God Bless The New York Times
The good, grey old lady of comprehensive journalism, the New York “All the News That Fits” Times has once again gladdened the hearts of reasonable, fair-minded, and moderate persons all over the Eastern Establishment and everywhere else that it is read. I refer, of course, to its recent editorial on the civil suit being brought by Episcopal women, claiming admission to that church’s priesthood, and demanding that the courts give them redress for denial of what they consider to be a “property right,” namely, admission to that sacerdotal collegium.
The Times stated, in a burst of rare common sense (we scruple to call it a rare burst of common sense), that whatever one’s views about ordination, the Episcopal priesthood, and the like, it really is something to be decided by the Episcopal Church, not by the civil courts, or even by the New York Times. It certainly is a reactionary move on the part of those women to ask the government to determine a matter of ecclesiastical polity or even doctrine. After all, the Constantinian age—when the emperor began to tell the church how to run itself—is supposed to be behind us. And if the courts are going to tell the churches what they can do in matters of internal policy, then the least they can do is follow the examples of Constantine by painting the first two letters of the name of Christ on their shields and running the pagans off the field.
No doubt many Bible students will warn the Episcopal women that they are transgressing the Pauline warning against taking their quarrels before a godless magistrate (1 Cor. 6:1–7). Of course, if the plaintiffs are hard-line feminists, then they will have a limited appreciation of St. Paul. And likewise if the courts follow Constantine’s example, then that Pauline objection would be removed. But we suspect that some scholars, in their zeal to protect the ladies from the error of taking spiritual matters before a worldly judge, may have overlooked an even more dangerous aspect of the suit. Can ordination be “property”? If so, then it can be bought and sold. And that, of course is what Simon Magus tried to do with St. Peter (Acts 8:18–24). Warned by Peter of his mistake, Simon withdrew his offer. (According to tradition, Simon Magus nevertheless went off so angry that he founded Gnosticism, a heresy that it took the Church about two hundred years to deal with. So let us entreat the Episcopal plaintiffs not to take our warning in a bad spirit!)
Furthermore, if spiritual offices are property rights, then they can be taxed. So much for a deacon, so much for a priest, so much for a bishop. Worse still, parishioners might begin suing for their property rights in interesting preaching, sound exegesis, and good administration of church programs. Then where would we all be? Where indeed? O blessed New York Times, pray for us.
What Is The Question?
Few things in the life of the Church should contribute less to the Kingdom and the equipping of the Saints than two recent articles: “When Wedlock Becomes Deadlock” and “Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times” (June 20). Now that these two crucial areas have been solved by such careful exegesis and hermeneutics, we can now move on to solving another historically pressing problem—that is “How many angels, holding a three-to-one wine mixture in the left hand and a cool cup of Mogen David in the other, can dance on the head of a pin held in place by a recently divorced non-Christian?” Or is that question, “How many recently divorced non-Christians holding an angel in the left hand and a three-to-one wine mixture in the other can dance on a cool cup of Mogen David held in place by a pin?”
Seventh Street Baptist Church
Ballinger, Tex.
This is just a note to say that I was especially pleased with the major articles in the June 20 issue. A special commendation should go to Andre Bustanoby.… His use of hermeneutics is simply superb! His interpretation of the divorce situation is the clearest I have ever encountered.… My one comment is, “Very well done! Keep articles like this one coming our way.”
Zion Mennonite Church
Bridgewater, S. Dak.
Outstanding Together
My July 4 issue has just reached me and I feel bound to comment on the two opening articles on Lausanne (“Our Mandate From Lausanne ’74” and “Lausanne Twelve Months Later”). Together they make this an outstanding issue … because they outline a … foundation from which Christendom can pick up and go forward.
(THE REV.) MALCOLM MACRAE
Coatbridge, Scotland
Multiple Choice
By running successively (July 4 through Aug. 8) three cartoons of nudes, CHRISTIANITY TODAY is (check one or more) renaming that section “Eutychus and His Skin”; redefining “Bible buff”; or redemonstrating why the now carnal Church will need Great Tribulational purifying. Porno mags should demand equal time and run a few Christian cartoons!
Kansas City, Kans.
Wrong Stop
Thank you for a real chuckle in Cheryl Forbes’s review of Rollerball (The Refiner’s Fire, Aug. 8). I always get a big laugh when someone tries to do something serious about an interpretation of a worldly production. Usually it is farthest from the writer’s or producer’s mind.
However I did see a similarity when I read the lead editorial about the reporter and Kissinger’s trash. It looks like you see a need for looking through trash and coming up with something profound. I hate to imagine what you look at and don’t write about.
