Letters to the Editor - January/February 2007

eNewsletter

FREE!!

Get breaking news, previews of upcoming issues, and more sent right to your inbox!

Letters to the Editor - January/February 2007

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

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.

RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 25 ISSUE

Not 'Passed Over Lightly'
(posted 2-26-07)
To the unnamed individual who responded to Jack Cottrell’s February 25 article on Calvinism (“Calvinism and the Bible”) by asking, “Has Jack never read Romans 9:18-21?” (see below), I would like to commend to him Jack’s two-volume commentary on all of Romans, as well as his 131-page treatise on Romans 9. I think this will clear up any notion that Jack has passed over lightly on these oft-misunderstood verses.
—Allan Payne
Cincinnati, Ohio

Coexistence Possible
(posted 2-19-07)
As a Calvinist who is a youth pastor at a Christian church, I wanted to let you know I appreciate your tackling Calvinism in your upcoming four-part series. I must say I always appreciate your work in showing two sides to every coin. I see you even listed R.C. Sproul books in the next issue. I’m always impressed with the way the magazine comes off, not being threatened by things it disagrees with. That makes for real conversation.

I wanted to let you know it’s possible for a Calvinist and Arminian to coexist. A true follower of either theology won’t be threatened by the other.

While I don’t want to engage in trivial debate or be critical of the work in the magazine, I did want to point out one issue in Jack’s first article (part 1). In the “Problems for Calvinists” section he states, “If a man’s choices are predetermined, how can he be held responsible for them? Especially, how can he be blamed and punished for his sins?”

I was surprised to read this. Has Jack never read Romans 9:18-21? It says:

So you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.

Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”

No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?” When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into? (New Living Translation).

So might this be a problem for the Calvinist? Maybe. But the only way it’s not a problem for all Christians is if they throw that part of their Bibles out.
—Name Withheld by Request

Thanks for Calvinism Series
(posted 2-16-07)
Thank you for taking on the topic of Calvinism in your four-part series. I appreciated Jack Cottrell's two articles in Part 1 (February 25) and the interview with John Caldwell, Howard Brammer, and Russ Blowers (February 25). I believe when the teaching of "limited atonement" (one of the five "petals" of the TULIP doctrine) is biblically examined, the house of Calvin comes tumbling down. When one examines the "all" passages of the Bible (Matthew 11:28; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9, et al.) and the "whosoever" verses of Scripture (Matthew 7:24; John 3:16; Revelation 22:17, et al.) it becomes clear that man is not "doomed from the womb to destruction" as John Calvin taught in his Institutes of the Christian Religion.
—Victor Knowles
Joplin, Missouri

RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 11 ISSUE

A Very Encouraging Editorial
(posted 2-19-07)
I would like to thank Mr. Taylor for his “Now More Than Ever” editorial in the February 11 edition of the CHRISTIAN STANDARD. I can’t tell you how encouraging it is.

I am a career woman but not yet a mother. I hope to be one in the future. I have become very aware of assumptions (and judgments) by the general Christian community as to what a Christian mother can and cannot do when it comes to her career and raising her children. More often than not, I get the impression (or have been directly told) that I have to pick one or the other. This has been very frustrating.

I thank you for the overall point of the article. It is the strategy that guides a family, not the method. Methods are just tools and these tools can be different in each family.

We do not see the post-Industrial Revolution American family model from the 1950s and ’60s portrayed in Scripture. I doubt the families of Lydia in Acts or the Proverbs 31 woman would have fit this mold. What I see in these women are their Creator’s strategies and their focus on their Creator.

To quote your article, “We can obey them (strategies) despite changing sociological patterns or economic pressures. . . . Regardless of who’s working where and how much, we need strong Christian families now more than ever.”

These families come in all shapes and sizes. Let us encourage them. Thank you for this reminder.
—Heather Mathena
Narrows, Virginia

A Good Study of 'Christian'
(posted 2-6-07)
Thank you for publishing "They Called Themselves Christians" by Clint Gill (February 11). I appreciated his good study on the use of the name "Christian" in Acts 11:26. I believe that he is correct when he states that chrematisai indicates a divine calling and that the new name of the disciples in Antioch may have fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah 62:2. The name "Christian" is not a human "put-down" but rather a divine "send-down" if I may coin a word. My Greek instructor (Donald G. Hunt) pointed out that translators could just as well have translated Acts 11:26, "The disciples were divinely called Christians first in Antioch" because the nine uses of this Greek word in the New Testament (with one exception) are talking about God or the Holy Spirit doing the calling. He also stated that the reason God may have waited this long to bestow this "new name" upon the disciples is because followers of Christ are not altogether like Christ until they grasp the universal scope of the church. Antioch, more than Jerusalem, became the center of evangelism.

