Minister’s Workshop: January 18, 1974

An unusual time to attend church—two o’clock Friday afternoon. My husband and our eleven-year-old son, Paul, sat beside me in the large, worship-inspiring church. Flowers decorated the front of the sanctuary. The organist played beautiful music and the minister spoke in soft tones. But no one in the nearly full church was happy, because in the midst of the flowers rested the small, closed white casket of a ten-year-old boy we all knew.

David had often swung on the rope swing in our yard. He had played kickball in the driveway. At the Cub Scout meetings in our recreation room he sat next to Paul. A lovable rascal, he could be counted on for all sorts of mischief and fun. While waiting for his father after baseball practice he had dashed into the street in front of a car. He died within minutes.

This kind of accident causes empty, gnawing feelings of despair. We find ourselves asking, “Why, why?” Everyone experiences the cycle of hearing the news of a tragedy, hurting, seeking to reject it, accepting it, and finally reacting to it.

As I listened to the minister’s words and struggled to restrain the tears, God’s words, “I have loved you with an everlasting love,” came to mind. In the midst of our sorrow God cares. He loves us, but the love does not stop with a comforting verse of Scripture or with a prayer for strength. God’s love seeks to work through us as we share rather than observe another’s sorrow. The God of all comfort tells us, “Comfort, comfort my people” (Isa. 40:1). In Galatians 6:2 we are exhorted to “bear one another’s burdens and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Not that it is easy, not because we want to, but simply because the Lord God commands us.

Visiting a friend in the desert of despair is difficult. It is hard to stand silently while another struggles with hurt too deep to express. Watching tears stream down a father’s strong face can strike deep into our sensibilities. Sometimes we would rather ignore the hurting burden and hope it will go away.

But death is not like that. The act of saying good-bye to a friend or loved one is flashed into the book of our history like an image on a camera’s film. Destined to witness the drama, we discover we may choose only the mode: active participation or passive observation.

My first encounter with the death of someone close came at age five. The sobs of my austere aunt awakened me in the night: my elderly grandfather had died. In the dim light I could see my mother standing beside her sobbing sister. Frightened, I hid under the covers and hoped everyone would think I was asleep. Occasionally I peeked out to see what would happen next. I was a passive observer.

On the last peek I saw something that indelibly etched itself in my memory. Mother gently put her arms around my aunt and spoke quietly, reassuringly. The touch and the voice initiated an immediate response—the quiet of the night again prevailed. In the midst of death, peace. Active participation.

A few years later my father died. I tried to comfort my mother, who was engrossed in the myriad plans that must be made after a death, especially the death of a prominent person in the community.

My most vivid recollection of those emotionally dark days is of my father’s secretary, who invited me to go shopping the day before the funeral. A woman of few words, she never said, “I’m sorry your father is gone; I know the Lord will be with you. May the Lord bless you; now go play.” She made time to do something for me.

When we arrived at the store she said, “Would you like to have a new coat?” Surprised, I wondered how she knew I needed and wanted one. She watched patiently as I tried on several, and she helped me decide on a pretty green one with soft fur buttons. Her loving action conveyed care: active participation.

As we followed the hearse to the cemetery and my happy world seemed to have crashed into a wall of loss, I remember looking at the buttons and thinking, “All is not lost—you have beautiful fur buttons.” For a brief but very important moment I felt happy. When I outgrew the coat and had to give it away I saved the buttons, four small symbols of someone’s love.

If we choose to observe another’s hurt passively we contribute to the weight of the burden. If, however, we actively seek to share the weight, we realize the dividends of obedience to God’s commands and the intangible beauty of a helping relationship to another.

Timing is an important aspect of comfort. Sometimes it is best to pray now and go later; at other times our presence is needed immediately. The only son of a widow living in Alaska was killed while on a hunting trip. Upon hearing the news her brother in North Carolina called immediately. “Would you like me to come now?”

“No,” replied the bereaved mother, “everyone seems to be here now. Come next month in the winter of my grief, when the cards are slow and no one knocks at my open door.”

When our young friend David died, “everyone” seemed to be there. We waited a few days to visit the family. In the meantime we prayed for them. Our eight-year-old son summed up our feelings beautifully when he prayed, “Dear God, please comfort David’s family tonight. Help them know that even though there’s an empty place in their family, there is one more spirit in heaven now.” So often a child’s simple faith helps us in life’s most difficult times.

In a Science Service booklet entitled “Medical Discoveries” there is a drawing of a form of medicine practiced in ancient Egypt. A very thin, haggard man sits on the floor in a clinic with a stack of bricks under each armpit supporting his weight. Medical technicians busily mix and administer their potions.

Modern medicine has changed the potions to life-saving antibiotics, but what about the bricks supporting the man’s weight? Too often we leave our friends to suffer because we do not want to share and bear their burdens.

We must be willing to support others with a warm and loving care that says, “I am here because I am willing to share and bear your hurt.” Sharing and bearing will not be easy, but we can affirm with the psalmist, “My help comes from the LORD, who made heaven and earth.”

Theology

The Wrath to Come

This column by the late Executive Editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY is reprinted from the March 1, 1963, issue.

There hangs on a wall in our home a picture, simple, but with a tremendous story. Two lambs are resting peacefully on the ground; behind them is a large hand, and drooling and snarling behind that hand are several ferocious wolves. The lambs are lying in perfect peace, despite the danger, because the hand is restraining their enemies.

Most Christians respond to this portrayal of God’s protecting hand and rejoice that he still loves and cares for his own today.

At the same time there are many who would take advantage of the concept of God’s love without admitting that the love of God is but one facet of his being.

The stern words of John the Baptist to the Pharisees and Sadducees—the religious leaders of his day—carried deep meaning: “Who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” And this warning is not dated. The wrath of God is seen today and will be seen in the final judgment.

God’s wrath is not against the sinner because he is a sinner—all men are sinners. His wrath is against sin, against sin wherever it is found. Only in this light can we understand the implications of the Cross. Our Saviour’s death was not a sentimental example; it was an act of necessity. Only the death of the Son of God had in it the cleansing necessary—the power to deliver from the guilt and penalty of sin’s affront to a holy God.

In John 3:36 we read: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” In the light of this we have two choices: either John was mistaken, speaking from ignorance or from deliberate spite, or he was affirming a truth in which there is unspeakable comfort or warning of dire peril.

Is our concept of God and his Son a travesty of the truth? God is love, but he is also a consuming fire. He is love, but he also exercises a holy wrath against which nothing can stand. The writer of the Proverbs tells us, “The expectation of the wicked is wrath,” and such it is today. The fact that many pulpits ignore this truth is something for which some will certainly be held responsible.

Years ago Jonathan Edwards’s sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” brought literally thousands into the kingdom of God, for men were led to see themselves as God sees them and they cried out for forgiveness. What a far cry from most preaching today! Instead of being confronted by his sin and its consequences, the average sinner walks away from a sermon with the smug feeling that he is a pretty decent fellow and often with the delusion that he has done God an honor by being seen in church.

The Prophet Isaiah says: “Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it” (Isa. 13:9).

The loving forgiveness of God is just as real as his wrath; his love and mercy are as available as his judgment is certain. The Apostle Paul had no illusions about the matter. In Romans 2:5 he says: “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” Later in this same letter Paul says: “Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him” (5:9).

But today the idea of the “blood atonement” is considered passé by some. Only recently a prominent church leader spoke to a large group of women and in the course of his address warned them against emphasizing the blood of Christ, urging them to stress God’s love.

This incident brings to mind these words: “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy [common] thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Heb. 10:29). How can we ignore these words, or “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb. 10:31), or “For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb. 12:29)?

Countless souls are being lulled into a false sense of security by those who ignore or deny the fact of God’s wrath against sin. His wrath is not anger as we sinners know anger, nor is it peevishness or arbitrariness. Rather it is a holy wrath by a holy God, a wrath directed against sin in every form, a wrath so great that the Son of God suffered death and separation from his Father to deliver those who believe from the wrath to come.

The Apostle Paul, speaking to Christians, says: “And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come” (1 Thess. 1:10).

In those solemn words of the last book of the Bible we read: “And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together …”; then we find the peoples of the earth crying out to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” (Rev. 6:14 ff.).

