Eutychus and His Kin: May 9, 1975

What’S Sauce For The Gander

The Roman Catholic bishop of San Diego recently caused a furor not only in his diocese but around the country by declaring that persons who belong to organizations that militantly support abortion on demand cannot receive communion in his jurisdiction. Although various lower diocesan officials have explained that this is not exactly excommunication, it is not quite clear to this Protestant, poorly versed in Roman canon law, what the difference is (which is not to say that he disagrees with the bishop). A prudent man, the bishop left for Europe before his announcement was published, leaving local clergy to take care of (or take) the consequences.

There is, of course, some question about the propriety of blanket sanctions levied against mere membership in a particular organization, especially one such as the National Organization of Women, many of whose policies and goals are not at all inconsistent with Christian or Roman Catholic aims. But NOW’s militant advocacy of abortion on demand (“freedom of choice”) is, and it is this aspect of the organization that drew the bishop’s fire.

Before those who object to the idea that a church should have anything to say about what its members believe launch into bombastic attacks on the bishop, it might be well to observe that turning people away at the altar has a long and honorable history. The most celebrated incident was certainly one involving the Roman emperor Theodosius and the archbishop of Milan, Ambrose, the patron and advisor of Augustine. Theodosius, angered at the way a group of citizens had demonstrated against him, invited them to a stadium to “discuss matters.” Then he sent in the late Roman equivalent of the shock troops and had quite a few of them killed. When he subsequently presented himself for communion (so the story goes—there is some conflict about details), Ambrose turned him away, announcing that he could not be received unless he first repented and did public penance for his misdeed. Perhaps that seems an inadequate way of dealing with an emperor who had in effect ordered a massacre. On the other hand, if you were in Ambrose’s shoes, you might have found that it took a bit of courage to stand up to an ordinary emperor, much more one with the record of Theodosius. In any event, Ambrose’s action had the desired effect—Theodosius publicly repented of his wrongdoing. It may not be much, but if we recall how difficult it is in our own country for any theologian or spiritual leader to get any political figure to admit to anything more than a “mistake in judgment,” despite the fact that our leaders don’t have a Pretorian Guard to deal with obnoxious clergy, we should appreciate Ambrose.

Of course, the NOW women wouldn’t have been recognized at the altar had they not taken the precaution of wearing buttons—something Theodosius didn’t need to do. If they were turned away, all that we can say is that what’s sauce for the gander is none too good for the geese.

EUTYCHUS VI

Three Points And Praise

Members of the Lutheran Church are always grateful for the objective and fair coverage of our problems in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. May I correct, however, three errors of fact in the March 28 report (“Prospecting For Peace in the Missouri Synod”).

1. As president of Concordia Seminary in Springfield, Illinois, I can assure the readers of CHRISTIANITY TODAY that things are not “simmering” these days at our school, if by simmering one means unrest or dissatisfaction with our school. The spirit and morale of both faculty and students here is very high, a fact immediately noted by visitors. Our faculty is united theologically, and we look forward to a faculty next fall which will be one of the finest in our history.

2. Professor Victor Bohlmann has chosen to resign from teaching at our school, as of now, because he believed he was entitled to tenure a couple of years ago. His action has nothing to do whatsoever with the other unfortunate events transpiring in our church body. The Board of Control mistakenly thought that he did not have tenure, and in all good faith offered him a year’s contract. Such a gesture is hardly the act of an institution which “lacks integrity.”

3. The opposition seminary, operating in St. Louis under their euphemistic title “Seminex,” did not receive accreditation from the Association of Theological Schools.

I also wish to thank Dr. Lindsell for his perception and accuracy in his article “Who Is Right in the Missouri Synod Dispute?” (April 11).

The issue in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is the inerrancy and authority of Scripture and the indiscriminate use of the historical critical method.… Dr. Tietjen knows this as well as anyone. For five years some of us on the faculty at Concordia Seminary tried in every possible way to have him face the issue as president, and have the matter discussed within the faculty. He adamantly refused. The only smokescreen in the Missouri Synod today is Dr. Tietjen’s thin and transparent beclouding of the issues.

President

Concordia Theological Seminary

Springfield, Ill.

Dr. Lindsell’s analysis, I am sure, is correct; and it is so refreshing to have someone from outside the Missouri Synod come to the conclusions he did and have the courage to say so and to write it down. I’m glad this analysis appeared in the same issue with the half-truths and evasions of Dr. Tietjen, who, I see, still claims that he was never told what the false doctrines are he is holding and defending.

Chairman, Department of Exegetical Theology

Concordia Seminary

St. Louis, Mo.

Harold Lindsell’s assessment of the dispute in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is correct.… One additional comment should be made, namely, that Dr. Tietjen and his colleagues have infused the term “inerrancy” with an entirely new meaning. They define inerrancy as the quality of being able to effect God’s purposes. The conservatives conserve the dictionary meaning of the word as the quality of being without error. The two positions are a thousand light years apart.

Our Redeemer Lutheran Church

Eureka, Ill.

Unfair! We were grateful that you at last published the other side of the Missouri Synod problem. But then you followed it with Dr. Lindsell’s own judgmental analysis. In effect he refused to accept Dr. Tietjen’s declaration: “I fully accept the authority of the Bible. I am totally committed to the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God.” Why is it so difficult for him to believe that the conflict is more than a dispute over [biblical] inspiration?

