Dr. Seuss, M.Th., M.Div., Th.D.
It was after a long, long pastor’s conference that I realized how unappetizing even the fiercest of pulpit tirades can be. When my children were small they loved Dr. Seuss (I wondered why my children never seemed to relate to church with as much enthusiasm as they did to the creative diet found in books). I think if they had written how they felt about the many conferences I attended they would have summed up my long dry sessions with:
Red fish, Blue fish,
Old fish, Old, old fish,
Old Fishy, Old, old Talky,
Old, old Jabberwocky,
Follow me and fish for men,
Red fish, Blue fish come again;
No, no, Red fish, never so,
You can’t lure the fishies in
If the bait is very thin,
And when the bait is gone, you see,
The fishies stay and watch TV.
Ah—the poor sermons that poorly hold the children’s attention. Can you imagine the Seuss-nurtured child lamenting at the end of a two-hour worship service:
Will the cat in the hat come back?
Not if the sermon fails to crack
The stony boredom of the pack
Who seem to smack of this and that,
Which won’t attend a little chat.
And even if the cat comes back
He won’t stay long—
Why can’t we make preachers with all the attentive power of Dr. Seuss? I lament long and loud the blatant and dry words of those I wish were more creatively constructed. How I long for content that screams from softer words instead of vice versa. There must be somewhere creative and honest ministers crying no more than they presently feel. I wonder that children nurtured on creative diets ever can find anything appetizing in the grownup world of preaching.
When it’s time to feed the sheep on Sunday, the sermon should be a more creative arrangement of solid sermon protein in the American pulpit: when the food is attractive it always creates an appetite of its own. I wonder, if Dr. Seuss had his doctor’s degree from a Scottish seminary, would his last lament not read:
This I tell thee, Sam-I-Am,
I cannot stand thee, Reverend Sam;
I hate thy sophistry and sham,
Thy pulpit pounding blam, blam, blam.
I will not listen to thee, Bloat!
I would not hear thee in a boat!
I will not listen in my coat!
Dear Reverend Sam—thou dreary rote—
Feed all thy sermons to thy goat.
I can digest green eggs and ham
But never thee, good Sam-I-Am.
EUTYCHUS
Witchcraft—Is It Harmless?
I found the article “Witchcraft: An Inside View” [Oct 21] deeply disturbing. I am appalled, in fact, by statements such as, Like Jews, Witches claim a special relationship with Christianity [emphasis added] … that witches simply have “an attunement to nature [which] also finds its expression in their worship, focussed upon the sun, moon, and agricultural cycles …,” and that “witchcraft diverges from Christian practice and biblical teachings [emphasis added].” Such statements are highly misleading in their connotation. The article does little to bring true light to the reality of the powers of darkness behind witchcraft, but almost tends to condone it. There is no such thing as “harmless” paganism, witchcraft, or satanism.
My personal so-called harmless pursuit of witchcraft just a few years ago brought me near the gates of death without my even being aware that it was this very involvement that was leading me in that direction—Satan is the Father of Lies, and a master of deception. Let’s see witchcraft for what it is!
SUSAN MIHAYCHUK
Winnipeg, Man., Canada
Thanks should be given to Gordon Melton for his nonbiased reporting of Witches’ activities. However, there are a few errors; not all witches are of the Gardnerian influence. There are many forms of witchcraft practice. We in no wise claim a special relationship to Christianity other than through the persecutions that have been perpetuated even unto this day.
None of us worship the Devil/Satan. To us he does not exist. This portion belongs to the Christian community.
MORGANA
Wiccan Crafts Consultants
Correction
There are many things for which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., rightfully deserves credit, but one of them isn’t being the founder, organizer, and/or initiator of the movement that produced the Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc. [News, Nov. 11]. While the civil rights question was of importance in the mind of the founder, it was not the primary issue, nor was Dr. King a prime mover. In fact, if you look on p. 139 of The Progressive Story, there appears a copy from the September 28, 1961, issue of Jet, which records Dr. King’s opposition to the formation of the PNBC, Inc.
REV. WILLIAM D. BOOTH
First Baptist Church
Gary, Ind.
Encouraging Interview
The Christian community is indebted to you for making Sen. Bill Armstrong known through your November 11 interview. Evangelicals should be encouraged by his leadership in the nation’s capital.
Probably none of the 100 senators has failed to daydream on occasion about using his position as a springboard to higher office. While Bill Armstrong may not aspire to a higher office, that fact plus his evident character, competence, conscience, and common sense put him high on anybody’s list of possibilities for the future.
ROBERT P. DUGAN, JR.
National Association of Evangelicals
Washington, D.C.
