Hoping 'Victims' Will Get a Laugh!
(posted 2-8-10)
I just read Paul S. Williams’s “Suffering Through False Promises” from February 7. I loved every word of it! My hope is that the victims of never-ending talkers get a laugh, especially at the end. And more importantly, I hope that those who are long-winded will be convicted of their “social sin.”
Thanks again for bringing me such joy this morning!
—James Clay Kuhl
Concord, North Carolina

Beware Giving Credibility to 'False Doctrines'
(posted 2-8-10)
I have been reading and rereading the article “Provoking Change” by Brandon Smith in the January 3 CHRISTIAN STANDARD. I am not arguing that the concept as presented (i.e., “a conference focusing on the next generation of church leaders”) is either incorrect or a bad thing. In fact, the issues discussed are issues we as Christians should be aware of and implementing. The issue I would like to address is one of credibility.

In the same issue, beginning on page 8, is an article by Victor Knowles entitled “Still Our Motto!” addressing “Union in Truth”; it calls attention to the 200th anniversary of the Declaration and Address by Thomas Campbell. Having been actively involved in “Restoration” churches for more than 35 years, I have seen our Restoration Plea erode to the point that most involved do not see a difference in us and “other” denominations. Sad.

Jesus warns us to watch for those who would turn us away from the truth as it is taught us. Paul, in his letters beginning with Romans, warns us over and over again to beware of those teaching false doctrines. These letters were written exclusively to Christians describing how we should live our lives and become better Christians. When we let our guard down we are jeopardizing our very salvation.

There are many “false doctrines” floating around, but to me, one of the most dangerous promotes “you believe what you want to believe, I’ll believe what I want to believe, and I’ll see you in Heaven.” I’ve not found this in MY Bible and I’d challenge anyone else to locate it in their Bible. It’s simply not there. Do you see now why I’m confused?

'Particularly Inspiring' Sunday School Lessons
(posted 2-8-10)
I am a frequent online reader of the CHRISTIAN STANDARD Sunday School Lesson and find these writings to be very helpful in my own study and preparation for teaching a Sunday School class in my local church each week. The lessons are usually concise, thought-provoking, and instructive in the interpretation of the subject Scripture passages. The lessons presented for January 10 and 31 of this year were particularly inspiring.
Thank you for this providing this feature on your Web site, and for enlisting faithful and fervent believers to prepare the lessons each week.
—Douglas Harrod
Athens, Tennessee

People Treasure Encouraging Notes
(posted 1-26-10)
I truly appreciated “The Lost Generation” by Chuck Booher (January 10). The millennial generation is, indeed, largely absent from our church. But I also must note, their parents are absent as well. I work in a small church in Washington state where the average weekly youth attendance is eight to 10 kids, whereas, when we have a special event such as a “lock-in,” we can see as many as 30. A handful of them are friends who attend other churches, but the majority either do not have a church home or claim ours as their church. The problem, as I see it, is their parents do not attend or the kids simply cannot get a ride. Perhaps we also need to take a look at how to get the parents of the millennials back into church as well.
—Brian Carter
Chehalis, Washington

People Treasure Encouraging Notes
(posted 1-22-10)
Thanks to Terrie Todd for the article “The Lost Art of Encouragement” in the January 17 issue. As a teacher, each year I have saved cards, letters, and drawings from my students. From those I choose a few special words of encouragement that I keep in a folder for “those” days when I need a pat on the back.

I have made a commitment to write two thank-you notes a day—to coworkers, students, parents, church volunteers, my spouse . . . the list can be endless. What this commitment has done is make me aware of the little and big jobs that are done for me and others on a daily basis.
—Glenda Ferguson
Paoli, Indiana

'We Need to Give Our Kids Answers'
(posted 1-15-10)
To help prevent our youth from leaving the church, “Reflections” columnist Chuck Booher believes the church should have been following the example of the television industry by making the necessary adjustments in its programming to keep youth coming back (“The Lost Generation,” January 10). Mr. Booher cited several sources for the problem and its remedy, but maybe he isn’t aware of a recent survey published in the book Already Gone by Ken Ham by Britt Beemer (Master Books, 2009).
 
