RICHARD D. DINWIDDIE¹Richard D. Dinwiddie is music director and conductor of The Chicago Master Chorale, and visiting professor of church music at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.

How can our music harmonize with the music of the spheres?

God is not tone deaf. A perfect God must have truly “perfect pitch”—no variance of intonation ever escapes him.

He knows, for instance, whether or not the church’s sanctuary piano or organ is in tune and how close the soloist really is to the melody. All too often I can imagine him raising a divine finger before an errant singer and pleading, “G-sharp!” His ear is better than the finest conductor’s. He understands fully the most sophisticated harmonic and rhythmic structures, and he hears whether or not our performances have stylistic integrity, appropriate phrasing, the right tonal color, correct tempos, and proper dynamics.

Our limited insights cannot possibly approach the musical understanding of the Master Musician. Yet, on any given Sunday, our practices show that we apparently assume we have unlimited freedom to indulge personal musical prejudices in the service of God without serious reference to his views—as if what he may have to say about music could not be important.

The results of this misconception have been far reaching and disastrous—in ministries and in individual lives.

Ministry must always be rooted in the Word of God, and the ministry of music is no exception. A proper theology of church music is centered in God, not man, and God is intensely interested in the music of his creation—especially that which is used to worship him. He has much to say on the subject, and when we understand his views more clearly we are able to use music in ways that are more effective, biblical, and acceptable to him. Then we can direct our music ministries in confidence, knowing what is expected, and we will not waste time needlessly “rethinking our position” whenever a new style or idiom appears.

God’S Musicianship Is Comprehensive

God is a performing artist. Each member of the Trinity sings.

God the Father sings, says the prophet Zephaniah: he will sing for joy over the restoration of his people (Zeph. 3:14–17). The redemption of man is a reason for God to make music, and the parable of the Prodigal Son strongly suggests that the Father actively participates in the rejoicing in heaven over the returning sinner.

God the Son sings. He probably sang on earth when he read the Scriptures in the synagogue, for it was the custom to chant the Scriptures when reading them in public. He sang at the institution of the Lord’s Supper: after they sang a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives (Matt. 26:30).

Jesus Christ is also singing today. When he is in the midst of those who come together in his name, he is not merely an uninvolved observer—he actively participates. Hebrews 2:10–12 explicitly states that in our presence, he sings praises to God. He is with the choir in its rehearsal as well as its performance, and he is with the congregation when it sings. If we were actually to realize that Christ not only listens to us but sings with us as well, we would see rehearsal as a spiritual activity in its own right. And we would place greater importance on our congregational music. We might act differently if we really believed that he was present in our rehearsals.

God the Spirit sings. We are to make melody in our hearts to the Lord, says Ephesians 5:18. The Spirit enables us to sing with grace in our hearts, and he, too, sings with us when we sing, helping us to sing acceptably to God with our inner voice. Singing and making music in our hearts to the Lord is a result of being filled with the Spirit of God.

God Is A Hymnwriter

God is the author of the biblical hymnal, the Psalter, as well as of numerous other psalms and hymns scattered throughout Scripture. The broad range of content and setting of these hymns indicates how pervasive music is in the Christian life and how important it is in our worship.

The psalms contain many musical references, and they describe performance that involves not only the voice, but also the complete range of orchestral instruments—Psalm 150 is a dramatic example. The Psalter was meant to be sung, not just recited or silently verbalized. Also, the psalm headings carry many instructions for musical performance. When Christ accepted the canonicity of the Jewish Old Testament Scriptures, he accepted these headings as authentic.

Since the Bible records only the words, not the music, the importance of what we sing is emphasized. God also places a high priority on singing his Word, the hymns he has given us. Paul twice lists the psalms first when he comments about a balanced, full-ranging music repertoire in Christian worship (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:18). Yet the average congregation’s repertoire today minimizes scriptural settings. We should remember that along with our new songs, we will continue to sing Scripture in heaven (Rev. 15:3).

The hymns in Scripture should be models for our own writing. We are obligated both to express a living faith in our new songs and to keep alive the heritage entrusted to us, often at great cost. Ignorance of this heritage robs us, then our people, and finally God of some of our richest expressions of Christian belief and experience.

In recording only the words, the Bible gives us great freedom in using our individual talents to create music in a wide range of styles. Had melodies also been included in Scripture, people might contend these were the only ones acceptable for use in worship, or that they were of greater spiritual worth than anything written since then. But if that were the case, we would find ourselves restricted to music characterized by a middle-Eastern type of Oriental chant and folk melody, and we would be deprived of musical styles developed through centuries and varied cultures. The greatest musical expressions of our faith, the treasures of J. S. Bach—probably the greatest musician since King David—would be even more hidden from many people than they already are.

Merely using Scripture as a text, however, does not automatically give artistic value to a piece of music. The music must be as good as we can make it. Just as a fine painting can be hung in a wretched frame and displayed in a tawdry setting, so also great texts can be set to shoddy and inconsequential music. The most effective music weds Scripture to the finest music our talent can offer God.

