Christian Standard | A Publication of Standard Publishing News In BriefPast ArticlesLetters To The EditorContact Us Subscribe now to Christian Standard!
 
From The Editor by Mark A. TaylorAnd So It Goes by Paul S. WilliamsSunday School LessonBuzzChristian Standard InterviewCalendarThe Lookout MagazineStandard PublishingBlogs
eNewsletter
FREE!!
Get breaking news, previews of upcoming issues, and more sent right to your inbox!
Subscribe Now!
Your Email Address:

Letters to the Editor - May/June 2007

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

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.

RESPONSE TO JUNE 24 ISSUE

'Are You Kidding?'
(posted 6-27-07)
I simply cannot believe that this article (“God 1, County 0” by Wayne Laugesen) was even published. Are you kidding? Or was this serious? I'll say this in the nicest way possible to the Rocky Mountain Christian Church: Get over it already. If their justification for needing more space is so that children can “dance and groove to contemporary Christian tunes,” then I agree with the commissioners.

These people are not being persecuted for their faith. They are not being tortured and commanded to recant their faith. This article is a fine example of the sort of stupidity that is raging in megachurches: A sort of “we are a megachurch and what right do you have to tell us what to do?” sort of mentality.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? My God, those people need to get a grip on reality and look around at Christians who worship elsewhere with no building at all, who are being killed and beaten for their faith, who are being systematically wiped out in some places in the world. This article is nothing more than American entitlement gone wild.

Dancing and grooving? Is this supposed to pass as theology? Is this helping people have a biblical foundation, a biblical theology, a narrow path, a kingdom perspective, a holy life, a Christ focus, an awe and reverence for almighty God?

It sounds like a bunch of crying about nothing to me. Tell them they need to get back to worshiping God. I think this article set the CHRISTIAN STANDARD into the pile of irrelevancy. And that church's problem makes them appear as whiners. Do they really think they are fighting a battle for God? Is that really what the cross was all about?

What do religious pacifists opting out of war have to do with a megachurch wanting to build a bigger building to “facilitate more people in their beliefs”? That is a red herring and a straw man all at the same time. If this article were published in a secular paper the author has completely embarrassed himself. There is no nice way to say that this article is probably, without doubt, the worst thing I have ever read in the STANDARD.

Did he really use the term “useful idiots” to describe people opposed to this plan of the church?

I am aghast at this maneuvering. I think your magazine has become far too much about the “mega” and not nearly enough about Christ.
—Jerry Hillyer
Madison, Ohio

'We Need to Be Extremely Careful'
(posted 8-27-07)
In response to George Faull’s letter attacking Eleanor Daniel (below), I would ask him if he interprets Acts 15:20, 21 the same way he interprets Paul’s restrictions of women in 1 Timothy. I am sure that Mr. Faull, with his credentials, is aware that the verse I mention was an attempt of the early church to answer the question, “What must a Gentile do to become a Christian” and the church decided to tell the Gentile Christians to avoid sexual immorality and meat of animals that still has blood in it. If one would want to take this text by itself and treat it as literally and as binding today as when it was written, then one would conclude that any Christians should probably never eat a rare steak again! Clearly Acts 15:20, 21 served a purpose, but it is not the final answer for how Gentiles are to become Christians!

Likewise, the passages in 1 Timothy were certainly written for a purpose, but we need to be extremely careful when we interpret them today. This is especially true in light of verses like “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). But Mr. Faull would apparently just throw out Galatians because it was written first!

In Matthew, Jesus condemns the Pharisees for straining at gnats while ignoring the important matters, and this is just what Mr. Faull has done in his letter.

I applaud the STANDARD for publishing Ms. Daniel’s controversial opinions, and I applaud Ms. Daniel for her well-thought-out arguments. By contrast, I am disappointed that a man with Mr. Faull’s credentials would simply resort to saying that arguments for women’s leadership roles have been “refuted again and again” without offering any well-thought-out arguments as to why women should not be in leadership roles! Instead of offering any arguments to support his position that women shouldn’t be leaders, he has resorted to argumentum ad nauseum.