Gill's essay, then, really buttressed the theme of the entire issue. i.e. preparing to reach the world, as did your editorial and Doug Priest's encouraging report on the record-breaking National Missionary Convention and Pat Magness' "Energy, Urgency, and Excitement in Missions Today." Only when we have the missionary heart of Christ do we deserve to be called "Christians."

This heart for winning people to Jesus was also seen in the "Buzz" item on the "Nights of Care" and "Days of Decision" visitation program at Harvester Christian Church in St. Charles, Missouri, where 175 members made 400 visits resulting in two dozen souls being baptized into Christ. May their (Christian) tribe increase!
—Victor Knowles
Joplin, Missouri

RESPONSE TO FEBRUARY 4 ISSUE

The 'Center of Our Worship'
(posted 2-13-07)
I am writing in reference to “No More Christians!” by Dave Ferguson, Jon Ferguson, and Eric Bramlett (February 4). The article contends the average churchgoer is overloaded every week with scores of competing little ideas. Of all the little ideas discussed, not once was Communion mentioned. I look forward to remembering Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection each first day of the week. This is the center of our worship. I try to get something out of all the elements of a worship service. Jesus is our Savior, so let’s remember him not only on Sunday, but every day of our lives. I teach my children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren the ways of being a Christian servant. Also I pray daily for the church as well as my family.
—Bill Lewis
Mondamin, Iowa

'Count It a Privilege'
(posted 2-13-07)
In response to “No More Christians!” (February 4): By the grace of God I am still a Christian, and I pray that in reaching out with the gospel of Christ, there will be many more who become Christians and count it a privilege to bear his name.
—Howard Cowan
Delta, Colorado

'Not Living Up to the Name'
(posted 2-13-07)
“No More Christians!” (February 4) should open the eyes of all of us who call ourselves Christian. Instead of being offended by the article, we should listen to the problem. Most people who call themselves Christian are not living up to the name. But changing the name will not help; there must be a change of heart.

We must look at the brutal fact that we are viewed by the world as a “Christian nation,” yet as a whole we are so unlike Christ. The world sees Christianity as an immoral religion because of the people who represent our nation in popular culture. They say to themselves, “The United States is a Christian nation, and look at the immorality that exists among their people.”

This is at the heart of the current war. The people see us as bringing immorality to their nation. And they see it as being associated with a “Christian” nation.

Wearing a title like “Christian” is not enough—we must act like Christ and be different from the culture. So, our job is more difficult than changing names or titles. There needs to be a movement to be more like Christ. Then we have the opportunity to win the world. As we are transformed one person and one church at a time, we will begin to make an impact in a world that desperately needs to experience God’s grace.
—Scott Baker
Tallmadge, Ohio

'Are We Straying?'
(posted 2-13-07)
The February 4 issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD had two interesting articles regarding multisite churches. I would like to offer a thought regarding this subject:

Within the independent Christian churches/churches of Christ we have prided ourselves in being autonomous. When the New Testament church was in its infancy, Paul, Timothy, and Titus appointed elders in each congregation (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5), thus making the church at Ephesus separate and apart from the church at Colosse and the church at Corinth, etc.

Now we have the advent of the multisite church. Is the multisite church in keeping with New Testament teaching? Are we developing a hierarchy within the Christian church (an eldership having control and authority over more than one congregation)?

Each congregation develops its own personality and has its own needs. God directed the early church to meet those needs by having each congregation select its own elders. Are we straying from that?
—Richard Colbry
Mesa, Arizona

'Still in Disbelief'
(posted 2-9-07)
My husband and I, and a whole lot of other Christians at the church where we worship, are still in disbelief that you would print such an article as “No More Christians!” (February 4). Of course, the Bible does say that in the last days there will be a “great falling away.”
—Bea Herrin
Enid, Oklahoma

'Smacks of Sactimonious Self-Righteousness'
(posted 2-9-07)
Regarding the article “No More Christians!” (February 4), in my opinion, the authors’ beef with the name “Christian” is overstated and the advice to abandon the name is an overreaction. In fact, it comes across (to me) as calculated for shock value and book sales.

