Enfants Terribles In Our Churches
I wish to suggest a new rite (sacrament, ordinance) of the church: the infant baptism of adults.
This is no sudden flash of cognition, no whim. As is fitting for such a fresh and radical concept, I have pondered the idea for several years. Nor is it a latter-day attempt to bring baptists and paedobaptists together. Nothing short of the Rapture, including Eutychean intervention, could accomplish this.
Here’s how it would work.
Herbert Elder is fifty-three years old, has been married for thirty years to Charlotte Elder. They have three children, one of whom is still at home.
Herb has decided that he wants to divorce Charlotte and marry Linda Younger (age thirty-seven, married ten years, two young children).
At this point he applies to his pastor for infant baptism. If his request is granted, the Sunday morning service is scheduled, and at the same time Herb is welcomed into the cradle roll department.
If Linda is also a member of the church, she follows a similar procedure, perhaps being baptized as an infant the same Sunday as Herb. In the case of paedobaptistic churches, infant infants may also be scheduled for baptism.
While I have chosen a lay example, the same pattern would be followed for baptizing ordained infants.
-You don’t like my light approach to a terrible contemporary problem? Then tell me about a church that takes a serious, biblical approach.
EUTYCHUS VIII
Against Killing Culture
I appreciated reading the interview with C. Peter Wagner and Ray Stedman, “Should the Church Be a Melting Pot?” (Aug. 18). Having served as a missionary among American Indians and from personal experience, I find myself agreeing almost completely with C. Peter Wagner. I have never felt that God expected anyone to worship him in an uncomfortable situation. The people I served among were most comfortable singing their Indian hymns and praying in their native tongue. In fact, they are more comfortable with an Indian pastor than a white missionary who is often paternalistic in his approach and knows little or nothing about the American Indian culture. I fully agree with Wagner that “culture is not sinful.” It has been my observation that white missionaries have tried to kill the culture in order to make American Indians (and others) act and worship like whites when they worship. I suspect that our attempts at trying to “homogenize” God’s children in worship are really in effect “judaizing” them.
DAVID FLICK
First Baptist Church
Elmore City, Okla.
I view some of Dr. Wagner’s statements with dismay.… We believing or Messianic Jews represent a minority in the Christian church and to adopt into our worship a methodology foreign to the majority is to isolate ourselves from the rest of the members of the body of Christ. How, if this is done, can we understand Paul’s reference in First Corinthians 10:32 to the three distinct categories of humanity? And if I as a believing Jew am made to feel different from the rest of the body of believers, I think that this should be regarded as sinful behavior. Also, Dr. Wagner, I believe, contradicts his previous statements when he says “that the entrance of the Gospel into any culture has to change part of that culture.” I do not suggest that a believing Jew forgets his heritage. By the same token, the majority of Jews today are traditionalists with little, if any, knowledge of practices of orthodox or even conservative Jewry. Philippians 3:13, 14 should be our new base from which we develop into new creatures in Christ. May I suggest that what is vital in today’s church, in many instances, is a return to Bible teaching which incorporates God’s plan for the Jew and makes believing and seeking non-believing Jews welcome.
FRIEDA G. ZUCKERMAN
Whittier, Calif.
Present At Prague
I read with interest your article “Peaceful Prague” (News, Aug. 18). I would like to make one small correction. You mentioned that at the last Assembly in 1971 “there were no Americans.” I was one of the few Americans who did attend. I did so unofficially in order that our point of view could be represented and to maintain fellowship with people with whom we disagreed but with whom we are still united in Christ.
HOWELL O. WILKINS
Asbury United Methodist Church Salisbury, Md.
A Vote Against Canned Worship
I appreciated very much Mr. Howell’s article “Let Worship Be Worship” (Minister’s Workshop, Aug. 18), and its practicality. And I appreciate your increasing emphasis as a magazine on material we can practically use. There is a point about leading worship that I have noticed as a pastor myself and an observer of many others leading worship … And that is, simply, the worship leader should be worshiping, too. I see many leaders up there almost commanding the people to get with it, ridiculing them, perhaps, for not singing with gusto or something else. A leader is a guy who does something first, and then others see him and follow. How many of us pastors really worship while we are leading worship? I see it as similar to the difference between canned and real laughter. We have canned praise, canned prayer, canned specials—even canned sermons. And that … lack of freshness is all too evident. Are we pastors coming to our services wanting and ready to worship, or are we there to fulfill our image and merit our wages? Whichever it is—it shows.
