Letters to the Editor - July/August 2008

Of Christianity, Women, and Church Leadership 
(posted 8-26-08)
Several weeks ago there was a book review in the “From My Bookshelf” section that I wanted to respond to. LeRoy Lawson reviewed Three Cups of Tea, which I had previously read, and I particularly enjoyed his review (“Insights Into the Middle East,” July 13). I intended to write and comment to that effect. However, due to my procrastination and in view of the recent topics in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD regarding the role of women in leadership (the August 17 and 24 issues), I want to respond specifically to his comment regarding the fact that Greg Mortenson, the author, is not a Christian.

I wonder if Mortenson were a Christian, would he have been as diligent and persistent in improving the lot of women in those mountain villages?

Wait a minute! I know that sounds harsh and shrill! However, I think history reveals that “Christian” men were not exactly in the forefront of the abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage (ex-slaves were extended the right to vote before women), integration, or women’s rights in general. I recall during one of several readings of Genesis 3:16, “You shall bear children in intense pain and suffering,” and having it just kind of jump off the page at me, wondering if there had ever been a time when “Christian” men had actually in their zeal for carrying out “God’s will,” punished a woman for taking a painkiller during childbirth. Sometime later I came across a quote from the book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom by A.D. White, stating that, in fact, a woman had been put to death for just such a request.

I have been particularly pleased you have elected to examine the role of the elders in church leadership, as well as the role of men, (i.e., the complementarian vs. egalitarian views). I have the articles from CHRISTIAN STANDARD back in the early 1990s when this issue was addressed to some extent. In fact, my article “Church Leadership: Power or Empowerment” was accepted for publication during that period of time.

In Knofel Staton’s article, “Elders: The Church’s Lead Caregivers” (June 15, 2008), I could not help but note the irony of Mr. Staton’s assessment of the meaning of episkeptomal in which he quotes chapter and verse what an overseer does in contrast with Joe Harvey’s contention (in “Two Views: Complementarian—Men Are Authoritative Teachers,” August 17, 2008): “Women should not serve in ministry leadership roles because they are not to exercise authority over men. This principle is established through God’s creation design, illustrated in the Old Testament, reinforced in the ministry of Jesus, and stipulated in the teachings of Paul.” There is not a hint of authority or the need for authority in any of the situations cited by Mr. Staton.
 
In fact, I think the entirety of Mr. Harvey’s comment violates one of the cardinal tenets of the Restoration Movement: i.e., taking all the Bible has to say before drawing a conclusion. He, perhaps inadvertently, speaks correctly when he describes the complementarian/hierarchical view as being traditional (as opposed to scriptural—my words).
 
I note one of the references Lana West (in “Two Views: Egalitarian—Allow Women to Fulfill Their Calling,” August 17, 2008) suggests for further study is Beyond Sex Roles: What the Bible Says About a Woman’s Place in Church and Family by Gilbert Bilezikian. In 1993, Dr. Bilezikian issued a challenge for proponents of female subordination to prove their case from the Bible, stating that “the purpose of the challenge is to prompt Christians to grapple with biblical facts rather than to accept traditional assumptions about female roles. The first two challenges were: To cite a text from the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2 that enjoins or entitles men to exercise authority or leadership over women, or that designates men as “head” or “spiritual head” over women. Second, to cite a text from the Bible that assigns women subordinate status in relation to men because Adam was created before Eve.
—Jeanine S. Moss
Via e-mail

'Handling of the Scriptures . . . Deplorable' 
(posted 8-26-08)
The handling of the Scriptures in “Elders, Leadership, and Women” by Steve Edgington (August 24) is deplorable. It is the same egalitarian platform advanced since the 1960s; it is a damn-the-Scriptures-full-speed-ahead attitude. How can one take Galatians 3:28, which clearly refers to the equality in inheritance shared by all who have eternal life in the Messiah, and twist it to think that it abolishes all role distinctions? It is not only an insupportable notion, it is a calculated wresting of the Scriptures inspired by the popular doctrine of modern feminism.
—Michael Bray
Wilmington, Ohio

