Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 20
January 2, 1969
NUMBER 34, PAGE 7

Reviewing The Reviewer

(In the Discipliana for January, 1968, David Edwin Harrell made the following rejoinder to Dr. Owen's "review" of his Reed Lecture discourse.)

David Edwin Harrell, Jr.

With considerable reluctance I enter the bloody arena of reviewing the reviewer. I do so only because of the studied conviction that Dr. George Earle Owen's "review" of the 1966 Reed lectures in the last issue of Discipliana is much more rebuttal than review. Dr. Owen does not tell the content of my lecture (which is an explanation of why I hold the convictions that I do), his review is simply an attack on what I believe.

Aside from the intimation that my lecture is simply a bigoted statement of exclusiveness, Dr. Owen misrepresents my presentation at several points. He writes: "There are a number of vulnerable aspects to this lecture. There is the fear of exposure to what others think." (p. 51). I deny that I am afraid of what "others think," and I affirm that both my presence on the Reed lecture program and the content of my lecture prove that I am neither "afraid" of nor unaware of what "others think."

Dr. Owen further states: "The peculiar people want to be 'peculiar people.' The way to Christian unity is to become peculiar like they are." (p. 51). This is Dr. Owen's opinion; it is not mine. I state precisely the opposite. I do not believe that all men will ever unite on one form of religious expression. My study has convinced me that people's religious needs are individual and that diversity is the natural religious condition; I believe that the Bible sustains this view.

Dr. Owen simply cannot conceive that a rational person would disagree with his world view. He asks: "How can one who claims objectivity in research study church history and seemingly be oblivious to the historical nature and development of the Christian Church?" A great deal of my lecture deals with the "historical nature and development of the Christian Church;" am I really "seemingly oblivious" to history? I believe that the experience of the past shows the futility of the modern ecumenical movement, but does that mean I am ignorant of the past? But, in truth, this is the crux of Dr. Owen's inability to fairly present my position. He does not understand how an intelligent person can believe something contrary to his deep convictions on the subject of Christian unity, which means, of course, that Dr. Owen must not only have difficulty understanding me but also millions of other religious conservatives of assorted varieties.

I must add that I believe that I "understand" Dr. Owen's point of view. I appreciate his warmth, his love for mankind, and his noble aspirations; I think I understand the sociological and historical roots of such a mind. I regard Ronald Osborn as highly as does Dr. Owen, both as a scholar and a man of conviction and honor. Nor does this diminish my own literalistic faith and exclusive view of salvation in the least. If some reader wonders how I could reconcile these two points of view, my contribution to the 1966 Reed lectures is an attempt to answer just that question.