Eutychus and His Kin: April 6, 1984

Rabbit Fever

Some people are allergic to penicillin, some to sunlight, some to aspirin; but I’m allergic to bunnies. I discovered this about 20 years ago. I had gone to an allergist near Easter and was having a series of patch tests. The doctor inserted a succession of cultures under my skin, but nothing really bothered me until he inserted the rabbit juice. Where he injected the bunny serum the flesh became inflamed, and there rose a pustule as big as an egg.

“I don’t understand it, but it looks as though you’re allergic to rabbits,” said the allergist.

“Rabbits?” I said, becoming nervous. Deep in my heart I knew it was a psychosomatic allergy: a curious madness often came over me, and it happened nearly every Easter. I went to a children’s Easter egg hunt once just to step on eggs before the children found them. When my own children were little I used to look for weak seams in their stuffed bunnies just so I could pull out the stuffing and smile as the rabbit went flat. I was clearly a sick man.

“What do you think causes this?” I asked the doctor.

“Was your mother frightened by a huge rabbit before you were born?”

I knew that wasn’t it. The doctor was only an allergist, not a psychiatrist, but I thought I would try to explain to him how I really felt about rabbits at Easter. I knew it was dangerous to abuse rabbits in spring, but I had to talk to someone.

“Doctor, it didn’t happen before I was born, it happened after I was born again.”

“I see,” he said backing away.

“Please, Doctor,” I cried, “you’ve got to help. No one understands me! You should never have shot me with the rabbit juice just now. It’s too near Easter. Don’t you see, I’m a Christian—not a good one—but enough that I can’t stand rabbits mixed into spring theology.”

He could see I was becoming inflamed. He grabbed a ruler off his desk and backed away from me in fear. I could feel myself losing control from the small amount of rabbit juice he had inserted.

“Doctor, don’t you see? When those women went to the tomb on Easter morning, they didn’t find it full of rabbits. The tomb was empty, Doctor. The rabbits came later in history. Jesus never owned any rabbits so far as we know, not even as a boy. Don’t you see, rabbits have nothing to do with Easter.” I felt my eyes growing wild, but I couldn’t stop. As in a delirium, I could hear myself preaching now: “Rabbits have nothing to do with the Resurrection! Nothing, nothing, nothing! Doctor, do you hear me? We Christians must stand together against the bunny boom or Mark 16 will be buried three feet under rabbit eggs. Doctor, do you hear me? We must act now, now, now!”

Suddenly I felt a sharp slap on my face. A nurse was cuffing me back to reality. The doctor threw a cup of ice water in my face. And I grew silent.

“What caused it?” I heard the nurse ask.

“He’s allergic to,” the doctor paused, cupped his hand over his mouth, and whispered it, spelling it out so as not to agitate me further. “He’s allergic to r-a-b-b-i-t-s.”

“Well, Doctor, it’s Easter. We always have a few cases of this at this time of year.”

EUTYCHUS

Creation and Evolution

Your responses to Professor Baer’s article, “They Are Teaching Religion in the Public Schools” [Feb. 17] revealed what I have long suspected: Although the proponents of “scientific creationism” may have good intentions, they have little understanding of the nature of modern science.

I was pleased to see Baer’s remark that creationism does not qualify as a science. Scientific creationism is a contradiction in terms because it necessarily invokes a supernatural cause. Therefore it departs from both the philosophical foundations and the methodological principles of natural science. Creation is revealed truth, not scientific truth. To regard creation and evolution as alternative scientific theories of origins is to impugn both the authority of Scripture and the integrity of science. Such a view, therefore, can make no serious claim to be either Christian or scientific.

CHARLES T. GRANT

Minneapolis, Minn.

What Is Worship?

“Let’s Put Worship into the Worship Service” [Feb. 17] was very penetrating, observant, and very charitable. If worship is the “overflow of a grateful heart,” to whom are we grateful, and for what? If we are overwhelmed by God’s goodness, and see amazing grace as God’s love to us through his Son, then, “Hear ye him.”

If we want to play church, so be it. But if we want to worship “in spirit and in truth,” he is the truth. We worship him. Our Sunday worship will be no better than our daily devotion, and it is when “the people” worship that God is pleased. Not one man for many, but many for one man, “the man Christ Jesus.”

M. J. MICHAUX

Colorado Springs, Col.

Sexist Language

No, Jesus did not address his prayers to “[God] my Father [and Mother].” Jesus had a mother. Her name was Mary. The failure of both the Inclusive Language Lectionary and its critics to recognize this rather obvious fact [Editorial, Feb. 3] illustrates to what a shallow depth the Incarnation has penetrated our modern consciousness.

VIRGINIA STEM OWENS

Huntsville, Tex.

I applaud the National Council of Churches in its recent involvement in ridding religion of sexually biased language in publishing An Inclusive Language Lectionary, a nonsexist revision of major parts of the Bible. As many of us see it, it is obvious that sexist language is like racist language in its effects on attitudes and customs.