I would have Mr. Faull know that I know of several women in leadership roles in the church, and that they have done excellent work for the kingdom. Souls have been saved as a result of these women. But Mr. Faull would rather keep them from doing anything based on his narrow interpretation of a small portion of Scripture. And in doing so he would cripple the church by preventing 50 percent of church members from doing anything!

If Mr. Faull disagrees with someone, let him state out his objections to their arguments in a well-thought-out argument instead of simply personally attacking someone.

Finally, I would ask Mr. Faull. Was the Great Commission given just to men?
—Jamie Weiss
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

The Opposing View
(posted 6-22-07) 
I think now it would be in order for Brad Dupray to interview someone with the opposite view of Ms. Eleanor Daniel (“CHRISTIAN STANDARD Interview,” June 24).

Perhaps he should have asked her, “Please tell us the names and just what the leadership role of the women in Romans 16 were?” “What did they do?” They are called servants, helpers, and had churches in the house where they and their husbands’ lived. “Can you prove they were leaders or is that just your prejudice coming through?”

“Does Galatians really say what she says it says and does it obliterate what is said in Timothy?” Is she aware that the Timothy passage was written eight years after the Galatians passage? If she does, why did she use the argument? Is she ignorant or is she biased or is she deceitful?

Does she read anyone in our own churches that do not agree with her or is she too busy reading those denominationalists that are allowing women to do all that she says they are allowing them to do?

Does local autonomy allow disobedience to God? Can churches who practice exactly the opposite the things which Paul says “are the commands of the Lord” be shunned for their high-handed presumption? What does Paul mean when he says they are to acknowledge what he says about women are the commandments of the Lord and if one rejects this he is to be rejected or if he does not receive this he himself will not be received? (See the new translations.)

Is it possible that this article’s title was supposed to have the title of the article that followed it—namely, “Beyond Reason and Logic”?

I was very sorry to see this article because I think that STANDARD has improved for the last few months. I tire of these worn-out assumptions about women in leadership roles. If they have been refuted over and over, why have them repeated as if they were some new fresh material?
—George L. Faull

RESPONSE TO JUNE 17 ISSUE

Another Example 
(posted 6-22-07)
Being an executive director of a church-planting organization that covers North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and Manitoba, I can resonate with Paul Williams’s column on depression (“Fit for Ministry,” June 17). In reading the book Undaunted Courage by Stephen E. Ambrose, I learned that Merriwether Lewis, one of the great explorers for the territory where I now live and strive to plant churches, suffered greatly from depression. Using your quote, Paul, “He showed millions you could suffer serious bouts of melancholy and still make a difference.” I believe Lewis and Clark made a historical difference for this country! Thanks for addressing this topic!
—Mike Sojka
Executive Director, Northern Plains Evangelistic Association
Huron, South Dakota

'Alive and Well'
(posted 6-13-07)
Two refreshing news items were recently published in CHRISTIAN STANDARD. First, in the June 6 eNewsletter I learned about the Colonial Point Christian Church (South Windsor, Connecticut) devoting an entire Sunday morning service to prayer. What a "novel" idea! Then, in the June 17 hard copy of CHRISTIAN STANDARD I read about the Manchester (New Hampshire) Christian Church devoting an entire Saturday to giving away many free articles of clothing, furniture, and appliances to 1,500 needy people ("A Day in the Park" by Stefanie Cassetto). Your journal is "devoted to the restoration of New Testament Christianity." What I read in these encouraging news items (to say nothing of Acts 2:42-47) is proof positive that the New Testament church is alive and well in these two exemplary congregations. May their tribe increase!
—Victor Knowles
Joplin, Missouri

RESPONSE TO JUNE 10 ISSUE

'Division Is Not Always an Evil'
(posted 6-22-07)
In response to the article by Gary Weedman (“An Unfinished Restoration Acknowledged,” June 10), I would like to suggest that division is not always an evil and dialogue not always a virtue. When we are confronted with someone who has “wander[ed] beyond the teaching of Christ,” the apostle John tells us, “Don’t invite him into your house or encourage him in any way” (2 John 9, 10, New Living Translation). There is much in the Bible that, if practiced, brings us into healing, rich relationships with God and others, the intimacy that we long for. But the contemplative practices being welcomed into the church today are not ancient biblical practices for us to rediscover, as the article suggests, and I would challenge Mr. Weedman to prove that they are.
—Diane Stortz
Cincinnati, Ohio

RESPONSE TO JUNE 3 ISSUE

'Experienced the Problem Firsthand'
(posted 6-22-07) 
I had to respond to Paul Williams’s article “What About Theological Formation?” (June 3) with a hearty “Amen.”

