Calvin Synod Herald, 1973 (73. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1973-03-01 / 3. szám
4 CALVIN SYNOD HERALD the policy of the 17th century Stuart kings, who sought to subvert it by superimposing upon the presbyterial system an episcopacy that was simply an instrument of royal tyranny. But in 1690, after the “Glorious Revolution” had deposed James II, the last Stuart king of England and Scotland, the Scottish Parliament abolished episcopacy once and for all and gave to Presbyterianism that monopoly which it has always subsequently enjoyed in the Church of Scotland. A.D. (A.D. Presbyterian Life Edition, Nov. 1972 Copyright © 1972 by A.D. Used by permission. Devotion for the Executive Council, October 18, 1972 Let us try to draw some practical-theological conclusions from the study of the temptation story. Prof. Cullmann in his excellent treatise, “Jesus and the Revolutionaries” emphasizes the difficulties and possibilities of such an endeavor: “Is such a translation not ultimately impossible? Is it not asking too much of Jesus when we wish to standardize our attitude to the existing orders or to revolutions on the basis of his teaching and life .. . I consider a translation at ONE point as plainly impossible. I am referring to the . . . imminent expectation of Jesus. Jesus’ imminent expectation and his resulting neglect of the social structures are important aspects for a suitable understanding of the problem of application to our time. They do not, however, justify the renunciation of every ‘application’ in general. For Jesus’ hope does not stand or fall with the specific form of the imminent expectation, and Jesus’ requirement concerning the PRIORITY of seeking the kingdom of God before all social endeavors does not fall away as superfluous, even when we today consider a working together of individual conversion and reform of the structures as essential. The eschatological basis of Jesus’ behavior retains its validity even when we know that the world continues for centuries.” (pp. 53-56) What are, then, some of the problems which present themselves in practice once we attempt to make the “applications” for our day in our specific situation? Let me be direct and personal even if it will seem to be subjective and biased. 1. I feel that the challenge of the temptation story may be so irritating for some of us that we easily discard it with an attitude like this: “John, that was an interesting presentation, but it is too European, too Hungarian, too Reformed for us . . . Don’t you understand that we are a liberal, activist, pioneering denomination, more interested in the “military - industrial complex” and the “Counter Budget” and the “Single Sex” and the other social issues of our time than to search the Scriptures, pray, meditate and theologize... . Your trouble is, John, that you are on the wrong side: on the side of the past, the ethnic, the creedal, the conservative and we are beyond that... etc., etc.” Let us assume that all this is true (or should I insist on my own righteousness?), nevertheless the ISSUES remain... 2. It is in the Preamble of OUR Constitution: “The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Savior of men. It acknowledges as brethren in Christ all who share in this confession. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative work in the world.” In the light of the temptation story this constitutional provision must lead us back to a more earnest looking to the Word of God in the Scriptures. My contention is that when we stop searching the Scriptures, the whole Scriptures, we can easily go astray in our ministry. To be scriptural is not the monopoly of the fundamentalists, but it is also good Congregationalism and in accordance with our Evangelical and Reformed understanding of the ministry! (Can we repeat, then, the conviction of our ancestors in its entirety: “We believe that God has new truth for us IN THE SCRIPTURES” — and practice it more faithfully!) 3. If we study the Scriptures faithfully and painfully, we may discover that our identity and ministry must go beyond Matthew 25:31-46 and Luke 4:18-19. Personally, I feel that the temptation story is just as relevant in our present struggle than the other passages. In any event, I feel very uneasy when only convenient passages are used from the Scriptures to justify our positions, and others are totally ignored because they would disturb us and perhaps call us to repent. Perhaps the United Church of Christ must give up the idea that we are a liberal church, and in our acknowledgement that all who share in this confession are our brethren — we must strive to unite with some conservative or Pentecostalist denomination! Can we at least start an honest dialogue with them? Jesus was willing to discuss the meaning of the Scriptures even with the devil! .. . 4. Of course, if we take the temptation story seriously, other painful problems may also arise. Here is the formal one: the struggle with the devil left Jesus without a well-defined program; all that he knew was that he had to follow God’s leading day by day, in wide or narrow limits, known or unknown, without any self-will, haunted by the devil until death. I wonder what would his “Program and Correlation Committee” do then? How can a “program board” follow that Jesus? What does this mean for the General Synod or the Executive Council program-making deliberations?
