Let Us All Laugh Together
Every Easter I wish I were Greek Orthodox.
They don’t sit on chilly hillsides or in dark cemeteries waiting for the sunrise, soaking up the dampness, listening to a sermon.
No, they run through streets shouting, “The Lord is risen!” And people raise their windows, fling open their doors to shout back, “He is risen indeed!”
But more. Some Orthodox Easter worship services include the Rite of Laughter.
I can hear it: “Now let us laugh. Let us worship God by laughing together.”
How appropriate for the world’s great day, the universe’s great day—great day of all universes, visible and invisible, and heaven, too. Run, shout, laugh. Especially laugh.
I wonder what kind of laughter is represented by the worshipers’ response?
Certainly joyful laughter, sometimes mixed with tears.
Like the woman who wrote a few months ago, just before she died, “The cancer has spread to my liver and there is not much hope. I shall hate to leave my family.” But laugh on Easter morning, laugh because Jesus lives and so does she. More than she ever lived before.
The laughter of beginning spring, melting snow and icy streams, after a hard, cold winter.
Then there’s the soft laughter of hope, of parents whose children cause them pain, because they are living outside God’s will; of wife or husband, deeply hurt by the other’s conduct. The laughter of every Christian who is in a Catch-22 situation—like Uganda or China or Eastern Europe. Laugh, because Jesus is Lord of history, Lord of hope, and he will have the last laugh.
Maybe there’s even Sarah’s laugh at the news she’d bear a son: Can God? Will God? Was Isaac (“laughter”) named for that tentative, questioning laugh, or that later one when Sarah held the newborn in her arms? Regardless, the writer of Hebrews calls her a woman of faith who trusted God to fulfill his promise. Laugh because God sees the grain of faith hidden in our doubt.
But the biggest laugh on Easter morning is because Satan is defeated. This is the Martin Luther belly laugh. Christ died, Christ rose, Christ lives, so I am no longer condemned. He crushed the serpent’s head.
Laugh on Easter morning, whether you’re Greek Orthodox or not. Laugh, and heaven laughs with you.
EUTYCHUS VIII
What More?
I want to express my sincere thanks for the superb editing, cover work, and Steve Hawley’s stimulating illustration for my article appearing in the February 10 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. No author could ask for more.
ROGER C. SIDER
Rochester, N.Y.
I Needed That
I was greatly disturbed by David Singer’s recent article “Seminarians: Out of the Classroom, Into the Pulpit” (Feb. 10). In fact, none of CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s articles that I have ever read has been more jarring to my young mind. With plans to commence my seminary training this fall and hopes for local church work some day, I must honestly thank CHRISTIANITY TODAY, David Singer, and the participating seminary presidents by saying (slap!) “Thanks, I needed that.”
MARK D. BENDELL
Minneapolis, Minn.
David Singer’s article on seminary training awakens the old incongruity of my own seminary days. What makes a good pastor, human effort or spiritual power? In other words, is being a Christian pastor a human function, one of human abilities, skills, and training, or is it a divine function of God’s call and anointing.… In Paul’s testimony (defending his function in the body of Christ), he didn’t wave his Jerusalem diploma but rather his personal relationship to Christ. All the rest he called rubbish or confidence in the flesh. As an apostle he knew his own human limitation, but he also knew the spiritual power of God as a minister. So he came “in demonstration of the Spirit and power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:4–5). Ouch!… The emphasis in Singer’s article is rather clear. The seminary is “the intellectual center of the church.” So today a pastor or a theologian earns his place of leadership in the church by developing human abilities through human efforts not necessarily by divine call and anointing of God’s Spirit. It fits well in with the strong humanistic trend of our time.
THE REV. PETER TEERLIN
Logos Community Farm
Alto, Mich.
The excellent article which David Singer has constructed from interaction with a number of significant seminary presidents admirably furthers CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s practice of keeping in touch with Christian higher education. At the same time, this article points up a neglect of one aspect of higher education, specifically the role of the Bible college in preparing Christian leaders.
On the one hand, the Bible college has come a long way from the days when it was simply a training school engaged in teaching book and theme studies to laymen. At its best, the Bible college today provides a well-balanced, high quality education for undergraduates, preparing them for a wide variety of professional ministries.… Increasing numbers of Bible college graduates are electing to continue their study in seminary or graduate school. Students who arrive at seminary from a Bible college education have the background in biblical studies which the seminary presidents say their students lack. Moreover, Bible college graduates bring to seminary a Christian perspective on the liberal arts and a conception of Christian education and ministry.
DANA L. HUNTLEY
Assistant Professor of English
Northeastern Bible College
Essex Fells, N.J.
