Book Briefs: May 5, 1978

Issue Of The Year

The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church?, by Don Williams (BIM Publishing Co. [Box 259995, Los Angeles, CA 90025], 1978, 176 pp., $4.95 pb) and Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another Christian View, by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (Harper & Row, 1978, 160 pp., $6.95), are reviewed by Tim Stafford, west coast editor, “Campus Life,” Palo Alto, California.

For the past twenty years a small homosexual minority has become visible. They have been received with a degree of tolerance, rather than repression. Because of that homosexuals have made their own communities, particularly in large cities. But tolerance has not been enough. Homosexuals want full acceptance. In Miami, they demanded and got an ordinance prohibiting any discrimination against homosexuals, even in private religious schools. That launched a national debate.

The legal issues were complex. Could civil rights be denied citizens who had committed no illegal actions? On the other hand, weren’t the civil rights of parents being threatened by an ordinance telling them they had to accept homosexuals as their children’s teachers?

But beyond the legal questions, homosexuality itself was being debated. The same question has been, and is being, thrust on the major Christian denominations. Churches have tolerated homosexuals—that is, they have left them alone, so long as they made no issue of their presence. You don’t see evangelists invading homosexual communities. But that, too, wasn’t enough. Homosexuals want the right to be ordained, which is in effect asking for the church’s blessing.

To some Christians nothing could be more blatantly political. They see Christians responding to political force, not to the voice of God. If some minority demanded it, some people say, we would form a task force to consider whether our heads should really be attached to our bodies.

But there is more to the issue than that. With the increased visibility of the gay community has come increased awareness of the utter loneliness and frustration that a person with homosexual feelings can have. By most estimates 2 to 5 per cent of the male population feel persistent, strong homosexual attraction. These men, and a smaller number of women, are sprinkled everywhere, including conservative churches. Any pastor who does much counseling must be aware of them. In writing a regular column on sex and love, I have received many letters from them. The confusion, frustration, and self-loathing in many of those letters is unmatched in anything I have ever read. It is no wonder that the gay community has won many with its promise of acceptance and openness, and with its models of homosexuals living exemplary, creative lives. And it is no wonder that evangelical Christians are asking questions about what the Bible has to offer homosexuals. Compassion and understanding are terribly needed. So is hope—for the common testimony of the letters I have received is that they did not ask to have homosexual desires, and no amount of prayer has succeeded in taking those desires away. The church seems to offer only threats of hell and a “grit-your-teeth-and-endure” morality.

So the compassion in Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another Christian View by Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott is welcome. One of several books on homosexuality being published by Christians this spring, it is sure to raise a storm of controversy. The reason is simple: The authors, well-known in evangelical circles, argue that for those who have exclusively homosexual drives and cannot change the most Christian solution is often a committed, permanent homosexual relationship. They view a person with what they call the homosexual condition—someone who is primarily attracted to his or her own sex—as no more sick or immoral than someone who is left-handed.

To do so they must, of course, go against all traditional biblical interpretation. They are willing to do so because, they say, traditions can sometimes keep us from loving our neighbor, as they apparently did for the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. Scanzoni and Mollenkott know evangelicalism well enough to realize that many will treat them as Samaritans for writing this book, but they are willing to take the risk. I can’t help admiring their courage.

They write in a good Protestant tradition, reevaluating traditional interpretation while holding to the authority of the Scriptures. They don’t suggest that some biblical commands should be ignored because an ethic of love is more important. Instead they assume that a correct understanding of the biblical commands will identify the meaning of love. Most of the people who hate this book will be, I suspect, people who have not read it. One can disagree strongly with its conclusions—I do—and yet wish for more books like its well-documented, compassionate, and courageous style.

Scanzoni and Mollenkott draw extensively on the findings of social scientists. Several facts are generally accepted by such scholars. No one knows exactly what causes homosexuality. No one cause has been firmly established. Hypotheses about the quality of homosexuals’ parents, for instance, are on shaky ground. Many whose interest is exclusively homosexual have not chosen that drive; apparently they have had it from a very early age. Many men and women are attracted to either sex, and can choose either homosexuality or heterosexuality. But for those whose exclusive interest is and always has been their own sex, psychologists have found change next to impossible. You might as well try to make a healthy heterosexual start preferring homosexual intercourse.