God Is The Perfect Music Critic

It is a rare music critic whose opinions are respected by discriminating artists. But God’s musical discernment far exceeds our limited taste. His opinions are unerring and deserve our attention. He distinguishes excellence from mediocrity. Time and again the Bible notes that musicians were selected for ministry because they were skillful, trained, and willing (1 Chron. 25:7). Mediocrity never is spiritual. God knows when a performance is diligently prepared or carelessly “thrown together”; he notices every detail, and nothing escapes him. He knows when the music has something of value to say, and he knows when it reveals the creative impoverishment of the author, composer, performer, or all three. That he not only accepts, but even desires, our imperfect sacrifices of praise is a wonder of his love and grace. We abuse his generosity when we presume that anything we bring to him, regardless of its condition, must be received with gratitude—or assume that he can like only what we like.

One of the marks of a good and faithful servant is that he performs his service with excellence. We can never go beyond the call of duty (Luke 17:10). Of all musicians, the Christian artist has the greatest obligation to manifest the highest degree of excellence possible, both in repertoire and in performance. We should intensely desire God’s applause, his commending “Well done,” his “Bravo!”

God Is The Expert Acoustician

God built the very possibility of music into his creation and into us (John 1:3), for music and acoustics were part of the perfect creation that he proclaimed “very good.” He created the varying acoustical properties of the materials from which we make musical instruments. The laws of acoustics also apply to our bodies, and God makes it possible for us to enjoy music as well as make it. We internally transform physical wave forms into aural sound, and we produce sounds with our voices according to these same acoustical laws.

Music in nature, too, is part of his creation. The science of bioacoustics has discovered that natural music is far more comprehensive and complex than the existence of a few-score bird songs. The discovery that the humpbacked whale sings made that creature into something of a recording artist! New research into infrasonic sound has broadened our awareness of a far greater musical spectrum in God’s universe than we had suspected, yet we still have much to learn about music in nature. Some of what we currently believe needs to be corrected—such as the persistent myth that all creation sings in a minor key because of the Fall. The truth is that what we know as major tonality seems to occur in nature as frequently as any other scale system.

Without the laws of acoustics we would not have the freedom to create music. Nothing would be orderly or predictable; we would have only sonic chaos. Music is in part a mathematical science—at one time, it was considered more science than art. The harmonic series we find in nature and that lies at the base of the laws of acoustics follows a mathematical logic and consistency.

The properties of sound can extend beyond music, however, and they can easily be abused. High frequency, ultrasonic sound is used without water or detergent to clean materials. If sufficiently concentrated, somewhat like a laser beam, this sound can be destructive. For example, a ball of cotton placed in the path of such a high-energy sonic beam will ignite, and an insect will disintegrate.

High-decibel-level sound can cause psychological disorientation and make it impossible to think logically. It can produce severe pain. If prolonged long enough, it can cause permanent hearing loss. Rock music studio engineers tell me they have suffered permanent hearing impairment because of overexposure to high-decibel sound. If we believe our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, we will consider seriously our spiritual obligation to protect ourselves from harmful sound.

God Accompanies His Work With Music

God frequently surrounds his activities with meaningful music when he is at work. For example, Job 38:4, 6–7 suggests there was music making during Creation. Some scholars suggest the “morning stars” of this passage were in reality special angels. Can we really presume that music did not enter the universe until the creation of man, or that only the saints in heaven make music even now? Scripture makes it clear that praising God with music is not restricted to mankind.

Music played a major role in the events surrounding the Incarnation—the Magnificat of Mary (Luke 1:46–55), the Benedictus of Zechariah (Luke 1:67–79), the Gloria of the angels (Luke 2:14), and the Nunc dimittis of Simeon (Luke 2:29–32). Although Luke 2:14 refers to the angelic host “saying” its song, this is not proof that it was not sung; Scripture frequently refers to singing as a form of speech. David “says” the words of a song he sings to the Lord in 2 Samuel 22, and in the account of the performance of the song recorded in Revelation 5:9–10, “they sang a new song, saying.…” The word used for saying in Luke 2 and Revelation 5 stresses the content of what is sung rather than the manner of performance. Revelation 5:13 emphasizes in the strongest possible language that all of creation, not just mankind, will sing praise to God.

Music also will accompany the events of the Second Advent. For example, the trumpet of God will sound at the resurrection of the saints (1 Cor. 15:52). There are frequent accounts of singing as part of the worship in heaven (Rev. 4:9–11; 5:7–14. 7:9–12; 11:15–18; 15:1–4). Preaching and evangelism will cease in heaven (1 Cor. 13:8), but music will go on.

God Is The Ultimate Minister Of Music

God personally ordained the details of the Old Testament ministry of music. David confirmed this when he told Solomon, “The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he gave me understanding in all the details of the plan” (1 Chron. 28:19, NIV).