Can the Gospel be properly preached other than against the backdrop of the wrath of God?

A prominent minister recently observed that all we need to do is tap sinners on the shoulder and tell them they are saved and that they should go out and live like Christians. What a travesty on the Gospel! What a failure to preach the whole counsel of God! What a caricature of the holiness of God! What a failure to understand the implications of the Cross!

When we truly picture the gentle Christ, the One who would not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax, we must face the other side, the day when the words of Paul will be fulfilled: “And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power” (2 Thess. 1:7–9).

Preacher, are you warning of the wrath to come? There is a bridge out down the road. Are you keeping quiet?

Eutychus and His Kin: January 18, 1974

Introducing Presidentials And Double-Barrels

Taking up a theme found in Proverbs, the Prophet Amos clarifies the Lord’s abomination of “diverse weights and diverse measures.” He denounces those who want to “make the ephah [a measure of volume used for selling grain] small and the shekel [weight used to measure gold or other metals accepted in payment; later, a definite coin] great” (Amos 8:5). But things are different in our modern, technological society. Money is valued not by weight, but by what is printed on it. Unfortunately, rising prices coupled with the paper shortage makes it harder to value a 2½-by-6-inch slip of silk paper at only one dollar: the U. S. Treasury is talking about replacing many of the nominal one dollar bills now in circulation with twos, which cost no more and use no more paper but have twice the “value.”

There was a time, from 1944 to 1971, when most of the currencies of the world were tied to the U. S. dollar, which in turn was tied to gold. But since 1971 the dollar has been untied, and everything else with it. As a result it is now clear that the world will have to find new standards of value and units of currency. We can all be thankful that in the light of current events some solutions virtually propose themselves.

One suggestion for replacing the declining unit of value known as the dollar would be a new, much larger unit, the “presidential,” worth approximately 295 old 1972 dollars, at least for the purpose of charitable contributions. This would come in especially handy for making an annual church pledge. A person intending to give ten dollars a week, instead of writing $520 on his card, could simply write “1.73 presidentials.” For tax purposes, the presidential is even more valuable, being figured at about $695 1972 dollars. Thus a person owing $1400 in taxes could simply write his check for 2.01½ presidentials, and that would certainly soften the emotional pain otherwise caused by writing out the high figure.

In international trade, however, the presidential might be less acceptable. An internationally respected unit has to be found, and the obvious solution is oil. The old Spanish gold doubloon, acceptable everywhere in its day, could find a worthy successor in the new Arabian double-barrel. The double-barrel remains constant in value, despite the decline of the dollar, mark, pound sterling, etc. Thus a dollar was worth about 0.2 double-barrel and a pound 0.5 early in 1973, but today the dollar stands only at 0.0167 double-barrel and the pound at about 0.04. Obviously neither dollars nor pounds are a satisfactory medium of exchange. This could lead to some welcome changes in banking practices. Savings, demand, and time deposit accounts could be opened at local filling stations, thus putting them back in business. All this could be controlled through a nation-wide system of Federal Reserve Tanks setting the discount, octane, and sulphur ratings. International settlements could be handled through a World Tank, or for greater reliability, by means of drafts on the Royal Arabian Tank (RAT) where the double-barrel originated. International trade would flow freely again and both local filling station and international shipping interests would be stimulated. Surely the prophet Amos overlooked these amazing possibilities of the future when he uttered his rather jejune comments about manipulating currency.

EUTYCHUS VI

To Limit Stagnation

Thanks to Reverend Gilmore for his analysis of the problems of visitation in the local parish (The Minister’s Workshop, Nov. 23). It seems that the purpose of this important duty is too often misunderstood. Visitation is a ministry of the Church and not just that of the pastor. Granted this is an important part of his ministering to his flock but limiting it to his efforts will stagnate the Church’s outreach and discredit the message it preaches.… For a minister to visit his people only for social purposes or to satisfy a desire for attention is a flagrant misuse of time and talent. Legitimate needs should be looked to. Many ills of the spirit could be cured if each Christian were challenged and trained to minister to others themselves by way of visiting those in need of the Gospel. Taking the Gospel to a degenerate world has a purifying effect on the messenger. P. M. BARBER Servicemen’s Evangelism Center

Church of God

Hanau am Main

Germany

Those Cultural Myths

C. S. Lewis certainly was a creative genius and CHRISTIANITY TODAY did well in saluting his accomplishments in the November 9 issue. It is unfortunate, however, that in one article, Joan Lloyd’s “Transcendent Sexuality as C. S. Lewis Saw It,” you chose to concentrate on one of his heretical speculations rather than his vast areas of creative orthodoxy. In giving sexuality transcendent reality, ontological status, Lewis betrays his platonic roots, which sometimes get the better of his biblical theology. Some of his constructions (e.g., “he does play Form … she Matter”) also seem closer to Taoist categories of yin and yang than to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Lewis has taken the categories of a patriarchal culture and projected them on the divine.

God is Spirit, God is both masculine and feminine—not simply masculine as Lewis asserts. To reduce God to a masculine figure is to bring him down to the level of the Canaanitish gods. Genesis 1:27 affirms that God’s image includes both male and female. Both Christian men and women are called repeatedly in the New Testament to conform themselves to the image of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:1, 2; Phil. 2:5; Rom. 8:29). Christ tells us that in heaven there will be no marriage, and Paul states that in Christ there is neither male and female. Scripture does not say (as some early church fathers did) that women who are truly Christ-like become males.

C. S. Lewis would further polarize the sexes rather than unite them in Christ. He would perpetuate the cultural myths that we are so different that we have little in common—precisely the kind of thinking which has always fostered homosexuality among those who sought deep relationships with one who was their equal. He would perpetuate the myth that submission and obedience are for women only, a myth which has denied women their rightful places of service in the church (note his irrational stand against women in the ministry, a stance shared by his Anglican colleagues in this country). Let us praise Lewis where praise is due, but let us criticize him where he was patently in error. God is not masculine—or feminine. God is God.

NANCY HARDESTY

Chicago, Ill.

The Work Of Many

I deeply appreciate the generous heading which CHRISTIANITY TODAY spread over the review of Alan Tippett’s great book, God, Man and Church Growth (Nov. 23), but honesty compels me to point out that the Church Growth School of Thought is the work of a community of missionary scholars. I have had something to do with its beginning, but its present depth and height and worldwide spread are the work of the twenty-seven contributors to the book and many others. They come from many lands, belong to many communions, and are masters of many disciplines. They have contributed richness to Church Growth, naturalized it in many soils, and emphasized it as New Testament Christianity.

DONALD MCGAVRAN

Fuller Theological Seminary

School of World Mission

Pasadena, Calif.

Ten Years Late

I was present at the Chicago Social Concerns Thanksgiving Workshop, and except for having had to depart before its conclusion, would have signed the declaration. But let not us participants be too proud of what we accomplished (“Evangelicals on Justice: Socially Speaking,” Dec. 21).

The declaration was so broad as to lack real meaning. We asserted in the declaration that “we must rethink our values regarding our present standard of living.” But proposals that really went to the gut—to cut our standard of living 50 per cent and for a graduated tithe—got nowhere. With our federal government in a serious crisis, a proposal calling for President Nixon and our national leaders to repent—it said nothing about impeachment or resignation—successfully emerged from a study committee but was shunted aside on the floor.

In other words, whenever the discussions got specific there were comments that such statements would attract the attention of the press and would alienate the constituencies back home.…

I have spoken in recent weeks about Watergate to the Mississippi and Indiana editors, on the Wheaton and Trinity college campuses, and to evangelical churchgoers in Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois. These are hardly hotbeds of liberalism. My own observation is that many evangelicals in the pew are far out front in their social concern of the moment than many of their “leaders.” The pitiful thing is that many church people and religionists could have signed the Chicago declaration ten years ago.

WESLEY G. PIPPERT

Washington, D. C.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S news coverage of the Thanksgiving Workshop “Declaration of Evangelical Social Concern” would have been more accurate had its own news staff actually attended and covered the sessions. Both the news reporting and the editorializing evaluation within it are less than accurate.

