From time to time since President Carter was elected questions have arisen over whether as president of the United States he should use his nickname Jimmy in official documents, on formal occasions, in reference works, and in countless other settings where one would usually use the given name, James. We appreciate the fact that Jimmy Carter wants to identify himself as a common man with the rest of us. That seems appropriate, particularly when compared with the recent coronation of Jean Bedel Bokassa as emperor of the Central African Empire, a nation with one of the world’s lowest per capita incomes, which could not afford such extravagance.
But we disapprove of overstressing the idea of the common man since it is often associated with the unstated notion that everybody in every way should be equal. The dictionary says that at the heart of egalitarianism lies the notion that “all distinctions between groups and individuals [are] inherently unjust.” That idea does not agree with life nor with the Bible.
Robert Louis Stevenson once said, “There are men and classes of men that stand above the common herd.” God intended that it should be this way. We are unconvinced by the position of those who believe that distinction is sui generis wrong.
If all persons performed on the same level in athletics, the arts, the professions, the trades, or in business there would be no examples of attainment to challenge others. And there could be no improvement. Even if all persons were equally gifted, inequality would result because people use and develop their gifts in differing levels of intensity and thoroughness.
Who in his right mind wants a common man to perform surgery on him? Who wants an architect who has not kept up with new techniques to design his building? Who wants a barely qualified lawyer to plead his case when his life is at stake? Who wants an undistinguished general to lead the nation’s armies? Who wants to watch a mediocre ballet dancer when there is a prima ballerina around? Who really wants an ordinary man to head a nation faced with great and seemingly insoluble problems?
We live in a day when we need more uncommon men, men who are exceptional and outstanding. We need great musicians, great physicians, great scientists, great political leaders, and above all great Christians. The beaches of earth are marked by the footprints of uncommon men whom God tapped for leadership roles in the history of redemption. Judged by divine standards these men all exhibited certain traits common to all of us. They were sinners; they fell short of the glory of God. But their singular devotion to God and his will set them apart from other people, who never climbed the mountains that these heroes of God did.
Abraham was one of these uncommon men; so were Elijah and Elisha and Deborah. So were the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Amos. So were Mary, the mother of Christ, and that stem and forbidding John the Baptist. So was Paul, whose devotion to God enabled him to endure great loss. Who can forget such giants throughout the church age as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Edwards, or Whitefield?
Scripture does not prohibit anyone reaching for the heights; it only specifies that it be done for the glory of God. The Bible does not denounce the just acquisition of wealth; but it does make clear that wealth should be employed for the advancement of God’s kingdom. The preacher whose sermons draw throngs, the surgeon whose skill brings people from far away to be healed, the teacher at whose feet thousands delight to sit, the writer whose words burn deep into men’s hearts—these people, if they are Christians, adorn the Gospel, bring joy to the heart of their creator, and are examples of what God can do with uncommon men. Let us try to be these people. If we fail, at least we have tried. Moreover, the effort alone is valued by God, since he does not judge us in comparison with others, but in comparison with the potential he has given each of us individually. But if we try and succeed—all glory be to the name of the most uncommon of all men whose glory was found in a cross and whose resurrection from the dead signals his victory and ours into life everlasting.
Thielicke From a Child’s Point of View
A day after reading the Helmut Thielicke interview (see pages 8 to 14) as it was being prepared for publication, a CHRISTIANITY TODAY staff member sat down at his kitchen table. His wife, who was sorting through Christmas cards, told him about a retarded girl in their daughter Michelle’s second-grade class. Michelle had told her mother, “Everybody hates her.”
“Well,” the mother said, “You don’t. You could at least say hello to her just to show you don’t hate her.”
“Oh, 1 couldn’t do that. Then all the kids would hate me!”
This led to a counseling session in which the mother asked, “What if you were in a class of retarded children and you were the only normal one? What if everyone hated you? Could you talk this over with your best friend and both of you say hello to her? She probably feels terrible.”
Michelle then became very concerned about “doing what Jesus would have done.” She just hadn’t thought from the retarded girl’s viewpoint.
The staff member himself, after talking to his little girl about her classmate, wondered about his own life. In how many ways, perhaps more subtle than Nazism or childhood cruelty to the retarded, was he enmeshed in difficult choices? He thought through Thielicke’s explanations—were not those war-time circumstances in some ways similar to those we are exposed to day after day, ones in which we “save our own skin” instead of risking alienation?
Jesus said the world would hate us, as it hated him. Perhaps, like the second-grade girl, we are at times blind to how we might serve him by risking our reputations and our small securities.
Appointments That Are Kept
God is in the “appointing” business, and that bothers some people. Throughout the Bible there are instances when he chose not only people but also other means to fulfill his will. Perhaps the reason that the book of Jonah is so often the butt of jokes is its clear teaching on this subject. Unbelievers ridicule what they cannot accept.
Jonah himself was appointed (1:2) by the Lord to go to Nineveh. The traveler had chosen Tarshish as the destination, but God had another place for him to go. Then after he got aboard his ship, God appointed a wind (1:4). The best-known part of the account, of course, is the appointment of the great fish to swallow the reluctant prophet (1:17). Scholars have wrestled for a long time with all sorts of problems regarding the man in the fish, but think what wrestling Jonah must have done. He finally concluded that what God got him into He could get him out of (2:9). And God did just that (2:10).
