A Modest Proposal
In Washington, D. C., Episcopal bishop William F. Creighton recently announced that until the Protestant Episcopal Church begins ordaining women to its priesthood, he will not ordain any men. Now, some columnists, less scrupulous in their journalistic principles than Eutychus, would use this incident to get into the whole question of ordaining women. We choose to focus more narrowly on the bishop himself and the good that can be drawn from his example, whether we consider his attitude right or wrong.
Because the bishop is not allowed to do something he wants to do, he refuses to do something he is appointed, hired, and paid to do. At first glance this may seem unreasonable, even unethical. Some would say that if Bishop Creighton feels ordination is wrong, then, since one of the chief functions of a bishop in the Episcopal Church is to ordain, perhaps he ought to resign his see. However, this would be rather a lot to ask of a bishop in these days of rising prices and high unemployment. It also seems a bit unfair to demand that bishops do what no one else has to do (especially since at least two Episcopal bishops of note have gotten away with not doing something that every Christian is supposed to do: proclaim the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ).
This practical lesson—that the way to protest not being allowed to do something you want to do is to refuse to do something you are supposed to do—would find ready acceptance in countless situations. For example, the policeman who is not allowed to beat up suspects could refuse to arrest them at all. The doctor not allowed to practice acupuncture could refuse to inoculate against contagious diseases. The automobile manufacturer not allowed to use non-safety glass in his cars could refuse to put in any windows at all. The football player not allowed to kick his opponents could refuse to kick the ball. The husband who runs into opposition to the proposal that he take a charming female colleague out for cocktails, dinner, and a show may refuse to take his wife. A child who is not given a chocolate bar may refuse to eat carrots and spinach. (If I can’t have my beer, I won’t drink my milk!)
In both theoretical and practical morality, it has been customary to reward good behavior after the fact. The bishop is introducing the principle that good behavior must be rewarded in advance; otherwise one may protest by not engaging in that behavior. These abstract considerations can all be summed up in a new maxim, recently added to Eutychus’s collection of proverbs: Eat your cake now and bake it later.
At The Center
This is to express my gratitude for publishing the article by Leon Morris entitled “The Cross at the Center” (Current Religious Thought, March 28). The centrality of the Cross cannot be overemphasized. I suppose it would be better expressed to say that the figure of Jesus on the Cross cannot be overemphasized—lest we worship the symbol.
Berkeley, Calif.
Easter Sense
Each Easter season I read the “proof” articles in periodicals.… I could not put Paul Maier’s article down (“The Empty Tomb as History,” March 28). It is the best I ever read on the subject. To put it plainly, his article made sense—good faith-sense.
First United Methodist Church
Siloam, Ark.
Confusing Makes
Your editorial on the Hartford Statement (“More Questions Than Answers,” Feb. 28) was quite accurate in its list of important things the document does not say. We never intended the statement to be a theological treatise or a new ecumenical confession. So your criticisms of it were a little like faulting a Volkswagen for not being a Cadillac.
Our endeavor was a modest but direct confrontation of some seriously errant theological trends of our time. You came close to what we had in mind when you said that we “laid down certain limits of tolerance.” The basic issue is whether we are going to let God interpret his will to us or whether we are going to cut God and his will to our own standards, whatever their source.
Our purpose was to stir up theological encounter and discussion. It was not to produce confession to solidify the ranks of our own group. There is certainly value in rallying our own people around ringing covenants. But there is also value in smoking opponents out into theological confrontation. This is what we wanted to do. I hope you will re-evaluate Hartford in terms of its own definition of what it was about.
You are surely right in being skeptical about “freewheeling clusters of conferees” meeting “unofficially on multitudinous issues.” We should know, since nobody is better at it than us evangelicals. By the way, the closing biblical quotation on the Resurrection was meant not as a caboose but a climax.
Professor of Theology and Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary
Pasadena, Calif.
Fuller Shift
Although I can understand Dr. Ives’s chagrin (Eutychus and His Kin, March 28), I believe that he is in error with respect to Dr. Wilbur Smith’s departure from Fuller Theological Seminary. According to my information, Dr. Smith did resign, and the reasons behind his resignation involved his dissatisfaction with what I called Fuller’s “shift of emphasis.” In addition, his personal library was not given to Fuller, but sold.
I would not want to give the impression that I think that Fuller is in the same category as Harvard, Yale, and Andover. However, I think that—despite the fact that Fuller has a strong and admitted evangelical commitment—it is only fair to say that the school has undergone a shift in emphasis since its early days, and that this shift has given rise to considerable apprehension among its friends.
Falls Church, Va.
By Any Other Name
I read your editorial in the March 28 issue, “The Good News Is Hard News,” [and] especially appreciated what you had to say about the word “Easter”.… As you said, “It would be far better if in English some other word of less questionable derivation could be applied to the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
The Fellowship Church
Phillipsburg, N. J.
Crucial Relation
Harold B. Kuhn’s discussion of “Relationalism: Principle or Slogan?” (Current Religious Thought, Feb. 28) is perplexing. Of course relational theology is a reaction to “the depersonalization and the alienation of our time.” Do not Satanic forces have to be met at our interpersonal level, too?… My major concern is with the “Bible vs relational theology” tone of the article. Must new insights always be over-against a helpful rendering of tradition? I think not. Relational theology does not, of necessity, reject “the structured and fixed in human nature.” Rather, it permits it to exist with greater integrity and wholeness. It loves people as well as arguments. It reads the Bible for inspiration as well as for memorization. It sees persons representing “original righteousness” as well as “original sin.” Right relationships and right ideas are not counterbiblical. They are crucially interdependent. It is their separate-togetherness which gives our biblical faith the gestalt it not only deserves but demands. This divine dialectic needs positive reinforcement in a society that can so easily create great persons in a “lonely crowd.” Please, let’s not reject as a fad such a profound approach to helping us Christians “put it all together.”
Director of Marketing
The Brethren Press
Elgin, Ill.
Corrections
In “Latin America: Cooperate to Evangelize” (Current Religious Thought, Jan. 17), “Oxford” (“the Oxford Conference in 1910”) should read “Edinburgh” and “Madras” (“the Madras Conference in 1928”) should read “Jerusalem.”
In Personalia (News, March 14), the item about Donald Gibson should say that he will replace John L. Knight as executive secretary of the Department of Evangelism of the Church of the Nazarene.
“Ralph Vaughan Williams: The Glow of Tradition” (The Refiner’s Fire, March 14), should have referred to the “angry, clashing arguments of the fourth” symphony, not the ninth.
