Letters to the Editor

To send us a Letter to the Editor, click here. (Full instructions are at the bottom of this page.) 

'When Do We Get to See Christian Values Advocated?'
(posted 4-7-08)
I just wanted to add one point to the discussion of “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Vote” (by Mandy Smith, April 6). In choosing a candidate (for whatever office), it’s important to consider his or her ability to accomplish, and not merely campaign on, the stated goals. As a case in point, many would have hoped to see a rollback of our abortion laws in the last several years (with a putative “pro-life” party in power until recently). Not only did we not see that, we didn’t even see a failed attempt. Admittedly, the war on terror has distracted attention from other priorities, but when do we get to see Christian values advocated, and not just pandered to? To be fair, though, there has been great progress on the fight against AIDS and world hunger.
—Al Forthman
Via e-mail

'We Should Try to Get Along'
(posted 5-7-08)
I appreciated “Can’t We All Just Get Along?” by Paul Williams (April 20). I agree that we should try to get along with the denominations and we should all compromise a little. This would make it easier for all trying to get to Heaven. Thank you.
—Harold Newell
Via e-mail

Article 'Points to Our Quickly Eroding Position'
(posted 4-7-08)
The complete political naiveté our collection of churches continues to display never ceases to surprise me. Nothing points to our quickly eroding position as aptly as Mandy Smith’s article, “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Vote” (April 6). Her moral takeaway point is simple: modern liberals are moral people too, and voting for them should not divide us. She quotes the extensive “faiths” of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as proof that we need to understand and accept the political ideology of modern liberalism.

Unfortunately, these people in large numbers, including both of the aforementioned presidential candidates, are for the continuation of the barbaric murder of millions of innocent babies. As Christians, we are beginning to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the torture and murder of innocent babies. There cannot be a Christian vote for an individual who would allow this practice to continue. To put mass murder on a list of pros and cons with AIDS is despicable.

One day when we face our heavenly Father, he is going to ask what we did for the least of these. And when he asks what I did for those who cannot vote, cannot petition for themselves, and cannot even scream at the coming of their own gruesome murder, what will I answer him?

Hillary had a good health-care plan? I watched An Inconvenient Truth and decided Al Gore was hip? That there were other values more important?

The choice is not as “hard” as Smith would have us believe. Individuals—across party lines—who are for the continuation of murder are not men (or women) for whom we as Christians can vote. Unfortunately for those who want to vote for the Democratic Party: their party stance is pro-choice. If you don’t like the Republican Party (which has no such pro-choice position), fine, there are lots of good parties. But that does not mean I can morally justify voting for a party, or writing an article justifying voting for a party, which does not condemn mass murder.

If every Christian in this country voted for only pro-life candidates, this mass murder would have already been ended. Now there is a true “inconvenient truth” about which to think!
—Harold N. Orndorff III
Oxford, Ohio

Article's Claim 'Deserves Some Reasoned Scrutiny'
(posted 4-7-08)
Mandy Smith’s “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Vote” (April 6) began with a survey of recent changes in political attitudes among various segments of Christendom. But her conclusion moved quickly, with little argument or support, into evaluation.
 
In particular, the claim that “regardless of how we vote, our vote—whoever it’s for—becomes a Christian vote if it is motivated by Christian values” deserves some reasoned scrutiny. The author is completely unclear as to whether values are “Christian” simply because someone claiming to be a Christian holds them, or values are Christian because they comport with the moral teaching of the Christian faith.
 
If claiming to be a Christian makes your values Christian, then many of those who supported and voted for Adolf Hitler were motivated by “Christian values.” But if Christian values must reflect the moral teaching of the Christian faith, it becomes clear that many who claim to be Christians do not hold Christian values, in much the same way many who claim to be Christians do not believe Christian doctrine.
 
Christians who vote for things like legalized murder (abortion) and legalized theft (the command-and-control state) may well be people forgiven by God’s grace. But their understanding of the Christian faith is deficient, and their votes are no more “Christian” than those who, no matter how sincere, voted for Herr Hitler.
—Harold Orndorff
Highland Heights, Kentucky

It's Not 'Throwing Your Vote Away'
(posted 4-7-08)
Mandy Smith’s article in the April 6 issue was titled, “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Vote.” People often observe that voting is a choice between “the lesser of two evils.” Should we put our stamp of approval on evil? A constitutional law professor once told me, “No matter whom you vote for, the government gets elected.”

