Page 5764 – Christianity Today (2024)

The ecological debate has taken a distinct turn during the last two years. The ecological campaign began as a radical offshoot from the older nature conservation movement and has never been able to quite rid itself of the suspicion that it was more interested in the survival of some subspecies of fox than in the survival of starving millions of human beings. Other symptoms of the tendency in question were the resentment several of its authors held against the mere concept of “environment” as being typically man-centered, and their obvious resolve not only to halt the much advertised “population explosion” but to reduce the earth’s population considerably (in the case of Britain by one-third) in order to allow the rest to return to a life of immediate correspondence with and enjoyment of nature.

Extremes like these set apart, the ecological uproar of recent years has rightly met with the applause and support of a vast number of people who feel that man is not meant to become a natural invalid and who certainly sympathize with the slogan coined in over-populated Europe: man has an inborn need for a quiet house and fishing water.

In 1972 Dennis Meadows’s book The Limits of Growth somewhat marked the apex of this environment-oriented phase of debate. His passionate call for overall zero growth, though, particularly challenged the sociologists who with fierce resentment pointed out that this would mean the stabilization of present prerogatives: affluence for the rich, and poverty for the poor forever.

The second report to the Club of Rome—that high-powered body of top scientists and big-business strategists—written by Mesarovic and Pestel for its Berlin session in October last year not only dropped the idea of zero growth but also flatly stated that there were two cleavages to bridge, one between man and nature, the other between rich and poor. Moreover, instead of a global analysis they offered a regionalized study of the world’s problems and pleaded for cooperation between world regions of different character. The problem of man’s handling of nature is thus linked to the seemingly imminent problem that the world food and energy crisis presents: the problem of distribution.

The same turn of topic may now also be observed in Christian publications on the subject. The first phase of the ecological debate—on the relation of man and nature—brought forward that magnificent though short statement by Francis Schaeffer, Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology (1970). This book will be of lasting importance, just as much of the environment problem remains after the coming of socio-political emphases.

Representative of Christian participation in the present phase of debate is Thomas Sieger Derr’s Ecology and Human Liberation: A Theological Critique of the Use and Abuse of Our Birthright, jointly produced by the WCC’s Department of Church and Society and the World Student Christian Federation (1973). This is quite a remarkable book, written with systematic vigor and clear thinking.

The American author Derr anticipates the conviction of Mesarovic and Pestel, i.e., that “we have to satisfy two needs, justice and the protection of the biosphere.” Note the sequence. Derr believes that man’s bond to his fellow human beings is stronger than his bond to the rest of nature. So he seeks to find a theology of nature that is socially responsible. His concept is demonstrated from the biblical sources and with constant powerful argument against the attacks leveled at Christianity on ecological grounds, and against the different philosophies, such as romanticism and pantheism, offered as substitutes.

Man, states Derr, controls nature but as a “caretaker.” There is no such thing in Genesis as a command from God to treat the earth irresponsibly. On the contrary, the biblical idea of property right from the beginning, and as opposed to its counterpart in Roman law, carries the notion of responsibility.

Coming to the problem of distribution of resources, Derr therefore finds that compared with other suggested systems of thought the traditional Christian emphasis on supporting the weak, feeding the hungry, and clothing the naked is most helpful for tackling today’s crisis. Except for a certain leaning to Teilhardian tendencies and a grossly irrational attitude pro abortion, Derr’s main argument is clear, sound, and useful.

Christians should certainly attempt to keep abreast of these recent developments in the ecology/distribution debate and continually think through the application of the Christian message to this subject. These are central problems for humanity, even if the fashion of the day turns away from them. It is here that the doctrine of God’s sustenance of creation comes into force in Christian ethics. Here is a field that calls for the Christian message of creation and redemption to be put into practice, and here is a ready ground to show the superiority of this message.

Christianity can never be satisfied with replacing destruction of nature by mere non-destruction. It does not stop at an ethics of avoidance. God orders Adam not to destroy but to guard and develop the garden that He created. In the same way He asks man to take on the sustenance of his fellow man (Lev. 25:35).

There are two ways of life that Christ says human beings adopt in the open space of time before his Second Coming: man will be either a destroyer or a provider (Matt. 24:45–51). These two types come up dramatically side by side in real life in Matthew 14. There we see King Herod “eating and drinking,” and not only beating but killing his fellow servant, John the Baptist, for the sake of a party whim. Next there is Christ, feeling mercy for the hungry masses and feeding them, Christ himself the “faithful and wise servant.” His words in Matthew 24:45 quote that well-known verse, Psalm 104:27: “These wait all upon thee that thou mayest give them their food in due season.” This very work of God Christ now entrusts to his servants: to sustain, to give good to their fellow men, to maintain them, body and spirit.

Let Christians therefore be reminded of his word, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35), and of St. Paul’s realistic application of it in Ephesians 4:28—“Let him that stole steal no more, but rather let him labor … that he may have to give to him that needeth.”

Some disgruntled letter-writers have made it quite clear that they do not think a column written by a woman should be called “A Layman and His Faith.” The name was selected by the originator of the column, the late L. Nelson Bell, and we have not been in a hurry to change it. But now we invite readers to help us make a change. We have already turned down “A Laywoman and Her Faith”; we would like a name suitable for either a male or a female writer. I’ll announce with gratitude the name of anyone who sends us a winning idea—and extend his or her subscription for a year with our compliments.

The umbrella of the “Umbrella Church” did not exactly snap shut at last month’s 187th General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A. But it closed enough to leave many conservative ministers within that denomination standing in the rain. At convention’s end whether they would move back under the umbrella or seek shelter elsewhere remained an open question.

Unlike many former General Assemblies, this year’s gathering in Cincinnati, Ohio, of the highest ruling body of the 2.7-million-member denomination was a one-issue assembly. The issue was the “Kenyon Case,” a landmark decision by the denomination’s Permanent Judicial Commission (the UPC’s supreme court) that barred ordination to twenty-seven-year-old seminarian Walter Wynn Kenyon on grounds that he said he could not endorse for biblical reasons the denomination’s position in regard to the ordination of women ministers and elders (see March 28 issue, page 36).

Conservatives had hoped for a shift in policy in order to permit those who felt as Kenyon did to remain within the denomination. Instead, the assembly moved to bar the legitimacy of any mediating position. It also implied that not only new and aspiring ministers like Kenyon but also ministers, elders, and deacons of long standing who think like him are unwelcome.

The focus of debate fell on seven overtures (proposals) from a wide variety of presbyteries, all of which sought to provide some breathing space for dissenters from the official denominational position. But on recommendation from the Bills and Overtures Committee, commissioners voted either no action or non-concurrence on each one. There was not even significant debate. The only real discussion was on a substitute motion by clergyman Wayne Buchtel of the Santa Fe Presbytery that would have allowed ministers, ruling elders, and deacons already ordained to continue in their current roles with “equal rights” and move to other churches and presbyteries “without prejudice.” But this was soundly rejected. No more than twenty-five of the nearly 700 commissioners voted support.

The whole discussion took only thirty minutes, during which time Kenyon and other affected seminarians watched from the sidelines. Kenyon did not appear to be surprised. “It seemed inevitable,” he told a reporter. “I had hoped we would be able to get the constitution changed, but I really didn’t have any great hopes.” He added that he was disappointed that so momentous an issue was not more fully debated and that the final vote in support of change was so low.

Others were disappointed also, but for different reasons. In an interview shortly after the vote, Robert C. Lamar, the immediate past moderator of the assembly, supported the viewpoint of the Permanent Judicial Commission but said he wished the matter had not gone the judicial route. He said that the effect of the assembly action was to “strengthen and broaden” that decision, a course that he termed “unfortunate.” The new moderator, William F. Keesecker of Wichita, Kansas, said at a news conference before the debate that any move to make the Kenyon decision “retroactive for those who are already pastors would be going too far.”

Reacting to the assembly’s action, many predicted that the matter will go much farther than Keesecker or other denominational officials have anticipated.

The immediate fall-out may be the splitting or secession of a sizable number of churches and the peaceful withdrawal of even more pastors and seminarians. According to Pastor Frank Moser of the Bethel United Presbyterian Church of Monroeville, Pennsylvania, at least ten churches in the Pittsburgh area alone may either split or be refounded by their departing pastors. Another informed observer predicted the same would be true of the Baltimore and Albany areas and perhaps many more.

By the assembly’s end, several pastors had determined to call a church-wide meeting to discuss the options, including the possibility of simultaneous withdrawal. The meeting is currently scheduled for June 16 and 17 in the Pittsburgh area, where the Kenyon matter originated.

It is not known how many ministers or churches might attend the Pittsburgh meeting, but 1,700 of the 8,700 churches in the denomination do not have women elders.

On a broader front the assembly’s decision may also affect the proposed union between the UPC and the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. (Southern), which is now in the study stage. Contacted within hours after the debate, Chairman Andrew Jumper of the board of the Covenant Fellowship of Presbyterians, a powerful group of conservative Presbyterians within the southern church, said he intended to have his group write an open letter to the southern churches in which they would discuss the bearing of the Cincinnati decision upon the proposed merger. He said the decision was an offense to decency and might kill the union plan.