A Much-Needed Essay 
(posted 8-26-08)
Jim Tune (“Five Questions for the Restoration Movement,” September 7) said he was not the man to be writing this particular article. I say he was just the man for the job. So I will say it: “Jim, you’re the man.” Thank you for writing with such passion and thank you, CHRISTIAN STANDARD, for publishing this much-needed essay. I hope Jim’s penetrating questions and the provocative answers he provides will resonate with all who will read them. Brother Tune is from Canada. It may take a man from “up north” to get us pointed “true north” once again. Jim asked if what he was writing made sense. Yes, brother, it did. You rang the bell all the way from Toronto! O, Canada!
—Victor Knowles
Joplin, Missouri

'Distortion of God's True Plan' 
(posted 8-26-08)
Although I applaud Greg Taylor’s passion for reaching those of the non-Christian community, I am more than a bit concerned about some of his statements in “A New Movement and the Choices We Must Make,” published in the July 6, 2008, issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD.

His opening statement, “There’s a new Restoration Movement on fire and spreading in the United States and world”—and a closing statement—“then Christians have little if any business arguing about issues like . . . how often Communion is served; . . . and on and on” are a contradiction. If the Restoration Movement was born under the banner of returning to the practices of the first church as described in the book of Acts, this so-called “new” Restoration Movement is not even a shirttail relative of the church Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone studied and labored so hard to restore.

If Taylor’s operative word is “arguing,” then I agree. “Teaching more perfectly” and arguing are two very different concepts with two very different end results. But this does not seem to be Taylor’s concern. Instead, it appears that those of the true Restoration Movement are being asked to forget about the vital practices of the first church and are expected to passively lay down our Bibles and join hands with people who believe in only portions of Scripture and who choose to distort what God intended his church to really be. If we join hands with denominational people, what do we do when hearers ask how they become Christian? Do we silently stand by as our new partners share the unscriptural “sinner’s prayer”?

We are living in a day when we are already seeing far too many preachers in our brotherhood compromising biblical truths in order to gain numbers. If gathering around the Lord’s table on the first day of every week is not really important, is baptism by immersion important enough to retain?

The old adage, “If you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything,” seems very applicable here. We need to love denominational people enough to teach them what the Scriptures say. Sorry, Greg. What you are witnessing is not a new Restoration Movement. It is the old distortion of God’s true plan for his church, only dressed in contemporary clothing.
—Cheryl A. Moen
La Crescent, Minnesota

Appreciative of Elder Articles, Interview with Wymore 
(posted 8-26-08)
Two years ago I wrote a letter expressing my concern at the trend I observed in CHRISTIAN STANDARD whose articles were heavy on “pastorizing” the gospel ministry. You replied that you did not personally care for the term pastor as a designation for a minister but that you let article writers use their own term preferences. I realize that this is an editorial judgment you have a right to make. However, it seems to me it would be more helpful for you to express an editor’s qualifier that you do not agree with these usages. Then let the terms in the articles stand. That way readers know where you are coming from.

Now I want to express my gratitude for your emphasis this year as the “Year of the Elder.” The several articles focusing on the eldership have been excellent. This is an emphasis I had been hoping you would make eventually. Even though next year’s theme won’t concentrate on this issue, I hope you will have articles periodically to inform and inspire your readers. Knofel Staton’s article in the June 15 Standard (“Elders: The Church’s Lead Caregivers”) was very thorough and informative. I am curious why he referred only to presbuteros and episkopos as designations for elders. Pastor was notably absent. He does an excellent job explaining what the two words mean in terms of expressing practical functions. That is commendable. Pastor is listed by Paul as one of the gifts Christ gave to his church after ascending on high (Ephesians 4:10, 11). It can be explained just as easily. A pastor is a shepherd. Who better to pastor (shepherd) than a pastor (shepherd)?

It’s almost as if our brotherhood has become skittish about linking the term pastor to the eldership. We seem to be content to let the denominational world commandeer or hijack the term for purposes of propping up a non-biblical view of gospel ministry. This neglect, in my judgment, has cost us considerably in terms of church government. I’m praying that you at STANDARD and others in moral church leadership will help turn this attitude around.

