Be Serious!
Among the books treasured by my father is a small, slightly mildewed gem entitled Songs of Men. It’s a book of lusty and mostly harmless verse. In it is an ode to “the little red god” with the lines:
He’s neither a fool with a frozen smile
Nor a sad old toad in a cask of bile.
If the world is ever divided up between fools with frozen smiles and sad old toads, there’s no question where I’ll be placed.
Seriousness is repeatedly urged on me by both inferiors and superiors. Even my children join in the cry: “Daddy, be serious.”
Whenever I hear that, I am impressed with the depth of Adam’s fall. Grown men who should know better actually encourage seriousness as a virtue. Little children have been led to believe they must be serious.
In the beginning it was not so! Man was made to be a frolicsome creature, full of joy and mirth.
God put him into a garden and said, “Be playful.” But the serpent said, “Be serious.” Our first parents believed the serpent, and we’ve been condemned to seriousness ever since.
What burst of madness made them exchange mirthful innocence for knowledgeable seriousness?
Their choice began that trail of events that often obliges us to adopt a sober mien. All those things about which we must be serious—wars, death, suffering, taxes, earning a living—are a result of that fall.
Even that most serious of things, the proclamation of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to all the world, is a result of the fall. In this fallen world God says, “Be serious for a little while so that we can be mirthful forever.”
When John says that God shall wipe away every tear, he is using grossly exaggerated understatement. It isn’t that God will just comfort our sorrows but that he will restore us to the divine playfulness lost for us in Eden.
Mirth is what it was all about in the beginning and mirth is what it will be all about in the end.
EUTYCHUS V
In Reverse
Harris has taken us backward and not forward in our understanding of the cultural milieu of early modern science (“Copernicus and the Church,” Sept. 14). His peculiar prejudices have led him to suggest that Copernican astronomy, from the start, was condemned “in Catholic circles, tied as much to Aristotle as to the Bible,” while “Protestant theologians, at least, were open to and often encouraged the new science.” This he attributes “to principles of authoritative approach taken by the Roman church in distinction to the Protestant method of searching the Scriptures to see whether these things were so.” Such a simplistic view is a misleading caricature of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Christianity. The reader who is interested in the problems of religion and the rise of modern science is advised to refer to Hooykaas’s book, briefly quoted in Harris’s article (reviewed in CHRISTIANITY TODAY, February 2, 1973). There is also a wealth of quality articles in scholarly journals. It is a pity Harris did not avail himself of any of these.
CHARLES D. KAY
Department of the History of Science
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, Md.
“Copernicus and the Church” could have been developed into a really significant theme, of the hazard to truth when religion too blindly attacks the theorems proposed by science. After all, many Christians even today feel that their beliefs are threatened by the various theories offered by science to explain such phenomena as the development of mountains or—more emphatically—mountain lions. Instead Harris seems to be telling us that Copernicus really didn’t encounter all that much serious opposition from religion.… This was an occasion where we could celebrate the mutual search for truth, by science from without, by religion from within—and each with its own lexicon. We should not have glossed over the fact that religion at times responds to the arrogance of science with the arrogance of unreason instead of the balm of love.
WILLIAM H. NAUMANN
Los Angeles, Calif.
Attention
In your February 2 issue you printed my initial report on the WCC Bangkok consultation on missions which I telexed from Bangkok in the midst of the congress (“Bangkok Consultation: Salvation Isn’t the Same Today”). Through a delay in the transmission of the telex it was received much later, I understand. As a result liberty was taken by your editorial staff in changing the text of my report in several places, the most regrettable one being: “… almost laughably—an offer to help with the evangelical Congress on World Evangelization to be held in Lausanne, Switzerland, in July 1974.” This is an ungentlemanly remark which I would never have written. The motion to offer cooperation with ICOWE was made after I had telexed my report and returned to Tokyo. It has caused me embarrassment, and I request that you bring this to the attention of your readership. The facts and actions of the Bangkok conference and assembly speak for themselves.
DONALD E. HOKE
Director
International Congress on World Evangelization
Lausanne, Switzerland
Reforming Jews
Thank you for noting the reformation of Jews for Jesus under Hineni Ministries (News, “Jews For Jesus: Under New Management,” Sept. 28). I think that Richard Cohen, complaining about converts who demonstrate in synagogues, must have had someone else in mind. The Jews for Jesus group here in Corte Madera and throughout the Bay area would never demonstrate in the synagogue or do anything to violate the sanctity of Jewish worship.… For us, the synagogue is still the House of the Book, where the Scriptures are read reverently. When we attend synagogue, it is not our practice to seek to evangelize but to worship with our fellow Jews.
It is true that in the street we are highly visible, but our basic strategy is through the distribution of literature and outdoor evangelism.
MOISHE ROSEN
Jews For Jesus
Corte Madera, Calif.
