|
Letters to the Editor - February to June 05
Reactions to issues of CHRISTIAN STANDARD from February through June 2005.
READERS' REACTIONS TO DA VINCI CODE, JESUS PROPOSAL, AND JESUS SEMINAR ARTICLES (JUNE 12, 19, 26)
How Is That Possible?
(posted 9-15-05)
Mark Matson’s uncritical review of The Jesus Proposal by Shelly and York (June 26) was disappointing (click here to read it). Matson warmly embraces the concept that men can have who (Christ) without what (doctrine). But how is that possible? Can a person who does not know what Christ said, what he did, what he says he is doing, and what he says he is going to do have any kind of meaningful “relationship” with Christ? All those whats constitute doctrine. In the pre-postmodernist days we called that doctrine Christology. So if we must preach doctrine to bring men to Christ, how can Matson suggest that we can have relationship with Christ without doctrine? How can we be “following Jesus as a personal Savior” and at the same time refuse to believe the doctrines he taught and obey the practices he commanded?
Matson apparently accepts the evaluation of Shelly and York that much of the Restoration Movement’s efforts “were misguided because it emphasized the ‘what’ of Christianity rather than the ‘who’.” This evaluation is itself misguided, and grossly unfair to the movement’s founders. The same mentality that causes many Americans to disavow their country’s heritage causes some of our number to distance themselves from the founders of our movement.
Matson might also have pointed out that not all relationships are of the same quality or standing. My wife and I went through many relationships—puppy love, mature love, engagement, and finally marriage. We did not try to join the married couples’ class when we exchanged friendship rings back in high school! To say that anyone who has a relationship with Jesus is therefore part of the body is equivalent to saying that a couple that experiences puppy love is married.
What Shelly and York have proposed is nothing new. It is open membership. Past editors of CS exposed and refuted open membership. Judging from the cover of the June 26 edition, the editor's comments, the uncritical review, and the publication of the interview with Shelly and York without comment it appears that the policy of CS today is to embrace open membership.
As for me, I plan to teach, baptize, and teach. The Lord with whom I have a vital relationship commissioned me to do that. If that be doctrine, so be it! At least it's not medieval mysticism masquerading as cutting edge theology.
—James E. Smith
Kissimmee, Florida
Editor’s Note: Nothing in this material was about church membership or “open membership.” Of course CHRISTIAN STANDARD does not advocate “open membership” and did not intend to do so with these articles.
Some Views Were Puzzling
(posted 7-5-05)
Thanks for the series by Rubel Shelly about The DaVinci Code, Bishop John Shelby Spong, and the Jesus Seminar (June 12, 19, 26). As a result of Mark Matson’s articles about Rubel Shelly and John York (June 26), I immediately ordered their book.
I respect brother Shelly and his good work for the kingdom, but I must say that some of what he says puzzles me.
1. In the interview, he explains that his congregation simply invites people to join them on their spiritual pilgrimage. The big questions are, “Do you believe in and love Jesus Christ?” and “Are you attempting to move closer to a way of life that is in agreement with that primary relationship?” I do not quite understand what brother Shelly means by a “relationship with Christ,” since he explicitly separates relationship from doctrine and practice. If “my relationship” does not mean what I think about someone and what I do for them and they for me, then all that is left of “relationship” is a warm feeling.
2. Brother Shelly ably dissected Bishop Spong’s doctrine of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, in Spong’s books (A New Christianity for a New Age and Why Christianity Must Change or Die), he professes to believe in and love Jesus Christ. Though he abandoned his early, primitive faith after a crisis involving his sick wife, and though he does not believe in the resurrection or much else that the gospels say about Jesus, still he says that he finds in Jesus a way to God.
Given these sentiments, why does Shelly criticize Spong’s doctrine of Christ? Does he not meet the standards for fellowship with Shelly? Doesn’t he give the right answer to the big questions?
The point toward which I am “pilgrimaging” is this—Shelly’s Savior (and mine) is not the same person Spong believes in. (Even Spong’s God is different—it is the Ground of all Being, embracing both good and evil, and existing only within those who think it exists.)
But if Shelly is a postmodernist, if he repudiates doctrine and practice in favor of relationship, then how can he criticize either the doctrine or practice of Spong or of the fellows of the Jesus Seminar?
Shelly complains about Spong’s use of Paul, but a good postmodernist knows (as Matson says) that people interpret texts based on their own experience, traditions, and community. Therefore, Spong’s interpretation is as valid as Shelly’s. Perhaps the Bishop should help out in the next dialogue sermon!
Shelly says that he has become tired of doctrinal wrangling and hairsplitting; he wants people to talk more about the One who saves us, rather than about cups and pianos and millennial doctrines. Great!—I sympathize utterly. This sentiment motivated the original fathers of the Restoration Movement.
However, one does not have to jump on the postmodern wagon in order to care about relationships, nor to stop fighting about minutiae, nor to recognize that people sometimes differ in their understanding of a passage. There are alternatives to legalism other than a faddish postmodernism.
—Lee Snyder
Via e-mail
A Response from the Author (Rubel Shelly): Perhaps Mark Matson's brief review of 200-plus pages left brother Snyder with a mistaken impression. First, I certainly am not postmodern in age-grouping, philosophical bent, or theology. The modest claim of The Jesus Proposal is that postmodernity offers unique opportunities (as well as challenges) for communicating the gospel. Second, one of those "unique opportunities" is the emphasis on relational over institutional (i.e., juridical, legalistic) faith. And, yes, I do encourage persons whose faith is yet profoundly unformed as to the gospel's content demands (i.e., orthodoxy) to become part of the spiritual pilgrimage I am undertaking. Third, and this is the second element of the "proposal" in the book brother Snyder has promised to read, the immediate responsibility of a pilgrim-church to anyone joining its journey is this: "A local church is the nurturing spiritual community within which one may learn, be initiated into, and begin living the basic teachings that establish and declare one's identity as a Christian (i.e., Christ-follower)" (JP, p. 85). The local church is charged with communicating the content of the Word of God. Or, as in the Great Commission, its task is to take those who are in process of becoming disciples (i.e., learners) through baptism to life in community to a lifelong process of learning how to observe everything that Christ has revealed to those following him. And, yes, one who has begun as a pilgrim-follower may well turn back or fall by the wayside—either by rejecting the truth about Christ (cf. 2 John 7-9) or by choosing to live to one's carnal lusts (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1ff). He or she may still have "warm feelings," but they no longer have a relationship with Christ.
