Eutychus and His Kin: November 10, 1972

Thump In The Night

The other night I was lying in bed with the lovely euphoria that comes over you when you’re tired and you’ve finally gotten settled in the perfect position with the pillow at just the right angle and you’re just beginning to slip into the arms of Morpheus.

“What’s that?” asked my wife, sitting up in bed.

“What’s what?” I said drowsily.

“That thumping.”

I was on the verge of giving the old comic-strip response, “Oh, it’s probably only a burglar.” But I decided future happiness lay down another road. So I replied, “It’s probably just the water pipes or something.”

“What would make water pipes thump?”

If there’s anything maddening it’s the female insistence on logic at midnight.

“I’ll go check,” I said with less than enthusiasm.

A complete round of the house turned up no satisfactory explanation. All the entrances were securely locked. As I climbed back into bed my wife asked, “Did you find anything?”

“Nothing.”

“Did you check everywhere?”

“Everywhere.”

“The laundry room?”

“Everywhere.”

“What do you think it was?”

“A playful poltergeist.”

“Be serious.”

“All right, but wouldn’t it be nice if we still believed in goblins? Then we could just ask the Lord to deliver us from goblins and ghosts and things that go bump in the night and go back to sleep.”

“I guess,” she said doubtfully.

Lying there trying to go back to sleep, I thought of all those nights when my sleep has been disturbed by something going bump in my soul.

Someone has commented that there are times in the middle of the night when he’d sell himself for a nickel and give three cents change. This 2 A.M.angst is perhaps primarily an affliction of the young adult, and most adult Christians have been through it at some time or times.

The Psalmist reminds us that those who dwell in the shelter of the Most High are not to fear the terror of the night. Jesus is Lord even at two in the morning.

EUTYCHUS V

GOOD THINKING

The two [September] issues of your magazine seem to me to be Christian magazine writing at its best. The writers are trained thinkers in science and theology and the Bible.… The necessity to reconcile “Genesis man” with science is so often put before the Christian. Robert Brow (“The Late-Date Genesis Man,” Sept. 15) turns this around.… I have just reread Lecomte du Nouy’s Human Destiny, and I think he has tried to do just that. The evolutionary scientist should face the fact that the real problem of man’s evolution is his moral and spiritual self.… The article on education (“Christian Schools: Whole Truth For Whole Persons”) is of the same caliber. Du Nouy’s chapters on education and instruction fit in so well with Lockerbie as I understand them both. Congratulations and good wishes for CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

THE REVEREND F. L. COLEMAN

Naugatuck, Conn.

PORTRAYING PAUL

I very much appreciated the brief but vivid description of the majestic Apostle Paul by John Pollock in your August 25 issue (“The Man From the Damascus Road”). Pollock is to be congratulated on the warmth and depth of his portraiture of Paul. Truly, “a well-written life is almost as rare as a well-spent one”—and Pollock achieves the former through the latter of Paul, who was totally yielded to the will of God.

Memphis, Tenn.

WALLACE E. JOHNSON

ONLY A MOMENT

I just finished reading the September 15 issue and it only takes a moment to say “thank you.” I have just finished a manuscript on the youth movement and related subjects—mainly the related subjects of the Canon, God-Language, and The Will of God.

I very much like the way Dr. Lindsell treated the Canon (“The Infallible Word,” Aug. 25 and Sept. 15).… The type of higher criticism of the last century is deadly, but a form of bibliolatry which assumes an anti-intellectual stance undermines, as well. That is why I recommend your magazine to everyone I know—it has a marvelous balance.

MERLE ALLISON JOHNSON

The United Methodist Church

Siloam Springs, Ark.

The points of philosophical and theological tension change from generation to generation and sometimes even more often than that, but the focal point of resolution is always, “What do you think of the Written Word?”

