Dear Demonstrative And Non-Demonstrative Peace-Lovers:
In my dedicated efforts to cover the religious offbeat, I recently found myself immersed in a sea of Vietnik demonstrators at the United Nations awaiting arousement from the ecclesiastical Dr. Martin Luther King and his secular side-kick, Stokely Carmichael. Talk about the huddled masses yearning to breathe free—I was packed so tightly in the surging confines of the barricade-breaking crowd that all I could do was gasp and roll with the tide. The tempest-tossed, slovenly dressed enthusiasts with long, matted hair almost made one wonder if the wretched refuse of our teeming shores had not all been brought to the door of the U.N. in the City of Miss Liberty for this great show of moral conviction.
After a morning spent admiring one another’s weird appearance, dancing to a beat played on old oil drums (napalm?), burning old draft cards and Old Glory (and maybe having a jolt or two of Old Grand Dad), the peace-marchers paraded from Central Park to U.N. Plaza. The watchful eye of New York’s Finest insured their right to demonstrate (a privilege not afforded in Hanoi). Daffodils in their lapels and slogan buttons on their bosoms, they carried erect the posters proclaiming their message. A poetic spirit inscribed: “I Don’t Give a Damn for Uncle Sam, I’m Not Goin’ to Viet Nam.” Another sign asserted the truism: “Children Are Not Born to Burn.” A more friendly persuader advised, “If All Else Fails, Try Love.” Apart from a few threatening jeers and ungentlemanly shoves, I witnessed only the tedium of non-violence during the long and noisy trek.
Craning my neck to behold the Rev. Dr. King at the U.N., I was foiled by the throngs surrounding him. His sonorous voice blaring from loudspeakers, however, reminded me that he was close by. His appeal for an emotional fusion of the peace and civil-rights movements revealed his desire to remain in the top post of protest leadership. And his arguments against U. S. policy in Viet Nam showed either a myopic vision of the true nature of Communist aggression or a yen to be a disruptive force in American society. The rally was an ocean of emotion but conveyed precious little realistic and genuinely humane common sense.
Despite the pressure of warm bodies and the appeals of hot heads, I somehow survived the whole happening. But I imagine the real Martin Luther must be spinning in his grave to see how his namesake is protesting in 1967.
Pacifically, EUTYCHUS III
Canada Does Exist!
Thank goodness an American magazine has really recognized the existence of Canada! Your March 31 issue was excellent.
E. ARTHUR P. ROWE
Anglican Church
Mortlach, Saskatchewan
The issue was marked by penetrating depth, scholarly insight, and evangelistic concern. However, one statement appearing in the editorial, “A Church Between the Centuries,” was grossly misleading. In speaking of the 1925 merger which formed The United Church it was stated that “Methodists regrouped, forming the Free Methodists.” The Free Methodist Church of Canada had its inception in 1874.… It may well be that the 1925 United Church merger caused some “old-fashioned Methodists” to join the Free Methodist Church, but the latter group was not an outgrowth of that merger.
ELTON O. SMITH, JR.
Canasawacta Valley Free Methodist
Norwich, N. Y.
An excellent survey of the Church in Canada.
WILLIAM S. SAILER
Associate Editor
Religious & Theological Abstracts
Myerstown, Pa.
I hasten to include my congratulations with many others on the Canadian Centennial issue. As usual, Mutchmor struck a strong, evangelistic note; Ian Rennie’s story was revealing, and Leslie Hunt’s missionary review excellent, as was E. Margaret Clarkson’s assessment of Margaret Avison’s poetry. Leighton Ford’s exceptional campaign in Calgary has enhanced his write-up on the Centennial crisis, and, altogether, Canada and Canadians are grateful that such a well-known magazine should honor us by so much space.
HERBERT P. WOOD
Toronto, Ont.
On the whole, it was a splendid issue.
Unfortunately, Dr. J. R. Mutchmor in his article for a moment slipped into his famous habit of putting his foot in his mouth. I refer to his statement that “Canadian churches will move further away from all forms of hierarchy.… The historic episcopate will become largely a thing of the past. Prelacy will be heavily discounted.” In those three sentences, he mixed up two ideas in such a way as to hide the truth.