The irony of the decision, conservatives point out, is that it is now possible to remain in the northern church while denying the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, vicarious atonement, and personal return of Jesus Christ, and many other cardinal doctrines, but not if one believes that the Bible requires that women may not be ordained to the office of ruling or teaching elder.

Does that mean that the position of the church regarding women is more important than these other doctrines? Apparently, and some are not afraid to say so. Clergyman Jack Maxwell, who brought the case against Kenyon, said that a minister who does not believe in the virgin birth of Christ is not hurting anyone. But a minister who denies women the right to be ordained “would hurt and dispossess a lot of people.”

Kenyon had not denied the right of the church to ordain women nor their right to be ordained within it. He had only denied that this was right according to the Bible, and said that he would himself refuse to take part in such a ceremony.

It was ironic that it was at an earlier meeting of the General Assembly in Cincinnati, forty-five years ago, that the ordination of women as ruling elders became a part of the denomination’s constitution. At the last meeting in Cincinnati, thirty years ago, the assembly voted to oust New Jersey minister Carl McIntire and two other men from its ministry.

If the Kenyon matter was clear cut, as the brief debate and the vote against all mollifying overtures would indicate, the place of hom*osexual ministers within the church apparently was not. A proposal to recognize a gay caucus was debated at length, received strong platform support, and was voted down by a narrower margin than the Kenyon issue.

Under the leadership of clergyman David B. Sindt, a confessed hom*osexual, the Presbyterian Gay Caucus had sought recognition as an unofficial organization of Presbyterians related to the church through special provisions in Chapter 28 of the church’s constitution.* (The conservative Presbyterian Lay Committee and Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns are Chapter 28 organizations.) The assembly engaged in two hours of intense, spirited debate before it voted against receiving the gay report, which would have had the effect of granting recognition.

The report of the Committee on Minutes and Reports, upon which the assembly acted, affirmed that “there is no condemnation for anyone in Christ Jesus,” but added that in its view “the Scripture as understood in our Reformed tradition does not condone their sexual orientation and life style.” Former moderator Lamar surprised many by arguing forcefully on behalf of the Gay Caucus. He argued that “we must continue to run the necessary risks of inclusiveness within our church family.”

Even though the commissioners declined to follow his advice, many conservatives felt that recognition of the Gay Caucus will be granted eventually, along with the right of hom*osexuals to be ordained within the denomination. Those who felt most strongly about the Kenyon matter noted with dismay that no one seemed concerned about the sexual orientation of Sindt and other confessed hom*osexuals, although their life style is clearly in opposition to biblical norms while Kenyon’s is not.

Overall, it was a bad week for conservatives. In other action the assembly affirmed the action of its General Assembly Mission Council in rejecting both the theology and recommendations of “A Declaration and Call,” the mission document drafted and signed by most of those who participated in a mission consultation called by Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns last October. The document had articulated a conservative theology of mission and had called upon the mission council to “establish the overseas mission enterprise of the church as a separate agency,” responsible to the mission council in carrying out “the work of world evangelization.”

The assembly also called for “a vehicle through which the Presbyterian Lay Committee is obliged to dialogue with … persons or groups” it criticizes, and it instructed the mission council or a committee appointed by it to “counsel with” the lay groups about “the manner in which its publications and spokespersons deal with persons, organizations, and policies with which it disapproves.” The lay organization had come under unprecedented attack for recent articles criticizing denominational policy, particularly in fiscal matters. Its monthly, The Presbyterian Layman, has a circulation of 300,000.

For years the UPC has endorsed the concept of “mutuality” in mission but has been ignoring it in grants to a controversial organization known as ROSCA in Colombia, South America. Mutuality refers to an agreement not to intrude into the affairs of another country’s churches against the wishes of those churches. In two previous years the denomination’s Committee for the Empowerment of Minorities granted $75,000 to the non-church-related, Marxist-oriented ROSCA organization. This year the committee was proposing to give $90,000, in spite of the vigorous protests of the Presbyterian Church in Colombia. But the protests seemed to have gotten through to the commissioners, though not to many members of the committee; the commissioners voted to adopt a minority report which struck down the proposed grant.

On the same morning, worship had begun by the singing of the words, “We will work with each other, we will work side by side.… And they’ll know we are Christians by our love.” But as the assembly ended many pastors and elders returned home feeling unloved and unwanted. They face agonizing decisions of compromise, withdrawal, or defiance. Others, less affected, spoke openly of the “death wish” of the northern church, which, in spite of its severe budget cutbacks and divisions, persists in racing like a herd of lemmings into the sea.

EASY, RIDERS

“We’re simply moving with the times,” explained Bishop Maurice Wood of Norwich, England, as he sent forth thirty-six vicars on Hondas to spread the Word of God.

With only 500 clergy to cover 760 parishes in Norfolk County, Wood decided it was time to switch from horses and gaiters to Hondas and crash helmets.

The parsons are not “a rodeo of reverend gentlemen,” commented Wood. “They are seriously out to reach the people.”

Clergyman Geoffrey Burton, 55, stood on the seat of his bike as he roared off with the others. He had, he said, ridden a motorcycle before.

TAKE KERR

There’s been a change of menu for TV chef Graham Kerr, known to millions as “The Galloping Gourmet.” Kerr, 42, recently told a History of Eating class at Cornell Hotel School in Ithaca, New York, how his tastes have changed since he became a follower of Christ. He says his “Galloping Gourmet” series, taped several years ago and being shown currently as reruns, wrongly emphasized indulgence, imbibing, and off-color humor. He wants to get the reruns off TV.

Kerr and his wife Treena, who produced the show, were injured in a serious auto accident in California in 1971. In the aftermath, they dropped production of the show, and their family life deteriorated. To try to mend things they bought a yacht, bundled their three children aboard, and sailed the world for two years in a vain search for happiness. In March, 1974, the family settled in Easton, Maryland. Financial disasters wiped out almost everything they had, and there were more fights.

But suddenly, Treena changed. No more arguments. And she was noticeably happy and at peace within. Only later did Kerr discover that Ruth Turner, the family’s 34-year-old black domestic worker, a happy-eyed Pentecostal, had been counseling Treena and had quietly led her to Christ. She was secretly baptized in December.

Meanwhile, Kerr’s secretary, Michelle Dubois—a self-described “backslidden Christian”—had been led back to the faith by Patricia Rich, a temporary food assistant Kerr had hired from California.

Not knowing that everybody around him was praying for him, Kerr grew increasingly restless and turned to prayer himself as a way out. Finally, in a hotel room in Canada on March 13, he accepted Christ as Saviour.

Things are better now, says Kerr, who was baptized on April 13. He and his family are members of a Church of the Brethren congregation in Easton whose pastor is into the charismatic movement (Kerr says he received the gift of tongues on Easter Sunday). His new, lower-keyed TV series—“Take Kerr”—is doing well, and he has plans for a cookbook in which he will include some food for thought about faith in Christ.

EDWARD E. PLOWMAN

Books, Yes; Remedial Reading, No

The U. S. Supreme Court upheld a Pennsylvania law providing the loan of textbooks to students in parochial and other private schools, but it struck down as unconstitutional the lending of instructional materials and equipment. The court also banned the provision of such auxiliary services by the state to private school children as counseling, testing, and remedial classes.

In another action, the high court decided not to hear after all a Tennessee case involving public tuition grants to students enrolled in the state’s colleges and universities, including church-related ones. The case was returned to a lower federal court for reconsideration because an amendment was added to the grant plan specifying that the schools must use such funds “solely for secular purposes.”

Printed Matter

Annual awards were handed out at the annual meetings of the three major religious press associations last month.

Campus Life, a 160,000-circulation monthly published by Youth for Christ International, was named grand prize winner in the “Awards of Excellence” competition at the twenty-seventh annual convention of the Evangelical Press Association in suburban Chicago. CHRISTIANITY TODAY was a close second, placing just ahead of 30,000-circulation His, the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship monthly.

Divisional winners included Success (Baptist Publications), The Standard (Baptist General Conference), CHRISTIANITY TODAY,Cable (Overseas Crusades), Good News (independent United Methodist), Campus Life, and Youth Illustrated (Scripture Press).

At the Associated Church Press meeting in New York, the top divisional awards went to A.D. (United Church of Christ and United Presbyterian Church), Mennonite Reporter, The Virginia Churchman (Episcopal), World Encounter (Lutheran Church in America), Journal of Current Social Issues (United Church of Christ), and Youth (United Church of Christ).

The Catholic Press Association, also meeting in New York, gave its top newspaper award to the National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly published in Kansas City, Missouri. St. Anthony Messenger and U.S. Catholic won the most first-place awards among magazines.

Dozens of other winners in various categories were announced at the three meetings.

Sneak Preview

More than 100,000 advance tickets—believed to be a record for any movie—were sold for sneak previews of The Hiding Place in the Minneapolis area last month. Unlike other films released by the Billy Graham organization, no counseling was to be done in theaters following performances. Follow-up was to be done through literature and reply cards.

