of Christian truth. The supreme irony is that the best way to get happiness, on any level, is to forget it. Happiness as the critics of the hedonist have continually pointed out, is a by-product and never can successfully be pursued as an end in itself.…
We are promised in the Bible both joy and peace.… This is a peace coming from a restored relationship, the result of repentance and faith.… The joy of the New Testament believer … is a joy that at times may parallel emotional misery as it must surely have done in the occasion of Gethsemane. It is essentially the joy of knowing that we belong to Christ.
Our Lord was not always happy. It is not suggested that he was chronically unhappy. He would not then have been the welcome guest at banquets and other celebrations.… Yet there is no question that on a number of occasions he was greatly troubled. This is true of his relationship to his disciples, it was equally true in his lament over Jerusalem and of his condition arising from the death of Lazarus.… He knew extreme and utter agony.… Paul went through similar experiences. Are we today any different?… How could a Christian today be happy in the normal sense of the word in our present situation. The Lord’s work is in such great need and the church is so divided. The world is tragically determined in its sin and ungodliness. Few of us but have unconverted loved ones. Are we to be contented with our lot when we know this?… We will he able to overcome despair and defeat anxiety. But we will certainly have to meet sorrow, worry, depression, frustration and many other perfectly normal emotions. They are part of the lot of every mature adult. Our great strength as Christians is that we shall face them with Christ who knew them himself.… The honesty of such an approach may not be superficially attractive but as it is the New Testament message it will be more eternally effective.
ROY D. BELL
West Lane United Baptist Church
Moncton, New Brunswick
LUTHER, CALVIN AND KNOX
Calderwood’s letter (Jan. 18 issue) represents a new low among non-Romans. The way in which this man grovels before the figure of the Roman pope is enough to turn the stomach of a Luther or a Calvin.
JAMES P. COOKE
First Presbyterian Church
Morrill, Neb.
To think that a Presbyterian would express such sentiments would make John Knox turn over in his grave.
DOUGLAS W. J. NOBLE
Wayside Evangelistic Church
San Pablo, Calif.