I suspect a reading of the book will eliminate the fear that what is being offered would equally embrace Bishop Spong as brother Snyder! Or, for that matter, reading the book will address very directly the concern that either doctrinal considerations (e.g., resurrection) or lifestyle concerns (e.g., homosexuality) become irrelevant—so long as there is a "warm feeling" in one's heart.
Brother Snyder's concern to keep theology firmly rooted in Scripture as normative is always appropriate and frequently sounded by all of us in a Restoration Movement tradition. The concern John York and I have is to press what we see as the neglected claim that faith-as-content must be balanced with faith-as-relationship. As a matter of fact, if the words of Jesus as recorded in Holy Scripture are to be taken seriously and made normative to our practice, the heavier weight on the balance scale is always on the side of relationship rather than doctrinal precision. Otherwise how did the tax collector go home justified over the man who had been so scrupulous to observe the Law? Or how could it be true that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath? Or how could Jesus sign off on David eating the priest-reserved Bread of the Presence? As to the "weightier matters" of the spiritual life, we ought to strive for both doctrinal correctness and personal regard, both right answers and right relationships, both orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Some of us—and this is a confessional statement rather than an indictment of others—have too long majored in the pursuit of one to the neglect of the other.
A very practical concern for the two of us in writing The Jesus Proposal is to disclaim the intelligence to get enough "right answers" but to urge all of us to pursue the living out of right relationships with all those who profess love for and faith in Jesus as the Risen Son of God. We believe that is a Jesus-honoring, Jesus-exalting proposal. —Rubel Shelly
Standing with Shelly, York
(posted 7-6-05)
Fortunately Rubel Shelly and John York have broken ranks with doctrine and tradition and have had the courage to admit it (‘Who’ Before ‘What,’ June 26)! Unfortunately my husband, my church, and some of my close friends may or may not read the book review nor the book. Because I admitted what Shelly and York propose I am now considered liberal among the "fellowship." I have found that sweet relationship with Jesus that gives me the kind of freedom to love and accept and serve outside the church building, first in my family and yes, in my community. Oswald Chambers is the author who taught me about my first priority. Jesus teaches me as the author and finisher of my faith. I join Paul’s desire "For my determined purpose is" . . . (Amplified) as he wrote to the Philippian church, chapter 3, verse 10. Sometimes it’s lonely at the top . . . with the Lord!
—Name Withheld
Via e-mail
Issue Provided Good Guidance
(posted 6-24-05)
I enjoy reading the weekly issue of the CHRISTIAN STANDARD. Your articles are usually fair, encouraging, and uplifting. I am thankful to be involved in a movement that strives to put God first and enlightens us with material that we can consider as we plan the future for the congregations in which we serve.
I have been a full-time minister for only three months and eagerly read all I can to help me understand what God wants from me and the people I serve. Reading Rubel Shelly and John York’s contribution in the June 26 volume has revealed to me what I, as the pulpit minister, need to do.
Their article reminded me of what Max Lucado said in It’s Not About Me—when my desire is to let the glory of God shine through me, then changes can be made that truly give God the glory. It is all about Jesus and my relationship with him. When I seek him, I seek good things for Central Christian Church, I seek good things for those around me, and I seek good things for those who do not yet know Jesus.
Thank you for Mark Matson’s review of The Jesus Proposal (‘Who’ Before ‘What’).
—Bob Roberson
Jonesborough, Tennessee
Via e-mail
Church Is in 'Catch-Up' Situation
(posted 7-6-05)
Rubel Shelly’s first article on The DaVinci Code (“The Da Vinci Code . . . and Beyond [Part 1],” June 12) is well researched, well written, and helpful. I can only anticipate the second installment. Your readers will also find helpful insight in Dan Garlow’s Cracking DaVinci’s Code (Victor Books) and the recent NBC Dateline program devoted to exposing the lies and half-truths in Brown’s book.
The contemporary evangelical church and our own movement is “reaping what we’ve sown.” For the past score of years there has been a dearth of doctrine leaving Christians susceptible to false teaching. We bought into the idea that “doctrine divides but love unites.” Buying into this false choice coupled with appealing to the masses of the unchurched through marketing and consumer appeal is bringing about the fulfillment of what I wrote about in a Christian Standard article entitled, “The Platte River Syndrome” (April 21, 2002).
The church now finds itself in a “catch-up” situation where it must respond to believers’ confusion over the issues Brown presents in his book. In many cases, it will be too little too late. I fear we will find the movie version will only increase the confusion and suspicion existing in many unbelievers and Christians. It is past time for the church to realize that Christianity is more than a relationship with Christ and each other. There is a body of teaching to be believed, integrated, and applied and it is Christ’s church that has the God-given responsibility to pass it on (2 Timothy 2:2).
—Michael Hines
Sun City, Arizona
(Editor's note: We apologize for failing to post this letter in a timely manner.)
Thankful for Two Reasons
(posted 7-5-05)
I wanted to thank you for two reasons.
First, I appreciate your printing or putting online letters from people who disagree with some writers as well as those who support them. As you know, Alexander Campbell was unique in always having his pages open to his strongest critics as well as his closest supporters. Your policy reflects this healthy tradition.
Second, thanks for publishing Rubel Shelly’s articles—not only because they are thought-provoking, but also because he is from the Churches of Christ. This is a genuine demonstration of our common heritage. Thanks!
