ZOO, PLEASE!
James Younger, our new Minister of Christian Education, organized our Sunday School pilgrimage to the Metropolitan zoo. Former zoo outings were hectic and exhausting, punctuated with an occasional lost child or lost lunch (before or after the picnic in the grove). But this year Mr. Younger made the whole project a Planned Learning Experience And Social Event (Project Zoo PLEASE).
After three staff conferences, a teacher workshop was set up to discuss correlation with the Sunday School curriculum. Miss Fixture refused to modify the lesson suggestions in her quarterly, but the others decided to prepare their children for shared experience in the zoo. Mr. Burns projected a series of Junior lessons on animals of the Bible: Eve and the serpent, Balaam and the ass, Samson and the lion, Elisha and the bears. No one else followed this lead, and it was found that a flexible lesson plan was important once the zoo trip was mentioned in class.
The Saturday morning departure time was delayed when an exuberant Junior let air out of the bus tires, but our two busses and small fleet of cars left well filled. Another slight delay resulted when one of the boys threw Patsy Miller’s shoe out of a bus window. Fortunately, Mr. Younger was on the bus, and when the loss was discovered, it became a learning experience. The group decided that this was thoughtless behavior, and the bus returned to the Parkway where the loss occurred. Traffic patterns made it difficult to reconnoiter the spot, and when the bus reached the zoo an hour later, it was found that Miss Fixture had already retrieved the missing shoe, which had cracked her windshield.
For more spontaneous learning, the children were not lined up as before in touring the zoo, but were free to investigate in pairs of “buddies.” This method developed many informal learning situations in encounters with zoo fauna and personnel. The zoo superintendent expressed to Mr. Younger appreciation of our visit and offered to provide a fully guided tour if our group should wish to come again after a year or two. He graciously furnished zoo guards to assist in reassembling the students when we were ready to go. The children had responded so actively to the project that it was after closing time before the last two were found in the moat around the elephant yard. The zoo chief himself saw us off with a pleasantry about turning his animals loose in our Sunday School.
A SOCIETY AT BAY
Harold Kuhn (Mar. 2 issue) … criticizes correctly the naive idealism of advocates for U. S. unilateral disarmament and/or surrender to communism. But is it not more naive idealism to hope that U.S. bravado will win us survival? “Christian” courage—to go to a nuclear hell! Is it not even more naive still to think that our TV-and-beer society can rise to Kuhn’s ideal? Suppose these pagan Americans would rather survive and exist a dozen more years, even under communism, than go to a nuclear and spiritual hell, even for Kuhn’s lofty ideal, today? Choice irony! For Christian surrender to communism we are offered the alternative of Christian surrender to Americanism. When will Kuhn offer us the chance to surrender to Christ?
Garrett Biblical Institute
Evanston, III.
One of the best articles on the subject ever written and published. Let’s have more straight thinking like that!… Worth the price of a subscription.…
The Florence Congregational Church
Northampton, Mass.
ON BROTHERHOOD
In the editorial “Brotherhood for a Week” (Feb. 2 issue) … you say “Biblical religion declares that all men by creation are children of the one Creator” (Acts 17:28 f.). That is the only text I can possibly see as support for the original sonship of man, but in actuality Adam was a creature and not a son. Paul is using the pagan metaphor merely to meet the Greeks on their own ground. But it seems that here is where the proponents of “brotherhood” make their false assumption—that all men are children of God. They are all creatures of God (Acts 17:26), but God had only one Son and through Him the new race of Spirit-born sons are adopted. And Jesus never spoke of universal brotherhood, but rather “neighborhood.”
Ridgecrest Methodist
Muskogee, Okla.
On the point of NCWC’s warning Catholics not to attend Billy Graham’s New York Crusade.… NCWC, as an entity, did not officially or unofficially issue any such warning. Nor did any of the various NCWC departments or bureaus.… That the identification for my wholly personal article listed me as belonging to the NCWC, does not warrant the CHRISTIANITY TODAY conclusion.…
Director
National Catholic Welfare Conference
Washington, D. C.