Another article I appreciate is the July 6 “CHRISTIAN STANDARD Interview” with Leonard Wymore. He was spot-on in his comment about the North American Christian Convention, particularly with reference to committee functions and plans: “Persons who are a little more conservative among us have been pretty much told we don’t need your ideas or your views so there is no opportunity for them to be expressed.”

I believe this issue as much as any other explains the recent decline in attendance at and interest in the NACC. To use a popular political phrase today, those with conservative views and advancing ages (60s, 70s and beyond) are largely being “thrown under the bus.” Since I’m in this age bracket, I talk to and visit with many in the same age category. Many of them feel brokenhearted and rejected because they have been largely discounted and disenfranchised by the younger set. Most of our current leaders are younger than these people are, but I would be interested in seeing how they will react when they get to the 60sand 70s. I won’t live long enough to see that happen, but I would certainly like to. It is quite sad to see so many with such solid faith groundings and so much consistent service behind them become spiritual discards.

One other acknowledgement. Please keep articles from authors like Gary Weedman and Matt Proctor coming. They feed us with substantial spiritual meat. And, O yes, Lynn Gardner’s articles are gems. Thanks for including several of them this year. He is always spot-on. I will keep praying that Standard keeps going in the direction it is now heading.
—Ron Fisher
Lansing, Michigan

'A Sore Subject in Today's World' 
(posted 8-21-08)
The Aug. 17 articles about women in leadership were very good. It is strange that we had just gone through 1 Timothy 2 in our Sunday night Bible study. It is rather sad though that the study caused a woman and her husband to leave and promise to not come back. I tried to show her what God’s Word said and her comment was, “If you have a study with only the words of Christ, then we will be back.”

I realize this is a sore subject in today’s world. Women today are lifted up in our society as equals, and I have no problem with that. But, God’s Word is quite black and white in my mind on the subject of women leaders. His word says “no.” Women have a great and equal job to do in the ministry of the church, teaching the children and other women. This does not mean that in Bible study women must remain quiet. Women have a way of complimenting the point-blank, to-the-point style of men.

Paul points out that Adam was created first, then woman came from Adam when God put Adam into a deep sleep; from Adam’s rib woman was created as a “helper,” not as the leader. Paul also points out that it was Eve who was deceived by Satan, and not Adam.

Women are not to be elders either. There is no scriptural reference to support women as elders, but only men (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). A “husband of but one wife” cannot mean a wife of but one husband. This argument sounds to me to be a segment of the “emergent church” theology that is becoming larger in America . . .

We must only listen to the Word of God and not man. God is always right! The Bible is the ONLY book that we can trust to be the absolute truth from God (2 Timothy 3:16). 
—John Westover
Lake Havasu City, Arizona

An Additional Thought About Column 
(posted 8-21-08)
First, let me say that Paul Williams’s weekly column is the best feature in a good publication. His brief reflections each week makes me glad that he and I are part of the same movement, and the STANDARD is wise to keep his thoughts coming.

That said (you knew there would be a “that said,” didn’t you?), I do wish to sharpen one of his points from the August 17 “And So It Goes”—the column entitled “What Is Truth?” Williams rightly notes that everyone’s philosophical presuppositions serve as “lenses” through which one “sees” truth. (I use scare quotes both to note his metaphors and to note that they are metaphors.) He lists, among others, the Englightenment and postmodernism as possible lenses, then he holds forth “[r]igorous open study” as a necessary complement to individual truth-lenses.

While I agree with Williams that we Christians need such practices, he might have noted (given more space, of course) that certain strains of postmodernism deny at the outset that such things as “[r]igorous open study” even exist—Foucauldian postmodernism especially seems to hold that anyone claiming to be open or rigorous is merely using such language as an attempt to assert authority and power over other people. I think such a claim is garbage, but it does make more difficult any reconciliation between Christian confession and certain strains of postmodernism.

As I said before, I do love Mr. Williams’s column, and I thank him for giving me this chance as well as others to think through some of the intellectual challenges that we Christians face in the early 21st.
—Nathan P. Gilmour
Via e-mail

'Saddened by the Uncharitable Tone . . .' 
(posted 8-19-08)
I am deeply saddened by the uncharitable tone of several of the correspondents. Please, Brothers and Sisters, recognize that the paired point-counterpoint articles on the role of women (August 17 issue) were assignments, and are certainly representative of points of view expressed within our churches. (And, although the authors themselves may not hold them, they have performed a service by stating them.)