The verdict that there is “little in the declaration that has not already been said” disregards both the specific context of faith in which the evangelical participants spoke and their concentration on a carefully-worded and limited constellation of concerns. One would have little difficulty, in fact, in identifying some issues on which CHRISTIANITY TODAY has been silent. The failure to mention that Dr. Frank E. Gaebelein, former co-editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, and Dr. Paul Rees, a CHRISTIANITY TODAY board member, were signatories, is curious.

Your news coverage impugns the motives of participants by asserting that the “reasoning” behind the refusal to adopt resolutions condemnatory of U. S. involvement in Chile and of the Watergate scandals as a desire to avoid turning off fellow evangelicals. What weighed with many participants was the futility of getting trapped in a paraecumenical resolutions-issuing process, and in respect to Chile, I for one, and some others no less, were wholly unconvinced that the fall of the Allende regime should be lamented and that the U. S. rather than Allende was responsible for his fall.

Would not CHRISTIANITY TODAY serve the evangelical cause best by throwing its weight on the side of social justice in an articulate and precise way? Editorial comment was happily more sensitive to the significance of the Chicago declaration, although it laments the declaration’s “overlooking the growing sense of ingratitude in the United States.” Hardly so. Since the statement deals with concerns of social justice, it wrestles issues that have dulled the reasons for gratitude on the part of many, and which, if not confronted, will do the same for the rest of us.

CARL F. H. HENRY

Arlington, Va.

From Corner To Corner

When last week’s mail brought me the December 7 issue, the first thing to catch my eye was the featured article on “Evangelical Awakening Among Catholics.” This is exactly what I had been experiencing and observing … in our Tuesday morning neighborhood Bible study. I was thrilled to learn how widespread the moving of the Spirit of God has been. The next article I read was “On Brazen Heavens” by Tom Howard. And once again I found a lucid portrayal of something our family had lived through recently. To most readers these are entirely unrelated topics. But not so in our case.

Between November ’72 and May ’73 we saw our stalwart, handsome little eight-year-old Philip forfeit his life to that dread disease. After extensive liver surgery God gave him four months of apparently exuberant health, during which time he made a public profession of his faith in the Lord Jesus and was baptized. And then came the quick drop.… On his ninth birthday, May 28, the Lord took him home, which was a lovely reassurance to us that God had been watching all along and that He had very neatly numbered his days. God had given him six months, during which time many people came to know and love him. And that was when the bands of Christian love were extended between our family and these newfound friends in Christ in the Catholic community.

VIRGINIA SIRINIDES

Midland Park, N. J.

The Refiner’s Fire: Drama

‘On God’S Territory’

Last month CBS “Playhouse 90” presented to nationwide audiences a drama universal in appeal and inspiration, packed with more relevant messages than a television viewer was likely to see for some time to come. At least that’s the way Mobil Oil Corporation billed the production in a full-page ad run in the Washington Post. “ ‘Catholics,’ ” claimed the company, is “a fable of man and his institutions. And the agony of change. Christian or Jew, Muslim or Buddhist, agnostic or atheist, there’s a message for everyone.” Even if one were able to agree that the Church is one of man’s institutions, “Catholics” failed the final test: the viewing.

Trevor Howard starred as the abbot of a small Irish monastery. Until the final scene, his portrayal of a man trapped in the limbo between belief and unbelief was unemotional. Father Abbot cannot pray, and since he cannot pray he lacks the strength to resist change, which is personalized in the Vatican’s representative, young Father Kinsella, woodenly played by Martin Sheen. Kinsella travels to the desolate monastery to make the monks use the English mass; the Latin mass has been rejected as “irrelevant.” Private confessions have been banned, and priests wear clerical garb only on special occasions. (Does that imply that Catholics are becoming more Protestant?) The tension between Latin and English mass seems contrived, however, a mere excuse to get the two men together.

While the author labeled the play a late-twentieth-century fable, the atmosphere hardly transcends 1973. A few brief references to Vatican IV and the Roman church as a member of the World Council of Churches (along with the Buddhists) are the only “futuristic” touches. Dependence on such remarks seems a weak way to develop time and setting.

What little action occurs in the play gets submerged in the rather non-theological discussion between the abbot and the priest, though we get hints of a conflict between social revolution and salvation. At first the abbot seems concerned with souls rather than institutions, but his sincerity fails after he confesses faithless confusion to Kinsella. The abbot’s prayers get no farther than the altar (in other words, his mysticism, or perhaps his imagination, fails him), and this leads him into a spiritual vacuum. (Since he cannot face that possibility he stopped trying to pray several years before the play begins.) His inability to lead his monks in prayer causes Father Abbot to request a transfer from authority to submission. But his confession of his lack of faith and a promise to make the monks abide by Rome save his job.

As the drama ends the faithful monks kneel and repeat the Lord’s prayer. Howard, his face melodramatically contorted, remained silent: Father Abbot entered the abyss. The contrast between the last scene and the rest of the play weakened the impact. Father Abbot was almost too controlled throughout the drama; the audience was unprepared for his final breakdown. Howard’s overworked expressions here seemed sentimental when compared with his previously understated portrayal.

That same evening a Washington, D. C., audience at the Kennedy Center’s Eisenhower Theater saw a somewhat different approach to Catholic problems. The Prodigal Daughter by British playwright David Turner considered the moral questions of celibacy, abortion, and birth control. Although star Wilfrid Hyde-White told the final audience that “our little play has no message,” the comedy meandered through some theological thickets with skill, humor, and not a little seriousness.

Hyde-White, whose father was a country parson in Gloucestershire, England, played Father Perfect, an understanding parish priest who stands midway between the new and the old. “I’m no revolutionary; I’m willing to abide by the boss,” Perfect tells Father Daley, a confused young priest. At the same time Father Perfect exudes sensitivity, understanding, and a fair amount of Christian charity. The paradoxes of Christianity (die to live, lose to find, for example) form the basis for Perfect’s talk with Daley, who is afflicted, in the elder priest’s words, with “spiritual menopause.”

The young priest, played by John Lithgow, loves the church, yet hates the isolation inherent in the priesthood. Through watching an elderly nun die in agony from cancer of the womb, he finds his faith in God is shaken. That, coupled with the presence of a young, attractive housekeeper (who came to the priests seeking punishment because of her recent abortion), leads Daley to forsake his vocation. “I will not trespass on God’s territory any longer,” he explains to Father Geoffrey Vernon (Stephen Elliott). Vernon is a legalist; the letter of the Catholic law is all he knows or wants to know.

Daley voices the confusion and (unjustified?) anger of many people today, not necessarily Catholic or Christian. The Church suffers from male chauvinism and has for the last 2,000 years, he tells Perfect (at that the audience applauded). Christ, he argues, must in some way have participated in the female experience as well as the male in order to understand a woman’s problems, which are sometimes different from those of a man.

Only two of the “unholy trinity” of priests remain. And both types are, in the end, unsatisfactory without Daley as catalyst. Father Perfect possesses untroubled faith, Father Vernon, rigid faith. But neither claims faith courageous enough to question, and it is through question and resolution that relief solidifies.

“Catholics” and The Prodigal Daughter, then, explore spiritual crises. Yet both intend to entertain. The comedy accomplishes both purposes with no hint of cloying sentimentality or melodrama. We see the suffering of the young priest and the disappointment of the old one in Turner’s play. The brash Kinsella in “Catholics” seems merely to pity the abbot; Father Perfect understands Father Daley’s crisis and tries to help him through it to firmer, faithful ground. Kinsella has nothing to offer the abbot except shelter from reality and aid in perpetuating the appearance of spiritual health. Father Abbot is too old or perhaps too insecure to face honestly his failure of faith as Father Daley does. While The Prodigal Daughter offers no final resolution, it at least attempts to deal in Christian terms with the problems of faith in the twentieth century.

Theology

A Master Lesson on Prayer

Insights from the model given by Jesus.

“Lord, teach us how to pray.” The request has a familiar, biblical ring, but something is not quite right about it. What the disciples asked was, “Lord, teach us to pray” (Luke 11:1). They wanted to learn to do it, not how to do it. One of Satan’s clever tactics is to get Christians bogged down in discussions of “how” to pray. He even can get them to quarrel about it. What they need to learn is to pray, to do it.

