US vs. THEM
There we were, sitting in front of the television watching professional football and sipping Cokes. Potato chips, onion dip, cookies, peanuts, and fruitcake were all ready, in case starvation should threaten us during the game. Suddenly our team intercepted the ball and scored.
My wife jumped to her feet, grabbed a copper cow bell from the side table, shook it vigorously, and shouted, “We’re ahead!”
I sat there struck dumb for a moment. The sound of an old-fashioned cow bell suddenly being rung with fervor next to your left ear is enough to dumbfound anyone. When the power of speech returned I pointed out to my wife that “we” hadn’t done anything but get ahead by another couple of pounds.
“You know what I mean,” she said. And indeed I do. We all seem to need to identify with some group. It gives us a sense of belonging and helps us know who we are.
When the first Volkswagens began to appear on the American scene after World War II you would sometimes see VW drivers honk and wave madly at one another, creating an informal fellowship of drivers who regarded themselves as a bit smarter than the average American.
And where would that average American be without the country club or his political party to remind him who he is?
If we didn’t have women’s lib, how would the women of today know who they are?
Blacks have their identity affirmed by a number of secular and religious caucuses.
It seems to me that all these identifications are relatively harmless. They can be assumed or dropped at will or treated with whatever degree of seriousness we wish to give them.
There is one identification that has the potential of getting you into a lot of trouble. It was once called to my attention by the editor of a conservative religious magazine. I had faulted him for being judgmental. I argued heatedly that we must not condemn others but must realize that we are sinners too and identify with the sinner.
“Agreed, we’re all sinners,” he replied. “But why not identify with Christ?”
Now that identification can get you into all sorts of problems. It gets in the way of our normal human identifications based on such reasonable factors as money, status, race, education, and sex.
Watch out for that one.
NO COMPETING LEVELS
Your suggestion of an Evangelical Education Congress (Editorials, “Settling Educational Priorities,” Oct. 22) is wise and timely. It would be good for Christian school educators who serve God on the elementary, secondary, and higher education levels to define the challenges of our day, and to seek solutions.
Although the major growth is taking place on the elementary school level, I do not view any of the three levels as being in competition. The Church needs all schools which are genuinely Christian in their basic philosophy and objectives.
Perhaps an Education Congress would draw these levels together and lead to greater cooperation, and greater finance, within the church. God is moving in Christian education today, but we need to work in unity.
Headmaster
The Delaware County Christian School
Newton Square, Pa.
A CURIOUS SCHOLAR?
Regarding “A Curious Anniversary” by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Oct. 22): it is “strange and regrettable” (to use the author’s words) that a person with such fine academic credentials would write and publish an article centered about an event that he apparently misunderstands and investigated only superficially. I refer to his allegation that the Episcopal Church is banishing its Thirty-Nine Articles. He jumps to this conclusion simply on the basis that they are not included in the trial liturgy. I assume that he refers to the publication “Services for Trial Use” which contains “authorized alternatives to Prayer Book Services.” The preface to the work gives the following explanation of its purpose (italics mine):
These forms of worship were prepared by the Standing Liturgical Commission in partial fulfillment of the Plan for Prayer Book Revision adopted by the General Convention in 1967. They are offered for trial use throughout the Church as alternatives to the corresponding services in The Book of Common Prayer, for study and for use in situations of actual worship, with a view to their further development and elaboration. They are not, at this stage, proposed as amendments to, or as substitutes for, the services in the Prayer Book [page v].
The “Services for Trial Use” book did not intend to include all of the components of the presently authorized Prayer Book but simply offers trial “forms of worship” in “partial fulfillment of the Plan for Prayer Book Revision.” As its title clearly states, the book contains only “services for trial use”.…
Perhaps a more important point is that Bromiley apparently does not understand that the Episcopal Church is a creedal church, not a confessional one. Its standard of faith is the Nicene Creed (which remains, by all means, in the trial services), not a confession such as the Thirty-Nine Articles. I suggest that Mr. Bromiley do his homework; … the scholar should thoroughly investigate his subject.
Norman, Okla.
A CASE OF FAILURE?
I read with interest the recent articles written by Elmer Towns and James Davey (“Big Churches? Yes!” and “Big Churches? No!,” Nov. 5) discussing the relative merits of the large and small Sunday school. It appears to me Davey fails to make a case for the ideal Sunday school having an attendance of between 400 and 600.
In the first place, Davey does not rely upon Scripture for his argument. He fails to include a comprehensive report of the Book of Acts church of Jerusalem, which of necessity must be considered in any such discussion. Davey writes as though the ideal attendance of 400 to 600 was somehow divinely inspired; yet the truth is the entire argument raises up socio-economic factors that relate only to the U. S. economic and social conditions. I could not help but wonder if he would apply the same arguments to churches in Peru, the Philippine Islands, or Korea.
Towns’s article was a supportive article that relates the advantages of a larger church. Davey’s article is a negative article that primarily discusses the detrimental effects of a large church. In my judgment Davey’s article is a narrow, unresearched, and narrowly stereotyped one within the confines of denominational standards of Sunday-school growth. The contents of this thoughtless, unimaginative, stereotyped approach to Sunday-school will further contribute to the current decline of the denominational Sunday school. I would invite Davey to visit the Kansas City Baptist Temple and see in action the multiple ministries to which Towns alludes. He would find that we are able to meet the varied needs of urban America more effectively than the small, defeated church.
Kansas City Baptist Temple
Kansas City, Mo.
I believe that the articles were wrongly titled. They should have been entitled, “Big Churches, How Big?” From my point of view, nothing was said about small churches at all, unless it was to say that churches with less than 400 people are not really churches (or at least are not worth mentioning).
I believe that churches with even less than 100 people are really churches and that they are worth mentioning. I am a pastor of such a church which is a growing, active church. We have an adequate building for our present needs. It is well kept and attractive. We have had people from a church of 2,000 members praise our facilities. The church pays its pastor an adequate salary. One-fourth of its budget goes to missionary activity outside the church. We minister to our immediate community on a regular basis through a Dial-a-Devotion ministry and a weekly paid article in the newspaper. We are waiting to extend both of these ministries to our “Judaea.” Our people are involved in nine home Bible studies as a means of reaching the lost in our various neighborhoods, along with personal witnessing and passing out tracts.
We believe we will keep growing in our rural community. We will have more people and will need larger facilities. But we’re a living church now and are excited about what the Lord is doing in our “small small” church.
Calvary Evangelical Free Church
Spring Grove, Minn.
