18 March, 2024

Letters to the Editor (archived)

Features

by | 3 September, 2010 | 0 comments

We always appreciate hearing from our readers. In the future, we would like to encourage readers to respond in the comment boxes after the articles. We are looking forward to reading your comments!

‘I Find His Comment Offensive’
(posted 8-31-10)
I really appreciated the August 1 edition of your magazine, but a big red flag did pop up when I read Ryan Connor”s article (“Burnout in Ministry”). He said, “Ministers often enter the ministry with a need to compensate for personal hang-ups” (p. 5). Thankfully, the ministers I have known over the years chose ministry because they wanted to serve and give God their best. I have no knowledge of any ministers who entered the ministry for the reason Connor cites. Maybe Connor has seen some struggling preachers who chose ministry for the wrong reasons. We need more Christian counselors [like Connor] and I don”t mean to nitpick, but as a minister I find his comment offensive. As the article noted, preachers are having a hard enough time as it is””we don”t need our congregations wondering what personal hang-up we are trying to cover up because we are in ministry.
“”Buddy Harris
Via e-mail

The ‘Disciplines’ Are Effective
(posted 8-31-10)
I just finished reading “Beyond the Misguided Spiritual Disciplines” from the July 18/25, 2010, CHRISTIAN STANDARD for about the 10th time and I must confess, I can”t remember the last time I saw so much ignorance contained in one article. Brian Jones”s article is truly “misguided” in the most frightening way. To begin with, he criticizes the discipline of worship because of the ways an erring worship leader defined worship as music and singing. I fail to see the connection. He then says that “worship can”t be “˜turned on” . . . Christians are continually worshiping 24/7″ Really? If they are, then they are indeed practicing this “misguided” discipline in a perfect way. If they are not (as a casual look at the life of most Christians on Monday mornings will show), it seems they could use some education in this discipline so they can live up to Jones”s standard.

He then moves on to Bible study. Jones is at a loss to “imagine what it would have been like to be a Christian without a Bible.” After all, he says, Christians didn”t have their New Testament until “300 years after Jesus returned to Heaven” (I will not even discuss the problems with Jones”s claim that “we didn”t have the New Testament in its complete form until AD 367 when Bishop Athanasious of Alexandria listed all its 27 books for the first time”). Apparently the New Testament is the only part of the Bible worthy of being called a Bible. Jones has completely discounted the Old Testament, whether in Hebrew or Greek. He is historically aware enough to realize most of the first-century world was illiterate, but apparently stopped reading his history book when it described the amazing ability of illiterate cultures to circulate accurately and study oral history. Even IF (and it”s a big if) the earliest Christians had absolutely no written accounts of Jesus, they had the oral accounts “passed on by eyewitnesses of the word” (Luke 1:2). I”m curious to know how one can be a Christian without knowing anything about the one they are imitating? The way that Jones assaults Bible study, perhaps he has found a way?

Jones finally discusses how spiritual growth does happen. It happens “as God makes himself known to us, in spite of what we try to do, not because of it.” Wow. For someone who hates spiritual disciplines, that statement sounds just like many in the works of Dallas Willard or Richard Foster. These men (and dozens of others who write on the subject) NEVER suggest the disciplines will automatically manufacture a closer relationship with God (as if they were an ex oepre operato sacrament), but merely that they are tools that thousands of Christians over thousands of years have used to help them grow closer to God, as a hammer will help construct a shed (but will not build the shed!).

That the disciplines are, in fact, effective is seen in what Jones lists as, “the major culprits in my spiritual development.” He says, “God nudged me to get away and listen.” That sounds an awful like the disciplines of solitude and silence. Must not be, those disciplines are too misguided. He also mentions, “A friends rebuke.” Wow, that sounds like the discipline of fellowship. Must be some mistake.

Jones lists other things to be sure, but again, no one ever claimed the traditional disciplines were the only way to get close to God. It sounds to me like Jones depends on these disciplines more than he would like to admit. But, then again, perhaps I”m misguided.
“”Anthony Smith
Ocala, Florida

‘Somewhat Surprised’
(posted 8-31-10)
(This letter is in response to Jack Cottrell”s article The Tyranny of the Paradigm [Part 1])“ from the issue of July 18/25.)