The model prayer in Luke 11 is our Lord’s most comprehensive lesson on prayer. It gives us the basis of prayer: “Our Father”—we pray as children. Our relationship to God in Christ gives us the right of a child, the right of a son, to speak to the Father. All that a father ought to be to his children, God is to us.

The model prayer gives us the basic concerns of prayer: “Hallowed be thy name, Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.” The glory of God’s name, the coming of God’s kingdom, the doing of God’s will—these are the overriding concerns of true prayer. They comprehend all other desires and requests in prayer. The finest, the largest, the highest aspirations of mankind are implicit in God’s glory, God’s kingdom, God’s will. The more our prayers conform to these concerns, the larger our praying will be. All the social, economic, and political systems invented by man to benefit the largest number with the greatest good are dim reflections of the glory of God’s name, the coming of God’s kingdom, the doing of God’s will.

Some think of “according to God’s will” as a kind of inhibiting condition to prayer, as though God were to make a big promise regarding prayer and then, in fine print at the bottom of the contract, add a limiting requirement that prayer must be “according to his will.” It is as if praying according to God’s will somehow reduced the possibilities in prayer. The opposite is true! Only as we begin to comprehend God’s glory and kingdom and will, only as our prayers begin to conform to them, do we really think big, ask big, pray big, expect big!

The model prayer teaches us that our heavenly Father is concerned with the mundane details of our lives: “Give us day by day our daily bread.” No concern of ours is unimportant to him. Jesus taught of our heavenly Father’s concern for the lily of the field and the sparrow in the sky. To say that God doesn’t want to be bothered about the small details of our lives suggests the presence of a subtle, perverse human pride that refuses to admit dependence on God. It is a simple expression of original sin. Our heavenly Father is not only the God of the macrocosm; he is God of the microcosm as well. He is Lord of the infinitesimal as well as the infinite, God of the universe and God of the atom. Nothing escapes his notice. Our total lives are under his scrutiny and care.

The model prayer teaches us that reconciliation is fundamental to prayer. We ought not to allow anything to alienate us from him or from others: “Forgive us our sins; for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.” When Jesus had completed the model prayer in the Sermon on the Mount, he lifted out of it this one petition as if to say that this was basic to all the rest. He said, “If you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matt. 6:14, 15). That is plain language. If we refuse to forgive those who offend us, we are in no position to receive the Father’s forgiveness. Our unforgiveness prevents the Father from forgiving us.

The true Christian community is a reconciled and a reconciling community. This is where its power lies (Matt. 18:15–35), and this is the structure of its mission (2 Cor. 5:11–21). Apart from this, talk about love is meaningless: “He who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen” (1 John 4:20). Here is one prayer you may be sure the Father is answering: “Forgive us our sins; for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us.”

The model prayer teaches us never to be presumptuous about temptation: “Lead us not into temptation.” There is a kind of bumptious security about some Christians that borders on the “presumptuous sin.” Jesus refused to be misled even when Scripture was quoted: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you, to guard you’; and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone’ ” (Luke 4:9–11). Jesus was not deceived by this use of the Scriptures. He rejected the temptation as presuming upon God’s care. We are not to use God’s love and forgiveness, his grace and mercy are longsuffering, as license to sin. We pray to be led, not into temptation, but away from it.

Having given the model of prayer, Jesus then suggests the reason for prayer. He tells of one who was embarrassed at midnight because visitors came unexpectedly and he, having nothing on hand to give them to eat, was forced to awaken a neighbor asleep with his family (Luke 11:5–8). Apparently the neighbor had young children. Most parents would agree that getting young children bedded down for the night is an accomplishment they wouldn’t want to have to repeat that same evening. Nevertheless, the neighbor responded to the situation, “[not] because he is his friend, yet because of his importunity.” Need is the reason for prayer. We pray because we are in need, a fact that human pride is often reluctant to acknowledge. To think oneself without need in one’s relation to God is a perilous situation (see Revelation 3:15–17).

Asking is a difficult thing to do, but it is the basis of all prayer. “Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened unto you” (Luke 11:9, 10). The person who prays is a petitioner, one who stands in need before another. This position seems to be repugnant to human nature. Its rejection is the heart of humanism, probably the most attractive, effective religion known to intellectual man. Humanism insists on the self-sufficiency of man despite all the failures of his organizations, legislation, and education. Man seems willing to turn anywhere except to Christ if his belief in himself fails, even to grim pessimism and cynicism. He seems willing to do almost anything but ask and seek and knock. For to do so humbles him and forces him to acknowledge his dependence upon God, a fact he will do almost anything to deny.

In another context (Mark 11:24) Jesus said, “What things soever you desire, when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them.” Notice that the desire is qualified by prayer: “What things soever you desire, when you pray.…” Our desires, our askings alter as we pray. God is able to guide us in our thinking as we continue in prayer: we find our desires more and more expanding to correspond to his will. As we experience this, our faith responds. We believe God hears, and we believe that he will answer our prayers. Inevitably we get what we desire or ask for because God-guided prayer stimulates desires that conform to God’s will, the experience generates faith, and the one who prays in effect receives what he asks for before he gets it. This is really the point of the illustration with which the Lord ended his lesson on prayer: “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:13).

We have come full circle. When we pray we give God the opportunity to lead us in prayer. We put ourselves in the place where God can use us as instruments of prayer. He can in effect pray through us, which is what prayer, rightly understood, is. True prayer is not initiated by man; it is initiated by God, offered through a receptive person, and responded to by God. When a believer prays, he allows himself to be God’s servant in prayer, and in so doing he becomes a channel through which God can answer and one to whom God can respond.

Prophets and Green Palms

What the Bible has to say about bribery.

Bribery in biblical perspective

Money talks, as we all know, and in recent months it has shouted itself into national prominence again and again. The use and abuse of money are matters of concern to us all. We try to keep up with phases and freezes and base prices, and worry over what it costs to put a tiger in the tank and a chicken in the pot. We shudder at towering interest rates. We are shocked by reports of Watergate “hush money,” of illegal campaign contributions, and of government favors that could be bought. We are stunned by the departure from office of a man who allegedly took contractors’ kickbacks not only while he was a state governor but even after he had become Vice-President of the United States.

These striking examples of the abuse of money provoke a question: What has become of the prophetic voice in society today? When confronted by the leaders of his day, Jeremiah weighed the options of hushing up or speaking out. He resolved, “If I say, ‘I will not mention him, or speak any more in his name,’ there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot” (Jer. 20:9). Courage to speak the truth boldly is desperately needed in our day. It is time for the deadly silence and deceiving doubletalk to end.

“The love of money is the root of all evils,” cautioned Paul. “It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced their hearts with many pangs” (1 Tim. 6:10). If the Bible were being written today, how would Paul expand on this verse? Would he not deal with such vices as hush money, black-market food operations, kickbacks from contractors to politicians, the fixing of speeding tickets, money on the side to building inspectors or welfare workers?

Today’s Christian needs to know what the Bible says about bribery. He must not only know why it forbids bribery but also be prepared to speak out against this evil when he sees it practiced.

The term “bribe” or “bribery” occurs more than twenty-five times in the Bible, all in the Old Testament. Both Old and New Testaments, however, contain a number of accounts of the practice of bribery.

The Hebrews had two main words for bribe. The more common, shōḥaḏ, means “to give a present.” Gift giving was seen as a legitimate means of getting ahead in ancient society (cf. Prov. 18:16), and so, Moshe Greenberg has pointed out, the “distinction between gifts and bribes must sometimes have been extremely subtle” (Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, I, 465). The other word used for bribe is kōpher, generally thought to come from a root meaning “to cover, hide, cover over” or “to pacify.” (This is the same word translated “atonement” in Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement.) Thus, etymologically speaking, the ancient Israelite might see a bribe as a “cover-up” or a way of “pacifying” another.

