Eutychus and His Kin: July 4, 1969

Helpless Before An Idea

A serendipitous experience came my way the other day. Hot on the scent of an elusive quotation in the library, I got diverted by an old book that was as relevant to my quest as the flowers that bloom in the spring (I have what some have called “a grasshopper mind”).

The tome in question dealt with the trial of John Macleod Campbell, the Scots divine condemned by the General Assembly in 1831 because of his teaching on the atonement. “Macleod Campbell’s teaching was unsettling,” said the writer, “and ecclesiastics, helpless as usual in the presence of an idea, were well content to be rid of him.” What caught my eye was his description of the proceedings, which included a verbal slip of Principal John Lee, clerk of the assembly. Transposing his nouns, Lee declared that “those doctrines of Mr. Campbell would remain and flourish after the Church of Scotland had perished and was forgotten.” Whereupon Erskine of Linlathen, saint, mystic, and lay theologian, said to those sitting beside him in the hall: “This spake he, not of himself, but being High Priest that year he prophesied.”

I mention this because readers of this journal will have learned from its indefatigable British reporter that the latest Church of Scotland General Assembly was restless about continuing to view the Westminster Confession as a subordinate standard. That the mother church of Presbyterianism should take a softer line on heresy by criticism of what another prophetic (newspaper) slip not long ago called the Westminster Concession will raise some eyebrows. The inevitable question will be asked about orthodoxy, relevance, and the Church’s witness today. “Even an orthodox theologian can be spiritually dead,” Thielicke points out, “while perhaps a heretic crawls on forbidden bypaths to the sources of life.”

And yet, and yet.… those of us with no allegiance to comprehensive man-made bases of faith, rules of conduct (cf. Big Jim Taylor), and Articles of War (Salvation Army) are deprived of a discipline, and might just drift into what Paul Bull once called the “pleasant suburbs of pious opinions” that surround the central fortress of the Christian faith.

Another thing, now that heresy trials are no longer with us to keep us on our toes. I am convinced that many an evangelical’s reputation for orthodoxy depends on his not being asked certain questions, on his astuteness in keeping his mouth shut on thorny topics—and on the silence of his family. The possibilities for blackmail are unthinkable.

Silence On License?

I appreciated your remarks in “Communists Are Right About Some Things” (June 6) in which you cite the frightening rise of amorality in our society.

When one reads the statistics of production of literary pornography et al. and begins to grasp the dimensions of this problem it is even more a cause for anxiety. This coupled with the Church’s all but total silence is remarkable.…

The tragedy of our day is that, while censorship is not the answer to this problem, nor will it ever be, the only remaining restraint of evil left to a democratic society is moral suasion, and even this force has not been exerted by the Church in the face of this crisis. The misconceptions concerning the nature of freedom which so abound in society today arise basically from the rejection of the Bible as God’s revelation. Unless we as evangelicals who profess to believe that God has revealed his mind in Scripture declare that divine condemnation upon license and libertarianism, how will the world know good from evil? They await an answer; dare we meet it with preoccupied silence?

Eastern Regional Director

National Association of Evangelicals

Allentown, Pa.

Telling Actions

I regret that the article by Richard Jungkuntz, “The Lutheran Quest for a More Visible Unity” (June 6), does not tell all. The complete silence about the American Lutheran Church’s declaration of fellowship with the Lutheran Church in America amazes me. Thus far the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has had only “unofficial” doctrinal discussions with the LCA. If the LCMS has fellowship with the ALC, and the ALC has fellowship with the LCA, it follows that the LCMS has followship with the LCA. If A = B and B = C, then A = C. ALC actions speak louder than words.

Thanks for the Current Religious Thought articles by John Warwick Montgomery (Jan. 17, March 28, June 6). [That] very many agree with him is shown by no less than 240 overtures in the Workbook for the July 11–19 LCMS convention in Denver. They oppose fellowship with the ALC at this time, request withdrawal from the Lutheran Council U.S.A., particularly in view of its Christ-denying publication entitled “Who can this be?,” reject the proposal to join the Lutheran World Federation, and call for affirmation of the sound doctrine and practice of our church. In contrast to this overwhelming number of overtures from all parts of our country, only about one-fifth as many overtures call for more latitude in doctrine and practice. The quest for unity must continue, but never at the expense of compromise or Christ-denying diplomacy.

Lutheran Center

Pittsburgh, Pa.

