Eutychus and His Kin: March 12, 1971

FARE COMMENT

Taxicab drivers will universally tell you they are father-confessors to the world. That hasn’t been my experience. When I hop into a taxi desiring a quiet, meditative ride to my destination, I invariably get a loquacious driver who either wants to unload his frustrations with life or to impart some words of wisdom.

Some time ago I boarded a cab in an eastern metropolis driven by a lightskinned Negro of middle age. His license showed the name Harold James. After the normal exchange of pleasantries about the weather and traffic we gravitated to the subject of race relations.

“You know, we didn’t make this problem,” my modern Jehu said. “You did. It was your people that brought my people to this country. We didn’t ask for any visas. Man, there wasn’t no quota on us. They just stacked us up like cord wood and brought us over.”

I had the sinking feeling that it was going to be an emotionally exhausting ride. “Well, that’s true,” I said, “but that’s all done now. We’re both here and we’ve got to live together.”

“Not only that,” he continued, undeterred, “your ancestors weren’t exactly on the up-and-up about this whole race thing. Matter of fact, they were hypocrites.”

Not wishing to challenge the point I replied, “How’s that?”

“Well, you take a look at my skin.”

I did. It was decidedly milk chocolate.

“God didn’t give me that skin color. You folks did. That segregation massa preached was all right for the living room, but it didn’t make it back to the bedroom!”

I was relieved to hear him chuckling as he repeated his point. “No sir, it didn’t make it back to the bedroom.” Then he asked, “You know what the Bible says?”

“I know some things it says.”

“Well, the Bible says we’re the same race. Did you know that?”

“Does it really?”

“Yessir, the Bible talks about two races, Jews and Gentiles. We’re both Gentiles. And you know what else it says?”

“What?” I was beginning to be intrigued with Mr. James.

“It says even that don’t make any difference. In Galatians it says that ‘ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.… And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed.’ So you see, my skin may be black, but the Bible says I’m Abraham’s seed. And every Christian in the world is my brother, right?”

Right on, brother.

PAYING DUE ATTENTION

I would like to express my personal appreciation to you for publishing “The New Evangelism” (Jan. 29) by Professor Kenneth Hamilton. I had the privilege of hearing Professor Hamilton’s address at the Canadian Congress on Evangelism and expressed the hope at that time that it would be published in a place where it would receive a wide audience. Thanks to you, his message will have the attention which it deserves.

Asst. Prof. of New Testament

Regent College

Vancouver, B.C.

HIGH THEOLOGY LOW

The only thing high about “High Theology in the Andes” (Jan. 15) is the location of the meeting. I believe you report some of the saddest news of 1970. When the reputed cream of evangelical theologians from a continent we have been led to believe is almost the private domain of conservative theology meets for the first time and capitulates to the “Inter-Varsity bloc” with its errant Scripture, it is indeed sad news.… One can almost hear the cries of “gringo theological imperialism” if anyone this side of the Rio Grande questions the theology put forth at Cochabamba. Nevertheless, this decision to get rid of the offending word “inerrant” clearly puts the signers on the far side of the continental divide in theology, where the only direction is down, increasing numbers of errors admitted and theology gradually deteriorating.

In addition to the basic bad news, there are two other very ominous signs in the report. We can only guess why those who hold to an inerrant Scripture were willing to sign a document that deliberately left this out. I’m sure the motive was a good one.… But it is a dangerous ploy. Theological deterioration in a group rarely starts with rejection of a basic doctrine but rather with indifference as to the importance of significance of that doctrine. Compromise usually begins at the point of silence.…

The second very ominous element had to do with the motive given for choosing the compromise wording—“to aid communication with the grass-roots churchman.” Surely this doesn’t mean what it seems to say? Surely we would not follow the strategy of liberal theological wolves who dress themselves in theologically conservative sheep’s terminology in an effort to keep non-theologians in the dark about what is actually happening to their heretofore “simplistic” theology?

