Eutychus and His Kin: March 29, 1974

Problems Of The Brain Drain

After getting along for centuries on a small number of select universities, Germany has found it now needs more. And so West Germany has founded several new ones. But it has discovered, to its distress, that in certain disciplines there were not enough qualified German professors to staff them. In the United States, on the other hand, there has been a surplus of Ph.D.’s. In the wake of government cutbacks in funds for research and teaching, unemployed Ph.D.’s can be found doing anything from driving taxis to raising cattle. America’s problem became Germany’s opportunity, and the West German state of Bavaria decided to call several American scientists to teach at its new universities.

But a problem of academic protocol arose. The Americans were for the most part gratified to learn that, because of their earned Ph.D.’s, they were called “Herr Doktor” or even “Herr Professor Doktor.” But many Germans, who had heard that American schools are mostly diploma mills, were aghast at hearing those titles bandied about with abandon. Several proprietors of German doctorates protested to the Bavarian Kultusminister (Minister of Culture): the title “Doktor” is protected by law in Germany. When a person has been awarded an honorary doctorate in Germany (they are very rare), a subtle distinction is sometimes enforced by referring to him as “Herr Doktor h.c. So-und-So.” The “h.c.” stands for honoris causa. Shocked, the Herr Kultusminister decided that no American was entitled to be Herr Doktor unless his degree was “made in Germany.” He might, however, be called “Herr Ph.D.”

We do not need to explore the question whether the American Ph.D. is really an “Unterdoktor” by comparison with a German-made Dr. phil. (The German goes directly to the “university” at age nineteen or twenty, Abitur in hand. Granted, an Abitur is far superior to the typical American high school diploma. But is it superior to a good B.A.? If he pushes, the German can get the Dr. phil. in three or four years—rather fast by comparison with the American route through the B.A. and possibly a master’s before the Ph.D.)

Never mind, the Germans feel strongly about the “Doktortitel,” and for the sake of academic courtesy the distinction can be preserved. But what are we to do when speaking English? We can hardly call a colleague “Ph.D. Smith”; we can’t even agree on the pronunciation of Ms. The best solution is to go on calling American Ph. and other D.’s doctor, as in the past, and observing the distinctiveness of a German-earned degree by designating it “Dr. Germ.” (doctor germanicus), or “Dr. Teut.” (doctor teutonicus).

In this way, too, those Americans who for one reason or another have earned their degree in the Vaterland would gain instant recognition. If asked, “Why are you called Doctor Toot?,” they could launch into an explanation of the superiorities of Teutonic education. If mocked and thereby enraged, they could legitimately pass their ire off as the famous furor teutonicus, already observed by the ancient Roman historian Tacitus. Swiss degrees could be called Dr. Hel. (for helveticus), Dutch Dr. Bat. (for batavicus), Japanese Dr. Jap., and so on, but too many complications might arise. It would probably be better to limit the benefits to the squeaky wheel, so to speak, and confine ourselves to Dr. Teut.

For those seeking employment in theological schools, the Dr. Teut. would virtually have cash value, except for certain institutions where it might be regarded with more suspicion than reverence. But the virtues would probably outweigh the disadvantages, and above all the Bavarians would be suitably repaid for their precision.

EUTYCHUS VI

Listening To Radio Church

I wrote C. Benjamin Hale, Jr.… expressing my appreciation for his article “Radio Church: Is Anyone Listening?” (Jan. 18).… I found his article very meaningful for me and my radio ministry. I wish that CHRISTIANITY TODAY would have more articles on religious radio.

PHIL C. BRYANT

Great Salkehatchie Baptist Church

Ulmer, S. C.

One Theology

The two of us have read with interest the article “A Church Without Theology” by C. René Padilla (Current Religious Thought, Feb. 1). Both of us have spent most of our adult lives in South America and know the author well. One of us had the joy of instructing Rene in the ABC’s of Bible truth and baptizing him over twenty-five years ago in Quito, Ecuador.

