Eutychus and His Kin: July 29, 1977

Of Closets, Chains, And Christians

A mature Christian woman recently said, “It’s time for me to come out of the closet and admit that I’m a lesbian.”

I applaud her honesty and her desire to end pretense and hypocrisy, but I regret her hidden acceptance—for many years—of a condition that the Bible calls sin. And I am grieved that this person who has helped so many others find a variety of deliverances found no deliverance herself. But this is not unusual.

John Bunyan once said, “I preach deliverance to others, I tell them there is freedom, while I hear my own chains clang.” (Don’t ask me for the reference; I have lost it.) Whatever his chains, Bunyan did not rationalize them away.

Many people seem to be coming out of the closet these days. Not just a homosexual closet, but a lot of other kinds as well.

What’s a closet?

Webster’s New Collegiate (1976) says it’s “an apartment or small room for privacy; a monarch’s or official’s private chamber for counsel or devotions; a cabinet or recess for china, household utensils or clothing: a cupboard; a place of retreat or privacy.”

A closet is a place we go to be alone. It’s the storehouse of our personal artifacts.

Jesus said something about closets: “When you pray, enter into your closet” (Matthew 6:6).

Maybe we need to go into the closet today, rather than come out of it. The closet of communion—and struggle—with God, not the closet of frustrated self and fondled chains.

EUTYCHUS VIII

The Soul And Social Issues

Congratulations on your June 3 issue, in my view the best you have published in a while. David Kucharsky’s interview with Archbishop Fulton Sheen was fantastic. This insightful discussion of bottom-line theology served as the superstructure which provided continuity and strength to the entire magazine. This was most evident in Sheen’s discussion of the need for Christians to balance concern for the individual soul with a social concern.… You exemplified this attitude of balance between social and spiritual. Frazier’s excellent article on child abuse, the editorial support of President Carter’s human rights leadership, most of the news articles, and Edith Schaeffer’s article on food and consumption all reflected such a balance. The evangelical community needs desperately to be made more aware of and involved in social concerns and this issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY made a great contribution to that effort.

STEVEN RAMSLAND

Princeton, N. J.

I want to thank you for the interview with Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.

WILLARD S. FENDERSON

Prineville Community Church

Prineville, Ore.

Your interview with Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen was of much value, yet discouraging at the same time. It was of value in that it gave insight into one of this generation’s great leaders. Great sensitivity, a love of learning, ability to articulate ideas, and a passionate concern for humanity were just a few of his qualities the article brought out. Many evangelical leaders would do well to learn of and acquire such characteristics.

Yet the article was also discouraging in that it gave such positive identification to a representative of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not mean to suggest that CHRISTIANITY TODAY should adopt the rabid anti-Catholic rhetoric that has been all too prevalent in many evangelical publications; you would soon lose my subscription if you did. I do feel, however, that with such an article you unfortunately honor not only the man but also the error he has sincerely, but mistakenly, defended. Historic evangelical Protestantism arose from the need to clear Christianity of the error Catholicism had become mired in. It is hoped CHRISTIANITY TODAY will remember this historical fact and will not, in its desire for Christian unity, negate the evangelical truths it was founded to defend.

JOHN S. HALE

Clemson, S. C.

Thank you so much for your cover and interview of Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. I love that man! I sat at his feet on a retreat he led for Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy five years ago. I’ll never forget the experience. He’s a man of God.

HOWARD W. FRITZ

First United Presbyterian Church

Barrington, N. J.

The emphasis in your cover-article was misplaced, considering the stature of the man. I read it to mean “What Evangelicals Can Learn From a Catholic Archbishop.” Why an interrogative when there is no room for doubt?

KEVIN H. BROTTON

Chapel Hill Assembly of God

Vassar, Mich.

Science And Faith

I wish to express my appreciation for your inclusion of the interview with Professors Jack Haas and Richard Wright in your series of three articles on creation and evolution in the June 17 issue. These two Christian scientists, with indisputable scientific credentials and with unquestionable evangelical Christian commitment, present a moderate, intelligent, and well balanced response to the issues.

A comparison of their response with those of editor Tom Bethell and theologian Harold Lindsell emphasizes anew the importance of issues involving science and Christian faith being treated by individuals who are fully aware of the scientific and the biblical implications. The fact that details of the Darwinian formulation of the theory of evolution may be changed with time is simply a manifestation of the normal process of scientific description; the conclusion that the theory of evolution itself is therefore about to be forsaken is totally ungrounded. The option of theistic evolution is not one to be dealt with simplistically without a fundamental understanding of the ways previous authors have dealt with the interaction between scientific and biblical perspectives in this framework.