That’s the point of “get out the vote” drives. They’ll often say, “We don’t care whom you vote for, just vote.” In that light, voting is a stamp of approval on the government.

Smith laments, correctly, that our two-party system locks us in to voting for one or the other. Actually there are others. The only presidential candidate who I can support has the philosophy that, “As long as you do not harm a peaceful person, you should be free to live your life as you see fit.” Sounds like Christian freedom to me. Who is that candidate? He’s Ron Paul, whom I’ve known for 15-20 years. His story does not change according to polls or political winds.

Someone will say, but voting for him is throwing your vote away. Wrong! Voting for someone who will oppress you is throwing your vote away.
—Roger M. Clites
Johnson City, Tennessee

'I Must Take Issue with a Few of the Conclusions'
(posted 4-7-08)
While I appreciate the candor and passion Mandy Smith showed in her article, “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Vote” (April 6), I must take issue with a few of the conclusions she makes:
 
1. Although she implies we need to put away the rhetoric that divides, she uses some of it on the second page of her article:

“The media is providing us with a new option—politically liberal, yet theologically conservative. In a new tack, the latest releases from conservative/evangelical publishers are beginning to tackle how Christians should respond to issues of poverty, the environment, and justice.”

I understand what she is saying—to a point. However, the very wording of this paragraph assumes that only politically liberal people are concerned with issues dealing with poverty, the environment, or with justice. That is not at all the case! Many politically conservative people are just as concerned about these issues! Though she wants us to assume that not all liberal voters are liberal theologians, she assumes that all conservative voters are, in fact, people who care nothing about these issues. In my mind, that seems a little unfair.

2. In that same paragraph, there are examples given of people who are both politically liberal and theologically conservative. Unfortunately, the examples cited are completely wrong! For starters, Shane Claiborne—one of the authors of Jesus for President—is nowhere near theologically conservative. Then, the work of Brian McLaren is cited as another example. Again, McLaren is far from being theologically conservative. Someone who denies the existence of a literal Hell and questions the validity of the atonement seems to be far from that category. So, these so-called “examples” don’t really hold up.

3. On the very last page, Smith asserts,

“Jesus said they’ll know we are Christians by our love, and so we certainly should vote according to the loves that drive us. Whether our love is for God’s creation, unborn children, small businesses, our freedoms and rights, single mothers, inner-city children, underpaid workers in the Third World, prisoners, or the elderly, we should vote in a way that shows it.”

Once again, the sentiment of that statement is noble. However, I believe her application is faulty. Jesus didn’t say that the world would know we are Christians by our (generic) love. According to John 13:35, Jesus said: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love for our brothers and sisters is what identifies us as Christians, not our love of causes. So, Jesus’ words really seem to be ripped out of context there.

Let me reiterate: I do understand her sentiment and I do agree with most of it. Issues of politics should not be divisive in the church. Christians need to be involved in combating injustice, poverty, and prejudice. However, we must also stand for truth. We cannot trade one for the other. Each of us must take responsibility for our own personal role in doing both.
—Brandon Braun
Shiloh, Illinois

Column Called 'Off Base'
(posted 4-7-08)
I am writing in response to Mark Taylor’s piece on presidents and public speaking (“Presidents, Preachers, Passion, and Public Speaking,” April 6). As a 20-year-old college student at a secular state university, I believe Mr. Taylor’s column could not have been more off base. His statements were based on the experiences of seeing one person on TV and not actually interviewing any college students before firing off a piece that makes my whole generation seem like a bunch of shallow, surface-believing people. Most people my age are in search of something deeper. We are the kids who have been exposed to things like Group’s flashy, shallow VBS and now we are rejecting the large corporate churches in search of the more traditional, deeper fellowship of a smaller church. In fact, most people who I talk to when they are considering who to vote for are not even watching the sound bites or debates on TV, but actually doing research through the Internet or print to determine the candidate who will best represent them. Before Mr. Taylor makes up his mind about a whole group of people, maybe he should talk to one first.
—Seth Walker
Savannah, Georgia

