After scientists profess their faith, further questions are raised

Something Old, Something New

Just after he retired from high office George Washington wrote a brief letter to Dandridge, who had served as one of his personal assistants. In it he said, among other things, “Only integrity can hold a man or a nation.”

It was Patrick Carnegie Simpson who recommended in one of his lectures, “There are some things a man ought to die for rather than do and some things a man ought to die for rather than not do. Just be sure, gentlemen, you don’t have too many of them.” He was expanding on Kant’s Categorical Imperative: the sense of “ought” any man has at any level of life which to deny is to destroy him.

In the long run I suppose that what a man is willing to do and what a man is not willing to do tells us some very important things. We all believe in salvation by grace or by faith; but early in the game the Church discovered the danger of antinomianism, the kind of lawlessness that tempts a man when he thinks that after all every man is a sinner, and that the point of emphasis therefore ought to be grace rather than works. As James says, “I will show you my faith by my works.” There is a place for Christian character based on Christian assurance.

Even Polly Adler, in A House Is Not a Home, was careful to set before her public the standards by which she herself operated. They were not everybody’s standards, to be sure, but she had them, and she refused to be overrun at such points. It was a constant theme of Damon Runyon’s that his nefarious characters always had their own standards.

So a professor of theology has written to the editor of Playboy, “It would be really tremendous if Playboy were to establish, for example, in this theological ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: