Ginny Thornburgh’s mission to the disabled and the churches who forget them.

Her motto: “A ramp is not enough.” Ginny Thornburgh insists that people with disabilities have gifts that congregations need, and when their contributions are restricted, we all lose. As the director of the religion program of the National Organization on Disability, Thornburgh has spent many years working as an advocate for people with disabilities.

Bright-eyed and eager, Thornburgh greets visitors to her Washington, D.C., apartment with a gracious warmth that lets you know at once that you are at home. This reflexive sensitivity to others’ needs has been something of a theme.

She was only 23 when she married a man whose wife had been killed in a car accident, and though the three sons who were in the car survived, Peter, who was then four months old, suffered extensive brain damage. Richard Thornburgh went on to become governor of Pennsylvania and attorney general of the United States during the Reagan and Bush presidencies; the young son grew up to be Ginny’s inspiration, “Peter, a man of faith.”

How did you and Peter come to be family?

Well, I fell in love with his dad! Richard is such a man of honor that he didn’t kiss me until he had introduced me to all of his sons. This is who he was; he was first a father. When Richard and I were married in 1963, the boys were six, five, and three-and-a-half.

You obviously had a love for children, but it must have seemed like an extra challenge to take on a child like Peter.

It honestly wasn’t. When you’re 23, you feel as though you can do anything. The biggest step was finding out what motherhood means: the commitment, the energy, the concern, the dreams, the fears, the multiple roles. I think I just fell in love with this guy and figured that somehow all this would work out. I had so many people helping, the support of their first mom’s family, my own family, Dick’s mom, a whole team of people pulling for me.

For a long time, the reality of what it meant to have a disability in America didn’t hit me. I was very aware then of Peter’s needs—he was on seizure medication, had a place in his skull where the bone had been removed, and had to wear a helmet—but the landscape of disability beyond Peter, the implications of this for teenage years or adulthood, I didn’t see.

When did championing the spiritual concerns of people with disabilities become a priority for you?

Before my son Bill was born I had already begun learning how to be an advocate for Peter, had started to visit institutions where people with disabilities lived, and had begun to see a broader picture than Peter Thornburgh. But I had sitters so that I could do volunteer work, or spend time with the older boys. And so a sitter just came on Sunday morning, too. Richard, the older boys, and I would dress up and prepare for church, and Peter would just be there with his loving smile when we left to go worship. Then, when Bill was born, people started asking me when I’d bring him to church—and no one had ever asked that about Peter.

Life has certain defining moments, and that was one of them. There’s nothing angrier than a mother when one of her children has been ignored. But I knew it wasn’t just the church’s failure; I had neglected him as well. Then it occurred to me to ask, What does Peter think about God? Could he be wondering what the good of church is if it welcomes everybody except him? So, with some encouragement, the church organized a special-education class, and Peter began to be included.

And Peter actually participated in worship?

I don’t know when I realized that he wasn’t just going to church because it was required, but that it was one of the highlights of his week. He related to a loving Father in a deeper way than the rest of us were. He enjoys worship so much. He forgives much more easily than we do—a man who would have a right not to be forgiving. And there’s a peaceful quality about him, more than I sense in other people. He is utterly sure that there is a loving God.

You would like to make sure that other people with disabilities have the same opportunity for spiritual enrichment that Peter has had.

My central theme is that people with disabilities have gifts to bring to their churches. It’s not that we have an obligation, or should feel guilty if we don’t do it—none of that. It’s that they have gifts to bring. A corollary to that is that this person elicits gifts in other people. So these people are very important, and any congregation excluding people with disabilities is weakened.

I’m always trying to get away from a we/they approach. As soon as we talk in two-tier terms, one group dominates the other, rather than being a community of faith together.

We without disabilities are no finer, and certainly not loved by God any more, than people with disabilities. We all have different functions and different gifts.

What kinds of resistance do you encounter in helping a congregation open up?

I don’t think that exclusion occurs because people intend to be mean; I think they just don’t know what to do. They think they’ll say the wrong thing, touch the wrong part of the body. They have to be taught what to do. We need to learn about the person’s condition and then practice basic friendship, talking about the weather or sports. You don’t have to start on some profound level.

But the main thing is avoiding that we/they thinking. You and I don’t have disabilities now, but they could come at any moment—in a car accident, in a fall, or as part of the aging process.

Could much of what you say about welcoming people with disabilities apply to those who are aging as well?

Definitely. Look at your own church and you’ll notice older people who aren’t coming as much. They’re the backbone of our congregations in terms of attendance, volunteering, leadership, and donations. But very often they begin feeling the lighting is poor, the sound system is poor, it feels dangerous around the corners, it’s dark by the steps.

We need to create a safe, nonrushed feeling for the older members of our congregations.

How can we help people with disabilities feel at home?

One important way is by including them in leadership. I have now helped organize 11 conferences all across America to bring together religious leadership with disability leadership as an instrument for greater awareness. Peter speaks at some of these conferences; he delivers an eight-sentence speech.

It’s the same in our congregations. It’s not “How can we get them to come?” It’s “How can all of us together make this a place where people of all types will feel welcome?”

Just having people with disabilities in leadership automatically changes the way you speak. That’s why it’s critical to have them as head of the finance committee, or lector, or whatever is appropriate.

How has your own faith journey affected your work?

I think as I approached 50 I realized that I wanted to deepen my faith. I had been doing disability advocacy and loved it. But still something was missing. When I got the idea of combining disability work with congregations, that was what I needed.

I never remember not being a Christian. I’ve always been a person who’s had faith underneath me. The first time I thought of this image was when I was seven, and my father, who was in the steamship business, took me where I could see cargo being lifted in a great big net. I connected that to faith: the thing that’s under you and surrounding you, always there. No matter what the load or disability, it’s safe

By Frederica Mathewes-Green, a columnist for Religion News Service and World magazine and the author of Real Choices: Offering Practical, Life-Affirming Alternatives to Abortion (Questar).

To learn more about helping your congregation welcome people with disabilities, order That All May Worship, a 52-page illustrated handbook, by Ginny Thornburgh and Ann Rose Davie. Copies are $10 each, with discounts for multiple orders, from: National Organization on Disability, 910 Sixteenth St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20006.

Why we need the behind-the-translation work of textual critics.

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.

Need one ask, “Who was?” Believe it or not, the answer is not as conspicuous as it seems. We can assume that in this passage (which is recognized as an early Christian hymn) Paul was referring to Christ. But consulting the same verse in the King James Version (KJV) reveals a different answer: “And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit …”

This verse has been neither “beyond all question” nor “without controversy” in the realm of Bible translation. Some say the first line of the hymn should read, “he appeared” (or better, “he who”), while others say, “God appeared.” Why the discrepancy in translation decisions?

The answer lies in an understanding of the biblical discipline known as textual criticism, the science that compares all known manuscripts of a given work in an effort to locate the reading that best reflects the words of the author. The original biblical autographs (probably written on papyrus) have been lost, and for the subsequent 14 centuries, every copy of the Bible was reproduced by hand.

Today there exist thousands of ancient New Testament manuscripts. The earliest fragments, papyrus uncials (an early style of Greek writing that used all capital letters), date from the second century A.D. Today 98 of these fragments are catalogued. There also exist 301 early uncial manuscripts written on vellum (sheepskin), some of which date from as early as the second century. Of these, the only uncial manuscript that contains the entire New Testament is the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus. Later manuscripts, known as minuscules (a form of Greek cursive that could be written more rapidly and compactly, saving time and parchment), came to the fore in the eighth and ninth centuries and outnumber the uncials eight to one. The “Versions,” or early translations (Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and Sahidic, to name a few), also inform the text-critical discussion, as do the biblical references of the early church fathers, known as the Patristic evidence.

Anyone who has copied a recipe or written down a phone number knows how easy it is to make “a mistake in the transmission.” And when it came to the dissemination of the New Testament texts, errors were made, some inadvertent, some intentional. The scribes at the time recognized that these writings were sacred, of course, but they had not yet started to think “canonically.”

