Eutychus and His Kin: October 7, 1983

Here I Stand, I Think

We live in a relational day when most congregations are saying, “Don’t confront me; feel with me, relate to me.” Gone is the thundering of “Repent or perish!” Most preachers, it seems, just say with Saint Paul, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling—while I work out mine.” “Ye must be born again!” has been replaced by, “Let’s all try a little harder!”

Architecture confirms our easy togetherness. Church buildings have grown round with comfy pews that circle about easy-on-the-eye, colored chancels with no pulpits. Koinonia oozes around 1 John 4:8 pulpit banners. Ecumenics live! Anything that nettles relationships between brothers is played down. Suddenly we are one—gloriously one, blindly one. “You go to your church and I’ll go to mine and we’ll walk along together.” Above all we must preserve the “we” feeling. I have often wondered how the Diet of Worms would have gone if Luther had played by our rules.

There, in a theological showdown, all would have gathered, Germans and Italians, with a desire to “work things out.” With all sitting there, filled with potluck fare of the church supper they had just enjoyed, one can hear again the old inquisitor asking his question, “Luther, did you or did you not write these books?”

“Well,” says Martin, “in a manner of speaking: I was working through some problems with my self-image at the time, and I really think, Your Grace, that when we’re down on ourselves it is so easy to get down on other, really good people. Perhaps I have been a little negative.”

“I’ll tell you what, Martin. Let’s just take your books off the stands, and we’ll all work a little harder on getting along together.”

By the time they had all broken into prayer cells and regrouped in the basement for pie and coffee, the Reformation would have been lost.

A friend of mine recently heard a sermon on Moses and the burning bush. He was told that the bush had only been struck by desert lightning, and that the voice of God that came from it was the natural consequence of a man who had been shrugging off his emancipation responsibilities for four decades. At the end of such nonexposition there is little left for Moses to say to Pharoah except, “Let my people go; okay, old buddy?”

Most of the great prophets of history have done monologues, not talk shows. Here and there we sometimes find a young Jeremiah who doesn’t care so much about togetherness as the pleasure of God. The world may be hungry to hear a sermon that doesn’t go well with pie and coffee.

EUTYCHUS

Authority And Liberty—Balance Needed

One thing Nathan Hatch did not mention in his excellent article, “Yesterday: the Key that Unlocks Today” [Aug. 5], is the fairly recent concept of “progress” in history. While you can see the idea germinate during the Enlightenment, it really flowers in the nineteenth century to support the onslaught of the Industrial Revolution and its counterbalancing social movements. Even Darwinism was based on something better constantly evolving.

Evangelical Christianity embraced human progress to a large extent (e.g., Finney at Oberlin) while still retaining the Christian need for redemption. Without this balance of pointing out the human condition as falling short, however, the idea of human progress in history results in either making the group, or the individual, the goal. Modern social and political movement’s thus become an end in themselves or we self-help ourselves into becoming gods.

ROBERT V. MOSER

West Bloomfield, Mich.

Nathan Hatch correctly asserts that the historical process reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of individuals, groups, and ideologies. Yet I find his historical analysis of religion and politics in revolutionary America to be inordinately critical of the evangelical role.

While properly noting some significant departures from Christian thought in early American life, notably slavery based on race, Hatch fails to acknowledge that American political institutions were designed with specific limitations in scope and prerogatives, thereby conforming to the biblical ideal of governmental servanthood. By insisting upon a proper balance between authority and liberty within the society, our forefathers were able to enhance and preserve the legitimate civil rights of each citizen. It should be clear that the underlying principle involved here—steadfast yet unoppressive order yielding responsible freedom—closely parallels the pattern established by God through his commandments and his regenerative work within the heart of the New Testament believer.

CHARLES ZAFFINI

Columbus, Ohio

Moderates Vs. Immoderates

I appreciated James Hefley’s article, “The Historic Shift in America’s Largest Protestant Denomination” [Aug. 5], Many moderates defend their position by saying they are the “friends of missions,” claiming that conservatives are forsaking this historic Baptist emphasis. As a teenager in a church pastored by Patterson, I learned the meaning of missions as he led 50 young people in planting churches in Canada during three summer tours. A decade later, these groups have outgrown meeting in homes and are now thriving Baptist churches with missions of their own.

If Southern Baptists truly believe God’s Word is inerrant, then they will be compelled to lead people to Christ. Paige Patterson demonstrated to me that only through an immoderate confidence in God’s Word can anyone be compelled or empowered to be an evangelist or missionary.

TAMMI LEDBETTER

Evansville, Ind.