In addition, the idea of changing their name from Christian so as to distinguish themselves from others who SO imperfectly follow the Lord smacks of sanctimonious self-righteousness. Will a name change make that much difference? So are we to assume that since they call themselves “Christ-followers” they are REALLY serious about discipleship? Please. Call yourself Christ-follower if you want but don’t do it to distinguish yourself from all of us unwashed masses out here.

I mean, who ARE these guys?

Let us all “distinguish” ourselves with the fruit of the Spirit and take unto ourselves the names offered in the Word of God.
—Steve Jones
Oviedo, Florida

Humbled to Wear Name 'Christian'
(posted 2-2-07)
I was taken aback by the introduction to the February 4 article “No More Christians!” I actually put the article down and didn’t return to it for several days. Once I read it in its entirety, I found the basic premise to be very good. But that introduction still bothers me. Indeed, the behavior of Christians today is often indistinguishable from that of non-Christians. But, if I read my New Testament correctly, that problem existed in the early church too.

Then I read the February 11 article, “They Called Themselves Christians” (by Clint Gill). How very refreshing! The word “Christian” is rich, full, and deep with meaning. Dave Ferguson, Jon Ferguson, and Eric Bramlett write (in “No More Christians!”), “The last thing the mission of Jesus Christ needs is more Christians.” Wrong! The thing the mission of Jesus Christ desperately needs is more Christians. I, for one, am humbled by the privilege of being called, and calling myself, a Christian. I am a follower of Christ and I pray my behavior brings glory to his Name.
—Bill Holley
Marion, Iowa

The Muse Is Present
(posted 2-2-07)
Perhaps the next time Paul S. Williams contemplates loading up the pickup truck with a group of tagalongs, he should remember that the “muse” for which he searches is present even in those worship services that he considers beneath him. (See “And Your Muse?” February 4.)
—Mark A. McClanahan
Doraville, Georgia

A 'Good' Strategy, But Not the 'Best' Strategy
(posted 1-30-07)
A lot of times when we purchase something we are offered a choice of good, better, and best. I think that also relates to expanding the kingdom of God.

I would call the multisite strategy a good strategy (see February 4 issue), but am convinced there are both a better and a best strategy. I see two primary problems with the multisite strategy. First, if we are going to maximize kingdom expansion we need to involve both large and small churches. Rightly or wrongly, small churches often look to large churches for outreach strategies. The multisite strategy is one that few, if any, small churches could use.

Second, several years ago I began saying, "Peter Wagner is wrong. And I think he would agree with me. Church planting is not the most effective form of evangelism. Church multiplication is." Most people regularly involved in church planting are now in some way strongly encouraging their church plants to be significantly involved in church planting. A multisite approach may be as good or better than planting nonreproducing churches, but I am not aware of any multisite that has reproduced itself.

A better multisite approach is what the church in Lilburn, Georgia, did. A few years ago that church started a second site. As I understand it, from day one the plan was for it to become an independent church at the end of three years, and then it was expected to be a church-planting church. That church is now an independent church. I don't know where they are on their church planting.

What Steve Sjogren is doing in the Greater Cincinnati area (described in his new book, Community of Kindness) comes close to what I believe is the best strategy, in part because even most smaller churches could do it on a reduced scale. He is planting low-cost churches (under $10,000) that are expected to average at least 300 and plant a church by the time they are three years old. Most of them are meeting these goals.

New data indicates just to stay even with population growth, independent Christian churches need to add about 57 churches a year. By the time you account for churches that close, we may need to plant 100 or more a year to have a net gain of 57. Several months ago, CHRISTIAN STANDARD reported on new churches that have been planted over the last three years. After including churches added to the list a few weeks later, there were only about 100 new churches added in three years, a bit over 30 per year.

Based on nose counts, between 2000 and 2005 there was a decline in the percentage of the population attending church in each of the 50 states. To turn this around we need to be doing a lot of church multiplication.
—Bruce Webster
President, Effective Evangelism
Indianapolis, Indiana

RESPONSE TO JANUARY 28 ISSUE

'As Different as Night and Day'
(posted 2-2-07)
It was with great interest and appreciation that I read Randy Garriss’s article, “How Should We Define ‘Leadership’?” (January 28).

I was beginning to wonder if anyone even cares or notices anymore that the requirements of “shepherds” in the Bible and the “wrong impressions” that our modern-day leaders have, are as different as night and day.

Randy’s point was well-taken: Our leaders, like kids feeding cattle, only feed those who come with no thought for the spiritually weak and discouraged. Only Heaven knows the number of “sheep” that have fallen by the wayside and our leaders have no idea when they left, why they left, or where they are. In too many of our congregations (especially the larger ones) the “sheep” don’t have any idea who the shepherds are and the shepherds don’t know whom the “sheep” are.