As a result, during the first and second centuries they felt a great deal of liberty to enhance the biblical authors’ intent if a particular reading was difficult, or to “help” the readers understand a passage by glossing a discrepancy. It was not until A.D. 400 or thereabouts that a canonical mentality became entrenched and the free-flowing amendations abated. It should be noted, however, that, as Arthur Patzia writes in The Making of the New Testament (IVP): “No significant doctrine of the New Testament hinges on a variant.”

The confusion about the two possible renderings in 1 Timothy 3:16, “God” and “he who,” can be easily understood when one recognizes the similarity between how they would have looked in the early manuscripts: he who, OϹ (or os, the masculine relative pronoun in Greek uncials); God, ΘϹ (the common abbreviation in Greek uncials for theos, or God). A mere two horizontal strokes is all that distinguishes the one from the other.

Defenders of the “God” reading base their argument on the fact that the majority of extant manuscripts reflect this. Writes Wilbur Pickering in his book The Identity of the New Testament Text, “Fully 300 Greek manuscripts read ‘God’ while only eight read something else.… So we judge between 97 percent and 2 percent, ‘God’ versus ‘who.’ ”

Pickering and others would argue that the transmission of the New Testament texts took place under “normal” circumstances and with utmost care, diligence, and faithfulness to the authoritative nature of the original. “Ordinary honesty would require [the scribes] to produce a faithful copy,” writes Pickering.

Where changes occur in the witnesses (and these scholars concede that there are divergent witnesses), these were largely introduced into the text intentionally to alter the theological meaning behind a given reading, usually for heretical purposes. “Are we to assume that everyone who made copies of New Testament books in those early years was a knave? or a fool?” asks Pickering. “We have the Majority Text [today’s KJV] … dominating the stream of transmission with a few individual witnesses going their idiosyncratic ways.”

But other biblical scholars contest this assumption. We err to presume that changes in the text were attributable to heretical tendencies, argues leading text-critical scholar Gordon D. Fee in “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament” (Westminster Theological Journal, 1979). “For the early Christians,” he writes, “it was precisely because the meaning was so important that they exercised a certain amount of freedom in making the meaning clear.”

Fee and others also argue that to assume the transmission of texts took place under “normal” conditions ignores other important factors that were operative in the transmission process: for example, the literary habits and style of the biblical author, any distinctive proclivities of a given scribe, and the transcriptional probabilities of what the scribe would most likely do in the transmission process. In other words, in each textual decision one must evaluate which variant best reflects (in this case) Paul’s style, conforms to the known tendencies of the scribe working on that manuscript, and is consistent with common scribal habits.

But these factors alone are not sufficient grounds on which to make a sound textual decision. Other evidence must also be brought into the discussion. This includes such data as the date of the witness (is it early or late?), its geography (is this particular reading widespread, found in manuscripts in Egypt as well as in Syria or Rome?), and the quality of corroborating witnesses (is one authentic reading backed up by another independent witness with the same reading?).

Some basic “rules of thumb” apply when it comes to evaluating a variant reading based upon these criteria. It is agreed, for example, that a scribe is more likely to add to a text than to take away from it, and to make an awkward reading more readable. Therefore, a shorter, more difficult reading is usually (though not always) preferred as the one nearer to the autograph. At the same time, an earlier variant with a widespread witness geographically offers strong (though not foolproof) evidence for an authentic reading.

So how does one decide whether or not 1 Timothy 3:16 should read “he [who] appeared in a body” or “God appeared in a body”?

First, one must think in Pauline terms. Remember, this is an early hymn. And hymns, in those days, took two basic forms: that of a doxology followed by an explanatory clause (such as Rom. 11:36: “For from him and to him …”) and that of a hymn that begins with a relative clause where the antecedent is understood to be Christ (such as Phil. 2:6: “Who, being in very nature God …”). That Paul made liberal use of the latter is evident also in Colossians 1:13–15.

One must also ask which makes more sense in terms of scribal habits: to change an overt reference to God into a relative pronoun, or, with two touches of the quill, to transform a lowly relative pronoun to “God”? Given the nature of the debates about the deity of Jesus Christ that took place during the third and fourth centuries, would that the early manuscripts had read “God”! The debate about Christ’s deity would have been resolved like a gavel to the bench. As Fee suggests, “The argument from silence in this case is an extremely telling one.”

The relative “he who” is evident as early as the fourth century in the Codex Sinaiticus, which is given, in the words of Bruce Metzger, “primacy of position” when it comes to New Testament manuscripts. In addition, its witness was widespread, “read everywhere in Egypt, all through the West, and elsewhere in the East until the late fourth century” (Fee).

The earliest Greek manuscript to read “God” dates from the eighth century, according to Fee. So even if the manuscript evidence for “God” outnumbered the readings for “he who” a million to one, if that million originated with a corruption, the sheer volume of copies means nothing in terms of authenticity.

So, given its consistency with Pauline usage of hymns, its being the more difficult reading and therefore most likely to be “corrected,” its corruption being easily explainable, its presence in an early high-quality manuscript, and its wide geographical dissemination, the preferred reading for 1 Timothy 3:16 is what most Bible translations allow it to be: “He [who] appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit”—and so on.

But in making text-critical decisions such as this, we must not lose sight of the overall testimony of the passage. In the end, whether it is “God” or “he who,” the point remains: he appeared, was vindicated, seen by angels, preached among nations, believed on in the world, and taken up in glory. That is good news that is “beyond all question” and “without controversy.”

Frederica Mathewes-Green directed the Real Choices research project and is currently director of communications for the National Women’s Coalition for Life. This article was adapted from her hook Real Choices: Offering Practical, Life-Affirming Alternatives to Abortion (Questar, ©1994).

March 27, 1989

Luke 5:36

Can’t sew patch from new garment on an old one, new will not match the old—

Can’t pour new wine into old wineskins, will ruin container and lose wine.

“We must enjoy God’s good gifts while he gives them.” Allan E.

Step out with gratitude and accept the new.

God has given us a new garment—new wine! Our life in Samarkand! We step out tomorrow to wear the new garment … to taste and drink and be satisfied with the new wine he will give.

Let us be careful not to try to patch up the old in any way—or to pour the new into the old—

What will this involve?

Each time I reread this page in my mother’s journal I discover new and surprising meanings. It occurred to me that the process I have gone through in meditating on and interpreting my mother’s words nicely parallels how we are to interpret God’s words for us in holy Scripture. Thus, I submit the following as a parable of biblical interpretation.

We could start at many different places in our interpretation of my mother’s journal entry. Let me start at a personal level, which is where we usually start in biblical interpretation. The first time you read this text you can easily grasp some of its meaning, even if you know nothing about its author. Especially if you are moving into a new situation, you may respond with empathy: “Yes! This text reflects what is going on in my life. I want to let go of the old and accept the new. This text challenges me to move freely and enthusiastically into my new life!” That was my first response when I read this page. In this kind of reader-response, the text stands as a mirror reflecting our own situation.

The same thing often happens when we read Scripture. We respond to it because we see ourselves in the text. We hear our own thoughts, emotions, fears, and hopes expressed in ways we recognize. My mother’s text itself responds to the words of Jesus in just this way. His words about a new garment and new wine seem to have sparked a sympathetic response in her heart because, evidently, she was facing a new situation in her life.

When we read the Bible, we read with a desire to hear God speak to our needs now. “This is God’s word,” we say, “and I need to hear him comfort me in my sorrow, guide me out of my confusion, and deliver me from my bad habits.” Then we turn the pages of the Bible to find words that speak to our situation. Such a longing is rooted in our conviction that the Holy Spirit who inspired the Bible in the first place still speaks through the Bible today.

Devout Christians have always practiced this personal use of the Bible. Augustine tells us in his Confessions how he desperately sought for freedom from the bondage of his past sinful habits. In a time of spiritual crisis he overheard a child singing, “Take it and read it.” Augustine heard this as a divine command to read the Bible. “I snatched up the book,” he says, “opened it, and read in silence the passage upon which my eyes first fell: ‘not in reveling and drunkenness, not in quarreling and jealousy. Instead put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.’ I had no wish to read further; for there was no need to. For immediately I had reached the end of this sentence it was as though my heart was filled with a light of confidence and all the shadows of my doubt were swept away.”