Music had a prominent role in the ministry. Since Israel was a militaristic state, it is significant that the chief of state, David, together with the commanders of the army—the joint chiefs of staff, if you will—chose individuals who were set aside for the ministry of music. It was important enough to take the attention of the leaders, not only in establishing the ministry, but also in maintaining its operation, for these men reported directly to the king (1 Chron. 25:6). David thus became the “prime minister of music.” The choir was part of the army, and sometimes even preceded the army when it went out to battle—a rather drastic way to take care of a problem choir member!

Music was important because it was a priestly ministry. Those chosen were from the Levitical tribe and treated like the other priests, with the same spiritual requirements and the same privileges. Excellence in musicianship was a prerequisite for participation. God placed a premium on disciplined ability combined with a dedicated heart. Those who passed the auditions for the temple (there had to be some way of knowing which ones were skilled) were “trained and skilled in music for the Lord” (1 Chron. 25:7). Kenaniah was chosen to conduct the choir because “he was skillful at it” (1 Chron. 15:22, NIV).

The principles of this ministry continued for generations. When the temple was purified under King Hezekiah, according to the command of the Lord, it involved the reestablishment of the ministry of music as it was set forth under David (2 Chron. 29:25–28). When the temple worship was again reestablished under Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh. 12:45–47), it was done according to the commands of David—according to what the Lord God commanded.

God Is The Source Of The Musical Gift

Every good and perfect gift comes from God (James 1:17). When Paul lists the gifts to build up the church, the first one is musical: a hymn (1 Cor. 14:26).

It is God who gives us the songs we sing, from the songs in the night (Job 35:10) to the new song that is praise to him (Ps. 40:3).

God also commands us to use the gift of music to praise him: “Come before his presence with singing” (Ps. 100:2) is only one of many such commands. According to Psalm 150, we are to use all of our resources in this musical praise. This psalm also reinforces the theme that all creation is to praise him.

The gift of music is to be used in specific ways, with our first responsibility being to glorify God. The seventeenth-century English musician, John Playford, acknowledged this when he said, “The first and chief use of music is for the service and praise of God, whose gift it is.”

God examines the excellence of our motivation as well as of our offering. The most beautiful music in the world is unacceptable to him if our hearts do not echo the words we sing with our lips (Matt. 15:8). It can be a choice offering—thrilling, even—but God may refuse to listen (Amos 5:21–23): he is displeased when we misuse the sacred function. By contrast, when everything is done right, he responds positively. At the dedication of the temple, when all was done properly and executed with excellence, the glory of the Lord filled the house (2 Chron. 5:14).

When we assume that quality is either all-sufficient or immaterial, we have a deficient view of God. Our obligation is to meet the requirements of our art in the best way we can to glorify God better. Unlike the artist who serves the art, we serve the God of the art. Therefore, of all people, we should be motivated to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to manifest excellence—to honor him before others, to please him, and to reflect the fact of our creation in the image of the Creator. It is only as we give back to the Giver the gift he freely gave to us that we can freely use it. What is difficult for the artist to accept—and what is abused by the undisciplined amateur as an excuse for inadequate preparation—is that when motivation is given priority over performance, it does not diminish in the least the obligations of excellence in performance. We are never exempt from doing our best for the glory of God.

A biblical view of God’s musical nature can transform the ministry of music in the local church and its role in the life of the individual. The music resumes its rightful place. No longer is it merely a service “preliminary,” but it stands as a valid ministry of the Word in its own right. Whoever is responsible for the music in the church—musician, pastor, or committee—will strive to make sure the content of the music as well as the music itself will always contribute to this biblical purpose.

It is then that we are released from the tyranny of self-satisfaction and commercial exploitation—both of ourselves and of others—and of ecclesiastical competition and marketing. We are more concerned to please God than to gratify the congregation, though we do not ignore their emotional needs. Rather, we are even more motivated to bring them into the musical worship. We are freed from the “bottom line” mentality that is more concerned with a program’s expense than its spiritual effectiveness. We are also freed from pressures to squander our limited resources of personnel, time, and finances on fifth-rate trivia, and we are liberated to commit ourselves and our people to a ministry that will be of such substance and so full of truth—both textual and musical—that it will help us in our spiritual objective of steadily maturing into the image of Christ.

Thus motivated, we will gladly and willingly spend the time, effort, and emotion to prepare our selves, our singers, and our players. We will know that we sing and play to a God who himself is a consummate musician, who fully appreciates what we are doing. He is not indifferent; he cares and he responds. He appreciates good music, and he enjoys an excellent performance truly dedicated to him.

We also will treat our musical gift with greater respect, whether we have it in abundance, or just enough to negotiate a simple tune in a barely recognizable form. We will enjoy more fully the offerings of praise given on our behalf and the music that communicates God’s truth to us in extraordinary, extradimensional ways.

