The son is in his mid-teens, a wholesome boy emerging into young manhood. And most importantly, he is a Christian, largely through his parents’ influence. He spent the past month at a Christian camp.
Last week the father had a phone call from the camp director. “I have bad news for you. Your son drowned this afternoon. He was in a canoe …”
The father wept.
The father is a Christian leader.
The son is in his mid-teens, a wholesome boy emerging into young manhood. And most importantly, he is a Christian, largely through his parents’ influence. He spent the past month at a Christian camp.
This week he arrived home. “I have bad news for you,” his father said. “You know that your mother and I haven’t been getting along very well. So I’m divorcing her.… She wants to stay together, but …”
The son wept.
EUTYCHUS VIII
Surpassing Coverage
James Hefley’s coverage of the Southern Baptist Convention (“Southern Baptists: Tension and Togetherness, July 29) surpassed by far that appearing in any of the half dozen or so state Baptist publications I read.… He is quite correct in stating that “inerrancy is still a live issue” in the SBC, and I hope it will remain so for as long as the Convention exists.
WORTH C. GRANT
President
Southern Baptists for Bible Translation
Washington, D.C.
Viewing Inerrancy
Since the recent critique of my article on inerrancy by John Warwick Montgomery (Current Religious Thought, “Whither Biblical Inerrancy?”, July 29) could lead to misunderstanding regarding my position, I would like to take this opportunity to restate my adherence to the historic view of inerrancy. My purpose was not to “redefine” the doctrine but rather to apply it to historical research, particularly in the Gospels. I am certain that Montgomery would not claim that in the Gospels we have the exact words of Jesus. For one thing, he spoke in Aramaic rather than Greek; for another the evangelists differ in their quotes. We do, however, have the exact teaching of Jesus, and this comes through the inspired interpretation of his teaching by the evangelists. For a further clarification of my position, I would like to point to my article, “The Evangelical and Tradition Criticism,” in the forthcoming The New Testament Student: Critical Issues, ed. by John H. Skilton.
GRANT R. OSBORNE
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Ill.
Montgomery scores Norman Geisler by suggesting that the “concrete facts” of history, science, and law are more useful to a correct view of scriptural inerrancy than philosophy. I think Montgomery forgets a point made by one of the best apologists of this century. C. S. Lewis warns us that the only problem with trying to rely solely on facts is that they must be interpreted … What, for example, nature “teaches” is a function of the philosophy brought to her, and of course the same holds true for history and law. That is why controversies continue to rage in the academy as well as the courts. Facts are our building blocks; we get nowhere without them. But philosophy is prior because we cannot build to any extent without a structure and primary because it determines the direction we go with those facts. Attending to philosophy does not affect whether we rely on facts or on philosophy but it does affect the consistency and soundness of that philosophy.
While there can be no objection to any reasoned discussion of the inerrancy question, Montgomery exceeds the boundaries of reason and Christian charity in his assertions that evangelicalism might gain rather than lose from a division over this issue, and that the progressives are the lukewarm who can only be spewed out of Christ’s mouth.… Most of us out here in the greater evangelical community have everything to lose if the cooperative base we have so carefully won over the past thirty years is destroyed by senseless polemic war.… The argument from Christ’s supposed view of Scripture to comprehensive biblical literalism is a very slender mainstay for Montgomery’s polemics, and even if valid would not make one’s view of Scripture a fundamental and divisive doctrine. On Montgomery’s logic, C. S. Lewis must be held to reject the lordship of Christ because of his refusal to embrace Montgomery’s inerrancy position—“If he is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all.” One doesn’t have to fit very many names of prominent evangelical or orthodox Christians into Montgomery’s formula to get ludicrous results—and potentially tragic results if any of us really begin to disfellowship one another on this basis.
JAMES A. HEDSTROM
Madison, Tenn.
What a pity, what a solemn pity to see the philosopher-prince John Warwick Montgomery throw himself on his own sword in an unnecessary and futile defense of biblical inerrancy. If evangelicals are delighted, with good cause, to the application of scientific criticism to the Book of Mormon, knowing that the truth about that volume will set many Mormons free, then, to be consistent, we will be equally as delighted by the application of scientific criticism to the Bible—for precisely the same reason: the truth sets people free. Montgomery blusters like a man who has something to hide or who, himself, may be hiding. In the end, it will not be the sealing wax around our hermeneutics that saves us, but the compelling ring of truth in the kerygma, redacted or not, that continues unceasingly to move and transform us. After all, it is the Gospel, not our defense of it, that is the “power of God unto salvation.”
Article continues below
GARY STARKEY
Beulah Missionary Church
Elkhart, Ind.
On The List
I am writing in reference to the July 29 news story, “Graham and the Press: New Look at Ledgers.” The article concerned stories Mary Bishop and I wrote for The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer about the World Evangelism and Christian Education Fund, a heretofore unpublicized arm of the Graham ministry. Your article dealing with reaction to the Observer’s revelation of this fund’s existence would have been more complete if the list you printed of groups receiving money from World Evangelism had included the group that ranks number three in terms of gifts from World Evangelism, namely, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
ROBERT HODIERNE
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
Washington Bureau
Washington, D.C.
• You are correct that, as a non-profit corporation, CHRISTIANITY TODAY received substantial contributions from 1972 to 1974 toward its ministry.—ED.
Throw Out The Band Aids
Dr. Richard Strauss’ article, “The Family Church: Any Place for Singles?” (July 29) is typical of a growing band-aid philosophy in the church regarding divorce. We apply more energy and time in smoothing over the sin of divorce in our congregations than we do in stressing the biblical precepts that would prevent its occurring. We are alarmed at the increasing emphasis being placed on making divorced persons feel “comfortable,” loved, and accepted, and the decreasing exposition of the Word, instructing each of us to seek restoration of relationships marred and broken by sin. We dare not presume to help troubled divorced persons establish a “close relationship with the Lord” if we have failed to urge repentance and reconciliation prior to the marriage break.
DOUGLAS AND ROSE MARY FONCREE
Jackson, Miss.
Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.
Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.
While we pray for peace, we need moral clarity about this war.
As my doubts about his teachings grew, so did a secret fascination with Jesus.
Christian artists work at the intersection of music and climate change.