If you have ever experienced anything resembling Augustine’s encounter with the Spirit through the Word, you probably respond to his account as I do with an “amen and hallelujah!”

This “personalized” use of the Bible needs to be encouraged today. We need to hear God give us a promise to believe and a command to follow for each day. But we must be aware of a danger inherent in this approach to interpretation.

Suppose someone reads my mother’s text and exclaims, “Yes. My new wine is my newfound love affair. What this text means for me is that I should throw off my first wife, like an old garment, and enjoy this other exciting woman as new wine!”

I would strongly object, “But that’s not what my mother meant to say!”

“It doesn’t matter what your mother meant or what Jesus meant by a new garment and new wine,” he says, “I only care what it means for me now!” If personal, present meaning is all that matters, I have no basis to refute his interpretation.

If we only use the Bible as a mirror to see ourselves, we may wind up seeing more of a reflection of our own self-interests than a revelation of God’s interests. Given our capacity for self-deception, our personal appropriation of the Bible can become an abuse of the text to promote our own agenda. We are all painfully aware that leaders of bizarre cults and special-interest groups use Scripture in the service of their oppression.

A famous guru quotes the words of Jesus: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Then he says, “This means, blessed are those who purify their consciousness, for they shall see themselves as God.” This blasphemous equation of holy God and fallen humanity shocks us. We strongly object, “The Bible cannot be twisted to mean that!”

But if the only meaning we care about is what the Bible means to me now, we will have no way to guard against the twisting of Scripture. There will be no right interpretation or wrong interpretation. You will say what the text means for you; I will say what it means for me. And that will be the end of the discussion.

We are facing a crisis in biblical interpretation. Manipulative use of the Bible for self-interest runs like a river through the history of the church. Today such abuse has turned into a flood. This approach to reading the Bible is advocated by a host of recent literary critics. They say that the only thing a text means is what it means for you, not what it meant for the author or for other interpreters. They tell us to give texts any meaning we like, because we can only read texts from our own personal frame of reference. Of course, they don’t want us to read their own texts that way. Apparently, they want us to accept what they meant to say in their texts.

LOOKING BEYOND OURSELVES

It may be that we start our interpretation by asking what the text means for us now, but we should not stop there. In fact, a better beginning point—but at the very least, a necessary step two—is to move into the world of the author. Your understanding of my mother’s text would be greatly enhanced by some knowledge of my mother. What was happening in her life when she wrote this text? What was the old and new?

Once we start to address these sorts of questions, the text becomes a window into her world. No longer are we simply seeing ourselves reflected in the text. Now we are trying to see through the text to the situation of its author. What we learn about the author may come from the text itself. Investigation into sources outside the text may also enable us to enter the world of the author.

From my mother’s text we learn that she is moving to a new life in “Samarkand.” Whether that is the ancient city in the Near East or another place borrowing that name, we cannot tell from the text. We also discern from the text that there is both eagerness to accept the new and apprehension about what the new may bring. Perhaps there is also some expression of reluctance to let go of the past. Her quote from “Allan E.” (whoever he is) seems to indicate that she wants to express her thankfulness for the past before she lets go of it and moves into the future.

This kind of investigation must go on in our attempt to interpret the biblical text. We need to tease out of the text as much as we can about the historical context of the author. We may also be able to check our understanding of the author’s situation by getting corroborative and corrective information from sources outside the text.

My Left-Handed Bible

Marek Kaminski (36), grew up in Poland, where his mother belonged to the Communist party. She possessed no religious beliefs and therefore passed none along to her son. Marek’s father, while sharing no devotion himself, did send Marek to classes sponsored by the Catholic church, which, says Marek, gave him a little understanding of the meaning behind the Scriptures. His father was killed in an automobile accident when Marek was 14, which thrust him into a state of prolonged grief. Shortly thereafter, Marek found a Bible in his home and began a unique relationship with God’s Word, which he recounts below.

Coming to the U.S. in 1984, Marek today lives outside Chicago with his American wife and has recently graduated from the University of Illinois with a doctorate in mathematics.

One day when I was 15, I found a Bible in my home. I was very curious about it. I had heard that people did fortune telling by opening the Bible, reading a verse, and then telling the future. I was curious how one could know the future, but I was not able to understand how to do it. That was my only motivation when I began reading.

I started reading a half-hour daily during the first month. As I read, I discovered that it wasn’t a fortune-telling book but a very serious book. I found I was deeply interested in what the Bible had to say. At some point I realized this is the Word of God, and this is how I could blow God.

It took me three years to read the whole Bible, two or three chapters in one day. After I read it the first time, I believed that I received the Holy Spirit; I considered myself a Christian. But I knew I was still missing some things. I wanted to know every detail.

So I began to copy the Bible with my left hand even though I was right-handed. When I copied with my left hand, I had to spend much more time copying each word. It gave me more time to think about each word.

I wanted to have a new knowledge, a better knowledge of God. I believed the attention to details by copying every word separately could help me a lot.

I started writing it when I was 19 years old and stopped when I was 22. I wrote out the first four Old Testament books, Isaiah, Psalms, the four Gospels, and Revelation. These are the ones I considered most important.

I found that people would quote Scriptures to support their own ideas, but that they might change one word. I could hear any little change. If someone was using the Word of God incorrectly, I was immediately able to tell it.

To me, the Word of God is like music. You can listen to the same piece several times and get the melody of it. But to hear the whole sound of it, every instrument, each line, you have to listen several times and pay a lot of attention.

We all have the basic knowledge: Jesus is our Savior. This is the basic truth you can get quite quickly. But the Word of God is so beautiful, the more time you spend in it, the more you appreciate it.

Allow me to be that source. On March 27, 1989, my mother was preparing for a major move. She and my father were packing the last boxes in their home where they had lived for 12 years. On the next day, the movers came as scheduled. My parents had planned for some time to move into an apartment in a retirement center called the Samarkand. The primary reason for making this move was to provide good care for their special Down syndrome son, my brother Kenny. He had lived with them all his life. But they realized that the combination of their advancing age and his increasing needs required a change. Samarkand offered just the right facilities. A few weeks before their move, Allan Emery, a close friend since college days, had sent them a gallon of maple syrup from Vermont. In a note, he lamented that the days of the production of this syrup may soon be over. So, he advised, “We must enjoy God’s gifts while he gives them.”

These facts from my mother’s life help to fill out the picture. If space permitted, I would give you much more information, such as the way her journal reflects a consistent pattern of reflection on biblical passages. But you will have to wait for another article or book to get that information. You could also ask my brothers and sisters. All seven of us children could give you a wealth of information if you were the least bit curious.

Curiosity is a big part of biblical interpretation. The reason that interpreters of the Bible keep deciphering the Dead Sea Scrolls and digging in the dirt of Israel is because they are intensely curious about the historical context of the Bible. We need to research the social, political, and religious aspects of the biblical world if we want to expand our grasp of the meaning of the biblical text. To understand the meaning of biblical words, we investigate how they were used in biblical times.

My mother’s text directs us to the words of Jesus. What was going on in his world when he spoke these words about a new garment and new wine? Why did he say this? Who first heard these words? What would they have understood them to mean? Such questions help to lead us into the world of Jesus, the original author of these words. (For good reasons, which we cannot take space to discuss here, we are accepting the historical reliability of Luke’s account of the words of Jesus.)

As we look into the historical context for the words of Jesus, we find that Jesus was engaged in a controversy over fasting. His disciples were not fasting like John’s disciples and the Pharisees fasted. Jesus explained that the reason for the change was the presence of the bridegroom: “You cannot make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?” (Luke 5:33–34).

The picture is of a wedding feast. In our day, a wedding ceremony is sometimes followed by a meal. But in the times of Jesus, the feast was the ceremony. Invited guests assembled at the bridegroom’s home and waited for the bridegroom. The bridegroom went to the bride’s home, claimed her, and brought her in procession back to his home. When he arrived, the feast began. It would have been discourteous for the assembled guests to fast in the presence of the bridegroom.

