Eutychus and His Kin: March 26, 1971

PLUMB WISE

Jim Barclay is basically an average looking man. Average height, average build—but with that lean bony face that speaks of his origin in Appalachia. Jim is a Christian by profession and a carpenter by trade.

The other day he was doing some remodeling in my home. “That wall looks crooked,” I said.

“Nary a bit of it!” he replied.

After I had made a few other valuable suggestions Jim said, “I reckon it’s about all a man can do in life to master one trade. You write, don’t you?”

And so we began discussing our mutual difficulties in working for a living. “You know, it ain’t always easy to be a Christian,” he said. “You got to do your best, be fair to the other fellow in what you charge, and give a friend a break when you can—and all the while make a livin’ for your brood. And after you make a living, you got to live and try to raise your family right. Whup the kids often enough but keep on lovin’em.”

“You know, you do all you can for your kids and they still grieve you,” he said somewhat sadly. “They love you but they grieve you.”

“My least son went out and joined the Army and now he’s AWOL,” he continued, shaking his head and laughing the laugh of one who can see the incongruous twist even in a personally painful situation.

“He’s just a baby. He’s so young he don’t realize what he’s doin’ to hisself. But I love him and I haven’t given up on him. I think the Lord is dealing with his heart and they aint no limit to what he can do.”

The conversation moved on to less important matters, and then somehow we were talking about drinking. “Some folks think it’s all right to drink that wine and beer,” he said.

Always the devil’s advocate, I said, “Well, I think you’d have a hard time making a case from the Bible that drinking is wrong in and of itself apart from the abuse.”

He thought for a moment and said, “Yes, but it has a way of leadin’ on to other things. And besides, why see how close you come to sin? Why not see how far you can stay away from it?”

As I went upstairs to do other things I was followed by the sound of his voice as he softly sang “Precious Lord.”

Later, after Jim had gone, I was thinking about this man and reflecting happily on his faith and commitment to Christ. But as I thought further, my good feeling turned to shame when I realized that it was necessary for me to adjust to the idea of a wise carpenter.

A DIFFERENCE THAT HELPS

Patricia Ward’s “The Challenge of Student Idealists” (Jan. 29) is a most interesting, and extremely relevant, article. There is one important qualification that I would like to make, and that is that the “love, selflessness, and sharing [that] few Christians could deny” is not the same “love, selflessness, and sharing” that this group of college students believe in.

Although the symbols are the same, and to a limited extent the outward manifestations of the contents, the spiritual roots are very different—and conflicting. Rather than posing a problem for the evangelist, though, this difference can be effectively used to help students to come to know Christ Jesus. Indeed, it is fruitful to compare the hedonism, occultism, mysticism, and hallucinating experiences which result from an egocentric or anthropocentric “spirit” with the fruits of the Spirit! Stanford, Calif.

WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

In “The Ninety-second Congress: A Religious Census” (Dec. 4) you incorrectly listed Parren J. Mitchell (D.-Md.) as a Methodist. Representative Mitchell, who is the first black congressman elected in the history of Maryland, is, in fact, a very devout and active member of St. Katherine’s Episcopal Church in Baltimore.… The Methodists take credit away from us for the Wesleys, and we would hate to see them do the same thing with regard to the congressman.

St. Luke’s Episcopal Church

Westville, N. J.

• So would we. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.—ED.

GOOD CLEANSING ACTION

The column “Ecology of the Spirit” (Jan. 29) by L. Nelson Bell was very enlightening. I’m glad to know someone is working to help clean up what is published in Christian magazines. I hope by reading the article … other people will be inspired to take action along this line.

Spokane, Wash.

AN OPENING SALVO

I wish to commend you for the … vigorous, clear, and effective editorial “Financing Murder” (Jan. 29). You have proclaimed prophetically … “the demands of the Eternal against the hedonistic, now-oriented culture.” We have been hoping for such forthright denunciation of this growing and growingly accepted practice of “infanticide upon demand,” and we hope it is but an opening salvo. Christian people must not be allowed to be lulled into tacit acceptance of this monstrous immorality of our permissive and decadent culture.

Lavallette, N.J.

THE WARRING ELEMENTS

Professor Hamilton’s critique of “The New Evangelism” (Jan. 29) made many excellent points. His reliance upon Barth in the critique, however, makes me uneasy. For it is a post-Barthian development that new social theologians like Moltmann, Pannenberg, Braaten, and Cox have evolved a theology which is political and eschatological in character to be both secular and Christian. As Barth introduced a theological basis for Christian-Marxist dialogue, so the new social theology has many affinities with the Marxist view of the relation of thought and acting.

Further, Barth’s theological affirmation about the activity of God in history and society became meaningless, if not impossible, because his biblical theology accepted the naturalistic account of space-time events. For Harvey Cox, Barth’s covenant theology provides the basis for a sweeping kind of Christian humanism. It alters in no way the secular, humanistic dimensions. However, the integration of the secular and the Christian view has proved difficult in Barth as well as new social evangelism; the secular elements war against the Christian ones, and the former prevail.