'Thank You' for Addressing Prayer Issue
(posted 4-7-08)
I am happy to read your latest articles “When Our Prayer Requests Are Not Granted” (Part 1, March 30; Part 2, April 5; both by H. Lynn Gardner), a challenge to keep praying and to know the things that we need to pray for. Thank you for addressing this issue.
—Juanito
Via e-mail from the Philippines

'A Bit of Irresponsible Reporting'
(posted 3-28-08)
Your “mini-news” bit about born-again Christians voting for a Democratic nominee seems to be a bit of irresponsible reporting to me. (The item in question appeared in “Seen & Heard” for March 30; “Seen & Heard” is published weekly in CHRISTIAN STANDARD’s print issue and in its e-newsletter, but not on the Web site.) I don’t think that polling 1,000 people represents the American public. We need to know their ages, what it means to be “born-again,” and what their party affiliation is at the time of the poll.
As a longtime Christian, I would not consider either Democratic candidate because of their lack of Christian values. Other than that, of what value, in a Christian publication, is a report such as this?
—Wanda Rigmaiden, Minister to Seniors
Discovery Christian Church
Bend, Oregon

'We Need to Pray, Pray, Pray'
(posted 3-28-08)
I read the article in this week’s CHRISTIAN STANDARD we get via e-mail. The article was about born-again Christians voting for Hillary Clinton (see “Seen & Heard” for March 30). I want to know how a born-again Christian can vote for someone who is immoral (and) is for abortion and gay rights when God speaks against those things in the Scriptures. I feel that God has done with our country the same thing he said he would do with the church at Ephesus in Revelation 2—remove his candlestick because we, as the church, have left our first love. I feel he is saying, “You want your country to go down the tubes, so be it.”

I tell you, we had better wake up before it’s too late and allow God to turn this country around. We need to pray, pray, pray for the Lord to lift up a candidate we can vote for. And we must stop listening to the liberal news media that is influencing our minds by telling only what they want us to hear. All through the Old Testament God punished the Israelites for their sin—is that what is happening here?

The United States was established on biblical principles and we have allowed these principles to be set aside by liberal, ungodly politicians, judges, and the news media. Instead of admitting defeat and allowing the enemy to win, we had better turn back to God, repent, return to our first love, and live according to Scripture.

If these “born-again” Christians truly are born-again, they will re-examine these candidates and look to God for guidance. Turning our back on Christian values is just what the enemy wants and we cannot give him the victory. Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion.
—Allen Byers, Pastor
New Beginnings Christian Church
Ladson, South Carolina

'Slightly Offended and Slightly Disappointed'
(posted 3-28-08)
I was slightly offended and slightly disappointed by a recent article entitled, “Living with Poor People Changed Me” (by Greg Taylor, March 30). I have never lived in a developing country, but I do live in an under-resourced neighborhood of New York City. The average income in Harlem is about $23,000. Can you imagine living in my community and having your pastor earn $690,000 annually (that is 30 times more than the average).

I was recently in India visiting a seminary. At this particular school, every student is required to live in an “untouchable” village for an entire year. Four students live in a small shack, and they receive no financial support from the seminary. They live exactly like the villagers do. God has done remarkable things through this program. I am sure God can and will do great things through Greg Taylor as well, but we need to think more about the implications of our words and the labels we attach to human lives. Especially in the realm of global missions, we must continue work toward cultural awareness and sensitivity.

It has become trendy to “save” Africa—take the Red Campaign for example—but an increasing number of Africans are beginning to reject the notion that they are a continent that needs saving. Let us look at all people as the beautiful handiwork of Jesus Christ, without economic qualifiers, or we might see the door for missions closed in our faces.
—Jacob Lange
Via e-mail