This scientific survey of 1,000 young people, ages 20-29, is an eye-opener and a must-read for church leaders, teachers, and parents. The survey population consisted entirely of youth who were at one time faithful attendees of evangelical churches in America. The results revealed that only 11 percent of these churchgoing young people stopped going to church during college, but nearly 90 percent left during middle school or high school.
 
The survey sought reasons for the exodus and concludes that the bottom line was that kids can’t get honest answers from the church to the same questions that are being answered from secular sources. When kids see public school teachers, television, movies, and books give contradictory answers to what they read in their Bibles, they begin to have serious doubts that the church knows what it is talking about. The secular world has unflattering answers to the questions that kids ask, which the church tends to ignore: “Is the Bible true?” “Is truth relative?” “Is one religion just as good as another?” “Could God have used evolution?” “Is the earth billions of years old?” “Where did Cain get his wife?” “How do dinosaurs fit in with the Bible?” “How do fossils fit in with the Bible?” “How could Noah get all those animals on the Ark?” “How did the different races of people come about?” etc.
 
When these questions are asked, most of our church teachers and leaders are ill-equipped indeed. The best most of us can do is to tell our kids to “have faith in Jesus.” But anyone should know this is not good enough. When religious doubts become too burdensome people leave the church. The Already Gone survey revealed that 39.8 percent of the young people began to have doubts about the truthfulness of the Bible when they were in middle school. Another 43.7 percent had their first doubts in high school, and 10.6 percent had their first doubts during college.
 
The problem begins early, and so the solution should start early. But the solution to saving the “Lost Generation” is not in making adjustments to attract this generation. It is found in 1 Peter 3:15: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear.” We need to give our kids answers.
—Paul McDorman
Cincinnati, Ohio

A response from Chuck Booher: I want to thank you for your thoughtful response to my article. I agree 100 percent with what you are saying. We must provide answers to the questions that are arising in the hearts of the next generation.

I do think the solution to this issue is one we must come to grips with and take action on. I also think the problem is complex and needs to be approached with a strategy that takes the issues into account. Your solution is a vital one. I also think what I am sharing is a part of the strategy that cannot be overlooked.

Thank you again for your thoughts and I praise God you share this concern. In Christ, Chuck

Keillor Concerns
(posted 1-15-10)
Paul Williams’s “Laughing Our Way Toward a Balanced Life” (January 10) left me a bit disappointed. Yes, Garrison Keillor is humorous, but I am not so sure he “did not jettison his soul,” as you say.

My take is that his career of exposing and making fun of humanity, and Christians in particular, is not so balanced. Nonbelievers and nominal believers would never be drawn closer to Christ or his church by listening to 35 years of pointing out the hypocrisy of Lutherans or other churched folks.

Also, as I understand his political views, they are consistent with secular humanist philosophy. Maybe you can cite evidence for me that would change my opinion.
—Don Demas
Columbus, Indiana

Apply the Bereans' Test
(posted 1-15-10)
I appreciate the rich diversity of opinion among my fellow letter writers. Certainly there has been a sharp division among them over the value of Catalyst and similar conferences. Let me offer a simple suggestion to the skeptics (and I have never attended Catalyst, so I’ve no ax to grind). With Catalyst, or any event (or book, or movie, or seminar) that purports to be helpful, every attendee is responsible to be Berean (Acts 17:11, “. . . received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so”).
For all the Bereans knew, Paul might have been a charlatan, but he sure sounded good. When they thoroughly vetted what he said with Scripture, and discovered that his “new teaching” was biblically valid, they rejoiced.

Beyond that, even events that do not purport to offer redemptive truth may do so if they illustrate a biblical principle a different way. Who hasn’t been challenged in their Christian walk by a great work of secular literature?
 
There is certainly danger in following new teachings or methods that are not consistent with Scripture, but there is infinite creativity possible in harmony with Scripture (imagine trying to explain Bible Bowl to John or VBS to Paul). 
—Al Forthman
Gaithersburg, Maryland

Catalyst Is 'Highlight of the Year'
(posted 1-8-10)
Thank you CHRISTIAN STANDARD and Brandon Smith for the articles about the Catalyst conference (see the January 3 issue).