I/we have experienced the problem firsthand in our area when a minister from one of our megachurches was brought in to start a new church. It only took me one lunch meeting to know he was not exactly on board with our teachings. Sadly, after receiving more than $200,000 from our churches, that church associated itself with Andy Stanley’s church.

He never attended one of “our” schools and actually worked to discourage one young man from continuing his education at Atlanta Christian College. Theological education was not important to him at all.

In our brotherhood, many churches have taken for granted that if someone worked at one of our churches they would be doctrinally acceptable to all our churches. That cannot be assumed today at all (it should never be assumed anyway!). Churches and groups need to check and double-check by asking very pointed questions because some answers can sound OK when they are carefully worded, “sounds like it” responses. One of those is “Yes, baptism is essential.” But if you keep on asking you will hear, “But it is not part of becoming a Christian.”

Hiring from within does have merit, but it also has some serious issues that Mr. Williams pointed out so well. We are indeed “independent” and cannot “corral” our churches and their beliefs. However, those who do follow our “core beliefs” need to be aware of this possibly serious and costly danger.
—Lynn T. Eynon

Inspired to Get Up Early and Run
(posted 6-5-07)
After reading your article, "Trees, Runs, and Prayers," published in the June 3 issue, I personally was very inspired. I would like to call myself a runner, however I am just an amateur. The night I read this article, I set my alarm clock 30 minutes early in order to wake up and run in order to put God very first in my day.

When it comes to my Christian walk, my biggest trouble is maintaining a good relationship with God and treating him like I would a close friend. I often find myself praying to God in a manner that would make God out to be a robot as opposed to a friend I'm confiding in. I believe I may fix this problem by praying in the outdoor setting Dave Smith talks about. The environment in general makes me feel closer to God.

I also wanted to let you know your magazine is enjoyed by young and old alike! I myself am 14 and read faithfully. In fact, I enjoy the magazine so much, I take the issues from my father's office (he is the pastor at Laurel Oak Christian Church, High Point, North Carolina) a week prior to the date they are actually supposed to be handed out.
—Lisa Brown
Kernersville, North Carolina

RESPONSE TO MAY 27 ISSUE

Pentecost Worship in Australia
(posted 7-23-07)
In a May issue, which I only just received, you asked for examples of Pentecost worship ("Of Pentecost and Mission Trips" by Mark A. Taylor, May 27).

Fairfield Church of Christ in western Sydney, Australia, may be in the most cosmopolitan place on the planet. Yes, other places may have more than our 126 known nationalities—but not in a population that, at that time, was less than 100,000! I even had contact with followers of John the Baptist.

But I write about the great Pentecost celebrations we had during our time there. Our little church of 40 had four nationalities. We also started a Spanish-language church (the result of help from Team Expansion) with three nationalities. We also shared our facilities with a Vietnamese church and an Arabic church with six nationalities.

We gathered in the city's public hall on Pentecost evening. The celebration began with prayers of blessing in each heart language. After the international potluck, each group provided a special worship item. We then joined in prayer for the church, again each praying in his heart language: Arabic, Spanish, Vietnamese, and English (with an American accent!).  

(Just an aside—When the Arabic pastor approached me about using the facility, I asked the usual questions about his beliefs. He said he was Presbyterian. But his theology did not reflect that. I asked if he was aware Presbyterians typically believe in TULIP and don't practice "believers baptism," and he answered in the affirmative; so I had to know how he had come to arrive at what we call New Testament Christianity. He said that after converting only a few people, the missionary who helped start the church had to leave, so all the remaining believers had was a Bible to guide them!)
—Ted Bjorem (originally from Oregon; attended San Jose Bible College and Emmanuel School of Religion)
Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

A Few More Points to Make
(posted 5-24-07)
I read Bill Weber’s article about short-term mission trips, and agreed with all of his points (“To the Ends of the Earth . . .  Short Term,” May 27). However, I think there are a few issues that need to be addressed regarding short-term missions.