Finally, we will hold our churches accountable in the ministry of music, demanding that it be worthy of our God and a worthwhile investment of our preparation, performance—even of our listening time. We will see disciplined preparation as an act filled with spiritual significance.

We want an awareness of God’s glory filling his house. It is a combination of our heart being righteously devoted and our art being rigorously disciplined. In a letter to J. A. Stumpf, Beethoven said, “What is to reach the heart must come from above; if it does not come from thence, it will be nothing but notes, body without spirit.”

With a biblical view of God as the Master Musician, we will mature even further as Christians, more fully developing the aesthetic side of our being, an aspect of ourselves that is a reflection of the Infinite Artist, the God who sings.

How are Christians to evaluate the claims of contemporary psychics?

For most Americans, the evidence for extrasensory perception (ESP) is compelling: Jeane Dixon’s gift of prophecy enables her to foresee President Kennedy’s assassination. Police psychics Dorothy Allison and Peter Hurkos solve cases that dumbfound detectives. Ordinary people have spontaneous dreams of dreaded events—only to discover that their dreams are reality. In widely heralded new laboratory experiments, parapsychologists (psychologists who study “paranormal” happenings) have been astonished at gifted psychics who, against all odds, can discern the contents of sealed envelopes, influence the roll of a die, or draw a picture of what someone else is viewing at an unknown remote location.

Why, then, are research psychologists so overwhelmingly skeptical of all such claims? Is it simple close-mindedness, bred by a mechanistic world view that has no room for supernatural mysteries? And how should Christians view such claims? Should we welcome them as evidence for the supernatural? Fear them as evidence of the demonic? Disregard them as utter nonsense?

The Paranormal: Grounds For Skepticism

One can no more disprove the possibility of paranormal phenomena than one can disprove the existence of Santa Claus. But if one could discover no reliable evidence for Santa Claus, and if there were good reasons for thinking the claim implausible, then, pending new and convincing evidence, it would be rational to disbelieve. In the case of ESP, the most respectable of the paranormal claims, there are at least a half-dozen grounds for disbelief.

1. Parapsychology’s defenders and critics agree: there has never been a reproducible psychic experiment, nor any individual who can consistently evidence psychic ability. British psychologist C. E. M. Hansen typifies the skepticism of most research psychologists: “After a hundred years of research, not a single individual has been found who can demonstrate ESP to the satisfaction of independent investigators.” Even John Beloff, past president of the Parapsychological Association, seems to agree: “No experiment showing the clear existence of the paranormal has been consistently repeated by other investigators in other laboratories.” At the 1981 American Psychological Association convention, two symposia examined the case for and the case against ESP, and nearly the same words were heard. Parapsychologists said that what their field needs to give it credibility is one reproducible phenomenon and a theory to explain it. The critics agreed: parapsychology is the only discipline that lacks a phenomenon and lacks a theory that would lead us to expect any such phenomenon. Moreover, the critics stand open, as they have for years, to confirming the abilities of any true psychic, or to reproducing one bias-free ESP phenomenon. But parapsychologists are not interested in sending their ESP all-star team to a psychic showdown. Sensitive psychics cannot perform under such pressure, they say; ESP is too elusive, too easily disrupted by the presence of skeptics.

2. “Spontaneous” psychic experiences also fail to pass scrutiny. Perhaps ESP is not the sort of phenomenon that one produces on demand in an experiment. Maybe it’s more like the eruption of Mount Saint Helens—a real and observable phenomenon, but one that occurs unbidden. If so, would-be psychics could go to the Las Vegas and Atlantic City craps tables, which skim off but 1.4 percent of the money bet. There is no need to bet on demand, only to stand there and wait for the spontaneous premonitions to erupt. A psychic need only beat chance by a measly 3 percent to make the same hefty profit as the house usually does. But the casinos continue to operate, showing, as always, the expected return.

Or consider the predictions of would-be seers. Not only did Jeane Dixon never predict anything so precise as, “John Kennedy will be elected, but then assassinated,” she also changed her mind before his election and said that Richard Nixon would be elected in 1960. More recently she predicted that Pope Paul would enjoy a year of good health (he died), that the Panama Canal treaties would be defeated in Congress (they were approved), that Marie Osmond would not marry (two months later she did), and that Ted Kennedy would be elected President in 1980. Although no celebrated psychic has been shown to have a better-than-guessing batting average, the money still rolls in from those who love to believe.

Do the spontaneous premonitions of ordinary people fare better? Consider our dreams. Do they foretell the future, or do they only seem to because we are more likely to remember or reconstruct dreams that seem to come true? A half-century ago, when the Lindbergh baby was kidnaped and murdered but before the body was discovered, two Harvard psychologists invited the public to send in their dream reports concerning the whereabouts of the child. Of the 1,300 dream reports received—all spontaneously experienced by people who felt they might have significance—how many accurately perceived the child as dead? A mere 5 percent.

