by DON W. HILLIS
aside the keeping of one’s heart with all diligence, and to place on the shelf one’s responsibility to be a witness? Is a rejection of all this, evidence that we have become bigger and better men in God’s kingdom?” Howard’s reflections on his college days’ re ligious experiences are noteworthy. He apparently reacted to everything from Pentecostalism to Epis- copalianism. Nor would I suggest that some of his reactions were not wholesome and natural. But surely, every man ought to find somewhere in the Body o f Christ a meaningful fellowship which, though not perfect, contributes to a maturing ex perience. In endeavoring sympathetically to share in Tom Howard’s frustrations, my mind turned to the diary of his brother-in-law, Jim Elliot. In Jim, too, I see a soul dissatisfied with the visible church. But it appears that Jim’s search for God as revealed in Shadow o f the Almighty moved in a direction dia metrically opposed to that taken by Tom. And will not the ultimate edifying impact of Elliot’s diary be far greater than Christ The Tiger ? This is not to suggest that we owe no debt to Howard. We do. He has said things we need to hear. Unfortunately, what he has said should be “ For Adults Only.” The spiritually-adolescent are not apt to be helped by his book. Thomas Howard is to be commended for his brutal honesty. Though he early declares his objec tion to public confession of sin on the basis that he “ could never be enough of a spiritual nudist to
A review of Thomas Howard’s book, “ Christ The Tiger,” published by J. B. Lippincott Company. Price $2.25 The author of this article is the Associate Director of The Evangelical Alliance Mission. succeed,” yet he repeatedly draws back the cur tains and exposes the frailties of his own soul. He confesses the laying aside o f Bible study to the place in which “ I felt that I was probably starving myself.” He admits that the lust o f the flesh and the lust of the eye began to play an increasingly exciting place in his life. He finally confesses that he “no longer shared the frame o f mind that ordi narily marks the religious approach to life.” This and other statements in the book lead me to wonder if the author’s primary point of depar ture from “ the religious approach to life” does not lie in a rejection o f the authority of the Word of God. Howard rightfully and strongly believes that “ things” in themselves are not evil. He justly criti cizes those who make moral taboos of things. I wonder, however, if he has forgotten that “meat” is a thing. Paul was prepared to give up meat if the eating thereof would cause offense to another. Furthermore, Paul through the Spirit has given us principles of behavior relative to our use or abuse of things. Though it is the heart that is moral or
35
A P R IL, 1968
Made with FlippingBook HTML5