—Lee Snyder
Via e-mail
Naturalistic Determinism Guides 'Scholars'
(posted 6-21-05)
I greatly appreciated the long overdue article in the June 12 edition of Christian Standard titled “Answering the ‘Scholars’” by Knofel Staton. The author did an excellent job of challenging the credibility of the Jesus Seminar which, he suggests, has no problem finding a willing mouthpiece in the mainstream media.
I would, however, like to disagree with his contention that the Seminar “scholars” rejected any sayings of Jesus that referred to supernatural events because of their prejudice towards empirical science. These self-proclaimed scholars reject the supernatural, and any references to it, because of their own belief in the philosophy of naturalistic determinism, not because of empirical science. Even their own methods of polling and surveying their hand-picked group in order to find the “true sayings” of Jesus is a far cry from anything resembling a method of empirical science.
Unfortunately, the philosophy of naturalistic determinism has invaded the academic centers and scientific community so pervasively that pure empirical science is almost lost. Nonetheless, I still believe that a method using empirical science unadulterated by these biases would still allow for the possibility of a supernatural event.
The Jesus Seminar scholars certainly have no credibility among God’s people. To credit them with a method of empirical science is to give them credibility in the secular world that they do not deserve.
—Thomas Brunsman, M.D.
Beavercreek, Ohio
Via e-mail
The Lord Scoffs at 'Scholars'
Surely the so-called “scholars” of the Jesus Seminar realize “The One in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.” Their self-supposed wisdom is laughable to not just the psalmist but to any reasonable thinker. And Knofel Staton did a fine job of pointing out how foolish they are in “Answering the ‘Scholars,’” Christian Standard, June 12. . . .
Staton’s responses to the pretenders’ views were right-on. . . .
Unfortunately, the “scholarly” Jesus Seminar Fellows who assign themselves credentials will suck much of the public down their brain-drain. Too much of the public has too little knowledge of Jesus. Add to that, too much of the public easily buys into the “celebrity” of cretins who simply claim it for themselves to know better. Thankfully, Staton is one who shows himself capable of sizing up their shortcomings.
—Daniel J. Smith
New Carlisle, Ohio
ADDITIONAL RESPONSE TO JUNE 19 ISSUE
Article More Aptly Titled, "Beginning Steps . . ."
(posted 6-23-05)
Thanks for all you do and especially the recent changes in format.
As someone who laments the lack of spiritual depth among believers today (my own included), I am always hungry to find out what others are doing in this area. For that reason, I was excited to see the title “Bringing Believers to Maturity” in the June 19 edition, but was disappointed when the article didn’t match up. It was an interesting and helpful article for which I am grateful, but it should have been titled “Beginning Steps on the Road to Maturity.” All phases of growth are essential, but we need to be careful not to equate entry level lessons with the notion of arriving at maturity.
—Rick Alvey
Centerville, Indiana
Via e-mail
READERS' REACTIONS TO JUNE 5 ISSUE
Worship a Tricky Word
(posted 8-18-05)
I read with interest Knofel Staton’s article “Exploring Biblical Worship” (June 5). I wish that he had elaborated the words translated worship. Too frequently we think of our word worship as a biblical word. It is not. It is the word which in the opinion of the translators best conveys the meaning within the laminations of the translation. Each of the seven words has a meaning which differs from the other six. Translators are severely limited by space and most often can only use a word that approximates in some way the original. The words most commonly translated “worship” are words meaning to work for a reward, to serve; reverent adoration of the gods; Greeks used it for an inner attitude rather than an outward gesture; to fall back before, the veneration of the one true God.
The article also gave a limited mention of the context in which the words occur. Any word can mean only what it means in context. I appreciate the fact that he indicates that most of the activities we call “worship” are not included in the biblical usage, and the fact that he includes the passage from Amos 5:21-30 as a reference to the context of worship. I would like to see more discussion of the contexts in which these words appear.
It appears to me that custom rather than Scripture drives our practice of what we call “worship.” These customs seem to me to often come from pagan sources or the practice of the Roman church, rather than any New Testament teaching or precedent.
Like most of the writing in this area, the bulk of the article is an expression of inferences from Scripture and, as Campbell said, are “binding only on those who see it as being necessarily so.”
—Charles W. King
Lawrenceburg, Kentucky
Via e-mail
Bible Does Not Mention 'Corporate Worship'
(posted 6-10-05)
Knofel Staton wrote, “Every aspect of the early church’s worship in the New Testament enhanced unity amid diversity” (“Exploring Biblical Worship,” June 5). I’m not sure how he knows this since the New Testament offers no record of corporate worship by Christians. But if he were using the word “worship” in its true meaning rather than as we are now using it, then it would be understandable. He has referred to Acts 2:42 and the activities conducted daily by the very first Christians. All were aflame with love and joy. No mention is made of them singing or being led in worship, but they certainly did eat together and share everything with one another and they did all seek to learn from the apostles all they could about the Lord who had risen from the dead.
Based on what those first Christians did every day, with no opportunity to all be together meanwhile, Staton lists six “New Testament truths about worship.” The only problem that we should realize immediately is that their living for Jesus is in no way comparable to our gathering for an hour on Sunday mornings for “corporate worship.” Acts 2:42 which tells of what the Christians did makes no mention of what we call worship of God. Why then would any Bible teacher extract from that verse and its context lessons concerning “corporate worship”? We do what we want to do and say what we want to say, but it’s best when there’s some correlation between what we teach and what the Bible says. In this case, the six points listed by Knofel Staton have no scriptural basis. They sound good. But they’re not based on Acts 2:42, for the list speaks of “corporate worship” and the text does not do so.
His sixth list item is “6. Corporate worship needs to use a variety of musical styles in order to reach and keep a diversity of people.” But the text says nothing about any corporate worship or any music at all.