While reflections on the challenges posed by looking at science or theology through a predetermined ideological lens (“paradigm”) are useful and necessary, and several of the examples provided by Jack Cottrell are sound examples, I was somewhat surprised to find Calvinism listed among the paradigms that cloud people”s minds. I know of few other doctrines whose adherents had previously been as adamantly opposed prior to being convinced of its presence throughout Scripture. Indeed, one of today”s leading popular advocates of Calvinism, Dr. R.C. Sproul, has been very open about his past hatred for what are known as the doctrines of grace, and his story much tracks with mine. Neither he nor I nor countless others would have any inclination toward these doctrines were they not so persistently taught throughout Scripture.

Many attacks on Calvinism focus on soteriology, the nature of salvation, as that is for many the hardest area in which to accept the sovereignty of God. We all want to think we had a hand in choosing God, but such passages as Romans 3:27 and Ephesians 2:9 emphasize the inability of any to boast in their salvation, as it was not by their actions or choice that they were saved. Romans 9 deals in depth with challenges to Calvinism such as, “Isn”t God being unfair in choosing some and not choosing others?” (v. 14) and “How can God then judge humanity? Aren”t we just doing what he decreed in eternity past?” (v. 19). John 6:44 declares absolutely that no one comes to Christ unless drawn by the Father, and verses such as 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4 point to the inability of the unregenerate sinner to comprehend, much less accept the things of God.
“”Richard Pennertz
Litchfield, Minnesota

‘Living Organism’
(posted 8-20-10)
Sorry, but I believe we already have too many “corporate practices” in the church to be urged to adopt even more (“Why Some Corporate Practices Should Have a Home in the Church,” CHRISTIAN STANDARD, August 29).

The authors take issue with John Piper”s astute assessment, “Professionalism has nothing to do with the essence and heart of the Christian ministry,” and proceed to offer several suggestions of “common corporate practices that should have a place in the church.” The only Scripture cited (twice) for justification was Colossians 3:23, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord.” Amen to that apostolic admonition in every walk of life. But I fail to see how that passage, written to Christian slaves in the Roman empire, paves the way for “corporate practices” like “annual reviews,” “performance reviews,” and “strategic thinking habits” in the church.

The church is a living organism, not a business corporation. Working diligently for the Lord with all our heart does not require a CEO or running the church like a Wall Street entity. Business models often crash and burn but the gates of Hell have not prevailed against the divine church for 2,000 years. And never will.
–Victor Knowles
Joplin, Missouri

 

 

 

‘Puzzling’
(posted 8-20-10)
I’ve been reading CHRISTIAN STANDARD for over 45 years, and I love it. I found a couple of comments in the August 15 issue to be puzzling. I get the impression that Terrence O”Casey is implying that because some women saw Jesus and went to tell the disciples, somehow that means women are supposed to have the same roles in the church as men (See “Myth Busting“). Well, if that was what the apostles thought and is what they instituted in the early church, then church historians are surely unaware of it. Maybe O”Casey knows some history that nobody else knows!

Then, if I understand him correctly, Paul Williams compares a group of atheists in New York to a group of ministers in flyover country, and he finds their views to be equally frightening (see “Fundamentalism Is Fundamentalism“). Incredible. I am certain I’d feel much more comfortable with the values and beliefs of the ministers than the atheists.
“”Lance Alter
Via e-mail

Baptism and Rebirth
(posted 8-20-10)
I appreciate the contributions of Jeff Faull, John Mark Hicks, and Teresa Welch in the area of baptism (August 8 and 15). As a minister in the Christian church for nearly 30 years, I have wrestled along with other parents in knowing at what point a child is “ready” to be baptized and trying to understand the gap that exists between the age of innocence and the age of accountability. It is apparent from the authors that the precise age cannot be defined across the board.

Perhaps a model from the biological world may be of some help. We pride ourselves as standing in the camp of being pro-life. That is, we would argue life does not begin at birth but at conception. The time prior to the birth event is viewed as viable life for the baby. During that nine-month period the life grows and matures until it is “ready” to enter the world. The pains of the mother usher that child into a new phase of life. You cannot have a birth without a conception. Yet that birth is essential for life to continue.

