Letters/Eutychus: February 11, 1991

Separate Issues

I commend you for an intelligent and rational look at a controversial issue, “Brave New Harvest,” by Andrew Simons [Nov. 19]. Though fiercely dedicated to the prolife movement and opposed to virtually all abortion, I agree with those who say abortion and the use of fetal tissue must be considered as totally separate moral and ethical issues. To bring a life into being only to destroy the physical body is intolerable.

On the other hand, I can support the use of fetal remains for the purpose of alleviating human suffering. To consider that, after an abortion, the fetal tissue remaining is the victim is no more rational than defining the mortal remains of a murdered person as the victim. Not to allow the beneficial use of any human remains is a tragic waste of something God has created; to disallow their use to save life only adds tragedy to tragedy.

Rev. James J. Pauquette

Saginaw, Mich.

Andrew Simons’s article is one more example of how a writer can tickle the ear with inimical thoughts. Not one Bible verse is used to support his comities, or to contract the overflowing truth found in God’s Word about the importance of saving innocent lives.

Lionel Rush

Fish is correct that parental consent to use the tissue of an abortus is foolish. It is “informed consent” run amok. But her conclusion does not necessarily follow. Just as neither pathologist nor researcher needs the consent of the patient to use excised tissue, they should require no consent for fetal tissue.

Dr. Arrant is wrong in stating that “no decision on the matter of using fetal tissues for research is preferred to a less than perfect one.” The decision has been made, and, like the king’s writing (Esther 8:8), cannot be altered. It is not to be swayed by pity, mercy, reason, nor, probably, thunder from heaven.

Name withheld by request

The one question absent from “Brave New Harvest” was “If not fetal tissue transplants, then what?” Those opposed offer few, if any, workable solutions or suggestions.

Beth Grant-DeRoos

Tracy, Calif.

Thanks for publishing the [sidebar], “The Scandal of Fetal-Tissue Research.” Sharon Fish did a great job of succinctly outlining a position based on God’s sovereignty rather than on pragmatism.

Bertram E. Moore, Jr.

Portsmouth, R.I.

On the road of sound reason

Thank you for the clearly written, well-balanced interview of Mortimer Adler [“Truth’s Intrepid Ambassador,” by Terry C. Muck, Nov. 19]. It is important to remember that the Christian position Adler now represents derives its beauty and strength from the fact that it is neither irrational nor extremist. It has traveled the road of sound reason and in so doing recognizes not only the limits of human reason but also its proper place in the world of Christian faith.

In light of this intriguing article, I encourage readers of CT to take more seriously such theologians as Paul Tillich and one of his interpreters, Langdon Gilkey of the University of Chicago. Your interview-article touched upon issues that should be more thoroughly explored by Christians and non-Christians alike.

Larry Isbell, M.Div.

Venus, Pa.

Your interview tells us that Adler’s insights about truth will enrich the Christian community. It does not point out that “truth” as he reveals it is opposed to truth as revealed in the Bible, and will lead us common people away from belief in biblical truth. We little people thank God that we don’t have to have Ph.D.’s in philosophy, theology, or science to know God.

Fil Cross

Los Alamos, N.M.

The interview suggests that linguistic philosophy was founded by Wittgenstein, that it still dominates philosophy departments in most American universities, and is hostile to metaphysics and, by implication, Christianity. This is incorrect, or at least misleading.

First, Wittgenstein was an important early figure in it, but most philosophers would trace linguistic philosophy back to the earlier work of Frege, Moore, and Russell. Second, these days, analytic philosophy is still characterized by an interest in language and a concern for logical rigor, but one would be hard pressed to name even a few living philosophers who still think that, say, all philosophical problems are “merely” linguistic or logical problems. Third, now that analytic philosophy is free of some of its old methodological strictures, it is not (generally) hostile to metaphysics as such. Finally, the presence of Christians in professional philosophy is probably greater now than at any other time in this century, and the leading Christian philosophers are all (or almost all) analytic philosophers par excellence. This is an exciting time to be a Christian in philosophy.

Mark T. Nelson

Hampden-Sydney, Va.

I hope Professor Muck mistakenly reports that Professor Adler quoted Tertullian as saying, “I believe because it is absurd.” It is not an error I would expect a scholar like Adler to make. What Tertullian wrote, referring to the death of the Son of God, was that “it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd.” His original word was not the Latin absurdum, irrational, but ineptum, unsuitable or inappropriate. His point is that the gospel message is too preposterous to have been invented. Therefore, it must be an accurate report.