Columbia Bible College

Columbia, S. C.

RETREAT TO FORTRESS U.S.A.

I have just read Eric Fife’s article “American Leadership in World Missions” (Jan. 29). The point he makes is true enough—the Lord has plenty of leaders besides Americans—but misleading. Obeying the Great Commission has nothing to do with “leadership.” It has a great deal to do with faithfulness.…

Fife’s article says that a decline in number of American missionaries might be God’s will, and hints throughout that the missionary movement has peaked and nationals will now take over the task. This is most unfortunate. Two billion have yet to hear the Gospel. With the greatest admiration for the nationals and hearty agreement that where national Christians exist they should evangelize their neighbors, I doubt whether it is God’s will for the powerful churches of America (highest GNP ever, $10 billion spent for liquor, professional football at an all-time high) to retreat to Fortress U.S.A.

Dean

School of World Mission

Fuller Theological Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

I [am dismayed] over some of Fife’s emphases. I would he had told us who is contending for “American” leadership in the worldwide task of the Church. What I hear at missionary conferences these days is the call to American Christians to go overseas to serve, not to rule. No one in his right mind is advocating paternalism. Or the right of Americans to dominate. The missionaries I know rejoice in the growing effectiveness of national leadership in the churches overseas.

But what of Fife’s highly speculative thesis that a decline in the number of American missionaries might be “the will of God for this time”? Grant the remote possibility, but how is God’s worldwide cause to be advanced by hoisting such a dark flag? Cut it down!…

What is the scriptural or factual warrant for Fife’s negativism about missions? Throughout the world today people are more winnable than they have ever been.… Nothing is … more peripheral to the current debate on missions than taking potshots at such straw issues as American Leadership or American Extravagance. Better to focus attention on the biblical mandate to Christians to be at work in the midst of this receptivity, gathering in the harvest that God is granting his Church.… Let us stand with him; resist the negative and accent the positive.

Associate Dean

School of World Mission

Fuller Theological Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR ECONOMICS

Your lead editorial on economics (“Capitalism vs. Communism,” Feb. 12) is incredible! In pure fact it errs grossly. In capitalism at least as much as communism, the economic decision-makers represent a very tiny, self-perpetuating minority. By no honest stretch of imagination can the little old lady who owns a share or two of General Motors, or the man whose company pension plan has invested in ITT, be called economic decision-makers.

Whether credited to the ingenuity of Marx or CHRISTIANITY TODAY, use of the Mosaic “Thou shalt not steal” as biblical proof for capitalism is one of the most amazing pieces of exegesis I have ever seen. Some scholars believe the correct translation of that commandment should be, “Thou shalt not kidnap.” But suppose the traditional translation is correct; it hardly proves capitalism. Ownership of personal possessions is permissible under communism as well as capitalism (though prohibited in some tribal economies). Furthermore, one should not steal from the government, and/or that which the community holds for the common good. Indeed, the commandment could be understood to prohibit exploitation as being a form of theft. “Thou shalt not steal” should mean one must not take from any man that which is rightfully his. Such as human dignity.…

It is as patently ridiculous to hunt biblical evidence for modern economics as for modern science. But if one does so, it is amusing to speculate the effect biblical economics might have on modern capitalism. The semi-centennial jubilee when all loans and debts were simply forgiven, for example, or the biblical dislike of interest.…

The Bible does, however, give some principles which individual Christians should apply in their businesses and in their families. It says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”; it tells us to pray for our daily bread; it warns us against striving to lay up riches on earth.… None of these principles were evident in your editorial.

Teaneck, N. J.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TELEPHONE?

Shame on Mr. Tiffin (“Education: The Good Old Days That Never Were,” Feb. 12). Or should it be the New York rioters? They had no business tearing down “telephone wires” because Mr. Bell was only thirteen years old at the time and living in Scotland. Give the man a break—that telephone will never get invented if rioters knock it off before it arrives.

Hammond, Ind.

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