Yes, clearly, we need to derive our theology from the Scriptures. If an author has failed to do so to your satisfaction, then perhaps you might offer an improved exposition. The CHRISTIAN STANDARD is a forum for commentary from a biblical perspective. It is not itself, nor does it purport to be, Scripture.

Finally, while I do not always agree with every article published, I deeply value the service provided by the CHRISTIAN STANDARD team. I consider us all responsible to check any concerns out against Scripture. Wouldn't we all want to be considered as noble as the Bereans?
—Al Forthman
Gaithersburg, Maryland

A Leadership Factor that Wasn't Mentioned 
(posted 8-19-08)
I enjoyed reading the two articles in the August 17 issue that provided different perspectives on the subject of women in leadership and ministry within the church. I find myself leaning toward the complementarian point of view (rather than the egalitarian), partly because I believe that argument holds greater strength when examining the Scriptures, but also because of a factor I did not see mentioned in either article.

[Editor's note: The articles are “Complementarian: Men Are Authoritative Teachers” by Joe Harvey and "Egalitarian: Allow Women to Fulfill Their Calling" by Lana West.]

When Paul points his readers back to Adam and Eve with his words of leadership restrictions in 1 Timothy 2, I think he had more in mind than authority and functional order. Paul says that Eve was deceived, not Adam. What does that mean? We tend to bypass this without much thought. I believe it refers to the natural emotional temperament of women. Many studies over the years, and common sense from experience, says that generally  speaking women are more emotional beings than their male counterparts. Men are more cold and calculating, more black and white, more geared to “take that hill” or “defeat that enemy,” etc. It’s the hunt, kill, and protect proclivity. Men are not as sensitive, but are more apt to stand strong in the trenches. There’s a good side and a bad side to this, both for men and women.

I believe it was this emotion-decision-based tendency that led Eve to succumb to Satan’s temptation. Adam might have resisted. On the other hand, Adam succumbed to Eve’s invitation to participate. How does Satan often get to the man? Through the woman. This has been true throughout history, is illustrated in the beginning with Adam and Eve, and is part of the reasoning behind Paul throwing the leadership mantle on men in these verses. As the article states, it’s not just Paul; men as the expected leaders is seen throughout the Bible.

The issue is obviously tough in a society like ours where women are increasingly in leadership roles. I’ve had women in leadership over me; I’m comfortable with it, and I fully understand their ability to succeed. But our society is pretty unique in the annals of mankind. The American business climate has actually appealed, especially in more recent years, to the “softer” skills, where women often excel. But throughout history leadership has required tough-minded people who are willing to take a hard stand based on principle. This is true within the church, as well. The natural tendency of women to mother and care for others makes taking a tough stand sometimes difficult.

An example: Is baptism required for salvation? That is a controversial issue. If we are over-sensitive to people who are struggling with whether so-and-so was saved without baptism, we may start bending the rules (i.e., what the Bible teaches) in order to accommodate the need. An emotional-based person will do so more than the person who stands on principle. I believe that men are better equipped for such things. Have men messed up through the ages? No doubt. Are some women capable of standing on principle without bending? No doubt. Has God allowed some exceptions, with women in leadership over the years? Yes. But studies show (see the book Why Men Hate Going to Church) that men respond better to other men leading, and for young men and their families that can be a big deal. We slowly sometimes figure such things out; God has known it from the beginning.

A day may soon be coming in our society when the spiritual battle between God and Satan for the hearts of men and women becomes more aggressive, more obvious, and more in need of spiritual leaders who are willing on God’s behalf to stand strong against the enemy, fighting the good fight. Isn’t that day already upon us? My prayer is that men will see the need and lead the charge onto the battlefield.