This brings up a related problem: What is an evangelical?… The answer … must go something like this: An evangelical is one who signs an evangelical statement of faith … plus. And it is the plus-factors which make the difference. What are the plus-factors?They include, among other things, one’s attitude and concern for the Written Word, the Person and Work of Christ as revealed in that Word, and biblical evangelism. And it is these attitudes and concerns together with the statement of faith that produce around the person and his institution a climate, a warmth, which make the difference between being or not being an evangelical.… The attitudes and concerns you expressed for “The Infallible Word” were so well put I felt I must add my comment and commendation. Thank you.

WARREN FILKIN

Dept. of Practical Theology

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Ill.

I have been an avid reader of CHRISTIANITY TODAY for several years, usually reading each issue cover to cover. Even though I consider most of the articles to be outstanding examples of contemporary evangelical scholarship, I want to comment on two articles in recent issues—“Contemporary Theology and ‘Church Material’ ” (Aug. 11) and “The Infallible Word” (Aug. 25, Sept. 15). Not only did they present the subject material in an understandable and scholarly manner; they were very helpful to me in two ways. First, they gave me a better understanding of the Bible and answered some of my questions about its authority, trustworthiness, etc., and second, they provided source material for a Christian leadership course I am teaching to the Sunday-school leadership in my church.

A regular feature of your magazine also deserves special comment. That is Dr. Bell’s column, “A Layman and His Faith.” Almost without exception I find his articles challenging, stimulating, and edifying. I usually clip them out to save for future reference and rereading.

Atlanta, Ga.

ROBERT C. RENCHER, JR.

THE LONG AND THE SHORT

With reference to the review of Speaking in Tongues by Felicitas D. Goodman (Sept. 29): again I am appalled at a so-called psychological study of speaking in tongues which is so long on conclusion and so short on scholarship. That anyone could draw such broad conclusions from such a limited sample … would astound any expert on statistics and polls. And that a university press would print such a study adds to the shock! And although I would like to think that all “practicing glossolalists” are well adjusted, this is just as fallacious as the rest of the conclusions. After all, those who speak in tongues are still very much human.…

If the good doctor would make a complete study, especially consulting missionaries, she would discover that many nationals who have never heard much less “learned or acquired” English do speak in tongues in English. And the marvel of it, as just explained to me by a missionary from Dahomey, is that nationals who have been trained to fear their gods receive the experience and speak in tongues of their love for God—in English!

CARL G. CONNER

First Assembly of God

Winston-Salem, N. C.

Dr. Goodman’s cases as listed in the review appear to me to be from other than “mainstream” glossolalists. William Samarin’s data (Tongues of Men and Angels, Oct. 13) is not disclosed. When he does deal with accounts of identified languages, only two are cited, and they are not cases in which the language was actually translated. With all of the cases I have heard of languages identified, the language is actually translatable. There is a wealth of literature available in which a “tongue” is identified. Although they are not technical publications, it seems reasonable to me that they are reliable resource documents for starting the required research. Letters to the authors to get names of the individuals involved would lead the researcher to interview and evaluate direct evidence of actual translations of tongues. I refer particularly to John L. Sherrill’s They Speak With Other Tongues. There are a number of instances recorded in his book of identification by translation. This is also true of Dennis J. Bennett’s book, Nine O’Clock in the Morning.

The reviewer of Dr. Goodman’s book points out two major conclusions. The first, that “glossolalia is learned or acquired from social and cultural environment,” is incorrect in my experience. Perhaps it is true of the areas she sampled, but again I cite some of the current publications which point out clearly that this is not the case—these languages are not learned, but given by the Lord. Read Face Up With a Miracle by Don Basham and A New Song by Pat Boone.

I appreciated Felicitas Goodman’s assurance that “practicing glossolalists are well adjusted people, who aside from speaking in tongues behave normally in their communities.” It is also with pleasure that I read William Samarin’s acceptance of “spiritual validity” in tongue speaking.

TED L. BRADSHAW

North Alfred Baptist Church

Alfred, Me.

ON THE EASTERN EDGE

Referring to your news item in the September 15 issue (Personalia), let me underline the importance of Nagaland,on the eastern edge of India, which Billy Graham will visit in November. It is the one state in India on its way to becoming substantially Christian. Of the total population of 409,824, 247,069 are Christians. The rest of the people seem likely to become Christians. In sharp contrast to the rest of India, most government administrators, legislators, judges, and professional men are Christians. American Christians may rejoice at the progress of the Gospel in this small but important part of Asia.

