A Seminary That Changed History
STUDENT: I can’t outline what you say.
TEACHER: Life and thought and conversation seldom conform to an outline.
STUDENT: But that makes it hard to prepare for the exam.
TEACHER: What exam?
STUDENT: The one at the end of your course.
TEACHER: You’ll be taking my exams the rest of your life.
STUDENT: I don’t understand a lot of what you’re teaching us.
TEACHER: You won’t for three years.
STUDENT: That’s the whole course.
TEACHER: No, it’s only the beginning of the course.
STUDENT: Do you have any idea what my class standing will be?
TEACHER: You’ll fail the course, along with the rest. But then all of you will turn the world upside down. Except one.
STUDENT: When we’ve finished, will we know as much as the Pharisees?
TEACHER: No, you won’t know as much, but you’ll be changed. Do you want to be changed?
STUDENT: I think so. Is your teaching relevant?
TEACHER: Is it true?
STUDENT: You seem to throw questions back at me instead of answering them.
TEACHER: That’s because the answers are in you, not in me.
STUDENT: Will we see you in class tomorrow?
TEACHER: The class continues at supper and the campfire tonight. Did you think I only taught words?
STUDENT: Is there an assignment?
TEACHER: Yes, help me catch some fish for supper.
EUTYCHUS VIII
A Question Of Volume
I note with amused interest your issue of September 9, wherein Wesley Pippert of UPI, in his article “Viewing the Family From the Oval Office,” reports that I “boisterously” asked President Carter “if it is true that although he is monogamous, he never held anything against staff members who were promiscuous.”
I will forgive Pippert the split infinitive (!) “boisterously asked,” because by striking contrast to the misleading report of the Washington Post, he has correctly reported that it was White House “staff members attending the news conference (who) applauded” President Carter’s statement.… Actually my question was: “Mr. President, Panax Newspapers has a tape-recorded interview with Dr. Peter Bourne (a top Carter aide) that while you are monogamous, you are tolerant of the sexual promiscuity within the White House staff. Is Dr. Bourne right or wrong?”
Panax Newspapers, for whom I now edit the supplement Washington Weekly, had reported Dr. Bourne’s tape-recorded and undeniably newsworthy statement—which The New York Times tried to discredit, but which the President himself eventually verified.…
Amidst the laughter, the President, having evaded the most critical aspect of my question, sought rather obviously to move rapidly to another question—as if he were Lot and I were Sodom. So I felt obliged to exercise the reporter’s right to one followup question, which, given the laughter and the President’s evasion course, seemed to require that I shift my baritone into overdrive. I cannot objectively evaluate my own manner, which Pippert evaluates as “boisterous.” Moreover, I am reluctant to question the evaluation of one of the ablest and kindest reporters in the entire White House Press Corps. But if I was in fact “boisterous,” your readers should know the rather extenuating circumstances as to why. They should also know that both UPI and AP are guaranteed Presidential recognition at every Presidential news conference—a privilege not available to any of the rest of us.
One other thing. In all of the coverage of my controversy with the State Department and Capitol Hill correspondents (in which the Senate Rules Committee has, for the first time since 1948, voted to review an appeal) no coverage was more complete and eminently fair than that of Arthur Matthews. Hence, I rejoice in your wise decision to leave him and Ed Plowman in Washington. In past, I have on occasion needled the magazine in my column—and I don’t believe I will ever agree with a majority of your editorials. Let me, however, salute the integrity of your Washington Bureau.
(REV.) LESTER KINSOLVING
Editor, Panax’ Washington Weekly
McNaught Syndicate
Washington, D.C.
Doctrinal Documents
Your report (“Missouri Synod After-math,” Aug. 26) on the Dallas convention of The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod was both fair and accurate. However, the analysis on the defeat of the proposed new hymnal could be easily misunderstood. You state that “there were insinuations but no documented proof that the hymnal was doctrinally impure.”
As a member of the floor committee which considered the hymnal, I received much documented material which clearly proves there is false doctrine in the new hymnal. A few examples will suffice: substituting in the Apostles’ Creed “He descendeth to the dead” instead of “He descended into hell”; in the order for “individual confession and forgiveness” there is not a single reference to the fact that we receive God’s forgiveness only through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ; the prayer of commendation has the phrase for the departed, “Receive him into the arms of your mercy,” which is in effect a prayer for the dead; there is very little … in the marriage service that embodies what Scripture says about marriage.
ANDREW SIMCAK, JR.
St. Timothy Lutheran Church
Houston, Tex.
