A TEXAN CORRECTS LIFE
By Robert Meyers

A guest editor in one of the most popular Church of Christ religious papers recently attacked the December 25th Life issue on the Bible. He said that readers who wanted to know more about the Bible should not waste their time reading the issue. This seems excessive to me. I thought the Life essay a reasonably good popularization of views long held by the majority of Biblical scholars. Perhaps what the writer really meant was that if readers preferred knowing only those facts taught in our particular group, no need to read the issue. And this would be good advice, for Church of Christ interpretations are quite ignored and some of our cherished views of inspiration get rough treatment.

The editorialist flays what he calls the “variableness of modernistic scholarship.” This has long been a favorite game in our camp. When scholars disagree, or modify their theories, or finally give a theory up completely in view of new evidence, such men as the writer of this editorial derive massive comfort from it. They fairly chortle with glee, pointing the finger of scorn at unstable “scholars.” What they appear to value above all else is an unyielding, adamant position on every point.

This is hardly surprising, since it is precisely the kind of religious approach they have been taught. One who “has” the truth certainly need never ponder the possibility of revision or change. He may be only twenty, but his head is a treasure of all the answers to all the vital questions and he cannot even imagine new evidence that might sway him. When he sees thoughtful men modify their views, or relinquish them in the light of research, it strikes him as proof that they are waves of the sea, driven with the wind and tossed, while he is a towering mountain of certainty. That such incredibly assured people should always get around to scoffing at the “consummate egotism” of scholars who change their minds occasionally is a supreme irony! If there is arrogance abroad, it must surely lie with those who think themselves impervious to change and who look contemptuously upon men who make the inevitable adjustments of healthy mental growth.

The attack on Life was deplorably shallow and shrill. It must have led many in our brotherhood to lament anew the tragic death of thoughtful writing in our most popular journals. Our keenest minds, including those in the Bible faculties of our best schools, do not publish in these papers. It is a shame, for the masses in the Churches of Christ deserve better nourishment than they are getting.

It would take a book to illustrate the lack of perception which went into the Life denunciation, but one example may fruitfully be given. The writer was shocked because the magazine said there were two creation stories in Genesis and that they contradict one another. So easily does the writer dispose of this matter that one wonders whether he has ever analyzed the chapters in question or pored earnestly over the problems long known to be there. Apart from the different names for God used in the two accounts, there are striking stylistic differences discernible even in an English translation. The Genesis 1:1-11 : : 4a account is solemn, ceremonial, formulaic; it may with great profit be read in the new Anchor Bible, where its rhythmic stateliness and careful structuring are obvious. The Genesis II:4b-24 account, on the other hand, is much more relaxed and prosaic. It lacks the formulas, the recurrences of particular phrases. It is freer, more varied, more picturesque.

But more importantly, the first account gives this order of creation: vegetables, animals, man --- while the second account tells us that the order was man, vegetables, animals, and then woman. Those who must harmonize the accounts make ingenious efforts; I can only say that none of them have seemed persuasive to me. The first account suggests the simultaneous creation of male and female, while the second suggests that quite a long period intervened between the creation of man and the creation of woman. In fact, in the second account, God is represented as trying to satisfy Adam with various creatures as companions and only makes woman when “none proved to be the aid that would be fit for man” (Anchor Bible).

But this is tedious; those who really care about such a problem will study intensively the analyses given in the critical commentaries, in the introduction to the new Anchor Genesis, and in the host of specialized books and articles dealing with it. The important thing is that our editorialist ought either to reveal more awareness of the vexing problems, or else be gently reminded by the editor of the paper himself that such problems do exist, and that Life magazine is not necessarily printing pages of pure nonsense.

In addition to the dismaying lack of intellectual humility, there is the sad realization that men who really ought to protest --- the trusted leaders and teachers of the Church of Christ in Texas --- will say nothing about the bad taste and intellectual puerility of such an article. Many of our men in Texas alone know how misleading such an article is. They need to take the leadership in our papers and grapple wisely with such issues as the Life articles present. Every religious group has poorly informed persons who are eager to write articles; ours, unfortunately, gives them the field uncontested and causes the impression to be left that they represent the best thinking the group can manage.
 

 

Thomas Campbell: Man of the Book by L. G. McAllister is an informative account of the Restoration Movement from the standpoint of the father of Alexander Campbell. There is a chapter on The Declaration and Address, showing the significance of this great document in our history. $3.15