DONALD MCGAVRAN

Fuller Theological Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

The article “The Late-Date Genesis Man,” by Robert Brow (Sept. 15), calls attention to the speculations of Erich von Däniken, focuses attention on the serious problems of the earliest biblical periods, and makes some interesting suggestions.

First of all, one should not have to remark that Däniken’s fantastic theories are utterly groundless. The great pyramids of Egypt, though they are amazing constructions, did not take several hundred years to build.…

Secondly, the problems which Brow deals with are indeed quite serious issues which defy easy solution if one assumes the traditional doctrine that Adam was the physical progenitor of mankind. Brow’s proposal, while avoiding the problem of the very early dates set forth by anthropologists for the earliest hominids, relegates all Old Stone Age to New Stone Age “men” (down to 4000 B.C.)—with high levels of culture including art (cave paintings in Spain and in France, 10–15,000 B.C.), the development of agriculture and towns (Jericho, 7000 B.C.), and traits of magic and religion … to the status of pre-Adamic “animals.” The recently discovered Tasaday in the Philippines and some of the aborigines in New Guinea are tribes with Stone Age cultures who are nonetheless quite human.

Thirdly, the solution proposed by Brow overlooks the continuities of human culture from the Paleolithic through the Chalcolithic periods. His suggestion that the end of the Early Dynastic period (2250 B.C.) and the Old Kingdom of Egypt (2200 B.C.) may be related with a universal flood, which he dates to 2244 B.C., is wide of the mark. The Early Dynastic Sumerian period was ended by the new Akkadian dynasty, and the Old Kingdom of Egypt was ended by feudalistic decentralization and famine. The cataclysmic explosion of Thera has no bearing on this problem.

The problems of Adam’s date and his relation to anthropoid skeletons have been discussed in more detail by specialists in several issues of the Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation:

1. James M. Murk, “Evidence for a Late Pleistocene Creation of Man,” 17 (1965), 37–49.

2. George R. Horner, “The Bible and Human Evolution: Problems in the Classification and Change in Man,” 19 (1967), 105–11.

3. E. Pearce, “Proto-neolithic Adam and Recent Anthropology,” 23 (1971), 130–39.

4. George J. Jennings, “The Tasaday and the Problem of Social Evolution,” 24 (1972), 58–63.

EDWIN M. YAMAUCHI

History Department

Miami University

Oxford, Ohio

NO PLACE

I have been a reader of CHRISTIANITY TODAY for many years and have found some very helpful articles in it from time to time. I am now registering my disapproval of the comic section “What If …,” because many of the cartoons in it have made light of Bible truths. The cartoon in the September 29 issue about Potiphar’s wife and Joseph is vulgar, and has no place in a Christian magazine.

THE REVEREND L. J. KEELS

Ocala, Fla.

FESTIVAL DISSENT

As a participant in the Jesus Joy festival held last Labor Day I felt Cheryl Forbes’s news story “Jesus Joy Revisited” (Sept. 29) was unfair to Moishe Rosen.

She stated that when Rosen talked about “freedom for Soviet Jewry and the integrity of the borders for the state of Israel” the crowd lost interest. As a Gentile Christian sitting in the audience I feel that this statement is false. I was there and shouted my approval along with the crowd as Rosen spoke about Israel.

A Jewish person reading the story would undoubtedly feel that the crowd was cool or unsympathetic to Jewish people and Jewish causes, when in fact the crowd was pro-Israel and the Jewish people, cheering with enthusiasm as Moishe Rosen and Charles Russo spoke to these issues.

San Rafael, Calif.

MIRIAM SLEICHTER

UNSCIENTIFIC?

John W. Montgomery showed exactly that presuppositionalists are correct when he admitted to having “an especially powerful bias” which influenced his scientific views (“How Scientific Is Science?,” Current Religious Thought, Sept. 29). For presuppositionalists rightly say that every man has a world and life view that affects his thinking and actions.