Recently Ended GOP Affiliation
(posted 3-27-08)
I appreciated Mandy Smith’s “Reflections” regarding the movement of conservatives toward interplay in the realms of politics, social issues, and theology (“They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Vote,” April 6; this won't be available online until Wednesday, April 2). I recently ended my lifelong membership in the Republican Party and became a “decline to state” voter. This was a response to my growing disgust with the party’s lack of concern and understanding of the plight of those in need. Years ago there was a book entitled Unequally Yoked: Christians and Political Conservatism*. (*Letter writer’s note: the book title may not be accurate, but it is close. Editor’s note: a search of www.amazon.com did not turn up any book by this title.)  The book dealt with this same issue. I have brought some local needs to our church, which has been pretty much inward focused, and the church leadership is beginning to respond.
—Byron Moats
Via e-mail

Another View on Worship
(posted 3-27-08)
I felt compelled to put into writing my gratitude to Mandy Smith for opening the door to question our concepts of “worship” in her “Reflections” in the January 27 issue (“Worship/Service: A Conversation Between Paul and David”). Thank you, Mandy!

Speaking as one who has virtually no talent for music and little appreciation for it, I have always found it peculiar that 50 percent or more of our church services were spent in music. This personal oddity caused me to search the Scriptures years ago for a better understanding of worship.

My first conclusion was that worship is a constant in daily life, not a “Sunday go to meeting activity.” Throughout the Old Testament worship happened when God’s people recognized the Lord’s greatness and glory and their love for and desire to serve him. In the Psalms one can see the writers praising God for his greatness in admiration of creation (his handwork), his deliverance, and his mercy. Worship is adoration to the nth degree. Psalm 96:6 says, “Worship the Lord in the splendor of his holiness; tremble before him, all the earth.” I worship the greatness of God every time I look at his creation. I look up at the same nighttime sky King David looked at and identify with his words in Psalm 8, “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him?” “How majestic is your name” does not have to be set to music to be worship, nor does it have to happen in a building with other Christians.

I appreciate that Mandy brought out the fact that even though we recognize worship is more than Sunday morning service, church leaders still orchestrate the program as though it is the conduit for all members’ worship. This brings me to my second conclusion: That we have a predisposed mind-set that Sunday morning service is OUR WORSHIP service. When God set down the rules in the Old Testament for his people to gather together, there were two main reasons for the gatherings: to hear or be taught his word (law), and to make their required sacrifices. They viewed the tabernacle, and later the temple, as the place where God dwelled, but Jesus explained to the Samaritan woman that the worshipers God wanted were those who worshiped in spirit and truth, and the place was irrelevant (John 4:21-24). When we think of worship as something that comes from our own spirit seeking closeness with God and a deep desire to serve him, we realize we cannot be “led” in worship by a song leader or praise team. How can we think we are honoring God in corporate “worship” when he can see the hearts of EVERY participant?

I agree with Mandy that we miss the point of Sunday service, and that it is special and significant, but for a simpler and more important reason than it’s our opportunity to have a joint celebration or a time of preparation for the week to come.

My third conclusion: Sunday morning is important because it is our time of accountability. Acts 2:42 tells us the four reasons the first Christians gathered together: apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. We no longer sacrifice animals because Christ was our one-time sacrifice, and we are to remember that sacrifice every time we participate in Communion. It is our time of considering our accountability for our sins before God and the incredible grace he showed toward us. Study that helps us further understand and apply Christ’s teachings makes us accountable to his Word. Fellowship makes us accountable to each other, and prayer makes us accountable to each other and our Lord, as well as following Jesus’ command to love each other.

Mandy speaks of service as worship, and I believe she is right. We are to be a living sacrifice which is our spiritual worship (Romans12:1). Yet we call our Sunday morning “service” our “time” for worship. In reality it is a show with a few people serving and a few people continuing their worship.

As Mandy pointed out, there are many books and Web sites that outline how to put together Sunday morning programs that will make people “feel” they have worshiped, done their duty, and return home satisfied.