RELOCATING THE REFUGEES

Among the Vietnamese who fled their country just prior to the Communist takeover were hundreds of evangelical Christians. They left behind some 400 churches in South Viet Nam and some 120,000 other believers.

Spokesmen for the Christian and Missionary Alliance, which has taken on the responsibility of sponsoring the Christian refugees, say they may number as many as 1,000.

The CMA was until recent years the only American mission board with workers in Viet Nam. Its missionary efforts resulted in the establishment of the Evangelical Church of Viet Nam.

CMA president Nathan Bailey told a press conference held in connection with his denomination’s annual General Council in Cleveland that a drive has begun to raise $500,000 to assist in the resettlement of the refugees and in the relocation of more than 100 of its missionaries who had been serving in Viet Nam. Churches and individual members are being asked to locate homes for the refugees and help them find jobs and learn English. A number of other church bodies and para-church groups are also offering extensive aid to refugees.

Among the first CMA churches to offer to accommodate the Vietnamese was the Cathedral at the Crossroads in Castro Valley, California. The church has long been known for its ministry to servicemen. Its extensive facilities include quarters that will be used to care for refugees for three or four weeks until homes can be found for them.

The CMA refugees were being processed at the centers set up in California, Florida, and Arkansas. Some were expected to proceed to the center established last month near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the state in which CMA churches are most numerous.

One of the dozen or so Vietnamese pastors who fled was the Protestant patriarch, 81-year-old Le Van Thai, president emeritus of the Evangelical Church. His successor, Doan Van Mieng, chose to stay in Viet Nam.

The only one of the refugees who was able to attend the council meeting in Cleveland was Le Hoang Phu, who was the dean of an evangelical Bible school in Nha Trang. Phu speaks English well, having been educated in the United States. He attended Nyack and Wheaton Colleges and earned a doctorate from New York University.

Phu said that his fellow Vietnamese Christians in the refugee camps were engaged in evangelistic work, and that a number of conversions were being reported.

Most of the refugees are said to be people who were originally from the north. They were fleeing Communism for the second time. Very few of the tribespeople sought evacuation.

Tom Stebbins, the last CMA missionary to leave Saigon, said he tried to get helicopters to go to the CMA-operated International Protestant Church there, inasmuch as some 200 persons had assembled in the building in hopes of being picked up. Stebbins was unsuccessful, and was himself forced to climb a wall to reach a helicopter.

The CMA has also had missionary work in Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand. Its missionary force in Laos, which had numbered more than a dozen, was ordered to leave in mid-May.

DAVID KUCHARSKY

Mixed Usefulness

Finding the Old Testament in the New, by Henry M. Shires (Westminster, 1974, 251 pp., $7.50), is reviewed by John Goldingay, lecturer in Old Testament, St. John’s Theological College, Bramcote, England.

Henry M. Shires, who is professor of New Testament at Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, has written a wide ranging survey of how the New Testament uses the Old. He begins by noting that the New Testament regards the Old as the inspired word of God, “authoritative for belief and practice”:

It was the recognition that the Holy Spirit was active in the writing of the Old Testament which enabled Christians to accept its authority over them as over the Jews. Moses, David, Isaiah, Hosea, and other authors are looked upon as God’s chosen instruments for the writing down of his words [p. 27].

Later Shires affirms that Jesus too took this attitude to the Old Testament. But, he adds, it is true that in Jesus and the giving of the Spirit something new has come, with an authority equal to that of the Old Testament. Thus the New Testament quotes and treats the Old Testament with a sovereign freedom. Indeed, paradoxically, Jesus abrogated the Old Testament as well as accepting it, says Shires. His evidence for this conclusion is that Jesus taught that the Old Testament did not go far enough, that he treated some parts of it as on a higher level than others, and that he assumed the authority to give his own interpretation of it; one may grant the truth of these three points without regarding them as a demonstration that Jesus abrogated the Old Testament. Elsewhere Shires infers that the New Testament’s failure to quote from some of the psalms signifies that it rejected them, and he indicates that he himself wishes to apply a principle of selectivity to the Old Testament; I suspect that he is trying to find such a principle in the New Testament itself, when it does not in fact have one. Embarrassingly, the kind of psalm Shires disapproves of is in fact quoted in the New Testament.

Against the background of his examination of the Old Testament’s authority in the New, and of a sketching of contemporary Jewish methods of interpretation, Shires surveys the New Testament’s methods of actually using the Old under familiar headings—historical understanding, prediction, typology, literary influence—and looks at the way quotations were introduced, the areas of the Old Testament they come from, their implications for the history of the canon, and their use of the Septuagint. I found the most interesting material in the final chapters. One, “Christian Doctrine and the Old Testament,” surveys the use of Old Testament quotations in the New Testament in connection with each of the elements of the “apostolic kerygma” as these were isolated by C. H. Dodd. Then the last and longest chapter looks at “The Book of Psalms in the New Testament”—illuminating the use of the psalms in the teaching of Jesus and in the Gospels, and showing how they are used to illustrate or prove Christian doctrine in the New Testament.

Shires’s aim has been to write a resource work that will be useful to the minister, layman, or student in his own study of the New Testament’s use of the Old, and he provides various tables of further parallels between the testaments with which one can carry on the work of which he provides some samples. The scholar will not find anything very new in this book; it is a less technical and specialized work than such recent scholarly studies in this area as Michael Goulder’s Midrash and Lection in Matthew or Anthony Hanson’s Studies in Paul’s Technique and Theology, or even than the slightly older works by conservatives such as Earle Ellis’s Paul’s Use of the Old Testament or Richard France’s Jesus Christ and the Old Testament. Its virtue is as a survey of the actual New Testament data on the subject, the product of Shires’s own independent work.

But the person who wants to go on to work out how we may use the Old Testament may need to move on to the more technical studies, to get deeper into the rationale of the New Testament’s practice. He will also need to consider studies of Old Testament hermeneutics such as the works of Brevard Childs and James Barr and the volumes of essays edited by Claus Westermann (Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics/Interpretation) and Bernhard Anderson (The Old Testament and Christian Faith).

Religion And Literature Are Yoked

Religion and Modern Literature: Essays in Theory and Criticism, edited by G. B. Tennyson and Edward E. Ericson, Jr. (Eerdmans, 424 pp., $8.95, $5.95 pb), is reviewed by Cheryl Forbes, editorial associate, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Tennyson and Ericson picked some of the best literary critics of this century to anthologize: C. S. Lewis, Nathan A. Scott, Jr., Edwin Fuller, Austin Warren, and Cleanth Brooks, for example. The essays provide a thorough survey of the relation between literature and religion, in some cases specifically theology.

The contrast between T. S. Eliot’s opening essay “Religion and Literature” and J. Hillis Miller’s “Literature and Religion” will serve as an excellent discussion-provoker. Eliot emphatically states that as critics and readers of literature (the two ought to be one since all readers should be critics), we cannot divorce our theological views from our literary ones. Miller, on the other hand, thinks “literary study is objective and public” while “a man’s religious views are his private business and need have nothing to do with his public life as a scholar.” The two essays give the book a strong opening.

Although such conflicting opinions are evident in some of the essays chosen, the basic thrust of the book is to show the inseparability of literature and religion. Flannery O’Connor’s essay “Novelist and Believer” is perhaps the best exploration of that theme and is one of the best written essays in the collection.

The editors not only arranged the essays in an interesting and provocative order but also successfully blended theoretical essays with those considering specific authors. Both O’Connor and Eliot appear as writers in part one and as subjects in part three. Comparisons between what the authors say and what is said about them would also provide the basis for several good class discussions.

Most of the ideas of twentieth-century scholars and critics on literature and religion are represented here. The book will serve as an invaluable resource and text book. Anyone interested in the subject ought to own this volume.

Mutual Submission

Sexist Religion and Women in the Church: No More Silence!, edited by Alice L. Hageman (Association, 1974, 221 pp., $5.95 pb), and Human Liberation in a Feminist Perspective, by Letty M. Russell (Westminster, 1974, 212 pp., $3.95 pb), are reviewed by Nancy A. Hardesty, doctoral student, University of Chicago Divinity School, Chicago, Illinois.

To dismiss either of these books as “liberal,” even “radical,” will be easy for evangelicals who do not wish to think about the theological issues raised by the women’s movement.

The Hageman book consists of the 1972–73 Lentz lecture series at Harvard Divinity School and contains an essay by Mary Daly provocatively entitled “Theology After the Demise of God the Father: A Call for the Castration of Sexist Religion.” The author of the second book, Letty Russell, an assistant professor of religious studies at Manhattan College in the Bronx, is a devotee of the currently fashionable Third World liberation theologies. None of the authors comes across as a subscriber to the doctrinal statement of the Evangelical Theological Society. But both books raise a myriad of serious issues that all Christians are going to have to face if we wish to preach Good News to all people. On some fronts we have already begun.

Both Russell and Hageman in her own essay on “Women and Missions” complain that American Christianity has too often become entangled in politics at home and served as a tool of oppression and imperialism abroad. Similar criticisms were voiced by Third World delegates to last year’s Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne. Many mission organizations are aware of this problem and are trying to overcome it.