The historical episcopate is not on the way out.… Churches whose form of order is the historical episcopate have risen from representing 59.8 per cent of the population in 1941 to 61.2 per cent in 1961.… But he was accurate in saying that “prelacy will be heavily discounted.” For this we should say “Thanks be to God!” A bishop is not a ruler as he has been over much of the past 1,000 years of Christian history. A bishop is the servant of the church.…
A. J. PELL
Toronto, Ont.
Let’S Have A Consultation
Hurrah for my friend Carl Glasow in “Dangers of a Giant Church” (April 14). We do need a consultation against church union. Clear thinking and simple statement!
MARVIN S. KINCHELOE
Superintendent
Tazewell District Methodist Church
Tazewell, Va.
He has presented incisive arguments as to why organizational merger cannot replace love for God as an agent for Christian unity.
KENNETH C. HARPER
Upland, Ind.
I endorse every word of the article. The only criticism: it’s not strong enough! More power to you. Keep up showing the warning signals. Let us continue in harmony and fellowship, not monolithic regimentation or super-business bureaucracy.
R. B. GRIBBON
Easton, Md.
His article is literally an answer to prayer! How anyone can ignore the lesson of history in the weakness of leaders in their lust for power is incomprehensible—unless he wants to ignore it.
HELEN W. JENKINS
Baltimore, Md.
May I express dismay over the article.… It would be certain folly to minimize the “dangers of a giant church,” and even greater madness to abandon all critical judgment with regard to such a grandiose and awe-inspiring scheme as that proposed by COCU. Further, I should grant that, under certain circumstances, a “consultation against church union” might be called for. However, I find aspects of Pastor Glasow’s argument to be appallingly un-scriptural.
J. H. PAIN
Dept, of Religion
Drew University
Madison, N. J.
The article is conspicuously lacking in facts, biblical-theological reflection, and valid inferences. I was particularly scandalized by his emphasis on “creative competition in Protestantism.” Petty competition causes more confusion, “ecclesiastical rigidity,” superficial evangelism, and lack of integrity in church membership than any single problem of which I am aware.
ARDEN L. SNYDER
Director of Christian Education
Calvary Presbyterian
South Pasadena, Calif.
Fatima Revisited
Your comments on Luther’s views of the Virgin Mary (“Fatima’s Fiftieth,” News, Mar. 31) are grossly misleading, if not manifestly false. Though as a monk and priest, he prayed to her and other saints and also accepted her immaculate conception, he repudiated this later in life when he came to believe that a man is justified solely because of Christ, her son. He specifically condemned praying to her as idolatry. While Lutherans hold that as the Mother of God, she is praise worthy, they in no way teach that she is in any way the source of our Saviour’s deity. Mary’s remaining a virgin all of her life was for Luther at most a pious opinion and never a doctrine, divinely revealed, demanding faith and acceptance.
DAVID P. SCAER
Asst. Prof. of Systematic Theology
Concordia Theological Seminary
Springfield, Ill.
It is true that as a monk Luther prayed to Mary. But he did not continue to pray to Mary all his life.… Luther later regretted his prayers to Mary said as a monk. He wrote, “The truth is that the most pious monk is the worst rogue, because he denies Christ, the Mediator and High Priest, and makes a judge of Him.… I prayed especially to the Virgin, who mercifully appeased her Son through her motherly heart. Ah, if the article of justification had not fallen, brotherhood, pilgrimages, Masses, the invocation of saints, and such things would never have found any place in the church” (W-T 4, No. 4422). But this was Luther the monk. After he had been enlightened by his study of Holy Scripture Luther rejected prayers to Mary and all saints.
NORMAN V. ABBOTT
Hope Lutheran
Maryville, Mo.
Baptism And The Bible
Mr. Scaer and Mr. Ward in “The Conflict Over Baptism” (April 14) have taken the typical stand on baptism. Why shouldn’t they, since church tradition and ecclesiastical authority had dictated to them what they must believe. This too was my approach on the issue of baptism until I studied the Scriptures.…
I simply want to be a Christian only and therefore have as my authority the Scriptures. If anyone can prove from the Scriptures (Latin, Greek, Russian, German, English, etc.) that the design of baptism is not for the remission of sin, that the subjects are not believers, and that the form is not a burial, I will teach it. But may I honestly say that the scholarly, theological articles by Mr. Scaer and Mr. Ward have not presented the issue in keeping with the Scriptures.