• CHRISTIANITY TODAY regrets the confusion. Since Father Kelly’s warning to Catholics not to attend the New York crusade carried his NCWC identification, the inference seemed natural that he was speaking ex cathedra.—ED.
I’ve spent more time with … Roman Catholics … than with my own family.… If I mention … the Bible, my church, or a good sermon, they start to squirm.… There is only fellowship when we talk about different drinks, good food, or bingo!
Covington, Ky.
FLUCTUATING AUTHORITY
Gordon H. Clark’s excellent review (Jan. 5 issue) … exposes the fallacy of Dr. Ferré’s position. In the summer of 1957 it was my privilege to become personally acquainted with Dr. Ferré and to hear him lecture to young college teachers for a week. I have also read several of his books. He is not only a brilliant thinker but also a humble, sincere, and lovable man. He left the impression, at times, of longing for greater fellowship with adherents of historic Christianity. This goal he seems unable to attain, primarily because he possesses no final authority in matters of faith beyond the fluctuating findings of his own reason. As a result, his writings are often confused and contradictory. Only as men submit to the full authority of the Word of God, as expressed in 1 Corinthians 1:18–25, may they become qualified interpreters of the divine mind.
Minneapolis, Minn.
CHRISTIAN YEAR OPTIONAL
What gives Mr. Shepherd (“Eutychus,” Feb. 16 issue) the idea that in the Lutheran Church it becomes mandatory to follow the Christian Church Year?… What St. Paul condemns is not the observing of times and seasons, as such, but making them a law for Christians.
Hope Lutheran Church
Muskogee, Okla.
The main thing that bothers me about any High-Low church discussion is that each side ordinarily is so rude to the other as to betray a lack of love. As for myself, as a Lutheran, I have learned to love the discipline of the Church Year. I don’t follow it slavishly, nor am I required to.
Mizpah Lutheran
St. Louis, Mo.
OPTICAL DELUSION
If “Billy” Graham … would try an ophthalmologist instead of an opthomologist (Feb. 2 issue, p. 28—two of them mentioned), he would probably improve rapidly. God bless him anyway!
St. George’s Church
New York, N. Y.
• Many of our readers have manifested Mr. Davidson’s keen vision. Ours was blurred.—ED.
Not to recognize Red China is like refusing to recognize a change of administration in our own country.
First Christian
Lemoyne, Pa.
CALVINISM AND BAPTISM
Professor John H. Gerstner’s article (Jan. 5 issue) awaked my special interest, since I am an ardent admirer of Calvin … and use his writings more than those of any other in my ministry. As a conservative Baptist, I consider myself also a Calvinist. However, Professor Gerstner seems to classify as neo-orthodox all who reject anything peculiar to Calvin’s original Calvinism. Under his treatment of neo-Calvinism, he asks, “What correspondence can there be between a theology (neo-Calvinism) which … denies infant baptism … (and) the theology of John Calvin?” I … resent the implication of neo-orthodoxy, as would another 20 million Baptists and numerous other anti-pedobaptist groups.…
Calvin devotes a long chapter in the Institutes (book IV, chap. 16) to the question entitled “Pedobaptism Perfectly Consistent with the Institution of Christ and the Nature of the Sign.” Both the wording of the title and the contents of the chapter indicate that pedobaptism is not an essential feature of Calvinistic theology.… It may be that Professor Gerstner was thinking of Presbyterians who have abandoned covenant theology and no longer find good reason or adequate justification for the practice.… But not all Calvinists are Presbyterians.
Mexico, D.F., Mexico
INSULT TAKEN
The CBS network program “The Business of Sex” by Edward R. Murrow should not be taken seriously against business but as an insult to private enterprise.…
Oakland, Calif.
READER FOR READER
V. R. Edman, president of Wheaton (Ill.) College, hit the nail on the head when he said in his letter (Feb. 16 issue) that education is not the province of the federal government. Amen, amen. The need for more clear thinkers like President Edman is great.
