The problem of a consensus on ‘good’
Perfectly Evident
Back in the good old days (whenever and whatever they were) I was in a situation in which off and on I was invited out to English tea. One of the nice things the English did was to invite at least one person as a center of attraction for the afternoon tea, and the rest of us clustered around. Of course, for undergraduates the center of attraction was usually a cake from home or a box of cookies, but people of greater age and spirit made their occasions on higher levels.
One Sunday afternoon, after enjoying a tea for the better part of an hour, I was introduced to Canon Dick Shephard, who at the time was at St. Martins-of-the-Fields in London and who was known as the leading exponent of pacifism in a day when this was a pretty live issue. I have to make two points here. One is that at this time Canon Dick Shephard was one of the biggest names in Great Britain and was also of world renown. The second point is that I didn’t know he was there until I was introduced to him. He made no effort in any way I could see to “make himself known,” and yet once you knew who he was all kinds of important things clustered around his name. He was listened to in high places, but he never had to raise his voice. Power and effectiveness are not always where we think they are.
On another afternoon I had the same experience with C. F. Andrews of India, who was back in Great Britain for a leave of absence. Again there was no effort on the great man’s part; and yet, as the afternoon moved on, the other guests were increasingly affected by his inner strength and the majesty of his manhood.
When Jesus cured the Gadarene demoniac, the man begged to be taken along in the disciples’ band. Instead of this he received what I think are amazing instructions: “Go tell what I have done for you.” With all the bone-crushing theology around these days, and with all the very evident effort on the part of a great many young theologians to be seen and heard and recognized as being alert and aware, it would be refreshing to have just one of them tell us just once what it is the Lord has done for him. Shephard had it. Andrews had it. The Gadarene demoniac had the right message, apparently. Just what are the rest of us talking about?
EUTYCHUS II
God’S Will And Man’S Brains
I share your concern over any possible attempt to alter mankind through biological tampering (“Are Man’s Brains Now at Stake?,” Aug. 19 issue). Some scientists feel that we are very close to having the knowledge necessary to allow man to shape himself into what he thinks he should be, and they are already thinking about the specifications for the end product. I do not think that your comments are premature and am very glad that you alerted Christians to this possibility.
A geneticist recently told me that he believed that within our lifetime the knowledge would be available to make man into whatever form was considered “good”—in fact, that it would be possible to alter genes to produce any desired characteristic and thereby create a “new” man. He further said that we scientists who are Christians should start now to define “good” so when that time comes we will be ready to influence the direction of the control to produce a man conforming to our definition of “good.”
My first reaction to this was one of concern over man’s ability to influence his own personality, and I questioned whether or not he should even attempt such a thing, just as you did in your editorial. I still question it but somehow feel that there is no earthly power that can force man to refrain from attempting to use any power he has available. There certainly has been none in the past. In the next-to-last paragraph of your editorial you speak of the “incredible powers science is gradually putting into [man’s] hands,” as though science is some indefinite force outside man. The fact is that this power is a gift of God that man has found through study of God’s creation, and there is no reason to believe that man will treat it with any more responsibility than he has any other gift of God. This makes it no less a gift of God through which he reveals to man his wonderful power and the order and wonder of his creation, and I believe it is a gift man should claim through scientific study.
My second reaction was to refer my friend to the New Testament for an example of the perfect man: Jesus Christ himself. That Christ is the measure of perfection for the saints is made clear in Ephesians 4:12, 13. What an advantage it would be if we could start children out with the best that breeding could offer. But this is no answer, because there is no indication that there is any hereditary “goodness” in any of us that manifests itself as an ability to walk closer to God or to be more Christ-like. So we are still no closer to an answer.
It seems to me, however, that the most serious flaw in the suggestion that man can and should control what he becomes is the fact that the suggestion would even be made. It is another way suggested by man to make himself acceptable to God without going by way of Christ. It has become clear that man has not become better when left on his own. His works have not saved him. Still unwilling to yield himself to Christ, he now wants to make himself over so that he may finally become “good”—or is it “God”?
ALBERT L. HEDRICH
Bethesda, Md.
“Putting Brains into Our Christianity,” by Dr. Hope (Aug. 19 issue) was, I am sure, a challenge to every Christian. Along that line, it reminded me of your international conference on evangelism to be held shortly in Berlin. I trust the brains put together at that meeting will, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, find a method of increasing the outreach of the Gospel in Communist-dominated countries.…
JOHN D. GEISLER
Rochester, Minn.
Strong Language
May I add my compliments on your splendid editorial “Too Many Chiefs” (July 22 issue). Hooray for you; please let us have some more of this and advocate in strong language that we get ourselves “involved” with what is going on around us.
JACOB MAGENHEIMER
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Incomplete Picture
As participants in the Seminar on the Authority of Scripture, we believe that the editorial comments in CHRISTIANITY TODAY (July 22, 1966, p. 27) may present a somewhat incomplete picture. It would be wrong to deny or to obscure the fact that serious differences of opinion about the Bible were present.
