Eutychus and His Kin: March 16, 1973

Revolting Men

Too long we men have been silent about the sexist nature of the Bible. Without question an anti-masculine stance characterizes the Scriptures in general.

It begins right at the beginning. Apparently Miriam and Zipporah got to Moses and muddled his mind. In Genesis 4:26 he comments about the third generation of the race that “at that time men began to call upon the name of the Lord.” Moses apparently assumes that women either (a) did not need to call upon the name of the Lord or (b) were already doing so. The passage is an obvious, unforgivable slight to men.

And who are the perverted in the city of Sodom? The men, of course (Gen. 19:4). Presumably the women had kept their virtue in the midst of all this masculine depravity.

Moses’ crowning insult to men is recorded in the first chapter of Numbers. When it was necessary to gird for war to take the promised land, notice who was numbered to go. Right again—the men! Women were too valuable to expend in war.

This theme of masculine inferiority is also seen in Ecclesiastes. Solomon, continually reminded of the inferiority of males by his thousand wives, crumbled under pressure and wrote: “For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of the beasts is the same.” The logical conclusion from his silence about women is that the daughters of women are destined for some better fate.

Even the Psalmist fell into this trap. He asks: “O Lord, what is man that thou dost regard him, or the son of man that thou dost think of him?” Obviously David felt it was self-evident what woman is that God should regard her.

And when the writer of Proverbs wants to describe wisdom to his son, does he picture a bearded sage with snowy locks? Surprise—wisdom is a she (Prov. 1:20)!

When we turn to the New Testament we find it’s no better. In the gospel accounts, virtually all the real villains are men. All the women are either faithful followers of Jesus or at worst weak creatures victimized by men.

Paul, often pictured by feminists as the original male chauvinist pig, is in actuality a detractor of men. He boldly asserts that in Adam all die (1 Cor. 15:22). If you will check the data closely in Genesis 3, you will find that it was mother Eve who took the first forbidden nibble. Paul blithely sails over this evidence and fixes the blame on poor old Adam. Gentlemen, we’ve been had.

So there you have the whole unhappy business. It just goes to show that a little prooftexting and some phony exegesis will prove anything.

EUTYCHUS V

THE BURMESE QUALITY

I am writing to commend you for including the news article “The Church in Burma: Survival and Growth” (Jan. 19).… I would add that the Baptist churches alone have experienced a net growth of more than 25,000 baptized believers since missionaries were ousted in 1966. Permit me to suggest two minor corrections. Judson worked almost entirely among the Burmese, although the Karen “people movement” did begin during his lifetime. The Shans, who are Buddhists like the Burmese, have given little response to the Gospel. The Chins and Kachins, however, have responded strongly, and now constitute the second and third largest groups within the church. Last April, for instance, 12,000 Kachins attended the triennial meeting of the Kachin Baptist Convention, held about fifty miles from the Burma-China border. (The government assisted through making available needed supplies such as rice.)

Since both the “Red Flag” and “White Flag” Communist parties in Burma have been fighting the government of U Ne Win, it should be made clear that his totalitarian program, whatever else may be said about it, is not doctrinaire Communism. Christians, for instance, are continuing to experience freedom to worship, carry on Bible schools and seminaries, and propagate their faith.

Perhaps some observers “feared the worst” for Burma when the missionaries were ousted back in 1966. Few missionaries, however, were that worried, knowing the quality of Burma’s Christians, and sharing to some extent in the confidence of Judson, who when the outlook seemed very discouraging believed the future was “as bright as the promises of God.”

HERMAN G. TEGENFELDT

Associate Professor of Missions

Bethel Theological Seminary

St. Paul, Minn.