I work at a small inner-city ministry in Pittsburgh called “His Place” which has been on the receiving end of many mission trips. I have noticed that while many groups do a good job (especially when it comes to construction projects), they all fall short in one area. In any kind of ministry, the most important thing is building relationships with other people, and this takes years to accomplish. Simply put, short-term missions cannot build the kind of relationships needed for effective ministry in such a short time. For this reason, it has been our position that while short-term missions can do good, it is much more effective to find a ministry in one’s own local area and to commit to it. A devoted volunteer who is faithful is much more helpful to us than many short-term mission groups. Perhaps it would be better if churches encouraged their youth groups (and older members as well!) to get plugged into a local ministry in lieu of annual mission trips.

Additionally there is the issue of finances and stewardship. In my view, spending tens of thousands of dollars or more to go to a foreign country for a few weeks is poor stewardship when that money could do much more work locally. “His Place” is struggling financially, and I have calculated that the money my home church is spending on a two-week mission trip to Australia could meet our budget deficit for an entire year, or more.
Thank you for bringing attention to this important issue.
—Jamie Weiss
Associate Director, “His Place” Contact Center Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Additional Important Aspects
(posted 5-24-07)
Thank you for publishing Michael Sweeney’s much-needed article regarding mission committees that define mission strategy too narrowly (“The Front Line,” May 27). Like Mike, I too agree that developing a good mission strategy is important. But many of these strategies do not take into account the importance of those who train missionaries, like Bible colleges and seminaries, or those who recruit new missionaries, or those who keep them on the field through technical support. On a personal level, I would also put in that category those who train churches to pray effectively concerning world evangelization or teach missionaries to build a prayer team. You’d be amazed how many churches will not consider prayer to be an integral part of missions. Blessings!
—Dave Butts
Harvest Prayer Ministries

'Apply Appropriate Pressure'
(posted 5-24-07)
Thank you for Ajal Lall’s article about the persecution of Christians in India (“Differences Without Disarray”). The persecution of Christians is an issue that does not receive proper attention in most American churches. The writer of Hebrews commends first-century believers: “Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated” (10:33).

We need to restore this first-century practice to 21st-century Christianity. One way we can stand with our persecuted brothers and sisters is by calling on our government to apply appropriate pressure on governments that either persecute, or allow the persecution of Christians. Congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida recently did this in a speech from the House floor. I would ask Christians to view this speech, www.youtube.com/watch?v=36ke50QaeAI and then ask their elected officials to join with Congressman Stearns in calling for the protection of religious freedom.
—Charlie Crowe
Gainesville, Florida

RESPONSE TO MAY 20 ISSUE

'It Is About Time Churches Raise the Bar'
(posted 5-25-07)
This letter is in response to Dorothy Knapp’s letter “Adding a New Requirement?” (see below). She asked, “Where in the Bible will we find this requirement (to be a member a person must join a small group) to be added to the church?” It’s called community. The early Christians were constantly in community with each other (Acts 2:42-47).

Hebrews 10:24, 25 says, “And let us consider how we may spur one another on in love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing. . . .” It could be argued the modern church has not lived up to this passage, because we have given up meeting together in smaller gatherings and traded it for the larger gathering. I mean, how much spurring one another on in love and good deeds really happens at a Sunday morning worship service? Without intimate relationships that offer accountability and encouragement, how much spiritual growth really occurs?

Here’s a question: Where in the Bible do we find a church building, worship service, or membership? Not that there is anything wrong with any of these, but they are not biblical concepts.

I think it is great that Kaimuki Christian Church (see “Buzz,” May 20).is requiring more from its members. It is about time churches raise the bar for membership so that people become the church rather than just go to church.
—Scott Baker
Tallmadge, Ohio

'Adding a New Requirement'?
(posted 5-23-07)
It seems like our brothers in Hawaii at Kaimuki Christian Church are adding a new requirement for membership to their congregation (“Buzz,” May 20).

Adults MUST join a small group of some kind. Where in the Bible will we find this requirement to be added to the church?