Scanzoni and Mollenkott then pose these questions: does God condemn a person for an orientation he had no choice in and cannot change? Does the Bible demand a standard of him that is much harder than that which it demands of heterosexuals? By insisting that he give up all sexual contacts, is the church driving him away from a community where he can find love and help and toward a community where sexual contacts are promiscuous?

What does the Bible say? There are seven or eight passages in Scripture that refer to homosexuality, and Scanzoni and Mollenkott consider them all. They convincingly show that the sin of Sodom described in Genesis 19 was not the sort of homosexuality lived by most modern homosexuals. It was homosexual rape—quite probably not even committed by people with a homosexual orientation, since the account makes it very clear that the whole male population of Sodom participated. Such behavior, they point out, is common in prisons, and it has more to do with humiliating the victims than with sexual urges.

They agree, on the other hand, that the prohibitions of Leviticus 18 and 20 refer to homosexual activity. But they point out that the same passages also prohibit such “sins” as intercourse during a woman’s menstrual period. Nearly all Christian marriage counselors now consider the latter acceptable and some even encourage it. How can we be sure which commands are still in force?

One way is to look carefully at the New Testament to see which Old Testament laws were regarded as eternally normative by Jesus and the apostles. Here I found Scanzoni and Mollenkott less persuasive. They make the case that the three principle New Testament references to homosexuality—Romans 1; First Corinthians 6, and First Timothy 1—prohibit specific, perverted kinds of homosexual practice current in the Roman world.

They quite correctly insist that Romans 1:26 and 27 be read in context. The passage convicts not a small minority of homosexual perverts but every man, homosexual or heterosexual, for his rejection of the truth. More importantly, they claim that “the key thoughts seem to be lust, ‘unnaturalness,’ and, in verse 28, a desire to avoid acknowledgment of God. But although the censure fits the idolatrous people with whom Paul was concerned here, it does not seem to fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian. Such a person loves Jesus Christ and wants above all to acknowledge God in all of life, yet for some unknown reason feels drawn to someone of the same sex, for the sake of love rather than lust. Is it fair to describe that person as lustful or desirous of forgetting God’s existence?” They also point out that the passage refers to men and women “exchanging” natural relations with the opposite sex for lustful relations with their own sex. Does this apply to the person who has no natural attraction to the opposite sex to “exchange”?

They carry this argument to First Corinthians 6 and First Timothy 1 by suggesting that the two Greek words usually translated “homosexual” are technical words that refer to particular kinds of homosexual activity—perhaps male prostitution or the perversion of young boys. They cite some lurid examples from first century accounts of Roman life to suggest the kind of perversion Paul might have referred to. They quote with approval J. Rinzema, who explains that “the Bible writers assumed that everyone was heterosexual and that in times of moral decay, some heterosexual people did some strange and unnatural things with each other.” They add, “Since the Bible is silent about the homosexual condition, those who want to understand it must rely on the findings of modern behavioral science research and on the testimony of those persons who are themselves homosexual.”

But the Bible’s silence on the homosexual condition does not really alter its general condemnation of homosexual actions. The Bible is generally disinterested in the condition we are in when temptation comes to us; it speaks to our response. Greedy people are not excused because they had wealthy upbringings; they are asked to give up greed. Adulterers then as now must often have been fleeing difficult or impossible marriages; no doubt some adulterers sincerely and deeply loved each other. But they are not excused. A compromise is not offered; they are not urged to make their relationships as permanent and loving as possible. Rather, they are to break them and stick to their marriage partners.

There is no reason to believe that Paul was unaware of lasting, loving homosexual relationships nor of what we call the homosexual condition. Paul lived in a society where homosexuality was commonly accepted. He could easily have mentioned exceptions to his blanket condemnation if he had wanted to. Instead, First Corinthians 6 makes the condemnation absolute: To ensure that no one is left out, Paul refers to both the active and passive partners in the relationship, or so most scholars understand the Greek.

