Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 30, 1975)
editorial opinion pQ Barrage of boxes, bears bothers baffled student Editor's cote: Jim Neal is a junior majoring in broadcasting. I'm being watched. Surveillance started Tuesday when I pulled into lot "X". For the fourth time in less than a week, my car lost the battle against the mud and ice and settled down to rest until after classes. There was a conspiracy brewing. I thought I saw a bear peering around the corner of the Women's P.E. Building, but I shrugged it off. Possibly the after-effects of too many pie-in-the face gorilla commercials. My Tuesday migration includes warm-up stops in the Coliseum and Bessey Hall. On the coldest days I add a trek through Oldfather Hall. It was one of the coldest days. As I entered Oldfather, I thought I heard clicking shutters. Someone, somewhere, was compiling information. I wondered if they had the serial numbers of the comic books I'd stolen in 1959. I made it past the elevators without incident. Then, crouching outside the north exit, appeared a bear. Quickly he was flanked by a dozen others. Odd, moving boxes made up a second offensive, and behind them, a score of bright-eyed pamphlet-pushers waited. Avery Lab seemed far away. I was one against many. But they'd been so certain of my path that the south exit was unguarded. I made a fast left and dashed through the door, just as a box cried out, "Josh, Josh!" All the boxes joined in, with the bears growling in bass. A score of hands flew out clutching a score of pamphlets. Remembering all I'd learned from Combat re-runs, I zig-zagged past the bike racks, just missing a bear who'd been hiding behind a bush. "I'm saved!" I cried, as I vaulted the last bike rack. "Not until you give back the comic books!", growled the bear, as the Avery Lab - door shut between us. They'd infiltrated my class. The blackboard proclaimed "Sex: 111." Something didn't, add up. I decided that something was Josh. As the instructor droned, the little blonde sunbeam behind me whispered, "Come to Josh, honey," in my ear. I succeeded in ignoring her, only to be diverted by a bear peering in the window. Then the bell rang, and I headed toward the student union for lunch, aware that it was pamphlet-pusher headquarters. It didn't matter to me. I headed into the Lion's Den. The fountain was ringed with a thousand pamphlet-eers. A hundred bears danced with a hundred boxes chanting, "Josh, Josh, Josh!" And lo, the fountain burst forth with showers of wine, deep red and streaming from the cold. A tall figure robed in black appeared at the edge of the fountain. As he raised his hands for silence, I was reminded of Harry Nilsson in Son of Dracula. The man dove into the fountain and backstroked twice around the pool. As he began to dog-paddle a drunken third lap, the urgency of the situation hit me in the tace. Wiping it off, 1 knew what I had to do. I had to get my car out of the mud. feir f rx. m '"WW Irk w"f BBfc I 51 BOOOTE 1 POOR DEVIL , HE NEVER HAD A CHANCE. i Dear editor: Josh McDowell's publicity campaign was intriguing and effective. In spite of the apparent many who were offended by its ominpresence, it accomplished the desired end by stimulating the University community toward Christian consideration. I applaud those involved. However, for me all the fanfare came to naught when I witnessed Mr. McDowell autographing a young man's Bible when leaving the Union Monday afternoon. It would appear that all the zeal of the promoters of Josh's "campaign" merely served to glorify the man himself and not the One he claims to serve. Christian disillusioned with Josh Editorial deserves "F" Dear editor: Wes Albcrs should have read Bruce Neison's opinion on the facing page before he wrote his editorial on Josh McDowell (Daily Nebraskan, Jan. 27) "Attacking the man," said Nelson, "and not his argument is a logical fallacy for which you would fail any philosophy class." Therefore, Mr. Albers, your editorial deserves an "F Joanne DcMuth Serious look Dear editor: The letters defending Josh may lead one to believe that an effective repudiation of the resurrection is not possible. I will grant that the resurrection cannot be disproven, but neither can it be proven. For a serious look at the other side, of the story, based upon the Bible, I suggest a book entitled The Passover Plot. Mr. Albers' editorial did not question the content of Josh McDowell's speech, as many of his supporters contend. The article questioned only the legality of presenting such a message where it was presented and the way in which it was