In list item 2, he has brought in Ephesians 5:15-21 as if it had to do with corporate worship. Surely anyone who studies the passage will see that it refers to singing on any occasion, but is not directed at “corporate worship” sessions. He writes, “It is not accidental that the . . . text mentioned three different kinds of music: psalms, which are Bible passages put to music, hymns, the kind we have in hymnbooks, and spiritual songs, which we can compare to contemporary choruses.” In past years, we recognized psalms as musical Bible passages or similar passages set to music and usually sung with musical accompaniment, and hymns as poem or prose set to music and frequently sung a cappella, and spiritual songs as “gospel songs” which were less formal and less structured, but still with some musical characteristics. “Praise choruses” just didn’t get in the list until recent years. Did they displace gospel songs such as “Let the Lower Lights be Burning”? Yes, in many churches they certainly did, rightly or wrongly.
What text links “corporate worship” by Christians with Christian assemblies? Please ask all your friends who study the Bible to explain where the New Testament ever speaks of corporate worship, and share with me the citations you find. Knofel Staton’s article mentions there are seven different Greek words for worship used in the New Testament. How true is his admission that none of them are used to describe corporate worship. Yet his article goes on then at some length to explain how corporate worship is scripturally defined and described. How odd it seems to learn that the Bible is silent about Christian corporate worship and yet we know all about it! And all our churches now need worship leaders, just as if the Bible taught such a practice. Did some of us once believe in speaking where the Bible speaks and remaining silent when the Bible is silent on any matter?
—Ray Downen
Via e-mail
Where Is the Command to Worship the Holy Spirit?
(posted 6-10-05)
“The Ideal Worship Minister . . .” plans worship that is Trinitarian by giving balanced honor to the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit (according to writers Cathryn Comeaux and Knofel Staton, June 5).
I’m glad there are no scriptural citations for this statement. Perhaps someone could help out these authors by pointing us to where the Bible teaches that we should worship the Holy Spirit. I’m sure we need to honor God the Father. It’s clear that if we love Jesus we will both obey him and honor him in every way possible to us. The apostles honored him by healing in his name and by stating clearly that it was in his name that their good works were done. I believe Christians surely should honor Jesus and his Father.
But where is an example or a command that Christians are to worship the Holy Spirit, or to pray to the Holy Spirit, or to speak in any way to the Holy Spirit? Yes, I know that it’s being done in all our churches today. I’m asking where in the Bible is any indication that it should be being done.
—Ray Downen
Via e-mail
Reflections on Fruits of Ministry at Purdue
(posted 6-8-05)
Thousands of supporters of Purdue Christian Campus House can relate to your editorial pertaining to the meeting of the National Church Music Conference (“Engaging and Excellent” by Mark Taylor, June 5). In the last decades of the last century, it was the custom of the Campus House to have the glee club as a part of the dinner program where hundreds were invited annually to become more familiar with the ministry of the Campus House and to be more encouraged to continue support of the work there. Reading your editorial provided an opportunity to reflect on the fruits of the ministry.
At the time, as we enjoyed the talent and precision of the glee club, we could not begin to envision where it was all leading, but looking back, it becomes more clear. We were able to see firsthand the growth of the campus ministry; the development of the staff, the acquisition of property at a prime location on campus for the Campus House, and touching lives of thousands of students from around the world who learned how to worship God and learn of his life among the lowly starting in what seemed to be an obscure location.
A residual benefit is that hundreds if not thousands of the glee club members, as well as administrators and staff of the university, come into contact with the ministry and the Christ who gives meaning to it all.
—Benjamin Crandall
Forth Worth, Texas
Ken Read Is a Must-Read
(posted 6-8-05)
Ken Read's article (“The Ultimate Worship Experience,” June 5) is a must-read.
We're in a culture of idol worshipers, old and young alike. Now I know how Isaiah and Jeremiah felt when warning the children of Israel and Judah of their evil ways. People will do church for themselves selfishly, not sacrificially for the audience of One and, God forbid, surrender! That mind-set is older then the garden itself.
—Alan Kirkpatrick
Via e-mail
READERS' REACTIONS TO MAY 22 ISSUE
Move Away from the Corporate Model
(posted 6-14-05)
The juxtaposition of brother Lynn Anderson and brothers Randy Richards and Gary York’s articles in the May 22 issue of Christian Standard was a perfect illustration of why we ought to move away from the Wal-Mart/Microsoft/ExxonMobil church model back to the New Testament model.
Richards and York (“A Guide to Effective Leadership”) are great students of (and perhaps participants in) corporate America, and they have presented a credible commingling of its procedures and values with the procedures and values of Jesus, Paul, and other first-century church leaders.
Anderson’s model of elders as shepherds (“Moving from Managers to Shepherds”) is very New Testament, but it demands fellowships of believers be small enough that men can know the sheep and gently shepherd them. To move ordinary Christian men into positions requiring management skills is to ask them to be more than godly men who “take care of God’s church.” The proof of that is the growing practice of choosing men (and women) from the corporate world to manage our churches, often without regard to their spiritual qualifications.
This seems like a serious matter for prayer and discussion. Thank you, writers and editors, for bringing it up.——William Pile
Los Angeles, California
Via e-mail
Which 'New Testament Model' Did You Have in Mind?
(posted 6-16-05)
Precisely which “New Testament model” is William Pile referring in his letter “Move Away from the Corporate Model” (see below)? Was it the one in Acts 2:46, 47 where the people met with one mind in the temple and celebrated the Lord’s Supper from house to house; or did he have another model in mind?
—G. D. Timm
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Via e-mail
The Sum of NT writing About Church Is the Model
(posted 6-27-05)
To my good brother Timm . . ., I see no reason to consider that different congregations of the first century represent a different "model" of the church. Just as we take all of Christ as our model of discipleship, is there any reason why we cannot take the sum of New Testament writing about the church as our model for the church today? If not, we may be left with the Capitalist Corporate model. It works!