3. Among professional “psychics,” there is a long history of fraud. For years, stage performers of ESP have been convincing audiences of their wondrous powers. A very few, such as spoon-bender Uri Geller, have for a time deceived scientists. But all of these have been debunked, often by magicians who do not take kindly to those who exploit their magical art and distort people’s understanding of reality. Magician James Randi, for example, has duplicated the feats of stage psychics and offered $10,000 to anyone who can demonstrate psychic powers before a group of informed experts like himself. Is there, in all the world, anyone who can read others’ minds, move remote objects, or perform any of the feats described at the beginning of this article? Randi’s offer has been well-publicized for nearly 20 years. On occasion he has even surrendered his cashier’s check to an impartial jury which must judge whether the claimed feat has been performed under the agreed-upon conditions. As of this writing, no true psychic has yet been discovered. Surely if there were such a person, he or she would by now have welcomed the opportunity to claim the money, harvest the tremendous publicity that would result, and educate skeptics about the existence of god-like human powers.

4. The fact that most people believe in ESP, and even believe that they have personally experienced it, is now understandable. Some people wonder: If ESP does not exist, then why in one recent national poll did 64 percent of college graduates say they believe in it? And why, in another national survey, did 58 percent of Americans claim to have “personally experienced” ESP?

In the last decade there has occurred an explosion in our knowledge of how people form false beliefs. (I discuss this research in The Inflated Self: Human Illusions and the Biblical Call to Hope, Seabury Press, 1980.) For example, there is now considerable research evidence that people’s minds are swayed as much by vivid anecdotes as by dry facts. An irritating story about a welfare mother can have more impact on opinions about welfare recipients than do factual statistics about welfare clients. At California State University at Long Beach, researchers showed how people’s vulnerability to the dramatic can make the case for ESP seem compelling. In several classes, they had someone demonstrate a simple set of tricks designed to simulate ESP. Even when forewarned that this was a magician who would merely “pretend to read minds and demonstrate psychic abilities,” most of the awe-struck students became convinced that the performer actually was a true psychic.

People also fail to recognize chance events for what they are, which can make ordinary events seem extraordinary. Given the billions of events in the world each day, some incredible coincidences are bound to occur. Here is my favorite: The King James Bible was completed when William Shakespeare was 46 years old. In Psalm 46, the forty-sixth word is “shake,” and the forty-sixth word from the end (ignoring Selah, a symbol) is “spear.” (Perhaps even more incredible is that someone discovered this!) When “police psychics” fire hundreds of predictions, their verbal shotguns are bound to score a few “amazing” (coincidental) hits, which the media are only too happy to report. However, the unglamorous fact is that researchers have found that police psychics do no better than you or I could, given the same information about a case. Thus, after the Atlanta Police Department had scrutinized the psychic visions of Dorothy Allison and more than 500 others in their search for the child killer, it remained for dogged police work to solve the case.

At other times, what seems like either a coincidence or ESP is neither. Driving down the highway, a husband remarks to his wife, “I wonder what ever happened to Steve Thompson?” Astonished, his wife replies, “I was just about to say the same thing!” Both are unaware of what stimulated their common memory of Steve—perhaps a voice like his on a radio ad a few moments before. Given how difficult it is for people to assess the mysterious workings of their minds, they naturally attribute such common thoughts to “mental telepathy.”

One of the most startling facts about the human mind is the extent to which preconceived notions bias the way information is interpreted and remembered. Sometimes our minds block something we could readily see if only we were predisposed to perceive it. While reading these words, for example, you have probably been unaware until this moment that you were looking at your nose.

Our prejudgments can also induce us to see and recall what we already believe. Given a psychic prediction that is vague enough to allow a variety of later interpretations, most people, once they know the facts, will tend to recall and interpret the prediction as fulfilled. Even when shown purely random events, people easily become convinced that significant relationships are occurring—when they expect to see them. Conversely, premonitions that clearly fail are usually forgotten. The 95 percent whose dreams incorrectly anticipated the fate of the kidnaped Lindbergh baby surely forgot their dreams sooner than did the 5 percent whose premonitions were accurate.

Researchers have used these deficiencies in human intuition to manufacture false beliefs in ESP. Fred Ayeroff and Robert Abelson asked 100 Yale students to try to transmit mentally one of five possible symbols to another student, who would guess what was transmitted. Their “ESP” success rate was nearly identical to the chance rate of 20 percent. Nevertheless, when students were drawn into the drama of experiment by choosing their symbols and being given a “warm-up” period, more than 50 percent of the time they felt “confident” that they were experiencing ESP.

These mental processes are some of the ingredients in human nature’s recipe for convincing gullible minds of phenomena that may not exist. Indeed, these illusory thinking tendencies are so powerful that whether psychic powers exist or not, it seems almost inevitable that humanity would convince itself of such.

