THE BRIGHT-EYED PIG
A very good friend of mine out around Detroit argued practically the whole length of an auto trip one time that billboards really enhance the highways. He would keep saying, “Look how interesting they are.” This went against everything I had ever supported on such subjects as conservation, aesthetics, and the American Frontier.
The trouble is that once my friend had insinuated this idea into my mind, I had a harder and harder time getting over it. With great resentment I had noted how the billboards blocked off the scenery. Meanwhile I was reading the billboards, so when I said to myself, “I just won’t read the billboards,” this was like saying to myself, “Well, forget it—just don’t worry,” and the like.
Most of the towns across the country are beginning to look much alike with gas stations, neon lights, national chain stores, and standard brands. But you discover by reading billboards that you can locate yourself in almost any part of the country by what is being advertised. Just recently I was passing through an area where they were advertising pellets, hybrid corn, and pig starter. I was in Iowa. I don’t think the billboards around Brooklyn are advertising hybrid corn. They have their own kind.
And do you know something? In a lovely picture of a whole row of little pigs chomping away in a trough, this one little pig had his head up out of the trough looking me, the car driver, right in the eye. I couldn’t help laughing at the expression on his face. He looked as if I had startled him—but as a matter of fact he had startled me. We were, in some sense, seeing things eye to eye; and for about 500 miles (just to show you what kind of a mind I have) I kept thinking about that blasted pig.
What makes one pig raise his head up out of the trough? If we knew that, we would know a lot of things about evolution, education, and religion. Says the Psalmist, “In the morning I will look up.” Have you looked up from the trough lately?
He was a bright-eyed little fellow, too.
EUTYCHUS II
THE PROGRESSIVE STATUS QUO
I am writing to commend you on the editorial in the June 19 issue entitled: “What About the Becker Amendment?” It seems to me that this is the most fair, objective write-up that I have read on this subject. You have looked at both sides of the issue without prejudice or emotion, and on this basis you have taken a clear position, which incidentally I believe is the right one. Furthermore you have made positive helpful suggestions as to what should and can be done now in reversing the trend toward secularism. Certainly the teaching of the Bible as history and literature is of greater value to all concerned than would be the devotional exercises.
I have not been a particular enthusiast for your magazine, feeling that too often you reflect the status quo elements of our society and of our faith. However, in this case I must agree that the status quo is the most progressive thing possible.…
JOHN A. ESAU
Faith Mennonite Church
Minneapolis, Minn.
I was pleased to read your excellent editorial.… Many of us have been concerned with the problem of maintaining religious freedom without encouraging hostility to religion.
DAVID E. WITHERIDGE
Executive Secretary
Greater Minneapolis Council of Churches
Minneapolis, Minn.
Please accept my sincere congratulations on your direct and perceptive editorial.… Such a profound statement deserves wide publicity and is generally needed in our nation.…
GILES E. STAGNER
First Methodist
Peabody, Kan.
I think you lose sight of this basic fact: Ours is a constitutionally governed republic—each state has all powers not specifically surrendered to the federal government. The states have never surrendered the right to control either education or “religion.” And Congress has never given any such appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, even if they had the power to do so. Constitutionally, each state community can decide for itself what it is to do. Parents, who make up a community and are responsible for the education of their children, have the right (“the free exercise thereof”) to insist that devotions be a part of their educational program with attendance voluntary.
This is a basic attack upon the foundation of our moral and spiritual heritage. We dare not retreat. The Supreme Court has already weakened the classic expression, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” in our First Amendment, but its shameful decision is based on opinion and not law. The Becker amendment is needed to re-establish the First Amendment in its historical position.…
For a Christian in a Christian nation to say that God’s Word should be prohibited from any place, at any time, is astounding, and no matter what the prayer might be, it is the acknowledgment of a Higher Authority and this is definitely needed in our country. Fail to acknowledge that Authority and his Word in public places, in every part of life, and the nation is doomed to disaster. May God have mercy upon us.…
Personally, I would prefer that Congress simply pass an act on the basis of Article III, Section II, of the Constitution, specifically stating that it has never granted to the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals on educational or religious matters and that, therefore, the Supreme Court does not have and shall not have such authority. This would make present and past decisions null and void and would require only a majority vote by Congress. But when Congress fails to do so and the Supreme Court ignores the fact that it has never been given such jurisdiction, then the people have to act by amendment. And the Becker amendment meets the need.