INTELLECTUAL ACUITY

Many thanks for the article “Onward, Christian Soldiers?” (Feb. 2), one which in my opinion has been long overdue. It is gratifying to see that there still are those Christian scholars who are not afraid to speak out in support of the military, an opinion which, it seems, is increasingly heard less and less for fear of being “unpopular” or “not with it.” But an opinion which accords more with the facts of reality than the more oft heard one labeling the military and anyone involved with the military as killers. Dr. Tischler’s article has touched upon issues that have hounded the Church since its very existence (even more so since the Constantinian era). Historically the Church has usually faced the problems squarely and with intellectual acuity, whereas now much of the Church has boarded the popular bandwagon of scholastic bankruptcy and popularism.

LT. LIONEL GREVE

Chaplain, USNR

Bristol, Conn.

I have just finished “Onward, Christian Soldiers?” and had to write and thank you for this excellent article. CHRISTIANITY TODAY has been a favorite publication of mine for some time. I always look forward to each publication. However, I appreciated this article more than any previous article of similar nature. In a time when such an outlook is not popular, I rejoice that the printed page can be used to point out our shortcomings. Now that many servicemen will be returning home, the Church has a Christian obligation to treat them with Christian love as human beings and Americans that have sacrificed much for this nation, not as uncivilized creatures from another world.

Church of God

E. C. HURLEY

Crestline, Ohio

I agree that wars have given us freedom and prosperity in America, and that to renounce violence and war might well involve giving up a measure of this freedom and prosperity. But we were quite willing to destroy a people (the Indians) to gain this country to begin with. Why should we cling to this tainted freedom and prosperity? Personally, it makes me quite uncomfortable, because God has passed judgment on such nations and societies in the past. He has given them over to their enemies—despite the strength of their armies.

Rolla, Mo.

ROSALEE WARREN

While I recognize Dr. Tischler’s right to write as she did and to feel as she does, I want to be on record as personally rejecting her tired logic and her shallow condemnation of the voices of opposition to the tragic war just ended and the dangers of militarism. Her article is so full of self-inflicted contradictions it would take another whole article to answer her completely; but at one point her defense of military men per se, on the grounds that “the military man does not have the freedom to decide when and where he will fight.… He has not caused the war nor decided to engage in it; his job is to carry out orders,” is the very reason why the military has become so suspect among some thoughtful people today. Dr. Tischler cannot convince me on the one hand that the military leaders are thoughtful, understanding, openminded, and compassionate men, and then ask me to excuse their actions in an immoral—yes immoral—war on the basis that they have no freedom and must simply carry out orders. That, for heaven’s sake, is what so much of the controversy is all about!

RICHARD C. WOODSOME

North Anderson Church of God

Anderson, Ind.

WOMEN IN THE FORE

You may not appreciate how good it was to read “Big Sister Is Watching” in your news section (Jan. 19).… As a long-time broadcaster (twenty-six years) and a relatively new Christian (I met Christ five years ago), this very problem has been troubling me now for some time. However, when any of us concerns ourselves about such matters by ourselves, nothing is what usually happens. In an attempt to see what is wrong with TV, and to what degree, I have even logged stations for their full broadcast days. The results are staggering as far as the number of commercials and the nature and treatment of subject matter is concerned. But you failed to give the address of Leadership Federation.…

It has been my observation that, all too often, when something needs doing and it just doesn’t get done, if the ladies take over, things begin to happen. There is no reason to believe that such will not be the case in this instance. God bless you, gals! And, maybe, if we promise to stay in our places and not “take over,” perhaps you’ll even allow some of us men to get in line and join in the effort to clean up television so that it is fit for every member of every family to watch. Who knows? Who knows? It might even be possible that (aside from an hour or so on very early Sunday mornings), we may be able to see some shows (in prime time?) that have some genuine value on those TV sets of ours.

Brandon, Vt.

DICK NOEL

• The address is: 4808 Cleveland Park Station, Washington, D. C. 20008.—ED.