My final thought is not a conclusion, but a question: Is God satisfied with our idea of what a Sunday morning program should be? Paul was disturbed at what was happening in the church in Corinth, and instructed them to focus on their purpose “so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged” (1 Corinthians 14:31) and that unbelievers will be convicted of their sins by the congregation and recognize God’s presence among them (1 Corinthians 14:24, 31). The early gatherings of the church were apparently very interactive. Paul does not discourage the interaction, only that each member remembers his purpose and maintains order. For Christians, worship is like prayer and faith, a part of every minute of every day.
—Tena Brown
Northern California

Disappointed by One Thing
(posted 3-27-08)
I opened the March 30 CHRISTIAN STANDARD—"The Prayer Struggle"—with great anticipation. I’ll be speaking on prayer at next month’s Men’s Breakfast here at our church in Tacoma, Washington, and was looking forward to some fresh insight and good reminders to share with our men. I wasn’t disappointed . . . for the most part.

H. Lynn Gardner’s article (“When Our Prayer Requests Are Not Granted, Part 1”) was a great reminder of what Jesus really taught about prayer. It was a helpful corrective to some of the confused and confusing teaching about prayer that is around today.

My one disappointment came out of an irony in the opening paragraphs of his article. He reminds us all that, “Whenever we study the words of Scripture, we need to be careful not to take them out of their context.” I could not agree more. As a matter of fact, that is something I teach on a regular basis. The irony comes in that, just three paragraphs before he says this, he takes the words of Job 21:15 out of context . . . and gives a false impression of Job in the process.

In context—in Job 21:7-18—Job is quoting the wicked who prosper and become arrogant in that prosperity. Job isn’t asking, “What profit do we get if we pray to him?” he is quoting those wicked who ask that question. Job continued to pray to God throughout his ordeal and throughout the book that bears his name. As a matter of fact, it is Job’s prayers for his friends in Job 42:8, 9 that saves them from punishment for not speaking accurately about God.

Is this nitpicking? I hope not. It is certainly not my intent. In an otherwise very helpful article, it was just a sad thing to see a misrepresentation of a portion of Scripture. As leaders and teachers in the Christian church, we need to hold to a high level of accuracy as we deal with God’s Word. Our people are counting on and trusting in it.

Thanks for your work and ministry!
—Paul Dawson
Pastor of member care and adult education
Rainier View Christian Church

THE ARTICLE WRITER RESPONDS:

Dear Brother Dawson,
I taught hermeneutics for many years and have a strong desire not to misinterpret God’s Word. I am grateful for your calling attention to my misuse of Job 21:15. I try to be careful and conscientious in my use of Scripture, but I made a mistake.

It is obvious that Job was frustrated at God’s silence concerning his requests but the verse I used does not establish that. See Job 13:24 and chapters 23 and 24.

I do not consider your letter nit-picking. I appreciate and share your desire that we not misinterpret the author’s intended meaning in our use of Scripture. Blessings.
—Lynn Gardner

An Effective House Church Planter
(posted 3-27-08)
I admit I am behind in my reading, as I just finished reading your (Paul Williams’s) article concerning house churches (“A Growing House Church Movement?”) in the December 2 issue. I am not sure of your exact intent, but I could not help thinking of my good friend, and New Testament Church planting evangelist, Ray Schuh.

Ray, evangelist for Upstate New York Mission, has been planting New Testament churches in New York for almost 50 years. Most were started as house churches, eventually growing to a size large enough to construct a building. The Williamstown Church of Christ is an example of a body of believers who started meeting in a house and now have a building and an average attendance in the low 100s.

Presently, Ray is working with two house churches, the Perry (New York) Church of Christ and the Hornell Church of Christ, which meets in Arkport, New York. Ray has worked with both of these congregations since the early 1990s, slowing adding believers to God’s church through the power of the Gospel.

Ray takes every opportunity to preach Christ crucified as he travels throughout western New York, and directs immersed believers to congregations in such places as Clarence, Buffalo, and Rochester when they are too far from his location. House churches are alive, but growing slowly, in Upstate New York!
—Randy Records
Treasurer, Upstate New York Mission
Batesville, Indiana

Wonderful Timing
(posted 3-24-08)
Earlier today I filled out a survey form you sent to me in connection with church planting.

At the conclusion of the survey was a general question seeking suggestions. I nearly skipped the section (what could I possibly add to what your excellent team already does in the area of brainstorming ideas?). After mentally spanking myself for that approach, I decided to take some time and offer the best ideas God would bring to my mind. Not sure if I had one idea, ultimately I sent along nine thoughts.