Am I prejudiced? I hope not; I don’t think so. I just believe this issue has roots that run deeper than we often explore in our push for equal rights. In the end this isn’t about rights. It’s about doing what is best as we seek to spread the gospel and make disciples of Christ in a hostile world. As we do so, there will be some exceptions along the way. But let’s not let the desire for the exceptions take command.
—Rick Willis
Lebanon, Missouri

'This Is Disgraceful!' 
(posted 8-18-08)
In the August 17 CHRISTIAN STANDARD, there are articles by Joe Harvey and Lana West. Joe’s article is excellent while Lana’s is “creative.” Ms. West makes two outlandish claims: (1) That women received the same gifts as men on the day of Pentecost (on p. 6, third column, first paragraph, under “Early Church Examples”); (2) She then claims (on p. 7, third column, at the top) that Paul lists attributes of female deacons. What is lacking is any scriptural reference.

What is so hard to believe is that CHRISTIAN STANDARD allowed this as “Another Perspective.” There is no challenge! All there is is Joe Harvey’s article and then Lana West’s. This is disgraceful! I shall bring this to the attention of our elders, which might just mean that ALL CHRISTIAN STANDARD materials will cease to be used by our church family!
—Bill
Via e-mail

Article's Position Was Assigned 
(posted 8-15-08)
It was a pleasure to contribute to the important discussion concerning the role of women in church leadership (see the August 17 issue). I would like to note that the view presented in my article (“Complementarian: Men Are Authoritative Teachers”) was an assigned position for an in-class debate at Lincoln (Illinois) Christian Seminary. My assignment was to present my best biblical argument for the complementarian view—regardless of whether or not it was, in the final analysis, my personal view.

Like many other church leaders, this is an area of genuine concern and honest reassessment for me. I hope that your readers will use the opposing articles as a personal study tool that defines some of the key issues and helps them in their own biblical examination of the role of women in church leadership.

My personal view on the issue is not presented in my article or the opposing article. Thanks for offering up this point of clarification for me.
—Joe Harvey
Senior Associate Minister
LifeBridge (Colorado) Christian Church

The Path to Right Understanding
(posted 8-15-08)
(This letter refers to the August 17 issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD about the complementarian and egalitarian views of women in church leadership.)

Two differing views—what should we do? Our cultural norm is to take it out for opinion or for a vote and let the majority decide. After all, we reason, if that is the way the majority sees it then it must be right.

But, we must remember that Christianity is not a democracy but a theocracy.

Well then, what does the Bible say about it? Here we find it easy to locate a verse or two, maybe even several verses, from the Bible and using these as proof convince ourselves that we have God’s backing for our opinion. Too often it amounts to nothing more than proof texting. Just because a biblical reference in our favorite translation can be used to “support” our opinion doesn’t make it true anymore than the majority opinion makes it true.

Reading a few articles no matter how well written, where the authors, presumably knowledgeable, express their opinions, does not suffice. As daunting as it may seem, only a thorough study of the Scriptures covered in much prayer and with a willingness to accept what God says even when it is different from our original prejudice can lead us to a right understanding.
—Jay Reimer
Houston, Texas

'Highly Offended'
(posted 8-14-08)
I was highly offended by the article “Masculinity, Femininity, and Church Leadership” by Kelvin Jones in the August 24 issue of Christian Standard, and I am disappointed in the magazine for publishing it.

The author lists some of the physical differences between men and women, and then draws on outdated studies to prove that men are inherently better at some mental skills like mathematics, and concludes that it is God’s will that men should always lead and that women should always follow. Current studies show that men and women inherently have essentially equal skills in subjects like mathematics, and that the gender differences are primarily cultural. In cultures where gender equality is practiced, boys and girls perform the same on standardized mathematics tests, including the high level spatial and analytical tests. (Janet S. Hyde, et. al., “Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance” Science, 25 July 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5888, pp. 494–95.)

Nevertheless, the basic logic is flawed. One could just as easily list physical differences between Asians, Africans, Europeans, and Native Americans, and then draw the conclusion that one race is inherently better at being leaders, and therefore it is God’s will that they lead and that others follow. Would the magazine have published an article like that? The logic is the same. I don’t believe that God discriminates based on one’s DNA.
—Stephen Frantz
Portland, Oregon

'A Breath of Fresh Air'
(posted 8-14-08)
With regard to the “Men, Women, and Church Leadership” issue (August 17), what a breath of fresh air to read these opposing views side-by-side in the context of the “in opinions, liberty” stance. Thanks for this great issue.