As pro-lifers, we argue that the life of the unborn is just as real and sacred as the life that has successfully navigated the event of birth. If a child should die in the womb, we mourn the lose of a human being, not an “it.” The child is given a name. There often is a funeral service involved. We experience the typical stages of grief. We recognize that the child did indeed experience life, albeit short. When an unborn child successfully reaches full maturity in the womb and breaks through the birth canal, we celebrate that child”s transition into a new life, so to speak. Yet, we recognize that one hour before the birth, that child was still sacred and was indeed the same human, only in a “different” place. For while we celebrate the day of birth, we understand that life actually began months before. Just as in the physical realm, so it would seem to be in the spiritual realm . . . for there to be a birth, there must first be a time when that faith was first conceived.
However, in the Restoration churches we tend to view spiritual life as beginning at birth (baptism) not at the point of conception (faith). Dare I suggest that spiritual life should be considered as a process that includes conception (the planted seed of faith), gestation (growth and development), birth (baptism), and then a post-birth life (discipleship)?

In a declaration to Nicodemus, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” Was Jesus speaking of a specific event or a process? I would suggest the latter. Only God knows the heart when that gospel seed actually germinates and begins to take shape in the spiritual womb. Only God knows what is in the heart of the one who grows and matures to a place when that spiritual birth takes place.

Our movement historically has argued that spiritual life begins at the moment of our baptism. We rightfully refer to it as being “born again.” I would suggest that perhaps we need to take a lesson from the pro-life movement and recognize the process of life that takes place from conception to birth and beyond. This idea neither adds nor subtracts from the baptism experience.

“For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23).
“”Chuck Hochmuth
Lowell, Indiana

‘Let the Little Children Come’
(posted 8-20-10)
Thank you for addressing baptism of children and the age of accountability (see the issues of August 8 and 15). I recently attended the baptism of a baby in a Catholic church. The deacon who baptized the baby gave a brief talk that included the analogy of going to an amusement park and seeing signs that say, “You must be this tall to ride.” There is no such instruction in Scripture. In fact, he also cited the Scripture, “Let the little children come unto me.” I found myself identified in his talk with the disciples who prevented the children from coming. An illustration does not prove a case, however I wonder if we can find Scripture that firmly establishes our position(s) on this subject in the Christian church. I have left the final decision in the hands of the parents and have baptized children as young as 6.
–Ralph Mehrens
Via e-mail

‘Our Own Paradigm’
(posted 8-20-10)
Professor Jack Cottrell writes an interesting article (“The Tyranny of the Paradigm [Part 1],” July 18/25). A paradigm may be defined as a theoretical system. When such a system hardens into a dogma and its adherents refuse to change in response to new evidence or changing circumstances, it causes problems. Cottrell”s essay is based on a passage (pp. 344-57) in Michael Denton”s book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which is sharply critical of Darwinism as matching this pattern. One of the main “horrible examples” of the pattern that Denton presents is geocentrism, the theory popular among the ancient Greeks and in medieval Europe that the earth is the center of the universe and all other objects in the heavens revolve around it.

Denton may have gone too far. A paradigm is not necessarily bad. It can provide a group of people with a sense of community, a shared outlook and purpose, doctrine, and guide. It can be the basis for a living and enduring tradition. It goes bad only when it prevents its adherents from correcting, or even recognizing, its flaws.

As an amateur astronomer, I”m particularly attentive to Denton”s sharp criticism of geocentrism. People in late medieval and early modern Europe had some justification for holding to this paradigm. To many people, it was self-evident. They pictured the universe as the earth surrounded by the heavens. They saw all heavenly objects move across the sky. When one dropped an object, it seemed to be drawn to the center of the earth. Again, the theory was familiar, traditional. It had been taught by the ancient Greeks, from whom Europe acquired much of its early learning. Aristotle, whom they called in reverence “The Philosopher.” had said (Guthrie translation): “The earth does not move, neither does it lie anywhere but at the centre,” Even some Bible passages seemed to support it (for example, Psalm 19:4b-6; Psalm 104:5; and Ecclesiastes 1:5). People were happy with a view of the world that placed the earth, the habitation of man, in the center. The geocentrists were mistaken, and unwisely clung to their paradigm in the face of contrary facts, but I”m inclined to sympathize with them, even as I move on with the majority.

We Christians (which Denton apparently is not) should remember we also have our own paradigm, the Christian faith. This is an example of a good paradigm. We can be thankful that, because it is God-centered, it stands firm. It will not grow old or become obsolete.
“”Don Etz
Via e-mail

More than Talkers
(posted 8-20-10)
(This letter was written in response to the August 15 Bible School Lesson written by Rick D. Walston entitled, “Living in the Future””Philippians 3:4-16.” In the subject line, the letter writer wrote “Refreshing Lesson””Rated A+.”)