In the Romans 1 passage Paul is not telling us the progressive, existential choices of a sinful individual. He is giving us a description of God’s wrath directed toward an age that has rejected him. Because mankind has rejected what is natural in relationship to God, he has given us up to impurity. Our futility without him is expressed in many ways, and most vividly in the corruption of the natural, i.e. God-made, way that men and women relate to each other. Although it is true that the main point of Romans 1 is not antihomosexuality but antiidolatry, homosexuality is seen as a powerful perversion of what is most good and most basic to man as God meant him to be.

If Paul had written, “men exchanged generosity for selfish greed” we would not be bound to read that as though all greedy men had once been selfless idealists, or that only those born generous were condemned for leaving their natural state. Paul would mean that God meant men to be generous. But the mark of sin was such that they did not pursue “natural” generosity, but greed.

This does not imply that people with either greedy or homosexual drives are guilty of sin. But they are responsible for how they respond to those drives, as all of us are responsible for how we react to all kinds of temptation. The responsibility for people driven by homosexual urges is far from easy. But is it impossible that they can live full lives without expressing their sexual drives through intercourse? Scanzoni and Mollenkott don’t spend much time on that possibility, since they consider permanent homosexual relationships an acceptable choice. But in reviewing Helmut Thielicke’s position on homosexuality in The Ethics of Sex (unlike them Thielicke sees homosexuality as a disruption of God’s plan, but thinks that in many cases the best possible solution to a bad situation involves urging permanent homosexual relationships), Scanzoni and Mollenkott quote his rejection of celibacy as a widespread option because “celibacy is based upon a special calling and, moreover, is an act of free will.”

Is celibacy truly an act of free will? That assertion could be disputed by millions of unmarried people who, though they would happily exchange that special calling, have used it for the kingdom of God. I am thinking particularly of single women missionaries who have been as responsible as any other group for the spread of the Gospel through the world. Besides, Jesus is very specific in Matthew 19, a passage I wish Scanzoni and Mollenkott had chosen to comment on. After asserting the total, unbreakable commitment of heterosexual marriage, Jesus is asked by his incredulous disciples whether it is possible for anyone to live up to such a standard. Jesus indicates that not everyone is supposed to be married. But the only alternative he cites is that of the eunuch. Perhaps he used that term, still harsh today, to stress God’s approval of a state with low status in that society (and in ours). He cites three reasons for remaining unmarried: “There are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were [psychologically or physically] made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:12). He does not slight the first two categories, which certainly could include those who, for various unknown reasons, have strong homosexual urges. Instead, he joins them to a category of those who have chosen that role for the sake of the kingdom. They are all in the same state and can be used (and nourished) by God equally.

Most Christians combat homosexuality by stressing how wonderful heterosexual marriage is. The trouble is that marriage doesn’t appeal to someone whose desires are overwhelmingly homosexual. It might be better if we again took up the plain biblical assertion that chaste singleness is a wonderful, useful, satisfying state. Today our culture greets such a statement with disbelief, since we think that urges cannot be indefinitely repressed and that those with unexpressed sexual urges are quite sure to be unhappy. Christians have been quite feeble in disagreeing with that belief, preferring to stress Paul’s rather oblique statement in First Corinthians 7 that it is better to marry than to burn. But in that same chapter Paul stresses that though marriage is a wonderful gift, so is singleness. Perhaps we are reaping the harvest of our inattention to that strong, clear biblical message. Without a high view of singleness, we do not have much hope to offer the person who has no erotic interest in the opposite sex.

Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? suffers because it offers no understanding of sexuality, only homosexuality. Although the Bible has relatively little to say about homosexuality, seeing it as a sign of a broken and disordered world, it has a great deal more to say about sexuality, beginning in the unbroken world of Genesis 1 and 2. Passing by Eden, passing by Matthew 19; Ephesians 5, and other passages that indicate what sexuality is meant to be, Scanzoni and Mollenkott concentrate on passages that explicitly mention homosexuality. This is a little like writing a theology of stealing without mentioning the principle of honesty.

Don Williams particularly criticizes that kind of theology in his new book, The Bond That Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? He compares it to “trying to understand a tree by starting with the branches. Forgetting that the branches come from the trunk, we can dispose of them one by one without ever understanding their origin or their interrelationship.” His book, though considerably less tidy than Scanzoni and Mollenkott’s, gives a far more thorough Christian understanding of sexuality and homosexuality. Williams, a pastor and part-time professor at Fuller seminary and the Claremont colleges in southern California, has had ample time to consider the issues in the homosexual debate. He served on the Task Force on Homosexuality for the United Presbyterian Church, and was one of the five members who supported the minority report opposing homosexual ordination.