Wonder what Jesus was trying to get across in John 10 when he said, “My sheep know my voice; I know my sheep and they know me.”

What is the lesson for us in Luke 15? “If a man has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, does he not leave the ninety-nine and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?”

I have spent many hours with men studying the biblical requirements of a shepherd and a “shepherd’s heart,” only to see them within two months of being ordained fall into the “bored meeting” concept.

In 44 years of serving as a teacher, elder, and evangelist, I can count on one hand the number of biblical shepherds and evangelists I’ve known.
—Milfred Hudson
Spencer, Virginia

'A Parsonage Can Work Well Today'
(posted 1-30-07)
A comment on “Seven Heavens” (January 28) by Daniel Schantz: We had owned our own houses for 38 years, then we moved to our present ministry. The congregation moved us into a six-year-old brick parsonage with a two-car garage that is located about 200 yards from the church building. The house came fully equipped with a refrigerator, stove, dishwasher, and washer and dryer. All the appliances were all like new and worked well.

During our four years here the congregation has built us a patio in back, put in a new sidewalk, paved our drive, and added storm doors on the front and back of the house. We had to have our dishwasher repaired once. The congregation asked us to contact the repairman and they paid the bill. We have a 2-acre lawn. Each year a lawn-mowing service is hired by the church to keep the lawn and yard looking good.

The congregation respects the fact that this is “our” house, even though it is theirs. They are very considerate of our privacy and our needs. I just want to say that, for all its weaknesses, a parsonage can work well today.
—Russell Lieb
Mount Olive Church of Christ
New Vienna, Ohio

An Additional Disadvantage to Parsonages
(posted 1-29-07)
I would like to commend Robert Kitchen for his excellent article on the disadvantages of parsonages (“Your Home, Our House; Whose?” January 28). I have served in churches that still have this practice in place. I would add a huge disadvantage to Mr. Kitchen's list. When a minister is asked to resign from the church he is not just out of a job, he and his family are also out of a home. Been there, done that, not once, but twice.
—Name Withheld

'Shepherds First'
(posted 1-29-07)
I appreciated the article, "How Should We Define 'Leadership'?" by Randy Gariss in the January 28 issue. The section on the shepherd model really caught my attention. I have felt that leaders/elders/pastors should be shepherds first and then let them make decisions when necessary. Shepherding is the model that I have encouraged my two sons, who are leaders in their churches, to emulate. Thanks, Randy, for the great thoughts.
—Bob Cross
Gold Canyon, Arizona

RESPONSE TO JANUARY 21 ISSUE

Forewarned
(posted 3-19-07)
Thank you for your articles on the emergent church. The apologist Greg Kouki asserts, “Be forewarned, the Emergent Church is the most theologically corrosive . . . movement in a long time . . . and is consuming millions, especially young people.” (See www.str.org.)

D.A. Carson has written a wonderful book (Becoming Conversant with the Emergent Church, Zondervan, 2005). In refuting aberrant beliefs of Brian McClaren and most (but no all) of the other emergent church leaders, Dr. Carson states:

“Experience or truth? . . . The truth is that Jesus Christ is Lord of all. . . . They need to spend more time to careful study of Scripture and theology . . . even if that takes away some of the hours . . . devoted to understanding the culture. . . . They need to take great pains not to distort history and theology . . .” (p. 234).

—David N. Sonnesyn
Longmont, Colorado

Very Timely Article
(posted 1-29-07)
We praise God for Gary Weedman’s Reflections article, “‘Preaching?’ or ‘Sharing?’” in the January 21 CHRISTIAN STANDARD—very timely.
—Clarence and Bea Herrin
Enid, Oklahoma

'It Makes Me Sick'
(posted 1-27-07)
I couldn't help but laugh a little. I was wondering what Mr. Errett would think about your last few issues dealing with what you call the “postmodern” church. This statement makes me think that you take the Bible seriously: “The Bible alone makes Christians alone for the purpose of calling others back to God alone through his Son alone."

I agree with Bob, Jenna, and Tim. It makes me sick that such a cornerstone in Christian living as “the STANDARD” is taking up the promotion of such practices.

Nearly the whole of the January 21 issue reminded me of the “high places” mentioned in Scripture. Surely you remember that old book called the Bible, and the stories in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles.