Every year our church buys the DVDs of the main sessions to share with our people, and the results have been overwhelmingly positive. Catalyst is challenging, life-changing, and I encourage churches that are looking to grow new leaders and develop their existing leaders make the investment to attend.
—Jeff Ratliff
Via e-mail

There Is a 'Simpler Approach'
(posted 1-8-10)
First, I apologize for being late in responding to LeRoy Lawson’s review of Marvin Bittinger’s book, The Faith Equation: One Mathematician’s Journey in Christianity (see “From Mathematics to Mystery,” November 29). No local libraries carry the book, so I finally ordered a copy. Then it took time for me to read it and understand the author’s objective and approach.

I was particularly interested in chapter 4, “The Probability of Prophecy,” and chapter 5, “Modeling Growth in Christian Evangelism.” I have a few concerns about both.

In chapter 4, the author asks, “How can I verify the reliability of the Bible?” He notes reasonably that one way is to review the fulfillment of prophecies given in the Bible. It seems that if a book contains n prophecies, of which x have been fulfilled, y have been proved wrong, and z remain to be seen, one can use the number of prophecies completed (x + y) to determine the probability that those remaining (z) will be fulfilled. Simply divide x by (x + y).

For example, if there are 2,500 prophecies in the Bible (Bittinger, p. 118), 2,000 of which have been fulfilled, and none proven wrong, then x/(x + y) = 1. The probability of the remaining 500 being fulfilled is very high.

Bittinger takes a different, and to me more complex, approach. He gives nine examples of biblical prophecy. The first, in Micah 5:2, prophesies that a ruler of Israel (presumably the Messiah) will come from Bethlehem in Judah (pp. 94-97). For this, Bittinger calculates two probabilities: first, the probability that someone claiming to be the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem rather than some other town in Israel (not just in Judah); then, the probability that this would occur some 700 years after the prophecy was given.

For the first probability, he obtains 1/1,000, assuming that there were 1,000 towns in Israel in Jesus’ time (not Micah’s). For the second, he obtains 1/1,400, based on a “time principle” (p. 93) which assumes that the probability of a prophesied event decreases in proportion to the number of years since it was made, in a ratio of 1/2t, until it is fulfilled. (I’m not sure how this works when a prophecy specifies the time interval to fulfillment. The calculations for Prophecy #2, Daniel 9:25-27, puzzled me.) He then multiplies these two probabilities, 1/1,000 x 1/1,400 to get 1/1,400,000, a very small random probability.

Regarding the first probability, even if God is assumed to be omitted, the fact that the prophecy is public knowledge must, in my opinion, significantly affect the probability of the event happening in Bethlehem. A person who claimed to be the Messiah would probably also claim to come from Bethlehem. Regarding the second probability, I see two possibilities. I can assume that every year is equally probable, or I can assume a finite number of years (n) in the future, the probability of the event happening in any one year being 1/n. As years pass and are eliminated from consideration, n decreases and this probability increases.

In sum, I prefer the simpler approach. Of course, using Bittinger’s approach and multiplying the probabilities of all 2,000 fulfilled prophecies, one would obtain an almost infinitesimal probability of randomness, effectively the same answer as the simpler approach.

In chapter 5, the author fitted exponential curves to historical data for world population (W), Christian world population (C), and evangelized population (E). (By “evangelized” he means having heard the gospel but not necessarily having responded to it.) His three curves, graphed (Fig. 5.2, p. 132), show the world being completely evangelized by a.d. 2033. By coincidence, this is exactly 2,000 years after a.d. 33, the year many commentators give for the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, as both Bittinger’s son and his coresearcher Sarkar pointed out (p. 136). I fear this will provide fuel for date-setters.

Bittinger himself concludes the chapter with a disclaimer on this point (p. 138), having noted some of the uncertainties involved. Of course, based on his analysis of Daniel 9:25 (pp. 98, 99), he counts 483 years from Artaxerxes’ authorization of Ezra’s trip (458 b.c.) to date the beginning of Jesus’ ministry to a.d. 24 instead of the more common a.d. 27 or a.d. 30.

I’m not convinced of the validity of either these curves or the dating. In the World Christian Encyclopedia (2nd ed., 2001, Table 5.1, columns 154-157), the last three data points (for 1980, 1990, and 2000) for percentage of the world evangelized suggest that the 100 percent mark won’t be reached before the end of this century. So far, I haven’t found support for his dating of Jesus’ ministry.