Williams’s interpretation of the biblical data follows Karl Barth, as most evangelical Christians writing on sexuality have. He stresses the creation account in Genesis 1:27, where man is made male and female, reflecting the image of God. Although Scanzoni and Mollenkott compare homosexuality to left-handedness, Williams compares a homosexual pair to two right shoes. They lack the complementary oppositeness that is God’s will for all erotic love, that expresses God’s image, and that contains the potential for a lasting, continually intriguing relationship.

To a reader unfamiliar with this theological interpretation, Williams may seem to be making much of little. A few descriptive verses in Genesis are expanded into a complete understanding of sexuality, and an implied prohibition of any other options. This understanding of Genesis 1 is so generally accepted in the theology of sexuality that Williams probably can’t remember how it sounds to someone who hasn’t encountered it before. In any case, he doesn’t argue for it as effectively as he might. He seems to jump ahead of himself in making sweeping conclusions.

However, the logic of his position becomes clearer as he marches through all the biblical passages on homosexuality. They all fit together, along with passages on heterosexual love, sins, and marriage, and have as a common key those first two chapters in Genesis.

For instance, though agreeing that the crime of Sodom was homosexual rape, Williams’s belief that homosexuality is a disruption of the order and beauty of creation, and particularly of the image of God in man, allows him to explain that Sodom’s homosexuality is exhibit A in the case against the total corruption of that city. Thus, it is basic to the biblical assumption that Sodom is as sinful as man can be, to be mentioned by biblical writers whenever an extreme example of degradation is needed.

The prohibitions of Leviticus 18 and 20 can also be grounded in Genesis 1 and 2, since homosexuality violates the sexual norm there. Other prohibitions such as the one against intercourse while a woman is menstruating cannot be grounded in Genesis 1 and 2, and so can be understood as completed in Christ and no longer relevant.

In the New Testament Williams gives a careful, contextual discussion of all the passages Scanzoni and Mollenkott considered. He succeeds, to my satisfaction at least, in answering their questions. (Some of the objections I raised in reviewing their claims I owe to him.) He continues to stress Genesis’s man-woman sexuality as the biblical norm. The fact that some people have without choice strong homosexual urges he sees as a sign of the fallenness of our world. One interesting point he makes is that homosexuality is found most often in cultures where masculinity is a heroic, inflexible ideal. The hypothesis offered is that men who for some reason sense themselves inadequate to match that ideal try to “borrow” masculinity from other men. In cultures where men are noncompetitive and cooperative homosexuality is low. Williams seems to believe that some of our male stereotypes are a result of our fallen nature and contribute to homosexuality. Thus families that stress strong masculinity in an attempt to combat homosexuality may be encouraging it.

There are many places where Williams could be questioned. For instance, I wondered how single people fit into the image of God as male and female, a rather crucial theological question since it includes Jesus, the “image of the invisible God.” Not everyone fits the ideal pairing of Adam and Eve. But are they therefore less than the image and glory of God?

Still, Williams gives us a consistent way to understand our sexuality, a way that agrees with nearly all current evangelical thinking. If Scanzoni and Mollenkott are going to be ultimately convincing to evangelicals, they will have to offer an alternative.

Williams does not believe that there is any such thing as a constitutional homosexual—that is, one who is naturally homosexual and cannot change. He admits that most social scientists categorize homosexuals this way, but he believes there is no compelling evidence to back up their claim. (In some cultures, all men have relations with both men and women—a fact Williams cites as an indication of the flexibility of our sexuality.) Borrowing such static categories as constitutional homosexual and imposing them on the Bible is cultic, he claims; he compares it to Mormonism, which adds to the canon of Scripture and thus dictates a particular, variant interpretation. “When the social sciences have the first word, the Bible may have the second word, but the social sciences will be the final arbiter as they select what of the Bible is relevant for us.” Constitutional homosexuals are not recognized in the Bible, Williams asserts, because they do not exist. In fact, they contradict the Bible’s assertion that all men and women are meant to live in relation to the opposite sex.