Maybe you should knock the dust off of that old “Christian standard,” the Bible, and exhort, and teach from it, instead of all this “man’s wisdom.”
—Rick
Lynchburg, Ohio

'I Was Left Feeling Numb'
(posted 1-23-07)
Thank you Jenna Lusby and Tim Dalrymple for your very timely and informative letters to the editor. After thoroughly reading and considering the January 21 STANDARD, I was left feeling numb—I couldn't even muster the clarity of thought to respond. In my soul and my gut, I knew something was horribly wrong, but this normally outspoken "hick" preacher was at a loss for words. Is the STANDARD and our brotherhood really so ready to promote and popularize such cultish ways?
Pray! God save us!
—Bob Wickline
Bethel, Ohio

'Important Details Missing'
(posted 1-22-07)
I enjoyed Dan Kimball’s excellent article (January 7, part one of the "1st Century, 21st Century" series) addressing the emerging church. His definitions and descriptions were especially helpful. We can’t afford to be uninformed or naïve about the workings in today’s changing church. Regarding Dan Gilliam’s article ("A Liturgy, a Labyrinth, and a Gregorian Chant," January 21), however, there were important details missing with regard to the labyrinth, an emerging meditation tool.

When the writer calls the labyrinth a “pre-Christian tool adopted by the medieval church” one may assume he means the labyrinth had a Jewish or Old Testament source. In truth, it was “adopted” from paganism.

The word labyrinth means “place of the double axe,” in reference to an ancient symbol for the divine feminine, most likely derived from the myth of a goddess slaying a foe with a double axe.

Perhaps Mr. Gilliam should have cautioned readers that the ritual of walking the labyrinth path—often with a sacred object (amulet) in hand while chanting a “sacred” word over and over to empty one’s mind—is a ritual designed to create an altered state of consciousness, a self-induced mystical connection with spiritual beings.

The article calls this contemplation. More correctly it is geomancy: divination by mean of figures, lines, or geographical features. In pagan traditions the mandala, yantra, or Wiccan circle are also used for contacting a god, a spirit, or the Higher Self.

The labyrinth came to the American church through Lauren Artress, canon of San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral. She calls the labyrinth a “big spiritual open house,” its purpose being “transformation of human personality in progress” which accomplishes a “shift in consciousness as we seek spiritual maturity as a species.” According to www.inplainsite.org, Artress walked her first labyrinth at Chartres Cathedral, France, in 1991 with mystic/channeler Jean Houston (who helped Hillary Clinton have imaginary conversations with the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt). Artress was overcome with an “almost violent anxiety” but was assured by Houston that the ancient pathway would “lead each of us to our own center.” (It’s notable that goddess worship was practiced on this site before the cathedral was built around 1200, at which time the original statue of the Mother-Goddess supposedly was then ensconced as the virgin Mary. It was this statue that became the object of popular pilgrimages to Chartres Cathedral. The rose shape in the center of the labyrinth represents Mary.)

Before trying a labyrinth walk, readers should be informed that anyone—Christians, nonbelievers, New Agers, Buddhists—may have mystical experiences, and not all of them positive. One New Age practitioner, claiming to have documented hundreds of events from people over a 14-year period said that, “Energy work is being done on the person, (i.e.) feeling subtle energy or having certain unpleasant experiences including feeling dizzy, achy, strange . . . or vivid dreams” (www.earthsymbols.com).

Clearly the labyrinth ritual—with or without God—is able to produce powerful experiences.

It’s interesting that after a.d. 1500, most labyrinths were removed from cathedral floors. One has to wonder why. Perhaps it’s no coincidence that around this time the printing of the Word of God began, which says, “Let no one be found among you who practices divination, or sorcery. . . Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:10, 11); and which also says, “Be careful not be ensnared by inquiring about [pagan] gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods? We will do the same.’ You must not worship the Lord your God in their way” (Deuteronomy. 12:30, 31).

We can’t afford to be uninformed and naïve about the workings in today’s changing church.
—Jenna Lusby
Via e-mail

Reply from Dan Gilliam (posted 2-5-07):
The term pagan originally comes from the Latin word paganus and literally means “country dweller.” Over time, it has commonly come to mean “practitioners of an Earth religion” and anyone not associated with Christianity is often referred to as pagan. Unfortunately, Christian culture often interprets the word pagan to mean or imply satanic or demonic while many who would be called pagans are more accurately God-seeking people who choose to encompass a broader view and different approach to worship.