From what I can see, my church has adopted a hybrid egalitarian-complementarian view: God originally gave men the primary leadership role, but he certainly didn’t forbid men from sharing or delegating leadership to women once the church culture had begun to produce women Biblically suited for the work.

All our female leaders are approved by our male eldership. Men are still in ultimate authority, even if they choose to delegate some leadership roles to women. And if, someday, we have the opportunity to appoint our first woman elder, as the Lord leads, the male eldership at that time will be the ones to appoint her.

It’s interesting to me that there are people out there who think that the egalitarian view must involve men’s abdication of their God-given authority. From the apostles onward, church leadership has been in men’s hands, and if they choose, according to their God-led consciences (since they are not explicitly forbidden), to make room for women among the leadership, it will never change the fact that men were first to be given authority (and freedom in Christ) to make such decisions.

In other words, in an historical as well as strictly a chronological sense, the position of men as first authority cannot ever change, no matter what view we prefer. The two views do not have to be mutually exclusive. Many people previously opposed to women in leadership find it less threatening when they realize this.
—Laurie Mosley
Via e-mail

Article Helping to Improve Meetings
(posted 8-14-08)
Thank you for your article on “How Your Small and Midsized Church Can Grow” (by Leonard Wymore, August 10). The article laid out a meeting agenda for all our ministry leaders. We have been getting together once a month and were starting to get feedback from some that they dread the meeting and they walk away very disappointed.
 
I put your suggestions in place, and with some fine-tuning, our last meeting was good; folks felt like they accomplished something and look forward to the next one.
 
Thank you for your articles, as a new elder I find CHRISTIAN STANDARD a blessing with every issue.
—Bob Hendrickson
Via e-mail

Watch the Wording
(posted 8-14-08)
(This letter refers to the article “Let’s Talk: An Urban Conversation for the Restoration Movement” by Steve Carr in the August 10 issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD.)

Less than a majority is not necessarily a minority.
 
Candidates A, B, and C are running for a seat in Congress. Candidate A receives 45 percent of the vote, candidate B receives 30 percent, and candidate C receives 25 percent. Candidate A receives, not a minority, but a plurality of the vote (the largest number, but less than a majority). In most elections, a plurality is enough to win.
 
Similarly, in 2005, non-Hispanic whites were 67 percent, or a majority, of the U.S. population, according to subject report by the Pew Research Center. In 2050, the Pew report expects them to be 47 percent—not a majority, but a plurality of the population. They will not be a minority, in spite of the statement in the Pew report’s Executive Summary. (If Hispanic whites are included, whites will probably still have a majority.)
 
We need to use such terms carefully, to avoid giving wrong impressions.
—Donald Etz
Via e-mail

'Flawed Article Got Me Thinking'
(posted 8-8-08)
In the August 3 issue (“The Culture War Is Over” by Jud Wilhite), I was shocked to read that the culture war is now over and—the church lost! This interesting but flawed article got me thinking.

I find no evidence that the “culture war is over.” Anyone who picks up a newspaper, or tunes in to the TV news networks (CNN or Fox News), or reads books by such authors as Bill O’Reilly (and others) will find ample evidence that the culture war between the church and the world is still going on. True, the Moral Majority of the 1980s and 1990s is no more; Jerry Falwell is dead. But dedicated Christians today are still fighting the culture war. As Christ’s light and salt, they are still engaging the world and spreading the sweet aroma of Christ’s influence on many fronts: abortion, homosexuality, poverty, hunger, crime, immorality. And the church is winning that war. Maybe that is hard to see in Las Vegas, but throughout America, in the overall picture of life, Christ is leading his people in triumphant procession (2 Corinthians 2:14, 15).

To accuse the Christians fighting in this culture war of having an un-Christian, “holier-than-thou” superiority truly misrepresents the facts. Whenever Christians stand up for Jesus about an unpopular issue, you can expect the world to condemn them by claiming the church is full of conceited snobs. However, I wouldn’t expect such an accusation to come from a fellow Christian writing in the Christian Standard. Through the church and the Bible, the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin (John 16:9-11). And the world may not like it. This rubs against the grain of their worldly wisdom. They may accuse us of being harsh, judgmental, and having a superiority complex. Does that mean we must never condemn, convict, and bring sinners to penitence, because the world might not like it? Has that which turns off Las Vegas become the rule of faith and practice for all churches?