I became a member of ELIM because of the manifest injustice done to Dr. Tietjen and the Concordia Seminary faculty majority.… Yes, I believe in an inspired Bible and a living Lord. Therefore I cannot take lightly the injunction of Scripture, “Seek justice, correct oppression” (Isa. 1:17a).… The Missouri Synod has never believed in an official exegesis. We rejoice in our freedom to approach the Holy Scripture praying only that the Holy Spirit will there speak God’s truth to us. Because we do not agree 100 per cent with the councils and conventions of men does not make us Bible doubters. It is because we are believers, not doubters, that we insist upon our freedom under Christ.

Christ Memorial Lutheran Church

Plymouth, Minn.

Reeking Wall Street

An interesting and sickening contrast can be seen in your April 11 issue. On page fifteen is a picture of a mother and child near death from starvation. On the back cover is a picture of an apparently very well off gentleman standing beside a $10,000 automobile. In the first instance the plea is for money to feed starving people; in the second the offer is made to “build financial security within just a few years.” This second ad reeks of the Wall Street mentality responsible for exploiting the greed of Americans to capitalize on our over-consumption. The rationale used by many wealthy Christians (“I tithe 10 per cent and the rest of my money is for me”) is wholly inadequate in today’s world situation. “And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”

St. Paul, Minn.

A Dutch Face

James Montgomery Boice’s article, “Is the Reformed Faith Being Rediscovered?” (March 28), unfortunately ignores those vital portions of the Reformed community which are not of Anglo-Saxon derivation. To many Dutch immigrants and their descendants, the Reformed faith means more than the theological formulas discussed in this article. Rather, they have dedicated their lives to the full-life concept of Soli Deo Gloria. In their struggle to bring all aspects of man’s living under the Lordship of Christ, a handful of people have sacrificed to initiate innumerable organizations scattered over the entire face of this continent. Some of these include: a large system of Christian grade and high schools, four Christian colleges (Calvin, as mentioned, Dordt in Iowa, Trinity Christian in Palo Heights, Ill., and King’s in Alberta), a growing graduate-level institution in Toronto, a Christian political organization in the United States, and a Christian farmer’s organization in Canada.

Carrboro, N. C.

Boice lists a number of great Christian leaders of the past who essentially subscribed to Calvinistic doctrine. He then says:

For these the doctrines of grace were not an appendage to Christian thought, something that could be temporarily set aside in the interests of a greater, so called evangelical unity; these doctrines were central to their faith, and fired and gave form to their preaching and missionary efforts.

Naturally whatever we believe will “fire and give form to” all we do in the cause of Christ.… Does Boice regard all non-Calvinists as merely “so-called evangelicals”?… Many times the Reformed confessions and catechisms are given a place of authority practically on a par with the Bible itself. These documents and the writings of the Reformers are quoted to substantiate doctrinal positions in virtually the same manner as the Bible is quoted to substantiate doctrinal positions. This is very curious when done by people whose motto is so often proclaimed as being “sola scriptura.”

Assembly of God Church

Clayton, N. Mex.

James Montgomery Boice’s article clearly represents what I believe is the finest characteristic of CHRISTIANITY TODAY: concise, accurate, stimulating journalism. The fact that my own heart has recently “rediscovered the Reformed faith” biases my attitude towards Boice’s article, but this is merely the occasion that has spurred me to congratulate your magazine.

Assistant Professor of Bible

Bryan College

Dayton, Tenn.

Second Best

The Total Woman is the second best thing that ever happened to me, the first being my conversion to Jesus Christ. If Carol Prester McFadden (“Significant Books of 1974: Ethics and Discipleship,” March 14) would interview Marabel Morgan she’d discover that the book was written to the unsaved. Does she really “regret” that 370,000 plus have read God’s plan of salvation here?

R. B. QUATTLEBAUM, JR.

Savannah, Ga.

In Warm Tones

I was cheered to read the good things that Carl F. H. Henry wrote about Orlando Costas’s new book, The Church and Its Mission (Footnotes, Feb. 14). The warm tone of the review might indicate a desire for increasing rapport between evangelical theologians of the more historical and dogmatic tradition with evangelical missiologists, like Costas, who are striving to articulate the issues involved in the contextualization of theology, particularly now as contemporary expressions emerge from the growing Third World churches.

However, I would like to argue that the point at which Henry calls Costas vulnerable is, as a matter of fact, Costas’s strongest and most valid missiological thesis. Henry says, “Scripture alone is not the norm for Costas, but rather Scripture in correlation with the critically viewed contemporary politico-economic context.” A missiologist would ask Henry to justify this notion of “Scripture alone,” apart from context. Whether the context be the Semitic culture of the Old Testament or the Greco-Roman-Hebraic culture of the New, biblical hermeneutics cannot proceed to a satisfactory understanding of revelation without considering them simultaneously with Scripture. Furthermore the biblical interpreter must face the additional problem of his own cultural conditioning which he must intentionally bracket before moving to “Scripture alone.” And in addition the missiologist, interested in seeing that revelation is adequately contextualized in yet another culture, faces the even more complex task of a phenomenological understanding of the receptor culture before he can begin to apply “Scripture alone.”

This is not to deny a supracultural element in revelation. However it is to suggest that the methodology of understanding it and transmitting it, that Costas so skillfully describes, may well turn out to be much more helpful to World Christianity than some of the more traditional methodologies of Western Christianity.

Associate Professor of Church Growth

Fuller Theological Seminary

Pasadena, Calif.

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