To the Editor:
Martin E. Marty’s discussion of my book, Faith and Prejudice [May] testifies to the fact that the reviewer has mastered the content of the book, has sifted it through his own thought, and has expressed its message in a way that is not merely a parroting of the author’s words and phrases.
I wish nevertheless to take issue with Dr. Marty at several points of interpretation. . . . What I would like to call attention to is that his “cautions” (he also calls them “criticisms”) are precisely the ones I make in the book. The criticism that the book deals with the teachings of “a changing. . . Protestantism” in a literature which is largely dated is stated where I point out that revision “is a characteristic feature of Protestant curricula, and the tendency of our research method to freeze its findings in a necessarily time-bound perspective is not meant to obscure the fact that the data alters from year to year.” But Dr. Marty seems to imply that because the lessons of 1953—55 do not apply to 1963, that the book deals with issues that are not perennial. My prime intent in writing the book was to raise issues and offer insights that would be as relevant fifty years from now as they are at present. The book shows what happens to Christian teachings about other groups when we put our own churches, or even the Christian himself, in the central place that only God must occupy. The historical and theological perspective from which we discuss the Crucifixion or the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, . . . for example, will always affect the ways we Christians discuss Jews, as will also our convictions as to the legitimate functions of Scripture. Dr. Marty deems unwise the labeling of theological perspectives of the different curricula. . . . This my book makes abundantly clear to the extent of describing in detail the crucial beliefs of each curriculum in respect to the issues raised. . . . In addition to denominational identifications . . . at the end of key quotations there are footnotes in many chapters pointing out that “fundamentalist” references are only Scripture Press citations, etc. I say explicitly that these “variations within Protestantism do not exhaust the possibilities” and that the neo-Reformation view of the Presbyterian curriculum is “being referred to by its popular name of Neo-Orthodoxy.” I continue: “Labels are sometimes libels, and it must be remembered that each of these four theological versions is not fully representative of the strains of thought that bear the name. For example, there are many forms of liberalism, some of it pietistic and evangelical, which the liberal group in this study does not represent. Similarly, there are a number of types of conservatism and many variations of fundamentalism.” It may be true that “much of Neo-Orthodoxy is far from Presbyterian,” as Dr. Marty says, but it is also true that the general public and such journals as Christianity Today refer to the “Faith and Life Curriculum” of this denomination as Neo-Orthodox. . . . As for fundamentalism, Dr. Marty says that Scripture Press is the largest publisher of fundamentalist materials, and these are used by some churches of all denominations, by the independent fundamentalist churches, and by such sects as the River Brethren. Perhaps the designation “fundamentalism” is a pejorative one in Dr. Marty’s thought; but it is certainly not in mine. If some former “fundamentalists” are now beginning to refer to themselves as “evangelicals,” it is because they wish to dissociate themselves from the activities of the numerically smaller but more vocal group of divisive “fundamentalists” who are followers of Dr. McIntire. Dr. Marty asks whether the Missouri Synod is the best representative of “Conservatism.” I refer to it as a “classical” type of conservatism which was largely articulated in its present form long before it was influenced by so-called fundamentalism. I further explain that, in American society, many groups like it are faced with the problem of creating “a community with deep commitments, self-discipline, and close mutual ties” in order “to witness to and transmit a heritage against the weight of cultural opinion” and that this attempt “of necessity can involve a marked degree of ingroup loyalty and outgroup rejection.” . . .
Bernhard E. Olson
New York City
_____________
Correction
The date of Paul Goodman’s The Empire City was incorrectly given in George Steiner’s “On Paul Goodman” last month as 1942. The book was actually published (by Bobbs-Merrill) in 1959.
_____________