Instead, Williams insists that our sexual attraction is dynamic, learned behavior. We are not heterosexual or homosexual at birth; we are merely male or female. We have as a society and as individuals great choice in what we can do with that condition. But God has made it clear what choice is right. He has commanded us to live as male or female—that is, not to pursue a unisex ideal—and as male and female—as people whose erotic focus is the opposite sex. Williams is confident that homosexuals can change to a heterosexual orientation, though perhaps painfully and slowly. He believes that many have changed but have hidden the fact because of the shame in most churches of being known even as former homosexuals. Although Freud admitted himself powerless to change homosexuals, Williams is not willing to consider Christ and his church on those same terms.

Williams concludes with an appendix that critiques the Task Force Report on Homosexuality of the United Presbyterian Church. His forceful criticisms will be of special interest to Presbyterians, but his analysis and his answers to seventeen questions posed by the majority report form an invaluable part of the book for any reader.

We ought to remember that Luther began with theses, not a theology. Scanzoni and Mollenkott have not offered an alternative to the way we have been thinking about sexuality, but they have tried to ask some important questions. Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? should not persuade many evangelicals to accept its distinctive thesis. It should lead to a more thoughtful consideration of how good news applies to homosexuals.

That is how the Presbyterian dilemma has affected Williams; he has been forced to think out his position more carefully. But I hope that for Williams and for all evangelicals a position will not be the end of the question. We need not only theological answers. We need pastoral answers.

Williams begins his book with five vignettes from his own life, describing experiences he had with homosexuals. The point he says is to show that his book is not “merely academic. The crisis now facing us in the ‘homosexual question’ is a crisis that has touched my life.”

But he never comes back to those people who so desperately needed help. Williams did not promise pastoral counsel, so I am perhaps unfair to wish for it. But I did put his book down wondering how the homosexual debate would affect those who sit in church Sunday after Sunday, and who wonder what is wrong with them and what they can possibly do about it. I hope this debate will end with a movement by Christians to thoughtfully, lovingly, personally, and biblically answer their questions.

How Long The Days?

Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth, by Robert C. Newman and Herman J. Eckelmann, Jr. (InterVarsity, 1977, 156 pp., $3.95 pb), is reviewed by Russell Mixter, professor of zoology, Wheaton College, Wheaton, Illinois.

In dealing with interpretations of Genesis 1, which recur in each generation of thinkers, the authors are doubly expert. Both have degrees and have done research in the physical sciences and possess a thorough knowledge of theology. Newman is associate professor of New Testament at the Biblical School of Theology in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, and Eckelmann, formerly research associate with the Center for Radiophysics and Space Research at Cornell University, now is pastor of a church in Ithaca, New York. They write for nonscientists but include much material that scientists can evaluate. They compare the various views on the age and origin of the earth so that the reader may know why certain theories are held. Both Scripture and science are considered for “either set of data taken alone will not necessarily give the complete picture, nor even a correct picture”; also “tradition should be no more than suggestive in seeking a proper interpretation of the Bible.”

Chronological evidence from scientific data, whether astronomical, such as light travel-time, the expansion of the universe, or stellar structure, suggests the earth is billions of years old. Observations from meteorites and lunar material, radioactive calculations and nonradioactive data (amplified in an appendix by Daniel E. Wonderly) support such a conclusion. The evidence continues with a discussion of the solar system’s mass, angular momentum, orbital regularity, and chemical nature.

The model selected for the origin of the solar system is the one held by most investigators today, the star formation model (condensation from a cloud of interstellar gas), rather than the close approach theory or the interstellar capture theory.

Following such a conclusion the authors thoroughly discuss the various interpretations of chronology in the Bible, aided especially by the classic work of William Henry Green, a professor at Princeton seminary in the nineteenth century, whose complete paper is in the appendix. It is agreed that the genealogies are incomplete, that to claim that the “day” of Genesis 1 “always means a twenty-four hour day cannot be substantiated by a survey of its actual use.” Newman suggests that “each day opens a new creative period, and therefore each day is mentioned in Genesis 1 after the activities of the previous creative period have been described, but before those of the next period have been given.”

