Eutychus and His Kin: October 24, 1975

Further Protection For Human Subjects*

When George Orwell published his prophetic Nineteen Eighty-Four almost three decades ago, many readers felt he was too optimistic in his vision of the expansion and increased efficiency of government operations. However, the passage of time has shown that the naysayers were too pessimistic. No government—not even the American—has been able to achieve all that Orwell envisaged. But much progress has been made, and more, we feel sure, is on the way.

First, a failure. Orwell predicted the development of television sets that could transmit as well as receive, so that government experts could see into peoples’ homes and tell at a glance whether they were observing all the beneficial and protective guidelines set forth by government agencies. This has not happened, as far as we know—although friends of ours have gotten into the habit of turning the TV set to the wall and putting the parrot’s drop-cloth over it when they are not watching it.

On the positive side: foremost among the successes is the remaking of language to serve governmental purposes, as Orwell predicted. The vogue of Newspeak is not, however, limited to government; private enterprise has shown the way. Thus Dr. Bernard Nathanson named his thriving abortion facility in New York the Center for Reproductive Health. (He has since had second thoughts and quit the business.)

Government action in this area of Newspeak is signaled by the publication in the Federal Register for August 8, 1975 (pp. 33,526–33,552), of new “guidelines” for the “protection of human subjects.” Intended to “provide additional safeguards in reviewing activities,” the guidelines intend to assure that whatever procedures may be in store, they will “conform to appropriate ethical standards and relate to appropriate societal needs.”

For example, where it was once thought sufficient to refer to the unborn child as a fetus, in order to help dispel lingering hesitancy about the way it may be treated during procedures, HEW has now reclassified certain delivered things (words fail us) as fetus ex utero, and the aborted fetus as abortus. The use of these Latin terms is very comforting to those of us who long for the days of ancient Rome and classical civilization, otherwise sadly neglected.

Similar steps are under way in other areas. Private enterprise is developing the California-based Center for Political Health, a cooperative effort of the free-enterprise “Manson gang” and a public-service group, the Symbionese Liberation Army. Government officials and corporation executives, as well as others, have already received attention from the Center, and media reports hold forth the promise of more to come.

The HEW Commission on the Protection of Human Officials is reported to be working on new “guidelines.” First comes a more scientific terminology for the living but no longer viable executive (inasmuch as the decision to terminate his career has already been reached). As soon as the “political health decision” is reached, he can be referred to as the eliminandus. After completion of the initial procedure, the correct term is the interfectus. Some federal commissioners object to the downgrading of an eliminandus to an interfectus and insist that only those procedures may be used with eliminanduses (more correctly, eliminandi) that are intended to benefit its own life system, exactly as in the case of the fetus ex utero and the abortus. But most commissioners feel that all procedures are acceptable if they are passed by an ethical review board and serve “appropriate societal needs.”

In any case, it seems futile to be greatly concerned about the fate of an eliminandus, since it is already destined to become an interfectus. Whether Social Security benefits can be claimed for the eliminandus during the interim, or after completion of the interfection procedure, is still unresolved.

EUTYCHUS VI

The Honey Market

John Leax’s “Three Rondeaux for John the Baptist” (Sept. 12) is poetry in the finest sense, and it alone would have made the magazine worth purchasing. For some time I have been enjoying poetry and criticism in the magazine, particularly the two articles by Chad Walsh. Such material provides one of the few media for evangelism in the academic world of letters, and I am grateful to pass some of it along to others.

Embarrassing, however, is to have such excellent writing juxtaposed with advertisements designed to put Christians into Mercedes and larger houses. Many of my colleagues who may not be Christian are far more sensitive to the meaning of Christ’s call than the smug “businessman” seems to be. Thus I am hoping that with increased subscription rates you will be able to be more selective in your advertising. Otherwise, Leax will have to rewrite his rondeaux so that John converts Salome, marries her, and corners the market on honey!

ROBERT F. FOSTER

Casper, Wyo.

Clipping Recommended

Just a note of appreciation for CHRISTIANITY TODAY. I have read the magazine faithfully and clipped it freely.… The article on “Filing Takes Off the Conceptual Ragged Edge” (Aug. 29) is “right on”! Every young pastor should read and file.

PAUL E. BOOMER

Bible Baptist Church

Woodburn, Oreg.

Inaccurate Labels

I appreciate the overview that “The Pulpit and the Couch” by Gary R. Collins (Aug. 29) provides and some of the points which were mentioned. However, I would like to react to my inclusion in the classification of evangelical popularizers.… The seminars [I conduct] are professional-level training seminars for pastors and their wives in the area of marriage enrichment and also instruction in the use of the Taylor Johnson Temperament Analysis for the pastors. From time to time seminars and conferences for lay people are conducted but not on a large scale.… The statement “are at least somewhat biblically oriented” is confusing as several of these men mentioned are seminary graduates and Dr. Howard Hendricks and myself teach at seminaries.… I would feel that I qualify as a professional counselor having completed an M.A. in clinical psychology, several internships, a year’s work toward a doctorate, holding a license from the State of California as a Marriage, Family and Child Counselor, involved in private practice, and teaching Marriage and Family Counseling in a graduate program.…

I would agree wholeheartedly with the final statement of the article. But I would add that those who are involved in the theoretical aspect and at the upper level of professionalism must be able to translate and relate their findings to the layman. Perhaps that is why there is such a response today to the so-called popularizers. They make it workable. But labeling individuals is rarely accurate.