I find no evidence that Christians who fought in the culture war were guilty of having a “myopic” obsession with only two issues: homosexuality and abortion. Yes, they certainly did condemn those two sins. For Jesus in his Word condemned them long ago.

The church simply followed their blessed Master. Woe be unto us if we do not! But the church in the 1980s–’90s or even today has never limited its witness to fight these two sins alone. It has also fought vigorously in the culture war to end crime, poverty, and hunger. It has also exerted a positive influence on society by starting programs to feed and clothe the homeless, shelters to house the poor, projects to decrease the need for welfare and to emphasize self-sufficiency, and such benevolent organizations as FAME, IDES, the Salvation Army, and Habitat for Humanity.

The church has problems, to be sure. But let’s not forget how well it is doing many things to the glory of God.
—Marion E. White
Via e-mail

Reminiscences of Smalltown Church Life
(posted 8-7-08)
Thank you so much for Bruce Shields’s article “Lessons Learned from Christ’s Church” (July 27). I was very encouraged by it. We need this message today. There are so many who disparage the church if it is small, etc. The lessons my husband and I have learned are very similar to what you have experienced. When you get out of college you think you have all the answers and then you preach for a small church in Kentucky, etc., and discover God’s saints and what they have to offer.

We preached in Winchester, Kentucky, at the Antioch Christian Church. They welcomed us with open arms, taught us about hospitality, and taught us that the poorest and the richest all can worship together and have something to share.

When moving to Missouri we ministered to a small church at Nebo. I had been raised in a city but had traveled very much with my father, but I was not prepared for the interesting places we were visiting. The folk loved us and cared for us. We learned to eat on a table where the chickens had just been shooed away; visit the elderly saints; and have Communion service with the elder in overalls.

We later moved to western Canada and again learned about the church. We learned to appreciate different forms of worship in another culture.

Your article reminded me that we learn from each church and the people attending there. We should honor and respect the leaders and folk in the church no matter their circumstances. Your article challenged me to love the church large or small. Thank you for the tribute you paid to the folk in these churches that taught you something about the church and how we should love it.
—Marilyn (and Don) Lewis
Joplin, Missouri

'Very Insightful Set of Questions'
(posted 8-7-08)
Pass along my compliments to Mark Wesner. That was a very insightful set of questions (“Questions for Servant-Leaders,” August 3) that I am sure I’ll be using not just with elders, but with others who show signs of leadership . . . and with myself. Thank you.
—Jeff Strite
Logansport, Indiana

'A Masterpiece'
(posted 8-7-08)
Knofel Staton’s article, “The Christ, the Church, and the Christian,” in the July 27 CHRISTIAN STANDARD is a masterpiece, It is possibly the best article CHRISTIAN STANDARD has published in a long time. It is certainly in keeping with the type of articles STANDARD printed 25 to 40 years ago.

Mr. Staton must be commended for the article; it deserves additional coverage either in other periodicals or in tract form.
—James Adkins
Selmer, Tennessee

'Useful and Spiritually Enhancing'
(posted 8-7-08)
For some time I have been receiving CHRISTIAN STANDARD and The Lookout, both of which I enjoy very much. All of the articles are certainly useful and spiritually enhancing. I just want to thank you for sending such valuable material, and to assure you they are being put to good use.
—Derward Culp
Via e-mail

'Your Lessons Are a Blessing'
(posted 8-7-08)
I just want to thank you for letting God use you to publish the work you do every week. Your lessons are a blessing. They help me prepare for my Sunday school classes. Thank you again and God bless.
—Tonya
Via e-mail

Staying Connected with the Restoration Movement
(posted 7-22-08)
These letters are in response to Editor Mark A. Taylor’s note in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD eNewsletter for July 13.

Under the headline, “Does the Restoration Movement Matter?” he wrote:

Does the Restoration Movement matter?

Yes! According to three generations of Christian leaders who answered the question for us this week.