Birmingham Post-Herald
Religion Ed.
Birmingham, Ala.
STIMULUS FOR FELLOWSHIP
Thank you for the article, “Barth: A Contemporary Appraisal” (Feb. 2 issue).… I think more good, objective theological debate … could be a stimulating and healthy thing for our ministerial fellowships, as well as in publications such as yours.
Lidgerwood Church
Evangelical United Brethren
Spokane, Wash.
ON IDENTIFYING REBELS
One of the letters … printed in your issue of February 2, would include me among some rebels who should lay down their arms. [These comprise, according to Methodist Superintendent Stanley H. Mullen, Christians who hold the Bible, rather than the church, to be their final authority.] If this is true, I shall do so, but I am far from convinced of the truth of the charge.
Upon taking my first step into the Methodist ministry, it was required that I state publicly my reaction to the following ‘official’ position of the church:
“The Holy Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” This sounded to me as though it made the Bible the final authority of the Christian. I still believe it.
When a young man taking his first vows of ordination kneels before the altar, the bishop holds an open Bible before him. The candidate places his hand on the Bible. The bishop places his hand upon the candidate’s head and says: “Take thou authority to read the Holy Scriptures in the Church of God and to preach the Word.” No other authority is recognized.
When a bishop is consecrated, the first question given him is this: “Are you persuaded that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all Truth required for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?”
Who are the rebels who should lay down their arms?
Superintendent
Wabash District
The Methodist Church
North Indiana Conf.,
Huntington, Ind.
REPENTANCE
I am … surprised that … John F. Walvoord, in his statement of “What Is the Gospel?” (Jan. 19 issue), left out any mention of repentance. In this he sets aside all the messages of the Old Testament prophets, including John the Baptist, the life ministry of our Lord (Matt. 4:17), and the preaching of the Apostles (e.g. Acts 2:38), including … Paul (Acts 20:21; 26:20).… This is no small matter.
Seattle, Wash.
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Your reader Ernest V. Liddle (Jan. 5 issue) gives a misleading impression about the Church of England. By reason of the fact that it is the State Church it has unique opportunities for Christian witness. If it is desired that any form of religious observance shall form part of an official function, be it anything from the coronation of the sovereign down to the appointment of a chaplain, it is the Church of England to which officialdom turns. Rarely do the free churches get any such opportunity. This is regrettable, but true. And these chances of witness are just as available to evangelicals as to those of other traditions.
As a Briton, Mr. Liddle should know that the Church of England is currently experiencing an evangelical revival. At a recent ordination service in St. Paul’s Cathedral two thirds of the ordinands were evangelicals. He should also know that in the Billy Graham crusades in this country in 1954 and 1955 evangelical Anglican clergy and laymen led by the Bishop of Barking formed a high percentage of the sponsoring body.
Redhill, Surrey, Eng.
THE SYNOPTICS
Concerning the article, “More light on the Synoptics” (Mar. 2 issue), why not take the words of Christ found in John 14:26: “But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”? That is, each Synoptic wrote independently under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The dependence idea, that of one writer on another, borders on the “Documentary Theory” which is only a figment of man’s imagination.
United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.
Sparta, Ill.
Those comments by Dr. Ned B. Stone-house (Feb. 16 issue) … seem to present a massive indictment, but in fact they can be easily answered.…
Indictment No. 1: “I do not believe that he has solid understanding of Form Criticism. He, for example, seems to judge that Form Criticism is rather exclusively concerned with Mark.” … There are two opinions on the subject. The first is before us. The second is that of the entire department at Yale which passed me with honors in seven final oral examinations. One of them was entirely devoted to the subject in question and was designed to bring to light whether or not I was qualified to teach the subject at graduate level. Either opinion may be right, but there are two opinions.
