Eutychus and His Kin: July 7, 1972

IF I WERE EDITOR …

“You know what I’d do if I were editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY?”

My dinner companion, one of the editors of this fortnightly, nearly choked on his truffled frog’s legs.

After slapping him on the back and restoring him to his former state of hyperconsciousness, I awaited his “What?” Instead he replied, “Preposterous!” “Can’t you use your imagination?” I asked.

“There isn’t that much imagination in the whole world.”

“Nevertheless, if I were …”

“How can you nevertheless your way around such a palpable absurdity?” “Who’s palpable?”

“Absurdity. Palpable is an adjective modifying absurdity.”

“That’s the trouble with you editors—you’re always changing the subject. Why can’t you think of me as an editor at CHRISTIANITY TODAY?”

“Well, the evidence is so overwhelming I hardly know where to begin. For one thing, you don’t have a Ph.D.” “How do you know I don’t have a Ph.D.?”

“It’s obvious.”

“Well, you have a Ph.D. and it’s not so obvious, so what diff …”

“I beg your pardon …”

“Look,” I said hurriedly, “let’s not get sidetracked. I’m trying to offer some helpful suggestions. Just think of me as the typical reader of the magazine.”

He closed one eye, squinted with the other, cocked his head to one side, and paused for a moment with his fork in mid air. “Nope—that won’t work either. You’re not my idea of the typical reader of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. AS a matter of fact, you’re not my idea of the typical anything.”

“Besides,” he continued, “to take you as the typical reader would predicate an acceptance of you as a spokesman for our other readers. We have no assurance that you’re qualified to voice the concerns of our constituency.” (That’s editorese for: “Who are you to speak for the masses?”)

So there you have it, friends. I need your help. Why don’t you sit down right now and complete this paragraph in 100 words or fewer: “If I were editor of CHRISTIANITY TODAY I would …” (All of you who were about to reach for your pens to write “… fire Eutychus V” just cut it out. Try to be serious for once in your lives.)

Send your suggestions to me at CHRISTIANITY TODAY. I’ll read them all and pass them on to the editors. What they’ll do with them is beyond the control of mere mortals like you and me.

FREEDOM OF SURRENDER

Thank you for your May 12 article, “An Inside View of Alcoholism.” Like Paul, the author, I too am a Christian alcoholic and have long hoped to see evangelical media taking educational responsibility in this most misunderstood area.

In his article Paul discusses the ravages of autonomy on the alcoholic. This is precisely why the third step (of AA’s twelve steps of recovery)—turning our wills and lives over to God—is so essential. All my life I resisted God’s control because I didn’t want to lose my rights or freedom, not realizing that only in total abandonment to God could I ever experience genuine freedom and lose nothing more than my right to destroy myself. I’m also glad the article pointed out the fact that we all, alcoholics and non-alcoholics alike, need to reach this point before we can truly partake of the marvelous liberty and abundant life which Christ offers. As Isaiah 30:18 says, “… he will conquer you to bless you …” (Living version) … I, too, have found a haven in AA. Together we learn to take individual responsibility for our own attitudes and actions and to bear one another’s burdens—two basic Christian principles. This does not take the place of my church fellowship but rather supplements it. Unfortunately, much of our society still places a stigma on alcoholism—and this is particularly true in evangelical circles—which often deters the suffering alcoholic from seeking help. I feel God uses AA to treat my disease just as he uses insulin to treat diabetes, and we would certainly not refuse the diabetic his insulin nor deny him Christian fellowship. Thank you, Paul, for sharing your experience, strength, and hope with this fellow Christian and recovering alcoholic, and thank you, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, for continually publishing articles of enlightenment in this increasingly complex age.

RATIONAL REASSURANCE

Thank you profoundly for “The Fortunes of Theology” (Footnotes, April 14, May 12, and June 9)—the series being written by Dr. Carl F. H. Henry. And send us more of this.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY is making a crucial and much needed contribution to our theological reorientation. The series is very significant in view of the latest rush in the direction of a cultural theology. We have been subjected to all kinds of theological aberration in this era of “irrational man.” It is reassuring to hear someone speaking about the validity of reason and the rational in the establishing of theological positions.

Dr. Henry is right. Most of what we have been seeing are the “broken fragments of the biblical revelation.” Current are many, many “isms” but not much “theism.”

West Side Baptist Church

Wichita, Kans.

REVEALING RESENTMENT

In regard to the editorial “Don’t Throw Bouquets at Mom” (May 12 issue): I am delighted to see in print what I have harbored secretly for years for fear of being labeled un-American, or more recently, a “Libber.”

I resent being plied with gifts, cards, and other sentimentalities on one day a year. God chose me to be a mother, and I am thankful for that. Also, I resent having to be especially kind and attentive to my own mother on one special day when she receives our love, consideration, and attention all year long. I am so grateful to God for the love, devotion, and help from our own children day in and day out. That is compensation enough for me! Personally, I feel sorry for Miss Ann Jarvis, founder of “Mother’s Day,” if she felt obligated to honor her mother one day out of the year. Or perhaps, as you intimated, her original intentions have been obliterated by the commercialism emphasized now by Mother’s Day.