This summation of the lesson was to the point, captured the historical view, and gave a present-day application. It is this aspect that I enjoyed. We are to make Christ real inside of ourselves by the in-working of the Holy Spirit. We will be doers rather than just talkers.
“”Jim Strickling
Via e-mail

 

”Grace Period”
(This letter was written in response to “Children and Baptism: In Search of a New Model, Part 1“ by Teresa Welch, which appeared in the August 8 issue.)

Since we do not know the exact age of accountability, due to the limitations of our knowledge in this area, we fear a child who might die before being baptized to be lost. This fear may be unwarranted, even though I am a firm believer that baptism is essential for salvation. Our God is a gracious and loving God; perhaps within his grace there is a grace period between birth and adulthood. We believe children who are mentally challenged fall under God”s grace if they are not able to comprehend the need for baptism. A child who stands before God and falls within the grace period, which only God can know by looking into their heart, will not be held accountable and will be accepted into his presence. Neither will we be held accountable for them because of God”s grace. We simply need to encourage young people to be baptized by teaching them, “Why?” which is the question I always ask. When they are able to give an answer that reveals they understand they are sinners and need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin, action then needs to be taken.
“”Arlie Reed
Eldorado, Illinois


More than Talkers
(This letter was written in response to the August 15 Bible School Lesson written by Rick D. Walston entitled, “Living in the Future””Philippians 3:4-16.” In the subject line, the letter writer wrote “Refreshing Lesson””Rated A+.”)

This summation of the lesson was to the point, captured the historical view, and gave a present-day application. It is this aspect that I enjoyed. We are to make Christ real inside of ourselves by the in-working of the Holy Spirit. We will be doers rather than just talkers.
“”Jim Strickling
Via e-mail


“Our Own Paradigm”
Professor Jack Cottrell writes an interesting article (“The Tyranny of the Paradigm [Part 1],” July 18/25). A paradigm may be defined as a theoretical system. When such a system hardens into a dogma and its adherents refuse to change in response to new evidence or changing circumstances, it causes problems. Cottrell”s essay is based on a passage (pp. 344-57) in Michael Denton”s book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, which is sharply critical of Darwinism as matching this pattern. One of the main “horrible examples” of the pattern that Denton presents is geocentrism, the theory popular among the ancient Greeks and in medieval Europe that the earth is the center of the universe and all other objects in the heavens revolve around it.

Denton may have gone too far. A paradigm is not necessarily bad. It can provide a group of people with a sense of community, a shared outlook and purpose, doctrine, and guide. It can be the basis for a living and enduring tradition. It goes bad only when it prevents its adherents from correcting, or even recognizing, its flaws.

As an amateur astronomer, I”m particularly attentive to Denton”s sharp criticism of geocentrism. People in late medieval and early modern Europe had some justification for holding to this paradigm. To many people, it was self-evident. They pictured the universe as the earth surrounded by the heavens. They saw all heavenly objects move across the sky. When one dropped an object, it seemed to be drawn to the center of the earth. Again, the theory was familiar, traditional. It had been taught by the ancient Greeks, from whom Europe acquired much of its early learning. Aristotle, whom they called in reverence “The Philosopher.” had said (Guthrie translation): “The earth does not move, neither does it lie anywhere but at the centre,” Even some Bible passages seemed to support it (for example, Psalm 19:4b-6; Psalm 104:5; and Ecclesiastes 1:5). People were happy with a view of the world that placed the earth, the habitation of man, in the center. The geocentrists were mistaken, and unwisely clung to their paradigm in the face of contrary facts, but I”m inclined to sympathize with them, even as I move on with the majority.

We Christians (which Denton apparently is not) should remember we also have our own paradigm, the Christian faith. This is an example of a good paradigm. We can be thankful that, because it is God-centered, it stands firm. It will not grow old or become obsolete.
“”Don Etz
Via e-mail


Let the Little Children Come
Thank you for addressing baptism of children and the age of accountability (see the issues of August 8 and 15). I recently attended the baptism of a baby in a Catholic church. The deacon who baptized the baby gave a brief talk tha included the analogy of going to an amusement park and seeing signs that say, “You must be this tall to ride.” There is no such instruction in Scripture. In fact, he also cited the Scripture, “Let the little children come unto me.” I found myself identified in his talk with the disciples who prevented the children from coming. An illustration does not prove a case, however I wonder if we can find Scripture that firmly establishes our position(s) on this subject in the Christian church. I have left the final decision in the hands of the parents and have baptized children as young as 6.
“”Ralph Mehrens
Via e-mail

Baptism and Rebirth
I appreciate the contributions of Jeff Faull, John Mark Hicks, and Teresa Welch in the area of baptism (August 8 and 15). As a minister in the Christian church for nearly 30 years, I have wrestled along with other parents in knowing at what point a child is “ready” to be baptized and trying to understand the gap that exists between the age of innocence and the age of accountability. It is apparent from the authors that the precise age cannot be defined across the board.