RICHARD H. BUBE

Stanford University

Stanford, Calif.

In his article on origins Harold Lindsell asks, “if the Bible’s teaching cannot be reconciled with science, do we then let science sit in judgment on the Bible, or do we let the Bible sit in judgment on science?” It should be noted, however, that neither alternative is acceptable; the Bible is in no more of a position to sit in judgment on science, than is science to sit in judgment on the Bible. Scientists have a variety of criteria for evaluating scientific theories, but whether or not a theory agrees with the Bible is not (and cannot) be such a criterion, any more than whether or not the theory agrees with the Bhagavad Gita, Das Kapital, or Alice in Wonderland.

This is by no means to suggest that these literary works are as authoritative as Scripture (or even authoritative at all), nor is it to imply that science is value-free. It is merely to emphasize that working scientists cannot be expected to abandon a scientific theory because it conflicts with certain beliefs or ideologies. However, a theory will be discarded if it is incompatible with the value system of the scientific community at large. But these decisions are not capricious; they are based on well defined (although at times unconsciously applied) procedures.

Therefore the difficulty which the theory of evolution presents to the Christian is not simply a result of wrongheaded thinking by theistic evolutionists and atheistic naturalists. Even if all the biologists in the world were special creationists, we would still be confronted with the problem of reconciling biblical revelation with the current scientific evidence. While it would be folly to ascribe infallibility to any scientific hypothesis, most scientists regard the scientific endeavor as a reliable method of learning about the physical world, and few practising biologists can afford to ignore the evidence for the theory of evolution.

Although I admire and share Dr. Lindsell’s commitment to the authority of Scripture, I feel that he makes no useful contribution to the discussion with his specious remark that accepting the literal biblical account creates no “problems for Christian scientists who accept the supernatural and regard miracles as part of the data of Scripture.” While it may pose no serious difficulty for armchair theologians who can afford to pass judgment on the exegetical competence and moral integrity of scientists, it is ironic that it is precisely those scientists who choose to take the Bible (and science) seriously who are confronted with the greatest dilemma.

CHARLES T. GRANT

Assistant Professor of Physics

Carleton College

Northfield, Minn.

I found the articles by Tom Bethell and Harold Lindsell more convincing than the replies of the two professors to Singer’s questions. Not only was it apparent that the professors had not read Bethell’s article but they seemed unacquainted with the literature which his research had uncovered.

As for that “old chestnut” of the second law of thermodynamics, Wright’s rejoinder, “As long as you have a continual input of energy from outside the system, things can indeed move from disorganization to organization,” is no answer. It is not the input of energy which fosters organization and improvement, but its management.

The necessity of management is really the fundamental “missing link” in the logic of Darwin.… Tom Bethell implied this powerfully. When scientists exclude God they almost invariably end up defying and personifying nature.

RICHARD S. TAYLOR

Church of the Nazarene

Kansas City, Mo.

Rejecting The Call

I must respectfully dissent from your apparent approval of the Chicago Call (News, June 3 and Others Say, June 17). Perhaps those who ignore the past are condemned to repeat its errors; but the call does not merely warn against such ignorance, rather it would have us interpret Scripture “with respect for the historic understanding of the church.” The purpose of interpretation is to ascertain what meaning an author intended to convey by the particular words he employed. Surely the intentions of the biblical authors are not in the least influenced by the writings of Athanasius the Great, Augustine, Calvin, or the edicts of any post-apostolic council. But, then, since church tradition does not rightly serve as an interpretive tool, what role does it play in the Chicago Call’s scheme of things? The answer is that tradition is erroneously elevated to the status of being a source of revealed truth. Such folly will only serve the cause of Scriptural disobedience under the guise of “interpretation with respect for tradition,” and will sow the seeds of a new battle for the Bible some decades hence. Let us not be ignorant of the much bad fruit borne by the Roman Catholic doctrine that sacred tradition together with sacred Scripture make up the Word of God. I do not mean to deprecate all church tradition; yet we must be keenly aware that tradition without truth is but time honored error.

EDWARD Y. CROSSMORE

Ithaca, N. Y.

The call made points which are good and essential if biblical Christianity is to survive. I wonder, though, why there was not a more representative body which drafted the call. Why, for example, were there but four women in the group? Why no one from the ranks of the working people? Pastors, seminary professors, publishers and students are all well and good, but hardly what one might call representative of Christendom. How many blacks, American Indians or Latinos were consulted? A group so unrepresentative of the church can be unrealistic if they are not careful.

JAMES HUFFMAN

Chicago, Ill.

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