Eutychus and His Kin: February 26, 1971

ANTIDISCONTEMPORANEITY

The other day I was given a lift home from the drugstore by a local pastor. The Reverend Byron Stanley—“Stan”—was in a troubled and sharing mood.

“We’ve got some real problems in the church here,” he began. “We’ve got an older group that has to be dragged into the twentieth century. I have to spend a good part of my time trying to stamp out seventeenth-century theology.”

I’ve always had trouble changing centuries into dates, but I finally got to 1600–1699. Then I tried desperately to think what had happened in that period. Shakespeare? Henry VIII? Voltaire? Blank.

Stan was continuing on at full steam when I found my way back to 1971.

“Seventeenth century?” I asked.

He stopped and gave me that cool look methodical thinkers reserve for daydreamers.

“Virgin birth, angels, devils, all that,” he replied.

“Oh, I thought those were first-century concepts.”

“In the first century they were only the mythic clothing of transcendental reality. It took the seventeenth century to enshrine them into literal truth.”

It came to me: The seventeenth century—those nefarious Westminster divines!

“I see,” I said, to hold up my end of the conversation.

“Not only do they propagate this kind of outmoded literalism—they also think it’s necessary to hold to this nonsense to be a Christian.”

“Hmm,” I responded.

“Little Torquemadas putting God in a box with a red ribbon on it,” he continued. “Telling him what he can do and can’t do. Trying to put theological straitjackets on other Christians. Heresy!”

He was reaching the climax of his indignation. I had the feeling this wasn’t the first time he had vented this particular spleen.

“Such narrowmindedness cannot be allowed to continue in the church. To be a Christian is to be open to life. There is simply no room in Christ’s church for such close-mindedness.”

“You’re right!” I eagerly responded. “Such wickedness can’t be allowed to go unchecked.”

“Well, I didn’t exactly say wickedness,” he protested. “But …”

“We must excise it like we would a cancer,” I continued.

“Well …” he said hesitantly.

“Why don’t you draw up a list of those subverting the church with doctrines like the virgin birth while I erect a stake and gather the faggots …”

He gave me a long black look. “Is that supposed to be a put-down?”

Stan is a very perceptive man, sometimes.

SUPPORTING REPORTING

The very fine story on EXPLO ’72, “Spiritual Bomb at Dallas” (Jan. 1), was greatly appreciated. We feel sure that it will help generate more prayer support and registrations for the ’72 student evangelism congress. We already have nearly 5,000 advance registrations.

Director of Media Information

EXPLO ’72

Dallas, Tex.

WHOSE FREEDOM?

The editorial “BJU and the IRS” (Jan. 15) disapproving of the Internal Revenue Service’s threat to withdraw Bob Jones University from a tax-exempt status is confusing. The editorial states that it “thinks the IRS action impinges upon |BJU’s] freedom of religion,” and in so stating fails to realize that the whole existence of BJU is to deny blacks their freedom of religion. The Christian’s concept of freedom of religion must be defined from the individual’s point of view (in this case the black Christian) and not from the point of view of an organization. Denying Christian blacks entrance into religious fellowship or worship with Christian whites is in effect forced segregation and denying of God-given and God-intended religious freedom, to say nothing of its effect upon the disjointing of the Church as the Body of Christ.

Assistant Professor of Sociology

The University of Georgia

Athens, Ga.

A friend from Chicago has sent me the clipping of your report of the tax-exemption threat to Bob Jones University (Jan. 1) and the editorial (Jan. 15) dealing with this problem. I would like to express to you my appreciation both for the accurate reporting of the situation and for the fairness of your editorial dealing with it.

We agree wholeheartedly with the position you take that if the government can take away the tax exemption of a Christian institution because of its religious convictions and its admissions policies, then it can by the same token take away the tax exemption of any church whose membership qualifications, administrative policies, or doctrinal position do not conform to an administrative whim. The issue at stake is not integration or segregation. Good men may differ on this question. The issue is constitutional freedom, which is a matter that concerns all Americans and which is certainly one that no fair-minded American believes should be granted or withheld by any agency but which is one of the “unalienable rights” of all Americans.