H. NORMAN WRIGHT

Associate Professor of Psychology

Biola College,

La Mirada, Calif.

No Time For Trifles

Since René de Visme Williamson quoted me extensively (“The Theology of Liberation,” Aug. 8), I want to make public that he totally distorted what he read. I will give you one single example. Criticizing the “sin of the revolutionaries” (A Theology of Human Hope, p. 155), I say:

Since the revolutionary believes that the elimination of repression and the restoration of the erotic sense of life depends on the powers of man alone, he finds it necessary totally to discipline his present in order to gather his energies for the task of liberation.… The present loses itself. It exists only for the sake of the future.… The present accordingly becomes the absolute negative.… Man is absolved from inhumanity and brutality in the present, as a time of transition, the time which does not count.

For anyone with a normal IQ it is plain that I am criticizing the “sin of the revolutionaries”.… But your “authority” on what I think and say writes this sheer lie:

Alves adds his words of commendation: “Man is absolved from inhumanity and brutality in the present, as the time of transition, the time which does not count.”

This liar of yours, this authority on what I think and write, is so void of ethical concerns that what I expressly condemn, he forces me to “commend”.… Besides, he has no idea whatsoever that books published at different times mean different things. It is absolutely unforgivable that a person considers Tomorrow’s Child as volume II of A Theology of Human Hope. But Williamson, obviously, has no time for these trifles, since he is only concerned about making his point, regardless of all kinds of distortions. This article is totally irresponsible, has no concern for truth, is indifferent to the political implications of its lies on the lives of peoples whom he quotes.

RUBEN A. ALVES

Brazil

Concerning the “sin of the revolutionaries”: I regret to say that Alves is right, and I apologize for the mistake. The way Alves writes makes it difficult to tell what is exposition and what is endorsement. However, I still maintain that I do him no injustice by placing him in the liberationist camp. He is more like Helder Camara, who just stops short of violence, than Camilo Torres, who met his death in violence.

As to his second point, nowhere do I say that his Tomorrow’s Child is volume II of A Theology of Human Hope. Some authors do reverse themselves in subsequent writings and say so, but Alves neither does so nor says so. I think any fair-minded reader will recognize that the two books are consistent with each other and reflect the same point of view.

RENE DE VISME WILLIAMSON

Louisiana State University

Baton Rouge, La.

Resolving The Problems

I found the article, “Creationist Views on Human Origin” (Aug. 8), most interesting, but I would like to make one observation from my viewpoint as a physicist. In science, to make an assumption without recognizing it or allowing for it is a most serious error. Creationists assume, as evolutionists must, that the earth started with no strata, no fossils, and with the “carbon date set to zero.” In fact, God could as easily have created the world with fossils, strata, and an apparent age of millions of years. Such a creation resolves the problems described in the article.

GEORGE E. KELLER

Aberdeen, Md.

More On Wine

CHRISTIANITY TODAY is very slow to reach New Zealand. I trust it is not too late to comment on Robert H. Stein’s “Wine-Drinking in New Testament Times” (June 20). A noticeable and important omission was reference to the natural alcoholic content of biblical wines. A wine-maker here in New Zealand assures me that such early wines would all have been fully matured “reds” of 27–28° (not per cent) proof. A watered-down wine would, therefore, still have been relatively potent. There is also considerable reason to believe the “strong drink” would not have been, as suggested, neat wine, but a fully proof alcoholic beverage such as brandy.

R. J. WARDLAW

Deputy Chairman

WHT Advertising and Marketing Limited

Auckland, New Zealand

Faulty Equation

In the review of Paul Jewett’s new book, support is given to the quoted contention of the foreword that “if woman must of necessity be subordinate, she must of necessity be inferior.” This, I think, is a serious misunderstanding of the important biblical principle of subordination.… Subordination speaks of a difference in relative responsibility and position, inferiority of a fundamental difference in personal value. To equate the two is biblically untenable, and may lead to both thought and action dishonoring to God. Portland, Ore.

RANDY ALCORN

ERRATA

The name of George Ketchum was misspelled in the obituary box in the October 10 issue.

The budget listed in the summary item on the Evangelical Covenant Church of America (October 10) should have been $2.2 million; the $21.5 million figure is the total income of all ECCA congregations.

The names of the committee members in “Chicago Crisis” (October 10) should have been listed as: Ron Sider, John F. Alexander, Rufus Jones, Evon Bachaus, Lucille Sider Dayton, Judy Brown Hull, and Karin Granberg Michaelson. Jim Wallis and the People’s Christian Coalition have already moved to Washington, D. C.

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