Two mutually exclusive approaches to the Bible seemed to undergird much of the discussion. One approach held that it was possible to begin with the so-called phenomena of Scripture and from these to arrive at a proper view of the Bible. The other, which we believe to be the scriptural procedure, was to accept what the Bible had to say about itself and to interpret the phenomena in the light of Scripture’s explicit statements. Only upon the basis of the biblical doctrine concerning itself may the phenomena be properly studied.
Inasmuch as we adhere to this latter method, we heartily affirm our belief in the inerrancy of the sacred Scriptures and cannot understand how any Christian can hesitate to affirm such belief, for the Scripture “cannot be broken” (John 10:35b).
Another serious point of difference, which probably emerged as a result of beginning with the phenomena rather than with the express teaching of the Bible, was whether the message of the Bible or what the Bible teaches is to be distinguished from the whole extent of Scripture itself. Are there elements in the Bible which are to be set apart from the teaching of the Bible? We would answer this question with an emphatic negative, for God has plainly told us that all Scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:16). To maintain otherwise, we believe, is to fall into serious doctrinal error; and yet in the discussions at Wenham this erroneous view was vigorously defended.…
KENNETH S. KANTZER
Dean
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Ill.
EDWARD J. YOUNG
Prof. of Old Testament
Westminster Theological Seminary
Philadelphia. Pa.
Please. No Small A
The closing sentence in the news item concerning the NACCC on page 45 of the July 22 issue must have been printed in error. The National Association (please, no small a) is and has been concerned solely with the ongoing of the Congregational way of religious life. We were embroiled in the merger by those who were intent on establishing a new and completely different religious structure. The deviation from the Congregational polity (which was never going to be changed) is becoming clearer almost daily as the involvements of the COCU develop.…
ARCHIE PEACE
National Association
of Congregational Christian Churches
Norfolk, Conn.
No Victory At The Altar
Re “Ecumenism at the Altar” (News, July 22 issue):
If this is the first time a Southern Baptist pastor and a Roman Catholic priest participated together in a wedding ceremony, may I inquire, what does this prove? What is the victory? The article continues, “The bride says she will remain Baptist and her husband Catholic.” The Bible says, Amos 3:3, “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” The Bible says, Matthew 12:25, “Every house divided against itself shall not stand.” Any informed person knows a Baptist and a Catholic marriage is a house divided against itself. The Catholic Church knows this and speaks against such union with much more frankness than Baptists. A Baptist-Catholic marriage is saturated with insecurity from its inception regardless of who officiates or where it is performed. To live under the same roof, eat at the same table, sleep in the same bed does not prove a house is not divided.
What about the children born into this Baptist-Catholic Union? Is it right for any parent to sign away the freedom of an unborn child? Please do not refer me to the recent decision of the Ecumenical Council, which met in Rome. A member of my church married a Roman Catholic this month and prior to the ceremony had to sign the usual agreement to rear the children Catholic, etc., and not to interfere with her husband’s religion.…
A truthful report of this wedding would make interesting reading ten years hence.
H. B. SHEPHERD
First Baptist Church
Fairhope, Ala.
Water Conservation
Unfortunately, very little attention seems to be given to the stewardship of God’s handiwork by … Christians.
You are, therefore, to be commended for your plain and biblical editorial (“Water Is No Luxury,” July 8 issue) regarding the responsibility of the believer toward the world about him and the life which it supports.
P. E. TAYLOR
Vineland, N. J.
The Bible In The University
In the July 8 issue (News) you report correctly, “A court in Seattle turned down the demand of two Bible Presbyterian ministers for discontinuance of a University of Washington course, ‘The Bible as Literature’.” This case is being appealed. In the same issue Prof. Addison H. Leitch reviews An Introduction to Christianity (evidently used at Michigan State University) and states in the concluding paragraph: “Despite the authors’ refusal to support a position, a liberal position comes through.” The Bible may not be taught at public expense as revelation, but from a liberal, higher critical, point of view—well, that’s different!
PAUL DE KOEKKOEK
Seattle, Wash.
Symptoms Of Evil
All that Wolcott says (“India: Reality and Challenge,” June 24 issue) needs to be said, but it is far from all that can or should be said. Such things as allowing Christian girls to marry Hindus or Muslims because there are few Christian men prosperous enough; giving Hindu deities’ names to Christian children at baptism; encouraging Christians to go to law against Christians in direct violation of First Corinthians 6:1–8; permitting Christian brides to indulge in Hindu customs and procedures for personal adornment—these are symptoms of the evils within the Indian Church.…
PERCY SHASTRI
National Director
Indian Campus Crusade
for Christ
Hyderabad, India
All Windows, No Doors
In response to your editorial “Window in Philadelphia” (June 24 issue), I would like to call your attention to the expressed policies of the Westminster Press as stated in chapter 4 of the Board of Christian Education’s annual report to the General Assembly in 1965.…
“To the serious question of why an agency of the church should intentionally help stir up controversy … the equally serious answer is proposed: There is always a need to restate the gospel of Jesus Christ for each age, and when the gospel is stated in a new way it becomes controversial. In such a situation, it is wholesome that not just one side be presented, nor that the thinking in only one denomination be explored. Therefore, the publishing program of the Westminster Press in this area reflects a worldwide ecumenical conversation and is careful to present various sides giving voice to several traditions or outlooks of the faith.” …
I am glad to be part of a denomination which has enough confidence in Christ as Truth to be unafraid to present for study all possible viewpoints and interpretations, and not to seek to present only one-sided indoctrination.