OPEN VERSE

Regarding Marti McCartney’s verse letter on verse libre (Feb. 16), I’d like to make three points. First, bad poetry is bad poetry, whether or not rhymed and metered. Second, contra Robert Frost, tennis with the net down is a more difficult, if not an entirely different, game. Third, whether or not Robert Graves is a “great bard,” he is fanatically anti-Christian, to the point of denying that a poet can be a Christian. When Graves calls free verse heresy, he means a heresy from the goddess cult which, in The White Goddess, he elaborates as the only source of true poetry. As a Christian who writes open (not “free”) verse, I’m very glad to be considered heretical by the cranky likes of Mr. Graves.

Rolla, Mo.

EUGENE WARREN

May I say how much I have enjoyed the poetry recently printed in CHRISTIANITY TODAY. “Power Failure” by Francis Maguire (Dec. 8) is one example of the artistically integrated, thoughtful verse offered.

West Chicago, Ill.

LUCI SHAW

If, as stated, CHRISTIANITY TODAY aspires to be “A Fortnightly Magazine of Evangelical Conviction,” and if clarity and rightness of theological thinking may be assumed to be the necessary stance of the material included therein, how can anyone explain the appearance of the free verse (or whatever) “poem” “Thinking to Pray” by Eugene Warren?

What kind of attempt at the spectacular could be more offensive than this description of a confused mind still appraising—himself—and attempting to sound spectacular! So spectacular, in fact, that he sent the result to you—and it was published!… Sirs, the Lord of all the earth is not impressed and not edified by a jumble of affected jargon written in an attempt to be spectacular, and CHRISTIANITY TODAY should not be the tool for the dissemination of such unworthy and confused thinking.

Lincolnwood, Ill.

G. L. STRANDBERG

A DEBUNKING MATTER

I wish to correct an error which appeared in my essay “The Pastoral Ministry: Preparation” (Feb. 16). At one point I apparently complain about certain Christians who “debunk intellectualism.” It was my intention to say, “debunk intellectuality.” Intellectualism, the view that knowledge is exclusively intellectual, should be debunked; intellectuality, an essential quality of the image of God, should not.

DAVID WELLS

Associate Professor of Church History

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Deerfield, Ill.

My compliments to Dr. Wells for his excellent essay on seminary preparation. As a guideline, his presentation is invaluable, and his guiding educational philosophy—teach the intellectual courses more intelligently and the practical courses more pragmatically—is simple, yet insightful. One suggestion which might be considered in the area of personal growth is rather than giving faculty more opportunity to guide the students in their spiritual lives, as Dr. Wells suggests, give that opportunity to the student. Perhaps one of the best untapped clinical situations the student is confronted with is the ministry to his fellow students. A structured period of time allowing for student dialogue on a personal level would fit nicely into Wells’s suggested program.

Dallas, Tex.

ROBERT WALL

Being a senior in Bible college and looking forward to seminary training, I found the essay by David F. Wells very pertinent to my present situation. Much of his article can be applied to Bible-college training. His suggestion that practical instruction be shifted, as to location, from the institution to the local church is correct. His comments concerning widespread anti-intellectualism were most interesting.

Columbia, S. C.

CLINTON MORRISON

A QUESTION OF LIBERTY

In response to your February 16 editorial “Abortion and the Court,” I would like to point out that there are many Christians—evangelicals like myself among them—who feel that abortion is a question of Christian liberty. I resent your constant equation of your personal position on the issue with “the moral teachings of Christianity through the ages.”

I have thoroughly studied the biblical, theological, medical, sociological, and legal aspects of the issue, and I find it much more difficult to come to a hard and fast rule in the matter than you seem to. You say you find it difficult to understand the contention that conception is a “process” and to see how this relates to the broader issues of when personhood begins. I suggest you read the pertinent chapters of Walter Spitzer’s and Carlyle Saylor’s Birth Control and the Christian, particularly the chapter by Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, dean of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. There he makes a clear, and to me convincing, case on biblical and theological grounds for the development of personhood beginning at conception, yes, but only attaining completion at birth. One accepting Kantzer’s argument would have no difficulty in seeing the Supreme Court’s decision as compatible with Christian principles.

