Under The Spreading Umbrella
Historically speaking, most new schools of theology have been created by liberals, or at best by the neo-orthodox. Neo-orthodoxy itself began as a new kind of theology, called “theology of crisis” (krisis, a Greek word meaning judgment, had to be left untranslated; otherwise neo-orthodoxy would have begun by sounding like old orthodoxy, which wouldn’t have been the least bit innovative). Other names and trends springing up with the neo-movement were dialectical theology, theology of orders (Creation orders, not military ones), and theology of the Word. Earlier, the liberals had generated a “theology of the social gospel,” but they could not match the neo-orthodox in productivity.
Existentialism was more fertile: it first produced I-thou theology and then Theologie der Existenz. Recent trends—which may involve cross-fertilization by neo-orthodox, liberals, and even some social climbers among evangelicals—include theologies of hope, revolution, the future, play, and the city. Black theology is harder to classify, and women’s theology has not yet risen to epistemological and ontological maturity.
In the midst of all this, what have evangelicals done? Sadly, all too little. Finally, at long last, a school is arising that we can call our own: umbrella theology. The umbrella concept (known to German theologians as der Schirm-begriff—cf. Heinrich v. Schlunk, Der Schirmbegriff in den P-Fragmenten, Heidelberg, 1973—and subdivided into Regen– and Sonnenschirmbegriffe, a subtlety not yet grasped by Anglo-Saxon theologians) is not found explicitly in Scripture. But theologians think it is adumbrated in the gourd-passages in Jonah 4. Others see the umbrella concept prefigured in the veil of Genesis 34. In any event, although it is not possible to locate it precisely, its revolutionary importance should allow us to overlook this difficulty.
The concept of the umbrella is particularly significant in Christian family theology, where it is seen as properly held by the man in the traditional family. Among the epoch-making developers of umbrella theology we may mention Gothard and Morgan; its chief opponents have been Nietzsche and Friedan. Some of the dignity that umbrella-theology gives to husbands is offset by the insistence of wives that, if they hold the umbrella, they also wear their galoshes. This seems foreign to the spirit of the umbrella, but the exegetical work supporting the conviction has not yet been done.
Perhaps umbrella theology seems like a small thing in comparison with theologies of revolution, hope, and the future, but it is at least a beginning. Evangelicals, unlike liberals, are traditionally forced to stay closer to Scripture, and this somewhat limits their creativity. In this light, umbrella theology must be seen as an encouraging departure.
Another Option
I was very much interested in the article by René de Visme Williamson on “The Theology of Liberation” (Aug. 8). As I read the article I found myself uttering hearty amens to everything the liberationists were saying until I came to the sections on “violence” and “secularization.” At that point I was forced to part company with them, and in doing so it occurred to me that I had found a major critique of Williamson’s article.… [He] implies that an emphasis on social and political liberation, the church as a “counter-culture” and the radical participation of a redeeming God in the agonies of the oppressed and exploited necessarily lead to “violence and secularization.” This is simply not the case. There are, in this country at least, a growing number of Christians who know Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, who are committed body and soul to His Kingdom, who are deeply theistic, and who reject the use of violence as wholly unChristian, and yet who refuse to accept the homegrown American civil religion that baptizes the whole social structure and makes God the champion of the standing order. Such people, and I am one of them, share much with the South American liberationists without accepting their free approval of violence or their secularizing tendencies. To fail to distinguish between non-violent and biblical Christian radicals, and violent, secularized radicals is a sign of simplistic ignorance far beneath a magazine of your stature. It was the same mistake made by Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli who murdered hundreds of anabaptist pacifists.
The point is not merely academic—for there is another option besides being either a fire-bombing Marxist on one hand and a Bible-thumping law and order fundamentalist on the other. And that option is to be a disciple of Jesus Christ and live a life of radical love and unconditional commitment, a pilgrim life which witnesses to the sins of both men and culture not with bombs and guns, but with love and genuine community. I would suggest that Williamson read Menno Simons before rejecting liberation theology in toto.
Findley, Ohio
Looking Forward
I have been intending for some time to write you expressing my appreciation for the general quality of your magazine. Your inclusion of the Larry Christenson article, “Late to Bed, Early to Rise, Makes a Man Saintly …?” and Harold Kuhn on “The Liberal Charade” (Aug. 29) has motivated me to finally tell you how much I look forward to receiving each issue. The articles I agree with are always appreciated. The ones with which I take exception do not insult me. And your news section itself is worth the price of the magazine.
Lititz, Penna.
The Long Or The Short
“Painful Preaching” (Eutychus and His Kin, Aug. 29) was particularly clever. Let me add that we often are called on to preach to people with low boredom thresholds. Sometimes pains should be taken to shorten a message without reducing its content. A sermon that is clear, cogent, and concise will have more effect than its long and lazy cousin.
Bridgeport, Tex.
There’S More To Freud
Thank you for the fine article by Gary Collins in the August 29 issue (“The Pulpit and the Couch”). I am a product of the CPE movement. Collins is correct when he says “the CPE movement tends to borrow uncritically from humanistic secular psychology.” However, I did not find as he describes that “people in the CPE movement appear to have little tolerance for conservative theological positions.” I was told by a supervisor, “Share with us more of your theological position. We are all searching for solutions to the problems of people.”
A second observation is that I never cease to be amazed that conservative writers can dismiss Sigmund Freud in one sentence by quoting his famous “Religion is an illusion, a universal obsessional neurosis.” Freud’s basic understanding of man’s motivation is biblical. Man has the sex drive and is aggressive. That is Genesis 1:28. Let’s take what is good and leave the rest rather than total rejection.
Two omissions in the list of people involved in a psychological approach to biblical understanding of man are John A. Sanford and Cecil Osborne.
West County Assembly of God
Chesterfield, Mo.
Special Thanks
It is almost always a pleasure—and enlightening—to read Cheryl Forbes. Her brilliant article on “Substituted Love” as discussed in the work of Charles Williams, however, calls for special thanks. If, as Ms. Forbes comments, Williams has done a great deal in helping us to understand a little better the truths implicit in making and receiving offers of substitution—which, as she notes, depends, ultimately, on our Lord’s offer of himself for us—Cheryl Forbes has done a great deal in calling Charles Williams to our attention and helping us to understand him a little better. It is, in fact, hard to resist quoting him in regard to this essay—that if we do our job of adhering to the faith, “… it seems possible that we may humbly believe that at the right hour [the Holy Ghost] shall teach us ‘what we shall speak …’ ”!
Annapolis, Md.
Just the smallest note to say brava for Cheryl Forbes’s article on Williams. Very nicely done. She covers a lot of the waterfront, and that ain’t easy to do in one piece. I met his sister this summer in England with Clyde Kilby. Marvelous, very infirm old lady, almost entirely unaware of any interest in her brother’s stuff. She was touchingly grateful to learn that there are people who profit by it.
Associate Professor of English
Gordon College
Wenham, Mass.
Prominent Argument
Thank you very much for the (June 20) articles by Paul Jewett and Elisabeth Elliott on the ordination of women. I thought Dr. Jewett did an excellent work in his interpreting of the Scriptures regarding ordination.… Elisabeth Elliot is the biggest, most prominent argument against her thesis. She does all the things she says women should not do!
Associate Secretary
Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention
Atlanta, Ga.
