Eutychus and His Kin: February 21, 1986

Dropping Our Kierkegaard

It’s no longer a secret—evangelical fans of philosopher Søren Kierkegaard are coming out of the closet. (And just in time. It was getting pretty crowded in there.)

A mere five years ago most conservatives wouldn’t admit to reading the radical from Copenhagen. But all that has changed. Video contracts for philosophy professors are being drawn up, curriculum is being developed—even sales of Danish pastry are on the increase.

Why now? The answer involves a variety of historical factors, the greatest being that Kierkegaard is dead. Of course, popular criticisms persist, as in the recent work Dropping Your Kierkegaard.

I suppose most who are now reading the Dane are attracted to his contention that the Christian faith is more than just an affirmation of correct doctrine. It’s a whole manner of being, a way of existing.

Some contemporary Christians identify with Kierkegaard’s critique of life’s absurdity apart from Christianity. They follow him by taking that step of courage and commitment to faith. Still others are drawn to Kierkegaard by the rakish tilt of his hat.

Indicators suggest this interest in the spirit of Kierkegaard is no passing fad, but that his writings will continue to gain popularity and influence. Admittedly, though, it will be an upward battle. Among folk steeped in possibility thinking, it is not easy whipping up enthusiasm for titles such as Concept of Dread, Fear and Trembling, and Sickness unto Death.

EUTYCHUS

A Read-Aloud Story

Thanks for the collision of pain and peace in Wangerin’s “Empty Manger” [Dec. 13]. He pens a modern, classic Christmas tale deserved to be read aloud beside the holiday hearth.

JONATHAN PEPPER

Roxbury, Mass.

Acceptable “Plagiarizing”

I appreciated your thoughtful and useful editorial, “The Two Faces of Christmas” [Dec 13]. I hate Christmas services generally: they are too sentimental and not realistic. So I am usually very uncomfortable in preparing. This year was easy, and from the response, most welcomed because of much of the thought which I plagiarized from you. Thank you.

REV. A. A. FOUTS

Nottingham, England

Peace And Holy Spirit Power

Your editorial “Disturbing the Peace” [Dec. 13], encouraging us to follow the example of our Lord in bringing realism to our peacemaking efforts, is very much needed. Nevertheless, I was very disturbed by the first two paragraphs.

First, you paraphrase the question the apostles asked the resurrected Jesus, quoted by Luke in Acts 1:6. Most [scholars] believe our Lord’s disciples had great difficulty understanding the true nature of Christ’s kingdom. Even at this post-resurrection meeting their question would [seem to] indicate that they were still thinking about the expected restoration of the national theocracy, and probably their freedom from Roman rule.

Jesus does not answer their question regarding the kingdom by referring to his second coming, as you suggest. Rather, he corrects their improper attitude by reminding them, “it is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has fixed,” and then he gives them grounds for hope by assuring them that they would receive power from the Holy Spirit.

REV. WILLIAM I. CAMPBELL

Thornhill, Ont., Canada

Truth Briefly Noted

My wife and I read CT from “kivar to kivar.” Thank you for “Reflections” [Dec. 13].

MARK ECKEL

Shiloh Christian School

Mandan, N.D.

Call Them “Sad,” Not “Gay”

The Rev. Arthur Gay [Eutychus, Dec. 13] should have his surname reinstated as an honourable word among us. The word “gay” is derived from the old French wahi, which becomes in modern French gai. The word wahi means “bubbling,” and fortunately for our despairing world, one still sees some delightful people with bubbling personalities. Nothing seems more singularly inappropriate than to describe homosexuals as “gay.” The haggard features of an emaciated Rock Hudson show how far the good old English definition of the word gay has been devalued. Let us begin calling homosexuals “sads” instead.

DENNIS PAPE

King Street Baptist Church

Cambridge, Ont., Canada

Why Me?

In his article [“Riddles of Pain,” Dec. 13], Philip Yancey states,” … man asks the question, Why me?” Some Christians, when reflecting on a tragedy they themselves barely escaped, say, “Thank God, it was not me,” or “God had mercy on me.” Many claim divine intervention or deliverance, such as when a tornado hits a few yards from church or home and they are unscathed.

Just as the sun shines and the rain falls on the just as well as the unjust, so also do tragedies, violent storms, and accidents. When a person claims divine intervention he automatically implies that he enjoys preferred status with the Almighty and that God is a respecter of persons. How can anyone think that God allowed an infant or child to be killed and spared a pious adult the same fate? How can an evangelical celebrity claim that a hurricane detoured at his request or benefit?

ROGER WILLIAMS

Denison, Tex.

Change The Score On Campolo

I noticed that the letters to the editor regarding Bill Bright versus Tony Campolo [Dec. 13] scored Campolo 2, Bright 0. If that is representative of all letters received, the Christian world is in real trouble!