My complaint “about young Jewish converts who demonstrate in synagogues” was made to a reporter in Portland, Oregon, and referred specifically to a few Jewish believers in that city. These Jewish believers had, for several months, harassed the Jewish community in that city during their worship services—to the point that police had to be called to calm their misguided enthusiasm. I do not feel that this type of activity is advantageous in sharing the Gospel with my Jewish friends and brothers. As a man of conscience I cannot at any time condone harassment of any religious worship service, no matter how pure the motivation would seem.
Your inference that my statement regarding the Portland “Jews for Jesus” tactics referred to Martin “Moishe” Rosen is incorrect and untrue. Our prayers are with Martin, and we wish only the Lord’s abundant blessings on the endeavors of Hineni Ministries.
RICHARD COHEN
American Board of Missions to the Jews
Hollywood, Calif.
I attended one demonstration in front of the San Francisco Soviet consulate where the Jews for Jesus joined quite amicably with other Jewish groups to protest the U.S.S.R.’s failure to free Soviet Jewry. Some members of the radical Jewish Defense League physically attacked Moishe Rosen without provocation at that demonstration, and other Jewish leaders came over to apologize to him for the incident. On another occasion, I attended synagogue with Rosen and then, after the service, sat in on a frank but respectful discussion he had with the rabbi about their theological differences. The Jews for Jesus love their tradition and their people, and they also love Christ. Most of the opposition they encounter comes from those who fail or refuse to understand their sincere desire both to affirm their Jewishness (as Paul and other first-century Jewish-Christians did) and to glorify Christ.
WILLIAM G. PROCTOR, JR.
New York, N. Y.
The article implies strongly that Moishe Rosen and the Jews for Jesus hold little regard for the sanctity of the synagogue and that their rather bold approach to evangelism makes them a bunch of rowdies and trouble-makers. Since I personally know almost every one of the Jews for Jesus and have, in fact, participated in their “colorful and aggressive evangelistic activities,” I can say that this caricature is not at all accurate. I have rarely found more basic respect for the Jewish community and for the foundations of the Jewish worship than in these people. The Jews for Jesus attitude of regard for Jewishness is rooted in their biblical conviction that, rather than ceasing to be Jewish when they believe in Jesus as the Mashiach [Messiah], they fulfill God’s original intent when He made the covenant with Abraham.
P. J. HALLOWELL
Lawrence, Kans.
In Error
I wish to call your attention to a serious untruth contained in “Assemblies Assemble” (News, Sept. 14). Your article states, “An AOG clergyman who commits adultery or homosexual acts will now be placed on two-year suspension with counseling provided by his district presbytery.” The resolution adopted by the Assemblies of God Council in session has nothing to do with “homosexual acts” whatsoever. The plain fact is that the long-standing regulation on homosexuals still stands untouched and unaltered. That position provides that one who has been found to be a homosexual shall never be admitted to credentials again.… A minister who commits adultery may or may not be eligible for rehabilitation. This is a determination which must be made by the district presbytery.
In the same issue under the heading “Diabetic Deaths” the statement occurs that “Wesley Parker died in a diabetic coma after a faith healer at his parents’ Assembly of God church ‘cured’ him.” The facts show that the parents were not members of the Assemblies of God church and had not been for the period of three months previous thereto due to a doctrinal difference. They also show that the visiting evangelist did not pronounce any “cure” but that at the request of the parents he did offer prayer in behalf of the boy. The facts also show that there were no instructions given by the evangelist or pastor that would in any way affect the continued and regular use of insulin as prescribed by the doctor. The decision to destroy the insulin and to discontinue the injections was one made entirely and solely by the parents of the boy.
BARTLETT PETERSON
General Secretary
General Council of the Assemblies of God
Springfield, Mo.
Revealing Relations
Thank you for E. M. Blaiklock’s article, “More and More, Scripture Lives!” (Sept. 28). It is wonderful to have verified in some new ways what so many of us already have discovered—that Scripture does indeed live. When we have known and loved the Bible for many years these new authentications are not essential, but they are very refreshing. It is encouraging to see how quick and keen the writers of the New Testament were to relate the revelation to well-known myths in order to get the message right into the heart of hearers or readers. All who deeply love the Gospel According to St. John will surely find their faith quickened by the reference to the “grain of wheat falling into the ground,” and its instant bringing to Greek minds the myth of Ceres and Demeter. And how alive becomes the sentence, “I will spew you out of my mouth,” when the Laodiceans could not help the flashing into their minds of the soda-laden springs nearby, unfit for drinking.
DONALD E. KOHLSTAEDT
Spokane, Wash.
Plain Answer
Thank you for Harold Lindsell’s excellent and timely article, “Homosexuals and the Church.…” When CHRISTIANITY TODAY arrived this morning and I noticed mention of the subject on the cover, it was in a sense an answer to prayer. I … read the article immediately.
STAN IZON
Executive Associate
The Leighton Ford Crusades Office
Rexdale, Ontario