Nelle Morton, associate professor emeritus of Drew University, in her Harvard lecture on “Preaching the Word” justly criticizes Key ’73 spokesmen who continually spoke of “calling men to repentance and renewal” and of Jesus Christ as “the Word for modern man,” as “for all men,” as “good news to men.” I personally received a plea for funds from a usually progressive evangelical group whose return envelope read, “That Every Man May Hear.…” But members of the Thanksgiving Workshop of Evangelicals for Social Concern pledged to become more conscious of their use of masculine language and to seek to use more inclusive terms in all their communication. As Paul said, “Let no man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his sister’s way!”

Both books offer helpful insights and information for self-education in this direction. Hageman’s essay is particularly good in outlining the contributions women have made to the missionary cause (between one-half and two-thirds of all missionaries have been women). United Methodist executive Theressa Hoover outlines the “triple jeopardy” under which black women function in the church. Harvard theologian Krister Stendahl offers some male observations on how difficult it is to make practical adjustments in one’s thinking and acting in regard to women. Gail Shulman, a Harvard student, gives insights into Judaism’s treatment of women. Russell’s discussion of the nature of the ministry raises such pertinent questions, “Do we really believe in the priesthood of all believers and the minister as servant?

Beyond areas of agreement and the helpful new material in these books, however, lies a basic question. Particularly Daly and Russell are asking: What would be the shape of a theology that took seriously the declaration that in Christ there is neither male nor female? While I do not agree with the answer given by either, I do think they are asking many of the right questions, questions that we as evangelicals must answer if we hope to put forth a viable, biblical alternative.

Of the two, I find Russell less helpful, perhaps because I am immediately offended by her excessive use of contemporary jargon. For example, she speaks of conversion as “conscientization,” which (if you can say it) is defined as “the process by which men and women are awakened to their socio-cultural reality, move beyond the alienations and constraints to which they are subjected, and affirm themselves as the conscious subjects and creators of their own historical future.” That statement, like many others in the book, is linguistic and theological nonsense. She also has a penchant for throwing in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew words in a way that will frustrate those who do not know the languages and infuriate those who do.

But Human Liberation in a Feminist Perspective does represent a serious attempt to write a theology that is relevant to more people than just a few Western males. While this is a noble endeavor, the result reveals the difficulty of basing theology on the vagaries of experience and current philosophical fads. Evangelicals will find her manipulation of and even disregard for Scripture disconcerting.

Daly’s conclusions that we must dump both a male saviour and all concepts of original sin are equally unacceptable, but I find the issues she raises in Sexist Religion both lucid and challenging. Unlike Russell, Daly is certainly in dialogue with the history of the Church and its interpretations of Scripture, wrong as some of them may have been. She declares that “women are at war with sexist religion as sexist” and that “women whose consciousness has been raised are spiritual exiles.” In this she speaks as well for many women reared in evangelical circles.

I do not agree with Daly’s method of “liberation,” or her assertion that “to exist humanly is to name the self, the world, and God.” I believe that naming has already been done by God’s revelation in Scripture. But I would sympathize with her methodological goal of “cutting away the phallus-centered value system imposed by patriarchy.” In speaking of God as a “dynamic verb” and the “Verb of Verbs” rather than as a “static noun,” I think she is coming closer to an articulation of the meaning of God’s revelation as “I Am” to Moses at the burning bush than do most theologians who concentrate on such masculine images as “Father” and “King.” Her attempt is at least a reminder that all language about God is symbolic and limited, that all images represent only one facet, and that we are to make no graven images of God.

Daly concludes by declaring that “women are perceiving that patriarchal religion is indeed patriarchal and are choosing to give priority to what we find valid in our own experience without needing to look to the past for legitimization of this.… There are no adequate models in the past to guide us.” Yet she does not reject the notion of a God actively involved in our lives nor the possibility of meaning for life within a religious context.

If we as evangelicals are going to have something to say to women who are also listening to Daly, we must recognize the patriarchalism in Christianity, stop defending it, and start building a theology around those elements that transcend sexual dichotomies. For example, we must begin to emphasize that both men and women are made in God’s image and that therefore God is neither male nor female. We must stop emphasizing Jesus’ maleness and start remembering his humanity. We must stop preaching submission only for wives and justice only for a few and start exhibiting agape-love and equal respect.

BRIEFLY NOTED

Adjustment to Widowhood and Some Related Problems, by Cecile Strugnell (Health Sciences, 201 pp., $6.50 pb). For pastoral counselors and their teachers, an annotated bibliography that encompasses the spectrum of problems related to bereavement and resulting loneliness. Though not specifically Christian, this is a valuable resource.

1975 Directory of Religious Stations and Programs in the United States, edited by Ben Armstrong et al. (National Religious Broadcasters [Box 2254 R, Morristown, N. J. 07960], 88 pp., $10 pb). A listing by state of hundreds of stations, plus an alphabetical listing of scores of broadcasts. Useful reference.

The Prayers of the New Testament, by Donald Coggan (Harper & Row, 190 pp., $6.95), Sense and Nonsense About Prayer, by Lehman Strauss (Moody, 123 pp., $3.95), Hungry For God: Practical Help in Personal Prayer, by Ralph Martin (Doubleday, 168 pp., $5.95), The Workbook of Living Prayer, by Maxie Dunnam (The Upper Room, 138 pp., $2 pb), Healing of Memories: Prayer and Confession—Steps to Inner Healing, by Dennis Linn and Matthew Linn (Paulist, 101 pp., $1.45 pb), and Inner Healing: Ministering to the Human Spirit Through the Power of Prayer, by Michael Scanlan (Paulist, 85 pp., $2.25 pb). Many aspects of prayer are explored here. Coggan is now the archbishop of Canterbury; a reprint is offered of his 1967 study of all the recorded prayers in the New Testament. Strauss examines the follies most of us practice in prayer and provides practical helps. Martin, a Catholic charismatic leader, shares his thoughts. Dunnam offers the ultimate in “how-to’s” in a genuine workbook designed to teach new awareness and sensitivity in prayer in six weeks. Some of the exercises could be helpful, but many seem contrived. The Linns and Scanlan, Catholic priests, stress prayer as a means of inner healing. Scanlan spans the range of interpersonal relationships. The Linns treat individual confession about past attitudes that may be blocking present relationships.

An Annotated Bibliography of Bible Study, by Jerome Walker and David MacLeod (Western Bible Institute [Box 9332, Denver, Colo. 80209], 41 pp., 75¢ pb). A very good, classified aid to building up a library of commentaries and other biblical reference books. Aimed at the serious Bible student rather than the advanced scholar.

The Human Life Review, edited by J. P. McFadden, is a new quarterly journal devoted to certain crucial ethical issues. The first two issues include articles on abortion, the relevant Supreme Court decision, and the fetus as a person. Former CHRISTIANITY TODAY associate editor Harold O. J. Brown now has the same title with this journal. Available for $2.50/issue (about 110 pp. each) from 150 East 35 St., New York, N. Y. 10016.

The Works of Jonathan Edwards, two volumes (Banner of Truth, 1,894 pp., $19.95/set). Kudos to the publisher for reprinting an 1834 edition that includes a lengthy biography by Sereno Dwight plus the complete journal of David Brainerd. It would take twenty or more volumes in conventional format to equal what is in this small-print, two-column edition. Edwards is widely recognized as being probably the greatest American theologian. His writings, though sometimes difficult, are often inspiring. Full doctrinal agreement is not a prerequisite to profiting from this great man of God.

Current Christian Books, two volumes (Christian Booksellers Association [2031 West Cheyenne Road, Colorado Springs, Colo. 80906], 448 pp., $29.95/set). A Christian version of the comprehensive guide called Books in Print. Alphabetically lists (one volume by author and the other by title) the books currently available from almost all the larger and many of the smaller publishers of religious books from a Protestant perspective. (Only a couple of Catholic houses are included, and, curiously, Logos is omitted.) Valuable reference tool for librarians as well as booksellers, and one that all students of religion will want to know about.

God, Man, and Archie Bunker, by Spencer Marsh (Harper & Row, 104 pp., $5.95, $2.95 pb). A Presbyterian minister evaluates, in the light of biblical teaching, the personality traits of America’s favorite television bigot and the “God” he has imagined. Some stimulating observations, though rather preachy in spots. Fans of “All in the Family” may have different conclusions as to what the producers intended by some of the examples Marsh refers to.

Introducing Church Growth, by Tetsunao Yamamori and E. LeRoy Lawson (Standard, 256 pp., n.p.), Your Church Has Real Possibilities, by Robert Schuller (Regal, 179 pp., $2.95 pb), The Church That Dared to Change, by Michael Tucker (Tyndale, 129 pp., $2.95 pb), Hey, That’s Our Church!, by Lyle Schaller (Abingdon, 192 pp., $4.50 pb). Survival and Mission For the City Church, by Gaylord Noyce (Westminster, 162 pp., $3.95 pb), and Church Growth Is Not the Point, by Robert Hudnut (Harper & Row, 143 pp., $7.95). Varied approaches and opinions regarding “church growth.” Yamamori and Lawson provide a comprehensive introductory text that combines analysis of various growth theories with some of their applications. Schuller bases his comments on the success of the well-known southern California church that he started from scratch twenty years ago. (The same principles have been taught in his numerous Institutes for Successful Church Leadership.) Tucker’s church was twenty years old when he became the pastor but was on the verge of disbanding. He tells how dying bones can be made vibrant. Schaller, drawing on visits to 3,000 congregations in the last fifteen years, delineates several “types” and their growth patterns. One of these “types,” now struggling but formerly prestigious, is the inner-city church, Noyce’s subject. He stresses the positive potential and suggests five varied “images” and the need for each city church to decide which to aim for. A needed counterbalance to advocates of bigness is offered by Hudnut, who reminds us “that church growth is not the point; faithfulness to the Gospel is.”