A detailed analysis of Genesis I follows. The authors remind us “that the Bible does not tell us as much as we might like to know about certain subjects.… Nevertheless it clearly teaches that everything but God is directly or remotely God-created.” Hebrew phrases are interpreted and their correlation with the author’s preferred scientific theory stated: “Genesis 1 gives a description of what the various creation events would have looked like to an earthbound observer had one been present to see God’s work.”

In an appendix, R. John Snow, who taught mathematics and is now a pastor in Johnstown, Pennsylvania, analyzes the length of the Sixth Day. By deciding how long the recorded events of day six would take and interpreting the phrase “now at length” in Genesis 2:23, Snow affirms that it is unreasonable to believe that day six was limited to only a few hours.

The book has this admirable statement: “It is not to be expected that these suggestions are the ‘last word’ for investigation even in this particular area of the relationship between science and Scripture.”

A Multitude Of Authors

The Equipping of Disciples, edited by John Hendrix and Lloyd Householder (Broadman, 1977, 264 pp., $6.95), is reviewed by C. E. Cerling, pastor of education, Hopevale Memorial Baptist Church, Saginaw, Michigan.

Right now, discipling is a popular theme. The whole process of discipling, however, is the subject of debate. What does it mean to disciple another person? Hendrix and Householder have a unique approach to this subject. They selected biblical passages dealing with discipleship and asked men from various backgrounds to write on each passage.

Each chapter of the book includes a theological interpretation of an aspect of discipling, a biblical interpretation, and a practical application. The practical interpretation is given by people in the fields of education and behavioral processes. The result is 247 pages with 95 authors.

Nevertheless, this should not be taken as a condemnation of the book. Any book with that many authors must have something good to say somewhere. The strongest portions of the book are the theological and biblical interpretations. Almost every chapter has something worthwhile in those areas, and preachers should find some helpful material there.

Here is an example of the editors’ methods. Discipling means training people to face crises. Theologically one is confronted by God, judged as to the strength of his faith, and challenged to exercise it. The biblical application was the feeding of the 5000, which showed how a crisis is both a test of faith and an occasion for faith. Part of the practical section dealt with the stages a person goes through in a crisis. For people to benefit fully from a crisis we must permit them to go through each stage. Another aspect of the practical section showed how people could be trained to meet crises through roleplaying.

The practical section of the book, however, is extremely frustrating. Many of the authors write only a single paragraph. Yet they frequently suggest directions that could profitably have been developed at length.

Christ Versus Secularism

The Cosmic Center, by D. Bruce Lockerbie (Eerdmans, 1977, 158 pp., $4.95 pb), is reviewed by Larry M. Lake, chairman, department of English, Delaware County Christian School, Newton Square, Pennsylvania.

Living as Christians in a wicked world, we need to be reminded that the world’s ways are not God’s ways. We who are ministers or teachers need clear examples and a philosophic framework with which to demonstrate this to our hearers. In this book, Bruce Lockerbie of the Stony Brook School applies his skills as a teacher and expositor to clarify the menace of secularism and to point again to Jesus Christ as the center of all things.

In five well-planned chapters, Lockerbie diagnoses the secular condition, documents its worsening infections, identifies its root problem as idolatry, presents the Christian cosmology as seen in Colossians, and shows us the weighty implications of being Christians in a post-Christian world.

His warnings against the secularizing effects of civil religion are painfully clear and will provoke many of us to clear our shelves of idols. His assessment of our so-called religious heritage in America should affect the way we teach history and help us avoid confusing patriotism with religion.

The book discusses secular humanism and the fatal blow that biblical theology can deal such philosophies. In this context, The Cosmic Center helps us focus on Christ even as we see the decay all around us. “This understanding, that Christ stands at the center of history, delivers the Christian from an otherwise cold, cosmic philosophy, a theology derived from belief in a depersonalized universal magneto. Instead, we worship a God who cares for his cosmos” (pp. 110–111). The mystery of the Incarnation is explored here from many angles, yet Lockerbie allows it to remain a mystery.