As to the particular fault specified, I did not attempt in my articles to discuss Form Criticism as such other than to mention its method and to raise a question as to its validity.… What I really discuss is its relation to source criticism. Indeed, I thought when I wrote, and I still think, that I was saying in my own words only what Bultmann says (History of the Synoptic Tradition, p. 1). Speaking of the work of Wrede and the conclusion he reached, Bultmann says: “The gospel of Mark is the work of an author who stands inside the pale of the Christian community’s theology. He arranges and edits the tradition transmitted to him in accordance with the viewpoints of the Christian Community’s faith. That was the result. And the task for historical investigation which arose out of that result was to separate and to recognize the layers in Mark which contain the old historical tradition that the author is editing.” And again Bultmann says (same work, p. 3): “The result of comparative study of the Synoptics, the Two-Source-Theory, is pre-supposed in this work.” … the trouble would disappear if Dr. Stonehouse’s sentence were changed to read: “He, for example, seems to judge that Form Criticism is rather exclusively built upon the Mark-hypothesis.” This statement is accurate. My contention, and this conclusion is unavoidable, was that if Source Criticism had concluded that Matthew was the earliest gospel, then Wrede would have exercised his “annihilating criticism” on Matthew.… I think that Bultmann’s understanding of this matter, not mine, has been impugned …
Indictment No. 2: “He also seems to identify the Markan Hypothesis simply with the idea of the priority of Mark.” There are two distinct ideas here. One is primary, the other secondary. The first is the idea that Mark is a more original documentary source, which was used as the foundation of Matthew and Luke. This I called, carefully and consistently, the Mark Theory, or Mark-hypothesis. The second is a distinct question which arises after it has been concluded that Mark came first and was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke: namely, what is a legitimate way to use what we find in the Mark-document in writing a Life of Jesus? There is a theory that we may rely on Mark in writing a “Life” of Jesus. I call this the Marcan Hypothesis. I do so because others call it that. I always apologize for so doing and point out the confusion that easily arises and must be averted. These are two entirely separate matters. I was, as Dr. Stonehouse says, and I meant to be concerned in my articles only and exclusively with the first.…
Indictment No. 3: “He is far from taking account adequately of the arguments which have been presented on behalf of the priority of Mark, seeming to say that it is largely a matter of words used, whereas the argument is based upon many other considerations including especially subject matter and order of materials.” The first part of this statement is correct so far as the articles are concerned, but is not new. The articles themselves say so and give the reasons why I left the matters undiscussed. I quote: “As much as I might like to discuss some of the reasons given by the books, it is not possible to attempt to deal with them in the present short article. There are many different arguments.… It is, however, with great reluctance that I forego such a discussion.… If Dr. Stonehouse will tell me an argument he thinks valid, I will try to show why in my opinion he should not so regard it. What is “the” argument—specifically—of which he writes?… What I “seemed to say” I do not know. I did say I could find no internal evidence of any kind favoring Mark’s priority.
Indictment No. 4: “His contention that the theory is strongly astray in terms of percentages is incorrect since the assertion is not that 90 per cent of the words of Mark are found in Matthew but rather that 90 per cent of the subject matter of Mark is found in Matthew.” The only fair way in my judgment, Mr. Editor, is to interpret my comments in the light of a full statement I have worked out and mentioned in my articles. But let me say one or two things which are important. My contention regarding the percentages is that the 90 per cent statements are misleading. First, they almost always assume that the transfer of material went on in one direction, and, as I think, they pick the wrong direction. Secondly, they obscure the fact that between 40 and 50 per cent of Mark’s contents are not found in Matthew. An accurate and scholarly statement, should, in my judgment, run as follows:
If we eliminate the last verses of Mark, and then compare Mark with Matthew in the roughest way possible, taking sections as wholes and making a verse-count of all the verses in the sections that have something in common, we find that 90 per cent of Mark has, in the loose sense stated, corresponding elements of some kind or degree in Matthew. But if we establish an exact parallel layout and count words, we find that 4,573 words are the same in Matthew and Mark (40.6 per cent of Mark’s total words), 868 more words are nearly the same in Matthew and Mark (7.71 per cent of Mark’s total words), 904 more words in Mark (8.03 per cent of the total) are different but synonymous with some 884 corresponding words in Matthew. So that it is correct to say that the substance of 4,918 words in Mark (43.66 per cent of the whole) is not paralleled in Matthew in any strict sense; but 6,345 words in Mark (or 56.34 per cent of the whole) do have distinct correspondents of some sort in Matthew.