Jesus According to a Woman, by Rachel Wahlberg (Paulist, 106 pp., $1.45 pb), Christian Freedom For Women, edited by Harry Hollis (Broadman, 192 pp., n.p.), The Fulfilled Woman, by Lou Beardsley and Toni Spry (Harvest House, 172 pp., $2.95), and Love, Honor and Be Free, by Maxine Hanco*ck (Moody, 191 pp., $5.95). Christians offer varied responses to the questions raised by the Women’s Liberation movement. Wahlberg maintains that we have been wrong in our interpretation of some of Jesus’ teaching. She offers a “liberated” look at nine of Jesus’ encounters with women. Hollis and three other sociologically oriented Christians present thirteen essays on a variety of pertinent topics. Beardsley and Spry, both women, address themselves to married women and do not consider fulfillment apart from conventional housewifery. Hanco*ck, a housewife and freelance writer, is a welcome contrast to them as she discusses a Christian woman’s role in marriage.

Gay Liberation, by Roberta (PTL Publications [Box 1277, Tustin, Calif. 92680], 131 pp., $1.49 pb). Autobiographical account of struggles and failures on the way to liberation from the practice of hom*osexuality. Doctrinal and practical explanation of why God calls for abstinence.

How I Write, by Robert Hastings (Broadman, 145 pp., $3.95 pb). Some very basic (and well written!) suggestions for aspiring writers interested in being published for the Christian community. Doubtless most editors wish they could require all would-be writers to read such a book before mailing in manuscripts.

Who Walk Alone, by Margaret Evening (InterVarsity, 222 pp., $3.95 pb). One of the most honest examinations of all aspects and struggles of the single life. A practical, Bible-inspired approach toward relationships with married couples, roommates, and children, constructive use of time, importance of accepting oneself as a whole person. Goes far beyond the usual tripe to scratch at the truth. Highly recommended.

Recently I have been thinking more about women and reflecting on the drubbing some of them are giving the Apostle Paul for certain of his supposedly infelicitous comments. One would think the great apostle was a male chauvinist who consigned women to the kitchen when they were not barricaded in the bedroom.

For the moment I mention only First Timothy 2:9–15, which recently erupted in family devotions and then in our neighborhood Bible-study group. The Interpreter’s Bible (Abingdon, 1955) tells us that “few passages in the Bible … have aroused more heated discussion than these verses” (II, 404).

If some feminists see here an opportunity to scorch Paul, they will not lack for ammunition from religious commentators. The Interpreter’s Bible itself suggests “solutions” that bankrupt the evangelical heritage. The Apostle, we learn, is not to be taken literally; his argument is based on cultural conditions (the apostle “fastened divine authority upon particular mores”); Paul presumably clung to objectionable rabbinical interpretation; his reference to Adam and Eve “seems far fetched and unconvincing”; and the supposed anti-feminist passages are in any case not really Pauline in origin.

The expositor finally appeals to “Jesus’ attitude” and “the spirit of Christ” to outweigh the epistle’s teaching. This same device is now widely used to provide leverage on many moral issues. Jesus exalted love, and therefore (for example) divorce is justifiable if marriage turns sour. Indeed, much that the New Testament explicitly condemns is currently approved as expressing “Christian love” or “the spirit of Christ.”

Not that Paul’s precise intention in First Timothy is easy to determine. Even Kittel’s monumental Theological Dictionary of the New Testament helps little with the verb authenteoo, found in the Bible only in 2:12: “I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Translations other than the King James render the verb in a noteworthy variety of ways: “have authority,” “put in positions of authority over,” “contradict,” “interrupt,” “dictate to,” “lord over.”

To be sure, Paul does not have in view an end to the Christian woman’s public witness. Women, he emphasizes, are to bear public witness silently by seemly dress and deportment and by good works (2:9 f.; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1–6). And what Paul teaches and approves elsewhere in his other letters should clarify his overall intentions. He commends many women active in church life and work, among them Dorcas, Euodia, Julia, Lydia, Persis, Priscilla, Syntyche, Tryphena, and Tryphosa, and to the Christian hospitality of numbers of women he acknowledges a personal debt (Rom. 16:1–15). In Second Timothy 1:5 he commends Timothy’s mother Eunice and grandmother Lois for transmitting a scriptural heritage to Timothy.

Not only so, but in Galatians 3:29 he affirms that in Christ there is neither “male nor female,” a reminder that Christian realities turn not on gender but on the divine image. Hence his position can hardly be that the male is superior to the female of the species. Not an iota in Paul’s writings suggests any sympathy for the prevalent ancient view that women and slaves are inferior creatures.

What then of the emphasis of First Timothy 2:11–15? Had Paul perhaps changed his mind about women, since he here says that they “should listen and learn quietly and humbly. I never let women teach men or lord it over them. Let them be silent in your church meetings” (Living Bible)? Did he who declared that Christ had done away with the condemning power of the Law (Rom. 10:4) and who waged war on the Judaizers who retained Hebrew rites and practices here unjustifiably bind women converts with rabbinical interpretations of the status of women, when he reminded them that the Law declares that women are not to speak but to be subordinate (1 Cor. 14:34)? Does he return to bondage Christian women who thought they had been freed from pagan inhibitions and Judaistic restrictions and liberated to a new order of life?

It helps little to refer the Pastoral Letters to another author than Paul, since the same teaching appears in First Corinthians 14:34 and 35: “As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church” (NIV).

What is noteworthy is that the passage in First Corinthians appears in a context in which Paul does not object to women’s freely praying or prophesying; what he criticizes rather are women who do so with shorn hair or uncovered head. Some have suggested that these gatherings were in homes where women took part informally, whereas First Corinthians 14 may have in view an official role in established churches. First Timothy concerns public prayer and worship in a context in which the attitude of some Christians toward the established government was suspect; Paul urges prayer for rulers as well as all men, and urges certain public conduct by women. Could it be that certain women had turned their new-found freedom into a disruptive participation in the larger services? Or is the “spirit” of First Corinthians 11 to be adduced in judgment on the teaching of First Corinthians 14? Is the contemporary movement of women’s ordination therefore to be hailed as a victory for this “spirit” and hence over Paul’s own subsequent hesitancy and supposed inconsistency?

Even so the indicated restrictions about covered head and shorn hair seem strange to us today. Greco-Roman social customs may have been somewhat in view when Paul required women to veil their heads in public worship (1 Cor. 11:5 f.), since only prostitutes were unveiled outside their homes. Social propriety meant that women kept their heads covered in the streets but removed head coverings when entering a home. The early churches met in private homes. In some pagan Greek cults both sexes bared their heads during worship.

But Paul in no way grounds his argument in a protest against established social custom. Rather he appeals for subordination of women in Christian public worship on the basis of a divinely established order, the violation of which he considers reprehensible (cf. Col. 3:18). Indeed, he identifies his teaching on the point in terms of divine commandment incumbent even upon those who may claim private revelation (1 Cor. 14:36, 37). He appeals both to Scripture and to nature (1 Cor. 11:8, 14) as well as to his own authority, and presumes to give a guiding principle of universal and permanent importance

Charity Begins At Home

There’s never a cloud without a silver lining. If the Viet Nam war divided America, then the Vietnamese refugee problem seems to be uniting us again. In the halls of Congress, in the public media, and even in our local church, we have heard all kinds of arguments. The wonderful thing is how thoughtful people, starting from different presuppositions and pursuing different routes, seem to be able to arrive at the same position, which can be roughly summed up as “Charity begins at home,” sometimes paraphrased as, “What, me pay?”

Senator P. Crassus Malgubernans, famous for his promises of federal generosity in election years, pointed out tactfully that most of the refugees would probably really be happier back in Viet Nam, once they had overcome their initial adjustment difficulties. Congressman L. Avidus Crispus, from a Western state, said that it would be immoral to help foreigners while we have so many dissatisfied people here at home. A leading spokesman for economy in the Senate, M. Tullius Avis, stated that personally he had the greatest sympathy for refugees from tyranny anywhere, but that this is a bad year for the U. S. economy and the price of oil is continuing to rise. One noted ecclesiastic, himself a spokesman for an easily identifiable minority group, stated that Vietnamese refugees are all right but that something must be done for our own people first.