As early in Israel’s history as the wilderness wanderings we see a kind of bribery at work. Balak, king of Moab, was in great fear of Israel. Desiring to have a curse put on this threatening horde, Balak dispatched his elders to the prophet Baalam with “fees for divination in their hand” (Num. 22:7). Before going to the Moabite king, Balaam resolved, “Though Balak were to give me his house full of silver and gold, I could not go beyond the command of the Lord my God, to do less or more” (v. 18). The outcome was that Balaam blessed (not cursed) Israel, four times.

During the period of the judges, each of the Philistine lords promised to pay Delilah eleven hundred pieces of silver if she would tell them the secret of Samson’s strength so that he might be overpowered (Judg. 16:5). Also during that period Samuel made judges of his sons Joel and Abijah. But Samuel’s “sons did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after gain; they took bribes and perverted justice” (1 Sam. 8:3).

At the time of the divided kingdom, military alliances were crucial for a nation’s survival. On two occasions the nation of Judah used silver and gold to bribe a foreign nation to act on her behalf. First Kings 15 tells of Judah’s King Asa bribing the king of Syria to break off his alliance with Baasha, king of Israel, and to fight instead on Judah’s behalf. Later in Judah’s history (2 Kings 16) King Ahaz bribed Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, to rescue him from the Syro-Israelite invasion.

Bribery was present in the closing chapters of Old Testament history also. In Jerusalem, Shemaiah was bribed to prophesy against Nehemiah, telling him to flee to the temple “for they are coming to kill you” (Neh. 6:10–13). In Persia, King Ahasuerus was bribed by Haman with ten thousand talents of silver to consent to his plot to exterminate the Jews (Esther 3:8–11).

Probably the best known instance of bribery in the New Testament is that of the chief priests who, after the resurrection, gave money to the soldiers so they would “tell the people that the disciples stole the body of Jesus” (Matt. 28:11–15). The chief priests were also involved in bribing Judas with thirty pieces of silver to betray Jesus (Matt. 26:14, 15). Finally, bribery is referred to in Acts (24:26), where Felix hoped that Paul would give him money to hasten his release from prison.

To find out what the Bible says about bribery, let us first look at who takes bribes. Because God is man’s pattern to follow, here is where teaching on bribery begins. And “there is no perversion of justice with the LORD our God, or partiality, or taking bribes” (2 Chron. 19:7; cf. Deut. 10:17). It was thought in Canaanite religion that gods could be manipulated or appeased through offering and ritual. Yahweh, however, in sharp distinction from Baal, could not be bribed by man’s pious activities. Israel could not buy God’s love or favor; she already was the object of his love and grace. God wanted commitment and obedience, not empty ceremonies. In this God-like pattern Samuel and Job, two of the greatest Old Testament saints, affirm their moral integrity. They challenge those around them to find in them the taint of bribery (1 Sam. 12:3; Job 6:22).

Isaiah says, “Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts” (1:23). Yet those particularly warned about bribery were the upper class of Israelite society, especially leaders within the community. Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah, hurled these stinging words through the streets of Jerusalem: “Hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and pervert all equity, who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong. Its heads give judgment for a bribe, its priests teach for hire, its prophets divine for money” (3:9–11). The Northern Kingdom during this time was equally as bad. A rich, self-sufficient merchant class had come to power “who afflict the righteous, who take a bribe, and turn aside the needy in the gate” (Amos 5:12).

Judges seem to have been the most susceptible to bribes, for they are singled out more often than others. The Heavenly Judge is fully righteous and impartial in all his dealings with men (Gen. 18:25; Ps. 9:8), and the earthly judge must conform to His standard of integrity. Because there was the ever present temptation for a judge to “ask for a bribe” (Micah 7:3) or to “acquit the guilty for a bribe” (Isa. 5:23), the Mosaic law established specific qualifications for judges. They were to judge with righteous judgment, not pervert justice, not show partiality, and not take a bribe (Deut. 16:19). Putting it even stronger, Exodus states that a judge must hate a bribe in addition to fearing God and being trustworthy (Exod. 18:21).

Building upon the biblical materials, the Talmud cites cases that show a very strict expectation for judges. It specifies, “If a man takes payment for acting as a judge, his judgments are void” (Mishnah Bekorot 4:6). Even the slightest courtesy extended to a judge, such as giving a hand to help him alight from a ferry, was enough to cause that judge to refuse to take the man’s case in court.

A second point to which the Bible speaks is God’s attitude toward bribery. The Law clearly forbids bribes: “You shall take no bribe” (Exod. 23:8). The man who is able to endure God’s fiery judgment when he exposes those engaged in secret unethical practices is the man “who shakes his hands, lest they hold a bribe” (Isa. 33:15). God’s vengeance in fire on bribery is likewise seen in the strong figure, “Fire consumes the tents of bribery” (Job 15:34).

God expects man to hate bribery (Prov. 15:27; it is a wicked man who accepts a bribe (Prov. 17:23). The one taking a bribe is the object of woe (Isa. 5:22, 23) and is declared “cursed” along with idolators, adulterers, and murderers (Deut. 27:15, 23–25).

God is opposed to bribery because it usually is a means to an unlawful end. Bribes are used to “shed blood” (Ezek. 22:12), for instance, and to “slay an innocent person” (Deut. 27:25). Bribes corrupt society, perverting the ways of justice (Prov. 17:23) and influencing the decisions of judges (Isa. 5:23). In addition, they contribute to sexual immorality (Ezek. 16:33) and neglect of the orphan and widow (Isa. 1:23).

A final question dealt with in Scripture concerns the outworking of bribery. How does bribery affect man and where does it eventually lead him? Gifts temporarily appease some (cf. Prov. 6:35), thus averting anger and wrath (Prov. 21:14). But the lasting effect of bribery on man is its corrupting influence on the mind (Eccles. 7:7). Three times the Bible describes bribery as that which “blinds the eyes” (Deut. 16:19; 1 Sam. 12:3; Ex. 23:8), thus making one incapable of impartial judgment.

The Bible does not specify a particular penalty for taking bribes. Talmudic law, however, states that in crimes where biblical law provides no penalty, the violator fell subject to corporal punishment in the form of flogging (cf. Deut. 25:1–3). In keeping with rabbinic tradition, the modern State of Israel holds culpable both the giver and the taker of bribes.

What is the end of it all from God’s perspective? The Book of Psalms says that those who do not “take a bribe against the innocent” will dwell on Mount Zion in God’s presence (Ps. 15:5); on the other hand, those “whose right hands are full of bribes” God will sweep away with sinners (Ps. 26:9, 10).

How does all this apply to the Christian? Among the practical principles for Christian living that can be derived from what the Bible says about bribery are the following:

1. Money (“the gift”) is a powerful magnet and may readily be used by Satan to induce corruption of behavior. Outwardly, the Evil One makes bribery appear attractive: “A bribe is like a magic stone in the eyes of him who gives it; wherever he turns he prospers” (Prov. 17:8). The believer must be alert to the insidious inroads of bribery and apply to his life consistently the wisdom of Hebrews 13:5, “Keep your life from love of money.”

2. Those in positions of leadership are especially vulnerable to bribes. In our survey of the biblical characters involved in bribery, the majority of the donors and takers were people of reputation and influence. Many were leaders in governmental and religious circles. Ministers today are not exempt from similar temptations. For example, a minister of a small church may avoid speaking against adultery because he knows that one of his faithful members, a heavy giver, is having an affair.

3. Bribery is often particularly attractive during a period of personal or national crisis, as a means of buying release from one’s tension. As seen in some of the biblical characters considered, under pressure man experiences a strong inner pull to trust the arm of flesh for deliverance rather than the Omnipotent One.

4. “The LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords … who is not partial and takes no bribe” (Deut. 10:17). Still, it is easy for the Christian to fall prey to the belief God can be “bribed” through religious exercise. A parent may think God must somehow be obligated to act favorably in behalf of a sick child if he puts an extra ten-dollar bill in the plate Sunday morning. We do not consider such an action to be an attempt to bribe God; nevertheless, the motivation behind our Christian obligations and actions is crucial in God’s eyes. It is easy to point to a man’s good works in seeking justification before the True Judge. But biblical theology can never be reduced to a mere quid pro quo formula. God takes no bribes in the form of human effort to merit his love and mercy.