One of those thoughts was that we ought to steadily write about how much God loves us, and how much he wants us to love him, and to love others as Jesus loves us. The subjects are so foundational that we often error in assuming they are well covered. So I sent the note. A few hours later, I pulled the March 23, 2008, edition of CHRISTIAN STANDARD from the mailbox. What were the odds? There I found your main article: “How to Maximize Your Power of Love.”

It was an enjoyable moment. Instead of chiding myself for thinking I would be needed to brainstorm such an idea, I simply rejoiced in the timing. I hope CS will continue to use the love themes as the “yeast” for her wide range of subjects each year. It looks as though that is already your conviction. I applaud you!
—Stephen Edwards
Executive Director
Intermountain Church Planters Association
Boise, Idaho

Leaving Bad Impression
(posted 3-24-08)
Most of the time your paper leaves the impression that you can get to Heaven from any denomination. When are we going to get back to the old Jerusalem Gospel of one Lord, one faith, and one baptism? When are we going to go back to preaching the truth of God’s Word? The Christian church had gotten so liberal that my family and I had to take our membership to the a cappella brethren so we could here the Gospel preached. Remember even you will one day stand before God and give an account.
—Jim Sandusky
Cookeville, Tennessee

More Thoughts on Confidentiality
(posted 3-24-08)
As a clinical psychologist who is also a Christian, I have some thoughts about this topic of confidentiality (see the March 9 issue)—not necessarily answers, but thoughts. On the one hand, what makes either setting good—counseling or church eldership—is the promise of confidentiality. People feel safe, secure, protected, trusting.

On the other hand, Christians have the need for other Christians. We need accountability, prayer, and help. The Bible is clear about this. Part of what makes this complicated is that people are not good at either sharing our weaknesses with OR hearing the weaknesses of others. In sum, we judge, we shun, we respond in hurtful ways. As a psychologist, I’m trained to interact with people in a way that is different from the general population. These same characteristics carry over into my personal life, too. However, even I, with my specialized training, am subject to judge or critique a fellow sinner. This is true for all of us.

If someone in our congregation came to us with a sin that our culture sees as “really bad” (e.g., child pornography), how many of us would accept that person with open arms, pray with them, console them, etc.? How many of us would judge them, feel awkward, and avoid them? More of us would likely fall into the latter camp for a host of personal reasons. What’s worse is that those who struggle with “really bad” sins KNOW IT! Naturally, they are much less likely to approach anyone for help and accountability. Obviously we all need to work on our own judging problems, but in the meantime, people need somewhere to turn. Often, they choose a church elder—someone they know, respect, and trust. If they are brave enough to get this far, the expectation of confidentiality is huge! This is simply because of the power of the healthy relationship with that elder. If they are told no such confidentiality exists—no matter what the reason—they are more likely to stop talking, retreat into themselves, and increase the chance of being further harmed by their sin. If they are told they can have a confidential conversation with a mental health professional, their retreat may be much greater due to the stigma of being “crazy” in addition to sinful.

It’s a catch-22 for churches, though. They are teaching biblical truth, which is that we should feel comfortable to confront each other and equally as comfortable to lean on each other in times of need. We are to take care of each other always. Even though the eldership understands that “caring” for them means getting the elders together to pray, consult, and help them, the person struggling is not likely to understand this. Most people do not have a strong ego/identity to sustain the fear of criticism and judgment of others for long—particularly in a weakened state brought on by debilitating sin—so they can only choose to keep quiet. Back to the problem: Where do these people go?

The idea of referring to a Christian mental health professional is a good one, but creates its own set of problems, not the least of which is a whole other set of stigmas. If the person is willing to go (even once), a professional is going to be limited in their ability to “help” that person because, according to God’s Word, what is needed is spiritual healing, accountability, and some admission of sinfulness. Although the professional can provide confidentiality, it is not confidentiality that is healing—only comforting, safe.