Retired general L. Severus Vindex, who directed the famous “seek and demolish” campaign during the years 1966–68, stated that personally he has nothing against Vietnamese but that we don’t need anything to remind us of our past failures. Noted conservative spokesman M. Pecunius Lupus warned that, deserving though the Vietnamese may be, support for them will be paid for by further government indebtedness and hence by an unacceptable rate of inflation. Anti-Communist publicist I. Rufus Bombastus stated frankly, “The Reds are responsible. Let them pay.” Some conservative Protestants observed that most of the refugees are probably Catholics and hence should be paid for by the Pope, while at least one Catholic thought that they were chiefly Buddhists and hence indifferent to suffering as a matter of principle.

The wonderful thing about all of this is that despite the differences of detail, so many voices are evidently united in one and the same opinion: “We’re sorry, but this really isn’t a very convenient time for accepting refugees. Ask again after some other war.”

There was one dissident voice, hard to catch among the unanimous babble of disapproval, and we could catch only phrases. It went something like this: “Depart from me … for I was hungry and you gave me no food … a stranger and you did not welcome me.” Probably whoever it was doesn’t understand our current economic situation or the realities of political life in America.

Since When?

I was very impressed with the editorial in the April 11 issue, “Waste as a Wrong,” but it struck me as the grossest inconsistency to have an advertisem*nt on the back cover which features the headline, “If you are like I used to be, maybe you can’t see yourself as being a well-paid Christian businessman.” All I can ask it, what’s gone wrong when you allow advertisem*nts such as this to appear in CHRISTIANITY TODAY? Since when has God ever promised business success manifested in the form of a fancy home and a Mercedes Benz? I find this to be particularly disturbing, especially in view of the widespread acceptance of the Lausanne Covenant, where thousands of Christian leaders pledged to adopt a more simple lifestyle to advance the cause of the Gospel worldwide.

Professor

Wheaton College Graduate School

Wheaton, Ill.

A Perfect Fit

I want to congratulate you for your selection of Edith Schaeffer to write articles for “A Layman and His Faith.” When Dr. Bell was writing these articles, they always thrilled and inspired me, and I wondered at his death who could fill his shoes. Mrs. Schaeffer manages to do so beautifully each issue, and every article has been superb.

First Baptist Church

Littlefield, Tex.

A Vote Of No

As a member of the curriculum committee of the Board of Christian Education of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, I would like to clarify a statement in the article “Updating the Sunday School” (April 25). We have not participated in the Joint Educational Development curriculum development. Our Board of Christian Education did send representatives to the early planning sessions, with the purpose of studying JED. Finally, in January, 1974, our Board of Christian Education voted not to become a member.

Independent Presbyterian Church

Brandon, Fla.

From Milk To Meat

Joann and Belden Menkus have diagnosed the adult Sunday-school situation correctly (“Adult Sunday School Needs to Grow Up,” April 25).… The editorial, “Do Something For Your Sunday School,” suggests successive steps for revitalizing the Sunday school. High on this list, I feel, is “train teachers” (making certain the trainer is qualified to train). Many adults of my acquaintance do not attend Sunday school because they are starving for meat and only little drivels of milk are being offered. It’s staggering, the number of adult teachers who are still on milk.

Austin, Tex.

Back To The Books

I very much appreciated both the tone and emphasis of your brief editorial “Debatable Behavior” (April 25).… We desperately need people who will “do their homework” regarding the role of women in the church and in the home.

Edmonton, Alberta

Not A Fine Point

You have rendered your readers a good service in presenting Dr. Carl Henry’s perceptive focus (Footnotes, May 9) on a most dangerous influence which stems from Watchman Nee’s otherwise helpful writings: the disparagement of truth, which devalues “the historical and factual aspects of the Christian faith.” As theological liberalism has demonstrated, acceptance of an agnostic view of truth deductively leads to theological agnosticism. However, I felt that Dr. Henry’s final sentence tended to undermine his own position: “While they [Christian martyrs in Communist work camps] may flub in the fine points of technical theology, they may also teach us a great deal about practical discipleship.” As Dr. Henry says, “… contemporary Christianity needs to become deeply rooted in the biblical view of … reality.” This view is propositional truth. And the issue is not a fine point of technical theology but the very foundation of Christianity.

Fairfax, Va.

Indicative Or Imperative

James Davey’s article, “How to Discover Your Spiritual Gift” (May 9), was a real disappointment to me. It is evident he has not handled the passages in Romans 12; First Corinthians 12, and Ephesians 4 in the Greek. I am sorry he cannot decide whether we receive our spiritual gift(s) when we become a part of the body of Christ or later. His handling of Paul’s injunction to “earnestly desire spiritual gifts” indicates he takes zeloute (12:31; 14:1) as a present active imperative (command) rather than a present active indicative (action going on). To do this is to cause the Scripture to contradict itself, in fact, within the context of First Corinthians itself.

North Valley Baptist Church

Red Bluff, Calif.

To Keep Abreast

I note with much interest the news story, “The Trial of Georgi Vins” (April 25).… It is absolutely essential that Christians be aware of the plight of their brothers and sisters in Christ behind the Iron Curtain and in different parts of the world.… If we neglect to intercede for them and do whatever we possibly can on their behalf, surely God will be displeased, and a similar or worse fate could easily befall us.

We have looked to CHRISTIANITY TODAY for many years for sound evangelical leadership. In today’s world, with the recent rapid devastating changes in Viet Nam and elsewhere, it is so important that we have reliable Christian sources of information to keep abreast of the news.

Montgomery, N. Y.

Donald Coggan, archbishop of Canterbury

My own belief is that ordination of women to the priesthood will come. My own personal view is, it should come. When, I don’t know. And how, I don’t know.

Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, professor of English, The William Paterson College of New Jersey Those who believe that God is omnipresent, not only transcendent but also imminent (1 Cor. 3:16), and those who accept the statement of Genesis 1:27 that God created both man and woman in his image must in all consistency support the immediate ordination of women. Because genuine human equality is rooted in God’s omnipresence and imminence, both racism and sexism are practical denials of God’s presence. An honest practice of the presence of God is the cure for both. A Christian woman, like a Christian man, is made in the image of God and is a temple of God, and she is part of Christ’s body. Within that body work is apportioned according to gift, not according to race or sex (1 Cor. 12). Until women are ordained and granted full equality in the governments of evangelical churches, the churches remain guilty of denying these profound theological truths.

Letha Scanzoni,co-author of “All We’re Meant to Be—A Biblical Approach to Women’s Liberation” I think the Holy Spirit settled the matter at Pentecost by coming upon women and men alike. God’s message was specific: “on my menservants and my maidservants.” Qualified and spiritually gifted women in the New Testament held administrative positions and had teaching and preaching responsibilities. The lists of gifts of the Spirit say nothing about gender limitations. If half the Church’s members are blocked from using gifts given by the Holy Spirit for the upbuilding of the whole body, the cause of Christ suffers.

There is inconsistency among those who claim literal application of passages that (I believe) are culturally conditioned. If women must keep silent, why permit them to sing solos or be in the choir? If women may not teach, why sing and be instructed by the doctrinally rich hymns they have written? Why use Bible-study guides, Sunday-school quarterlies, and books written by women? Is teaching biblical truth through the pen so different from teaching from the pulpit? If Jesus entrusted the resurrection message to women, I can’t believe he hasn’t called female messengers today as well.

Ruth Graham,wife of evangelist Billy Graham I personally am “agin it.” For one thing, I do not feel that we have that much of a shortage of men. For another thing, I believe that it basically goes against the principles of Scripture. Bible teachers? Yes! Sunday-school teachers? Yes! Prayer-group leaders? Yes! But “clergywomen”? I have serious reservations.

I think if you study you will find that the finest cooks in the world are men (probably called chefs); the finest couturiers, by and large, are men; the finest musicians are men; the greatest politicians are men; most of our greatest writers are men; most of our greatest athletes are men. You name it, men are superior in all but two areas: women make the best wives and women make the best mothers!

The social health of a nation is reflected in part by the extent of its criminal behavior. If one were to judge the United States on this single item, the prognosis would be bleak indeed.

In 1970 the FBI reported that during the sixties serious crime increased by 148 per cent. Current statistics make it seem likely that the increase for the seventies will be more than 100 per cent. (To be sure, part of this reflects improved reporting procedures and the willingness of a larger percentage of victims to complain rather than suffer in silence.)

In cities large and small, citizens are afraid to be on the streets at night. However much we disapprove of handguns, it is easy to understand why certain indignant people want guns to protect themselves. And it is not difficult to suppose, deplorable as the prospect is, that if conditions continue to worsen people will be tempted to take the law into their own hands and execute summary justice by shooting on sight criminals or those thought to be criminals.

We wish to comment here on two aspects of the crime situation. The first is the long prevailing notion that crime springs from poor living conditions—from such states as poverty, unemployment, and racial discrimination. The United States and other Western countries have increasingly moved toward welfare statism. No one at all familiar with U. S. history can deny that during the past hundred years social evils have been attacked vigorously. Thousands of laws have been enacted to restrain injustice. Any comparison of the state of affairs in the United States in 1875 and 1975 would show that considerable progress has been made with regard to social, political, and economic rights. Compared to a hundred years ago, more people have an adequate standard of living. Fewer have to fear a destitute old age.