Jesus used this picture to show how inappropriate it would have been for his disciples to fast in his presence. He is like the bridegroom at the wedding, and his ministry is like a joyful wedding feast. This claim places Jesus in the place of God since, in the Old Testament, God is pictured as the bridegroom of his people (Hos. 2:19), and the joyful feast was used as a picture of the presence of God with his people (Isa. 25:6). When Jesus arrived, God came to be with his people!

In the context of describing this picture of the joyful wedding feast, Jesus pointed to the foolishness of cutting up a new garment to patch an old one and of pouring new wine into old wineskins. We may miss the point here, because in our day most of us throw away or give away old clothes, and people buy bottled wine. But in the times of Jesus, old clothes were patched, and wine was stored in animal skins. It was common knowledge then that you did not ruin a new garment by using it for patching an old one. It would be a waste of the new garment, and the patches would not hold when shrinkage occurred. It was also the conventional wisdom of that day that it would be disastrous to store your new wine in old skins that had lost their flexibility. The fermenting wine would expand and eventually burst the old skins.

Jesus gave these pictures about new things and old things to explain why he and his disciples did not fit into the religious practices of their day. Jesus did not come to patch up the old or be stored in the old. Jesus was not simply leading another renewal movement within Judaism as the Pharisees were trying to do. Jesus created new life in his disciples. No wonder Paul could exclaim, “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: the old has passed away; everything has become new.” This new creation is not the result of self-help, self-improvement, or any other program of patching up the old life. Jesus is the source, power, and sustenance of new life.

These last two paragraphs have been an attempt to illustrate what happens when we are investigating what the author meant when he said those words in his context. Such investigation is not always easy. Two thousand years and cultural differences separate our world from the world of the author. But we need not despair. An enormous amount of work has been done to excavate the world of Jesus. Resources too numerous to list here abound for any curious reader. If we really want to know the meaning of the text, we must engage in this exploration of a world different from our own.

But there is a danger in this approach. It is tempting to get lost in the exploration of that ancient world. There are so many fascinating areas of study. Thousands of scholars and their students are engaged in a lifetime quest for knowledge of the first-century context. We are debtors to their valiant efforts. But is the meaning of the text available only to those who can enter their complex world of scholarship? And even if it were possible to be an expert on the historical context of a text, would that guarantee a sure grasp of the meaning of the text? I have been engaged in enough scholarly discussion of the meaning of biblical texts to make me skeptical of the “assured results of scholarship.”

“THEN” MEETS “NOW”

There are actually two sides to the crisis of biblical interpretation in our day. On the one side, we have the claim that a text has no meaning apart from what it means for me now. Such a claim leads to radical relativism: the text means something different for each reader. But on the other side, we have the claim that the meaning of the text is somehow inherent within the text; it has nothing to do with the position or perspectives of the reader. Such a claim can lead to arrogance (“I can excavate the meaning of this text without any faith in God”) or despair (“There is no way that I can understand the text since I cannot understand its historical context”). In response to these two opposite claims, I suggest that the meaning of the text is found when our world converges with the world of the author in the reading of the text. What the text means to me now must be rooted in what the text meant then. What the text meant then must be related to what it means to me now.

Sometimes knowledge of the historical situation surrounding the text can dramatically change our understanding of the meaning of the text. Even events that happened after the writing of the text can cast new light on the text.

Kisses And Velis

Should we insist that the practice of exchanging “holy kisses” (1 Cor. 16:20) be restored? Should women be compelled to wear head coverings in church (1 Cor. 11:5)? Shouldn’t Christian parents take charge of their children’s marriage plans and draw up contracts with other “biblical thinking” parents (Gen. 24)?

In my desire to uphold scriptural authority, I once pondered these possibilities seriously. But I no longer do so for the reasons enumerated below.

The longer I studied the Bible, the more I realized that each passage was part of a whole book written to a specific group of people (say, the church in Corinth) and that usually addressed particular issues they needed to hear about. The biblical authors shared many cultural assumptions with their original audiences, but these assumptions they took for granted are often foreign to us. If we do not understand much about the world the Bible originally addressed, we tend to read it in light of our own world.

On the other hand, knowing the background helps us understand the Bible in a number of ways.

First, cultural background can clarify a text that seems obscure. Many of the symbols in the Book of Revelation made perfect sense to ancient readers. The city on “seven mountains” or “hills” (Rev. 17) had long been a title for Rome. We may debate today where the final Antichrist will come from, but without a doubt, the chief persecutor of Christians in John’s day was Rome, and John, in Revelation, used the images of his day to communicate the point.

Second, cultural background can illuminate aspects of a text that we think we understand, but don’t. When the crowds were “amazed” that Jesus cast out demons merely by his command (Mark 1:27), this was due in part to the fact that most exorcists in his day tried to expel demons by other methods. (They invoked more powerful spirits against them or tried to gag the demon by sticking smelly roots up the possessed person’s nose.) Likewise, when Jesus made it publicly known that a woman with a flow of blood had touched him, the depth of his compassion becomes evident once we realize that observers of the Law would believe this contact would render him impure (Mark 5:30–34; Lev. 15:25–27).

Third, cultural background often addresses what may seem to be discrepancies in the Bible. For example, some have struggled with Jesus’ warning in his end-times discourse that his prophecies would be fulfilled within a generation (Matt. 24:34). It helps to know that some 40 years after Jesus uttered these words, the Roman armies destroyed Jerusalem’s temple and worshiped Caesar’s insignia atop its ruins. This does not resolve all of the questions raised in this discourse, but it does help the reader to see that Jesus’ promise of judgment was, in part, fulfilled.

Fourth, cultural background can explain why the Bible did not always challenge practices of its day that violated its moral principles. One might wonder why Paul did not demand the abolition of slavery when he wrote to the slaves in Ephesians: “Obey your earthly masters with respect and fear” (6:5, NIV). A century and a half ago, American slave holders quoted Paul’s command as if he supported slavery; abolitionists, by contrast, bolstered their point of view by appealing to the fact that Paul was addressing a different historical situation.

The fact is, Paul wrote in a culture where urban household slaves often had more economic and social mobility than free peasants. So Paul did not have much reason to address the institution of slavery; slave revolts had repeatedly proved unsuccessful, and freed slaves normally acquired slaves of their own when they could afford them.

Instead, Paul focused on how to live in a way that would avoid bringing reproach on the gospel in a culture where slavery was almost always a given. Yet, his words imply that he had no commitment to the system of slavery since, after he told slaves to obey their masters, he then exhorted masters to “do the same things to them, because you have a master in heaven” (Eph. 6:9). In the case of nineteenth-century slavery in America, understanding the cultural background Paul addressed could have made a life-and-death difference.

Fifth, cultural background helps us understand that the truths in the Bible are for all time, but not every example set forth in the Bible pertains to all circumstances. When Paul told the women in Corinth to cover their heads, this did not mean that women today must wear hats or veils to church. But the principle behind Paul’s injunction remains valid: to avoid what some members of the worshiping community might regard as symbols of seduction and ostentation. Knowing the cultural situation helps us understand the difference between Paul’s specific instructions to the congregation and the universal principle that leads to those instructions. Uncovered hair in the Eastern Mediterranean culture was associated with “availability,” which was considered appropriate only for women still seeking husbands. Married women, then, would cover their hair. In Paul’s context, many well-to-do Greek women felt that wearing veils was inhibiting. So when the “progressive” and “conservative” members of the congregation came together, they experienced what we often have in churches today: a clash of values. The way Paul attempted to make peace gives us guidance today. We need to recognize that those parts of the Bible addressed to other people are examples for us that illustrate principles we can learn from (1 Cor. 10:11).