—William Pile
Los Angeles, California
Via e-mail
READERS' REACTIONS TO MAY 15 ISSUE
Not a Good Recommendation
(posted 6-8-05)
I can’t imagine what possessed the editors to publish James Sennett’s opinion piece praising the patently occultic Harry Potter series (May 15). For Mr. Sennett to suggest that these books, which acurately describe real wiccan practices, are beneficial simply because they have excited young people about reading again is about as sensible as suggesting that the well-written, informative articles of Playboy or Penthouse are good because previously illiterate prison inmates are now excited by the prospect of learning to read from them. It’s not a good idea!
Futhermore, I’m shocked by the naivete of Mr. Sennett in comparing the extensive use of magical powers by the "good" characters in the writings by the non-Christian Rowling with the intentionally limited use of magic by the "good" characters in the works of J.R.R. Tolkien & C.S. Lewis, who both claimed a relationship with Jesus Christ. In their literature, as in real life, the supernatural world is portrayed as a dangerous place that must only be delved into under the most strict rules, even by the "good guys." I certainly hope the readers of the STANDARD are sensible enough to realize that Harry Potter is a dangerous gateway into the darkness of occult practices and will not follow Mr. Sennett’s poor example of recommending it to anyone, let alone impressionable children!
—Thomas J. Short
Mishawaka, Indiana
For more letters about James F. Sennett's article, "Thank God for Harry Potter" (May 15, 2005), click here
Some Additional Thoughts on Developing Staff
(posted 7-6-05)
While reading the May 15 issue of the CHRISTIAN STANDARD, some thoughts arose concerning the articles by Chuck Sackett, David Faust, and Tom Jones.
While the umbrella theme for each article was to address developing staff from within the church, the question of partnerships between Bible colleges and churches also was raised.
There is no question that Bible colleges and churches should see themselves as partners in the kingdom. To be in partnership requires that there is an understanding of the needs of churches (even smaller churches) on the part of the college, and the church needs to see how the work of the Bible college can benefit their congregation.
If, as Mr. Jones asserts, there will be an increase in the number of churches in the next 25 years, then there should also be a proportional increase in the number of Bible colleges to meet the training needs for new and existing churches. While technology has enabled optional educational delivery systems such as distance learning programs, some learners prefer the intimacy of the traditional classroom versus the cyber classroom.
Mr. Sackett, who made an excellent point about the resident theologian, likewise made the point that there are Bible colleges within driving distance of most churches. Unfortunately, while many churches can benefit from a local Bible college presence, that is not always the case. For example, the nearest Bible college to our location is four hours away. Even with nontraditional student programs and schedules (many staff hired from within churches will probably be nontraditional adult learners), some learners may find the distance prohibitive.
Perhaps one option is to start new colleges in areas where there is distance from other colleges, or for existing Bible colleges to plant satellite campuses (or offer extension classes for credit in a local church) that can assist learners in receiving the theological and practical training they need for effective ministry. At the same time, more localized educational institutions will enable other church leaders, such as eldership, to also receive training that can assist them to effectively shepherd the church. There are qualified educators with field experience outside of our current Bible colleges that can fill the teaching needs for such a venture.
Mr. Faust asks, “How can we recruit and equip the maximum number of workers to serve the Lord with maximum effectiveness over the long haul?” (p. 5). The combination of distance learning programs and more localized access to Bible colleges can certainly help the partnership between educational institutions and the church.
—Dwight Gillespie
Sun Prairie, Wisconsin
(Editor's note: We apologize for failing to post this letter in a timely manner.)
Troubled by 'Theologian in Residence' Idea
(posted 6-13-05)
Your recent article by Chuck Sackett (“Solid Leaders, Healthy Churches,” May 15) in which he suggested congregations retain/obtain the services of an “in-house” theologian presents interesting implications.
The idea might be saluted in urban/suburban, megachurch settings, but, based on my experience, I believe we should be cautious before we embrace such an idea.
The idea of a “theologian in residence” requires the senior minister/pastor to surrender or share a tremendous amount of power. For the concept to work the senior minister and elders have to be secure enough in their roles and honest enough in assessing their own limitations to make the scheme work. My experience leads me to believe most ministers and elders aren’t that secure and honest.
The second problem I see is that if “knowledge is power,” and if “power tends to corrupt,” then whoever is engaged in such a pursuit needs to be cautious. The danger I see stems from a lack of accountability. If the “theologian in residence” is the local “expert,” then who else in the congregation has the expertise to hold the “expert” accountable?
Paul wrote to Titus that one of the responsibilities/criteria for an elder is that he must be able to teach. This would indicate that all who are called as elders must be “theologians” to a certain degree. The problem I see is that too many elders are selected/elected without regard for the biblical mandates. The cure is not to create yet another man-made professional ministry title, but to demand our congregations adhere to Scripture. Perhaps a more practical plan would be for congregations to invest in elders being required to obtain certain proficiencies in biblical knowledge/application before allowing them to be known as elders. The fact that many Christian colleges offer courses via Internet, makes this an attractive, affordable, and realistic alternative. The congregation should be willing to pay the cost for such. After all, another biblical principle is that no soldier serves at his own expense.
—David Dean
Saint Joseph, Missouri
Via e-mail
READERS' REACTIONS TO MAY 8 ISSUE
No Scripture Cited
(posted 7-6-05)
Regarding Robert Hull’s “Who Is Ready to Open the Door” (May 8), one doesn’t know whether to take him seriously or not. I’m sure we would be able to settle all the world’s religious disputes if we were to adopt his “realm of opinion” stance. I note though that he didn’t make any reference to Scripture(s) to support him in this. I guess appropriate Scriptures are hard to find. The two examples of controversial issues he mentioned, mission support and instrumental music, are not biblical subjects as such, but when it comes to women speaking in the assembly (let alone “preaching”) the evidence is much different! Jesus and the apostles were always prepared to quote Scripture (Old Testament) for any position they took on a subject. If they felt it was necessary then I suspect we should feel an obligation too.