But despite the improvement of conditions, the crime rate is growing alarmingly. The FBI statistics indicate that the crime rate is rising, not simply in low-income urban areas but in suburban towns with small populations and where the per-capita income is above average. The sharp increase of crime among the children of affluent suburbanites is evidence that material deprivation is not a sufficient explanation for hostile behavior. It might almost be said that the more the material state of the American people is improved, the worse crime gets. The same thing is true in Sweden, which is considered a model of the welfare state. Sweden provides for its citizens from the womb to the tomb, but its crime rate is skyrocketing.

A second point on which we would like to comment is the crime of rape in relation to p*rnography. In Sweden, Denmark, Britain, and the United States, the idea has been widely circulated that when hard-core p*rnography is made readily available it will tend to reduce sex crimes by providing a harmless outlet for men with sexual tensions. But it does not seem to work this way. The most recent FBI statistics show that of all serious crimes, none has increased more in the last six years than rape. But p*rnographic materials have been readily available for the past twenty years, first in print, more recently on film.

The rape statistics tell their own grim story. (They must be viewed relatively, not absolutely, since police authorities believe that from one-half to two-thirds of the rapes that occur are not reported because women fear the ordeal they may be subjected to at the police station and later in courts as defense attorneys attempt to convince the jury that the woman acquiesced voluntarily.) In 1954, 9,054 rapes were reported. Ten years later, in 1964, there were 20,551. In 1972 there were 46,461; in 1973, 51,002; in 1974, 56,000 (estimated). Close to seven times as many women and girls reported forcible rapes to police last year as did twenty years ago, and nearly three times as many as ten years ago. Stated in terms of the “crime index,” which takes into account the population increase, last year’s rate was 27 rapes per 100,000 population. The rate ten years ago was 10.7, and in what now looks like peaceful 1954, before terror stalked our streets, the rate was only 5.7.

It seems evident that making p*rnography available does not cause a decrease in rape: there is reason to think, rather, that it contributes to an increase. If TV has proved anything, it is the fact that people can be conditioned to buy deodorants or what have you by the strength of suggestion. And p*rnographic materials are among the most suggestive there are.

How bad the situation is in the Western world can be seen from a current development in Britain. Their equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a man cannot be convicted of rape “if he believed that the woman was consenting.” Labor party deputy Jack Ashley said, “Every vicious sexual attack can now be excused on the grounds that aggressor claims to believe his victim’s pleas were not sincere” (quoted in the Washington Post, May 2, 1975).

Rape can never be eliminated entirely from this sinful world. But there is good reason to believe that the frequency can be reduced considerably. One way is to stop the flood of p*rnography. This may mean amending the Constitution if the Supreme Court refuses to return to what was the accepted norm for more than a century and a half.

Another major way is to treat rape victims far more compassionately, altering what is often an insensitively masculine attitude among police, physicians, attorneys, courts, and juries. A greater conviction rate, with corresponding penalties, would also serve to increase the risk for the potential rapist. We recognize that rape is a complex crime. With our high level of prostitution and promiscuity, no man has to commit rape just to have sexual relations. Rapists are not to be confused with promiscuous men whose desires are met by consenting women. Both practices are sin, but for the sake of rape victims, whatever society can do to make this crime less likely to occur and more likely to be severely punished should be done.

What’S Fit To Print

Contrary to what some people think, the news media have had some standards. Virtually every journalism student is taught the so-called Canons of Journalism established back in 1923 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors. The problem is to enforce these canons without violating freedom of the press. Lacking an instrument to enforce what amounts to an ethical code, the media must live with some degree of irresponsibility in their midst.

A revised code is due to come before the ASNE board of directors this fall. Early reports suggest that it will allow more latitude than the present canons, which were drawn up in the heyday of yellow journalism. It is being referred to as a “Statement of Principles” rather than standards. The prevailing feeling among influential media people is that the world needs more candor, even at the risk of occasional error.

More people have learned, especially in recent years, not to expect government officials to be perfect in knowledge and faultless in behavior. Similarly, we hope the revision of the code will prod newsmen to try to educate the public not to expect quite so much from the media.

The press, where it is free, has succeeded so well in keeping people informed that it is subjected to impossible expectations of objectivity. Underlying freedom of the press, a freedom that is practiced in comparatively few countries, is the principle that no one source of information—no one spokesman or commentator or newspaper—can be relied upon exclusively. Only the Bible is fully authoritative, after all, and human nature and perceptions being what they are, the use of a variety of information sources is to be encouraged.

A Theology For Dad’S Day

Charlie Shedd quotes a famous psychiatrist as saying that “no little child will think more of God than he thinks of his father.” A youngster apparently cannot contrast. He can only compare. Shedd imagines his thinking, “God is like my father, I’m not so sure my father really cares much about me. He’s always playing golf, watching television, reading the newspaper. Besides he isn’t very nice to my mother. He’s not even fair. I don’t think I’d like God.”

Shedd, a Presbyterian clergyman noted for down-to-earth writings on family matters, cites the theory in his latest book, Smart Dads I Know (Sheed and Ward 1975). He thinks the psychiatrist is right. Many will disagree with good reason: the theory presumes that God has not placed within human beings a respect for himself. Nonetheless, the comparison has some value, and Shedd suggests a good little model speech for dad to give to the kids:

Listen to me troops. Where I’m the kind of father I should be, that’s what God is like! Where I am not so hot, I hope you’ll learn the all-important process of contrast. Wherever the Bible says that God is like a father, you can understand it means that God is like a perfect father. You know I’m not perfect. But I’m going to keep on trying. And I want you to know that I know I’ve got a long way to go.”

In Everything, Not Just Most Things

Recently (May 9 issue, page 27) we considered instances from the first half of Paul’s letter to the Colossians where God’s Word says “all” but we act as if it said “most.” Consider these further examples from the last half of the same letter.

Christians have in a very important sense died and been raised with Christ, and we are assured of one day being in glory with him (3:1, 3, 4). In the meantime we are to put into practice on earth that which is true of heaven (3:1, 2). To make room for divine virtues, we must “put to death” certain earthly vices (3:5). “Put them all away,” Paul tells us (3:8); but our tendency is to let some practices remain, at least in part. Paul names eleven vices that are to be totally displaced (vv. 5, 8, 9), including immorality, malice, and lying.

In view of the pervasive worldly practice of discrimination among persons on the basis of nationality, religious heritage, level of culture, and economic status, verse 11 is especially important. Paul insists that among those who recognize Christ as Lord such distinctions “cannot be” because “Christ is all, and in all.” Paul does not obliterate all distinctions among persons, however: children in relationship to parents and slaves in relationship to masters are to be obedient in all things (3:20, 22). (In those instances where a child or slave should not obey, such as an order to commit a vicious crime, the principle of obedience is sustained, since obedience to the higher laws is the basis for non-compliance with parent or master.)

Christians have a mutual responsibility to “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom” (3:16), not just in some wisdom, and certainly not in an unwise manner.

All things—not just most things—that Christians do, whether in word or deed, are to be done with the recognition that we are identified with the name of the Lord Jesus, and by our words and actions we honor or dishonor him (3:17). When we talk with others, we are to see that our speech is “always … gracious, seasoned with salt” (4:6).

Paul commends Epaphras for always remembering the Colossians in his prayers, and what he asked for them we must ask for ourselves with confidence that God wants to answer us. Namely, we are to ask that we “may stand mature and fully assured in all the will of God” (4:12). He who has called us to such high standards will enable us to do all that he has commanded.

Big wars, little wars, long wars, short wars, world wars, local wars. Enemies, armies, adversaries, soldiers, destroyers, accusers, persecutors, attackers, provokers, murmurers, criticizers, trouble-makers. Big discord, little discord, long discord, short discord, world discord, local discord. Centuries of conflict have come forth from the original conflict when Lucifer, the highest of the angels, desired to be equal with God, and determined to smash everything in his way in order to accomplish his purpose.

The war that started in the heaven-lies was continued on earth as Lucifer, now Satan, came in the form of a serpent and talked Eve into being dissatisfied with what God had given her. He tempted her into smashing the truth of the Word of God in order to gain something he dangled before her eyes as superior knowledge. Satan fought his war against God by capturing the minds of Adam and Eve and getting them to believe a lie rather than truth, but it didn’t stop there. Satan has continued to twist people’s minds, to persuade them to use their talents and intelligence and energies to try to prove God wrong, or nonexistent. This basic war has been the seedbed of all the wars and rumors of wars throughout the ages, wars that will continue as long as Satan has power.

Christians often feel superior because they are not among those crying “peace, peace, when there is no peace.” They think they are being realistic because they expect wars and rumors of wars until Christ comes back again. But there is a deafness, a blindness, an insensitivity among many Christians, for they refuse to recognize the war in which they are involved. They are letting the enemy attack and score victories without resistance. Satan is achieving his minor victories in an increasing number of conflicts in Christian circles—in schools, seminaries, churches, missions, Christian groups of all sorts, and inside many of us as individuals. The cleverest strategy of an enemy is to achieve an attitude of friendliness and to succeed in being accepted within the ranks. There an enemy can accomplish his work unhindered as he gradually twists and turns ideas and principles into opposite positions, and poisons minds with tiny amounts of poison.