Historically, as the Christian church has always intersected with (and not isolated herself from) pagan cultures it is known to have occasionally adopted some of their symbols and practices. Because many of us grew up with these already incorporated into our individual and corporate lives, we do not find these former pagan symbols and practices to be odd, alarming, or potentially dangerous. For instance, I doubt any of us would believe for a minute that a parent giving his or her child an Easter basket would expose him or her to the influence of the god or goddess of fertility whose symbol was the egg. Nor could we ever be convinced that any church whose foyer or stage was adorned with a Christmas tree would be practicing the pagan ritual of cutting and decorating evergreens because they believed them to have magical powers that enabled them to withstand the rigors of winter. And while most everyone knows that Jesus’ actual birthday was not December 25, it is a fact that in the fourth-century, Western church leaders selected this date because it was already the date recognized throughout the Roman Empire as the birthday of various pagan gods. Do any of us who have celebrated Christmas on 12/25 our whole lives have any stories of how this has had a sinister and destructive force over us? Of course not. These are practices we have made our own and their origins do not affect our common and religious customs.

It would logically follow then that those who would utilize the labyrinth (a symbol and tool adopted from pagan culture) as a method for expanding their prayer lives and learning to “listen to the voice of God in Scripture, Spirit and silence” would in no way be participating in divination or sorcery or endangering their souls. On the contrary, the labyrinth provides a place for extensive times of prayer for which the church is no longer typically known. In my 10 years of walking the labyrinth as a spiritual practice I have yet to hear of one person who experienced anything close to a dark or evil spiritual experience. On the other hand, I have seen nothing but love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control birthed in the lives of those who walk the labyrinth in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In Acts 10:15, God spoke directly to Peter and said, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." As with the prohibited foods of the old covenant, God is able to set things aside to be used for his glory and our edification even if their former use was considered to be impure. Christ himself taught that the final gauge of value for any tree is in its fruit. We can trust God to keep us safe as we seek to grow in intimacy with him.

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).

“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17).

'Not the Doctrine of the Holy Bible'
(posted 1-22-07)
I was shocked and deeply disturbed to see the emergent church movement is being embraced by those in the Restoration Movement. As a former "attender" (nonmember) of LifeBridge Christian Church, I can only say that if I was still there I would hightail it out of there as fast as possible.

These types of medieval practices trace their beginnings to the early church of Rome and embrace Hindu yoga, and transcendental meditation as well. The leaders of the "emergent church" accept "homosexual Christians," hold events known as "Porn Sunday," openly question the authority of the Bible, and believe one can be saved without ever knowing Jesus Christ. This is not the doctrine of the Holy Bible. I would highly recommend the Web site, www.christianworldviewnetwork.com to anyone interested in knowing the truth about the movement. Perhaps it's time to forget about the "purpose-driven" church and become a "God-driven" church.
—Tim Dalrymple
Cheyenne, Wyoming

RESPONSE TO JANUARY 14 ISSUE

'Only Wishful Thinking'
(posted 1-15-07)
I believe your editor-at-large, Paul Williams, is naive. He states that neither evolution nor intelligent design should be taught in our public schools ("Right Discussion-Wrong Location," January 14). Perhaps that is a great idea, but one that is only wishful thinking. Does Paul really think that “the world” is going to stop teaching evolution in the classroom? I don’t believe it has any intention of doing so since this is not a “theory” to them but an article of faith and truth. What the ID proponents want is equal time to present their side of the story so that students can make up their own minds about origins. What is wrong with that idea in a “free” society (of sorts)?
—Ken Coyle
Via e-mail

Evidence Points to Designer
(posted 1-10-07)
Once again, as I read Paul Williams’s column "Right Discussion-Wrong Location," I had to say, “Oh, Brother, here he goes again.” “Quite sure his way was the only valid perspective” as he has accused many fundamentalists. Certainly he couldn’t be guilty of the same, could he? I have to wonder from where his perspective comes. In this issue I doubt it is from a vantage point of science.

When discussing this contrast between belief in a random, purposeless universe, and belief in intelligent design, he also says, “Certain theories shouldn’t be taught in the public school science classroom.” It is too bad that Mr. Williams has fallen for the idea that intelligent design is a theory.

Let me speak from the perspective of a science background.

In the 1960s and '70s, scientific discoveries sure seemed to point toward the evolutionary model. In the last 20 years, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly shows, even to nonbiased atheists in science, that there must be a rational designer behind the universe. Colson’s How Now Shall We Live and Strobel’s The Case for a Creator are two great books that show lots of this in ways that even those untrained in science can understand. Colson has said those who don’t see the validity of intelligent design are probably either too biased to see it or too lazy to study it thoroughly. He may be right. When you study the science nowadays, even atheists admit there must be a creator behind it all; pick one, I know mine.