What I see good about brother Hull’s letter is that it introduces a subject that is not normally spoken of openly in our churches. It needs to be opened up for some serious discussion. The problem exists just about everywhere, and generally speaking appears to be ignored by the elders of our congregations. Like so many other false practices of the past, this one is creeping in and already has a firm foothold in many of our churches. The apostle Paul certainly was not indifferent to this problem in the churches of his day as witnessed by his remarks in 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 and again in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 3:14, 15.
Just so no one will write me off as only a woman-hater, I should say here that I believe women are capable of doing any job men can do, and in many cases do it better than a man! That being said, let’s examine this matter from a scriptural standpoint.
We must all surely be acquainted with the Genesis account giving the order of creation, man’s fall, and God’s pronouncements to the serpent (Satan), to Eve, and finally to Adam. These pronouncements are to last “all the days of your life.” To me that means until Christ comes again! Now if I understand anything much at all from the apostle’s words in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, then I think I should understand him as saying that the prohibition against women speaking in the assembly of the saints is directly tied to Eve’s actions in the Garden of Eden. She is also prohibited from “teaching or having authority over a man” (in the church). Remember: Eve “usurped” authority over the man in the Garden of Eden and the results are still rampant among us! Another point: referring to the apostle Paul’s writings in Ephesians 5:22-33, he says that wives should be in submission to their husbands in the home. Is it reasonable then to suggest that they are free to go into the assembly on the Lord’s Day and speak their minds publicly? And from the pulpit? Refer to 1 Corinthians 14:33-35.
There are a number of other points that should be made but space does not permit. I do believe we had better take a long and hard look at this matter before going down the road brother Hull suggests! If we are “the people of the Book” we used to claim to be, why has there been, and still is, an apparent “conspiracy of silence” on this matter by elders, preachers, Sunday school teachers, Bible college professors, etc? It appears to me that Rome has been burning while all the Neros are fiddling!
—Clifford Herring
Murray River, PEI, Canada
READERS' REACTIONS TO MAY 1 ISSUE
Books Are Still Available
(posted 6-8-05)
James Girdwood’s excellent article "Let Us Pray" (May 1, 2005) states that Peter Lord’s books The 959 Plan and The 2959 Plan are out of print. I just noticed they are available on Amazon.com.
Awesome article . . . thanks, James!
—Bill Schnippert
Via e-mail
READERS' REACTIONS TO ISSUES FROM FEBRUARY, MARCH, AND APRIL
Youth Ministers Not to Blame
(posted 6-8-05)
I want to commend my colleague, Dr. Tom Lawson, for his excellent overview of the history of worship in Restoration churches since 1850 ("Reflections," April 10 and 17). He accurately identified many of the innovations, changes, and revolutions that guided how our churches worshiped.
However, I would like to offer a different perspective on the "worship wars" that erupted in Christian churches during the 1980s (with some minor skirmishes in more progressive parts of the country a decade earlier). Lawson, whether intentional or not, seemed to implicate youth ministers of the 1980s as the spark for these wars because they "had been raised in church programs separated by age and music" during the 1970s. I would respectfully disagree.
Restoration youth ministries—particularly the professionalizing of youth ministry in our churches—was largely a 1980s phenomenon (not the ’70s as Lawson argues). Youth ministry staff positions in the 1970s were hybrids (example: "ministers of Christian education") or part-time, except in larger Restoration churches. While there were exceptions, it was hard to find a "pure" youth minister in a church under 300. Parachurch youth ministries paralleled the church. CIY conferences (helped by professional youth ministry) exploded in the 1980s (not the ’70s). Furthermore, few of our colleges even started training professional youth ministers until the early 1980s (as the need was just growing at that time). Consequently, many Restoration churches didn’t hire their first full- or part-time youth worker until the 1980s.
Therefore, to say that mid-’80s youth ministers sparked the worship wars is a blank bullet, as most of us were not raised in the age-segregated situations (children’s church, separate teen worships) that Lawson suggested.
In fact, Lawson overlooks a more obvious cause for the 1980s worship wars. The emerging reality in mid-1980s Christian churches was that baby boomers were ascending to the eldership. The Woodstock/Jesus Movement generation was given responsibility for the spiritual direction of many, perhaps most, churches in the ’80s. Boomers cut their teeth on rock ’n’ roll and, as history documents, weren’t afraid to take on "institutions" or causes (whether it was the Vietnam or the worship war). When boomers were installed as elders, they brought with them a new sense of worship. The megachurch, built upon the backs of boomers returning to church in the ’80s, exploded around a contemporary worship style. Smaller churches, seeking similar growth, tried to follow suit (using split services to assuage the traditionalists and critics). It was boomers, therefore, who fired the first shot.
Personally, I was one of those mid-1980s youth ministers Lawson cites, and I had little influence over worship style, philosophy, or direction. Most of us first-wavers watched the worship wars spark in meetings between our boomer superiors (elders, preachers, worship leaders) and our senior saints (World War II generation traditionalists). As youth ministers, we had little to no control or influence over the worship wars. We just obeyed our superior officers. As G.I. generation elders retired and more boomers were added to the leadership, churches split, resolved to compromise, or lived in quiet frustration.
Lawson was correct in that these "wars" made the buster/Gen-X youth ministers of the mid-’80s and ’90s frustrated. Eventually, the second-wave buster/Gen-Xers created paraworship teen services (with the blessings of boomer elders) to answer the growing friction between boomer worship (choruses and praise teams) and the younger generation’s worship preferences. The youth worship trend of the ’90s delivered a new hymnal of songs and worship experience to the church. The problem is it’s now boomer elders who seem resistant to these new forms of worship. Buster/Gen-Xers have largely opted not to wage another war but instead are planting their own churches. Busters/Gen-Xers (currently ages 24-44) are also graying and many churches will face new issues in the "worship wars" as this generation is now invited to be elders and seek to employ a more experiential, image-driven, and participatory worship style.