Yes! According to 1,200 readers and friends who answered our spring survey about our movement and this magazine.

Yes! According to John Derry who helps us consider the important role our colleges have taken to keep us together.

What about you? What does it mean to you to stay connected with our far-flung, diverse fellowship?

Send us your answer after you’ve read what these others have said.

 Here are some of the responses we received:

* * *  

Does the Restoration Movement matter?

This statement by Gene Carter says it very well for me: “I’m not even sure what’s going on in the brotherhood, but I still believe that it is theologically the place where I am most comfortable. I’m not as dogmatic as I used to be—again, because of the opportunity in my life to meet so many others who share so much of my strong belief in the importance of Biblical principles.”

I have come to believe however, mistakes were made that may need to be corrected or clarified. Like, “No creed but Christ.” We might not want to call it a creed but we do have a set of beliefs, but in each Christian church or church of Christ there are variations.

I try to read other authors besides those tied to the Restoration Movement and I have to agree with Nancy Pearcey who wrote in her book, Total Truth, that we in the Restoration Movement made the mistake of saying no creed but Christ, throwing out all doctrines and biblical truths learned over the past 400–600 years. (Sorry, I can’t find the exact quotation as I loaned her book to someone.)

If you examine The Apostles’ Creed, for example, don’t we believe most of what is written there? Why can’t we just change it to fit our doctrine as long as it is biblical and use it to teach in our church, especially to the children?

Or why can’t the big boys in the Restoration Movement today get together and give us some guidelines to follow. It seems to me we teach these things but are afraid to write them in statements as to what we believe as a Restoration Movement. Each so-called self-governing congregation has certain doctrines posted or written in their publications but sometimes it seems to me to be so wishy-washy no clear doctrine is given. Perhaps it is because we hate the word “doctrine.”

Of course I would want to see a statement that baptism is essential to salvation, and the importance of the Lord’s Supper every week.
—Arlie Reed
Eldorado, Illinois

'Not Sure What He Means'
(posted 7-11-08)
I appreciate Greg Taylor’s fervor and his intention to reach out to other denominations (“A New Movement and the Choices We Must Make,” July 6). But I’m not sure what he means by “tunnel through the walls between Christians and crawl through these catacombs and start strategizing about how to dig new tunnels into the Islamic world to preach and heal like Jesus did.”

I and many others in pulpits across the land struggle with how to get through the walls of the denominational world . . . but we also struggle with how we can “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” To do one without clinging to the other creates problems for us. In fact to abandon pure doctrine for ecumenicalism can put us in direct conflict with God. So what exactly does he suggest?
—Jeff Strite
Via e-mail

Hidden in 'Rhetorical Ambiguity'
(posted 7-11-08)
Greg Taylor’s article “A New Movement and the Choices We Must Make” (July 6) contains this paragraph:

Are you rich and don’t really deserve it? (That’s probably everyone reading this—we’re all richer than half the world that earns less than $2 a day). And I don’t care what you think you’ve done to deserve being rich, you and I don’t deserve what we have.

This comes in the context of “injustices.” It is misleading, perhaps to the point of being disingenuous, to hide in rhetorical ambiguity in this way.

Notice how, if you read the paragraph carefully, the author is saying that absolutely no one deserves anything more than $2 per day. While well-placed calls to generosity are good, this kind of appeal is not.

People who earn what they have honestly do deserve the fruit of their labor. The mere fact that some have more than others is not an “injustice.” My best guess is that Greg Taylor does not live on $2 per day. And no proper
sense of “justice” requires that he does.

This kind of talk about “justice” reflects Marxist-tainted liberation theology. It is not Christian, and we can only hope that it never becomes the standard for the church. As such, one would think that it would have no place in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD.
—Harold N. Orndorff Jr.
Highland Heights, KY

Profanity Warning Would Have Been Appreciated
(posted 7-11-08)
LeRoy Lawson’s recommendation of Look Me In The Eye by John Elder Robinson (in “From My Bookshelf,” June 8) should have mentioned that the book contains quite a bit of profanity. I did not enjoy reading the profanity but did find some portions of the book helpful in understanding the behavior of one with Asperger’s syndrome.
—Patty Miller
Shoreline, Washington

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