If all the science is shown for both sides of the argument in the public school forum, the evolutionary model gets blown out of the water. Trying to teach science without admitting that there is a creator behind it all is really about as realistic as trying to teach sex education and morals without the idea of God’s design. Where has the public school teaching taken society with that?

The more you study the scientific evidences, the more you will see that there is a designer and that the designer set it up so that the designee couldn’t help but prove the existence of the designer objectively.

I’m guessing from Mr. Williams's comments that he hasn’t studied the science of the last 20 years much. Kind of reminds me of the story of the fly that got loose in the butcher shop and overindulged on the bologna on the counter. The fly then crawled over to the broom handle next to the counter before trying to fly across the room. Splat went the fly on the floor. The moral was “it is not good to fly off the handle when you might be full of bologna.”
—Philip Andrews
Kernersville, North Carolina

'No Teacher is Neutral'
(posted 1-10-07)
(Regarding "Right Discussion—Wrong Location.") Mr. Williams would be more helpful if he would recognize that no teacher is neutral, in science classrooms or elsewhere. To argue that intelligent design not to be taught in the science classroom is to argue that evolution is the only position taught. Why not teach alternative theories? Any good teacher should be able to teach alternative viewpoints, whether they be efficient or final causes. As an aside, Mr. Polkinghorne nearly gives the case away anyhow to science, and is hardly the final word on what ought to be taught to students in science classrooms.
—Wallace Wartick
Via e-mail

RESPONSE TO JANUARY 7 ISSUE

Ominous Concerns
(posted 1-15-07)
Making every good-faith effort to consider The STANDARD’s three-week series promoting the value of postmodernism, I must confess that concerns for our brotherhood only loom more ominously ahead . . .

What becomes more and more evident is that the lines between biblical absolutes and cultural concessions are becoming blurred beyond recognition.

In this quest to be all things to all people, might we discover at the end of the course that we have arrived in the “unchartable” realms of “religious relativism”?

Forgive me for stating the obvious, but the first-century church also sprang forth in a most pluralistic environment (everything from the mystery religions to emperor worship) Yet, the apostles do not appear to be possessed by the need to change the foundations and direction of the church at every turn in the road, or because some “uninspired” author declared the need to do so. . . . In fact, we should learn from the confessed mistake of the apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5, where after having just left Athens and having attempted to wrap the message of Christ around the popular mythology and culture of the Greeks on Mars Hill (with little success) he thusly confessed that he had “determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” He went on to declare, “Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”

Pray that our brotherhood that once claimed to be “the people of the Book” returns quickly to that hallowed heritage before we go the way of all dusty denominational paths that lead to the swirling seas of whatever-floats-your-boat. Couldn’t we possibly try a more novel approach? Instead of hyperventilating over every new-fad paperback that well-intentioned souls keep coming up with, let’s see more focus put back upon the beautiful and unadorned Word of God.

Dan Kimball (in “More Than a Generation Gap,” January 7) expressed his concern for the lack of defined religious roots in America today—that, because there are so many unchurched people in our culture today, we can no longer rely on the same worn-out methods that the church has utilized throughout its history. As Ecclesiastes 1:9 states clearly, “...There is no new thing under the sun.”

Just prior to the birth of the Restoration Movement in the decades following the American Revolution, the religious atmosphere in America was at its all-time lowest point. In 1790, it was estimated that only 5 to 10 percent of Americans had any association with any church at all. Deism and other libertine philosophies ruled the day. Great preachers like Barton W. Stone, Alexander Campbell, Walter Scott, and “Raccoon” John Smith entered into the spiritual vacuum of their day and began preaching the straight, unadulterated gospel of Jesus Christ, and turned the religious landscape of America upside-down for Christ and his church. The simple, timeless clarity of their message, evangelism, and biblical foundations captured the hearts and minds of a ripe populace then, as well it will today. The First and Second Great Awakenings in American history always had at their core strong uncompromising Bible preaching. If we hope for a third Great Awakening in the Christian consciousness of America today, we would do well to learn a lesson from our history.
—Bob Wickline
Bethel, Ohio

'Thanks for Clearing Up This Enigma'
(posted 1-15-07)
Thanks for printing the article by Dan Kimball, “More than a Generation Gap” (January 7). It is the first time I have seen any understandable article (or charts) explaining the term postmodern and the current definition of modernism.

