In our time of confusion and widespread ignorance of the Bible many churches have become interested in programs for more effective Bible teaching to their members. We understand that a number of our churches have adopted for that purpose and used with considerable enthusiasm The Bethel Series. While effective ways to encourage more thorough Bible study are to be welcomed, our attention has also been called to some criticism of important weaknesses and dangers in this material.

The series originated in a large Lutheran church and, although used by many denominations, has been especially popular among Lutherans. It is therefore the more readily understandable that it has been critically discussed in the Lutheran Christian News (July 28, 1975; Sept. 6, 1976). The criticisms point out that at the very beginning the material pointedly leaves the door open for evolution by its insistence that “THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE IS RELIGIOUS IN THRUST NOT SCIENTIFIC” (p. 3), interpreting the account to say little more than “Creation is good!” It is observed that man’s creation in the image of God is given “fuzzy” treatment. With a few derogatory warnings against “a wooden literalism,” the treatment of the Fall is weak and stresses “disharmony” rather than “sin,” although sin is mentioned, “total depravity” and “original sin” are conspicuously absent. And the question is raised “1. Was Adam an individual in historical antiquity or does Adam imply corporate humanity?” While Genesis 3:15 gets passing and vague treatment and the “flood account” is bypassed with a line, we are told that “God’s Plan for Triumph Began With a Covenant/Genesis 12:1–3,” made with Abraham. We are told that “The great event in Israel’s early history . . . took place . . . when God found a man called Abram and placed in his hands a destiny which was designed to change the course of events in heaven and on earth.” We are told that “even among imperfect men, God found those who won his special favor. (Gen. 5:21–24; Gen. 6:7–9; 7:1). The Scripture suggests that the positions of leadership went to those men, who, in spite of their weaknesses, demonstrated strength of character which permitted God to depend upon them to carry the destiny forward” (p. 30). Note the series’ emphasis on human initiative and merit instead of the Biblical stress of God’s sovereignty. Attention is called to the curious treatment of some messianic prophecy. “1. A major prophetic theme in the Old Testament narrative has not been discussed; namely, the suffering servant motif. In your opinion does the servant refer to an individual; to the Hebrew nation as a whole; or to all three? Note: Is. 42:1–7; 49:1-6; 52:1–15; 53:1–12” (p. 116). It is also evident that the writer of this material simply assumes the common Liberal notion of 2 Isaiahs for he speaks of “Deutero-Isaiah as exilic and post exilic” (p. 120).

Although the Bethel Series is attractive and includes material which invites our hearty agreement, a consideration of the criticism that has been brought against it and of the way in which the series plainly gives grounds for that criticism suggests that our readers should be warned of its deficiencies and errors. We may often be able to profitably use materials that have weaknesses, but the weaknesses in this case are not incidental; they are serious enough to warrant an extra word of caution.