Eutychus and His Kin: October 27, 1972

Mnemonic Music

When I arrived home today my daughter, the psychiatrist-to-be, was in the kitchen. On the table, left from breakfast time, was a Cream of Wheat box with a special offer on the back. The only things I read with unfailing regularity are the backs of cereal boxes. On this particular box was a record offer for children’s stories from the old “Let’s Pretend” radio program of thirty-odd years ago.

Immediately, without thinking, I began singing:

Cream of Wheat

Is so good to eat

That we have it every day.

Ta ta ta

And it makes us strong

Ta ta ta ta ta ta ta

“What in the world is that, Daddy?” asked my daughter.

“It’s the commercial they always sang on the old ‘Let’s Pretend’ radio show back in the thirties.”

“Well,” she said hesitantly, “it’s not a bad song.”

Later in the evening, preparing to write this column, I was wandering around the house looking for a piece of typing paper, all the while humming and singing. I stopped to listen to myself—something no one in my family does with any great frequency. What I was belting out in my best soul-blues style was:

Aren’t you glad you use Dial?

Don’t you wish everybody did?

Apparently my mind is very suggestible. On other occasions I’ve found myself melodiously reminding the world that:

If you’ve got the time

We’ve got the beer.

For about six weeks I went around expressing my desire to buy the world a Coke.

Somehow this melodic merchandising does what the sponsors intend: it sticks in my brain. But from the standpoint of the advertisers’ investment, it’s probably a loss. While I sing their songs, I use only one of those products.

What is striking in all this is the staying power of music. No doubt, thirty years from now the proper reminder will cause some forty-year-old to break into:

I’d like to teach the world to sing

In perfect harmony …

While part of this effect is produced by sheer repetition, many of the songs are engaging and very singable.

Somehow we ought to be able to use this phenomenon for Christ. To that end Christians could make more judicious use of their stereos by surrounding themselves with Christian music. Perhaps then our unconscious singing would remind ourselves and others of our faith.

And you Christian musicians, whereever you are, couldn’t you provide us with some more engaging contemporary music?

EUTYCHUS V

TWO SPECTRA

I find CHRISTIANITY TODAY a helpful magazine in my ministry. I also take the Christian Century to keep informed of another spectrum. I must admit that I find your magazine consistently more helpful. Keep up the good work!

ANDREW C. BYERS

First Presbyterian Church

Franklin, N. J.

LOGS VS. WHEELS

I continue to be amazed at the “guilt by association” philosophy often espoused by supporters of the Christian school. D. B. Lockerbie, in his article “Christian Schools: Whole Truth for Whole Persons” (Sept. 15), writes off a great potential for positive contributions to classroom learning made available by modern technology because of its endorsement by behaviorist B. F. Skinner. The Skinnerian philosophy of behavioral conditioning has been treated as though synonymous with the many alternate forms of audio-tutorial systems in use today. Such a sweeping generalization is both unfair and misleading.

It is only the casual observer of audio-tutorial learning systems who can hold the rather naïve position that technology will “eliminate the human teacher”.… The new technologies allow the teacher, perhaps for the first time, to exercise a truly professional evaluation and prescriptive instruction so vital to each student’s total education.

I fear for the Christian school in the United States if it is not allowed to implement proven educational technologies, especially when they do not compromise, and may even enhance, the commitment to the “total truth” viewpoint of Christian education. Why should the Christian school curriculum roll along on logs when the wheel and axle has already been invented?

WENDELL F. MCBURNEY

Indiana University

Bloomington, Indiana

COPPING OUT?

A basic question which underlies your editorial “Assignment For Christian Citizens” (Sept. 15) is, “Are the creation ordinances to be perceived through special revelation or natural revelation?” If through special revelation, the need is not for “a Christian political party,” but for courageous Christian ministers who will do the necessary hard work of applying biblical truth to today’s complex moral issues. A Christian’s position is never determined by a party boss, even if he’s Christian, but by the Word of God. On the other hand, if creation ordinances can be perceived through natural revelation, the need is for Christians to get so involved in the arena of life that they build a platform of influence from which they can “persuade others” that the most just, fair, human position is best for all. The Christian will know that this can only be true if it is also biblical. In either case, the call for “a Christian political party” is a cop-out to the obviously hard work at hand.

PAUL L. BYER

Pasadena, Calif.

We already have such a party—the Prohibition party, in existence for over 100 years. Its address is P. O. Box 2635, Denver, Colorado 80201. Why do Christian periodicals in general ignore this fact? Is it the fear of ridicule and the misconception that it is a “one idea” party when its platform disproves this allegation? Or could it be because the party is not on the ballot in all states? California has ruled us off the ballot, but we still can write in the names of our presidential candidates and they are counted by order of the registrar of voters. If enough “protest” votes were cast, some attention would be given to Christian voters. Because of disunity on the part of Christians when it comes to moral issues, most politicians ignore us.