David F. Siemens, Jr., Ph.D.

Los Angeles, Calif.

The less-noble path

Creationist and science writer Forrest Mims III was allegedly dropped by Scientific American [News, Nov. 19] because of its concern “that Mims’s position with the magazine might be exploited by others.” As a subscriber to Scientific American for 25 years, I suspect the real reason lies deep within the “conscience” of editor Jonathan Piel.

Scientific American has consistently claimed—as do many secular evolutionists—that one cannot be a creationist and be a true scientist. Mims was hired because he had an excellent understanding of science. Then it was learned he was a creationist. To retain Mims would be to admit that there was at least one creationist in the universe who did understand how science works. But if there is one, then possibly there may be two or even three creationists in the universe who understand how science works. This admission would reveal an honesty and fairness which, among secular evolutionists, is in rather short supply.

Piel himself is an excellent scientist. But expertise in science does not guarantee nobility of person. Creationists are disappointed but not surprised that Scientific American chose the less-noble path.

Prof. Marvin L. Lubenow

El Cajon, Calif.

Theologians who embarrass us

Mark Galli writes well [“In Praise of Foolish Lovers,” Nov. 19]. I’m glad his embarrassment over Martin Luther’s prediction of Jesus’ return didn’t affect his feeling for the great Reformer. Luther wasn’t a date setter. He only said that he believed that Christ’s coming was near.

It’s better we misread the signs of the great event than to misread the fact of the event. The theologians who embarrass me are those who never predict Christ’s coming at all.

Lon Woodrum

For such a solemn, serious, and wonderful event as the Second Advent to be dealt with in such a flippant, trying-to-be-humorous way is approaching sacrilegiousness. I fear Mr. Galli is not only a foolish lover, he may be one foolish virgin.

Mrs. Neale Strand

Chetwynd, B.C., Canada

Heretical knowledge?

When I read David Neff’s editorial on genetic engineering [“The Eugenic Temptation,” Nov. 19], I had to quickly check the date on the cover to make certain it was still 1990. The five reasons he uses to argue against medical technology are as old as the hills. They were the same reasons used through the ages to denounce vaccinations against crippling and deadly diseases, blood transfusions, organ transplants—and the list goes on.

History has shown that whenever society progresses there is a small but loud group of naysayers who claim to speak for God, denouncing the knowledge as heretical. History has also testified that these individuals were terribly shortsighted, speaking out of ignorance and paranoia. I hope that history repeats itself again.

Kate Busman

Knoxville, Tenn.

A “Christian” view of homosexuality

Regarding “The Evangelical Closet” [News, Nov. 5, 1990]: Inasmuch as Christians of all persuasions—from the most conservative to the most liberal—have had to acknowledge the presence of homosexuality within their ranks, there must be something awfully wrong with the so-called Christian view of the matter. And there is, both in interpretation and in pronouncement.

Somehow, Christianity has strayed far from its roots, the teaching of Jesus of love for all, and from the practices of the first Christians, as plainly set forth in Acts. Even by the wildest stretch of imagination, there are only six chapters in the whole of the Bible that could possibly be construed to deal with this subject negatively. There is only one place that forbids homosexuality: one small verse in Leviticus 18, with the punishment for its violation given in chapter 20. That is probably the only commandment in all of Leviticus that Christians want to enforce.

If the Christian God exists, I think so-called Christians who continue to inflict pain, alienation, and suicide on so many of their fellow humans ought to be concerned about answering to him.

Louis E. Fisher

Lancaster, Pa.

Your coverage of evangelical homosexuals was terribly disappointing. You continue to echo the secular view that the origin of homosexuality is some deep mystery. You should read the secular literature. Masters and Johnson point out in their classic work, Homosexuality in Perspective, that homosexuality is no mystery. Indeed, they assert that homosexuality is a myth propounded by practitioners to justify their practices.

One group of psychiatrists dealing with deviant sexual behavior has proposed a simple classification: “disorders of courtship.”

In all forms of complex innate behavior, triggering of the behavior that does not lead to the expected “payoff” inevitably generates obsessive repetition of the behavior. The “payoff” for courtship is bonding and parenthood. People can get “hung up” at any stage.