And to make it even of more concern, the individuals are to choose Rick Warren’s The Purpose Driven Life. Do they understand that Warren is of a denominational church and has different views than the Christian church and the Bible?
—Dorothy Knapp

RESPONSE TO MAY 13 ISSUE

'We Need to Be Careful About Casting Stones'
(posted 5-31-07)
I wanted to comment on the May 13 article by Francis Nash, “Commerce Without Morality.”

I’m concerned the article lacks details that throw an undeserved bias against companies in the United States. It quotes the average CEO pay as being 400 times that of the average employee. In researching this, I found a Business Week article that reported on a University of Southern California study that only focused on the S&P 500 companies for CEO pay, while looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics for all employees. The S&P 500 represents 500 companies out of more than 13 million companies I found reported in research databases.

Interestingly enough, the Washington Post reported on May 22 that the median salary for CEOs was $144,600, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Now that represents an average of about five times the average worker wage of $28,000 or so.

There is no doubt that several big-name companies have been under the microscope since the Enron trouble, but it appears the reality is that CEOs generally aren’t the greedy bunch they are being portrayed to be. I’ve spent more than 25 years in executive positions, reporting to CEOs for companies generating nearly $1 billion in annual revenue and employing up to 5,000 people. In none of these companies has the salary or salary plus bonus of the CEO been anywhere near that 400X figure. In most cases it was in the 5 to 10 times amount. Too often these news reports apply calculations to “stock options” that are valueless until the person vests and has an opportunity to exercise the right to buy. If they leave the company, they may lose the options. If the company is private, they may not be able to exercise until the company goes public or is acquired—which is the only time they would have any value.

We seem to admonish the successful executives, and assume they don’t treat the employees properly. I seriously doubt the validity of that position. If employees aren’t properly paid, the Wage and Hour officials would be all over the company. It is very hard to get a good picture on the “average wage” of workers due to job changes and turnover. Employers still have to be competitive to attract workers. “Minimum wage” is for the most part meaningless—most companies have to pay more than that to get anyone to work.

I think we need to be careful about casting stones. While there are a few bad apples, most are not. Since most of us don’t even work for S&P 500 companies, the value of that study is marginal. With the advent of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, most public companies are spending small fortunes reporting in clear terms information about executive compensation. They have to disclose when the executives are vested in stock options and what they buy and sell. Do some of them make a lot of money on the options? Of course. But we never see the report on those who never make a dime on the options. We see very little about the executives who take lower base salaries, deny themselves bonuses, deny themselves salary increases, just so the “rank and file” can get their annual review and increase. And not all of those executives are independently wealthy. I suspect many of them are very generous to charities or churches.

So let’s make sure we don’t end up being a part of the “dump on capitalism” group of socialists and liberal press commentators. Let’s not ignore the fact that the largest portion of the taxes paid to government come from the highest compensated few. We need to appreciate what business provides for us in the way of jobs and benefits. I don’t know of a more successful model that has survived and elevated the living standards of everyone more than the U.S. system of capitalism. Greed is not limited to capitalism. We should desire for the United States to be extraordinarily successful so we can reach out to the rest of the world with kind support that comes from the U.S. government, churches, and individuals—food, imports, etc. Jesus also said the poor will always be with us.

I happen to attend a church where benevolence and missions take large blocks of the annual expenses. We certainly need to try to help the poor—help them survive, help them find jobs, provide for them what we can, and love them unconditionally. I’m surprised at how few churches seem to focus on helping the poor find work—at least for those who want to work [See the May 20 edition’s “Will Work for Food” by Mike Faust].  

But let’s also remember that people must help themselves. Scripture also says if you don’t work you don’t eat. In this country, everyone has the potential to be successful—if it weren’t true we wouldn’t have people flocking into the U.S. Companies create jobs; and it takes successful/wealthy people to create companies; and most of those companies focus on doing the right thing.
—Doug Wiley

'Cannot Be Put in a Box'
(posted 5-23-07)
Robert Lowery’s article “Idolatry and Greed” in the May 13 CHRISTIAN STANDARD is a sad commentary. While any direction can be taken too far, I hardly believe the principle of obedience and faith leading to blessing is wrong to teach. God is constantly positioned throughout the Bible as God the Father, and our earthly family is a template of the relationships and intimacy we should desire with our heavenly Father. It is not much of a leap to imagine the love of a father impacting the guidance and direction he gives which leads to the blessing of his children when it is accepted and acted upon.
 