When I attended Bible colleges in the 1950s, modernism meant the denial of the divinity of Christ and the miracles of the Bible, including the virgin birth and the resurrection. It was the big enemy of the New Testament church.

What has been confusing to me the last few years is how the current postmodernism has left the denial of the divinity of Christ behind. But, now I see the new modernist is not the old denier, but probably the old conservative. And the postmodernist is the new pluralist and all that.

Thanks for clearing up this enigma.

And now that we’re getting our labels straight, what should be the label for the old modernist of the late 19th and early 20th centuries?
—Theodore Dahl
Waukesha, Wisconsin

MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS

'Very Informative' Lesson
(posted 2-26-07)
Thank you for this week’s Sunday school lesson; it was very informative. This is my first time being on your site. I thank my Lord and Savior for inspired ministers such as you who use the Web to help your fellow sisters and brothers in the word. May the Lord continue to shine down upon you as you spread the good news. Bless you.
—Florence Parson
Birmingham, Alabama

'Truly Enjoyable Reading'
(posted 2-7-07)
Having graduated from Mater's International School of Divinity and studying John 11:1-7; 17-27, the insight found in your commentary (the Sunday School Lesson “I Am the Resurrection and the Life” by Russ Kuykendall) was truly enjoyable reading and your Web site a blessing.
—John L. Harris, Sr.
Bronx, New York

Great Game, Great Coaches
(posted 2-6-07)
I enjoyed watching the Super Bowl this year. It was a good time to gather with some friends. But having ministered almost eight years in Indiana, I figured I owed it to our friends back in “Hoosierland” to pull for the Colts. The game was good, but the greatest part for me was not the Colts winning, but what I witnessed and learned about the two head coaches. I had heard that Indianapolis head coach Tony Dungy was a Christian. Later I found out that Bears head coach Lovie Smith is also a serious follower of Christ.

The media reported on this with coach Dungy, noting he does not yell or curse at all on the field or at his players. He maintains a constant character that is quite foreign to professional sports these days.

The main headline in pregame talk was that these were the first African-American coaches to go to the big game. But I was pleasantly surprised to hear Dungy say while receiving the Super Bowl trophy that, “More than anything, Lovie Smith and I are not only African-American but also Christian coaches, showing you can do it the Lord’s way. We’re more proud of that.” Earlier in the week, coach Smith stated among all the publicity of the upcoming game that, “We’re pro football coaches, but we are also men of faith. A faith that defines who we are. It comforts us in tough times and produces hope in the midst of adversity. It is through our common faith in Jesus Christ that we have individually experienced God’s love and forgiveness.”

So with all this I was encouraged to see two great men of character vocally, and publicly, pointing up to Christ and their faith in him while in the limelight. I hope that others, who do not know the freedom that comes from Jesus, will take a second look at our Savior because of their example.

But then I thought about you and me. We’re regular people who probably will not be coaching the next Super Bowl team. We’re just people living our daily lives. I wondered what our churches, cities, and world would be like if we all gave our best for the Master and then threw all the glory his way at the end of the day. Wow, wouldn’t that make a difference? I’m reminded of a conversation that occurred years ago between evangelist D.L. Moody and Henry Varley. Moody was challenged by Varley, his new friend, who noted: “The world has yet to see what God will do with and for and through and in and by the man who is fully consecrated to him.”

Dungy, Smith, and Varley got it right. For if we just go about our daily tasks, living sold-out, committed lives to Christ, the world will take notice. That is really what Jesus called us to do anyway. We are called to make disciples and Jesus defined his disciples as being the “salt of the earth and the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16).

So as we move out this week into a world that is in desperate need for God, let us allow our “faith to define who we are,” give Christ the glory, and then witness change taking place all around us.
—Steve Hinton
Rancho Cordova, California

Blessed By Lesson Treatments
(posted 1-3-07)
Thank you for having such an easy to understand Sunday school lesson. I was going over my lesson with a friend and she introduced me to your address and I have been blessed by reading it on your Web site.
—Ellen Hymon
Chicago, Illinois

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
8805 Governor's Hill Drive, Suite 400
Cincinnati, OH 45249


Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved. CHRISTIAN STANDARD is a publication of Standard Publishing.	Home \| News In Brief \| Past Articles \| Letters to the Editor \| Contact Us From The Editor \| And So It Goes \| Sunday School Lesson \| Buzz \| Leader's Toolbox \| Calendar