Eutychus and His Kin: October 22, 1976

Epistolics Anonymous

The following column appeared in the first issue ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY, October 15, 1956. The author, the first in the Eutychus series (the current is Eutychus VII), was later revealed to be Professor Edmund Clowney of Westminster Seminary. The editor’s comment too is from that first issue.

To THE EDITOR:

Can you tell me, please, whether it is proper to launch an ICBM rocket with a bottle of champagne? Having flunked physics, I am somewhat unsure of myself in this atomic age. It would be great fun for an inveterate non-alcoholic to contribute some verbal pop and fizz to the launching of your new magazine, but I don’t know whether it would be appropriate.

I’m a little over-awed. Your magazine, you say, is “designed for worldwide impact.” Looking at your streamlined brochure and the impressive list of editors and contributors I can well believe it. The jet take-off of your first issue is going to be something to see!

But sir, you need a Pseudonymous Letter Writer, for which position I herewith make application. I can hear you muttering, “The pseudonymous, while not synonymous with the anonymous, is equally pusillanimous.…” I wish you wouldn’t talk that way. Where would American literature be without Mark Twain? Besides, as that great master of pseudonymity, Soren Kierkegaard, has explained, using a pseudonym may show too much courage rather than too little! My nom de plume suggests not a personality but a picture. Easy slumber under sound gospel preaching was fatal for Eutychus. The Christian church of our generation has not been crowded to his precarious perch, but it has been no less perilously asleep in comfortable pews.

The resemblance to Eutychus does not end there. Eutychus prostrate on the pavement is more appropriate than we know as a symbol of Christendom today. To tap sleeping Eutychus on the shoulder, to embrace dead Eutychus in love, faith, and hope, is your task.

Believe me, my heart is with you. “Evangelical Christianity” … never were those words more significant than in this time when many who falsely or foolishly claim the noun would assure us, in the name of unity, that the adjective is unnecessary—either meaningless or sectarian.

But if we are to contend for the truth in love, humbling humor is good medicine. When men take a cause seriously enough, there is always great danger that they will take themselves too seriously. If we see ourselves as others see us, we may discover why everyone is laughing!

May your cause prosper, your letters-to-the-editor department flourish, and may I remain (this is a threat and a promise)

your humble scribe,

EUTYCHUS

• So that the Editor will be assured of at least one letter fortnightly, CHRISTIANITY TODAY welcomes Eutychus the volunteer. Except in the case of Eutychus, whose identity is already established (cf. Acts 20:9), communications must be accompanied by the name and address of the writer. The title “Eutychus and His Kin” is employed for letters to the Editor because Eutychus is an apostolic symbol for one made drowsy under the long exhortation of others, or providentially awakened to new opportunities.—ED.

A Little List

I’ve got a little list of items that never would be missed if permanently excluded from CHRISTIANITY TODAY. (I’m a new subscriber, but old acquaintance via borrowed copies.) The book issues are eagerly snatched and happily opened while still warm from the zip box. But—when the “varied compendium” announced on the cover (Sept. 10 issue) percolated into the gray matter—Marabel Who?… At least some of those more frabjious phrases could have been edited out of the interview: “It’s a super …,” a “super-duper sex relationship,” “a fantastic challenge,” and that patronizing reference to the “little old lady.” (Why are they always so little?) What ever happened to your blue pencil? I have a good supply I’d be happy to lease you, having been a copy editor once myself.…

Item two: Please chuck into the Refiner’s Fire and let them be utterly consumed—those superfluous pseudo-serious critical reviews of “Jesus Rock” (revolting phrase, whatever the horror may be). I cannot imagine that a very large segment of C.T. readers care half a decibel about any kind of “rock,” particularly this brand. Surprised at Word, too, putting out such hokum. And as bad as the noise itself are those phony phrases of the reviewer: just what is “selectivity sensitivity”? Something was “too syrupy” for her taste—does that mean too little thumping beat? I have no idea who Gary Paxton is, and am happy to leave matters so, echo-chamber imitations or no. And as for the “always clever” and “imagistic” (what’s that?) lyrics of some other rocker, how vulgar can you get with or without a “superbly played honky-tonk piano”?… Is it too much to request equal time for records of serious, classical sacred music to be reviewed?

C.T. still holds more of interest and information for me than otherwise, but these items seriously rocked my respect for your good taste and sincerity.

EDITH M. MACHEN

Harrisburg, Pa.

What Crept In

In your September 10 issue you have an article in the “News” section with the headline “God and the GOP in Kansas City.” The headline is extremely more apropos than the superficial reading matter that follows it.… The authors must be marginal in spiritual perception or are presenting subtle political propaganda.

The opening sentence reads as follows: “Little of the overt spirituality that crept into Baptist Sunday-school teacher Jimmy Carter’s campaign found its way into Kemper Arena at the Republican National Convention in Kansas City.”

It is apparent that the authors of this article did not see either the Republican or Democratic Conventions on television or witness either one from inside the halls.… They carp about the time limitations set by the convention managers on invocations and benedictions and the requirement for advance copies, which seems to me to be only normal prudent assembly procedure. Invocations and benedictions are not sermons and if carried to length diffuse into meaningless prolixity. They mention nothing of the spiritual content of these and completely miss the great spiritual moments of the convention. These occurred at the close of both of the acceptance speeches of President Ford and Senator Robert Dole. These were the perorations of the addresses of both of these candidates in which they implicitly recognize the awesome responsibilities of the offices and publicly declared their need for the guidance and help of God.

If the writers of your news story had listened to the acceptance speeches of Sunday-school teacher Jimmy Carter and minister’s son Mondale at the Democratic Convention they would have noticed that there was absolutely no reference to God or any expression of need of God’s help.…

I do not know what this denotes on the part of the Democratic candidates. It could indicate an inflated ego or such a preoccupation with the mechanics of writing an acceptance speech that the eternal things of the Spirit and the Infinite are totally forgotten.

But these are the times when we need leaders conscious of the abiding presence of God, who dwell in the shadow of his wings, whose strength, like David, is in the Lord, and who are made great by the gentleness of God.

HOWARD T. JORDAN

Cincinnati, Ohio

Best On Books

Thank you for the nice mention of my bibliography in your September 10 issue (“Bible Study, Peace on Earth Handbook, and Other Approaches,” by Donald Tinder.) I appreciate it sincerely. Let me also say that I thought this particular book survey was the best that I have read in the four or five years that I have been reading CHRISTIANITY TODAY. It was a great job, and the cover was especially captivating.

ALBERT J. MENENDEZ

Assistant Editor

Church and State

Silver Spring, Md.

Balancing The Adjectives

W. Ward Gasque’s review of the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (Books, Sept. 10), after his “admittedly hasty” first reading, was moving along objectively to wrap-up point—when he suddenly has a compulsion to baptize his readers with bias, or (if you prefer) to immerse them with impudence. It is likely that virtually all readers will have long since settled into a satisfying view of the Scripture teaching on baptism, while virtually none of them will have seen the volume, much less evaluated the articles. But the mere adjectives “superb” and “desperate” do not connote opposite let alone objective assessments. That the article on infant baptism was intended by the editors to “balance” the one on baptism does seem evident enough, but that the one is superb and the other desperate is purely in the eye of the beholder—an eye with its own desperate grasp of Scripture, exegesis, theology, history, documentation and scholarship.

Really, what objective basis is provided for quartering the biblical covenant and casting it to the judgment of the gods of dogma out of hand? Must summary assessments follow, no matter how radical, without the slightest effort of the reviewer to justify it?

CLYDE W. FIELD

Bible Presbyterian Church

Kalispell, Mont.

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