Putting It Over The Young
It’s frightening how three decades and the Waters of Lethe can produce a middle-aged view of youth as “lean hungry savage anti-everythings”—and that without qualification. Campus thuggery seems less appalling when I think of one religious denominational group whose annual conference opens with the singing of “And Are We Yet Alive?” Looking at their faces, and watching them sink thereafter in a morass of minutiae, one sees the relevance of the question.
Before anyone fells me with a point of order, I hasten to quote a sagacious comment for times like these. “Young people,” says the writer, “have exalted notions because they have not yet been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations. They would rather do noble deeds than useful ones. They overdo everything—they love too much, they hate too much, and the same with everything else.” That’s Aristotle and, with qualifications, may induce some to deplore the decline of classical studies in modern education.
What made me mention a subject manifestly too profound for me was a couple of press reports earlier this year on macabre happenings in Sweden. First, the state-supported Modern Museum got five hundred children to a lecture on America by a Black Panther leader. He told them to disbelieve everything said by the new U. S. Ambassador, because he was “a fascist Negro swine.” Such exploitation of William Pitt’s suggestion that “youth is the season of credulity” will do little for either Swedish-American or race relations.
Then another government setup, the Swedish Broadcasting Corporation, invited British children from the Anglo-American school to a concert of modern music. Instead, the kids were lined up, told they were to be a choir in a comic opera, and tricked into shouting slogans which included “Smith is a bad man” and “Smith is a murderer”—all this being recorded. It would be fascinating to learn how a country without overseas responsibilities would have handled the Rhodesian problem.
T. E. Lawrence (of Arabia) once used a memorable phrase about youth’s being “pitiably weak against age.” Last summer in the Swedish city of Uppsala, when an impressively strong police force was always on hand to protect an ecumenical occasion from the youthfully disturbing, some frustrated ones distributed a broadsheet with the pitiable challenge: “We urge all teen-agers to support a nationwide petition demanding the raising of the moral standards of adults.” Which might suggest that they know something we don’t want to know.
EUTYCHUS IV
Glorious Good
I praise God for the insight into the true nature of man in “Hope in the Midst of Horror” and “Dark Counsel at Easter” (Mar. 27). These two articles are the best I have read on Easter anywhere at any time.…
If my soul (me) never dies, I can get along very well without a resurrection; but if death is the antithesis of life, resurrection is the most glorious good news that man has ever heard!
MRS. H. M. SPILMAN
Rochester, N. Y.
Two recent articles in CHRISTIANITY TODAY contained statements about the agony of Jesus in Gethsemane that do not honor him.
“The Human Experience of Death” a few issues ago stated that Jesus’ agony was due to his human fear of physical death.… The second article, “Hope in the Midst of Horror,” … states the same idea again.…
The New Testament clearly states that the true believer in Jesus did not need to fear physical death. Rather, I believe, the agony Jesus experienced was due to the revulsion of the holy, sinless Son of God taking into himself the corruption of human sin so he could atone for it on the cross.
Jesus’ cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?,” was not due to the absence of God the Father from Jesus, but because while one is in sin he cannot feel the Father’s comfort and presence.
(The Rev.) RALPH A. BROWN
Bristol, Tenn.
A word of appreciation for the encouraging and thought-provoking article by Dr. Robert L. Cleath. Christ died the sinner’s death, i.e., he went to the tomb without the encouragement of the Father or other divine or angelic agencies to sustain him in his darkest hour.
Martyrs have died with songs upon their lips and praise in their hearts, due to the presence of such heavenly agencies. Our Lord had none, but died feeling utterly forlorn, forsaken, and neglected, if I read my Bible correctly.
JAMES J. SHORT, M.D.
Carmel Valley, Calif.
For the most part, the article was an inspiring and much needed expression of the significance of Christ’s resurrection. On the other hand, I was surprised that Dr. Cleath accepted Oscar Cullmann’s assertion that in death the soul also dies and that it must be brought back to life again by a divine creative act. Regardless of the fact that God would recreate the soul at the resurrection, to say that the soul dies is a denial of the immortality of the soul. Scripture clearly attests to the fact that the soul lives on after death and that death is a separation of the soul from the body.
E. RICHARD STALLINGS, JR.
Springfield, Ill.
N.E.B. ‘Ifs’ And ‘Ands’
Professor Pfeiffer’s lucid and incisive review of “The New English Bible: The Old Testament” (Mar. 27) leaves one with the impression—due to lack of space for a comparison in depth—that what the New English Bible translators have done with the beginning of Genesis is really like the work of the Jewish Publication Society in the Torah or E. A. Speiser in the Anchor Bible.…
More basic than the question of whether the first word of the Hebrew Bible is in the construct state is a vexatious Semitic habit of using coordination (independent expressions tied together by “and”) to express ideas that are really subordinate (dependent expressions that would start with “if” or “when” in a non-Semitic language).…
Now the “surface structure” of Genesis 1:1–3 is—in the jargon of linguistics—“coordinate”—thus, the King James Version. But thoughtful Jewish scholars, steeped in their language, feel in the “deep structure” a subordination. If their perception is valid—a subtle, subjective “if” that no amount of discussion is likely ever to rub out—if it is valid, then the all-important question becomes: “What is the first principal clause, the first independent statement, in the Bible? Here the New English Bible is poles apart from Speiser-J.P.S.
