The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 73, No. 11, Ed. 1 Friday, October 11, 1985 Page: 4 of 20
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THRESHING IT OUT
continued from page 2
result in uniting all diverse peoples
and religions.
All of this is very admirable
indeed. Yet, as what Kung would
call a "Protestant-Reformation"
Christian, 1 must disagree with
much of what the theologian said,
and with what he implied during
his address.
Initially, then, 1 find that the
"new paradigm" is devoid of God.
Theology is the study of God, yet
throughout the lecture Kung didn't
mention God or Christ in the new
system. Christianity is not
Christianity without Christ, and
Kung only mentioned the name of
Christ once, in a passing remark.
The "theology" he discusses is not
theology at all, because it is merely
a social, cultural movement.
Where is God in Kung's beliefs? Or
Is the new paradigm, as it seemed
to me, really not theology at all but
rather another attempt by man at
solving his problems?
Dr. Kung talked about
protestants as people who actually
thought that they could read
Scripture and understand it. Why
not? As a Christian, 1 do believe
that 1 can comprehend the
Bible. What other source or
foundation can men have for real
theology unless they have what
God said to them? Without a
foundation of revealed, written,
verifiable truth about God, then
theology descends to the level of
philosophy, of mind games. God's
word and message to mankind is
not a jumble of hocus-pocus words
without a clear meaning. God gave
Scripture to men, not to hide
Himself from them, but to reveal
Himself to them, to give them a
practical guide to understanding
Him and obeying Him. If we
cannot go to the Bible ourselves for
meaning and for the foundation of
theology, then the best man can
hope for is humanism, devoid of
G od.
Indeed, cultures and people
change, and for Christianity to be
the true religion, it must be able to
adequately address such changes.
Yet this is not a license for
compromising on theology; you
cannot negotiate theology. If
Christ is who He said He is (and I
am convinced that He is the Son of
God, the exclusive way to knowing
God and having eternal life),
indeed, if He is God, then He isthe
answer for men of all ages, both in
the past and now. There is
timelessness and universality of
Christianity; it doesn't change even
if what men think or choose to
think change. Jesus Christ still
answers basic needs of men, giving
us not closed-minded enslavement,
but dignity, purpose, acceptance,
love, and eternity. Yet the modern
paradigm calls for a seeming
compromise on the truth and
reality of Christ.
The call for peace, and the hope
for concialiation among all
peoples is a noble call. Yet in this
call for peace and for acceptance,
true Christianity will not tolerate
compromise. Compromise is the
language of man, not of God. Do
not misread me; I am fully for
peace and harmony and religious
toleration. And in the context of
toleration it the duty and lives of
Christians to live their beliefs and
to show others that their way isthe
truth. Yet if toleration means
compromising the truth, if it
means taking bits and pieces of
Christianity a nd synthesizing them
with other world religions to
appease and satisfy people, then
that is wrong. If it comes that, give
me war and the truth rather than a
compromise and a lie.
Cultures do change. Men
change. Id^as change. Yet Truth
does n&f change. If Christianity is
the Trutlythe answer, then it will
addressee spiritual needs of men
without compromising on its
doctrincr-Krun^ calls for a new
paradigm. I call for the return to
the firsnoaradigm, to the Son of
God. to Ja^us Christ.
Daniel Sullivan
Wiess College, '87
Visiting professor
upset with Kung
To the editor:
I am writing this letter right after
the lecture of Professor Hans
Kung, a famous theologian, who
spoke on the history and the future
of theology and the Church.
I am afraid that my letter will
prove rather aggressive and thus,
in order to avoid possible
misunderstandings, let me put it
clearly at the very beginning that
this aggression is not to be aimed at
Professor Kung himself, whose
great achievements I admire, but at
the content of this particular
lecture. Let me also praise the
organisers of the lecture. I am
proud to be given this opportunity
to visit the university which
maintains such a high level of its
own scientific life and attracts so
many distinguished researchers
from all over the country (and the
world!) with their guest lectures.
The main reason that I feel 1
must write this letter and share my
opinion on the lecture is an
amazing difference between my
opinion and that of the vast
majority of the audience. They
were enthusiastic while I was
disappointed and angered to learn
that, as a Pole , neither can I know
what the enlightenment paradigm
is nor can I understand western
democracy.
Apparently, by scientific
standards the lecture was banal.
Yet, it pleased so many. And it
could happen because these many
heard what they had wanted to
hear. Isn't it thus interesting to
realize that theological
considerations can have such a
psychological impact? (As for me,
obviously, I heard what I had not
wanted to, but let me assure you
that my anger did not obscure my
judgement — anger can awake our
intellectual vigilance, pleasance
usually makes it sleep.)
To come to the lecture, isn't
Professor Kung's periodization of
the history of the Church,
although quite accurate, obvious
and trivial (primitive-apocalyptic
Christianity, early-Hellenistic
Chr., medieval Roman Catholic
Christianity, Reformation versus
counter-reformation, etc., etc.)? Of
course, if accurate, we should not
complain it is simple. And I would
not, if this very scheme were a
starting point for some nontrivial
conclusions. However, Professor
Kung presented first a rather funny
sketch of the Roman Catholic
Church's history; the method he
adopted when giving this sketch
could, with slight exaggeration,
amount to the following "short
history" of the U.S.: "Contempor-
ary U.S. is a mere consequence of
oppression and killing Indians,
this extermination of the
legitimate proprietors of the land
being followed by establishing
slavery. Since the mid-nineteenth
century an enormous influx of
illiterate poor whites has taken
place, some of them being
common criminals. No wonder
that a large part of Italian mafia
moved to the U.S. as well. And so
on and so forth." Is it possible to
trace any sign of greatness of the
American contribution to the
human culture (both spiritual and
material) in this, a would-be witty
picture?