Lincoln, Nebr.

A HESITANT CRITIQUE

I am hesitant about writing a letter of disagreement to you. The last time I did it did not appear, and somehow I didn’t receive the next three issues. I am a fan and a three-year subscriber to CHRISTIANITY TODAY, so I feel I have enough “stock” in this periodical to make constructive critiques.…

The editorial “Viet Nam: A Presidential Dilemma” (May 12) states many inconsistencies which show either an ignorance or voluntary blindness of the historic American involvement in Viet Nam … Documents from the Pentagon show that South Viet Nam was a creation of the United States trying to prevent any Communist government from being established. This prevented the Vietnamese from “self-determining” his own future. In 1956 according to the Geneva accords, the people of Viet Nam were to choose a leader to rule all of Viet Nam. When the United States found out that Ho Chi Minh would be elected overwhelmingly by North and South Vietnamese, the United States conspired to prevent these elections. Conclusion: there never was a reason for us to be in Viet Nam unless we have the right to impose our will on other countries. The editorial also stated that President Nixon has kept his word at every point. The President’s campaign promise was to end the war, period. The President has withdrawn American soldiers but has increased the war by dropping more bombs on Viet Nam than have been dropped in the previous administrations or in World War II. The President has not wound down the war. He has replaced soldiers with airplanes and ships and has increased civilian casualties. In the past six years, American troops have killed sixteen times more civilians than the North Vietnamese. The editorial also stated that we should support the President as along as he is in office. This is contrary to the right of peaceful protest, freedom of speech, and the citizen’s responsibility in our checks-and-balances form of government.

Greensboro, N. C.

Mr. Nixon … has proposed only two conditions for total American withdrawal: a four-month ceasefire must be established in Viet Nam and the release of American POW’s. If you are aware of these new concessions, then you are also aware that in effect Mr. Nixon has forsaken the security of “a stable and viable South Viet Nam.” This effect unmasks the blatant immorality of U. S. bombs over Indochina resulting in a daily death toll of approximately 300 Vietnamese according to Pentagon reports. If the bombing is an attempt to “save” the people of South Viet Nam, along with the corrupt dictatorship of President Thieu, then why has this administration abandoned them at the peace table?

Waukegan, Ill.

CONVENTION PROBES

Thank you for CHRISTIANITY TODAY, especially the May 12 issue. You did a very good job on both NAE and Probe 72 conventions (“NAE: Key 73 a Key Issue” and “Turned-On Mennonites Probe Evangelism”). It is always good to read factual and unbiased reports.

Newton, Kans.

DRUMMING UP UNITY

Here I am looking forward to Key 73 with eagerness, anticipation, and excitement. I tell everyone that I witness to, or have a chance to talk to about the Lord, that there will be a unified, continent-wide witness to Him next year!

And what do I learn from Edward Plowman’s news report (“NAE: Key 73 a Key Issue”) in CHRISTIANITY TODAY for May 12? That that NAE bunch are squabbling, and fussing, and fuming among themselves again over this vitally important issue! I had already told the Lord that I did not think that Key 73 would be very effective if our “separated brethren” were not participating, hand in hand, with us “protestants” so called. A “united witness” with only half of the Christian community on this continent doing the witnessing is a farce, to say the very least, and out of the will of God, to say the very most! Both halves of the North American Christian community have got to cease the tooting of their sectarian horns and the beating of their sectarian drums and rally around Him!

Jamaica, N. Y.

NEEDED IMPLEMENTATION

I read the article “Evangelical Living and Learning Centers: A Proposal” (May 26) by Frank C. Nelsen. As a professor at a state university who is concerned about reaching students for Christ, I would like to commend Dr. Nelsen. His plan with some modification ought to be followed, since the lack of Christian community seems to be one of the great failings on the secular campus. I sincerely hope and pray that someone will try to act on his suggestion soon.

Professor of History

Indiana State University

Terre Haute

SANDY CRITICISM

Though I am generally on the conservative side of biblical and theological questions, I was appalled by the article “Christian Faith and Biblical Criticism,” by W. Stanford Reid (May 26), and particularly by the sentence, “The rejection of the Bible as the Word of God has produced such phenomena as the documentary hypothesis.” Nonsense! The documentary hypothesis is a serious effort to deal with the origin of a part of the Old Testament. It cannot be labeled “proved,” to be sure; but to say it springs from unbelief is a form of theological McCarthyism (that some of its early proponents may have had such motivation is irrelevant). To me this hypothesis makes the early books of the Bible far more solid historically than the view that one man (Moses) wrote them all in some kind of semi-magical trance.

As a conservative I never thought I would find myself publicly defending the documentary hypothesis (actually, I am not defending the hypothesis itself, but only its right to a fair hearing). But I simply cannot let such an article stand unchallenged. Professor Reid should stick to history; in biblical criticism his head is in the sand.

Professor of Religion and Philosophy

Whitworth College

Spokane, Wash.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.