As in The Liberating Word: Art and the Mystery of the Gospel (Eerdmans, 1974), Lockerbie skillfully uses his broad knowledge of art, philosophy, theology, and poetry to clarify his thesis. We learn about the nature of the wisdom God gives, and that Christianity “announces, as Calvin Seerveld says, ‘with scandalous intolerance’ that only by confessing that Jesus of Nazareth is also the Incarnate Lord of the universe can we begin to know and understand that universe” (p. 118). We are shown the outlines of a philosophy of Christian education that encompasses the universe, but deals compassionately with individuals.

“The Christian must be biblically informed; his attitude and actions must take into account what Scripture declares to be mankind’s condition before God, and God’s reconciling grace in Jesus Christ. But the Christian isn’t called to be limited to Bible study. An integrated Christian mind is compelled to study and learn more about men and the nature of the universe—to study art, politics, physics, and every other area of human knowledge—because all these belong in the realm where Christ is Lord.… Such thinking must be free from narrow-mindedness, purged of the dross of parochialism or sectarianism totally open to the truth that sets one free” (p. 120).

Lockerbie reminds us of the enormous challenge we have in teaching, evangelizing, and in carrying out all the responsibilities God has given us. We must in turn present this challenge to those who depend on our guidance and teaching, and then joyfully work with them, confident that we serve the one who is the center of all things.

An Exciting Concordance

Modern Concordance to the New Testament, edited by Michael Darton (Doubleday, 1977, 796 pp., $27.50), is reviewed by Robert Brow, associate rector, Little Trinity Anglican Church, Toronto, Canada.

I received this exciting concordance as a Christmas present, and I use it often. It is based on a linguistic grouping system first worked out in French. The result is 341 New Testament theme groups, each headed by the different Greek words that express the theme, the number of times each word is used, and then a list of all the related texts in English for easy comparison. You don’t need Greek, but a first-year student can profit from the additional index that leads from any Greek word into the theme where it occurs. New Testament scholars will find the themes important for advanced work.

Last night reading James 2:1, I was struck by the word “partiality” in the Revised Standard Version. The English index of the concordance referred to the theme grouping under “Favouritism.” There I found seven transliterated Greek words that express such ideas as having favorites, making distinctions, and respecting persons. I then read the twelve texts that express these ideas, which was exactly what I wanted. I checked what I would have got from Young’s Concordance and found I would have missed three important connections. In larger themes the difference would be great.

The book does not quite live up to its claim that it is “a complete and accurate Concordance to the New Testament in any English translation.” It seems just about right for the Jerusalem Bible, since all references are given in that version. It misses a proportion of words from other translations. Thus in the reference to James 2:1, the New English Bible uses “snobbery,” which does not come in the English index. That is not as serious as it might seem, since almost any synonym would get you into the correct group.

Occasionally, the arrangement has failed me. I was interested in the idea of teaching, and I quickly found a rich mine of eleven Greek words, including didasko (97 times), didaskalos (59 times), and di-daskalia (21 times). Unfortunately, I missed the equally large number of references to learning gathered under the head of “Hear—Listen—Learn.” Obviously the 261 texts concerning disciples were relevant to the theme of teaching, but in the English index the connection was not made under “Teach” or “Teacher,” though it was made under “(Be) Taught.” For an exhaustive study a check of cognate ideas in a thesaurus would ensure a complete coverage. If you want to enrich your minister’s preaching, this is one of the best gifts you could give him.

Periodicals

An enormous potpourri of more or less scholarly material is itemized in the quarterly ADRIS Newsletter. Announcements of meetings and notices of books, articles, and fugitive matter go on for page after page. Theological librarians and scholars in a variety of disciplines would almost always find several pertinent items. Subscribe by sending $5 (for four issues per year, starting with the fall number) to the Department of Theology, Loyola University, 6525 N. Sheridan Rd., Chicago, IL 60626.

The Epworth Pulpit is a bimonthly tabloid launched by some Nazarenes, but since the third issue (January, 1978) it includes members of three other Wesleyan-holiness denominations among its editors. Three of the articles in the January issue convey its interests: “Phineas Bresee [a Nazarene founding father] and the Poor”, “Was John Wesley a Liberation Theologian?”, and “John Woolman, Man of Conscience.” One year subscriptions are only $1.50, a good price. Write Box 5161, Kansas City, MO 64132.

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