5. The one who gets involved in bribery invariably ends up the loser. God says to us, “He who hates bribes will live” (Prov. 15:27). And the converse is equally true; he who loves bribes will die. Is it simply coincidental that both Haman and Judas met death with a noose around the neck? They were strangled by the tentacles of their own selfish desires.

Biblical religion is intensely ethical. “Whatever a man sows, that will he also reap.”

Thrice I Cried, or, How to Be a Minister’s Wife If You Loathe It

Lessons not found in books.

No one worked harder or more successfully at her profession than I did in those early days. I dispatched my duties as spiritual-life chairman of the women’s group with appropriate piety and delivered keynote addresses for special occasions with earnestness and enthusiasm. I cooked, of course—covered dishes for the sick and covered dishes for the bereaved, to say nothing of covered dishes for an endless succession of covered-dish suppers. And I cleaned, of course—the church at times as well as the parsonage, and on occasion even the cemetery. I got out the bulletin.

Since I had a degree in Christian education, I directed Bible schools, organized girls’ clubs, trained teachers, and conducted Sunday-school contests. When not seen in the choir, I was heard at the piano. And, mindful of community responsibility, I attended meetings of the local garden club properly hatted and gloved. A tremendous help to my husband and beloved by our parishioners, I was the perfect minister’s wife.

And I was perfectly miserable.

At the time I couldn’t understand it. Three dog-eared books stood on my shelves: How to Be a Minister’s Wife; How to Be a Minister’s Wife and Like It; and How to Be a Minister’s Wife and Love It.

Well, now I understand my discontent. For through the years I’ve learned lessons not found in books, lessons I record here for all who have tried their best but still need to know “How to Be a Minister’s Wife If You Loathe It.”

I Have To Be Me

“What’s happened?” Chuck asked, coming home one night to find his wife of two years beside herself with excitement.

“Dr. Murdock says she’ll take me to the state university every Monday night to hear lectures on bones,” I told him.

“But that’s seventy miles away,” Chuck protested. “And you’d be bored silly with bones.”

“I might not understand it all,” I admitted. “But just think—I’d be learning something.”

That’s when the first torrent of tears broke and I suddenly realized the first cause of my misery. By nature a person with a need to be learning something, I wasn’t learning anything at all. In seminary I’d majored in Christian education because women majored in Christian education, but I’d weasled out of every course in organization and administration I could and into New Testament Greek and historical theology and biblical theology and systematic theology. How intent I’d been on figuring out the meaning of things.

When I thought of it, the one big hatred of my life had always been women’s work, cooking and cleaning. I didn’t like women’s groups, either, especially if they were debating in strictest accord with Robert’s Rules of Order whether to serve the Men of the Church chicken or tunafish salad. In other words, I was devoting most of my time and energy to activities that went against the grain of the real me.

Well, I read now. I take courses. I think. I spend time with other people who think. If I do any organizing, it’s the organizing of my thoughts as I spend hours alone in my study writing. And though I’m not at all the traditional minister’s wife, I am supremely happy, and I like to think I’m a better minister’s wife than I could otherwise be.

I was browsing through the old How to books the other day, and Chuck found me giggling over such expressions as “Shepherdess of the Flock” and “Uncrowned Queen” and “Superwoman of the Manse.” He took the books from me. “Maybe you shouldn’t read them,” he said. “They might pull you back into the old orbit.” Evidently he can do without an assistant minister but not without a fulfilled wife.

I find people expecting me now to speak out in Sunday school or a discussion group, and recently I overheard one church member saying to another, “Every time she opens her mouth she has something worthwhile to say.” Can you imagine how gratifying this is after all those barren years when I did all the right things with such a wrong sense of uselessness? Parishioners keep telling me I help change their lives. Perhaps that’s why they understand if I don’t show up for Cleaning Day. They know this writing I’m compelled to do is a giving as well as a getting thing, something I do for them as well as for myself.

If our parishioners didn’t understand, I’d be deeply grieved, but I couldn’t let their attitude change my way of life. For I’m responsible first and last to Almighty God, and what does he require of me if not first and last the full development of whatever talents he has given me? Blessed are the ministers who are married to women whose thing is being choir director or Sunday-school superintendent or church secretary. Blessed are such women. But the only way I can be a minister’s wife is by being me.

I Have To Be Me With You

The second of the cries referred to in the title of this article will have to be understood in a composite sense. For if tears erupted once from the inner emptiness caused by my betrayal of myself, they flowed repeatedly from the inner loneliness resulting from the betrayal of others.

I don’t intend here to address myself to the old controversy of whether or not a minister’s wife should have special friends within the congregation. Being a friend to all alike is, in my opinion, being a real friend to none. Doubtless some of the twelve apostles grumbled when Jesus invited only three to go with him into Jairus’s house, or when he chose to share those intimate moments on the Mountain of Transfiguration and in the Garden of Gethsemane with those three alone. Perhaps two of the three felt pangs of jealousy when they realized Jesus loved the third one the most. But that didn’t stop Jesus from doing what he had to do to meet his need for the closest kind of comradeship. The universality of his love did not make it uniform, and I see no reason for imposing on myself standards different from the standards of Christ.

The point I wish to make here, however, is that the minister’s wife needs special friends not only within the church but outside the church as well. First, because she needs friends she can trust.

I mean this as not the tiniest slight on the many beautiful church people whose friendship has enriched the lives of many minister’s wives, myself included. But many church friends cannot be trusted, and I find it impossible to predict which ones can and which cannot.

In our second charge, one couple—I’ll call them Bill and Joan Simmons—linked arms with us more tightly than anyone else, sharing with us not only in Sunday dinners and Thanksgiving dinners but uniquely in the burden of the work as well. Then one day someone told Bill he was taking up the offering too often in the center aisle and suggested he move to a side aisle for a change. The next thing we knew Bill and Joan were attending another church.

We survived, of course. We had other friends in that congregation, people like the Walkers, who had us over when the Simmonses left to assure us of their continuing support. But not long after that Art Walker took exception to the way Chuck conducted a congregational meeting, and the Walkers took to going to church with the Simmonses.

This sort of thing happens outside the church as well as within, of course, but if I lose a friend outside I don’t at the same time lose a Sunday-school teacher, the president of the Women of the Church, and the biggest financial contributor to a church for whose welfare my husband is primarily responsible. Nor do I lose a family whose members my husband has baptized and married and buried, a family to whom my husband has given of himself, however ably, in prayer and service on the deepest level. It doesn’t hurt as much to lose a friend outside the church.

Suppose I campaign to get paneling for the parsonage basement and a church friend of mine who can’t afford a family room in her basement doesn’t think that’s a good expenditure of God’s money? Suppose my friend becomes involved in the charismatic movement and no longer feels she can contact God in Chuck’s formal services? Or feels for any reason that her spiritual needs are not being met by Chuck’s ministry? She has to choose God rather than man, doesn’t she?

Suppose I let my mask slip for a minute. “Good,” says the congregation, “she has problems too. We can relate to her.” But suppose Chuck and I get carried away and take our masks off all together? “My goodness,” says the congregation, “why are we paying them to lead us?”

I can never quite forget my position with my church friends, nor can my church friends forget it. If I hear them talking about a coffee klatsch or a bowling party to which I’m not invited, I know in my mind that they’re excluding me because they respect me too much rather than too little, but the exclusions add up through the years and make their mark on the heart. With my writing cronies I’m one of the gang. If they call on the phone and I’m busy, I say so. We snap at each other with abandon. It’s wonderful.

Then, too, in some situations the minister’s wife can’t, if she wants to, find within her congregation women she would naturally choose for companions, women with similar educational and cultural backgrounds. A woman gifted in art, for example, might have to travel miles outside her small country parish to find a group of women to whom she can relate on the basis of mutual talent and interests.

At dinner with a group of ministers and ministers’ wives I happened to mention Marjorie, a member of one of the other churches in the area and one of my closest friends.

“I didn’t know Marjorie was a member of your church,” someone said.

“She’s not,” I replied, “That’s why we’re friends.”

The chorus of wry laughter was evidence of the difficulty other ministers and ministers’ wives have finding friends in their churches, people they can trust, people with whom they can be themselves, people with similar interests.