Sixth, understanding the background of a text will better communicate the impact the author intended. When we read about homosexual behavior in Romans 1, it helps to know that Greek men were often bisexual, whereas Jewish people considered such behavior a distinctively Gentile sin. Paul condemned sins that Jewish people would have regarded as someone else’s (Rom. 1:21–27). But just when the Jewish part of his audience was saying, “Amen!” he reminded them that they, too, had committed various “mortal” sins (1:28–2:29). Paul used this progression of thought to make his point to a Roman church divided along Jewish-Gentile lines. In so doing he demonstrated that all have sinned (Gentiles and Jews), and all need to approach God on the same terms, finding forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Today, while agreeing with Paul that homosexual behavior is sinful, Christians must face the same biblical truth: all have sinned and need God’s grace.

Finally, we need to admit that knowing the background does not solve all questions. Most of us would agree that Paul’s teachings about women’s and slaves’ roles were progressive in his culture. After all, he said that in Christ there is “neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). But should we argue (as I think we should) that had Paul been writing in our culture, he would have been progressive today, too? Or should we argue instead (as some of my friends have) that Paul would have preserved his specific mandates for his culture (women wearing head coverings, for example) as normative for today?

Understanding cultural background does not settle all the questions, because we may not all apply the background information in the same way. But knowing the cultural context of the Bible does offer us a fresh way of hearing its message, helps us avoid prejudicing our interpretation, and enables us to expound better its message anew to our contemporary audiences.

By Craig S. Keener, professor of New Testament at Hood Theological Seminary in Salisbury, North Carolina, and the author of The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament.

My mother suffered a fatal heart attack on the evening of March 27, 1989. The movers came the next day as scheduled. My father moved into Samarkand as planned. But my mother moved to heaven. She was given a new garment, but not as she anticipated. At least her text indicates that she expected to move to Samarkand, not to heaven. But I believe that she did “step out with gratitude and accept the new” when she stepped into the presence of the Lord that day. Does her text have a deeper meaning than even she intended? I think so. I read the text in the light of her death.

When the New Testament authors read the Old Testament, they read it in light of the death of Jesus. Texts like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 gained new meaning in light of this event long after they were written. Even if we believe, as I do, that divine inspiration gave these authors prophetic insight into future events, we still recognize that greater meaning is found in the text by those who actually witnessed the event than by those who foretold it.

Since I certainly do not claim that divine inspiration gave my mother prophetic insight, I put her text in a different category from that of the biblical text. Yet, just as the event of her death after she wrote the text fills her text with new meaning, so the events of the death and resurrection of Jesus fill Old Testament texts with new meaning for Christian interpreters. We can even read the words of Jesus with new understanding if we interpret them in the light of his death and resurrection. His words about a new garment and new wine certainly have an added depth of meaning when we consider that in his death the old sinful humanity died, and in his resurrection the new humanity was raised. Paul expresses this truth: “I am crucified with Christ and it is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me” (Gal. 2:20). As we read the words of Jesus about a new garment and new wine, we should also interpret them as an invitation to put on Christ as our new garment (Gal. 3:27) and to be filled with the intoxicating wine of his Spirit (Eph. 5:18).

I read my mother’s text as her son. There is an interpretation of love. It is not a dry, academic exercise for me. Yes, of course, my mind is engaged as I think through the implications of her words. But I am also emotionally involved. Her words have had a transforming impact on my life. They nourish me. They give me hope and courage.

Interpretation of the Bible also demands involvement of the whole person. While we can benefit from the work of scholars to define the meaning of the words, only an interpretation of love will lead to a transforming experience of their meaning. If we accept the claim of the biblical text to be the word of God who loves us, then the words of that text have power to create, convict, forgive, heal, and empower.

UNDER THE CROSS

In this use of the process of interpreting my mother’s text as an analogy for biblical interpretation, I have been responding to three key issues in recent discussion.

First, there is a polarization between those who insist that meaning is found in the author’s intentions for writing the text and those who say that readers construct their own meaning out of the text. My analogy attempts to bring those two perspectives together. Meaning is found as the world-views of the author and the reader converge in the text. The text is always in some ways transformed by the reader’s own personal point of view. But the text can also transform the reader if there is a willingness to listen to the author’s point of view. The text is not only a mirror; it can also be a window. If we believe that the Spirit of God is the ultimate author of the biblical text, then we believe that God’s point of view is expressed in the biblical text. The Spirit can use the biblical text to enable the reader “to look not at the things which are seen, but on the things which are not seen, for the things which are seen are temporal, and the things which are not seen are eternal” (2 Cor. 4:18). Such a transformation of perspective is an ongoing process, an upward spiral that continually enlarges our horizons.

A second false disjunction in contemporary discussion of biblical interpretation is the contrast between propositional and personal. Some say that the revelation of meaning takes place only in propositional form. Others assert that the disclosure of meaning is found only in personal encounter. When I read the propositions in my mother’s text, I have the experience of hearing her heart. Even though she is absent from this world, I have come to know her in deeper ways by reading her words. Personal encounter happens through words. As John Donne says, “more than kisses, letters mingle souls.” Words from the heart, like letters we write, are the necessary means to personal encounter. Yes, there is a revelation of meaning in the words given by the Holy Spirit through the human authors of the Bible. Their words are the words of God. But their meaning is not grasped until, reading them, we have them engrafted into our lives by the heart-opening action of the Spirit. Then there is the disclosure of meaning found only in a personal encounter with God.

Third, a long debate continues over whether there is a single meaning or multiple meanings in the text. Can the text mean more than the single meaning intended by the author of the text? The most treasured meaning of all that I have found in my mother’s text is not derived from my understanding of what she intended when she wrote the text but from the event of her death after she wrote the text. Now her text has a whole new meaning not intended by her. And yet, this new meaning is rooted in her intended meaning. She really was writing about getting a new garment. I know that she got a better one than she anticipated. In a similar way, the events of Christ’s birth, life, death, and resurrection illuminated the New Testament authors’ reading of the Old Testament texts. For example, Hosea was describing the historical event of the exodus when he spoke the word of God, “Out of Egypt did I call my son” (Hos. 11:1). Matthew saw greater meaning in this text when he quoted it as a description of an event in the life of Christ (Matt. 2:15).

Part of the motivation for restricting the meaning of the text to the single meaning intended by the author is the concern to protect the text from being abused and twisted by readers who want to promote their own agendas. But I don’t see how we can protect the text from such abuse by limiting ourselves to the single meaning intended by the author when the biblical authors themselves did not limit the meaning of the biblical texts they used to authorial intention. The event of the Cross enabled them to see new meaning in old texts.

The best way to protect the text from self-centered manipulation is to interpret it under the shadow of the cross of Christ. Here again I am learning from my mother’s text. Her own interpretation of Luke 5:36 was an application of the Cross to her life; it was a “cruciform interpretation.” Her understanding of the meaning of that text guided her to die to the old life. “Let us be careful not to try to patch up the old in any way,” she wrote. She interpreted the text in a way that conformed her to Christ, “who though he was rich, became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich.” Her interpretation of Christ’s words enabled her to give up her beautiful home and rose gardens so that she could give better care to her special son, Kenny. She knew that in that giving, she would receive; in that dying, she would be living the eternal life.

If our interpretations of the text are marked by the Cross, then self-serving interpretations will be put to death. Interpretation in the light of the Cross exposes self-interest and the use of texts to advance personal power. Cruciform interpretation is suspicious of self-deception. The interpreter who uses Jesus’ words to justify throwing off his marriage vows like an old garment so that he can enjoy the intoxicating wine of an illicit affair is terribly wrong. Jesus clearly meant that the new garment and new wine represent his presence. How can someone enjoy the presence of Jesus by using his words to justify selfish pursuits? Guided by cruciform interpretation, we ask how we can interpret the text so that we can be identified with Christ, “who humbled himself by becoming obedient unto death, even death on the cross.”

“What will this involve?” my mother asked. I have thought for a long time about that question mark at the end of her last journal entry. Exclamation marks were more her style. She had exuberant confidence in God. But she did not know what surprises God had in store for her. As she sought to understand the meaning of the words of Jesus for her life, she applied them to the new home she had prepared. But she sensed that those words had deeper meaning for her than she could fathom at that time. Her biblical interpretation had to be revised when she entered the new home God had prepared for her. “Now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part, then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Cor. 13:12).