5. The accumulating evidence of the dependence of mind on brain is evidence against the presumption that mind can function (or travel) separate from brain. Although many Christian writers have touted ESP as proof of a nonmaterial essence in human nature, books and articles along these lines usually display a seeming ignorance—ignorance about the scientific status of ESP, and ignorance of the emerging biblical and scientific conceptions of human nature as a bounded mind-body unity. Investigations of the correspondence between our brain states and our emotions, thoughts, and actions indicate that the mind is linked to the body as closely as is a telephone message to the electrical events in the phone line. This modern view parallels the ancient holistic view of the Hebrew people, expressed also in the radical Christian hope of a resurrected mind-body unit. In both views, the idea that minds could travel and communicate independently of bodies has become as implausible as the idea that telephone messages could travel independently of the phone equipment.

6. The Bible counsels us to be skeptical of those who claim god-like abilities. We humans have always had a hard time accepting our finiteness. In the Creation story, humanity’s fall occurred when the human limits were denied rather than accepted. Today, believers in ESP proclaim our (or their) potential to mimic God: to be omniscient—reading others’ minds and knowing the future; to be omnipresent—traveling out of body and viewing events in remote locations; to be omnipotent—moving or even destroying objects with the mind’s hidden powers. Science, by debunking such self-deifying claims, sides with biblical religion, which proclaims that our hope lies not in our mental powers or in the immortality of our disembodied minds, but in a being who created and accepts our limits and who promises to recreate us. Not surprisingly, surveys reveal that people who have given up believing in such a being are more likely to find paranormal claims credible. As George Tyrell declared, “If [people’s] craving for the mysterious, the wonderful, the supernatural, be not fed on true religion it will feed itself on the garbage of any superstition that is offered to it.”

For all these reasons, open skepticism seems the informed response to the modern avalanche of psychic claims. Most skeptical scientists and magicians are indeed open to belief should any demonstrable phenomenon be discovered. Are believers in ESP equally willing to say what would cause them to disbelieve? What would it take? How many failed attempts to demonstrate a reproducible psychic phenomenon? How many years of casinos getting their expected returns? How many psychic hoaxes? How many failures to pass Randi’s $10,000 challenge? How much evidence concerning the dependence of mind on brain? How much biblical wisdom about our human limits?

The Supernatural: Can A Skeptic Believe?

I have often been asked: How can you disbelieve these paranormal claims—and then turn right around and believe other equally paranormal (beyond-the-normal, unexplainable) claims, such as the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, and life after death? Several replies are possible.

First, the question is no different than my asking the questioner: How can you disbelieve in Santa Claus, yet believe in Jesus? Surely, believing some unproven claims needn’t require believing all such claims. Faith is not blind credulity.

Second, there is a clear difference between the easily testable claims of ESP and the faith claims that God exists or the dead shall rise. Take, for example, those who claim to see colored auras surrounding people’s bodies. Magician Randi proposes a simple test of this claim. His typical conversation with such “psychics” goes something like this: Randi: “Do you see an aura around my head?”

Psychic: “Sure.”

Randi: “Can you still see the aura if I put this magazine in front of my face?”

Psychic: “Of course.”

Randi: “Then if I were to step behind a wall barely taller than I am, you could determine my location from the aura visible above my head, right?”

Randi reports that no aura seer has yet agreed to take this simple test. That most Christian claims are not similarly refutable does not mean they are true, for neither are they provable. But at least they: (1) have not been refuted, (2) are in many respects congenial with what we know about human nature, and (3) are defensible as worthy of our commitment.

Third, the Bible warns us against being misled by self-professed psychics. The Mosaic law was definite: “Don’t let your people practice divination or look for omens or use spells or charms, and don’t let them consult the spirits of the dead” (Deut. 18:10–11, GNB). In Isaiah (47:12–15, GNB) the Lord scoffs at the Babylonians’ pagan beliefs: “Keep all your magic spells and charms.… You are powerless in spite of the advice you get. Let your astrologers come forward and save you.… They will be like bits of straw.…”

True, the Bible does offer its own paranormal claims: Joseph’s predictive dream, Elisha’s dividing the Jordan river with his cloak, Jesus’ miracles. But in most of these cases the action is attributed to divine, not human power. Moreover, most biblical prophecy was less a prediction of the future than an understanding of where the present course was leading. A modern Amos would not name the date of the world’s next war, but would discern that if the nations of the world do not turn from their wicked ways a war without winners is likely. As for predictions of the future, Deuteronomy (18:22, GNB) counsels a scientific spirit: “If a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and what he says does not come true, then it is not the Lord’s message.” This is the same spirit that Carl Sagan echoes today: “Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep insights can be winnowed from deep nonsense.”

Such skepticism can be carried to an extreme. Henrik Ibsen’s play The Wild Duck portrays the potentially harmful effects of destroying people’s comforting illusions without replacing them with something better. A healthy, open skepticism that can acknowledge mystery sometimes degenerates into a cold, close-minded cynicism. Still, skepticism is indeed healthy if it protects us from those who would exploit us. Jim Jones seduced people into his cult partly by using psychic fakery to convince them of his extraordinary gifts. Pseudoscience and the occult always threaten genuine science and religion, by distracting people’s fascination and sapping their time and money.