JAMES F. LANDRUM
The Church at Bryant
Scottsbluff, Neb.
I eagerly began reading what would surely be a treatment of the subject of baptism worthy of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Ho-hum … Just another denominational tract. (A long one, but just a tract.) Permit me to suggest the obvious:
1. Typical of most treatments of the subject of baptism, the clear Scriptures concerning the ordinance are carefully omitted. In their place we have philosophy.…
2. Of course the isolated act of immersing one under water does not insure salvation, but this fact does not erase the fact that the Scriptures clearly require baptism for salvation.
3. Labeling a doctrine “Campbellite” does not mean that it, therefore, cannot be biblical. (I suspect that if Peter came preaching today he would be so labeled.)
ROGER CHAMBERS
West Side Church of Christ
Hamilton, Ohio
Dr. Ward clearly states the Baptist position when he says, “… baptism is the sign of Christian beginning. It would be emptied of its meaning if it did not stand at the threshold of the journey with Christ.”
However, most Baptist congregations require a person coming into its membership from a non-immersionist communion to be immersed, even though he may have been a confessing Christian for years. Do we not thus destroy the meaning of baptism, which according to Dr. Ward cannot be separated from its form, by removing it from the threshold of the Christian journey? If we are baptized into the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), then we say to a seasoned Christian when we immerse him, “You have never really been in that body until now.” Do we not end up in the same boat with the J. R. Graves Landmarkers and say that only Baptist churches are true churches?
ROBERT H. DEPP
Upper Seneca Baptist
Germantown, Md.
It is unfortunate that David Scaer based his defense of infant baptism on what is probably the worst possible argument in favor of the Church’s traditional practice. The whole concept of “infant faith” is unconvincing, speculative to the extreme, and, in fact, introduces a peculiarly Anabaptist apologetic.… Let us drop the feeble and unnecessary argument from “infant faith.” It confuses at the same time as it seriously undercuts the doctrine of grace.
LEIGH D. JORDAHL
Lutheran Theological Seminary
Gettysburg, Pa.
It would be interesting to know Mr. Ward’s view of one who holds that anything which is admittedly “an act of Christian obedience and confession of Christ” is therefore essential to the appropriation of God’s grace which offers salvation to the obedient.…
It would seem to be a basic Christian tenet held by all believers that one who deliberately and continuously refuses to obey a known command of God, or treats it as a non-essential, or causes others to do so, cannot expect to obtain salvation.
NAN H. VICKERY
Montgomery, Ala.
If Baptists do not practice “sacramental (or saving)” baptism, how can Ward insist that it is “the sign of Christian beginning” and “the way … public declaration of belief …” is made? Can one be a Christian without having a beginning or without having made public declaration of belief? Baptists teach that baptism does not save but practice as though it did, exactly as the “Campbellites” do. Actions speak louder than words.
E. FRANKLIN GAIGE
Elder
First Christian
Plesant Hill, Calif.
When Mr. Scaer suggests that “believers’ baptism of infants” is adequate justification for infant baptism, he comes up with a very tidy solution for what must be a knotty problem—but it’s a solution that is hardly justifiable from the New Testament.
COY D. ROPER
Tahlequah Church of Christ
Tahlequah, Okla.
Good Briefings
I was ever so pleased to see the item on “Keeping Tabs on Red Religion” (News, Mar. 31). In my public and private encounters abroad with the emissaries of both Moscow and Peking, I’d have been lost without my briefings from the pages of Religion in Communist Dominated Areas. And back home my understanding of current events gains light and perspective from it.
If the NCC drops it, the loss will be great. I should hope they’d work hard on reducing its deficit and increasing its circulation.
L. HUMPHREY WALZ
Minister of Public Relations
Synod of New York
United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A.
New York, N. Y.
The A.C.C.C.: Earnest Contenders
In your editorial “Evangelicals and Ecumenical Crisis” (Mar. 31) you write: “Neither the American Council of Christian Churches nor the National Association of Evangelicals as a movement has rallied to the evangelistic priorities of the Church.” Perhaps you should be reminded that it is not the purpose of the ACCC to evangelize.… The purpose of the ACCC is to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” so that the awful tide of apostasy may be held back so that lost men can be reached according to New Testament principles.
GARRISON E. RICE
Secretary, ACCC of Ohio
Bible Baptist
Bedford, Ohio