While it is not biblically substantiated that God will make us rich or healthy because we “name it and claim it,” there is a tender line here upon which Mr. Lowery treads. Luke 18:42—Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.” Psalms 34:9-10 Fear the Lord, you his saints; for those who fear him lack nothing. The lions may grow weak and hungry, but those who seek the Lord lack no good thing.
 
Are these Scriptures and so many others not pointing to God’s requests that we seek him, have faith and approach him with all details of our life? God’s blessings should be acknowledged and they range from the spiritual to the physical and every nuance in between. If we didn’t believe in his ability to bless us and change our earthly conditions or experience, why would we pray? The blessing is sometimes in how God impacts our ability to endure, sometimes the blessing is in how we overcome. Taken in context, anyone who reads the Bible can see that the Christian life is not a promise of life without trial, but nor is it a life without blessing.
 
Some who agree with Mr. Lowery’s article might be tempted to strive for nothing, because resting in the knowledge that it will all be so much better in the afterlife prevents them from trying to accomplish anything in the here and now. But the parable of the talents teaches us otherwise. Those who are trying to have their best life now do so compared to a life before they developed a relationship with God. Or they compare with a renewed and greater understanding of the power of God available to impact their present life, not at the exclusion of anticipating a heavenly home!
 
Mr. Lowery’s article asks us to take the presence and impact of God out of the blessings we receive with respect to health, lifestyle, work, success, etc. God’s power cannot be put in a box and only released in the areas that Mr. Lowery deems suitable.
—Trudy Menke
LaPorte, Indiana

Response from Robert Lowery:
I appreciate Trudy’s underlying emphasis that our heavenly Father does love us and will provide for us. But the point of my article was not to develop this emphasis but to show the poor theology of the health and wealth gospel advocates. Her use of the Scriptures reveal a similar problem that I have with those who use the Scriptures I cite and critique in my article. First, the words of Jesus were spoken to a person whom he had healed; they do not make a similar promise to us. I am not saying that God cannot heal, but I must undertand the Luke 18 passage in its context. Second, the passage from Psalm 34:9, 10 must not be taken as an absolute promise with no qualifications. Surely the history of the church has revealed that faithful children of God have gone without their needs being fulfilled. What we have to be careful of is expecting that all of our wants (as well as needs) will be fulfilled by God. That promise is never made with regard to life on this earth. Third, the parable of the talents has nothing to do with the issue. No verse in this parable supports the view that is espoused by the health and wealth gospel preachers and teachers. The point of the parable is that God will bless in the life to come those who have been faithful in carrying out their stewardship responsibilities in all areas of life.

Of course, Trudy gets the main idea when it is acknowledged that “it is not biblically substantiated that God will make us rich or healthy.” Does God love us and desire to take care of us? Of course! Will he always give us what we want? Of course not! Will we always have what we need? No. Should we not pray and ask God’s blessings? Of course; we are told to pray for both physical and spiritual needs. But the proponents of the health and wealth gospel go too far. That is one of the points in my article. Matthew 6 is particularly instructive. We are to ask God to provide for our daily needs but we are to seek first his kingdom and then the necessities of life will be provided. But even that may not be realized in this life because the fact is that the needs of faithful disciples have not always been provided. As to why? Well, we continue to trust God even though we may not have all the answers.

I do not want to limit God’s power. Nor do I suggest this in the article. But I do not want to pervert God’s power by twisting Scriptures to say things God does not say.

Commanded to Care for the Poor
(posted 5-23-07)
I want to thank you for the articles in the May 13 issue of the CHRISTIAN STANDARD. I am so glad you are waking up the Christian readers what the Lord told us about taking care of the poor. He never commanded us to build fancy buildings but he did command us to be a brother to anybody who needs our help.
 
Also I am glad you addressed the corporate greed that is so real in America. The huge bonuses and the huge salaries and perks of the executives’ are so unfair to the people that make the products. Especially the foreign workers they exploit.