Perhaps a model from the biological world may be of some help. We pride ourselves as standing in the camp of being pro-life. That is, we would argue life does not begin at birth but at conception. The time prior to the birth event is viewed as viable life for the baby. During that nine-month period the life grows and matures until it is “ready” to enter the world. The pains of the mother usher that child into a new phase of life. You cannot have a birth without a conception. Yet that birth is essential for life to continue.

As pro-lifers, we argue that the life of the unborn is just as real and sacred as the life that has successfully navigated the event of birth. If a child should die in the womb, we mourn the lose of a human being, not an “it.” The child is given a name. There often is a funeral service involved. We experience the typical stages of grief. We recognize that the child did indeed experience life, albeit short. When an unborn child successfully reaches full maturity in the womb and breaks through the birth canal, we celebrate that child”s transition into a new life, so to speak. Yet, we recognize that one hour before the birth, that child was still sacred and was indeed the same human, only in a “different” place. For while we celebrate the day of birth, we understand that life actually began months before. Just as in the physical realm, so it would seem to be in the spiritual realm . . . for there to be a birth, there must first be a time when that faith was first conceived.

However, in the Restoration churches we tend to view spiritual life as beginning at birth (baptism) not at the point of conception (faith). Dare I suggest that spiritual life should be considered as a process that includes conception (the planted seed of faith), gestation (growth and development), birth (baptism), and then a post-birth life (discipleship)?

In a declaration to Nicodemus, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” Was Jesus speaking of a specific event or a process? I would suggest the latter. Only God knows the heart when that gospel seed actually germinates and begins to take shape in the spiritual womb. Only God knows what is in the heart of the one who grows and matures to a place when that spiritual birth takes place.

Our movement historically has argued that spiritual life begins at the moment of our baptism. We rightfully refer to it as being “born again.” I would suggest that perhaps we need to take a lesson from the pro-life movement and recognize the process of life that takes place from conception to birth and beyond. This idea neither adds nor subtracts from the baptism experience.

“For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” (1 Peter 1:23).
“”Chuck Hochmuth
Lowell, Indiana


“Puzzling”
I’ve been reading CHRISTIAN STANDARD for over 45 years, and I love it. I found a couple of comments in the August 15 issue to be puzzling. I get the impression that Terrence O”Casey is implying that because some women saw Jesus and went to tell the disciples, somehow that means women are supposed to have the same roles in the church as men (See “Myth Busting”). Well, if that was what the apostles thought and is what they instituted in the early church, then church historians are surely unaware of it. Maybe O”Casey knows some history that nobody else knows!

Then, if I understand him correctly, Paul Williams compares a group of atheists in New York to a group of ministers in flyover country, and he finds their views to be equally frightening (see “Fundamentalism Is Fundamentalism”). Incredible. I am certain I’d feel much more comfortable with the values and beliefs of the ministers than the atheists.
“”Lance Alter
Via e-mail


“Living Organism”
Sorry, but I believe we already have too many “corporate practices” in the church to be urged to adopt even more (“Why Some Corporate Practices Should Have a Home in the Church” CHRISTIAN STANDARD 8/29). The authors take issue with John Piper’s astute assessment, “Professionalism has nothing to do with the essence and heart of the Christian ministry,” and proceed to offer several suggestions of “common corporate practices that should have a place in the church.” The only Scripture cited (twice) for justification was Colossians 3:23, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord.” Amen to that apostolic admonition in every walk of life. But I fail to see how that passage, written to Christian slaves in the Roman empire, paves the way for “corporate practices”  like “annual reviews,” “performance reviews,” and “strategic thinking habits” in the church. The church is a living organism, not a business corporation. Working diligently for the Lord with all our heart does not require a CEO or running the church like a Wall Street entity. Business models often crash and burn but the gates of hell have not prevailed against the divine church for 2,000 years. And never will.
–Victor Knowles
Joplin, Missouri

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Features

Follow Us