The disruption of church relationships still causes me pain, but I find that if my basic need for human closeness is met outside the church I can continue to love freely within. For nothing loosens the heart like the lessening of the fear of hurt.

I Have To Be With God

If I wept once for unmet mental needs, and many times for unmet social needs, the crying need of my soul for the worship of the Lord was never silenced. It might seem that a woman who spends half her life in church couldn’t avoid the worship of God if she wanted to. But it’s easy, let me tell you, if your husband stands in the pulpit and the members of his flock sit in the pews.

I find that for me an adequate worship experience requires intense effort. If I’m to praise God adequately, I must concentrate my attention totally upon him. I must listen carefully to hear what he’s saying to me. I must reach out with undiverted spirit to receive the life of Christ. But how can I focus my attention on God, excluding everything else, if Chuck is leading the service?

A few Sundays ago Chuck reversed a couple of lines in the Apostles’ Creed. It seemed to set up a block in his mind and the next Sunday he did the same thing. Now, how can I be affirming my belief in “God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” if I’m standing there fists clenched to see if Chuck’s going to do it again?

How can I listen to the sermon with the subjectiveness of response that brings me into fellowship with Christ if I know Chuck is depending on me for an objective analysis not only of the sermon’s content but of the congregational reaction as well? That’s my husband up there, the most important human being in my life. It’s asking too much to expect me not to focus my mind on him.

Then, too, suppose Chuck had been impatient with me that morning because the children weren’t dressed for Sunday school by 9:45 sharp? Any honest minister’s wife will admit to times when she doesn’t want to see God through her husband.

At least once a week, no matter how crowded my schedule, I slip into some neighborhood church that conducts worship at a different time than we do. I began this practice two years ago, and nothing has done more to revolutionize my spiritual life. The most valued hour of my week is that hour when somebody else’s husband ushers me into the presence of God.

Chuck happens to be an outstanding preacher. I rarely hear a sermon that comes close to his, and I make sure he knows this. I make sure he understands that it’s because I do love him that I find it hard to love God in his church. And if I were called upon to explain the situation to our parishioners, I’d make sure they understood that I find them a distraction not because I don’t care about them but because I do.

I was having a time of communion with God in one of the neighborhood churches a few weeks ago when I noticed a couple from our congregation walk in, two of my favorite people. I knew they were having a problem in their marriage, and I immediately stopped thinking about what the minister was saying to me and concentrated on how what he was saying would affect them. Fortunately for me, they slipped out early. Only then could I concentrate once more on my own need.

Now, I know I’m not the only one in church on Sunday morning who is concerned about other people present, but I do think my sense of responsibility is more pressing. One minister’s wife told me recently that she spends the entire sermon time every Sunday in the choir like a mother robin on her perch, eyes darting here and there, noting who is in the nest and who is not, fixing in her mind spiritual worms to be delivered to hungry fledglings after the service.

And, of course, I have to admit my ego is involved in this sense of responsibility I feel. How things go is important to me not only because I love our parishioners but also because I love my family and myself. Our basic security, our whole serenity present and future, is dependent on how things go. So how can I apply myself to interpreting God’s reaction to me when at the same time I’m trying to interpret the scowl on the face of the chairman of the Board of Deacons? Or trying to see if Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith are still sitting on opposite sides of the sanctuary?

While I worship God best in community, worship in its highest form demands an inner solitude that my peculiar involvement in the life of my congregation violates. Some minister’s wives maintain the vitality of their relationship with God through their private devotions, without benefit of public sermon or sacrament. I cannot.

Some minister’s wives seem to find that no worship experience is as meaningful to them as one conducted by their husbands. Good for them. But for myself, I’m only sorry I assumed for so long that that hectic hour on Sunday morning was for me a hallowed hour. Only sorry I didn’t recognize sooner what that urgent sobbing of my soul was all about. I only wish I had acted earlier to establish the necessary channels for worship, channels for that two-way communication without which no human being fully lives—the praise of a creature for his Creator and the pulsing of the Creator’s life into His creature.

For how can I minister unless I am ministered to?

Nothing excludes the minister’s wife from the obligation to love God with all her heart, and her neighbor as herself.

Radio Church: Is Anyone Listening?

A plea Jor imaginative programming.

Organ music swells to the crescendo of congregational singing. Soon a deep, paternal voice reads the Scripture lesson, asks for money, and prays. A soprano sings. After twenty minutes of forceful preaching, the program closes with a slightly hurried prayer.

Religious radio programs like this are as old as broadcasting itself. As Christians in a world of need we are charged to communicate to the world who Christ is. Yet after nearly forty-five years of a technology that virtually made it possible to reach the world all at once, we are still trying to preach the world into heaven using a language and frame of reference the non-church person does not understand. Is it any great surprise that the unchurched are not affected by a music style of a hundred years ago, and that they cannot understand phraseology that would please the ear of a Shakespearian scholar? Is it any wonder that a worship service designed for church use and those initiated in the Christian tradition does not communicate to the non-churched person through radio?

A recent survey found that in the United States radio’s weekly audience includes 92 per cent of all persons eighteen and older, 99 per cent of all teen-agers, and 94 per cent of all people from twenty-four to forty-nine. The lack of effectiveness of religious radio programs cannot be blamed on a dying medium.

What is the government’s attitude toward religious programs? Since its beginning in 1934, the Federal Communications Commission—the agency that regulates broadcasting—has been in favor of religious programs. It has often asserted that these programs are in the public interest. As early as March, 1946, the FCC encouraged broadcasters to carry religious programming. The policy known as the “Blue Book” stated that a radio station has the primary responsibility for choosing programs but that the FCC also has a related duty to perform. The immediate result of the Blue Book was a new license-renewal application form requiring applicants to state how much broadcast time they devoted to certain categories, among which was religious programming. The government licensing agency today continues to show interest in religious programs, and as a result stations want to be able to say that they carry such programs. The limited success of religious programming cannot be attributed to broadcaster unwillingness. Nor is non-availability of stations an excuse: as of August, 1970, there were 6,364 AM and FM radio stations on the air in the United States (Sydney Head, Broadcasting in America, 1972, p. 469).

What else can be limiting the success of religious programs? Take a look at the programs themselves. The principles of good listening are simple to the point of common sense. What does make a radio program interesting? Joseph Johnson and Kenneth Jones offer several suggestions for making a radio program interesting in their book Modern Radio Station Practices (Wadsworth, 1972). They tell us that a successful program relates to the listener’s previous experiences. We cannot describe something new to a person who has no frame of reference for it. The new object or material has to be either demonstrated or described in relation to the person’s own experience. A taped church service has little meaning to someone who can barely remember going to church as a child.

Johnson and Jones say also that a successful program has a comfortable pace. It never lags nor pushes too hard; there is a balance between tension and relaxation. The most highly developed message package there is, the commercial, never tells you everything about its product. It concentrates on a few aspects of the product and repeats the name often. It is forceful but not overwhelming. A program, too, needs this balanced appeal.

The successful program also has a variety of content and pacing. A commercially produced program does not use all the same style of music, for example, or all vocal selections, or all fast rhythms.

Radio is a personal medium, Johnson and Jones point out, one that requires understatement. Only a few elements are needed to tell a story well. Radio can stir the imagination through simple arrangements of sound, as happened in the successful old radio dramas such as “The Shadow,” “One Man’s Family,” and “Amos ’n Andy.” These programs did not try to tell everything; a few simple sounds would create a detailed scene in the mind of the listener.

A program should be presented with ease, with a smooth flow that creates a positive feeling inside the hearer. If a religious program sounds choppy and compartmentalized, the person who stumbles upon the program while scanning the dial is unlikely to listen long. Each element in the program should lead naturally to the next one. It should not be expected, but neither should it come as a total surprise. Dedication and prayer are no substitutes for production errors.

Most people are not overbearing and are certainly not going to put up with overbearing people on the radio. When a simple turn of the knob will change the station, they are not going to listen to a bombastic, holier-than-thou pronouncement from anybody’s ivory tower. The relationship of teacher and student is so often weakened by the inability to feel enough kinship with each other to ask the questions that really matter. How much greater is the chasm that develops when the listener cannot talk back? A little humor or other touch of humanness builds a lot more credibility than an hour of verbal punishment.