… Far more is involved than mere grammar. The important thing is the placement of emphasis.… The gist of the Speiser and J.P.S. translations is that when God began his creation the first thing he said was, “Let there be light.”
The emphasis of the New English Bible—with God relegated to a dependent “when-clause”—is that “in the beginning of creation … the earth was without form and void, with darkness … and a mighty wind”—as in the Mesopotamian mythology.…
Finally, may I say in all humility that when Professor Pfeiffer finds it “surprisingly conservative” for the Israelites to “cross the Red Sea in the NEB,” he displays an attitude of mind that is better and more wholesome than mine? A former auditor who cannot break himself of looking between lines with a jaundiced eye does not find this translation surprising. It is not conservative. If one thinks that the incident really happened (histoire), one reports the locale as precisely as possible: Sea of Reeds. But now suppose one still believes the event is true, but on a different plane, in another dimension (geschichte).… Then, when one retells the sacred story, one preserves the familiar place-name—geographically inexact but precious to the English-speaking world: Red Sea.
I am disturbed by the way evangelical intellectuals, including my preceptor, F. F. Bruce, are reacting to the New English Bible. They are being too careful, too charitable. They are leaving the field of attack wide open for fundamentalists, who soon will ride roughshod to the attack with predictable and unfortunate results.
PAUL W. GAEBELEIN, JR.
Pacific Palisades, Calif.
Heart Of Spurgeon
Your correspondent Donald M. Poundstone suggests (Mar. 27) that I did not get to the heart of Spurgeon’s genius (should he not have said “theology”?) in quoting Kenneth Latourette’s statement that Spurgeon was a “moderate Calvinist.” Let me quote one of the great preacher’s own statements:
I recollect great complaint being made against a sermon of mine “Compel them to come in,” which I spake much tenderness for souls. That sermon was said to be Arminian, and unsound. Brethren, it is a small matter to me to be judged of men’s judgment, for my master has set his seal on that message. I never preached a sermon by which so many souls were won to God; and all over the world, where that sermon has been scattered, sinners have been saved through its instrumentality. And if it be vile to exhort sinners, I purpose to be viler still … and herein imitate my Lord and his apostles, who, though they taught salvation is of grace, and grace alone, feared not to speak to men as rational beings and responsible agents, and bid them “strive to enter in at the strait gate.” … [Reprinted from the Sword and Trowel, Oct. 11, 1956].
Surely his preaching was “warmly evangelistic” because his Calvinism was not of the extreme type—despite your correspondent’s quotation from Spurgeon’s autobiography.
JOHN PITTS
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
Rated ‘Cop-Out’
Two editorials in your Easter issue (Mar. 27) implied an evangelical retreat into inaction: the ones on integration and on Christian colleges.
More than prayer is needed to correct the inequities of our black fellow citizens (and Christians). A little courageous movement on the part of evangelicals has been long overdue. To be sure, black schools need improvement as well as integration. But sociological studies have shown repeatedly that separate education produces deep-seated psychological feelings of inferiority. That the answers are complex, that bitterly disheartened blacks are crying for separatism and black power, should not be used to rationalize backward steps. To the Christian, the basic outlook should be clear: in Christ, we are told, there is no Jew nor Greek (no black nor white).
The Christian-college editorial is a cop-out, too. That Christian-college students are Christian hardly seems an acceptable defense for academic mediocrity. Evangelicals—in contrast, for example, to Jews—are a long way from pulling their own weight academically and creatively. The anti-intellectual hostility of evangelicalism has been, and continues to be, costly. Why should evangelical intellectuals have to be apologetic about using their minds in response to the command that we give of our best to the Master? There should be an unabashed, unapologetic support within evangelicalism for intellectual and creative achievement. Lack of it is a bad witness—and implies bad, Docetic theology.
JOAN K. OSTLING
Teaneck, N. J.
Your cure is nearly as bad as the disease in your editorial attempt to remedy confusion regarding Christian-college evaluations. Although you make the important point that Christian colleges must be evaluated first by criteria that will have relevance at the judgment seat of Christ, you create a serious false impression with regard to other standards.
Speaking of criteria by which secular agencies “rank” colleges, you claim that the New York Times Almanac “goes out on a limb” to divide institutions according to the demonstrated academic potential of the student body. The Times Almanac, however, cautions in bold letters: “IT IS NOT A RATING OF COLLEGES.” In fact the Almanac is providing only a “rough guide” to the academic competition a student will meet in applying to or attending various colleges. By using in your editorial this single criterion to distinguish among eight Christian colleges by letter grades (C for Wheaton and E for the rest), you are ignoring the precaution against ratings and leaving yourself, rather than the Times, far out on a limb. Academic potential of students is certainly one of the criteria for judging the quality of any college. There are, however, a substantial number of other criteria which you should mention as well.
GEORGE MARSDEN
Assoc. Prof.
Calvin College
Grand Rapids, Mich.
