Post: Readers Respond

Great Spring, 1994 Pietisten! The cover interview “An Interview with Paul Holmer,” was outstanding. I made copies to send to my kids who are C.S. Lewis fans.

Two things especially caught my eye: (1) C.S. Lewis’ concern for the carpenter and faith: “Academics have all the tools to do that [deal with the struggles of faith], but the poor carpenters, they don’t have the tools for that.” (2) Holmer’s insight — with Lewis — on how to read scripture: “. . . there is a kind of correlative component in everybody’s life. The world’s literature is your clue to a rich appreciation of what it is to be a human being now.” Ralph Sturdy, Livingston, New Jersey.

I was fascinated by the discussion between Bruce Carlson and Paul Holmer as reported in your Spring, 1994 issue. I think Holmer’s observation that Lewis was better on literary criticism than Christian apologetics is right on target. Therefore, I think his dismissal of Wilson’s biography of Lewis was too quick, given Wilson’s perceptive critique of Lewis’ apologetic effort. My personal opinion is that Wilson’s biography of Lewis was the most honest of all the biographical efforts on Lewis — portraying him as neither a Christian saint nor a theological giant. That quibble about Wilson’s biography aside, I thought the interview was wonderfully entertaining and wonderfully informative. Keep up the good work. G. Timothy Johnson, ABC News, Inc.

I felt led to write this observation:

I was impressed by the complementary positions described in the Spring, 1994 issue of Pietisten by O. T. Roberg and Rev. Glen Wiberg. Being a senior citizen and a Covenanter with an historical background, I support Roberg’s evaluation of Paul Larsen’s address at the Midwinter Conference. “We do not need to reinvent our denomination.”

On the positive side, Glen Wiberg, in his “A View from the Attic,” clearly defines the Treasures — Old and New — and explains how we can so easily miss “The Treasure.” Would that Paul Larsen should have the experience of looking down on the beams, as related by Wiberg in his sermon. And, as Maya Angelou is quoted, “Remember, you are paid for.” Jane Bowman Jacobson, Turlock, California.

Thanks for stimulating articles. And for showing that you can be serious and have fun, too. Any canoeists among your boat people? Mariann Tiblin, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Really enjoyed the last Pietisten which just arrived Monday, for one of the very most influential people in my “spiritual journey” was Paul Holmer. I haven’t seen the movie they were discussing (would like to eventually), but I liked Lewis’ Until We Have Faces more than Holmer did, I guess. By the way, have you read Persuade us to Rejoice by Robert McAfee Brown? I enjoyed that very much recently and want to try to find the novels he reviews in it that I haven’t already read (and re-read some of those I read but didn’t get nearly as much out of as he did!) And that reminds me, I loved Lindahl’s quote from John Cowper Powys’ Meaning of Culture in his article on his books — will have to try to find that book to read. Edgar Guest’s poem in that article must be one of his best!

Somewhere along the line, I’m going to use the quote about history in Roberg’s article. “We may covet too many illusions about our past and create a special place in our heart for them. This special place in our heart may not be in touch with any special place in our brain. Fortunately, God has given us the gift of history to keep us from doing too much of this. History, unlike heritage, is not something that can be easily treasured because there is so much troubling stuff in it. But much of this troubling stuff is the meat that informs our current efforts to be ethical Christians. It can do so because so many people in our own past have faced problems so similar to those we face todays.” [Spring, 1994]) I’m not sure our Minnesota Conference UCC will be able to continue to have a Historical Committee newsletter, but if we do, that will come in handy somewhere along the line! Marilyn Ford, New Albin, Iowa.

“I had dinner with my father last night, and I made a classic Freudian slip. I meant to say, ‘Please pass the salt,’ but it came out, ‘You prick, you ruined my childhood.’” — Jonathan Katz, Comedian

“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” — Sigmund Freud

Dear Pietisten:

You are not the only ones wondering about Penrod. I am confused as well. But the confusion goes deeper than the last article. Maybe it is me, but it seems that the motto, Freud’s “All therapy ends badly,” while thought provoking, is at odds with Penrod’s column title, “Therapeutic Theological Thought.”

While taking nothing from Freud’s genius, (his creation of the myth of the unconscious has saturated our culture to the point of sopping) his view of the person is too mechanical. His hydraulic explanation of internal pressures creating this and that behavior, the reduction of all motivation to one thing, sexuality, and the belief that what happens now is directly caused by things which happened in the past, are all mechanistic. While Freud’s thought is groundbreaking, its lack of any transcendent force in human experience leaves little room for change or hope. Little wonder, given his mechanical metaphor for the person, that Freud would state, “All therapy ends badly.” The old board game, “Beat Detroit,” is next to impossible to win.

Theological thought presumes a transcendent force which, depending upon one’s theology, may or may not act upon or within human beings. Penrod’s use of scripture leads me to believe that he or she assumes God is involved with humankind. Yet, I am left thinking either that Penrod believes all attempts at therapy are bereft because there is not active “theo” about which to be “logical,” which is a rather paltry view from which to nourish a column so titled; or the presence of “theo” makes it possible to transform persons’ lives in the process of therapy, in which case all therapy doesn’t end badly and the motto doesn’t fit.

If a column is going to be so titled, it seems to me its goal is to communicate the relationship between therapeutic and theological thought. Was that what Penrod was up to with the cork and ocean metaphor (cork = conscious, ocean = unconscious)? Maybe so. The use of the phrase, “it [the metaphor] also suggests larger resources and a deeper reality than appears on the surface,” seems to indicate this direction. Is the “deeper reality” simply internal (immanent) or is it external (transcendent) as well? And the closing paragraph seems to lean into incarnation with Bellow’s quote: “On the knees of your soul? Might as well be useful. Scrub the floor.” Is Penrod suggesting that the deeper reality (God?) is enfleshed in everyday life by human action?

I would suggest a different motto for Penrod: “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.” This is a response that Freud is said to have given when questioned what he, unconsciously, might be expressing by smoking cigars. This motto leaves us with a question: When is a cigar just a cigar and when is it not? — not only in Freudian terms (i.e., when is it not an expression of the unconscious?) but in theological terms as well, (i.e., when is it an expression of the transcendent, of grace?). And what difference does that make to the man who wants the salt from his father? Dennis Moon, Granby, Connecticut.