Eutychus and His Kin: July 28, 1972

BEWARE OF WITCHES

My desire to push back the frontiers of human knowledge and, incidentally, find a topic for this column recently took me to the home of Mrs. Elfrieda Welles. Mrs. Welles holds the title for the longest continuous watching of television. I sought her out to discover the impact of religious programming on one who had seen it all.

I asked Mrs. Welles how long she had watched television. She turned the sound on her set down slightly and replied, “Well, this here stretch began in 1959. Actually I started in 1948, but my old man died in 1959 and I missed a day.”

“You took a day out to mourn your husband’s passing, I take it.”

“Nah, my battery pack failed at the graveside.”

“How many religious programs do you estimate that you’ve seen since 1959?”

“Don’t need to estimate,” she answered briskly. “Got my tally sheet right here. Let’s see, all together I’ve seen 3,463 religious programs. Billy Graham 419 times, Oral Roberts 263 times, and Rex Humbard 57 times. Oh yes, and Kathryn Kuhlman 16 times—my UHF reception ain’t too good. Rest of it was mostly local preachers.”

“After all this exposure, what is your considered judgment about the efficacy and relevance of contemporary religious programming?”

“Huh?”

“What do you think about the religious programs you’ve seen?”

“Oh, them big fellers like Graham and Roberts—they all put on a good show. I think maybe Roberts has the edge on the rest of them. His song and dance acts have got real pizzaz. But the rest of them preachers are really missin’ the boat.”

“You mean the local programs.”

“Yeh, that’s right. Some of ’em are mighty smart, but they just stand up there in the pulpit all solemn like in their black robes. Now who’s gonna believe a man in a black robe?”

“I don’t understand,” I replied.

“Did you ever stop and think of who else on TV wears a black robe besides them ministers?”

“Not really …”

“The witch.”

“The witch?”

“That ol’ witch in the Wizard of Oz. She’s the only one. Now who’s gonna put any stock in a man who’s dressed up to look like her? Nossir, they gonna have to wear white smocks if they want anyone to believe them.”

“Why white smocks?”

“Don’t you know nothin’?” She frowned as she smoothly switched channels during a commercial. “All the really smart people on TV wear white smocks. Dr. Welby wears one. Them scientists who invent detergents and aspirin wear ’em. Even the men who test gasolines wear ’em.

“You take my word for it, if them preachers want anybody to believe ’em, they’re gonna have to change to white robes.”

So there you have it, television preachers, right from the easy chair.

COLLEGIAN’S PRAISE

Praise the Lord! I just want to express my appreciation of your magazine!… Being in college, I’ve been rather low on funds, so I canceled subscriptions to all magazines except CHRISTIANITY TODAY because it keeps me so well informed on the news, besides giving me a Christian perspective. Also, I like the way it approaches a topic from an intellectual, evangelical viewpoint. My prayers are with you!

Bethany College

Lindsborg, Kans.

GRIPPING THE YOUTH SCENE

Dr. Nicholi’s speculations about the current youth culture (“Why Jesus Attracts Today’s Youth,” June 9) are so inconsistent with other research findings that a few comments seem in order. My analysis of data from 2,000 Berkeley students shows that those most deeply committed to the so-called “counterculture” by any indication—frequent use of hard drugs, radical political activism, sexual deviation, communal living—are no more likely to have problems with loneliness, making friends, or relating to the opposite sex than other students, contrary to what Nicholi suggests. Instead, they make better grades, have more intellectual and aesthetic interests, are more sensitive to questions of meaning and purpose in life, give more attention to social injustices, and aspire to more altruistic careers. Other research supports these findings and shows the profile presented by Nicholi to be true only for extremely alienated youth who have dropped out of college, joined the street scene, and become deeply immersed in the drug culture. Unfortunately, Nicholi fails to recognize some of these important distinctions.

It also seems to me that he fails to come to grips with the more important issues raised by the current youth scene. How will the rise of highly visible Eastern and mystical religious groups affect common understandings of man and of God? How are existentialist values revolutionizing views of both science and religion in many quarters? Are we as Christians reveling in a handful of “Jesus freaks” while a whole generation is abandoning any form of religious faith? The questioning occurring among youth and the changes taking place within our culture run deeper, I think, than most of us realize.

Survey Research Center

University of California

Berkeley, Calif.

WHAT WEDERDOOPERS DO

[I] would like to call your attention to a misleading statement in your magazine of June 9 (“Amish Education and Religious Freedom”).… “Wederdoopers” does not mean water-dunkers but rebaptizers—to baptize a second time (German: Wiedertaufer). Your version gives the idea of immersion. This form was not practiced by the Mennonites until about 1860. A small group made this change and [it] is not the form generally used but pouring or sprinkling is the accepted practice.

Mountain Lake, Minn.