Of course. Professor Kung's
presentation was not such an insult
to the Catholic Church, but indeed
it was so definitely single-minded
that no interesting conclusions
could be drawn. Accordingly,
Prof. Kung found out eventually
that the main problem of both the
Pope (let alone that he is a Pole)
and the hierarchy (thank God
mostly non-Poles) is that they do
not listen to Professor Kung's
advice. Perhaps, but 1 would have
been much indebted if Prof. Kung
had given serious justification for
his advice. Note that if his stand
does not require any justification,
then there is also no justification
for the lecture itself! Instead, after
stating that the Roman Catholic
Church should follow the so-called
contemporary paradigm in all
respects and that the Church
proves its foolishness by not doing
so, Professor Kung concluded his
lecture with a sentimental vision of
a new paradigm of the united
human kind.
So, do not hesitate and let's get
united! Easy to say, nice to dream
of . . .
To conclude this letter, were we
pleased with it or not, 1 think we
should welcome some really
thorough exposition of all the
fascinating problems at best only
touched upon by Professor Kung.
Let me therefore appeal to our
university's faculty of religious
studies to offer us such an
exposition on the contemporary
theology and the Church, their
current troubles and perspectives.
In order to help Professor Kung
perform his ecumenical tasks and
get united I am going to
recommend him several Western
texts on the history of Poland, e.g.
recently published Norman
Davies' God's Playground: A
History of Poland, 2 vols..
Columbia Univ. Press, 1984.
Jacek Koronacki
Visiting Assistant Professor
Department of Mathematical
Sciences
Apartheid needs
more attention
To the editor:
Have the Board of Governors
and Dr. Rupp cast aside all moral
obligations to the preservation of
human dignity; or has Rice
become Southern Capitalist
U niversity, where we have no other
set of principles but those which
come from an age-old god —
money? This seems to be an
uncompromising question;
however, in light of recent
decisions to continue transacting
business with firms that support
discrimination in this city and in
South Africa, the Administration
has left itself open to this sort of
criticism.
Any question as to the sanctity
of a person's right to freedom and
to employment, and our duty to
uphold this right, is moot. As are
living in a basically Christian
society, the error of supporting the
violation of this right is one which
should be recognizable, for it is a
sin of omission, allowing our
brothers and sisters to be kept in
bondage, a state in which we
ourselves would not wish to be
cast. Further, the commission of
this omission with regards to
financial matters, an act of putting
BLOOM COUNTY
money and profit before our moral
duty to defend the defenseless, is
an act of idolatry, for it shows that
we are willing to serve another
master before God. And how
tragic it is to see student leaders
who profess the Holy Gospel
speaking in favor of letting the
issue of investment in such an
unholy and unworthy economy as
that of South Africa pass without
action.
"But what action is appropriate
for this time and this matter?"
No act that is within the power
of this university, as an institution
and as a body of students, could be
more powerful than that of
disinvestment in corporations that
continue generating revenue fior
the government of South Africa,
and there is no reason to not act
accordingly. Those who attack this
stance on the grounds that it would
hurt the African majority in South
Africa need to consider that-once a
majority government could be
installed (which will be soon),
capital investment in the nation
could resume. Even if the
economic shock to South Africa
was devastating, one need only
consider that gaining from
oppression has always been costly,
and that the "wealth" of the
Africans cannot be drastically
diminished (one-half of nothing is
nothing). In the long run, neither
we nor the African majority have
anything to gain from their
continued denial of rights by a
government which we have too
long passively supported.
Hopefully, the students of Rice
find the system of apartheid
offensive enough to object to the
decision of the Board, and the
Board will reverse itself. While the
past cannot be corrected perse, the
present and the future can be times
of truth, honor, and dignity.
David M. Phillips
Wiess *5
by Berke Breathed
jumpiN'jehosaphat /
struck com with amnesia
anp now poombp by
hallevs comet.. what
a FINS prep/camem
m in...
no past... no future...
MP NOTHtN' MUCH TV Be
POIN' RIGHT THIS MOMENT.
if&lukz /t
heme &J5H//
V
mm? ma comer!
mil all be blown
tomniemm"
iwmm
ah, an orange.. 50 6ranp, 50
glorious,
i've never notice? before,
such things seem so much
mors gorgeous,
men our uves m close to
nevermore
look, j know that wasn't
kinp, but george id a
tough ol' 60at anp
FRANKLY JUST
ft TAD UPSCT.
so.. 50 utfle time left /
from here on i want meals
of ice cream/ enpless
bubble baths/ rnaar,
gobs of loose
women feeping
me peelep grapes. . some help.
ADVICE
h-help''7
no, no... that's
you pont right.
mean... /
<( '
DR. LUCY VAN PELT
m
a leaf...so bright, so precious
i've never notkep before,
such things po 50 refresh us
when perth is at our poor
birp poop... so mce, 50-
The Rice Thresher, October 11, 1985, page 4
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Snyder, Scott. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 73, No. 11, Ed. 1 Friday, October 11, 1985, newspaper, October 11, 1985; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245616/m1/4/?q=%22%22~1: accessed June 22, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.