EARS TO HEAR
Your magazine’s interest in evangelical preaching is most commendable, but when are you going to have a series on evangelical listening? For a starter you might ask each of your chosen preachers to select his most effective listener (not counting his wife). Those outstanding evangelical listeners might then write up last Sunday’s sermon as they heard it, or, better yet, tell us what they did about it.
Preaching may have fallen on evil days, but it is semi-millennial when compared to listening. Why are there no audiophiles at sermon time? Churches are wired for sound, but so are the listeners: they have an ingenious short-circuit that channels the word in one ear and out the other. To evaluate the G.H.Q. (genuine hearing quotient) in your church, ask your preacher to apply the Eutychus Test. This is done by inserting smoothly in the sermon three test phrases such as “Beware the jabber-wock, my friends.” Posted observers then number the heads or eyebrows that come up. (This test may be inconclusive if the observers miss the key words.)
This problem concerns me. I have never fallen from a window sill in church, but it’s been a near thing from many a pew. What will help me to wake up and listen? Should the preacher punctuate his points with the ringing of a liturgical bell? Could I sip unobtrusively from a thermos of coffee?
At Pastor Peterson’s suggestion, I am now reading Are You Listening? by Ralph Nichols and Leonard Stevens. This book is for men only. It quotes damaging statistics to show that 95 out of 100 men are better listeners than women and that grown-ups listen less than children. It also explains that, since we think faster than anyone can talk, one real problem in listening is what to do with our spare time. You can’t slow the hare of thought to the tortoise-pace of speech. But good listeners keep the hare awake, out of the woods, and in the race by making sprints of anticipation, review, and reflective encirclement.
The pastor says that we are hard of hearing in church because we are hard of heart. There is no hearing aid to substitute for the Holy Spirit. But he also warns that hearing takes work as well as prayer. No activity is more profitable for that hare-brain than running circles of reflection, soul-searching, and praise around a biblical sermon.
EUTYCHUS
CATACLYSM IMPENDING
I FEEL THAT WE CHURCHMEN ARE FACING A DILEMMA. IF WE CHRISTIANS CONTINUE TO IGNORE THE TEN COMMANDMENTS AND THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT THE UNITED STATES MAY SUFFER FROM A SOCIAL REVOLUTION BACKED BY RUSSIANS.… ON THE OTHER HAND IF WE FOLLOW JESUS’ TEACHINGS THE GREAT MAJORITY OF US BUSINESSMEN TOGETHER WITH THOSE LIVING ON DIVIDENDS AND INTEREST WOULD BE FORCED TO A LOW STANDARD OF LIVING. EVERY 250 YEARS THERE HAS COME A PERIOD OF READJUSTMENT WHEN THOSE WHO HAVE ARE FORCED TO GIVE UP SOME OF OUR SPECIAL PRIVILEGES TO THOSE WHO HAVE NONE. I FEEL THAT WE ARE NOW APPROACHING ONE OF THESE GREAT SOCIAL REVOLUTIONS.
ROGER W. BABSON
LAKE WALES, FLA.
• Distinguished economist Roger W. Babson seems to us right in pronouncing the Christian ethic (vitalized by spiritual regeneration, we would stress) the only real alternative to the Russian revolution. What Christianity needs is more than ecumenical consolidation-in-retreat; it needs a spiritual counteroffensive alive with the supernatural initiative and spontaneous virtue of the apostolic age. Victims of Communism’s disregard of property rights, who lose their property involuntarily, some day will sense that profound judgment is now also being passed on many professing Christians. Rightly emphasizing human rights (including property rights), the Christian community tends to neglect voluntary stewardship, and gives more ground to secular materialism than to Christ and his cause.
—ED.
CHRISTIAN HEALING
I have read William Henry Anderson’s article, “Sacramental Healing” (January 30 issue) and am convinced that Dr. Anderson “has a bear by the tail.” However I am of the opinion that his idea has marvelous promise.
REX D. KELLY
The Methodist Church
Basehor, Kans.
The statement that “Some ministers of the Episcopal Church … have adopted anointing …” is inaccurate in that ministers is a generic term including deacons, who are clergy but who are not privileged to administer this sacrament. Only bishops or priests may anoint. Second, to state that some have adopted this practice is misleading since it is not a question of individual clergy adopting the practice, but rather administering what is provided in the Book of Common Prayer.
CHARLES I. KRATZ, JR.
St. Margaret’s Episcopal Church
Baltimore, Md.
That this constitutes a “substitute for the Roman sacrament of unction” is quite in error. The Roman sacrament is termed extreme unction. Rather than a ministry for healing, it is a rite for those in immediate danger of death. You will note that this is not the spirit in which St. James commends the practice. Further you observe that this is “faith healing.” In part this is true. The efficacy of this rite is not solely dependent on the recipients’ faith: otherwise we should not require the attendance of presbyters, vocal prayer, oil, or laying on of hands. The very performance of the rite is calculated to strengthen faith.
EDMUND W. OLIFIERS, JR.
St. Boniface’s Episcopal Church
Lindenhurst, N. Y.