President

Bob Jones University

Greenville, S.C.

INACCURATE REPRODUCTION

I felt that Mr. Watson Mills’s review of Frederick Dale Bruner’s A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Jan. 15), though containing many good things, failed to do justice to the book. As I see it, Professor Bruner makes two main points in this book: (1) There is no biblical evidence for the theological tenet which is basic to both Pentecostalism and neo-Pentecostalism, namely, that every believer should seek a post-conversion “baptism in the Holy Spirit” in which the Spirit comes into his life in his fullness; and (2) according to the New Testament, the most important evidence for the presence of the Holy Spirit in one’s life is not essentially ecstatic (e.g., glossolalia) but ethical. The review mentioned neither of these points.

A reviewer has every right to disagree with an author, but he ought at least to reproduce accurately what he has written.

Calvin Theological Seminary

Grand Rapids, Mich.

THE FIRES OF REVIVAL

Please accept my thanks for including news coverage of the revival going on among the youth of our land (“Pacific Northwest: Revival in the ‘Underground,’ ” Jan. 29). We oldtimers seem to have overlooked the fact that when Jesus described himself as locked out of his own church at the end of the age, he is excluded from the Pharisaical fundamentalist outfits as well as from the Sadduccean liberal ones. We seem also to have overlooked the possibility that he might gain re-entrance from outside. How like God to hold back his tribulation judgment until the youth whom we have fed stones of institutional separatism and hypocritical churchism instead of Jesus the Bread of Life can find him apart from human failures through the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit alone! Perhaps we dare believe that these overcomers may yet be used of the Lord to bring the excluded Jesus back into a lukewarm Laodicea. Let’s not argue about where the fire is burning, but praise the Lord it is! The age began with a Pentecostal effusion; why not expect it to conclude in like manner. Keep us posted!

Head

Department of English

Athens College,

Athens, Ala.

I am very pleased and excited to see your article [on underground revival]. I thought it was very well done. I also appreciated the sidebar about the “First Tuesday” broadcast and Look article. I saw the broadcast and was very impressed.

Muskegon, Mich.

YELLING ‘WOLF’ ABOUT ABORTION

The latest issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Jan. 29) contains several interesting editorials. I appreciate the wide variety of issues covered. Indeed, CHRISTIANITY TODAY performs a needed service within the Christian community by urging a consideration of the issues from the bias of its editorial policy.… However, the editorial “Financing Murder” was written in the low-level style of judgmentalism. The language used could have been kept on the level of counsel or opinion; e.g., “to ignore the question of abortion is a serious mistake.” However, the suggestion that recent liberalization of abortion laws indicates “moral rot” is akin to pontification … as is the statement that “God does not overlook such evil”.… I felt that CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S writer … tried to rally support by, in effect, yelling “Wolf!”

Bethany Presbyterian Church

Tacoma, Wash.

After reading your vitriolic blurb on abortion, I immediately rechecked the cover to make sure this was not an early April Fool’s edition. Abortion is an extremely emotional issue in this country, and there is a greater need from evangelical circles for a serious and rational discussion of the issues. In spite of the attempt at rationality in the “Current Religious Thought” section of the same issue, I think that you have rendered a disservice to those attempting to give serious consideration to this moral problem.

St. Paul, Minn.

THE POWER OF THE GOSPEL

The first three-quarters of the editorial “San Francisco: Sodom Revisited” (Jan. 29) denounce San Francisco as a “Sodom” of the twentieth century. Further into the article the number of Christians is mentioned as a possible reason for the city’s “non-conversion” and its spiritual corruption. The author notes that of the city’s 750,000 population, 450,000 claim no religious affiliation.…

The citizens of San Francisco realize the struggle and are attempting to overcome its spiritual destruction. Let us not forget that with the power of the Holy Spirit large numbers are not needed to convert—only the Gospel is necessary.

Ft. Wayne, Ind.

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