As I look back on these changes I am hopeful for the future. Our churches have a proven resilience for resolving "worship wars" historically. Whether it’s instrumental or noninstrumental, organ or the drums, the hymn or the chorus, we mustn’t let our message ever get lost in the music.
—Rick Chromey
Kentucky Christian University
A Well-Done Summary
(posted 6-8-05)
I enjoyed the articles by Tom Lawson on the history of worship in our churches. Having served as a Christian camp manager for a dozen years in the 1970s and early ’80s, I watched with interest the introduction of the new contemporary music and worship styles among our young people of that time. Tom certainly summarized well what took place and its effect on our churches.
—William E. Stauter
Via e-mail
The Statistics Behind the Statistics
(posted 6-8-05)
I appreciate the Annual Christian College Issue (April 3), and for the "Behind the Numbers" editorial provided by Mark Taylor. It served to remind us of the worthwhile investment we make in supporting colleges, universities, and seminaries in our fellowship.
But there is a disturbing aspect to the picture behind the statistics. In Mr. Taylor’s own words: "Faculty and staff work for far less than they could earn at other universities." Futhermore, students have followed their example in their lives of ministry.
Mr. Taylor attributes this choice to "vision." I do not doubt that "vision" is a part of this choice—it was for me as I entered paid ministry. However, "vision" isn’t the whole picture. . . . The degraded salaries at our schools demonstrates, in the most obvious way possible, that we do not adequately value their contributions.
It is precisely the wrong message to be given the next generation of graduates (and readers) as they move into traditional and nontraditional ministry positions this April.
—Brenton Dickieson
Via e-mail
Generosity a Complex Issue
(posted 6-8-05)
I appreciate your recent emphasis on generosity. For a long time I have felt that we keep far too much of God’s money (and other resources) in our own pockets. While I am a lot better than I once was, I am not at all sure I am where God wants me to be.
I hope what I say here will help people be wiser in their generosity and not discourage their generosity. This is an extremely complex area. First, there are often unintended negative results. This can be seen in both government programs like welfare and low-income housing which have been a mixed blessing and curse and in Christian programs that produced "rice Christians," among other things. Even something that would seem to only be a positive can end up being a negative.
Two mission groups were working among poor villages in Central America. Both groups trained native church planters and sent them into the villages. One group provided a salary for the planters, but the other did not. The villages where the planters did not receive a mission salary gradually improved economically while the other villages did not.
Another complication, but certainly not a reason for not giving, is that even when I buy something I am usually helping the poor by providing jobs both here and often in developing countries. I am also often providing profit for companies to boost their stock, some of which is owned by retirement accounts of widows with limited incomes. My primary income comes from remodeling and home repairs and a significant part of that is from unnecessary remodeling projects.
Here are some thoughts that can help.
1. Try to provide a hand up rather than a hand out.
2. Let people earn or pay for what they receive even if it is only pennies per dollar of actual cost.
3. Try to make sure you are meeting perceived needs and not what you may think is needed (sometimes the two don’t match).
4. As much as possible use local resources.
5. Whenever possible, work long-term one-on-one. (It seems to me that this fits most Scripture about helping the poor better than remote giving of dollars—but don’t leave that undone.)
—Bruce Webster
Via e-mail
‘Baptism’ Stirred Memories
(posted 6-8-05)
I was blessed to read Paul Williams’ April 10 "And So It Goes" column about his baptism into Christ.
He closed with the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words," but in fewer than a half-thousand well-chosen words, he gave to your readers who were not present that day in January 1961 a clear, moving photograph of his confession of faith and his submission to the Lord’s command to baptize believers in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Sixty-eight years ago, on April 18, 1937, in the Lansdowne Church of Christ at 25th Street and Lincoln Avenue, in East St. Louis, Illinois, I was my usual agitated, troubled self during the invitation hymn. I, too, was 9 years old, and brother Irl Sidwell’s sermons had been reaching me for some time, but I just kept singing the apt words "Just as I Am," as though they pertained to another.
A kindly white-haired gentleman, Mr. Gardiner, who usually occupied a seat in a row our family used, leaned over and said softly to me, "Why don’t you go forward? You have wanted to for some time." I slipped quickly out of denial into affirmation!
"Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and do you accept him as your personal Saviour?" brother Sidwell asked me, as we stood in front of the congregation.
"I do," I answered. Then Mr. Sidwell—so beloved by our family—said, to my surprise, "Today is my 49th birthday, but it is your spiritual birthday. You will always remember being born again on this date."
That evening, after the service, I was immersed in the waters of baptism and raised to walk in newness of life.
Thanks for letting me see the photograph of Paul Williams’ most special day, which stirred the memory of my own. I am blessed to be a subject of the King these 68 years.
—Patsy M. Long
Troy, Illinois
A Convicting Challenge
(posted 5-19-05)
Thank you for the encouragement to read (“Recommendations for Readers,” February 27). At a Lead Like Jesus conference last October, Pat Williams (well-known personal and business coach) quoted President Truman as saying, “Not all readers are leaders, but all leaders must be readers.” It is hard to imagine how anyone could be leading without reading.
I’m grateful for your convicting challenge. Also, I’m thankful for men in my life like Charles Selby, Jim McKowen, Dick Brown, and Chuck McNeely who set a good example for me as readers. These men, and many others, demonstrated that humble, unassuming spirit Paul Williams mentioned in his article, always seeking to learn and grow without being boastful about it.
As a result of that issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD, I have challenged each of our ministries and small groups to assemble their own suggested reading lists. Last summer some ladies from our women’s ministry put together a small group for reading and reviewing Christian books. I’m excited to see what their list will look like.
Your work is making a difference in the kingdom.