Skepticism is also a healthy part of the search for truth. Those who “worship God with their minds” search for truth in the belief that it is better to hope for things genuine than things unreal, better to base our lives on the rock of reality than the sands of illusion. Clearing the decks of false mysteries can free us to ponder the genuine mysteries of faith and life.

On this much the believers and skeptics of the paranormal agree: the topic is important. At issue is not just whether ESP exists, but our whole understanding of human nature. Do we possess divine, supernatural attributes? Or are we finite creatures of the one who declares, “I am God, and there is none like me” (Isa. 46:9)? Judaism and Christianity have historically maintained that we are not supernatural beings, that we are the creatures of the one great supernatural being. Still, we are tempted to deny our limits and see ourselves as beings who share the powers of God.

So, no Virginia, there apparently is no literal Santa Claus, and no divine power in our nature. But don’t dismay, for that’s okay. We can have dignity without having deity. After all, “Jesus loves us, this we know, for the Bible tells us so. Little ones to him belong; we are weak, but he is strong.”

The New Abridged Supercondensed Bible (For The Very, Very Busy)

Who would ever have thought the world would stand still for the Readers Digest Bible? But is this condensation the last time God will ever say, “Let me be brief”? Deleted and gone in the RDB is one-third of the “not so important” Word of God. How do you edit? What do you cut? One contemporary writer thinks that people who are adept at shortening the Bible should take a crack at income tax forms.

I suppose those who whittle the Word down to size really are qualified to say what has to go if the Bible is to be as widely read as Harlequin novels. How much should we criticize these avant-garde editors? Everybody has to make a living, I guess. But how can even the best editors really be sure they have deleted only those temporal parts of God’s eternal Word? I can even accept their abrupt testimony that “the Word of God is alive and powerful, but a little lengthy.” Surely they are friends of all those who want to get holy in a hurry. And their message seems to be that God talks too much. After all, “Almost all Scripture is given by inspiration of God except that which is marked through in blue pencil.” We can only hope the RDB isn’t the beginning of a trend.

Once you throw out the “begats” and edit Leviticus, the only thing left is to shorten the more strategic passages for the society who may yet want to cut down their Bible reading—after they finish their TV dinners. If the trend in producing shorter Bibles continues, the process may one day finish the NASB-FTVVB in an amazing 32 pages of Cliff notes about the size of a Navigator memory packet.

And what of our favorite verses? Well—

Psalm 23: “The Lord is my shepherd; with stick and staff we graze, laze, drink, and dwell.”

John 3:16: “God loved and gave and saved.”

Of the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension: “He was ridiculed, raised, and revered as he rose.”

There you have it, the gospel in a nutshell—the Word made so short that the impatient and neurotic can get to the meat of things and not waste time. The great Book of books that took 1,800 years to write required only 24 months to edit. Hallelujah! Or shall I just say “Hal” for short?

EUTYCHUS

Complicated Scheme Of Salvation

As a former Roman Catholic priest, I want to voice loving opposition to “Catholics Begin an Evangelism Magazine” [May 20]. The author says the article in the first issue on how to be “saved” would look familiar in a Protestant magazine. Roman Catholicism promotes a complicated scheme of salvation that is not of God, not biblical. A true Protestant church with Scripture as the only objective standard of divine truth rejects salvation by human works.

BARTHOLOMEW F. BREWER

Mission to Catholics

International, Inc.

San Diego, Calif.

The Ncc’S Bad Press

Isaac Rottenberg’s article, “Why Did the NCC Get Such Bad Press?” [May 20], borders on the ludicrous if not downright insulting. The writer says (referring to NCC staff personnel), “Never have I caught any of them reading either Marx or Lenin.” Is he saying that if he doesn’t see it, then it ain’t so?

The NCC cannot be reconciled to biblical Christianity because it is ruled by the god of religious liberalism. As J. Gresham Machen said, liberalism is “a return to an unchristian and a subchristian form of the religious life.” There is no reason for evangelicals to try to reform the NCC because the answer lies not in reform but in an individual conversion experience with Jesus Christ.

DAVID A. WILLIAMS

Arlington, Va.

Perspective On Ríos Montt

Comments on President Efrain Ríos Montt of Guatemala in “Luis Palau: Evangelist to Three Worlds” [May 20] were refreshing, especially after having just read the recent and extremely biased National Council of Churches report on human rights in Guatemala. After only five days in the country, the four-person NCC team produced the standard leftist position on Guatemala (three brief, distorted, and almost apologetic mentions of guerrilla activity in a 14-page, highly politicized report chiefly rebuking Rios Montt’s army and government). Palau’s observations show us that, in spite of the slander, what Ríos Montt is doing by God’s grace is the best thing to happen in Guatemala in a very long time.