In conclusion, I can’t fault Bittinger’s faith, nor his eagerness to proclaim it. I do question his approach to demonstrating the reliability of the Bible. People without much mathematics background may be impressed by the numbers, but I doubt whether those with the necessary background will be. If there’s a simpler approach, it will probably convince more people. (LeRoy Lawson mentioned that he is one who lacks a math background. Did he ask anyone with this background to look over the book and give him an evaluation?)
—Donald Etz
Via e-mail

'Not What God Wants for His People'
(posted 1-4-10)
I have been a preacher since 1966, with ministries in several congregations and work in the public square. The way I look at the Restoration Movement is that it has moved 180 degrees from the time of Alexander Campbell. Brother Campbell wanted to be a part of the church universal and not be a part of a restrictive group as we are today. In today's Christian community, I read that many “well-known” preachers are starting to lean toward the “emerging church” direction of Eastern religious practices.

By joining with a group like Catalyst, we are “evolving” the church from its biblical foundation into a more modern, acceptable, compromising position (see “Provoking Change: A Review of Catayst Atlanta” and "Three Incentives for Joining the Movement," both by Brandon Smith, January 3). The way I see it is we need to read the New Testament and see how they practiced being Christian and follow it. We do not need to change anything but our own lives in following the Holy Spirit.

The church has changed over the centuries by the handling of man's own interests. And even today, we still feel we need to change the “original” church to fit modern society. That is not what God wants for his people. He wants us to be devoted to him and follow his directions and man’s. Is Catalyst what we need today, or do we need to seek God’s will in our lives and follow him? Judge for yourself. There is only one right way!
—Bill Parker
Via a-mail

File It Under 'Politics'
(posted 1-4-10)
I was shocked and extremely disappointed at your inclusion of the article “Christians, Politics, & Ethical Speech” by Thomas Scott Caulley (November 22). This article is divisive and runs counter to one of the goals of Standard as I have come to understand them (i.e., fostering unity among the brotherhood).

Mr. Caulley’s political position is so obvious as to be insulting. He only defends one side of the political arena, and, in the name of ethics, jumps into issues that are highly emotional and politically laced with deceit, corruption, and dishonesty on both sides of the fence. One has to question if he even begins to understand the intricacies of the issues that are being discussed and that will have an enormous impact on our country and our citizenship.

His suggestion that we turn off the radio and TV talk shows because of their half-truths and character assassination is evidence of his naiveté, since the same is true of the mainstream media. If we are going to have a handle on the truth (and that is very difficult to come by), we need to consult sources that tell both sides of the story, as he suggested. That cannot be limited to just CBS, NBC, NPR, etc. Those sources are just as slanted in one direction as talk shows may be in the other direction. Mr. Caulley has not even addressed the issues that we find on the state and local levels that need to be researched and resolved.

I certainly agree with him in that we must demand that our elected leaders have integrity and truthfulness, and when they don’t, we must elect better leaders. But then, this is not a political magazine. Or is it?

Ironically, I find myself filing this in my folder called “Politics”.
—Ronald Gruchow
Allenspark, Colorado

Play and Leisure Help Creativity
(posted 1-4-10)
You are so right about play (see Mark A. Taylor’s “All Work and No Play?” January 10 [which goes "live" January 6]). My father grew up on a farm, worked from an early age, and struggled through the Great Depression. Not only did this stifle him, [but] he was going to try to get me a summer job when I was in the third grade but my mother stopped him. He did push me into working after school, on Saturdays, Sunday afternoons (for awhile), and during summers from the time I was 12. During college I worked both on-campus and off-campus and during summers.

Finally, at age 63, I got to begin to play again when I resigned from a full-time teaching job in Minnesota to return to the milder winters of Upper East Tennessee. I wasn’t rich, but I could put together enough income to live comfortably. I began to think and published a dozen articles in an economics journal, one each in The Lookout and Christian Standard, and did a weeklong series of feature articles for a newspaper in Barbados. My writing began to drop off in about 2000. About all I do now is publish a monthly letter to the editor. I could easily write one per week, or more, but they’ll only accept one every four weeks.

Play, and leisure, enable one to be creative. You were correct.
—Roger Clites
Via e-mail

Thoughts on Self-Esteem and Worship
(posted 1-4-10)
I am writing about Paul Williams’s article in the September 20 issue in which he expressed thoughts about the casual dress of clergy/stage performers/worship leaders/what have you, in the church (“We Have a Conundrum Here”). I have a few thoughts you might consider.