Autolalia: The Theological Art Of Talking To Ourselves
Theologians who practice their theology too far from the common haunts of workaday laymen soon acquire the habit of talking to themselves. Seminary in-house conversation is thought of as scholarly, but it follows a line that the peasant-carpenter Son of God would never have used. To assist those who may suspect themselves of having fallen into the trap of talking to themselves, let us parallel the words of Christ with that elitist tongue known as Seminaryese:
• Jesus: I am the light of the world.
Autolalia: Christ is the pneumatic enlightenment of our existential arena.
• Jesus: I am the vine, ye are the branches.
Autolalia: The incarnational event is the trunk of faith relationships.
• Jesus: A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.
Autolalia: Urbanization at certain altitudes cannot prohibit its own self-disclosure.
• Jesus: I am He.
Autolalia: My Messiahship is volition-ally revealed.
• Jesus: Go ye into all the world.
Autolalia: Your disjunctive sociology must dissolve into a cross-cultural matrix.
• Jesus: I go to the Father.
Autolalia: My transcendence will shortly be absorbed into the ground of all being.
• Jesus: If I go away I will come again.
Autolalia: Ascension is but the preface of eschatological event.
• Jesus: Who will cast the first stone?
Autolalia: Whose projectiles will be preliminary?
• Jesus: Ye must be born again.
Autolalia: It’s umbilically urgent that you pass the birth canal of transcendence.
• Jesus: Behold, I come quickly.
Autolalia: Immanence is characteristic of this post-Pannenberg event.
EUTYCHUS
Government—Good or Evil?
Harold Myra has a point about Christians cheating the government by rationalizations and tax dodges [“The IRS Is Not Always the Enemy,” Mar. 2]. Government, in principle, is good and not inherently evil, as some sectarian groups teach. Furthermore, we are to be subject to government; that is, Christians should not incite insurrection against de facto government.
Perhaps our most important service to government would be honest and constructive criticism against its many abuses, a responsibility early Christians had little opportunity to exercise. Why should we uncritically encourage in government—waste, dishonesty, and graft—what we deplore everywhere else?
ARTHUR DAVIES
Holland, Mich.
Ambassador—Where?
The President has not actually appointed an “ambassador to the Vatican,” as you state in “That Controversial Appointment” [Mar. 16], but an ambassador to the Holy See. The difference is one not just of form, but of substance.
In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court said the First Amendment means at least this: that government may not “prefer one religion over another.” That is precisely what the administration has done in appointing an ambassador to the head of a church with more than 700 million adherents worldwide, including 50 million in the United States.
CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s conclusion that the constitutional argument against the administration’s action “is not very strong” is about as credible as its statement that the Vatican has “a standing army.” The 100 Swiss guards, armed with their sixteenth-century halberds and two-handed swords, would be impressed to hear themselves so described! America’s first Roman Catholic president stated his conviction that an ambassador to the Vatican would be unconstitutional. We agree.
FOREST MONTGOMERY
National Association of Evangelicals
Washington, D.C.
It’s unfortunate that my fellow Protestants have made this an issue. At least the Catholic church has maintained some sense of unity over the years so that they actually have one place to which to send an ambassador! If one were to try to do it with the Protestant churches, I fear we would rapidly deplete the entire governmental work force, so factious we’ve become.
NICHOLAS SCHACHTERLE
Lansing, Mich.
James Dunn: Right or Wrong?
You are certainly right about Dunn [“James Dunn the Focus of a Southern Baptist Controversy,” Mar. 16]. The Bible says one thing and Dunn says something else. Be assured that 95 percent of the time Dunn will oppose Christians.
In his former statements and writings, Dunn displays an amazing ignorance or willful distortion of U.S. history, and many times the Scriptures. Neither of these are acceptable for one claiming the name of Christ or representing Christians.
REV. ROYCE BEASLEY
Fellowship Baptist Church
Ocala, Fla.
Your article fails to mention that many in this large, diverse denomination do appreciate James Dunn’s work. In fact, as a member of another Baptist denomination that supports the BJC, I highly esteem his vision of our heritage and mission and am grateful he stands so firmly against the trends of our time that compromise this vision.
RICHARD V. PIERARD
Terre Haute, Ind.
Christian Writers
I am in agreement with Philip Yancy’s belief in “Christian Publishing: Too Many Books & Too Few Classics?” [Mar. 2] that Christian writers should “strive for high literary standards.” But should it be so “classic” that the gospel loses its true meaning?
It is true that Chesterton, Buechner, and other writers have the ability to attract Christian and secular audiences to their works. And yes, they also have the ability to present biblical characters as a part of present-day society. But after reading these books, would an unbeliever be persuaded to accept the beliefs of Christianity or would he simply classify the writings as just another Christian “classic” and place it on the shelf along with other “classics”?
Christian writers should not compromise the gospel at the expense of writing a “classic.”
ELIZABETH COBBS
Virginia Beach, Va.
Philip Yancey often graces us with style and insight that displays him as a practitioner of the very virtues he praises.
But surely style has run away with substance in the gnostic nonsense that suggests we are “spirit and immortality trapped in matter” (“How Dirty Jokes and the Fear of Death Prove There Is a Heaven” [Mar. 2]). How can Christians facing the materialism of the resurrection suppose matter to be a prison house from which we need flee? The problem lies with the oddities of every “natural” theology. We evangelicals need to take a page from Barth at this point and admit that every “natural” theology betrays us in the end into a negation of theology. What is “natural” depends upon a humanly constructed world view. Combining it with theology inevitably leads to Christian nonsense.
REV. DAVID A. FRASER
Norristown Schwenkfelder Church
Norristown, Pa.
Embryo Transplants
I believe all of your respondents missed the main ethical point in regard to “Brave New World” reproductive/genetic manipulations [“A Woman Can Now Give Birth to Her Own Stepchild, Mar. 2]. The fundamental biblical principle that should guide us in these issues is that all human sexuality and procreation should be kept within the marriage bond between one man and one woman. In vitro fertilization is not unethical in this light because it is seen as only technical assistance to a process that is kept within the divinely mandated bounds. Embryo transfer, on the other hand, brings another person into procreational involvement—with the resultant moral fallout that Dr. Wells so carefully describes. Artificial insemination and embryo transplants both take human sexuality/procreation out of the arena God intended. The practice of either will lead to hurting people.
REV. CLINT L. FISK
Church of the Nazarene
Princeton, Ill.
I have been an associate of Dr. Robert Wells for the past 16 years. He implies that all fertilized human eggs, or at least the majority of them, will eventually become babies. Many investigators have shown that approximately 80 percent of mammalian eggs that are fertilized do not result in living offspring. Many that do not mature are defective, and many are lost at a stage even before implantation when the animal, or woman, is unable to detect that she is pregnant. God in his wisdom has devised a system to prevent the majority of abnormal embryos from developing.
Ten percent of married couples cannot have children, and every week I and other obstetricians receive letters from desperate couples unable to become pregnant on their own. This new technique offers hope for some of these childless couples; I would hate to see a conscientious Christian couple make a decision based upon questionable data.
The purpose of embryo transfer is not to destroy fertilized eggs but to transfer them from one uterus to another. The fact that an occasional fertilized egg may be lost by human error does not seem to me to be a valid indication to condemn the entire procedure.
S. GAINER PILLSBURY, JR., M.D.
Long Beach, Calif.
Creationism/Evolutionism
Bravo, Baer! [“They Are Teaching Religion in the Public Schools,” Feb. 17]. Bravo for not being intimidated by the extremes in the creationism/evolutionism debate. His fine analysis of Saganism is equaled by his perception of the public school problem. The problem is not that creationism (whose?) is not taught but that science really is not. This is borne out by the generations of students ignorant of the assumptions and limitations of science, as are their instructors, apparently. LaHaye’s comments bear this out; he has never been confronted by the concept that practically all science is theoretical and certainly not weaker for it. For this reason, presentation of evolution in its theoretical mode, warts and all, is not particularly bad. What is unacceptable is the scenario of assumption confused with conclusion, a theory of general evolution accepted as underlying philosophy; this is the ultimate scientism. After all, the creation has been confused with the Creator.
ALBERT J. SMITH
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Ill.