The deliverance from the sea was still not enough evidence of God’s power to make a real believer of him, though. God followed up with appointment of a plant (4:6), a worm (4:7), and an east wind (4:8). When Jonah had experienced all of this he continued to nurse his hurt feelings. He was unable to see beyond his anger (4:9).
God finally put it all in perspective by asking about Jonah’s concern for the withered plant. The prophet was angry because a big leafy thing had died, but who had made it? The Lord pointed out that Jonah had nothing to do with it (4:10). Perhaps that was why he was so mad. He didn’t start the growth, and he couldn’t stop it.
If the prophet could not produce a plant or control one, he certainly could not produce a person. God pointed out that there were 120,000 of them in town and that they were of more concern to him than the plant. He appointed all of them, too—one by one.
The following document was released recently by a mixed group of Afrikaner and Anglo-Saxon Christians in South Africa. Each of the seven generally stated “convictions” was followed immediately by a much longer statement of specific applications (such as references to the Stephen Biko tragedy) under the common heading “on account of our above-stated convictions and in regard to the political situation in South Africa.” For a copy of the complete statement, known as “The Koinonia Declaration,” together with more background information and an opportunity to endorse it, contact Hendrik Hart, Institute for Christian Studies, 229 College St., Toronto, Ontario M5T 1R4.
I. We as Christian citizens are convinced that we must continue to practise love towards those people in authority. We also believe that the prayers of just men have great power. We therefore urge all Christians to pray without ceasing for those in authority that: (1) they may seek and know Biblical truth; (2) they may not be led astray by unbiblical ideologies; and (3) that all may lead a quiet and peacable life, godly and respectful in every way. When there is a conflict between the law of God and the state’s expectation of us, it is, however, our firm conviction that we should always obey God rather than men (the latter including the bearers of authority).
II. The Bible gives us guidelines as to what the duties of the citizen as well as civil government are. Accordingly we believe that it is the duty of the civil government to protect everybody within its territory, and further that each man has the right to such protection, in order to enable him to do good, that is, to fulfil his calling (without obstruction by anyone whatsoever) towards God and therefore also towards his neighbour as his fellow citizen and fellow human being, in all human relationships. This means inter alia that: (1) the citizen as human being has the divinely ordained right and duty of displaying charity, that is, inter alia, in being merciful, practising community, promoting justice and mutual admonition, towards all people, irrespective of who they are, and especially to the weak and the underprivileged; (2) no responsible Christian can properly exercise his calling and duties with regard to a political society unless he is able to obtain sufficient information, having a bearing on his calling and/or duties in the state; and he is able to freely express his responsible opinion and his right to be heard is acknowledged.
III. We believe that freedom, sufficient to fulfil one’s calling before God, is essential.
IV. We believe that God is a God of justice, and that his justice is a principle implanted in the hearts and the lives of his children. We believe that God should be obeyed by practising his justice in all spheres of life, and at this time especially in politics. We believe that Christian love, as defined by God’s law, supplies the norm for practising justice. This means having the opportunity of doing unto others as one would have them do unto oneself. We believe that justice embraces, inter alia, equity. In a sinful world this implies a certain flexibility in the application of the law, which is best guarded by checking and balancing human authorities in order to avoid a concentration of power.
V. We believe that the Body of Christ is one, and this unity includes rich diversity. This principle should be acknowledged and actualised by members of the Body in all spheres of society. On this basis we deem it necessary that particularly within the state, the legitimate interests of each group as well as the common interest of all, should be fully recognised within the framework of a just political dispensation. We dissociate ourselves from all extreme forms of Black and White national consciousness which identify the Gospel with the history or group interests of any one group, excluding all other groups, and we call upon the church of Christ to consciously dissociate itself from an exclusively White as well as an exclusively Black theology which distorts the vital message of Scripture.
VI. We believe that God who is Creator and Judge of all men has given his children the task of ordering life according to his Word alone. His Word is to be pronounced clearly into the world as a goal for its salvation and healing. This, we believe, is one side of our prophetic task which leads to reconstruction and peace. We believe that it is our task to speak out according to God’s Word against any distortion of and disobedience to the Word for society. We believe that salvation has implicit in it the task of prophetism and judgment. We believe that we must pronounce God’s judgment on all forms of dehumanization, oppression and discrimination and not be afraid of doing so.
VII. We believe that God alone is the absolute Sovereign and that Christ was given all power in heaven and on earth. Both civil government and the people are to acknowledge this and are therefore obliged to keep the commandments of God for the existence of the state. Thus believing it is our conviction that: (1) any form of state absolutism or totalitarianism, seeking to absorb non-political spheres of society as well as the whole life of the citizen (in its rich diversity) into the structure of the state in such a way that the state obtains determining control of areas which are, principally speaking, non-political, should be rejected, and that the state should restrict itself to the organising of justice inside society without organising society as such; (2) not the will of the people but the will of God, as expressed in his Word, is the foundation of the authority of civil government; (3) the will of God is also the determining factor in respect of state security and that state security embraces the security of the citizen enabling him to live in obedience to God. State security is, inter alia, but not exclusively, the security of the political party in power; (4) the Government ought to enact and obey just laws for its own and for its citizens’ good, so that the blessing of God might rest on our society.