Also, you seem to dismiss the Court’s argument from the right of privacy without any additional “empirical or logical justification.” Is not this right of privacy also one of the bulwarks protecting every Christian’s right of conscience? While it is true that any decision concerning conception should be shared by both parents, the practice of the double standard has often left women to bear this decision alone. And what makes you think that men would be less likely to favor abortion than women? (Incidentally, you also seem to feel that the majority of Americans share your condemnation of abortion. However, several nationwide polls have shown that the majority of Americans do favor making abortion a matter of decision between the parents and their physician.)

Getting hysterical over the decision and suggesting that it will lead to infanticide and euthanasia does not help the situation. However, recognizing at last that the United States is not a “Christian country” and that Christians will have to begin to think through their own moral values rather than blindly accepting the ethics of common law is a very healthy step forward. Christians can no longer shrug off the issue of abortion by saying “it’s illegal.” Now they will have to give some serious study and thought to the issue. Rather than merely pointing to “Christian tradition” (I notice you can’t claim biblical authority on this one), why not explore all sides of the issue?

Mundelein, Ill.

NANCY HARDESTY

May I express hearty thanks for what was to me the only interpretation from an evangelical Christian point of view concerning the abortion issue and the Supreme Court ruling that I have read. As a missionary in Japan (1950–70) I felt keenly many times the impact of your statement: “The American state no longer supports in any meaningful sense the laws of God.…” The American missionary’s task in recent years has been difficult enough, what with the racial disturbances, the Viet Nam war, the rulings on pornography and so on, and this ruling will not make his task any easier, or his witness for Christ any more convincing.

Washington, D. C.

WORTH C. GRANT

It seems to me that you have always been able to see into the background of issues facing this nation and have kept them in perspective until this article. Here the emotion of the issue seems to have clouded your vision. The basic mistake is to confuse legality and morality. The Court’s decision does not compel abortion, though it admittedly makes legal what you point out is immoral. The same thing happened in the case of alcohol. It is not a question of whether these abortions shall be made legal.

We in America have lived under the illusion that this is a Christian nation, and that our laws will always reflect the highest morality. If for no other reason, the Court’s decision should awaken Christians to the fact that legality for the American and morality for the Christian are two different things. The same thought may be expressed relating to prayers in the public schools. It is not the business of the public institution to teach spirituality to our children, but rather that of the church and the parent.… If we Christians would get over the idea of political power and influence and concentrate our efforts of persuasion toward setting forth the higher morality of the Christian, much of our labor would no longer be wasted as it is now.

The last sentence of your article is the most significant of all, and really sets forth the issues clearly. I question whether the American state has ever supported the laws of God, but in any case, first-century Christians must indeed be amused, (if they are concerned with earthly things) at your concern over lack of support from the “state.” As I understand it, the world, including our own country, is and has been from the beginning at enmity with Christ and those who are determined to follow him.

I do enjoy your magazine, but feel you missed the basic issue here. Separation of church and state goes beyond financial support.

Fort Worth, Tex.

GEORGE L. NORRIS

TV ABORTION

I read with interest the editorial in your February 16 issue “Aborting ‘Maude’.”

As an outgrowth of this particular series on “Maude” and the general handling of morality in media, the Texas Congress of Parent Teacher Association petitioned all of the networks, the President of the United States, right down the line to the state government to hold hearings to see if there has not been a violation of the moral code that all networks in good standing subscribe to.… It is going to take much more than just “switching channels” to stop this programming, however.

MRS. M. L. MCFADDEN

San Angelo, Tex.

NO OUTGROWTH

Your December 22 issue referred to IFCO as “the outgrowth of James Forman’s financial assault on the churches.” This is a grossly unfair and incorrect statement. IFCO was incorporated and began to operate in 1966—three years before Forman’s “assault.” We are not an outgrowth of anything related to Forman. We are a creation of church agencies to provide money, technical assistance, and training to community organizations.

LUCIUS WALKER, JR.

Executive Director

IFCO

New York, N. Y.

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