Science can be done because we know that God created the earth and sustains it. Science done on any other basis must irrationally hold to abstract ideas of unity and diversity. This does not “reduce all science to metaphysics,” as Montgomery claims. Rather, it means that we scientifically move from the known to the unknown. We don’t “refuse to admit the sure reality of scientific discoveries,” but we point out that certain things are true and real (God, creation, revelation), and therefore, our science is meaningful.

Montgomery seems to want to start with the non-Christian’s irrational explanation of the world and to argue to the truth of the Bible. But until he starts with the biblical revelation which he knows is true, he is unscientific!

Roger W. Schmurr

San Diego, Calif.

ON LAW AND GRACE

I am saddened, not because I find fault with your ultimate aims, but because your philosophy undermines what should be the ultimate aim of the evangelical (“Assignment For Christian Citizens,” Editorials, Sept. 15). As an evangelical my … obligation is to proclaim the love of God in Christ Jesus, and that as a free gift, sure, firm, and worthy of my total trust.

And yet your suggestion that the evangelical work for the civic elimination of homosexuality, prostitution, abortion, etc., only reinforces the opinon that most unsaved persons have of Christ’s religion—that it is a religion that only tells them what they cannot do. I cry every time some fool, in the name of Christ, preaches Law to men who have not yet heard Grace.…

But even if this whole country was made up of people living in the grace of Christ, I would still find it incomprehensible that a person who takes his Bible seriously could pontificate against something like abortion. It would take a totally perverted hermeneutic to say abortion is always wrong—no questions.… Further, while I will be the first to concede that prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, etc., are proofs that we live in a sinful world, I must affirm that they are no more sinful than gossip or boasting.

Columbus, Ohio

RODNEY JUELL

I strongly agree that there is a desperate need for Christian political action of some kind in the United States today, because God’s creation ordinances cannot be fully realized without lawful human response.

God’s creation ordinances need to be obeyed in matters of abortion, homosexuality, pornography, drugs, and prostitution. They also speak to matters such as the pollution of air, water, and land by our industrialized society. They concern the economic system which demands technological development at the expense of pure air, water, and land. And they concern the political system which upholds our present techno-economic development. God’s creation ordinances concern man’s task and view of work and therefore labor-management relations.… Thus U. S. domestic policy requires revision and change. Economic and political exploitation of the material and human resources of other countries also comes within the scope of God’s creation ordinances. Thus the whole area of U. S. foreign policy and international relations must be re-evaluated. I am not anti-technology or anti-progress (when “progress” is biblically defined), but both technology and progress must be tempered by respect and obedience to God’s creation ordinances.

ROBERT J. EELLS

Executive Secretary

Christian Government Movement

Pittsburgh, Pa.

A LOT TO LEARN

Howard W. Ferrin’s article “Manipulation or Motivation? Skinner’s Utopia vs. Jesus’ Kingdom” (Sept. 29) reflects an unfortunate misunderstanding of Skinner’s claims and a lack of confidence in the totality of the biblical world-view.

1. Skinner has attempted on several occasions to elucidate the difference between operant behavior and Pavlov’s respondent behavior. Ferrin apparently equates the two concepts.

2. It is not really “revolutionary” or “explosive” that a man like Skinner who apparently does not claim Christianity should set forth the notion that “poor” behavior is a result of a defective (not bad) environment and that no judgment should be brought against those who behave in such an undesirable way. Indeed, it is important that we see this attitude as a natural and rational consequence of a set of non-theistic presuppositions.

3. Why should Ferrin be puzzled by Skinner’s claim that man, who is controlled by his environment, also constructs that environment? Such a concept is common to all of us when we “decide” to improve some aspect of our behavior, e.g., “quitting smoking.”

4. It is unfortunate that the author has chosen so many clearly non-Christian sources to assist in the attack. It would not be unreasonable to note that Bertrand Russell was somewhat less than a strong advocate of a thorough-going Christian philosophy.

Atlanta, Ga.

JOSEPH T. PAGE

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