—John R. Green
Clay Center, Nebraska
My Thoughts, Exactly
(posted 5-19-05)
Paul S. Williams’s article, “Is Anybody Out There Reading?” (February 27) completely expressed my own thoughts and concerns.
I am especially troubled by how many Christians don’t even read the Bible—just bits and pieces in a devotional. No wonder so many will be (and are being) deceived in these last days.
—P.L. Bennett
Via e-mail
MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS
It's Nice to Be Corrected So Kindly
(posted 6-24-05)
First, I want to say how much I appreciate and enjoy CHRISTIAN STANDARD. I have read it, probably for more than 60 years—beginning when I was 11 or 12 years old and would see it on the table next to my father’s chair, where he would sit and read it. It began a habit that has continued throughout my life. The magazine has provided interesting, thought-provoking materials that I feel have definitely contributed to my Christian nurture and growth. I appreciate the variety of views expressed on topics relating the doctrine, Christian life, missions, evangelism, and many other wide-ranging issues. I have been a preacher’s wife for almost 50 years. My husband is now retired and I am presently a church secretary. From time to time I have the opportunity to call attention in the Sunday bulletin to articles of interest to members, suggesting people pick up a particular issue from the literature stand at our Welcome Center. I hope it encourages people to make it a regular habit to read the magazine (along with the Lookout).
So now, I feel a little guilty as a first-time “letter to the editor” writer in mentioning the cover of the current (June 26) issue. I looked at it several times, thinking that something just didn’t look quite right. Finally, it struck me that the word “persuing” might be misspelled. Out came my dictionary, and sure enough, there was no listing for that spelling. I’m sure this isn’t the first or only letter regarding this. Actually, rather than complaining, I want to thank you. Now when I have mistakes in the bulletin I can point to it and say, “At least I’m in good company with my mistakes.” By the way, my standard answer to people who point out errors is, “I try to please everyone, and since some people are looking for mistakes, I try to put one in occasionally to make them happy.”
Thanks for doing a GREAT job overall. You do not make mistakes on the important things, like quality of topics, writers, your editorials, or other areas. I have really enjoyed seeing changes in format and direction, such as following a theme for one or more issues, etc. Your faithfulness to Christ and his Word is never in question, which I believe is the most important thing.
May God continue to bless you and all your coworkers in your ministry to so many of us for so many years.
—Margaret E. Coonce
Groveland, Illinois
Via e-mail
Editor's Note: We acknowledge the error and thank the folks who have so gently pointed it out to us. The cover image on our home page (posted June 22-28) contains the correct spelling.
Thanks for the Good Articles
(posted 6-13-05)
Spring has been a busy time for CHRISTIAN STANDARD, and it has been great reading for me. Thanks for the memories . . . and the neat gems . . . and always for the columns by Paul Williams. They are great!
Brian Jones’ article was superb! (“Is This What God Wants?” March 20). It spoke to the deep well in all of us with wonderment and rumblings about where we should be in our respective walks. I’ve loved Paul’s thoughts each week, picking up new words and concepts (sisomo and such) (April 17) and hearing his dismay about what’s playing on Broadway (May 29) (which made last week’s Tony Awards such a delight since this generation’s Monty Python became a prizewinner, despite all the “critical” complaints to the contrary). He always seems to speak just what I would, were I living in his corner of America.
And this week it was great to read Mark Taylor’s (“Engaging and Excellent” June 5) column about the Purdue Varsity Glee Club . . . a group we had enjoyed here in central Illinois thanks to Christian Homes Inc. when they celebrated their 40th anniversary. Those young men just made Earl C. Hargrove Chapel on the LCC campus ring with their melodies.
But the diamond for me was your article by Buddy Staton on worship (“Exploring Biblical Worship” by Knofel Staton, June 5). Knowing of his failing health, I thought he said many things to our time, things to ponder, things to reflect on, things to pray for.
My first “mentoring” memory with Buddy occurred many years ago at the NACC when as the keynote speaker for the evening he mentioned reading the Psalms through five at a time each day, over and over again. When I came home, I started doing just that and have continued it ever since. It is a rich reading delight . . . and Buddy’s thoughts on worship can do even more if we listen to his words and make God’s preference our preference.
—Ruthetta Getchel
Lincoln, Illinois
Via E-mail
Congratulations on eNewsletter, Magazine
(posted 6-8-05)
I just finished reading CHRISTIAN STANDARD’S first online eNewsletter and want to congratulate you on its punch and brevity. It is just what busy people today are looking for.
When I receive my CS each week I read the back page first. Paul Williams can be counted on to hit the nail on the head and to leave me thinking. He's done it again in his short comment on the high value placed on animals and the contrasting killing of innocent children. Sometimes these obvious facts have to be spelled out for us.
The articles in the STANDARD just keep getting more relevant each week. It's a paper we can be proud to share with the world.
—Shirley Marshall
Barton, Nova Scotia, Canada
You can sign up for the eNewsletter on Christian Standard's home page.
STANDARD Brochure One of the Best
(posted 6-8-05)
Your brochure “What Kind of Church Is This?” contains one of the best current statements available concerning who Churches of Christ/Christian Churches. I loved it and I will be showing it around.
—Geoffrey Risson
Executive Director, Resource Missional Team,
Churches of Christ Queensland, Australia
To order "What Kind of Church Is This?" for your church, click here
| We invite your thoughts about CHRISTIAN STANDARD articles and columns, and welcome interaction among our readers. Some letters posted here may be later printed in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD print version.
Letters regarding the contents of the magazine will be considered for publication in "Mailbox" unless specifically marked "not for publication." Published letters may be shortened to meet editorial requirements. Letters mailed to us must be signed, but names will be withheld upon request. Letters also may be sent via this contact form or by fax (513-931-0950). Please provide your city, state, and phone number for verification.
To send us a Letter to the Editor, click here. Or, if you prefer, our mailing address is:
CHRISTIAN STANDARD
8121 Hamilton Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45231 |
|