In connection with the Montgomery articles on the Missouri Synod I think one thing should be added.… The strong push of the leadership of our Synod to bring us into fellowship with the American Lutheran Church and into full membership in the Lutheran World Federation should not be construed to mean that the Missouri Synod will be drawn closer to evangelicals such as CHRISTIANITY TODAY represents. The very opposite will be the case! The Missouri Synod will gradually drift toward the WCC, the NCC, and the entire ecumenical movement, just as the ALC and the LWF are now completely involved in the modern unevangelical ecumenical movement. This is clearly the intent of the present leadership, which now is beginning to turn also toward these ecumenical affiliations. Former “Lutheran Hour” preacher Walter Maier and Dr. Eugene Bertermann, present executive-secretary of our Lutheran Laymen’s League, were and are friendly toward closer ties with evangelicals. But this will not be the case if Missouri joins in fellowship with the ALC and joins the LWF.

Prof. of Systematic Theology

Concordia Seminary, St. Louis

Strasbourg, France

Foremost Mission

I wish I had said that (“The Churches and James Forman,” June 6). Seldom have I read an article of which every word elicited from deep within my very being—mind, heart, soul, and body—a sincere “amen.”

Our greatest problem among so many of the clergy today is that in seeking a “quest for mission,” we have forgotten that our very vows of ordination and oath of commitment have already laid on us a prime mission, above all else, that is, to “Preach Christ and him crucified.”

Chaplain (Colonel), U.S. Army

Fort Monroe, Va.

Please let me say a few words in your column re James Forman.… Even black civil-rights leader Bayard Rustin calls this demand ridiculous and preposterous. Also many Negro ministers are against this approach.

Three hundred years ago African tribal chiefs sold their subjects into slavery. The U. S. Civil War ended slavery in the United States. Abraham Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery. Since 1865 no U. S. citizen should feel any guilt for slavery, since every Negro had his or her chance to progress. Parishioners in all churches should say “No” to any minister who gives in to Forman!

Oakland, Calif.

I am appalled to see how naive I am about the injustices that occur among the poor in our country. And as I repeat the incidents I hear, I see that my white friends have been living with the same blind spot. Safe in a middle-class society, many of us grew up without ever really being confronted with America’s painful injustices. We must rearrange our thinking.… Times demand a “beyond the call of duty” kind of action by individuals as well as organizations.…

How poignant to observe a patriotic program where Christian children pledged allegiance to “one nation indivisible.” To watch happy, proud Negro youngsters sing their hearts out about America, land of the free, knowing that some day they will find out that it isn’t all that free. How sad to know that Negro friends must prepare their youngsters for the inevitable problems they will face from Christian and non-Christian white people alike.…

When we think or speak of other races, we must no longer think of them, but of us.… Still I must continue to hope, work, and pray that finally each citizen will wake up and do something. America isn’t the other fella. It is you and it is me. And we can change things if enough of us choose to let Christ’s love work through us.

Rochester, N.Y.

His And Hers

I believe the article by Andre S. Bustanoby, “Love, Honor, and Obey” (June 6), to be superb. How refreshing to know that there are a few people left who adhere to the biblical concept of the marriage relationship and not the 50/50 partnership idea.

Open Door Bible Church

Bethany, Mo.

On The Face Of It

In regard to your editorial “Union Seminary” (June 6), I had to double-check the cover of the magazine to be sure I wasn’t reading the Christian Beacon. Such strident, over-simplified strictures such as “socialist Bennett” do no credit to conservative Protestantism, ignoring a carefully reasoned argument in favor of McIntire-oriented bombast.

Also, I have read Martin Marty’s The Search for a Usable Future but was unable to detect any significant correlation between its contents and the review you gave it. I feel the reviewer has the obligation to give to the potential reader some indication of the content and not just his own highly personalized and drastically condensed reaction to it. By contrast, the review of Berger’s A Rumor of Angels was a near model of excellent reviewing.

Northfield, Minn.

Capping Short

Hats off to J. D. Douglas for saying (in his review of Robert Short’s latest Peanuts opus, May 23) what has long needed to be said publicly: that Mr. Short’s interpretations of Peanuts are nonsense—frequently delightful and enjoyable nonsense, to be sure, but still nonsense. That such books could become best-sellers is a kind of indictment of our time. Let us earnestly hope that we will not soon be subjected to a third book of Short-on-Schulz!

Prof. of Religion and Philosophy

Whitworth College

Spokane, Wash.

J. D. Douglas’s review of Short’s book is the best example I’ve seen of a reviewer who strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. I’ve read Mr. Short’s book, and it seemed to me to be a completely consistent exposition of at least one man’s understanding of the Christian faith. But where in Mr. Douglas’s review arc we given any idea of what this understanding is? It is almost as though Mr. Douglas is so afraid of the ideas expressed in the book that he spends all the review picking at how these ideas were expressed, rather than telling us what was said. Surely Mr. Douglas is not so insecure in his faith that he doesn’t really want us to know what the book is about?

I enjoy CHRISTIANITY TODAY … especially the book reviews—usually!

St. Petersburg, Fla.

Socking It To Us

Joshua Tree, Calif.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.