Asking for the Messiah
I read with some surprise the article by Belden Menkus entitled, “Are Jews Still Expecting the Messiah?” (Others Say, Aug. 26). Perhaps Mr. Menkus no longer anticipates a personal Messiah, but he is not a spokesman for all Jews.
In the April 18, 1977, issue of Newsweek a different view of Jewish thought and opinion is presented. Professor David Flusser (biblical archeologist and professor of religious history at Hebrew University in Jerusalem) commented, “I do not think that many Jews would object if the Messiah—when he came—was the Jew Jesus.”
Menkus may speak for one segment of the Jewish community but he is certainly inaccurate when he declares that the idea of a personal Messiah “has not been a subject of significant concern to the adherents of Orthodox Judaism for about 1,600 years.” A myriad of books and other publications have been written on just this subject. Synagogal prayers and readings are replete with references to the coming Messiah.
I agree with him that the best presentation of our message of good news is the right answer to each individual’s question. But there is a renewed interest in Jesus and in the entire messianic concept on the part of Jews today. We must approach each person as an individual, but for many Jews the messiahship of Yeshua Ben David (Jesus Son of David) is the right answer to the question being asked.
RUTH FLEISCHER
Communications Specialist
American Board of Missions to the Jews Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.
Thank you for Belden Menkus’s views on Jewish messianic expectations. Undoubtedly he is correct in speaking for Jewish scholars. I recently heard Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum say: “Jewish biblical scholars are meeting together around the world to reappraise Israel’s messianic mission in the world.” But, I am sure that many Jews devoted to their faith are expecting a personal Messiah. My guide in Jerusalem interpreted for me prayers at the wailing wall and at a Friday night synagogue service. The prayers were fervent, in many cases, with tears. They were praying: “Messiah come! Oh, come Messiah!”
BYRON S. LAMSON
Riverside, Calif.
As a missionary to the Jews, I was very interested in the August 26th Others Say by Belden Menkus, “Are Jews Still Expecting the Messiah?” It is indeed sad that the Jewish people are so far away from a biblical perspective that they are not even looking to the hope of God in the Messiah. The one thing we have found is that with all the worldly philosophies that the Jewish people engage in and with all of the traditional formulas that they follow, there is still an emptiness and lack of substance in their lives, of which the community is becoming more aware. This awareness is seen not only in the number of Jewish people in the last several years who have turned to Christ, but also in the official resistence encountered. Though according to Menkus the Christian message is being ignored, we have found an increased response from the lay people and the leadership of the Jewish community. We in the Jews for Jesus ministry, and other mission boards in the New York area, have seen increased opposition from certain hostile Jewish groups as they attempt to stop the Gospel message. Church and mission buses have been fire-bombed, windows broken, tires slashed, threats frequently made on the lives of the workers. I would not call this apathy. If the message of the Messiah has not been a relevant issue in the Jewish community for 1,600 years, maybe it is because we have not been presenting it and reminding the Jewish people of the biblical promises in such a way that they can understand. And the Jewish community in New York is understanding the message of Jesus that we are presenting, and much of the negative reaction proves it.
That the Reform and Orthodox Jewish communities are not seeking Messiah is no reason not to preach him, for I’m sure there are many who will realize their hunger only after being presented with the meal (Rom. 11:5). Indeed, the challenge for us is to make Christ the issue in the Jewish community, the unavoidable issue. Let us, as followers of Messiah, be such salt in the Jewish community that their thirst draws them to the living waters, which Jesus gives.
SAM NADLER
Director of New York Branch
Jews for Jesus
New York, N.Y.
Tongues And the Nazarenes
In your August 12 news story of “Charismatic Unity in Kansas City” there is reference to the opposition of the Church of the Nazarene and Wesleyan “like holiness” denominations. This should not surprise those former members since the history of the Church of the Nazarene reveals that she was organized by people coming together to stress the “Charisma of holiness” (which includes honesty) and rejecting speaking in tongues, extreme excesses in divine healing, and extravagant issues of millennialism so prominent in the revival at the turn of the century.
While we do accept the personal return of our Lord Jesus Christ and the divine miracle of healing, the issue of tongues was settled in 1919 when the term “Pentecostal” was dropped from our official name to distinguish us from those who speak in tongues …
I would hope that in the future equal space is given to quotes from current members of a denomination rather than former. The Church of the Nazarene has always been a coming together of people of like faith rather than a splitting of the membership. When I joined I promised not to inveigh against the doctrines, so anyone who is honest in his charisma and “speaks in tongues” would always have to be a “former” Nazarene.
J. OTTIS SAYES
Chairman
Division of Religion and Philosophy
Olivet Nazarene College
Kankakee, Ill.