It is true the wealthy can be huge blessing for the church if they give like they should to take of the poor and to the missionaries to spread God’s Word.
—Clara Essinger
Findlay, Ohio

'Guns Are Amoral'
(posted 5-17-07)
Jim Herbst’s article “God, Guns, and Economic Apologetics” (May 13) contained the following comment: “What job prospects do they have when they (kids wandering the streets), turn 18? Guns and the underground (i.e. illegal) economy always offer an income.”
 
I take issue with the lumping of an inanimate object such as guns with an underground, illegal economy. Guns are amoral. Guns are not the problem. Herbst makes it sound like guns are illegal and that people who have no job prospects are going to automatically turn to lives of crime using guns. For one thing, guns are not illegal and are not always associated with crime. Second, a person who turns to a life of crime is making the choice to do so. Many poor people live honest, hardworking lives. It is not inevitable for all poor people to live lives of crime. The real problem is sin, not poverty. People who are poor do not inevitably turn to lives of crime. We shouldn’t make broad, sweeping generalizations about the poor nor about guns.
—Lyle Lipps
Adairsville, Georgia

Examine 'the Pagan Influences of the Modernist Church'
(posted 5-14-07)
Tim Dalrymple, in his recent letter [below], urges CHRISTIAN STANDARD to “educate itself” about the emerging church, calling it “the biggest threat to Christianity today,” and making reference to “the heathen practices of the emerging church.” One who is truly educated regarding the emerging church recognizes that there are many different expressions of the emerging church, just as there are many expressions of the modernist church. I feel confident he would not want to be painted with the same broad brush used to categorize other groups within the modern church. I consider myself part of the emergent church, yet I do not practice any of the things Mr. Dalrymple mentions. My concept of the emerging church is an emergent/originalist concept that I consider to be a next phase in the idea of the restoration of New Testament Christianity. We often act as if the 19th-century Restoration Movement completed the process. In reality, we have just scratched the surface of what needs to be restored in Christianity. It is my hope that 21st-century Christians will become as energized regarding examination of the pagan influences of the modernist church as Mr. Dalrymple is about what he considers “the heathen practices of the emerging church.” We have allowed many extra-biblical elements to creep in and become firmly entrenched in our understanding of what the original church would look like. We could easily trace the pagan origins of many of the practices found in most of our churches on Sunday mornings: the church building, the order of worship, the three-point sermon, the minister/pastor, dressing up for church, “going to church,” and many others. It is ironic that we choose to castigate others for their “heathen practices” without examining our own pagan influences.
—Mic Marshall
Ashland, Kentucky

Mysticism Is NOT Christianity'
(posted 5-10-07)
Well, let’s see if you will publish this letter—you didn’t publish the last two I wrote. Seems as if someone who doesn’t agree with your point of view doesn’t have a voice.
 
As far as Dan Gilliam, the “Christian mystic,” is concerned: Sorry, Dan but mysticism is NOT Christianity and it is not compatible with Christianity. Just like your labyrinths, your contemplative prayer, and all the other heathen practices of the “emerging church” (see CHRISTIAN STANDARD, January 21, 2007). How about “Christian yoga?” Is that something else you teach? Other emerging leaders practice it and have even written books about it. Of course, the Hindus will tell you there is no such thing as Christian yoga because yoga is a mystic Hindu ritual and has nothing to do with the God Christians serve.
 
You will always have human experiences without even trying. And, you can be spiritual and NEVER know the God of the Bible. At least, you seem to have a high level of self-esteem, one of the most important aspects of secular humanism.
 
The emerging church is most likely the biggest threat to Christianity today because it is coming from within and the people fall for it without even knowing what is happening. This is going on in many evangelical churches, including the Christian churches and churches of Christ.
 