crammed down everyone's throat. Dave Rovang No collection taken Dear editor: I would like to comment on your editorial which appeared in the Daily Nebraskan on Jan. 27 entitled "Josh showmanship is entertaining but empty." hirst ot all, 1 agree that many students treated Josh as if he were the Messiah himself. But I believe many promoted his lectures out of real caring, hoping some students would come and have their lives changed for the better. You said leaflets were crammed into unwilling hands. I don't think all those hands were unwilling-there was quite a turnout for Josh's Sunday night lecture in the Union. You complained about seeing promotions for Josh on your classroom blackboards. OK, why are so many people promoting the Christian movement? Maybe they've found a great way of life and want others to know about it. Finally, how can you call Josh McDowell a "Madison Avenue Messiah"-giving the impression that he's out for his own gain? There was no collection taken. Jeff James Exaggeration and sarcasm Dear editor: In reading your editorial "Josh . . . entertaining, but empty" I found myself raising my eyebrows and shaking my head in disbelief. If gross exaggerations and sarcasm are the only methods you can incorporate to rebuke Josh, I doubt that your case is factually grounded, but rather a case of immaturity and, as Josh said Sunday night, "insecurity." Over three-fourths of your editorial dealt with the publicity for Josh. You make the accusation that Josh is "entertaining but empty" then spend all your time generalizing, exaggerating and making snide, sarcastic remarks about the publicity, saying nothing about his lecture content or his "showmanship." It is to be taken for granted that because you, Mr. Editor, didn't like the campaign that Josh and his message are empty? It's curious too, that I found no "Josh-ites" shouting antagonistically from every street corner on campus, nor did I get anything crammed into my hands. In fact, I even asked for a leaflet on Josh for the time of his lecture Sunday. I wanted to go. I'll have to agree with you, Mr. Editor, on one point-Josh's lectures was empty . . . empty as far as the devices you used to try to belittle him, leaving it full or straight-forward, cold, hard facts. I challenge you as did Josh-fight him with the same. Dan Howard Cynic misrepresented Dear editor: In response to the editorial by Bruce Nelson (Fanaticism: hold your breath, pinch your nostrils"), we are wondering what this article has to do . with answering Mr. Davy. First of all, how can Mr. Nelson judge the value of Mr. Davy's advice without hearing Josh. Obviously, Nelson made his judgement before hearing the presentation. This shows his narrow-mindedness, as he refuses to judge Mr. Davy's advice objectively. His editorial shows very little logic or rationality because of this premature judgment. All in all, we found the article entertaining as a book review, but lacking as a coherent and logically-founded editorial. With Mr. Nelson's expertise, his talents are certainly being wasted by the Daily Nebraskan. He should be the head of the literary criticism section (perhaps one could be created just for him) because he is obviously being misrepresented as an editorialist. John C. McQuinn Douglas L. L. Meranda Knowledge, not belief Dear editor: I am not a deeply religious man, nor am I an advocate of the devil. But I would like to take issue with Bruce Nelson's editorial of Jan. 27. He seems to be a very learned man by all respects, especially in the biblical philosophers. But it seems to me that he has overlooked some concepts which would be helpful to himself and others. He states that a Christian intellectual is a contradiction in terms. Why? Intellectualism implies knowledge, not belief. May I point to such men as Teilhard De Chardin, Thoreau, Wordsworth, and to an extent Emerson, who were all intellectuals, and yet had a profound belief in a supreme being. Christianity and intellectualism seem to contradict only when one cannot decide which is to come first. Mr. Nelson states later on that the best way to read Schaeffer is to play the substitution game. I have only a few comments here. Francis Schaeffer is perhaps the best read at first with an open, inquisitive mind, then with skeptical outlook, but lastly with the substitution game. All the substitution game shows to me is that the name "God" may be interposed with any other appellative and the concept of the being remains the same. God is not a noun, but a verb. (R. Buckminister Fuller). John Kamp thursday, january 30, 1975 daily nebraskan page 5