I’m writing to take issue with Senator Armstrong’s assertion that “pacifism is completely honorable and proper at the individual level.” As C. S. Lewis points out in his 1940 sermon “Why I Am Not a Pacifist,” the Lord’s injunction to turn the other cheek makes sense in the context of forbidding mere revenge. We are forbidden to strike out at others in response to the urge to “get even.” God balances those accounts. But the pacifist equation falls apart just as soon as someone else is introduced into the scenario. As Lewis says, “Does anyone suppose that our Lord’s hearers supposed him to mean that if a homicidal maniac, attempting to murder a third party, tried to knock me out of the way, I must stand aside and let him get his victim?” Further, should the Good Samaritan, arriving on the scene of that biblical mugging, have simply let the robbers do their beating and stealing without attempting to interfere, violently if necessary, to have helped the innocent rather than the guilty prevail? The person who says yes, I (and Lewis) believe, is ignorant of the real meaning of the gospel.
MICHAEL D. HARMON
Cape Elizabeth, Maine
A Bit of Rebuttal
Since I spend a fair amount of time writing on scientific subjects, I would like the opportunity of dispelling doubts that Mr. Vogt’s letter [Nov. 11] may have aroused as to the accuracy of the research behind my article “Seeing Christianity in Red and Green as Well as Black and White” [Sept. 2]. Anyone with “a passing acquaintance with the research” on brain physiology from Wilder Penfield to Karl Pribram is aware that the two hemispheres of the brain are in fact so distinct as to be capable of operating independently of one another. The study of the dual functions of the brain’s two hemispheres was actually triggered when patients who had had the corpus callosum—the connecting bridge between the hemispheres—surgically severed were observed to operate almost as two different people inhabiting the same unhappy body. This kind of surgery, originally performed to relieve severe epilepsy, is no longer resorted to, but the case histories of such independently functioning split brains supply undeniable empirical evidence that the two hemispheres can indeed operate in isolation. Also, as brain-dominance studies show, one side is capable of suppressing the other; in our culture, the left brain consistently dominates the right brain.
My use of the term “atrophy” to describe the plight of the suppressed right hemisphere was taken from Darwin’s own description of his condition. Neither Darwin nor I meant the term literally. Our right hemispheres do not, of course, rattle around in our craniums like desiccated nutmeats. The term is meant metaphorically. Its failure to be apprehended that way is, I think, a telling point for my argument.
VIRGINIA STEM OWENS
Huntsville, Tex.
A Great Tragedy
I wish to make an important qualification to the article “Does Anybody Have the Right to Tell Me What to Do?” [Nov. 11]. The nominalists were, unfortunately, quite correct in their analysis of the existing evil (cosmos) social order during the Middle Ages. They were correct in rejecting a world order, often tied to the “Christian” church-state social order, that, as Ramm says, “supports wicked Kings, corrupt dictators, and oppressive practices in business, employment, and social relationships.” Jesus also rejected the existing Jewish cosmos, religio-social order, which was exploitative and oppressive; this was symbolized most powerfully by his cleansing of the temple.
All existing social orders are shot through with evil.
The great tragedy, in my opinion, is that evangelicals, for all their religious talk, are repeating in their own way the mistake of the church of the Middle Ages. In practice, we are half-Christian nominalists rather than living all areas of life by kingdom of God principles.
LOWELL NOBLE
Spring Arbor, Mich.
Survey Questioned
I would like to make some comments regarding “Evangelicals Support Reagan’s Re-election, but Only Narrowly” [News, Nov. 11]. As a former pollster, I would question the type of sample drawn by V. Lance Tarrance and Associates of Houston, Texas. Assuming their strict adherence to the science of probability sampling, their sample would be drawn from every representative area in the country and carefully drawn to reflect an across-the-board sampling of all types of Christians who call themselves evangelicals. It follows that a large percentage of the 1,000 Christians surveyed would be residents of the “Bible Belt,” which, of course, is concentrated largely in the South.
Most evangelicals in the South are Democrats by tradition. It is not strange, therefore, for such evangelicals to adhere to the Democratic line when questioned on their preferences among presidential candidates. I would think however, that it is logical to assume that the majority of these southern Christians are inclined to be conservative.
A careful analysis of the geographical breakdown of the results of the survey would most likely reveal that the presence of large numbers of southern evangelicals in the sample would affect the results, maybe out of proportion. As to evangelicals in the rest of the country, one would very likely find that the vast majority of those are conservative and pro-Reagan.
As an evangelical Christian and former president of a national polling organization, I am very much concerned about a strict definition of our Christian class. Considering the definitions rather lightly used in the survey, I am not convinced that the survey was completely authentic.
REP. PETER R. VROON
House of Representatives
Harrisburg, Pa.
A Word of Praise
You deserve much praise for “Why the Church Should Teach Teens About Sex” [Nov. 11]. This thorough and practical guideline should spur many churches to conduct courses in human sexuality. I have had the experience of setting up such seminars for parents and their junior high and senior high youth. Parents especially expressed appreciation for this type of complementing ministry to the home. Planning and implementing these vital seminars will be hard work, but well worth the effort.
REV. RANDY HINES
Old North Baptist Church
Canfield, Ohio