We do not see today, as far as I can find out, any healings such as our Lord carried out in the days of His flesh.
ARTHUR C. HILL, M.D.
Sherbrooke, Que.
STRIKES AT THE CORE
Of especial value is your editorial “The Predicament of Modern Theology” (Jan. 16 issue) which strikes at the core of the problem of modern liberalism.
J. THEODORE MUELLER
Concordia Seminary
St. Louis, Mo.
Your editorial … states that Protestantism must return to Christ and Scripture. Yet your insert on the following page says: “The invisible God truly became incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth,” although scripture everywhere states plainly that: “No man has seen God at any time; [the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him].”
E. A. GOODE
Vancouver, British Columbia
Is it not possible that some varying theological viewpoints may have some merit, and enter into a meaningful dialogue with them?
EUGENE H. TENNIS
First Presbyterian
Hector, N. Y.
Only the Episcopate speaking the mind of the whole Church through ecumenical council will preserve the wholeness of the Faith once delivered to the Saints and save us from the “sad predicament of modern theology” which you have so ably depicted.
T. A. HEERS
St. James Church
Texarkana, Tex.
I felt a lift for the convictions that are based on God’s Word.…
Unity is good. We are unified if we proclaim the incarnate Word from the inscriptured Word. I belong to a denomination that has gone head over heels for ecumenicity. We may as well say we have been absorbed by the Methodists. It’s not formal, but it’s so cut and dried that it’s negativism in our ranks to talk against it. A few young ministers of the E. U. B. church, educated in a seminary that left the faith years ago, were warned that to be negative about everything (everything means Methodist merger and the National Council of Churches) will be dangerous—and by no less than one of our Bishops. But is it negative to obey God rather than men?… I believe that our basis for union is in honoring Christ with a more evangelical message to this lost world, but all I see is merger merely to attain status. We are told the benefits are better pensions, bigger churches, but as well, and this they won’t tell us, there are more ecclesiastical powers to which to bow.
CLIFFORD M. BERGLAND
Evangelical United Brethren Church
Revillo, S. Dak.
REJOINDER TO REJOINDER
Walter F. Martin (Dec. 19 issue) stated that the Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) Church came “in the wake of the Millerite Movement,” and added: “When [William] Miller’s calculation [as to the end of the world] was proved false, after a second guess, October 22, 1844, he manfully admitted his error and dissociated himself from the movement.” The context makes clear that the Millerite Movement, of course, is meant. From this Martin goes on to discuss SDA’s. You published (Jan. 30 issue) my documented letter that revealed that Miller did not dissociate himself from “the movement,” with all the unfavorable implications for SDA’s that obviously reside in the claimed dissociation.
To my letter you appended Martin’s reply. He begins: “F. D. Nichol attempts to evade the issue under discussion, namely William Miller’s repudiation of the ‘new’ views of those who became the founders of the Seventh-day Adventists.” But the “issue” discussed by Martin in the opening paragraphs of his Dec. 19 article, was Miller’s alleged dissociation from “the movement.” Let us stay by the point I raised. Why evade it? Martin irrelevantly quotes LeRoy E. Froom, SDA writer of standing, as though Froom were with him on this item of Miller versus SDA teachings, and against me. But see Froom’s comment below.
SDA writers have always said that Miller opposed our distinctive theology. There is therefore no “issue” here for me to attempt to “evade.” I stated that I was confining my comments to a “grievous historical error,” namely, that Miller “dissociated himself from the [Millerite] Movement.” In addition to the historical evidence I presented … let me add: All church historians agree that the true continuation of the Millerite Movement, after Oct. 22, 1844, consisted of those who subscribed to the Albany Conference, convened April 29, 1845, which the principle Millerite leaders attended. To the views of this Conference, with its appeal to unity, Miller heartily subscribed, and died in 1849 within the circle of the Movement. Not Miller, but those who were soon to become founders of the SDA Church, “dissociated” from the Movement after Oct. 22, 1844. They were not even present at the Albany Conference.
Naturally I take exception to the charge of evasion—anyone would. But why should I be charged with evading “the issue” … when I addressed myself directly to the very first issue he created in his article, and stated the reason why I confined myself to it? It’s a bit startling to be charged at this late date with evading something no Adventist writer has ever even desired to evade, Miller’s relation to SDA’s. Did Miller, or did he not, dissociate himself from the Millerite Movement? There seems to be evasion on this point, but not by me!
F. D. NICHOL
Editor
Review and Herald
Takoma Park, D. C.
To the foregoing by F. D. Nichol I subscribe unqualifiedly. I can not understand why Mr. Martin seeks to set me against Mr. Nichol—thus attempting to create an “issue” that has no foundation in fact. Nichol and I are in complete agreement.
LEROY E. FROOM
Takoma Park, D. C.
TO STRETCH THE SINEWS
I have received CHRISTIANITY TODAY for several years, and my interest in it increases each issue. You are to be commended for attempting to stretch the sinews and tissues of your readers’ minds with the series on Basic Christian Doctrines.
JOHN LEWIS GILMORE
Miner Congregational Church
Wilkes-Barre, Pa.