H. D. GOLDTHWAITE

Prohibition Party Committeeman

Santa Ana, Calif.

LUTHERAN CORRECTIONS

In my report on the First Lutheran Conference on the Holy Spirit (“Charismatic Sweep in Minneapolis,” Sept. 15), reference was made to a Tofte, Minnesota, Lutheran pastor whose leg had grown two inches after a charismatic evangelist had prayer for him. This was an error; the correct growth was one inch. However, other persons with similar back ailments who received prayers for healing at the conference reportedly had leg growths of two inches.

Also, the $18,000 expenses for the conference did not include the costs of the flights of chartered planes from Europe, as the report said. These were met by the Europeans themselves.

WILLMAR L. THORKELSON

Minneapolis, Minn.

A MODEL

Your news story in the September 29 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, “Charges Lodged: Seminary on the Spot,” is a model of fair and objective reporting. I have been a pastor in the Missouri Synod for eighteen years and cannot find one sentence in your article that I would change. I can also attest to the accuracy of your statement, “The election of Preus to the presidency in 1969 was a surprise—he made no effort to seek the post—and he is obviously much more concerned with the outcome of the theological battle than with his own future.”

CLIFFORD BREGE

Immanuel Lutheran Church

Saginaw, Mich.

Through the years your journal has reflected the effort of its editors to deal with the problems of Christian denominations in a reasonably dispassionate and objective manner. It is doubly sad, therefore, to see you depart from this policy in your editorial “Missouri: Peace in Our Time?” and the “news” article “Charges Lodged: Seminary on the Spot.” President Preus and the faculty of Concordia Seminary are engaged in a process of discussion and search. The administrative agents of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod are undertaking their respective roles in assisting this process. The basic issues themselves need to be uncovered and faced. Therefore to find your journal declaring itself in favor of one party in this difficulty is to see you aligning yourself with the hucksters of prejudice rather than responsible journalists.

RICHARD R. CAEMMERER, SR.

Concordia Seminary

St. Louis, Mo.

I am amazed and thankful that your journal could be so objective and truthful, getting at the heart of the Missouri Synod’s problems. I thank you for your clear reporting, which shows Dr. Preus for the “champion” of the Lord’s truth.

CHARLES T. PIAZZA

Calvary Lutheran Church

Plymouth, Ind.

It was helpful to be reminded in your editorial that the secular world rarely shows interest in or understanding for the church’s desire for truth and certainty in regard to scriptural teachings. Unfortunately, the notion that fixed and absolute truth is unavailable and perhaps unessential has found adherents even in the church.

Your analysis highlights the problems and indicates needed remedies. One reason why doctrinal purity in a time of theological crisis is difficult to retain or regain is the high cost and the slow development of individualized ingredients containing a potential for victory. Genuine appreciation of the priceless and indispensable value of truth requires the presence of a deeply rooted corrective—a firm and Spirit-wrought belief in the total and detailed accuracy of Scripture.…

Your editorial renders a service also in focusing attention away from mere personalities and in directing it pointedly to the issues of the controversy.… Church history shows that concentration on personalities polarizes the church.

Oliver C. RUPPRECHT

Concordia College

Milwaukee, Wisc.

AND WE’RE OUT

Strike three!!! Your editorial “Church Buildings: Who Needs Them?” (Sept. 29) just about ended the ball game between myself and your magazine. I am amazed at the lack of biblical substance and interpretation on your part. How can you possibly draw any reasonable connection between Mary of Bethany (pouring costly oils on Jesus) and our church buildings, using that incident as a rationale for “extravagance”?

Man seems to have this need to build beautiful and extravagant buildings “for God,” but the Lord seems to pay little attention to them. The first chapters of Second Chronicles go into great detail concerning the building of the Temple, but note in chapter 7 what the Lord’s response to all of that is: his accepting of the buildings is secondary in contrast to the warnings and disciplines that he gives to his people. May I suggest that you sit through the trustee meeting or even a deacon meeting of any large church. I’m sure that you’ll quickly become aware that money and property are ends in themselves, and not the tools (and nothing more) that God intended them to be.

When George Forman stalked down the aisles of American churches demanding reparations for blacks, he wasn’t playing hopscotch. He knew that church business was good business, and operated on a profit factor of which G. M. would be proud. All we do is clothe our wealth in biblical terminology. I would hazard a guess that from 30 to 50 per cent of every church’s budget is spent on either building or maintaining property that is used exclusively for itself. Let’s face it: Institutionalism Is Rampant.

I resent greatly your throwing out Hargrave’s quote without even attempting to explain it. That’s called “taking phrases out of context,” I believe. And then you throw in Harvey Cox’s name for no other apparent reason than to incite. Perhaps Hargrave is closer to a workable definition of the New Testament church than are many of our evangelical congregations today. May I also ask what you mean by labeling home congregations as reinforcing “social exclusiveness”? What do you think our conservative church buildings are doing today?

JOHN KEPLER

Trinity Baptist Church

Marion, Ohio

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