Eutychus and His Kin: December 3, 1976

Ze Question Ist …

Some years ago the late Paul Tillich was fond of saying, in his impressive Teutonic English, “Ze question dot efery chilt has asked itself zince reaching der age of zix years ist, How did I come to be part of ze zum totality of being?” This is the root, no doubt, of Tillich’s own life-long concern with ontology. I always thought it a bit farfetched until the other morning when my four-year-old daughter asked before breakfast, “Daddy, how did we get to be real?”

My first reaction was, “Already?” And I was preparing to launch into some kind of explanation of biological reproduction. But fortunately my wife was equal to the occasion. Her philosophy is: Never answer a difficult question—ask another. So she asked, “What would we be if we weren’t real?”

The answer was prompt: “Puppets.”

You see, the second question sorted out the first. My daughter’s concern was ontological, not biological. (It’s always good to know the question before you give the answer.) She wanted to know about the very nature of being, not about how she came to be biologically.

And her question has a good answer, ontological and theological at the same time: We are real and not puppets because God made us to be able to respond to his love, to love him and serve him.

We take curiosity about biology, especially sex, to be basic and primary, natural questions, so to speak. Ontological questions, those relating to being and the nature of reality, we think of as unnatural, sophisticated, and abstract—questions demanding a high order of intellectuality to pose or answer.

But, in fact, they too are fundamental—and even before the age of six.

The Bible presents us early on with the statement that God made man in his own image. Man is first of all a creature and God’s image bearer; biology, psychology, sexuality, and all other aspects of human reality make sense only in the light of that primary fact.

We have accused past generations of suppressing or diverting children’s questions about sex and reproduction. We recognize that such questions should be answered, not evaded. But we are likely to evade the ontological question. To “Why am I here?” we answer, “Well, God made mommies and daddies.…” That may be the modern ontological equivalent of the biological evasion, “The stork brought you.”

And when all is said and done, it is far more important to know from an early age why we are not puppets than to be perfectly enlightened about storks and their limited role in the production of babies.

EUTYCHUS VI

From the March 15, 1974, issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

• The contributor of this year’s Eutychus column, Denny Rydberg, resigned after we were unable to use several columns he had submitted. We will reprint old Eutychus columns until the first issue of the new year, when Eutychus VIII takes over.—ED.

Don’t Stop Now

Thank you for your series on “Evangelicals in Search of Identity” (Footnotes, Jan.–Oct.). Carl Henry raised the right questions. Why can’t the series continue in an effort to address the penetrating questions raised? Why can’t CHRISTIANITY TODAY serve as a forum for the dialogue Carl Henry urged? Only frustration can follow if these questions fail to be addressed. Henry has suggested the direction. Let’s go.

LERON HEATH

Valley Community Church

Pleasanton, Calif.

Encouraging Inclusion

It is most encouraging to read articles like Ronald J. Sider’s “Evangelism or Social Justice: Eliminating the Options” (Oct. 8) … in CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Thank you.

EDWARD MCCLURG

Ravenna United Methodist Church

Seattle, Wash.

And Everything In Its Place

Those of us concerned with new books and the information they bring us appreciate the “Books” section of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Let the editorials, however, remain on the editorial page. Richard Allen Bodey devoted 17 per cent of his lead review (Oct. 22) to editorial comments about the place of management in the life of the church. Interesting as these comments were, they would have been more appropriate on the editorial page. I’m not at all sure we have lost a “biblical perspective” as he implies. If St. Paul wasn’t a silver-tongued orator, what was he? He was a good manager, a powerful fundraiser, and a skillful developer (of individuals and organizations). Church administration was no sideline or small piece of the pie to Paul. Express, nevertheless, our appreciation to Mr. Bodey for sharing his insight into some new and interesting books.

R. HOWARD MCCUEN, JR.

Stone United Presbyterian Church

Wheeling, W.Va.

Well Covered

I just want to give you a word of appreciation for the excellent artwork on the September 24 cover. It’s the best I’ve seen on any periodical.

WOODY WILSON

Berkeley Christian Coalition

Berkeley, Calif.

Stubbed Lobes

In the October 22 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY (Current Religious Thought) John Warwick Montgomery, ordinarily a brilliant logician, has stubbed his cerebral lobes. He faults both Ford and Carter for their refusal to favor a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. He goes on to condemn Ford’s proposal to have an amendment permitting each state to enact its own abortion legislation. According to Dr. Montgomery, this “leaves their [fetuses’] lives to the whims of state politics.”

But this is the constitutional way. Surely Dr. Montgomery is aware that there is no federal law against murder. Only state laws apply to any case of murder. In that sense the life of each of us is up to the whims of state politics. It seems to me that Ford’s answer was in keeping with the Constitution and with its recognition of the jurisdiction of the states over ordinary criminal activity.

JOHN V. LAWING, JR.

National Editor

National Courier

Plainfield, N.J.

John Montgomery’s abortion-related comments reflect a polar position that suggests a mush-headedness he attributes to others. As an economist seeking ethical reinforcement on controversial issues, I feel that the overriding biblical text for policy guidance seems to be First Timothy 5:8, the key question being, Can a family be maintained in a healthful enfironment? In many cases, “unwanted” children live in circumstances of great human misery. Because of insufficient family resources, they are often destined to become wards of the state—on welfare or in jail.

It would be fine if women who do not want children did not get pregnant, but they do by the thousands—and society pays! Although effective contraception (or abstinence?) is preferable, the abortion option should be legally available. If not, blatant discrimination is evident, as “the rich” do have this choice. Advocates of a constitutional amendment to override the 1973 Supreme Court decision simply have not thought through the long-term implications of their position. Did we not learn anything from the Volstead Act experience?

The matter turns on one’s definition of human life, which cannot be elaborated here. Is Dr. Montgomery really aware of the institutional chaos we would face when zygotes get legal rights? Actually, the fertilized egg is to a human being what an acorn is to an oak tree. The zygote reflects potential only and requires several months of growth to manifest true human characteristics.

Not only should the abortion option be available to all, it should be subsidized when necessary. If a prospective mother is unable to pay for a low-cost legal abortion, is it likely she would be able to provide adequate child care? A small upfront payment is preferable to a string of public outlays that often follow the birth of an “unwanted” baby—fiscal conservatives please note. As all geneticists know, nature is the great abortionist. To deny this option to biologically mature human beings is not in the public interest!

J. D. DEFOREST

Alexandria, Va.

Building Bridges

In her lead book review, Elizabeth Skoglund writes of “bridges joining psychotherapy … and the Church” (Nov. 5). Should evangelicals not become increasingly conscious of possibilities in bridge-building? I am referring especially to David Jeffrey’s basically excellent article in the same issue, “Discerning Truth: Is Man the Final Measure?” …

While “Christian humanism” as we know it may well be a fraud, the important question to ask is: “Is it possible, in the last analysis, to conceive of the freedom and dignity of man, as is supposed to be the thrust of humanism, except in a Christian context?”

It is historically true that Renaissance skepticism gave humanism and the humanities their start. But may not the underlying mundane situation have changed so much that today it would not be demeaning for religion (not just theology) to be regarded as one of the humanities? If it were, might this not help to make possible the type of further bridge-building that could result ultimately in the restoration of education?

STEPHEN B. MILES

Bellevue, Neb.

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