Put another way, confidentiality is necessary, but not sufficient. Nonetheless, the accountability and admission that will help the person heal has to be to a group of people who may look down on, shun, or otherwise judge them. In sum, I don’t think elder confidentiality will save a person, but offering no confidentiality also has the potential to cause greater problems for that person.
—Dr. Rod Hoevet
St. Louis, Missouri

'Look Forward to Reading Each Issue'
(posted 3-24-08)
Just a note to let you know what a great job you and your staff are doing with CHRISTIAN STANDARD. I look forward to reading each issue. It has so much helpful information in it that can be used in the local church. It has interesting articles that should be read by leaders as well as the general public. I feel the magazine has risen in stature considerably and deals with issues that all of us face today. I certainly appreciate the emphasis on elders this year as well as the growth of our smaller congregations.
 
May God bless all your efforts for him.
—Henry Pratt
Quincy, Illinois

A 'Lasting Impression'
(posted 3-7-08)
First Christian Church of East Prairie, Missouri, is a traditional church with a long heritage of faithfulness. Our first experience in a worship service there made a lasting impression.

As the time for Communion approached, an elder presented a scripturally appropriate and well-thought-out meditation. It was heartfelt and given with tears. As the time of prayer came, all of the elders and servers knelt down in humility before the Lord’s table of remembrance.

We caught our breath and shared a look of surprise. We were awestruck. Never in nearly 40 years of ministry had we witnessed such a service of focused faith. These are fallible men who recognize the infallibility of Christ. We were drawn to serve with this congregation of kind people who love the Lord.

They worship together knowing their weaknesses and approach the table of remembrance seeking the promised forgiveness of our risen Savior.
—Nancy and Larry D. Lane

'I Hope You Do More of Them'
(posted 3-7-08)
I appreciated the focus on unsung heroes in the February 3 issue. I hope you do more of them.

Mike Grooms’s article (“God and Your Average Joe”) was very down to earth and practical. Knowing that he was a plumber turned preacher turned missionary helped. It’s interesting and helpful to read about the “stars,” but there is so much done by the unknowns with great hearts.
—Bob Kitchen
Batavia

More Than Just 'Differing Opinions'
(posted 3-3-08)
I just read for the second time the issue on the World Convention (February 24). When did we abandon our premise that unity is based on the truth of the apostolic testimony and the apostolic order and substitute a “common heritage” for that New Testament basis?

The differences that led to the separation between us and the Disciples were not just “differing opinions” but rather essential elements that affect the preaching of the Gospel. Open membership and the acceptance of the negative fruits of higher criticism resulting in the rejection of the divine origin of Scripture and the belief in miracles were among the primary reasons for the division 80 years ago. Since then the Disciples have officially rejected the nondenominational stance of the Movement, they have continued (in their seminaries and official proclamations although not by many of the rank-and-file members) to reject Scripture as divinely inspired, and most of their churches have continued the practice of open membership. In recent years many of their leaders have urged the acceptance of homosexual practice as merely a lifestyle choice and thus to be accepted as a moral alternative, a common position by the mainline (theologically liberal) denominations.

It was interesting to notice that the articles on the World Convention referred to the Scripture in John 17 on unity for the sake of evangelism but not the section on unity in “the truth.” The only other reference to Scripture in the editorial as well as the articles was in an affirmation that the restoration of the New Testament order was “not an end in itself [but rather] a means” toward transcending “separations.” This affirmation in the context leads one to infer that the writer was willing to lay aside the Disciples’ rejection of restoring the New Testament order and look for unity by “reclaiming” our heritage. In fact, the Disciples have rejected the premises of our heritage and urged for acceptance only in the fact that they used to be a part of it. They want to claim our “parents” while rejecting nearly everything those founding fathers believed.

Yes, we believe in unity in the midst of diversity, but we still must believe that there are some “essentials” beyond the need to be united.
—C. Ermal Allen
Creston, Ohio

For letters from January and February  2008, click here
For letters from November and December 2007, click here
For letters from September and October 2007, click here
For letters from July and August 2007, click here
For letters from May and June 2007, click here
For letters from March and April 2007, click here
For letters from January and February 2007, click here
For letters from November and December 2006, click here
For letters from September and October 2006, click here
For letters from July and August 2006, click here
For letters from April through June 2006, click here.
For letters from January through March 2006, click here.
For letters from October through December 2005, click here.
For letters from July through September 2005, click here.
For letters from February through June 2005, click here.