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