CHESTER O’NEAL
Asst. Pastor
Faith United Presbyterian Church
Monmouth, Ill.
Too Many Confessions
The “Confession of 1967” adopted by the 178th General Assembly is not a bad statement for our day—especially given the wide spectrum of doctrinal diversity within the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America.…
However, I continue to have serious misgivings about the resultant doctrinal confusion such an amorphous mass as the “Book of Confessions” is bound to produce. My impression is that almost all of the debate has focused on the “Confession of 1967” and that little importance has been attached to the “Book of Confessions” which was a part of the total confessional package approved by the recent General Assembly.
The “Book of Confessions” includes the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, the Scots Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Theological Declaration of Barmen. This collection of creeds was not a part of the original intent that gave impetus to the new brief confessional statement. The concept of a “Book of Confessions” seems to have arisen after the original committee received its instructions.
One must be impressed with the various confessional statements that are included. The variety of backgrounds from which they come will add a richness to the theological foundations of our denomination. I am sure that the reaction of most who read them will be that, indeed, they all are good creeds.…
However, I am persuaded that the total effect of the “Book of Confessions” upon the constitution will be bad—however good the individual documents may be. The Westminster Confession is a part of our particular denominational history as these other documents are not. As a living constitutional document it has been amended. If it does not properly reflect the theological understanding of the church in our day, it may be amended again.
It is to the Westminster Confession that our ministers and other officers have subscribed for more than two hundred years. It is the Westminster Confession that has been particularly representative of the theological thinking of our denomination. It has had more of an influence upon the course of American Presbyterianism than any other confessional formulation. It has been ours in the same sense that the Heidelberg Catechism has been the confessional statement for many of the Continental Reformed churches. If nothing is to be achieved by giving constitutional status to these other fine documents, then there is no need to artificially alter our heritage by implying that these other documents have had the same status in American Presbyterianism as have the Westminster standards.
The proposed “Book of Confessions” is simply too vast for constitutional use. These documents would make a total addition to the doctrinal part of constitution of about 119 pages. Including the Westminster Confession and Shorter Catechism it would mean a section of about 156 pages plus the new confession, as compared with the present 37 pages.
If all of these documents are made a part of the constitution, they will be subject to amendment as is any part of the Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. There is no such thing as an unamendable constitution. Any body that has authority to adopt law can at a later time, by the same process, change that law. Is it not somewhat preposterous to suggest that future general assemblies with the concurrence of two-thirds of the presbyteries also amend the Nicene Creed, the Scots Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Theological Declaration of Barmen, in addition to the “Confession of 1967”?
As fine as these other documents are, it must be recognized that in certain areas of doctrine they contradict one another. The legal consequences would be that the denomination would be left with no doctrine at all in such areas. When two laws of equal value contradict each other, the force of both is annulled.
For practical purposes, the law of the church is not simply the constitution as printed but the constitution as interpreted by the courts of the church. In other words, our confessional and doctrinal standards are the Westminster standards in the light of the interpretation that various courts of the church have set upon these standards. Raising all these other confessional statements to the same level as Westminster will have the effect of doing away with the great investment of time and energy that has gone into the decisions of the various judicatories. It will take a long time for a similar body of interpretative opinion to be rendered on the new “Book of Confessions.” This will require time, effort, and resources that could well be expended in more urgent causes.
It has been complained that the Westminster standards are archaic, not up to date. How will including even older and more archaic standards solve that problem? Again, it has been complained that people are not familiar with the Westminster standards. If they are not familiar with a doctrinal statement comprising some 37 pages, how are they to become more familiar with a statement that is certain to exceed 160 pages in length? If … the Westminster documents are inadequate because those in the denomination are generally ignorant of them, is it likely that they will be more familiar with documents that have been much less a part of our heritage?
It has also been stated that the Westminster standards do not adequately represent the doctrinal position of the United Presbyterian Church today. The implication is that in view of what we are—Westminster is not precise enough. How will theological formulations that are much more cumbersome and often less precise solve this difficulty?
The value of the documents contained in the “Book of Confessions” will not be enhanced by making them a part of the Constitution of the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. The “Book of Confessions” should be accepted or rejected on its own merit—not because it is attached to an attractive brief contemporary statement.
FOSTER H. SHANNON
First Presbyterian Church
Ivanhoe, Calif.
Vigorous And Refreshing
Thank you for clear thinking, vigorous style, and refreshing, courageous journalism. Your reports and editorials on ecumenism are timely and trenchant, yet restrained and objective.…
JOHN M. PAXTON
San Bernardino, Calif.