I find it rather ironic that no mention was made of the fact that it was the “moderate” leadership of the SBC over the last several decades that has made it the largest Protestant denomination in the United States. This does not speak very well for the fundamentalists’ “domino theory”—that those who do not agree completely with their understanding of biblical inspiration will not contribute to church growth. The truth of the matter is that Christian ethics is not their strongest characteristic, and that their super churches have a very poor record in giving to the SBC mission.

REV. JAMES BRIDGES

First Baptist Church

Fort Madison, Iowa

Charlie Brown Theology

Your reporting of the “Ominous Implications of the Bob Jones Decision” [July 15] made the mistake of saying repeatedly that the “sincere beliefs” of BJU have been violated. That’s Charlie Brown theology: that sincerity is all that counts. A lot of people have been “sincere” in what they did. The Rev. Jim Jones called his colony religious, and he believed in what he was doing. But just labeling it “religious” doesn’t make it so.

Neither does slapping on the label “religious convictions” make it so. Bob Jones is using the Constitution to cloak its own socio-political philosophy, and in so doing it is no better than the secular opportunists who call themselves a church to avoid paying property taxes.

DONALD O’POLKA

Whitesboro, N.Y.

Thanks For The Truth!

It was with pleasure that I read “Alcoholism: Even the Church Is Hurting” [Aug. 5]. As an evangelical and a professional in the field of alcoholism treatment, it pleases me greatly when the truth about the illness of alcoholism is clearly presented.

I also much appreciated what Dr. Spickard had to say on the issue of alcoholism as a disease. So often evangelicals who ignore the physical, mental, emotional, and social aspects of the problem are as ignorant as the physicians and alcoholism counselors who ignore the spiritual aspect. They are both guilty of reductionism. It is necessary for us evangelicals to see God working not only in direct, miraculous ways, but also through physicians, medications, counselors and a host of other relationships. Spickard’s remarks regarding the church’s response to the alcoholic and the problem of alcoholism should be read carefully by every pastor and church leader. He is surely correct in his assessment. I have counseled several evangelical Christians who are alcoholic. For all of them, the last place they felt they could or would get help was the church. It seems paradoxical that in the evangelical church, where the truth about God and his redemption are so proudly and loudly preached, we are not known as having the love and compassion that our Lord displayed to those who suffer in sin and sickness.

REV. WILLIAM E. MILLER, C.A.C.

Alexian Brothers Medical Center

Elk Grove Village, Ill.

Cartoon—A Cheap Shot!

Your cartoon in the July 15 issue was a cheap shot at the United Methodist Church, although perhaps we deserved it. It is regrettable that the work of the United Methodist Task Force on Language, alluded to in the cartoon, has become so enveloped in the issues of twentieth-century American sexism and sexuality that the genuine theological concerns and issues at stake are too easily lost or ignored. Surely we would all do well to remember that such extremely important theological words as “Lord,” “king,” “slave,” “servant,” “ghost,” “master,” “Father,” and even “God” must always be understood within the context of the age and culture in which they were and are used—whether that age be the first, seventeenth, or twentieth century. Language changes, and certainly English is no exception. This should properly be the concern of all serious theologians, whether or not they are evangelical. Think of all the words (and spellings) for “God” in the Old Testament.

REV. LUNDY HOOTEN

Saint John United Methodist Church

Rio Grande City, Tex.

Good Or Bad?

I appreciated Philip Yancey’s positive and restrained review of When Bad Things Happen to Good People [Aug. 5]. Evangelicals who attack the book’s message fail to remember the author is a Jewish rabbi who could not be expected to give a Christian perspective on the problem of suffering. Kushner’s explanation of life, thus, is truly pre-Christian. It is full of authentic human experience and religious insight, even biblical insight, but it falls short of the gospel.

Pastors should not condemn the book but use it in much the same way we use the Old Testament, especially the Psalms. Kushner leads us to within one step of salvation to eternal life in Christ beyond this world of pain. Someone other than a liberal rabbi must lead readers in that final step.

REV. CHARLES E. HAMBRICK-STOWE

Saint Paul’s United Church of Christ

Westminster, Md.

Divinely Inspired?

I would class “The God Who Sings” [July 15] with the inspired (neoorthodoxically speaking) writings of the Good Book, because it exonerates the “sad, glum, bored, prosaic …” God of modern evangelical ecclesiology (i.e., “churchiness”). It also gives careless choir directors and choirs a hard time, it challenges hymn writers, lauds the music critic, encourages the acoustician, rebukes the “soloing accompanist,” approves the minister of music, and honors the “Source” of the gift of music. In fact, the entire issue of July 15, including the ads, was “divinely inspired.”

RAYMOND M. KINCHELOE

Regina, Sask., Canada

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