It is at this point that Professor Hamilton’s proposal to “hold sacred and secular in tension” is a report of experience rather than a better alternative to the problematic integration of the two different views, an alternative derived from the social relevance of the Gospel and a God-willed structure for society. One may be afraid that his leaning to Barth and Bonhoeffer makes his conservative alternative rather futile.

Chicago, Ill.

MAJORING ON MINORS

The article by Belden Menkus, “Evangelical Responsibility in Public Education” (Feb. 12), was both well documented and interesting, especially the mention of the National Reform Association and the Christian Amendment Movement (recently renamed the Christian Government Movement).

It seems the article may imply that their century of work (failure?) therefore proves that the United States is in truth a “religious people” with a “Supreme Being” and yet a “secular state.” Disregarding the apparent contradiction and in defense of the C.G.M., two questions are asked:

1. Does even a Supreme Court justice’s statement make it a valid antithesis to the C.G.M.? The Athenians also were fanatically religious, including devotion to their Unrealized God (Acts 17:22, 23). That was not the True God of Paul and the C.G.M. however.

2. Does calling the United States a “secular state” make that verity? Recalling Paul in verse 28 now, “for in him [God] we live, and are being moved, and have our being”.… Has the author biblically demonstrated that a figment of a “secular state” (i.e., neutral to God, autonomous to God’s Kingdom) can exist? Doesn’t Romans 13:1 explicitly state that “the powers that be are ordained of God”?

Consequently, the author himself majored on minors—school religion—whereas he should have treated the authority beneath schools (government), as the Christian Government Movement does.

Reformed Presbyterian Church

Almonte, Ontario

ABUSING GOD’S WORD

The editorial, “Capitalism vs. Communism” (Feb. 12), contains some surprising errors of fact and analysis. For example, Sweden is not a socialistic nation; in fact, “private enterprise is almost as prevalent in that country as in the United States” (Grossman, Economic Systems, Prentice-Hall, 1967, p. 67). Also, your allegation that “estate taxes are so prohibitive that the overwhelming proportion of a large estate would go to the government” is simply contrary to readily available facts.

You state that “a good case can be made for private capitalism from Scripture” and then assert (following Marx!) that “Thou shalt not steal” implies the existence of private property in productive resources. This is logically fallacious. A society might, for example stipulate that all productive resources will be publicly owned but that consumer goods may be privately owned. This, in fact, resembles the situation in totalitarian socialist nations. Would not the biblical prohibition against theft apply to consumer goods? Moreover, theft from government is surely just as contrary to this commandment as theft from private owners of wealth.

Even your allegation that stewardship of possessions requires private ownership is not logically valid. A Christian is certainly responsible to God for the use of all material things which he controls or utilizes, regardless of whether he owns them, rents them, or even merely borrows them.

Although I am no theologian, I would have thought that an evangelical publication would consider any attempt to build a biblical case for capitalism or any other man-made economic or political system a gross abuse of God’s Word.

Prof. of Economics

Carthage College

Kenosha, Wis.

NO TO ‘BUMP AND GRIND’

With regard to Mr. Chandler’s story, “Religious Broadcasting Marks Fiftieth Year” (Feb. 12), our conviction is that rock music is aimed at the groin and not at the heart. Obscene music has no … place in God’s house.… If … this bump and grind “music” is not obscene, then what is it? Read what the Reverend David Wilkerson says about kids being hooked on rock music.… [Using it] to accompany religious verse does not redeem it.

Covington, Ky.

NO BESMIRCH INTENDED

Editorial comment, “The Perils of Publishing Satire” (Feb. 12), called attention [to this problem]. The perils of publishing responses to satire may be greater still. I was greatly disturbed by what appeared to be a scribal error in the otherwise helpful letter of Professor Charles Dillman of Greenville College, published in that same issue. In adding to the thesis of the earlier article by Gordon Clark, Mr. Dillman states, according to the published document, “He realized the symbolic relationship of the two kinds of plant.” I am confident that the word intended is symbiotic. I am anxious lest the reputation of Greenville College and of Mr. Dillman be besmirched by the printing of a document which would suggest that a symbolic, rather than literal, evangelical interpretation of Scripture is practiced either by the institution (my own esteemed alma mater) or the professor.

Wilmore, Ky.

• Professor Dillman also wrote “sparing” rather than “spring.” He is not so esoteric as to try to “spring” a tree. We apologize “10,000 per cent.”—ED.

SCHOLARLY PSYCHEDELICS?

I am wondering—is the cover design (Feb. 26) supposed to be psychedelic in nature? If so, is the impression meant to be given that the books reviewed inside (the issue’s theme) give a psychedelic experience? I thought that books (good ones) were to produce rational and responsible experience, rather than the opposite which is often associated with psychedelic drugs, etc. Just wondering.

Executive Vice-President

Southeastern Bible College

Birmingham, Ala.

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