Our biblical interpretation should be marked by exclamation marks and question marks. When the Spirit guides us to know the meaning of God’s Word, we exclaim with unshakable confidence, “This I believe!” At the same time, we need humbly to admit that even after our best attempts at biblical interpretation we still “know only in part.” And so we wonder, “What will this involve?”

G. Walter Hansen is associate professor of New Testament and director of the Global Research Institute at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the author of Galatians, part of the IVP New Testament Commentary Series.

The Power Of The Translated Word

Marie and I had worked 25 years among the Sharanahuas without seeing much fruit for our labors. The Sharanahua tribe lives in the Amazon jungle in the southeastern corner of Peru. Gustavo, our translation assistant, replaced his elderly father as chief and was the first of his tribe to make Jesus his “Owner.” But for many years he had not been able to leave alcohol alone, which damaged his testimony.

About 11 years ago, while Gustavo was translating the books of Matthew and John with me in the village of Gasta Bala, the Holy Spirit drove the Word deeply into his “innermost.” We had translated Matthew 4:17: Our Lord God is coming to you. Therefore cut off your badness. Not doing bad, instead truly listen to God’s words. When most of the village had gathered for a meeting one Sunday, Gustavo stood before his people and spoke, “I have been a poor example to you as your chief. Not only have I been getting drunk myself, but I have been bringing the liquor to you. Also I have been living in immorality.” He prayed, asking the Lord to forgive him and telling his people that from that time on he wanted Jesus to be his Owner and to give him victory over sin.

After Gustavo made his public commitment to Christ in 1984, the people in the village began to get together every day to sing and pray and listen to the Word. Every day for nearly two months at least one person in Gasta Bala accepted Christ. This continued until all but a few had professed Christ.

During one of their meetings, Gustavo again stood up and told his people that, from the translation work, he saw from God’s Word that if you were serious about following Christ, you should be baptized, based upon Jesus’ example in Matthew 3:15: Like Father God ordered us, we should do all that is right. Therefore put me in the water now. He announced that the following Sunday he would be baptized. On that day, the entire village gathered at the bank of the muddy Purus River. Gustavo looked up at his people from the edge of the river, and this strong chief did something no Sharanahua man had ever done before. He broke into tears and said how sorry he was for all of the years that he had hurt his Owner. Gustavo then went into the water and was baptized by his brother Luis.

As a result of the spiritual awakening that came to Gasta Bala in 1984, dramatic changes occurred in the lives of the people. Barriers between families were broken down, they learned the power of prayer, and their attitudes toward death took a new focus. Before, when a person died, all of his belongings were buried with him or thrown into the river. The deceased person’s garden would be cut down, his home would be burned, and the family would move to a new location. Since then, when a believer dies, they do not wail for months as they used to, because they know that loved one is happy with the Lord and that they will see him again some day.

When the members of the tribe had gathered together and chosen Gustavo to be their pastor, spontaneously five or six of the Sharanahua men gathered around Gustavo’s chair, and as they had read in Acts 13:3—having finished resting from eating and calling on Father God, they placed hands upon Barnabas and Saul and prayed for them—they laid their hands on him and prayed for him. “Lord, help him to preach the Word plainly to us.”

By Gene Scott, a translator for Wycliffe Bible Translators.

Frederica Mathewes-Green directed the Real Choices research project and is currently director of communications for the National Women’s Coalition for Life. This article was adapted from her hook Real Choices: Offering Practical, Life-Affirming Alternatives to Abortion (Questar, ©1994).

EVANGELICALISM AND REFORMATION

Bravo to Alister McGrath, Mark Noll, Darrell Bock, and Richard Mouw for their continued attempt to get the populace of evangelicalism thinking [“The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind,” Aug. 14].

McGrath and others have begun to pick up on the element that Christian thinking has historically been at its strongest when Reformed theology has been the choice system of the academy. It is when Reformed thought was replaced by Enlightenment thought or mindless pietism that we saw a decline in the emphasis and respectability of the Christian mind in both the academy and among the populace. It is, therefore, not historically surprising that along with this renewed interest in Reformation thought there is also a renewed interest in the state of the Christian mind. McGrath is doing his job by consistently making the connection that the Protestant Reformation, and its heritage was and is the product of thinking.

John J. Fanella

Wheaton, Ill.

In Canada the “evangelical populace,” as Mark Noll would call it, is frequently put off by the sheer arrogance of the evangelical academy mind. Humility and grace, exhibited by great Christian minds over the past two thousand years are always attractive, are listened to, pondered, and provide genuine leadership. In this country, the academy mind is by conduct somewhat smaller than it thinks it is.

Gordon H. Johnson

Agincourt, Ont., Canada

I was very much encouraged by your forum on the evangelical mind. I have been teaching Sunday school for just under a year and am directly confronted with the problems of getting American evangelicals actually thinking about their faith. While I have been blessed with a wonderful class and church that actually wants to learn and know, I have been hard-pressed in how to feed their desires. The article showed me that scholars need not be sitting up in their “ivory towers,” but that they should be in the forefront of educating God’s people. Thank you so much for the encouragement to those that share your concerns!

Wesley T. Allen

Eastern College

St. Davids, Pa.

After reading your article, all I can say is, “Who cares?” Pardon us right-wing fundamentalist, anti-intellectual no-brainers, but is anyone interested in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Ultimately, what really matters? Is it all that important that my populist nonbrain is no match for the academics? I submit that the obvious lack of impact the church is having on our culture is a result of rampant division, lack of love, and pervasive pride. Imagine: the greatest mind that exists humbled himself and took on the form of a servant.

George Smith

College Station, Tex.

For Dr. Noll to equate literal six-day creationism with the decline of the evangelical mind (and thus anti-intellectualism) is absurd. I find it difficult to fathom how allowing a secular theory (and one currently in crisis) to dictate the interpretation of Scripture can be considered intellectual. Dr. Mouw has decried the loss of evangelical academic institutions to modernism. Is not the development of evolutionism a prime example of this modernism in full swing?

Mrs. Denise Hays

Davenport, Iowa

We Christians have to recognize that all truth is God’s truth, and the true humanism is Christian. The scandal of the evangelical mind is related to the general phenomenon of the closing of the American mind. The way to overcome this scandal is to teach the next generation to respect learning and to make sacrifices for them to enter a learned profession. As Christian parents, we can turn off the TV at home and take our children to the library. The scandal is a grassroots problem which requires a family solution.

Timothy Chen

Potomac, Md.

PILLS AND THE HOLY SPIRIT

“Can a pill do what the Holy Spirit could not?” This rather irreverent question posed by Barshinger, LaRowe, and Tapia in the August 14 issue [“The Gospel According to Prozac”] reveals much about popular conceptions of spirituality. Have we come to view the Holy Spirit, very God himself, as some type of medicine for life? Did he come to empower life or embellish it? Are our feelings a valid litmus test for our spirituality? Is God closer to some of us than others? Is his power limited in some areas? What do our feelings have to do with his work?

Sure, we apply medical science to physical problems. A release from the problem is a blessing. But it doesn’t change God at all. A person whose cataracts are removed cannot claim that the sky is now a deeper shade of blue. The surgery did not make the sky bluer or the patient more perceptive. It merely exposed the person to more of the truth that already existed.

Who of us can humbly desire to be crucified with Christ yet utter the popular mantra demanding personal rights? We betray Christ in linking him to our sense of well-being. We turn our eyes toward ourselves and away from eternal God and his eternal redemption of creation, which will never change no matter what kind of a day we might be having.

David J. Lindskoog

Boulder City, Nev.

Incredible! We now have Prozac for depression, marijuana for glaucoma, tranquilizers for tension, and steroids for strength. We have all the remedies; where does prayer fit in?

Dana L. Stringer

Louisville, Ky.