All evangelicals should support the proposition that the citizens of the United States should be given an opportunity to decide on this amendment through their regularly chosen representatives in state legislatures.…
FREDERICK CURTIS FOWLER
The First Presbyterian Church
Duluth, Minn.
It is a fact … that had the Bill of Rights stood undisturbed as originally adopted, none of the cases which created the present confused state of affairs would have reached the Supreme Court. Each case would have been resolved at the state level, which was the specific intent of the First Amendment. Mr. Justice Stewart noted in his dissent (Abington v. Schempp) that “as a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government.”
It was only by a process of stepladder decisions, one upon another, that the Supreme Court gained appellate jurisdiction. Since the court’s first decision (Marbury v. Madison, 1803) that established the doctrine of judicial review its exclusive right to interpret the Constitution has not been successfully challenged even though it has been questioned many times. The next step came in 1940 (Cantwell v. Connecticut), when the court used the Fourteenth Amendment to make the First applicable to the states.
Only on the basis of these two decisions could the court claim appellate jurisdiction and make the First Amendment applicable to the prayer and Bible-reading cases. No objective consideration of the legislative history of either the First or Fourteenth Amendment could possibly bring you to the conclusion that this was their intended use.
So for the first 150 years, the First Amendment served its original purpose and all was well. In 1940 its use was changed not by due process but by judicial fiat. Since 1940 the court has made one decision after another in areas far beyond its clearly defined jurisdiction in the Constitution. There is little doubt about the direction it is headed, but there is grave concern about where it will lead us if the brakes are not applied or the trend reversed. The result has been confusion and unrest throughout the whole educational system which in turn has triggered a sociological upheaval.
All of this seems to point up the wisdom that is reflected in our Constitution. The framers made ample provisions for changes through amendments or legislative process rather than by judicial usurpation. It seems to us that an expression from the people in the form of an amendment is past due. The last thing that should happen is to wait and see what the Supreme Court will do next.
FLOYD ROBERTSON
Office of Public Affairs
National Association of Evangelicals
Washington, D. C.
Here’s my comment—Amen!
It is a thoughtful and courageous presentation and offers a constructive approach towards a solution.
THERON R. COOPER
Sand Lake Baptist Church
Averill Park, N. Y.
SENSITIVE TO RELIGIOUS VALUES
In your June 19 [issue] you incorrectly describe the late Prime Minister Nehru as an “atheist” (News). [In] the same edition (Editorials) you describe him more correctly as an agnostic who was warmly and intelligently sensitive to religious values.
CHARLES R. ATWATER
Sterling College
Sterling. Kan.
HOWARD TILLMAN KUIST
I was deeply saddened over the death of Dr. Howard Tillman Kuist of Princeton Seminary which you reported in your June 5 issue (News), and feel constrained to write a note of tribute.
It was my privilege to study under Dr. Kuist for four years. During that time I was deeply influenced by his unswerving devotion to his Lord, his refreshing enthusiasm in presenting the great biblical truths which came to light under his inductive analysis, and his profound insights into the passages of Scripture under study. Three things stood out in his classes which made him a truly great Bible teacher. First, his reverent treatment of the Scriptures was profoundly Christ-centered. I remember vividly one class period which included lecture, discussion, and investigation on the fourth chapter of the Gospel of John in which the presence of Christ himself was so distinctly felt that the students left the room at the close of the period in hushed reverence. Outside I commented to a classmate, “Christ spoke to us from his Word today. He was present in that classroom.”