ROBERT E. CRENSHAW

Laurens, S.C.

ETS and Gundry

I say “kudos” to Robert Gundry [News, Feb. 3]. Besides writing a fine commentary on Matthew, he has thrown grist into the evangelical mill. Inerrancy does not preclude adopting redaction criticism. Inerrancy rightly understood acknowledges the rectitude of Scriptures independent of methodologies (even fundamentalist-evangelical methodologies). In this revealed religion of ours, God is busy revealing. Today’s “unorthodoxy” is so often tomorrow’s orthodoxy. The future is likely to bring many “suspect” books that will anger us and stimulate us to think in fresh patterns.

ALICE BALDWIN

Fraser, Pa.

While many like Dr. Gundry are dearly beloved as fellow believers, and respected by all as learned men in their fields of study, Christian organizations like the Evangelical Theological Society are finding that they must finally draw the line in affirmation of the integrity of God’s Word. As unpleasant and dreaded as this task may be, the rising tide of questionable teaching within evangelical circles must be challenged. While it has been thrilling to witness the growth of Christian schools and television ministries in the past few years, the abundance of flaky teaching in evangelical, charismatic, and fundamentalist circles has been very disheartening.

GEORGE H. MITCHELL

San Francisco, Calif.

I do not claim, as you say I do, that Gundry did not sign the ETS statement “honestly.” I believe he was honest in signing the ETS inerrancy statement. But I (and the vast majority of ETS members) do not believe he was consistent in signing it. There is an important difference.

NORMAN L. GEISLER

Dallas Theological Seminary

Dallas, Tex.

I think you have given a very fair and factual representation of the events and of the closing business session. Unfortunately, in the quotation of my motion, two minor errors seem to have crept in.

I am not “one of five founders of the Evangelical Theological Society.” There are many more than five charter members, and at least 50 were actually present at the Cincinnati meeting of 1949.

The precise wording of my motion was “That the ETS officially request Dr. Robert Gundry to submit his resignation from membership from this society, unless he now acknowledges that he has erred in his detraction from the historical trustworthiness of the Gospel of Matthew in his recent Commentary.”

ROGER NICOLE

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

South Hamilton, Mass.

Computers—More than Servants?

The interesting article “Living in a World with Thinking Machines” [Feb. 3] assumes the probability that computers may sometime become more than servants to mankind.

If man is eternal, he has an eternal awareness of his existence, his intelligence, his individuality and environment. No amount of sophisticated number-crunching logic can give a machine this God-ordained awareness. On this basis Christians should be able to recognize that while computers will become astonishing tools for mankind, they will never attain the fundamental characteristics of man, God’s creation, because since he is eternal, man is more than an anthropic artisan.

JOSEPH G. S. ROBINSON

Worchester, Mass.

In your story on artificial intelligence, humanism is counted an ally of Christians (“against the influence of mechanistic science”). Fair enough: we can agree that human beings are of unique worth. Then we add our testimony that the Creator whom we know in Christ is of even greater worth.

But why see “mechanistic science” as an enemy? Can’t we also agree with mechanists that human beings are at least mechanisms? Starting there, we witness to what is beyond the reach of science—that we are also images of the living God. How could scientists study humans or any other part of God’s creation without thinking mechanically?

WALTER R. HEARN

American Scientific Affiliation

Berkeley, Calif.

Creative Sermons?

“Dr. Seuss, M.Th., M.Div., Th.D.”: a creative sermon [Jan. 13]? What a novel idea! It reminded me of the little boy in church who leaned over to his dad and asked, “When’s the pastor going to be done?”

“Son,” his father answered, “he was done a long time ago. He just don’t know it yet.”

So in reply to Eutychus, let me say:

I am Pam, Pam-I-am.

Listen up, Preacher Sam.

Learn to speak to someone’s heart,

Learn to reach him from the start.

Let me urge you, Brother Sam,

Be creative, stop the sham.

It would seem you have no choice;

Preach the Word, and they’ll rejoice.

Be encouraged, Reverend Sam,

You can do it, or my name’s not Pam.

PAM DEWITT

Wilmore, Ky.

Biblical Evangelism

I would like to respond to “Do TV Evangelists Build the Local Church?” [Jan. 13]. Dr. Hiller may be an expert in sociology, but he definitely lacks a true biblical understanding of the purpose of evangelism. Biblical evangelism, the responsibility of each born-again Christian, and especially those specifically “called” to evangelism, must necessarily involve the winning of new converts and their subsequent discipleship. The purpose of evangelistic organizations is not to fulfill the role of the local church or to replace it, but to supplement their evangelistic outreach and direct new converts to a place conducive to spiritual growth.

REV. JOHN LANG

Jack Van Impe Ministries

Royal Oak, Mich.

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