May I commend David Singer on his article on the preparation of seminarians for the pulpit ministry. The statement attributed to me, “students also need to work with men who are good shepherds,” unfortunately was not quite correct. It should have read “persons” instead of “men.” Our 242 women enrolled at Fuller attest to our commitment to the role women can have in providing leadership in the church.
DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD
President
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, Calif.
Where to Head
Roger Palms’s “Preaching for Results” (Minister’s Workshop, Dec. 30) was, in a word, excellent. To know where one wants his hearers to be even one minute after the message begins just makes sense; and chances are he will too. Thank you for reminding us preachers that we should speak God’s word to our hearers, and do so with a specific goal in mind. It is quite true that if you head nowhere, you will probably get there.
DAVID L. BAHN
Trinity Lutheran Church
Cheyenne, Wyo.
Another Wedge?
I was highly disappointed that you allowed Norman L. Geisler’s review of Biblical Authority to be published as a responsible and objective representation of that collection (Feb. 24). Geisler seems usually to be a fair and balanced scholar.… However, this particular review appears to be an exception. I must assume his own affective reactions with reference to the debate on scriptural inspiration have crippled his ability to understand and convey the intent of his West-coast colleagues’ declarations.
The emphasis of the collection itself is overwhelmingly positive: it comes across as a strong statement of and argument for biblical authority, which I assume is a very important theological position for Geisler as well as Rogers, et al. The collection does not bear any resemblance, however, to the polemic for scriptural “errancy,” which Geisler represents. In contrast, Geisler’s own review comes across as reactionary, accusatory, and contentious. The review is antagonistic and skeptical from the outset (Can anything good come out of Fuller?), as evidenced by such journalistic disclaimer-expressions and sarcasms as “It may come as a surprise to many Calvin scholars …,” “Clark Pinnock, an alleged believer in inerrancy,” “Mickelson claims that ‘the authority to which we go is still God and His Word’,” “Hubbard makes the errancy view even clearer.…” Geisler seems to have read the articles solely to find statements which he can use to categorize his brothers as members of the “errancy” camp (a term which drastically misrepresents the focus and intent of the “Biblical Authority vs. Biblical Inerrancy” adherents who contributed to the volume). He quotes only those statements which are helpful in pointing up their “errancy” tendencies. In doing so, he misses the entire positive thrust of the volume. In overlooking the fact that 90 per cent of Biblical Authority sets forth the same positive view of God’s Word as Geisler himself defends, the Trinity professor has ironically documented the very “fortress mentality” and “intellectual obscurantism” which his other, more substantial writings (and certainly his gracious and admirable life) seek to obliterate from evangelicalism.
In printing his review of Biblical Authority, you have driven another wedge in the split between the evangelical supporters of that position, on the one hand, and Dr. Geisler, Dr. Lindsell, and the evangelicals who insist on making their doctrine of Scripture the watershed of their emphasis, on the other hand. [Can] a magazine which consistently has spoken so comprehensively for the whole of evangelicalism afford to contribute to the identification of CHRISTIANITY TODAY with this latter camp?
PHILIP W. BUTIN
Director of Christian Education
Saint Andrew
United Presbyterian Church
Iowa City, Iowa
Good Word For Verbicide
“Have You Committed Verbicide Today?” by D.G. Kehl (Jan. 27) is one of the most provocative articles to hit your magazine. I am grateful to Dr. Kehl for being able to put into words what I so often feel. Thanks for printing the article. I like the “update” appearance of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
DAVE WARD
First Baptist Church
Knoxville, Tenn.
Concerning D.G. Kehl’s article, my comment is this, “Amen.” I almost said “right on” and then I would be guilty.
MARVIN L. JOHNSON
The Wesleyan Church
Belleville, Kans.
Thanks for The Coverage
Thank you for the coverage given to Wesleyan Theological Society (News, “Wesleyan Issues,” Dec. 9). I especially call attention to references of CHA softening its statement on Scripture and the Church of the Nazarene “declining to join the CHA until such a softer position was adopted.”
From a background of being present at all the official meetings in which consideration was given to the Church of the Nazarene becoming a member of CHA, I can safely affirm that neither the statement on Scripture or any other of the “statements of belief” were issues in not joining or joining CHA. Further, as a member of the CHA Executive Committee and also serving on the Committee on Constitution and Bylaw revision during the recent years when changes were being made in these organizational articles I was not aware of any issue pertaining to the Association’s position on the sacred Scripture.
The Association did want to shorten the rather lengthy doctrinal articles and make a statement of simple affirmation on a whole group of historic doctrines which are properly expanded and explained in detail in the disciplines or constitutions of member churches and organizations.
B. EDGAR JOHNSON
General Secretary
Kansas City, Mo.