MILES FINCH
New Life Christian Center
Polson, Mont.
Reversed Decision
When my July 21 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY arrived, it was to be my last due to financial reasons. However, when I opened the magazine and started reading the outstanding articles pertaining to South Africa today, I was astoundingly made aware of the fact that I couldn’t afford to be without the C.T. magazine at any cost.… Thank you for making me aware and interested in the situations of the South African people. Being made aware, as a Christian, the situation demands a response. We have a responsibility to our Lord and to the truth of the Gospel message, to bear one another’s burdens.
PRISCILLA M. PELUSO
Loomis, Calif.
As a black Christian, I was impressed by the sharp and clear-cut analysis of the South African problem. In the light of your recent editorial change, one thing remains unchanged: the continued excellence of your magazine. Keep up the good work!
KEITH BOSEMAN
Moody Bible Institute
Chicago, Ill.
It is not easy to convey the many-faceted problems and joys of being a Christian in South Africa; as a Christian and third-generation South African, I would like to congratulate CHRISTIANITY TODAY on the good effort. However, it is ironical that writers familiar with the history and present conditions of the United States should be surprised when they see another “remarkable renewal movement” in a different part of the world. Have renewal movements in America been less remarkable? For me and numerous black and white South Africans, Jesus is our peace, and he has broken down the walls of fear and distrust between us.
HEATHER HORNING
Lancaster, Penn.
Merci Beaucoup
Thank you for your news article (“Evangelical Feminists: Ministry Is the Issue,” July 21) concerning the Evangelical Women’s Caucus. It is tragic that the EWC has adopted the name “evangelical.” In my opinion there is a huge chasm between this caucus and evangelical biblical Christianity. These people must realize that a woman becomes a woman not by joining some pseudo-Christian feminist group but by becoming what God wants her to be. Dr. Francis Schaeffer has said “… women’s insistence on equal rights, in a poor sense, has brought them to the position of having fewer and fewer men who are men. And then the cycle continues and the women are hungry and hurt.” If the women of the Evangelical Women’s Caucus wish to harangue us some more about women’s rights that is their privilege, but they should do it under a banner other than that of evangelical Christianity.
J. SCOTT SUSONG
Bethel Independent Presbyterian Church
Houston, Tex.
For Your Information
With much interest I followed John Warwick Montgomery’s critique of Helmut Thielicke in “Thielicke on Trial” (March 24) and Helmut Thielicke’s “Response” concerning their dispute over the Free University of Hamburg (June 23). Montgomery may be right calling the Free University of Hamburg the “first independent, evangelical university in Germany.” However, I would like to point out that for eight years, now, an independent, government-accredited, evangelical seminary has thrived in neighboring Switzerland: Freie Evangelisch-Theologische Akademie, Basel (Free School of Evangelical Theology—FETA).
DAVID E. POYSTI
Biebergemünd, West Germany
Uneven Calibre
I was surprised to find two back-to-back, ably written articles in your June 23 issue of such biblically uneven calibre. The article entitled “The Yoke of Fatherhood” by Thomas Howard was much appreciated, even though certain areas of compromise were not (for example, the lingering implication that homosexual union might not be totally condemned of God). The affirmation of our need to let Scripture judge us and thus the necessity of shouldering God-given responsibilities in the roles of husband-father and wife-mother was refreshing. However, the adjacent article, entitled “Parents and Prodigals” by Virginia Stem Owens was destructive in implication. It was not only unbiblical but also antibiblical in its pessimistic view of parent-child relationships.
ROBERT P. TEACHOUT
Taylor, Mich.
Wrong Treatment
Our concern for television programming is justified (Editorials, “Decent Speech on the Airwaves”, May 19). However, our course of action is following the wrong path. We are treating the symptom, not the disease, when we bring pressure on the advertisers or the programming executives. Simple logic dictates that conclusion.…
CHARLES G. BEEKLEY
Ashland, Ohio
Correction
Harold O. J. Brown’s book mentioned in the August 18 issue is entitled “Death Before Birth” and not “Life Before Birth.” We are sorry for the error.