DAVID SCZEPANSKI

Eureka, Calif.

Is Something Wicked Wicked?

I highly applaud your efforts to bring us reviews of movies that are of special interest to CT readers. But as a social scientist who has been studying the impact of frightening mass media on children for three years, I must warn parents to think beyond Harry Cheney’s comments on Something Wicked This Way Comes [May 20]. Adults often have trouble ridding themselves of fear residues engendered by powerful cinematic images that they know depict events that are unreal and could never happen. Consider then the plight of the child, far less cognitively mature, who is told that there is a reality about the images in Something Wicked. I suggest that plight may be a very unhappy one. Rather than cause the child to turn from indifference in later life, this may cause the onset of undue fear and anxiety. Just because Disney movies have told us about the darker side of the universe does not mean that some scenes in some movies have not harmed the psychological health of our children as well.

GLENN G. SPARKS

Madison, Wis.

C. S. Lewis wrote Christian allegories. Ray Bradbury writes fiction. To say that Ray Bradbury wrote Something Wicked as a Christian allegory would be in error. To sell the film as a Christian allegory is also in error. This comes mighty close to letting the “money changers” into the temple, and I am greatly offended by this.

MICHAEL LUNDEEN

Minneapolis, Minn.

The Evil Of Abortion

In “Why Prolife Rhetoric Is Not Enough” [May 20], Scott Reed and Paul Fromer effectively point out the fact that simply opposing abortion misses the mark. Our opposition will fall short of our Christian responsibilities if we do not also work to alleviate the real social and spiritual problems that provide ample pressures for women to look to even an abortionist for relief.

Churches need to speak against the evil of abortion and at the same time join financially or organizationally with those prolife organizations who have been active for years in the creation of Emergency Pregnancy Service Centers. Saving the individual lives of unborn children in your community by reaching out to pregnant women in distress will lend credence and compassion to your efforts to restrict the horrors of abortion.

GARY CRUM

Alternatives to Abortion International

Washington, D.C.

We were both pleased and disappointed with your series of articles “If Not Abortion, What Then?” [May 20]. Certainly there has never been a field more ripe for evangelical action than the one that confronts us in providing alternatives to abortion. However, you failed to give any coverage at all to one of the most valuable alternatives: adoption. Whenever abortion is discussed, adoption should be presented as a positive, loving alternative.

ERIC AND LOIS LEADER

Phoenix, Ariz.

Reed, Fromer, and Clapp were able to illuminate but not condemn, find fault but not depress, and most of all, present the overwhelming challenge and still motivate me to action.

REV. DAVID A. EICHENBERGER

Clovernook Christian Church

Cincinnati, Ohio

Identification Error

We appreciate your airing the “painful experience” the Commission on Voluntary Service and Action is enduring as a result of questions raised about what you call a “Marxist revolutionary party” [News, Apr. 22]. I regret that it erred in identifying me as “general secretary” of CVSA and therefore credited me with actions I only shared in rather than initiated. I am only secretary of the executive committee.

Our main concern is that this “party” is so secretive. Our executive committee is not witch hunting but simply trying to be responsible to volunteers.

J. WILBUR PATTERSON

Commission on Voluntary Service and Action

New York, N.Y.

Once Gay, Always Gay?

It is true that homosexuals encounter many obstacles in overcoming their homosexuality. But the biggest obstacles they face are the skeptical attitudes of Christians who have been affected by the “once gay, always gay” lie, and personal feelings of despair and self-pity that keep them trapped in their old natures [“Homosexuals in the Church,” Apr. 22]. More and more people are discovering that they don’t have to be enslaved by their old natures. It isn’t just behavior that changes. There is also a change that touches the identity, feelings, and desires. Surrender to Christ really is the key. God is not interested in just helping his people refrain from the old, bad things. He wants them to be able to choose a whole new perspective on life, on themselves, and on those around them.

ROBBI KENNEY

Exodus International

San Rafael, Calif.

As a Christian who previously identified himself as “gay,” I rejoice in my new identity. I’m free in Christ from who I used to be; I no longer center my identity in the temptations I feel—sexual or otherwise. Let’s not be guilty of selling short the life-changing power of Jesus. Our counseling center has dealt with thousands of former gays over the past decade. It is our experience that most individuals who prematurely leave our residential program do so not because they give up hope of change, but rather because God is beginning to change them—and they decide to hold onto their homosexual identity.

BOB DAVIES

Love in Action

San Rafael, Calif.

Untrue!

In North American Scene [Apr. 8], you characterize People For The American Way as “dedicated to blunting the impact of conservative Christianity.” That is not true. Our chairman is John Buchanan, a Southern Baptist minister and a conservative Christian. While other board members are evangelical and conservative Christians, the board and membership reflect the diversity of religious faiths and political viewpoints in America.

ANTHONY T. PODESTA

People For The American Way

Washington, D.C.