This statement covers both figures, is accurate, and is not misleading. I think, Mr. Editor, with all due respect for everybody’s special involvements and preferences, there is virtue in a clear statement of facts which does not prejudge the question of literary dependence, and which does not obscure the quantity (I will not now mention the extraordinary quality) of material that is peculiar to Mark. The real complaint seems to be that I am unfair to organized theoreticians.
Indictment No. 5: “My impression also is that the appeal to manuscripts of Judges overlooks the fact that we have to do with essentially different situations when, in one case, scribes copy a manuscript or even translate a manuscript and so might use many of the same words and, in the other case, authors are understood as making substantial use of another work.” My use of the texts of Judges rests on the assumption that two men, independently of each other, have translated from Hebrew into Greek. Their independently created translations (in which presumably they were not able to know or borrow each other’s words) are compared and found to contain numerous exact agreements in Greek. You will note that this is distinctly not the situation contemplated in part of Dr. Stonehouse’s first alternative (“when in one case scribes copy a manuscript”). Two things are confused in that statement of the first alternative case. I bring the data from Judges, where copying in Greek is not insisted on as a necessary explanation into a well-defined situation in New Testament studies where a theory of copying in Greek is insisted on as a necessary, and the only possible explanation of the same kind of facts, namely, exact agreements in Greek. The theory has long been current in Gospel study. European writers, who are grounded in a tradition of such studies all know of it. The theory involves and implies copying in Greek. This is clear (and even indisputable) from the fact that in proving it scholars give lists of Greek words that they say could not have been used by two writers independently. My argument was aimed at that theory, an aspect and part of modern criticism of the gospels that has always been understood by the well-grounded scholars of Europe. And I claimed that N. T. scholarship had wrongly asserted the necessity of holding the Benutzungshypothese, that is, a theory of one special kind of literary dependence, namely copying in Greek. The point, therefore, Mr. Editor, is that quantities of exact agreements can arise, and apparently have arisen, in at least two different ways, namely, by independent translation and by copying. Therefore, I have claimed, it is wrong to insist that they can only arise from copying a Greek text. This is my whole point. May I speak my mind freely? I fail to see how any difference in the two (really three) situations which Dr. Stonehouse contrasts has any direct connection … to my point as I argued it in the articles.
Indictment No. 6: “The use of the term ‘plagiarism’ seems to me to be out of place in this situation.” As to this, I think that three or four, perhaps five or six, generations of scholars may be chided, but not me. They invented and used the term Benutzungshypothese. A German engineer, an immigrant to America, suggested that “Plagiarism Hypothesis” was the proper translation of Benutzungshypothese. The only question here, I think, is for the German professors (or better still, for native Germans like my engineer) to decide. If they give an adverse decision, I will be content to stop using the term. There are many who will administer you a severe whipping if you presume to call literary borrowing for the purposes of pseudonymous authorship “plagiarism” in connection with New Testament writings. I personally consider it the precise right word. But … I do not use it in describing what I think happened, as I hope to make abundantly clear when I come to publish my own views. At the same time, I think that it conveys very precisely the exact idea of those who invented and used the term in gospel criticism. Yes, right from the very first, and most clearly and irrefragably of all in the work of Griesbach.…
Community Church on Hudson Avenue
Englewood, N. J.
A LUTHERAN VIEW
West Point … cadets should be given the choice of attending either … [chapel] … services or those of their own denomination.
St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church
New York, N. Y.