When aspirin came on the market to relieve pain and fever, I wonder if an article in the local Christian journal suggested its use was a poor substitute for faith. Or when antibiotics appeared: “Penicillin: Can a pill do what the Holy Spirit could not?” Most Christians today accept the beneficial use of a variety of drugs designed to help the body fight infection, relieve pain, or suppress fever. Perhaps it would help believers overcome the Christian cultural stigma of needing antidepressants by—instead of alleging lack of faith—helping them accept these drugs purely as medicines designed to help compensate for chemical imbalances which affect emotions. If in the process of stabilizing chemical imbalances we also discover benefits toward our own sanctification, the development of healthier relationships, and the healing of emotions, then God has indeed given us a great therapeutic tool, and a great blessing as well.

Pastor Bill Walthall

Redlands Bible Church

Redlands, Calif.

Prozac’s possibilities in therapy raise related issues, but they are hardly new. In the early 1970s, after years of struggling with phobic conditions, I landed in a psychiatric unit, where an earlier generation of antidepressants was in use. I was interested to find that some of my fellow patients were Christians, and most seemed to carry some burden of “good deeds in a naughty world.” One might have concluded pace Prozac that being a good neighbor prompted their illness, exhaustion being a staging post.

One unit doctor, a Christian, said mental illness was still stigmatized within the community (and the churches, where depression was often thought due to “lack of faith”). Thus, patients who would have benefited from a stay in the unit—and careful choice of drug therapy—did not take up the offer, because of the off-stage pressures from peers.

Prozac may have a similar dimension. Drug therapy of this kind is usually a short-term engagement, an opportunity for reorientation. The cure of souls lies elsewhere.

David Lazell

East Leake, Loughborough, England

Readers should be reminded that Charles Haddon Spurgeon, London’s renowned Baptist preacher of the last century, whose sermons Helmut Thielicke placed even above those of Martin Luther, suffered severe depression throughout his ministry. One can imagine how much Spurgeon would have appreciated the relief that now is obtainable. It would be an affront to his ministry to suggest that a poverty of the Holy Spirit was to blame for the affliction, or that he should not have availed himself of help had it been procurable then.

Charles Turner

Memphis, Tenn.

THE CHURCH COMMUNITY’S HALLMARK

Thank you for the recent dialogue with Lawrence Crabb [Conversations, Aug. 14]. I believe Crabb is a leader in the Christian community whose message is vitally needed. I do not believe he drives a wedge between the ministry offered by the local parish and the effective Christian therapist. It is equally my conviction that the church has for too long subrogated its responsibilities with respect to the individual to outside agencies. First Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 in particular make it explicitly clear that the ministry of the local church community is to be dedicated to service (deaconal) of its members. Gifted ministry to each other needs to be the hallmark of any church community.

Certainly Christian therapists and psychology can offer a specialized address to unique problems. However, it is my belief that even this specialized counseling should take place under the spiritual direction and discipleship of the local church. Subrogation is harmful enough; but for an individual to be loosed from the compassionate oversight of the Christian community under the ruse that help is being applied is forsaking the intent of Scripture.

Douglas J. McKay

Middletown, Del.

Larry Crabb’s article was troubling. As director of a Christian counseling center and a marriage and family therapist, I have seen a number of pastors and church leaders come for help. Many times the issue is one of poor boundaries. How can we assume that in a broken world, with broken people, that untrained people who have not dealt with their own issues can deal with the complicated issues people experience?

Dee Wacker Sioux Falls Psychological Services Sioux Falls, S. Dak.

Entrusting the church with the burden of counseling those with serious needs is impractical and dangerous. According to Crabb, “caring” is the most active agent in counseling, something the church is well equipped to provide. Unfortunately, for most Christians, caring is merely sympathetic listening with a tendency to do whatever makes everybody comfortable. For others, it is a simplistic search for demonic bondage that must be exorcised. These methods are usually ineffective at best and often disastrous. Inevitably, caring must include both compassion and a moment of confrontation born out of real insight.

Crabb complains that even the best psychologist cannot know “what’s really happening in people’s souls.” Yet, even knowing the range of possibilities available for explaining and exploring the “troubled human soul” is of great value. Christians without the necessary aptitudes, gifts, or professional commitment to the practice of counseling are not likely to take on the challenge. Further, I don’t believe it is right to expect that they should.

Rev. David S. Harvey

Crosslake Evangelical Free Church

Crosslake, Minn.

Christians are no more prepared to conduct therapy by being godly persons than they are prepared to build a boat by reading the story of Noah. I think in the ideal church, Christian therapists will enhance and support the awesomely greater responsibilities of “eldering” and shepherding the flock. They will not be seen as a threat, but as allies and a valued part of Christ’s body. Christians do not leave the Christian community when they enter the office of a Christian therapist’s private practice. They have just gone downtown.

Scott D. Conner

Marriage and Family Therapist

Yarmouth, Maine

DEATH PENALTY FOR WHOM?

Thank you for “A Matter of Life and Death” [News, Aug. 14]. Those who quote Old Testament laws to support the death penalty somehow don’t quote the parts that demand death for homosexuals (Lev. 20:13), disobedient children (Deut. 21:18–21), those who pick up sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32–36). Also, by the way, anyone who argues with the preacher (Deut. 17:12)!

Felix Lorenz, Jr.

Northville, Mich.

The article accurately notes that capital punishment is just now being used again for the first time in decades, and in some cases, it’s been 30 years or more. Yet those who doubt its deterrent effect say crime has increased all the years of execution’s being legal. For it to be legal but not employed clearly provides no deterrent effect at all, but rather invites mockery. The criminals know the real odds, and the fact is they serve little time (even for murder) and have run virtually no risk of execution, whatever the law on the books. As evangelicals, we resort to the Bible and it says, in numerous cases in the O.T., that all Israel will hear (of an execution) and will be afraid to do such things in the future. The deterrent effect of punishment is fundamental human nature and basic common sense, but it depends, as Ecclesiastes 8:11 makes clear, on a high level of certainty that society will use it swiftly and aggressively. That has not been the case.

Tim Crater

NAE Office of Public Affairs

Washington, D.C.

Brief letters are welcome. They may be edited for space and clarity and must include the writer’s name and address. Send to Eutychus, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 708/260-0114. E-mail: ctedit@aol.com. Letters preceded by were received online.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another.… By this all men will know you are my disciples” (John 13:34–35).

“You shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in.… You traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23:13, 15).

“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.… If you love those who love you, what reward have you?” (Matt. 5:44, 46).

“Put away … all slander” (1 Pet. 2:1).

“Whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire” (Matt. 5:22).

“If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?” (James 2:15–16).

“But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was …” (Luke 10:33).

“Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man” (Col. 3:11).

“Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps” (1 Pet. 2:21).

“With the judgment you pronounce you will be judged” (Matt. 7:2).

“Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?” (Matt. 25:44).

“You are the man!” (2 Sam. 12:7).

“The grass withers, and the flower falls” (1 Pet. 1:24).

“Jesus wept” (John 11:35).

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction” (2 Tim. 3:16).

—MM

In a day when the conservative point of view has been labeled as both the bane of an intolerant society and the boon of America’s cultural rebirth, William F. Buckley, Jr.—the “patron saint of conservatism,” as his biographer, John Judis, calls him—offers a measured assessment of some of today’s most challenging social and moral issues.

Renowned for founding the conservative journal National Review, Buckley, 69, is the recipient of countless awards, including the prestigious Presidential Medal of Freedom. As the author of numerous books and plays, the host of the PBS series Firing Line, a distinguished thinker and lecturer, and a gifted harpsichordist, Buckley has earned a reputation as a true Renaissance man. But often lost in his elaborate vita is the fact that Buckley’s work is informed by a strong Christian faith. In his memorable book “God and Man at Yale” (1951), Buckley reflected on the challenges of taking his Catholic faith into the secular arena.

Last spring, CT advisory editor Michael Cromartie visited Buckley at his New York office, where the two discussed the role of Christians in America’s pressing, at times heated, debates about morality and civil responsibility. Buckley also shares some glimpses into his forthcoming book on Christianity.

THERE IS A LOT BEING WRITTEN NOW ABOUT THE GROWING INFLUENCE OF RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES IN POLITICS. WHAT IS YOUR ASSESSMENT OF THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT?