If we do not follow God’s rules and court only appropriate people at appropriate times in appropriate ways, each and every one of us could be trapped into compulsive patterns of activity of which homosexuality is only one of many types. Sounds a lot like sin to me. Not the least bit mysterious.

P. M. Webster, M.D., FRCPC

Toronto, Ont., Canada

I was interested to learn that opposition to homosexuality was one of the “fundamental tenets of evangelical faith.” I thought evangelicalism was based on saving faith in Jesus Christ, an experience that is open to everyone, gay or straight. Or has a particular set of ethical teachings taken over the heart of what it means to be evangelical?

Hubert J. Thompson

Chicago, Ill.

Call yourself evangelical or call yourself mainline, but if you think homosexuality is acceptable and pleasing to God, call yourself deceived.

Michael LeMieux

Oxford, Wis.

What Bible are you guys reading? Don’t you understand, there is no such thing as a Christ-centered homosexual? And to believe otherwise is to call God a liar!

Walter F. Adams

Casselberry, Fla.

I remain puzzled by the confusion over the origins of homosexuality. We are all born with the potential for every type of sin. Having homosexual inclinations does not mean you are born to be a homosexual any more than having inclinations to steal proves you were born a thief.

Philip R. Cook

Palatine, Ill.

As the director of a public agency that deals with AIDS as well as survivors of sexual assault, I would like to say that God has placed many outstanding Christians in public agencies; I find it insulting that Jeff Collins states that answers given there will not be biblical. We are always looking for places to send our clients for more support and ongoing care. If evangelical pastors could reach beyond the “us” and “the world” mindset, make their resources known to those of us in agencies, as well as utilize ours, how much more effectively we all could minister to those in need.

Maureen Stebner

N. Canton, Ohio

Voice in the academic wilderness

John McIntyre’s article on evangelicals teaching at secular universities [“Calls of Ivy,” Nov. 5] is truly a voice crying in the academic wilderness. Sadly, the church has feared the fortifications and the giants in the land, and told its young people not to make their careers there.

Brian Morley, Th.M., M.A.

Assistant Professor of Philosophy

A standing ovation to you from the Christian College Coalition for the articles by John McIntyre and Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen. We heartily echo the challenge they present to the evangelical church.

A college or university education is only as effective as those who profess it, and the most effective “professors” are those who have devoted their lives to academic pursuit. God requires that we serve him with our whole heart and mind and strength. The church must not belittle a gift of which God thinks highly. If every square inch of the earth is indeed the Lord’s, then certainly academia has a place as an instrument of praise to the Creator.

Myron S. Augsburger, President

Christian College Coalition

Washington, D.C.

Thanks for McIntyre’s call to scholarship and teaching. I am captivated by the study of family relationships. I can think of no other place I would rather be than in academia in a public institution.

Ed Long, Ph.D.

In the past, major inventors-scientists believed in God and the Bible. The scholastic belief-research pendulum has swung to an anti-God/Bible position, due to aggressive propagation of an invasive evolution belief. Until the delusive nature of evolution belief is exposed and widely recognized, incentive for and recognition of Christian scholastic achievement will be rare. Scholars are just beginning to see the impossibility of evolution and returning to belief in God and the Bible; the pendulum will swing back.

Bob Landers

Westfield, N.J.

When I arrived at church last week, the usher greeted me with an amazing packet of information—our Sunday bulletin. I opened it just as the service began, naïvely expecting to find the order of worship.

Instead, a flurry of colorful paper fell into my lap and at my feet. I missed the opening hymn or two while I collected and reorganized all the inserts. There was one on how important the family is, inviting me to attend a film series. I noted the date on my pocket calendar, then turned to a flyer and envelope promoting a special missions offering. Unfortunately, the offering plate passed by while I was reading it.

I got to the really good stuff during the sermon: sign-up sheets for activities; promotions for upcoming choir performances; quotations from famous historical figures; a list of toys the nursery needs; a sermon outline, which I gave to the little girl sitting next to me to draw on.

It was close, but I managed to get through it all just before the service ended. I shook hands with the pastor at the door, and he looked a little puzzled when I told him I was looking forward to hearing his morning message. But after all, I had filled out the insert requesting a cassette copy of the sermon.

EUTYCHUS

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