Sr. Padilla and many others in our day feel that several different theologies need to be developed—a European theology, a Latin American theology, a youth theology, a theology for the blacks, a theology for the intellectuals, etc. We suggest: What’s wrong with biblical theology? There is no need for many theologies. One theology is sufficient and satisfactory for the whole wide world.… Most main-line denominations here in the United States have their sophisticated theology systematically organized, and yet they are “dead” as concerns fervor for the Lord. We prefer that churches in all parts of the world have less “man-made theology” and more concern to preach Jesus to the lost and the fruit of the Spirit to the believers.

JAMES SAVAGE

ROBERT SAVAGE

Maracay, Venezuela

Muskegon, Mich.

Memo To Wormwood

I herewith send you a reaction to “An Intercepted Memorandum on Guerrilla Warfare” (Feb. 15):

DEAR WORMWOOD:

Flash! We must abandon at once our strategy of formalize, organize, and institutionalize as regards the Enemy and the guerrilla followers. Like an oil well that gushes all over the place until it is channeled through the pipeline … the guerrillas are more effective against our Father below with some measure of formalization. What we must do is keep them “gushing” and prevent the development of “pipelines” which effectively channel their resources, strength, and power.… Our research department has discovered that guerrillas organized and institutionalized have amazing guts for the long pull and frequently hurt our cause when there appears to be little life left. I guess, dear Wormwood, what I am saying is that our Plumbers Unit has discovered that the “pipelines” are an asset to the Enemy, not to us. We have misjudged the enemy camp.… If we can keep them “happy” as guerrillas, there is a good chance that their enthusiasm will be a passing fad, and the ultimate result will be that many of them will be more firmly in our Father’s camp than before they ventured forth into Enemy territory.

Your affectionate uncle,

SCREWTAPE

DELMAR L. ANDERSON

Newport Covenant Church

Bellevue, Wash.

Lutheran Footnotes

I sincerely hope that your news story “Missouri Synod: The Showdown” (News, Feb. 15) will be the last you will print concerning the troubles which are facing the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

While the events within the Missouri Synod may simply be a leading religious news story to the rest of Christianity, they are painful trauma to those of us who love our Synod dearly. At the present time we have received wide coverage in both religious and secular news media. Those articles have only served to add to the misinformation which has shaped the opinions of many people both within the Synod and without. The issues are complex and have been developing since the foundation of our church body in 1847. Most people that I have spoken to have the idea that the issue is the old Liberal vs. Conservative conflict.… That is an oversimplification. By briefly listing many complex events in a few columns you encourage such reactions and hurt our denomination. We need time to heal our wounds, time to try and reunite our church.

GARY W. SACKETT

Saint John Lutheran Church

Emporium, Pa.

In “Missouri Synod: The Showdown” you distinguish between liberals and conservatives in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Our “liberals” would be considered arch conservatives in other denominations. The battle is really between those interested in confessional Lutheranism and the proponents of the strange views of J. A. O. Preus. Whether Bryant calls deals attempts at “conciliation” or not, a deal is a deal is a deal. If Jacob Preus and his cohorts get a footnote in history, it will not be as ethical exemplars.

ARTHUR M. WEBER

Lutheran Services

Cornwall-on-the-Hudson, N. Y.

God Vs. Caesar

In reference to your editorial entitled “Smugglers Are Deceivers” in the March 1 issue, I have the following comments.

In Matthew 22:21 we are commanded by Jesus to “render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” That command is not an instruction to render God’s things to Caesar. Caesar has no right to usurp authority over the Bible, which is the word of God. It is not the legitimate right of Caesar to forbid us to do as Jesus commanded us when he said in Matthew 28:19, “Go ye therefore and teach all nations.” Where Caesar makes an attempt to usurp authority in the sphere which is properly God’s, we have an obligation to obey God rather than men.… The governments of the world are not sticking to the things due to Caesar when they attempt to stop the Scriptures of God from reaching people.…

Frankly, I am horrified at your colossal misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches. It is wrong to interpret one passage of Scripture in contradiction to another.… There are so many passages which command us to go and spread God’s word that I find it simply incredible that you consider this activity something which comes under Caesar’s authority.

B. COADY

Thompson, Conn.

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