God has warned us. We cannot one day say, “Why didn’t you tell us? Why didn’t you warn us to look out for that fifth columnist? Why didn’t you say he would be disguised as an angel of light?” We have been sufficiently warned. The fires of our cities burning down are in plain sight. The whistling bombs can be heard. We are as stupid and negligent as any Nero if we simply entertain ourselves with Christian entertainment and let ourselves and our children be attacked and devoured without entering into the army and setting up a defense as we have been told to do.

What are some aspects of the warnings? “Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer” (1 Cor. 10:10). We are warned not to murmur against God by complaining, criticizing, cutting down people within our believers’ groups. The destroyer Satan, is ready once again to destroy murmurers as he did in the time of Numbers 14:2, 11:

And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt!… And the LORD said unto Moses, how long will this people provoke me? And how long will it be ere they believe me for all the signs which I have showed among them?

Believers are constantly to remember, in their conversations as well as their actions, what God has done, and are not to be full of complaint about things they want changed in the immediate future. Satan is waiting to pounce on people who use all their wit, intelligence, energy, and talents to “pull down,” and who turn aside from glorifying God and recognizing the marvel of what he has done and is doing. To neglect to recognize the work of the Lord in lives and in situations, to insist upon using human measuring sticks that conceal the wonder of what God has done, gives the enemy an important foothold.

“We would have come unto you, even I, Paul, once and again: but Satan hindered us” (1 Thess. 2:18). Satan accomplished something against Paul because of some neglect in the war on the part of believers. Peter both warns and comforts us in calling us to watch out for Satan’s wiles:

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world [1 Pet. 2:8, 9].

We are warned that Satan is looking for people to devour. We are comforted that it is not impossible to “resist” him; we can do it if we are “steadfast in the faith.” We are further comforted that we have company in our war.

Writing to the Ephesians, Paul says:

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places [Eph. 6:10–12].

Read all of Ephesians 6:11–19 and note that we are warned, but also given instructions as to how to stand, and how to fight. We need to be “girt about with truth” (Ps. 119:142b). “If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part of the book of life, and of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:19). There is no reason to expect victory in the battle if we use only a part of the truth to “girt us about.” We are poorly protected if we give up bits and pieces of the Word of God.

The protecting helmet is salvation, but the sword with which to stave off Satan’s weapon against us is the Word of God. With this sword we are to attack and to defend. Many people have a sword that has nicks in the blade and a bent point. The sword, the Word of God, isn’t in good condition because parts have been discarded as unimportant! What a foolish sight. The shield of faith will quench the fiery darts the wicked enemy is able to throw. That faith, which can be as small as a mustard seed, is nevertheless effective when the further admonition is carried out: “praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching hereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.”

To say that there is no war is to give comfort to the enemy, who then knows he has succeeded in his infiltration. “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb” during the centuries of conflict.

Pinball Trivia

In many high school English classes Julius Caesar is taking a back seat to “that deaf, dumb, and blind kid,” Tommy the pinball wizard, the new messiah.

Peter Townshend created the rock opera Tommy and the British rock group The Who performed it on a recording released in 1969. Now Tommy, in a slightly different version, has become a film, written and directed by Ken Russell (Women in Love, The Devils) and produced by Robert Stigwood. Columbia Pictures is the distributor.

No grand opera ever had a plot so fragmented or a hero so weak. One wonders what English teachers find solid enough to discuss. Mother (Ann-Margret) bears son, Tommy (Roger Daltrey of The Who); the boy’s father is missing in action and believed dead. About seven years later, the mother decides to remarry and beds Bernie (Oliver Reed), a camp director. Tommy’s father returns to find his wife and Bernie in bed, and Bernie kills him, all of which Tommy sees. The shock causes the boy to become deaf, dumb, and blind. As a teen-ager he becomes the pinball champion, famous and rich. After regaining his sight, speech, and hearing, Tommy creates a new religion with himself as messiah and a pinball machine as altar. But fame flies, his followers rebel, and Tommy escapes to a mountain top. End of film.

Russell fills out the skeleton of a plot with sick scenes of sadism and degeneracy. The acid queen scene (soul singer Tina Turner realistically portrays an acid freak) symbolizes the first three-quarters of the film. As Tommy trips out he changes from a copy of his father to a skeleton crawling with snakes.

Not only does Russell crowd the film with lurid visual effects, such as the acid scene, but he stuffs it to overflowing with religious, and specifically Christian, language and liturgy. For example, Tommy’s mother at a Christmas party worries that he “doesn’t know who Jesus is or what praying is.” She adds that “unless he’s cured his spirit can’t live.” The drunken party-goers ask, “How can he be saved from the eternal grave?”

To cure Tommy his mother tries everything, including a faith-healing service where the idol is a slick plaster-of-Paris statue of Marilyn Monroe, her skirt swung high above her waist, her arms hugging her sides to accentuate her breasts. Acolytes and concelebrants wear M.M. masks, the priest the vestments of the Anglican church (the film takes place in England). The communion elements are pills and Johnny Walker Red Scotch. As with a communion chalice, the lip of the bottle is wiped with a white cloth after each person is served.

In a final, desperate attempt to get some response from her zombie-like son, his mother throws him through a mirror. He falls into a pool, experiences some sort of rebirth, and runs along a beach singing “I’m free and I’m waiting for you to follow me.” It is hardly a subtle religious overtone to have Tommy sing those words as he runs past two fishermen hauling in their empty net.

His mother finds him on a rock and again pleads with him to hear and speak. His run along the beach must have cured him, for he sits up, prophesies that the pinball machine means more than they realize, tears off his mother’s jewelry and fake nails, baptizes her, and leads the way to new freedom. He knows the “master’s plan.”

Tommy claims to be “the light,” tells us how everyone worships him, and commands his followers to evangelize. “Bring everyone in,” he tells them, and he enlarges his house to hold them all.

Although he starts off being against materialism (no jewelry), he soon charges his followers high prices for sunglasses, earplugs, and a mouth cork, the required equipment for freedom. Tommy says they need to be deaf, dumb, and blind before they experience release. (He’s also against booze, drugs, and cigarettes.) But the crowd revolts, shouting, “We won’t take it. We never have, we never will.”

Tommy escapes only slightly injured from a fire that destroys his camp of eternal happiness. As he climbs a mountain he sings to someone, “I see glory from you. Right behind you I see millions following.” The message, if there is one, stops there, blurred throughout by an excess of conflicting, kaleidoscopic images.

Russell views our culture as hungering desperately for a leader, any leader. Even a deaf, dumb, and blind pinball wizard can capture our loyalty, if only briefly. The triviality of Tommy’s talent increases the bleakness of that vision and ridicules our messianic tendencies. Clearly, Tommy is Russell’s idea of a modern-day Christ—or his idea of the type of Christ modern man would follow.

Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov also speculated on the Christ man wants. Perhaps beneath the bizarre, cheap, shallow trappings of Tommy, Russell is repeating Dostoevsky. But with the great Russian novelist one senses that he knows the truth before he explains why the masses want something different and less demanding. Russell seems to know only the perversion.

CHERYL FORBES

Newly Pressed

Lighten Up, Barry McGuire (Myrrh, MSA-6531). Another great album from the former Christy Minstrels lead singer. An arrangement of his 1965 million-dollar single, “Eve of Destruction,” is the lead cut, and with “Don’t Blame God” and “1 Chronicles 7:14” it creates an apocalyptic musical trilogy. McGuire wrote most of the songs and is developing a better instinct for ballads, both in composing and in performing. “Callin’ Me Home” contains some nice verbal images, and the piano accompaniment complements these. This album offers a better variety of musical styles and themes than Seeds. Not all the songs are futuristic; some are just praise. But my favorite is the forward-looking “Pay the Piper,” a warning of doom with a good tune and an upbeat tempo. Regrettably, the lyrics for “You’ve Heard His Voice” are not printed on the jacket.

Gentle Spirit, Mike Johnson (Cam [P.O. Box 60445, Oklahoma City, Okla. 73106], Cam 1543). A much softer style than The Last Battle, and the words are specifically Christian. But the harder sound was more interesting.

Piano accompaniments here are predictable and too similar from cut to cut. The heavy use of echo chamber reminds me of early Rick Nelson. “Gather ’Round,” the album’s second song, has interesting lyrics and a nice, light tune.

I Am Not Ashamed, the Liberated Wailing Wall (Tempo, R-7080). A good collection of mostly original songs about the Lamb of Israel, though some of the orchestral arrangements suggest more the Big Band sound than Jewish music. The group is at its best in interpreting Old Testament passages, such as the Psalms and Isaiah. “Wait Upon the Lord” and “Hoshienu” are two good examples. This is a welcome second album from the Wall.

Revelation: Music for the Young World, songs by Mark Blankenship (Tempo, R-7056). The vocal and orchestral music by Blankenship, a member of the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board’s church-music department, paints pictures in pastel chalk of blues and pinks. Easy, undemanding listening.

CHERYL FORBES