FROM THE PARTY, HOME

At the door

the host snaps a cookie

into my hand

kneads my hand around it

almost like a fist

and gives me a sip of juice:

these, he says, for the trip.

A giant fly

buzzes in the dark

on the step

rubbing its forelegs together,

the small hairs like razors.

It is begging the disk

which is becoming part of my hand.

Thinking we might be friends,

I offer it some chipped crumbs

and am surprised to learn

they will not go down,

but shoot from the shocked mandibles

like one full moon,

like stars

SANDRA DUGUID

A program can coax involvement from a listener by giving him something to do. “Sing along …” or “Talk back at us …” both elicit an action and create something of a commitment to or investment in the program.

Johnson and Jones tell us further that the “build-up” is important to an interesting program. A little suspense or appeal to the listener’s curiosity is good. The listener wants to be encouraged to listen. He doesn’t want to have to force himself to pay attention.

A very important aspect of a program that is at the bottom of some elements already mentioned is personality, the character of the program as well as the people on it. People like a radio program if it seems to show more interest in the listeners than in itself, say Johnson and Jones. Some successful programs include letters from their listeners. Some approach their audience as if the program were a person-to-person conversation rather than an impersonal speech to “all you out there in radio land.” Whatever the approach, simple language is necessary. When the medium is print, one can always read it over again if he does not understand everything the first time. With radio, there is no going back.

What can the listener do about inadequate religious programming? Plenty. Every broadcast depends heavily on two things: money and letters. A well-written letter to the radio program (it may be sent “in care of” the station) has immense influence. Most religious program producers do not research their audience; they depend on letters to tell them whether they’re finding an audience. If you don’t like what you hear and don’t write to the program, you are in effect encouraging that program. Tell the producers your reactions and suggest better ways to communicate the message. If the program continues to be poor, refuse to support it. There is nothing Christian about giving money to something you think is ineffective.

There are other possibilities, too. Give some thought to making your own program or encouraging interest in new programs. Are there broadcasting students or hobbyists you know who have a tape-recorder, microphone, and some imagination? Chances are that your local radio station would be more interested in what you can do for them in a creative way than in the usual humdrum hymn-and-message or endless panel discussion that is common religious broadcast fare today. Think of it for a minute. What would you rather listen to? That is what you should be hearing.

Perhaps no other medium of mass communication requires so little to be effective. The technology is not beyond the reach of anyone, and the challenge is to everyone. Are you a Christian? Do you have something to tell and a fresh idea for telling it? If so, religious radio programming could use your help.

Editor’s Note from January 18, 1974

Our readers will note that we have a new Eutychus. It has been our policy to make a change every few years. I must express appreciation to Eutychus V, our own John Lawing, Jr., for his splendid contributions. We expect Eutychus to be controversial and hope he will always prick our consciences. Welcome to Eutychus VI.

Bound volumes of CHRISTIANITY TODAY for the period October 1972–September 1973 are now available at eleven dollars a copy, including postage and handling. The book is 1,356 pages in size, and that’s less than a penny a page. It’s a real bargain.

Take a good look at the plight of a minister’s wife in “Thrice I Cried.” Ben Hale in “Radio Church” makes some good suggestions for improving the methodology of religious broadcasting. Our long-time friend, Dick Halverson, has a special word about prayer—something we all profess to believe in but practice so little. We should all try to make 1974 a special year devoted to prayer. The article by Marvin Wilson on bribery (“Prophets and Green Palms”) is a hard-hitting piece that should occasion a positive response.

Theology

Mission Motivation

The upheavals in present-day understanding of world mission expressed in the polarization between Bangkok ’73 and Lausanne ’74 present to us with new urgency the question: What is the abiding task of Christian missions in the rapidly changing scenery of the present decade? Let us quite elementarily define the foundation, content, and goal of mission according to the revealed Word of God.

1. The Foundation. Mission means sending. The most important person in this act is the One who sends. Determinative for mission, therefore, is not “the agenda of the world” but the commission that the sent one has received from his sending Lord. The basic motive of Christian mission is expressed in majestic simplicity in the Great Commission of the Resurrected One: “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me” (Matt. 28:18). Jesus was sent to take the decisive step in fulfilling the plan of salvation by accomplishing the atonement between the holy God and apostate mankind.

But the mission of Christ did not end on the cross. Rather, it was placed on a new universal foundation through his resurrection from the dead. This is his enthroning as king over the whole world, over all nations, and over all powers in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.

St. Paul, defining his apostolic call, refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord “through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about obedience to the faith for the sake of his name among all nations” (Rom. 1:5). The foundation of mission, therefore, is the fact that God has made his risen Son Jesus Christ the Lord and Saviour of the whole world. This means that all other powers have lost their former positions, and that all gods and idols that man is serving in his religions must give way for the one true faith proclaimed in the Gospel.

2. The Content. When people turn to the one living God and believe in his Son Jesus Christ, they receive the greatest gift that can be conceived of: salvation. It is God himself who saves, and the goal of his salvation is to restore the broken relationship between him and apostate man. For to be without salvation would mean to perish under his wrath, and to be delivered to the destructive forces of sin, devil, and death. All human sufferings, spiritual and corporal, individual and social, are nothing else but expressions of that separation from the fountain of divine life which is caused by sin and judgment. Salvation, therefore, in the deepest analysis, is always the reunification of lost man with God by means of the remission of sins.

This act of atonement has taken place once and for all through the death of Jesus on Calvary, and it is sufficient for the salvation of all mankind. But in order for this reconciliation to become effective fallen man must be informed about God’s offer in Christ and receive it in penitence and faith. Mission is nothing else but the ministry of reconciliation. This reconciliation is first of all the one between God and us, but from this results also the possibility of reconciliation between us and our fellow man. It is the most important task of the missionary, like St. Paul, to go to the still unsaved people and say to them: “We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20).

This reconciliation is offered through proclamation and is realized through the incorporation into the body of Christ by baptism. But in order to make God’s reconciliatory love visible, the word is accompanied by the deed of mercy. This cares for the temporal sufferings of man, both on the bodily and social and on the economic and political levels. All help in these spheres can be regarded as aspects of genuine Christian mission, if it originates from and aims at the central dimension of the Gospel, salvation.

3. The Goal. It is important to see Christian mission in the context of God’s eschatological plan of salvation. Christ’s Church is migrating on that route which starts from his resurrection and concludes with his second coming. Then his kingdom of grace shall be changed into his kingdom of glory. This means that during our present age his omnipotence over heaven and earth is still concealed. It is concealed by that power which the three enemies—sin, Satan, and death—are still exercising in this world, even though they have been conquered in principle.

The reign of Christ and the renewing power of his salvation are now seen only by the eye of faith. They become visible in the changed existence of regenerated man. They take social shape in the Church of Christ, which is the first-fruit of the renewed mankind. And they show their fermenting force in those social, cultural, and political changes that are achieved by Christians in obedience to their heavenly Lord. In this way it is possible to speak about the appearance of Christ’s kingdom even beyond the borders of the Church in the social and political spheres of this world.

But we must also be aware that these processes are hindered and often destroyed again by man’s disobedience and by those metaphysical enemies that are not yet removed. This world will never become changed into Christ’s rule of glory through human efforts. Not even Christian efforts through evangelism, diaconate, or revolution can achieve this. For this is a promise that shall be fulfilled by no one but the returning Christ himself.

This means that our mission will not create universal mankind united in freedom, peace, and justice. For the answer to the Gospel will always be a double one: faith and unbelief, obedience to and rejection of Christ’s rule and grace. Therefore mission causes a decisive polarization within mankind: the confrontation between Christ’s obedient Church and the opposing rest of mankind. And out of its midst that apocalyptic figure will finally emerge, which is disbelieving mankind’s concentrated answer to the missionary witness: Antichrist.

But Antichrist will find his limit in the witness of the faithful Church. This will be the last form of Christian mission in a non-Christian world. But it will be rewarded by Israel’s eschatological turning toward his rejected Messiah. And this witness will finally be proven true when Antichrist meets his doom through the returning Christ.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube