Amazing! Life Without Television
Recently I visited the home of an old college buddy, and to my amazement discovered he doesn’t own a television. He hasn’t watched one in almost ten years. He says television inhibited communication and creativity in his family. Frankly, I’m amazed his family has maintained at least a semblance of normality without the vital information transmitted by commercials.
How have they survived socially? They have no way of knowing about the mouthwash that kills germs that cause bad breath, the dishwashing liquid that prevents dreaded dishpan hands, or the laundry detergent that protects us from the unforgivable ring around the collar.
How have they managed at home? What do they do when they spill something if they don’t know about the quicker picker-upper? What do they do when they need an antacid that consumes exactly 47 times its weight in excess stomach acid? How can they ever know if their headaches are of the Excedrin or the non-Excedrin type?
Yet, somehow, this family has survived—I daresay, flourished. I met my friend’s children, and as far as I could tell, their teeth weren’t falling out—even without the toothpaste most recommended by the American Dental Association. They seemed well groomed without the shampoo that controls problem dandruff.
During my entire visit I could detect just a single flaw in my friend’s armor. We were laughing about a practical joke we once played, and wouldn’t you know it, his dentures popped right out. What a terrible embarrassment! How could his wife stay with a person whose dentures pop out during a belly laugh? It never would have happened if he owned a television.
Strange thing, though. He picked up his dentures, rinsed them off, put them back in, and—to my astonishment—life went on.
EUTYCHUS
Lindsey, Walvoord, And Armageddon
Were you fair to Hal Lindsey [“Nuclear Armageddon,” News, Dec. 14]? Lindsey was only following the method of interpretation he had learned from John Walvoord in The Nations in Prophecy. In 1967, Walvoord used current events of that year to prove that Armageddon was imminent in 1967. Hal Lindsey used current events in 1983 to prove that Armageddon was imminent in 1983. That device has been used for hundreds of years. The Armageddon passage in Revelation 16 is all past tenses. It had happened.
Both Walvoord and Lindsey treat hundreds of past tenses throughout the New Testament as future in meaning anytime their foregone conclusions require a future tense.
IVAN GROH
St. Catharines, Ont., Canada
The ultimate offense of Hal Lindsey is not found in the hype and pizzazz he adds to his sermons. It is that he takes seriously the Bible’s teaching concerning the literal second advent of Jesus Christ to judge the wicked and save the elect. Ask the members of the Christic Institute if they can stomach even that simple orthodox teaching. My bet is that orthodox eschatology of any school will make those boys gag.
DAVID J. MACLEOD
Dubuque, Iowa
Who’S Changing?
Regarding your January 18 editorial [“Beyond 1984: An Evangelical Agenda”]: You say, “The act of compromise is not sinful; it is usually realistic and often thoroughly Christian.” Name me one time that our Lord and Master compromised.
You say, “The God of the Bible does not seek compulsory worship.” He does not force it, but his very nature demands we worship him or deny him and worship the counterfeit one.
You say, “… the right of parents to provide a Christian education for their children without the handicap of paying twice.” Where were you when there were only a few Christian schools? Did you argue this point forcibly in the ’40s and ’50s when the Catholics complained about double taxation?
You say, “Evangelicals represent a minority.” I know what you mean, but as for me and my family, we’ll stand upon 1 John 4:4. Usually I agree with you; are you changing or am I changing?
VERL E. STOCKTON
Zanesville, Ohio
I affirm Kenneth Kantzer’s statement: “prochoice is a singularly malicious euphemism for the right to murder for convenience,” but was distressed at his alluding to the acceptability, in the name of compromise, of first-trimester abortions. Why should persons be expendable at any age?
Twenty-four prominent medical specialists recently presented a well-received report to President Reagan stating that unborn children are pain-sensitive as early as eight weeks gestation. This, in itself, makes a strong statement against first-trimester abortions.
JAMES HILT
The Chapel of the Air
Wheaton, Ill.
Kantzer said evangelicals should agree to support any governmental action to protect unborn children, and that it may “be possible to outlaw abortions for trifling causes and all abortions beyond the first trimester except to save the life of the mother.” To construe that statement as Kantzer’s or this magazine’s approval of abortion at any stage is inaccurate.
—Eds.
Ct And Issues
I appreciated the Baby Doe issue [“A Legacy of Life,” Jan. 18]. It is clear that people who accuse CT of not addressing certain issues like abortion do not read the magazine.
LLOYD BILLINGSLEY
Poway, Calif.
I am often troubled by the “either-or” positions of the pro-life and pro-choice movements. They often battle each other like Republicans and Democrats. To say that one political party has a monopoly on truth would be mere propaganda. The same is true of the pro-life and pro-choice movements.
Dr. Elkins’s concern for the person over the issue is something that the abortion groups could have more of. He possesses the characteristics and the attitudes that would fit nicely into a third group, which could be called pro-compassion.
REV. WILLIAM D. WOLFE
Mason, Mich.
Dr. Elkins is to be thanked for raising our theological consciousness to the new issues raised by medical technology. Let this be the start of an ongoing discussion in future issues.
The response by Dr. Smedes indicates the need for further clarity on the question. To say theologically “we must always be on the side of healing and preserving human life, whether prenatal or neonatal” is to plunge the doctor into an impossible situation when dealing with an anencephalic, for example. Were we to say “we should normally be on the side …, etc.” would give the Dr. Elkinses of this world the ethical room needed to exert their Christian consciences as God gives leadership.
REV. JERRY BATTS
Christ Community Church of Naperville
Naperville, Ill.
Iowa Evangelicals And The ’84 Senate Race
I must respond to the impression given of the Jepsen-Harkin senatorial race in Iowa [“Election ’84: Some Surprising Winners and Losers,” Jan. 18]. While portrayed as a battle between the villain Harkin and the evangelical Jepsen, many evangelicals here in Iowa perceived it quite differently. Mud was slung from both sides of the fence, and many feel it came from Jepsen’s side first. I fault neither Harkin nor Jepsen on that score, but rather overzealous supporters.
I applaud Jepsen’s pro-life position and his evangelical convictions. But I voted for Harkin for his exemplary moral integrity in leading the fight against major, though largely overlooked, human rights abuses in the Third World, as well as his fight to save the small farmer in the American Midwest. In contrast, Jepsen apparently winked at the horrendous crimes of dictators in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
TOM HARDEE
Orange City, Iowa
Those Hopeless Bookaholics
What utter delight to read Calvin Miller’s “Confessions of a Librophiliac” in the January 18 issue. I, too, am a bookaholic—a hopeless addict, with no desire for reformation. If a severe blizzard is predicted for our area, do I go to the grocery for milk and bread? Never. I rush to the public library for an armload of books. One must have the necessitities of life when shut in!
RUTH JOHNSTON
Fort Wayne, Ind.
Could you please tell me, what is a librophiliac? Do you mean someone who phlees books? I believe the word would be librophobic. But that does not seem to describe Calvin Miller very well.
REV. ANNA D. GULICK
St. Gabriel’s Episcopal Church
Lexington, Ky.
Miller insists on the right to make up both his own words and definitions.
—Eds.
Too much reading is not good. Calvin Miller evidently has not learned this yet.
JOHN GILL
Chattanooga, Tenn.
Missing The Point
Regarding the review of The Killing Fields [Jan. 18]: Clearly, the political biases of your reviewer have blinded him to the impact of this powerful and much-needed film.
In sharp contrast to the present insistence on patriotic trivializations of America’s past wrongs, this is one film that demands sober reflection. Certainly, the use of John Lennon’s “Imagine There’s No Heaven” at the end of the film was itself a trivialization of a highly complex and tragic situation, but to reduce all of Cambodia’s troubles to the atheistic Khmer Rouge is to sidestep American responsibility, which is the point of the whole film.
REV. DANIEL PLYBON LOVE
The Wesleyan Church of Oak Park
Oak Park, Ill.
Twentieth-Century Prophet
The space given to A. W. Tozer’s classic, Knowledge of the Holy [Jan. 18], was appropriate. The books by this “twentieth-century prophet” are selling better today than they ever did in his lifetime.
Tozer himself wrote for publication only 7 of the 19 full-length books bearing his byline. The others, nearly all produced by Christian Publications, were compiled and edited from his editorials in The Alliance Witness or tapes of his sermons.
H. ROBERT COWLES
Christian Publications
Camp Hill, Pa.
An Accurate Evaluation
Leland Ryken’s description of the value of a Christian liberal arts college education [“The Student’s Calling,” Jan. 18] was accurate and articulate. Parents, even more often than undergraduates, think in terms of what education will allow the student to earn rather than what that student can become.
RICHARD J. STANISLAW
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Taylor University
Upland, Ind.
Letters are welcome; only a selection can be published. All are subject to condensation; brevity is preferred. Write to Eutychus, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, Illinois 60188.