Incidentally, in our area, after seeing the TV commercial and newspaper ads about Rollerball it took little imagination to recognize its worthlessness. Something like all the people who saw Henry’s trashbags and had enough sense not to stop and investigate.
Wheaton, Ill.
Your review on Rollerball was [darned] good.… There is hope for CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
The Wittenburg Door
San Diego, Calif.
Fair To All
By implication, Robert D. Linder’s article on the Scopes trial (“Fifty Years After Scopes: Lessons to Learn, A Heritage to Reclaim,” July 18) leaves the impression that today’s press is still hostile to evangelical Christianity.
The bias evident against William Jennings Bryan in the 1920s is hardly comparable to modern journalism of the 1970s. Professional religion writers in the secular press today, including non-evangelicals like myself, provide fair and objective coverage, as best we can, to all religious traditions. Evangelicals should certainly look to journalism as a calling; not to right any wrongs, but because it offers a rewarding and stimulating career.
Religion Editor
The Hartford Courant
Hartford, Conn.
Every Christian should study carefully the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial to see how not to evangelize. Bryan was led and trapped off the main track and never regained it. Evolution was a surface issue. The real issue was integrity.… [But] the painful outcome did more good for fundamentalism than harm. Fundamentalism could no longer escape the difference between superficial manipulation and sympathetic perception of people’s basic needs.… Even Darrow at points seemed to know the Bible better than Bryan.
Upper Valley United Presbyterian Church
Dry Run, Pa.
‘Just’ An Innocent Diminutive
Hearty thanks to John Warwick Montgomery for his clear-headed and pertinent discussion of “Washington Christianity” (Current Religious Thought, Aug. 8). May his kind increase.
The prayer breakfast quotation (“Lord, just make us more loving when we just fellowship together here and just help us just to …”) has become tiresomely familiar. I wonder why just (along with share and, especially, just share) enjoys such unjust favor among us. No doubt there lurks some hidden renunciation of work (“Let’s just pray”) or of thinking (“Let’s just share”) or of broad and unseemly ambition (“Just make us more loving”) in our fascination with this previously innocent diminutive.
Montgomery is right. Just sharing—and other such self-indulgent activities—have in many cases become cloying substitutes for solid reflection on the revelation of God. Actually, we ought to take part in them only in the same way we eat fattening desserts—sparingly and with a certain amount of embarrassment.
Webster Christian Reformed Church
Webster, N. Y.
I have been in a simmer for a week with respect to “Washington Christianity.” He prophesied truly that, quote, “Readers from this area will doubtless be appalled at what follows.…” In part, the reason for such dismay is, as Montgomery suggests, his too brief contact with the Washington area complexities.…
But mainly I am appalled by the fact that neither your publication nor Montgomery came up to anything like the high standards your readers have come to expect. The piece is yellow innuendo and superficial observation. I imagine that Dick Halverson, who comes in for Montgomery’s lonely Award of Merit, will not be too happy about the distinction which falsely sets him apart from his Presbyterian brethren in the area.
One can detect without too much trouble some psychological sour grapism in view of his past year’s experience at the Law School in the District of Columbia. Again, Lutheran scholar that he is, it’s hard to look with objectivity through those spectacles. I was trapped on tour with John for eight days in East Germany at the turn of the year, and it is a recommended experience for any Presbyterian to discover new reasons to cherish his Westminster and Calvinistic heritage.
It might be well recalled, Luther’s very own caution. Said he: “If any of you consider your doctrine and theology to be completely true and right, you have only to feel your ears and find that they are the long furry ears of an ass.”
Mount Vernon Presbyterian Church
Alexandria, Va.
Women—Not In God’S Interests?
Cheryl Forbes’s assertion in the July 18 CHRISTIANITY TODAY that the subordination of women necessarily implies the inferiority of women is not the sort of reasoning one expects to find in a biblically founded statement (Books, Man as Male and Female). At least, I find no difficulty at all in utterly rejecting the idea that women are inferior to men, while continuing to hold that they should not rule in the church and in the home.…
As sinners, we are all … wholly unworthy of any place or office. If he has assigned the offices of elder in the church and head in the family to men, as I believe is the teaching of the apostles, it is not because men are of greater worth than women, but because he wills it so in the interest of his larger plan of redemption.
Staunton, Va.
ERRATUM
The reference to Psalm 119:29, 30 in the editorial “Keeping Uncle Sam Honest” (Aug. 8) should read Psalm 119:29, 30.