CORRECTIVE VERSE

With reference to “Passing the Missions Buck” (News, June 9) and with apologies to Micah:

But you, O Christian and Missionary Alliance,

who are little to be among the denominations of America,

From you shall come forth for me

919 missionaries (not 191),

whose origin is from of old.

Fairmede Neighborhood Church

Richmond, Calif.

• Correct. A news source was at fault.—ED.

ON THE JUGULAR VEIN

I regret that Mr. Kucharsky in trying to summarize the action (“Southern Baptists Veto Book Recall,” June 23) quoted me as indirectly saying that “Southern Baptists find it hard to agree on anything, and that no commentary is perfect.” Southern Baptists do agree on many things, one of which is the competency of the soul in religion, or the freedom of the individual conscience. It is out of this that all of our beliefs flow. My position in opposing the motion made by Mr. Turner to withdraw the Broadman Commentary in toto was based on five reasons. (1) I have never read a commentary with which I agree entirely, but have been helped by all of them in understanding the Bible. (2) No man alive could write a commentary which all Southern Baptists would accept fully. (3) The motion by Turner is out of keeping with the spirit and letter of the Preamble to the Baptist Faith and Message which guarantees freedom of conscience. This preamble is as much a part of the Baptist Faith and Message as any other article in it. If we ignore it then the statement becomes a creed, and Southern Baptists are not a creedal people. (4) This motion is in direct opposition to the basic principle of Baptists through the years, namely, the competency of the soul in religion. (5) This motion is in conflict with the purpose of the Southern Baptist Convention as expressed in the opening paragraph of the Constitution. Its purpose is not to hammer out doctrine in a public forum. Rather it is to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of the denomination in missions and evangelism. I stated that we had been debating this matter for three years, and I felt that it was time that we put it behind us and went on with the work of the convention. You can see that is quite a different thing from what Mr. Kucharsky said that I said.

In your editorial, I do not in any sense feel that this was a “watershed” of the Southern Baptist Convention turning toward liberalism. In my statement to the convention I said that the issue before us was not a set of books, but a principle dear to the hearts of all Baptists. So actually the Southern Baptist Convention was not voting on a set of books one way or the other. It just happened to be the occasion. We were voting our conviction that includes the priesthood of believers, the freedom of the individual conscience before God, the responsibility of each conscience before God, and the competency of the soul in religion. I am sure that you agree with me that these are basic principles.

Southern Baptists are no more departing on a liberal course now than they have ever been. They are still a conservative, middle-of-the-road people. We can have the Broadman Commentary or dispose of it, we can have various versions of it to fit various strains of thought, and the Southern Baptist Convention will go on about its work. But the motion that was defeated in Philadelphia was aimed at the jugular vein of Baptist freedom. It was that upon which Southern Baptists were voting, not merely a set of books.

First Baptist Church

Oklahoma City, Okla.

UNGARBLING THE P.C.U.S.

Readers of my report on the Presbyterian U.S. General Assembly (“Southern Presbyterians Elect Bell, Stay in COCU,” July 7) might wonder if I had ever covered a Presbyterian Assembly before or if I was asleep this time. I realize that a close deadline and a tight space situation made the job of editing all the more difficult. [But] some corrections must be noted.

1. The statement that “election of a theological conservative can be construed as a direct word from the Assembly that there is a place for conservatives in the denomination” was attributed in the original story to Dr. Bell’s nominator, Mr. Edwards. It is his statement, not the reporter’s.

2. Formation of a continuing church, according to the final edited version, is contingent on union with the United Presbyterian Church U.S.A. The original story did not impose this condition on the organized conservative forces. Actually, they have avoided making this a condition in all their public statements.

3. The second reference to the 1971 moderator, Dr. Ben Lacy Rose, calls him only “Lacy.” This was not in the original.

4. “Initial-step appointments” in agency restructuring should have read “initial staff appointments.”

5. “Senates” are given as the names of the new regional judicatories. While the Assembly has made great changes, it has not changed the name from “synod” to “senate.”

6. Most unfortunate, perhaps, is the fact that your editing removed from the report all reference to an Assembly action that may turn out to be the most important one. That was the decision to put out of business, even before it had a chance to get on its feet, the one synod (Alabama-Mississippi) which was assured of a conservative majority. Against their wishes, these states were combined with Tennessee and Kentucky to form a region.

The Presbyterian Journal

Asheville, N. C.

• We regret the errors. Garbled telephone transmission and the pressure of a deadline amid severe flood conditions (knocking out communication between editorial staffers) accounted for most of them.—ED.

ON THE PROCESS

We appreciate the mention of Mrs. Billie McClure (News, Personalia, May 26). What you report is partially correct. The Georgia courts have ruled that the Civil Rights Act has no jurisdiction in the employment relationship between a church and its ministers, but it is also true that the U. S. District Court in New Orleans, Louisiana, has upheld that ruling, and that’s the process by which the case now goes to the Supreme Court.

Divisional Commander

The Salvation Army

Baltimore, Md.

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