The Forgotten Mountain
Once upon a time there was a rock. It wasn’t any special kind of rock—just the kind you find in profusion beside a rushing stream in Colorado.
A distant mountain spoke to the rock. “I made you, you came from me, you share my nature.” And the mountain said many other things. Things about glaciers and aeons and rushing streams and mountain goats and beauty and order.
The rock, from these words, developed a mountainology, a systematic study of all it knew of the mountain.
One day, many years later, another rock said, “I am quartz. We need a quartz view of the mountain.” So it developed a system of mountainology that was centered in crystalline rocks. Next a rock looked at some other rocks, rolled closer to them and said, “We need a mountainology of the pile.” So these rocks crumpled wildflowers and found a heap of joy.
Some rocks with depressions in them, made both by the mountain and by other stones with protrusions, then said, “We need a mountainology of hollows.” And those with the biggest hollows created a mountainology that said there was no difference between hollows and protrusions.
At the bottom of a great heap of stones, some said, “We need a mountainology for us, too. Everybody piles on us, we carry the whole load. The mountain wants us to blow up the pile.”
And the mountain looked at all the rocks, and the mountain said, “What ever became of mountain mountainology?”
EUTYCHUS VIII
An Implied Rebuke?
On the whole the Chicago Call gives us valuable suggestions, but do I detect in it an implied rebuke to all free Christians and free churches? It may indeed provoke thought and discussion, but it will not dislodge those who really believe in direct access and personal responsibility to Jesus Christ. Such people will continually try to correct past mistakes in theology, will not allow any more than teaching and reminding value to the ceremonies, and will accept common interest as the basis of unit cooperation within the fellowship of their kind and as the limit of cooperation with other kinds of Christians.
WINN T. BARR
Cynthiana Baptist Church
Cynthiana, Ky.
Wishing for Lewis
Thomas Howard’s “Who Am I? Who Am I?” (July 8) was faintly reminiscent of C.S. Lewis in style, but certainly not in substance. In fact, I found myself all through the article wishing Lewis had written it.
My slight dissatisfaction (the article was capable of arousing neither aggressive agreement nor violent opposition) stemmed primarily from two areas of disagreement. First, to me it seems obvious that contrary to being introduced at the Fall, self-consciousness was a prerequisite to the Fall. Cows and apes do not have a fall to look back on precisely because they have no self, no personhood in the image of God, which would be placed in opposition to God (C.S. Lewis would say this much better). Second, granted, I should not be overly introspective; but for the very reason that I am a person, created in the image of God, coming to know who I am is vitally important. I dare say Howard’s relationship to the demands of the Bible and his relationships to the persons of the Trinity (as well as to everyone around him) are directly connected to his understanding (or lack of understanding) of his own identity. Only a person can conceive of a person; only an “I” can be related to a “thou.”
R. E. HOLLIS
Friendship United Methodist Church
Walker, La.
Science Or Scripture?
If the Haas, Wright interview is true to form, then I feel sorry for our Christian young people (“What Christian Colleges Teach About Creation,” June 17). On the other hand, “Where Did I Come From?” causes me to hope that some Christian colleges refuse to allow science (some of it falsely so called) to sit in judgment on the Bible. It appears to me that man’s … strong moral and religious propensities forever separate him from the beasts of the field, and … that man was indeed created in the image and likeness of God.
DON W. HILLIS
The Evangelical Alliance Mission
Orange City, Fla.
Your interview represents quite accurately the views of those who propose theistic evolution as an answer to origins. It is also true that many religiously affiliated colleges teach origins from a theistic evolutionary viewpoint. However, there are also some colleges where fiat creation is favored as an explanation for origins. We would take strong exception to the assertion that “no other approach (than theistic evolution) makes scientific sense.” It is simply not true that as scientists we have no option other than evolution, theistic or atheistic. To accept the assertion that science can consider only an evolutionary explanation for origins is to downgrade science.
ELVER H. VOTH
DONALD E. CHITTICK
George Fox College
Newberg, Ore.
Reader Disservice
You did your readers a disservice by printing the article in Minister’s Workshop, “The Accusing Finger, The Helping Hand” by Cecil Murphey (June 17).
From earliest moments of recorded history, institutions have reflected the characteristics of their leadership. This was especially true with Israel under the judges and kings and is seen in the church and nations today.… People look to their leaders for direction. They must set the example. If they fail, they must step down. That is why Paul set such demanding standards for [leaders].… I am particularly outraged with Murphey’s … exegesis of John 8 comparing the adulterous woman (probably a prostitute) with an ordained man of God, trained in the Scripture and solemnly charged in his installation as pastor. Why not the example of David?… He says, “I am against divorce.” Who isn’t? It’s the old morality of double talk. If he is against divorce, why dilute its significance for the church? How can the church possibly be witness to the sacredness of marriage and be filled with divorced pastors?
Surely the church has something better to offer a watching, doubting world than its own dismal record of failures?
CHARLES TODD, JR.
Chief Executive Officer
Todd Uniform
St. Louis, Mo.