In this day of doctrinal fuzziness and cult proliferation, Bill Bright needs to be commended for his courage. At best, Campolo uses highly questionable terminology, which easily could have been further perverted by the teenagers he was scheduled to address. Chalk up Campolo 2, Bright 1!

STEVEN J. COLE

Cedarpines Community Church

Crestline, Calif.

A Reasonable Faith has been placed under more scrutiny than any writing on theology in recent history—as though Tony’s theology is the real problem. The scariest thing has been to watch our leaders put distance between themselves and Tony, all for the sake of evangelical purity and doctrinal orthodoxy (not to mention financial survival).

Tony deserves an apology by each of the leaders embroiled in this controversy. The church also needs an apology from these leaders whose decisions, whether intended or not, have cast doubt upon the reputation of a brother. In the long run, this damage can have a far more detrimental effect upon the body than any alleged doctrinal difference.

PETER SJOBLOM

Metro Chicago Youth for Christ

Wheaton, Ill.

A Warped Perspective?

If the statements attributed to Tim LaHaye [News, Dec. 13] are accurate, they display a seriously warped sense of perspective on the part of a man who should know better. How could he possibly credit legislation with either fostering or hindering the work of the Holy Spirit? Revival never has been, nor will it ever be, legislated into existence. A man of LaHaye’s stature and experience should have recognized long ago that bad laws and the proliferation of pornography are only symptoms of the larger problem of a nation and a people who have turned from their God.

LARRY PAVLICEK

Richfield, Minn.

Robertson On Nicaragua’S Contras

Thanks for [the News] article exposing the controversial evangelist Pat Robertson’s general position (and possible support) on the contra guerrilla organizations fighting for the violent overthrow of the elected government of Nicaragua [“Is Pat Robertson Raising Money for Anti-Sandinista Guerrillas?” News, Nov. 8]. Christians should be wary of a potential presidential candidate who professes belief in Jesus Christ while offering wholehearted support for the despicable terrorism of these groups. Several international human rights and aid agencies as well as the U.S. press have thoroughly documented the widespread use of torture, rape, indiscriminate killing of noncombatants and deliberate destruction of medical facilities by the gang of outlaws.

DONALD WILLIAMS

Cincinnati, Ohio

Let The Women Counsel

In regard to “The Sexual Hazards of Pastoral Care” [Ministries, Nov. 8], I wonder why so many otherwise-scriptural pastors pay so little attention to the Scripture suggesting that (wise, experienced) older women in the congregation should counsel the younger wives. Many ministers’ wives are also knowledgeable and experienced in the area of marriage problems. Why do their husbands not refer the attractive young women to their wives for counsel?

Only my devotion to God and the church and our family could have enabled me to live through all the years of knowing the kinds of attachments that were being formed because of my husband’s visitation and counseling. Isn’t it possible that more marriages would remain intact if the women did not receive such “understanding” from their pastors? Let women minister to women’s problems!

NAME WITHHELD

Seattle, Wash.

Rogers And Need Fulfillment

Robert C. Roberts’s critique of Carl Rogers [“Therapy for the Saints,” Nov. 8] implies that self-fulfillment and self-discipline, freedom, and acceptance of responsibility are mutually exclusive and that, to the humanistic psychologist, “needs” are little more than a euphemism for “immediately obvious” (read “hedonistic”?) impulses. They are not.

Roberts does not appreciate that a “need” is just that: something which, if not satisfied, renders one unable to function effectively, but which, when met, recedes in importance and allows one to get on with the business of living—part of which involves accepting those responsibilities that Roberts is so interested in seeing fulfilled.

To counsel someone only to meet responsibilities, while ignoring needs or labeling them illegitimate, is uncharitable, unrealistic, and perhaps even unchristian.

DAVID BRATT

Winona, Minn.

Anglicanism A Rest Stop?

I am writing in regard to your review of Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail [Nov. 22]. As an Episcopalian, I object to your question of whether “Anglicanism’s Canterbury” is merely a rest stop down the historic trail of orthodoxy’s Constantinople or Papal Rome.

Though many evangelicals have always viewed Anglicanism as “almost Catholic,” it just isn’t true. There are major doctrinal differences, such as: (1) Anglicans reject the infallibility of the Pope; (2) most Anglicans reject the doctrine of transubstantiation; (3) Anglicans do not view the Eucharist as a repeated sacrifice, but rather as “His one oblation of Himself once offered, a full and sufficient sacrifice …”; (4) Anglicans do not venerate Mary and the Saints; (5) Anglicans reject the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary; (6) Anglicans reject the doctrine of purgatory.

The liturgy is beautiful and can bring us to know Jesus as long as we remember to worship him “not only with our lips but in our lives.”

JUDY CULLEN

APO, N.Y.

Letters are welcome. Brevity is preferred, since only a selection can be published. All are subject to condensation. Write to Eutychus, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, Illinois 60188.

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