Secondly, Dr. Kuist always insisted that the findings based on the inductive study of Scripture must not be merely academic but vitally applied to faith and life. I still marvel at his ability to take some of the driest passages of Scripture and make them meaningful for daily life and doctrine. Thirdly, he insisted that there was no substitute for an actual, first-hand, open-minded study of the Scriptures. He instilled in his students the desire to study the Bible for themselves. When questions concerning interpretation arose he never gave facile answers and after presenting a survey of the history of interpretation would lead the students back to the Scriptures. The guiding thought was always, “What do the Scriptures actually say?”
Princeton Seminary is poorer for having lost a great Bible teacher, but many ministers and missionaries are richer for having learned from him the basic skills in fruitful Bible study and interpretation. May God raise up one to follow in his steps.
JOHN HUEGEL
Pabellon, Ags., Mexico
WORTHY OF DESCRIPTION
I appreciate your complimentary comments in the June 5 issue (Editorials). I am glad you liked my article in the Saturday Evening Post, and it was very kind of you to describe it so fully. Thank you.
KARL MENNINGER
The Menninger Foundation
Topeka, Kan.
THE TIE ABIDES
The brief news item, “The Tie with Missouri,” … in your June 5 issue is not quite accurate. The proposal to form an independent body to be known as The Lutheran Church—Canada failed, althuogh 78 per cent of the voting congregations cast ballots approving the move. The resolution needed a two-thirds majority of congregations in each of the three geographic districts, not just a two-thirds of all congregations operating in Canada. Thus, although 90 per cent of the congregations in the Alberta-British Columbia District and 80 per cent of the congregations in Manitoba-Saskatchewan District voted for the establishment of an independent body, the movement was defeated because only 50 per cent of the congregations in the Ontario District voted for autonomy.
At its recent two-day convention held in Toronto, June 2 and 3, a federation of congregations belonging to the Lutheran Church—Canada asked officials of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod to study the advisability of a separate seminary in Canada, to establish an administrative counselor for the synod in Canada, to create a publication for the three districts in Canada, and to consider a full-time staff for the federation.
NORMAN TEMME
Dept. of Public Relations
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod
New York, N. Y.
A QUESTION OF COLONIALISM
I have only recently read the editorial, “Ecumenism’s Neo-Colonial Compromises,” which appeared in the January 17 issue. The main point of the editorial seems to be the charge that the World Council of Churches “takes on the character of an ecclesiastical version of the colonial era through its neo-colonial methods of purchasing ecumenical cooperation.”
Although I know nothing of the validity of such an accusation in other areas, I do know that the Near East School of Theology in Beirut, Lebanon, cannot be used as a case in point to support this thesis. I have been following and in some measure guiding the direction of this seminary for over seventeen years and am therefore in a position to assert that every statement you have made regarding the Near East School of Theology is either false or, at best, a misleading half-truth.…
In summary, your three sentences about the Near East School of Theology in Beirut are wrong on the following points, some trivial but others of serious import: (1) The Theological Education Fund did not offer $99,000 to assist in relocation. (2) The Theological Education Fund did not specify the site of the proposed relocation. (3) The Theological Education Fund did not stipulate the source of the matching grants. (4) The Theological Commission (if such there be) of the United Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., has nothing to do with the management of the Near East School of Theology. (5) Neither the Theological Education Fund nor the supporting bodies have required that the school’s present president he replaced. (6) Neither the Theological Education Fund nor the supporting bodies have made any condition as to the nationality of any member of the staff of the Near East School of Theology. (7) The supporting bodies have not yet pledged the necessary matching grants.
GEORGE F. MILLER
Chairman, Board of Managers
Near East School of Theology
Beirut, Lebanon
• In matters of detail CHRISTIANITY TODAY’S report was in error. But on the substantive issue (Number 5 above), while Chairman Miller’s statement is literally correct, it is inaccurate as a description of the pressures that took place behind the scenes and to which the Board of Managers refused to yield. Those pressures sought the replacement of the present president, a national, by a non-national.—ED.
JOHN CALVIN
Just a brief note to express my appreciation for the fine “Calvin issue” (May 22). I appreciated particularly the fine editorial and would like to have my gratitude extended to whoever wrote it.
ROGER NICOLE
Gordon Divinity School
Wenham, Mass.