What we see here is a mobilization of people who are properly horrified by what they see going on in Hollywood, in the growth of single-parent families, and so forth. They’ve figured out that our foundations need restoring, and I have never doubted that those foundations are religious. So this is how they reach the general public, as religious people rather than as political people. Their affinity is much closer to conservatives than to liberals for the obvious philosophical reasons.

I’m not frightened by it. But I think it’s important to keep the matters discrete and to know when you are talking about one thing and when you are talking about something else.

WHAT WARNINGS WOULD YOU HAVE FOR THE LEADERS OF THE CHRISTIAN COALITION AND OTHER EVANGELICAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING OUT ON SOCIAL ISSUES?

What frightens people most about the Religious Right is the rhetoric that is sometimes used. There ought to be some thought given, for example, as to how you formulate your antihomosexual position: it should be more pastoral than vitriolic.

Now, I haven’t entirely figured out a way to do it, and I haven’t given it as much thought as I should have. But I have found myself consciously, in the last several years, avoiding just plain old-fashioned gay bashing. In the first place, it is unchristian, and in the second place, it just doesn’t work. It doesn’t persuade anybody of anything.

SO YOUR MAIN ADVICE TO THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT WOULD BE: “WATCH YOUR RHETORIC”?

It is not my main advice, but it is advice. I had Jerry Falwell on my program some years ago, and I tried to get him to say something offensive. But he was just so amiable and so accommodating. I remember writing soon afterward that, assuming his Moral Majority was able to apply their entire program as he envisioned it, the only inconvenience would be that some people would have to buy Sunday’s whiskey on Saturday. Everything that Falwell then and [Pat] Robertson now would like to have happen was happening when I was going to school, and we didn’t think of ourselves as living under a tyrannical regime.

THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT, THEN, WOULD DO WELL TO LEARN HOW TO USE RHETORIC IN A WAY THAT IS CHRISTIAN AND APPEALS TO A PUBLIC THAT DOESN’T BELIEVE IN CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY?

When Christ said, Go to the world and preach the gospel—especially given his own performance—he put a very high cost not on sacrificing principle, but on tuning your instrument in such a way as to arrest attention and persuade. If, at the end of a broadcast by Pat Robertson, fewer people are disposed to Christianity than were before he came on (I’m not saying that is the case), then that would be awful if that were so.

CONCERNING THE ABORTION DEBATE, HOW DO YOU REPLY TO LIBERTARIANS WHO VIEW THE WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE ABORTION AS A FORM OF BIRTH CONTROL A MATTER OF PERSONAL LIBERTY?

If there is another party involved, then the woman’s right is limited. Otherwise, why not practice infanticide? At some point, the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments protect, and the question is at what point do they protect.

Whatever you want to say about the anti-abortionists, you have got to at least say this: Theirs is the most disinterested act of humanitarian concern since the Emancipation Proclamation. They are not talking about protecting their own child, they are talking about protecting children.

THE SHOOTINGS AT ABORTION CLINICS HAVE CREATED MUCH CONCERN BOTH WITHIN AND WITHOUT THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THESE CONTROVERSIAL OCCURRENCES?

It’s wrong, of course, because Christian doctrine simply does not permit us, except in self-defense, to kill anybody unless you are a conscript in an authentically organized army. That would seem to me all the point you need to make.

The notion that by killing an abortionist you are sparing a child is empirically wrong, because a person can always go to another abortionist. If you say that maybe we can scare off enough abortionists so that fewer people will do it-well, in the first place you can’t answer the moral objection. And in the second place, it’s going to be impossible to judge that question empirically, because we are never going to end up killing enough abortionists to make it that hazardous an occupation.

YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PLACE FOR RELIGIOUS CONVICTION TO INFORM POLICIES. WHAT PRINCIPLES SHOULD GUIDE CHRISTIAN ACTIVISTS AS THEY TRY TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION?

Thomas Aquinas once was asked, “If the public view was that a famine was imminent, would you be justified in charging injurious prices for your grain, knowing that a relief wagon of grain was coming?” Thomas said yes, you would, but it would be wrong. A Christian would not do that.

Certain things which the market authorizes simply in terms of law are unchristian and ought not to be done. The big issue today has to do with the fidelity of marriages. The tendency now to leave your wife because you have an infatuation with a younger woman of tenderer flesh is an enormous temptation. It’s carnal, and it’s also easy to justify with all the solipsistic reasoning that we hear today. That is about the gravest offense that a human being can commit, to throw away a wife.

AND YOU WOULD WANT THE STATE TO TRY TO MAKE DIVORCES OF CONVENIENCE MORE DIFFICULT?

Well, I don’t believe in a theocratic state. But as was said in The Federalist Papers, unless we create a virtuous society, it’s not a society that’s going to endure. So the right things should be encouraged and the wrong things discouraged. Today, roughly speaking, there is zero taboo against fornication. Without saying that you want to brand people with a scarlet letter, something in between those two extremes would appear to be appropriate.

Ingrid Bergman was invited by Ed Sullivan to appear on his program around 1958 when she was living with an Italian film producer. She had left her husband and had a child. Before she actually went on the show, there was such a public clamor that he couldn’t have her on. Can you imagine? Today every time Elizabeth Taylor gets married, it’s seen as sort of a national holiday. The difference in the public reaction toward Ingrid Bergman then and Elizabeth Taylor now is solid sociological data of enormous consequence.

YOU ARE CURRENTLY WRITING A BOOK ON CHRISTIANITY. TELL US ABOUT IT.

Yes. I started it two years ago. I decided that there was so much to be read in preparation that I would abandon it. But then I got tempted back. I have written about half of it. What I don’t have is a story line. That will come, I hope and pray.

SO IS THERE NO GENERAL THESIS?

Well, yes, it’s pro-God. I suppose if I apostatized halfway through the book, that would make it a bestseller.

IS THIS A PHILOSOPHICAL LOOK AT CHRISTIANITY?

The publisher wants—and quite correctly—an entirely personal book. They don’t want another book on theology, and I’m not qualified to write it anyway. They want to know why I am a Christian, without reciting all of the Thomistic proofs for God’s existence.

SO IT WILL BE A JOURNAL OF YOUR OWN SPIRITUAL JOURNEY?

That’s what they want. I’m an ardent fan of Charles Colson’s book “Kingdoms in Conflict,” where he lapses into fiction every now and then. I thought it was a great book and skillfully done. I nominated it in one of my columns for book of the year. I just can’t think of any fiction that I could stick into mine.

WHAT WILL YOU ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS IN THE BOOK?

One of our problems today is that many of us don’t talk to each other.

I wrote a little piece in the American Heritage Dictionary’s hundredth-anniversary edition a few months ago in which I said that the secularization of society is the biggest historical event in modern times. One of the reasons that we don’t have these theological/cultural debates is because the other side feels they have won so triumphantly that they don’t need to talk about religion any more.

YOU ONCE DESCRIBED YOURSELF AS A PHILOSOPHICAL PESSIMIST WHO REMAINED A TEMPERAMENTAL OPTIMIST. DO YOU STILL FEEL THAT WAY?

I remember that someone once said that the trouble with socialism is socialism, and the trouble with capitalism is capitalists. I’ve talked in general about the theme that there is every objective reason to think that things are going to go bad, like Whittaker Chambers thinking that he was joining the losing side. But temperamentally, I think the notion of disaster is very sinful.

IS YOUR TEMPERAMENTAL OPTIMISM ROOTED IN A CHRISTIAN THEOLOGICAL VIEWPOINT OF GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE WORLD?

God has a role which you can’t predict, to begin with. Plus, one likes to think that the sheer enterprise of right-thinking people will at least cause things to survive. I was 18 years old when the atom bomb went off, and I was 65 years old when the Berlin Wall came down. My entire adult lifetime was during the Cold War. When you consider that this is what 250 million people in the Iron Curtain countries and Russia endured throughout their entire lifetime, it is very hard to say that God cleared his throat early on in this contest. On the other hand, we did finally win.

*************************

By Michael Cromartie, senior fellow and director of the Evangelical Studies Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 1995 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

ctcurrmrw5TB0365920