I believe your efforts will provide one of the important links in the revival of orthodoxy among American Protestants.
DONALD D. HEACOCK
Chaplain
USAF
Hampton, Va.
NEW ERA FOR THE BRAVE
Recently while at lunch with an old seminary classmate of mine, Soff O. Klees, our minds turned to things past and present, such as who would take care of the tip. Talk turned to another classmate, R. Garland Chatham, whom we knew as Rufe, now second vice-president in charge of program in his organization, with office located in the new church bureau building in upper Manhattan.
Klees, an astute observer, told of his recent visit with Chatham and because it bears somewhat on current religious topics I shall try to repeat the whole incident.
After finding his way to Chatham’s inner office and after the usual greetings, talk turned most naturally to the recent proposals for church mergers, which, incidentally might affect Chatham most intimately. I shall let Klees take over as Chatham replies:
“These proposals, coming from such church statesmen, cannot be ignored. On the other hand, there are some very important factors.…”
I interrupted. “What do you think of Dr. Ryke’s proposal for bishops in the new setup? Even with his suggestion that their annuity payments after retirement be based on the salaries of the lowest paid ten percent of the clergy?”
“The suggestion reminds me of the original meaning of the word bishop—servant, or was it inspector? It’s asking a lot of a man to cut his annuity funds into one-quarter of what they were. But if you only knew a few of the bishops as I do, you wouldn’t be surprised to know that Dr. Ryke’s proposal on this point actually came from them.”
“This isn’t for quotation, Rufe, but is it true that in the new proposed setup all the denominational brass now holding office would resign and take rural pastorates and foreign mission posts so that the new church could start off with a clean slate minus any juggling or jealousy? This is just a rumor. Or is it?”
Rufe took a long look through the huge window overlooking the Hudson. He replied. “Yes, it is true, Soff, but it’s not for release yet. I’m glad you mentioned it. And it just goes to show what men will do when they are on fire for something. In a way it reminds me of the early church, the first century Christians. What’s that verse—in honor preferring one another?”
“You don’t have to answer this one, Rufe, but in the new united church is it really true that there are plans for a single, sliding salary scale for pastors, with all salary checks mailed monthly from headquarters?”
Rufe glanced about for hidden mikes. Not for nothing have New York reporters been called the most aggressive in the world. He cleared his throat.
“I can tell you this, Soff, but don’t quote me. In fact, don’t mention it outside this room. Yes, it is true. And it indicates to me, at least, the quality of men we have in our larger churches. There will be no such thing as ‘local salaries’ any more. All monies previously paid out for this purpose will be sent by local church treasurers to headquarters, along with funeral, wedding, and other pastoral fees. Royalties from articles and books will be sent in by the pastor himself. Then the whole pie will be divided by a certain formula—living costs in the various areas, number of children, children in college, and so forth. In other words, the same kind of arrangement, more or less, that our foreign missionaries have worked under for more than a hundred years, and you can’t say there’s a more dedicated group in the world. Best of all, the suggestion for this plan came in a petition from some of the better paid men right here in the metropolitan area.”
“I don’t get it, Rufe, robbing the rich to pay the poor, or in some cases, robbing the industrious to reward the lazy.”
“Not at all, Soff. It might, on the other hand, be called a belated, two thousand years belated, attempt to practice the New Testament aim of sharing equally.”
“Still, when a man’s worked hard, and all.…”
“So what? Don’t most ministers work hard? And you know yourself that nobody has a harder job than the pastor of a four point charge out in Podunk Center.”
He had me there.
“True, but just one more thing.…”
Rufe’s ever so sly glance at his desk clock indicated another appointment coming up. “What’s that, Soff?”
“I just can’t go for one feature of the Ryke’s proposal. I understand that in the new structure no man will be in an executive position of any kind, presbytery, conference, diocese, or national office, for more than six years. It seems like an awful waste—just as a man’s getting oriented, so to speak, and really effective in his job, to shove him out again on his own—bishops, superintendents, and all.”
“Waste? Not at all. On the contrary, it’s saving our best men for longer service. Soff, nobody knows the strain some of these guys are under. Their work puts them through the wringer. Nobody will welcome the change more than they will. As a matter of fact, and you can quote me on this—this suggestion came from a self-appointed committee of bishops and superintendents who call themselves ‘Longer Life for Connectional Workers, Inc.’ You can imagine the rumpus this thing will cause when it hits the floor—the idea of the church’s most valuable men actually being shoved back into the pastorate. Yet, I think these fellows will push it through. They’re determined. But you ought to hear of some of the other proposals.”
“Radical?”
“That’s not the word. Way out, man, way out. But they’ll be released within a short time.” He glanced at his watch.
“I’ve got to go, Rufe.” We parted.
Here Soff stopped.
As we went out the front door of the restaurant much of my previous reservation about current ecumenical proposals seemed almost irrelevant. Plans like these do give one hope and should be shared. Which proves that things will be different when men want them to be. The Church’s future looks brighter to me now.
GRAHAM R. HODGES
Emmanuel Congregational Church
Watertown, N. Y.