It’s time for CHRISTIAN STANDARD to educate itself about the emerging church. Then warn your readers of its dangers. And please, stop promoting its leaders and its books (CHRISTIAN STANDARD, January 7, 2007), etc.
—Tim Dalrymple
Cheyenne, Wyoming

'Excellent Choice'
(posted 5-10-07)
Thanks . . . for this week’s edition being dedicated to the poor. Excellent choice!
—Cody Moore
Denver, Colorado

RESPONSE TO MAY 6 ISSUE

No Ideal Solution 
(posted 6-22-07)
I do not wish to argue with Paul Williams, who is a fine Christian man who has apparently thought about this problem enough to raise the issue (“My Question Remains,” May 6). I for one am glad he did. Gross income inequity has been in most societies in all of history. Sometimes, when it gets bad enough, a revolution occurs. The wealth and excessive luxury of the kings of France had something to do with the French Revolution.

Slavery is one of those abhorrent human institutions that the church has had to face. When the prevailing rule was overwhelming, as in old Rome, the apostle Paul advocated a Christian slave owner should treat his slave as a brother Christian. But when the government has the capacity to listen and the ability to change it, Christians got involved in abolishing it. Christians can indeed do something, sometimes.

The question really is: What can Christians do about an income system that is integral to democratic capitalism? The options for systems to replace that would be national socialism or fascist totalitarianism. Of course, that would level the income playing field, but what Christian would want a new kind of slavery?

One other option being advocated is called “reconstructionism,” which means reconstructing America into a theocracy. R. J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and even Pat Robertson believe in some form of this. Didn’t the Jamestown colony in early America teach us anything about church-run government, with people put in stocks for not attending church? Outside of totalitarian control, we cannot force anyone to do with less.

My question is: If Christians are supposed to do something about income inequity, who is going to decide just how much income is enough? Does the church really want to get into that game?

Perhaps the correct response is to encourage Christians to go into the corporate world, to be a witness for responsible stewardship of personal resources. Reaching people for Christ at high-income levels usually comes from those who are on a similar level. Christians in the corporate world can have a tremendous influence over their peers. I would also note that only the wealthy can own businesses and pay salaries. They also pay much higher taxes that go to support welfare programs. 

At least Mr. Williams raises the issue. Discussing it is one good place to start.
—John Boberg
Crystal Lake, Illinois

Turn to God's Word
(posted 5-18-07)
This is in response to Paul S. Williams’s brief article in CHRISTIAN STANDARD: "My Question Remains" (May 6).
 
If you are going to ask questions about wealth distribution (or is it income distribution?) perhaps you could define your concept of “income” and “wealth.”  I would suggest the software friend could in fact make more income annually; however, your son as a teacher may have more wealth over his lifetime.
 
Teaching is a safe career, with great retirement benefits paid in part by the employer. He will retire with an income that will place him squarely in the middle class for the remainder of his life. He will have his health insurance subsidized for as long as he lives. Unions have guaranteed your son lifelong employment, even if he is a subpar teacher.
 
His software consultant friend has no such guarantees. His retirement will depend on his talents. Even if he is talented, his income could easily disappear if the company he works for goes out of business, is sold, or he is laid off in a downsizing. If he is to have a solid retirement, he will pay for it entirely on his own. If he is to have health insurance in his retirement years, he will pay for it entirely on his own.
 
All that “paying on his own” comes directly from his income. The government will continue paying the police officer’s and teacher’s retirement and health insurance even after all the money the police officer, and the teacher contributed is spent--not so with his friend. So comparing annual income is a false argument, to be fair the argument should based on the total compensation over a lifetime.
 
Let’s not talk of megayachts, let’s talk megachurches. If I understand and follow your assumptions of how people think, the janitor of a megachurch who makes $30,000 is all right with the senior minister making $150,000 because he has hopes of becoming the senior minister some day.
 
Your arguments are full of “apples and oranges” examples. If you are for social reform realize that there are consequences for just picking a small piece of society to change. To get to a total wealth distribution society you will need to embrace the concepts of Hegel and Marx. As for me, I’ll take a free market capitalist economy with all its faults.
 
Finally, I can show you Scripture about being an obedient and respectful slave. I can show you Scripture where the master is to be kind to his slaves. However, I cannot find Scripture where the master and the slave are to make the same annual income.  
 
As to your question about finding Scripture about inequity in this world, I’ll keep looking. However, I can find Scripture describing this world as evil and unfair. I can also find Scripture that clearly spells out that our hope is in the world to come and not in this world.
 
Sorry, I know your “question remains.” It remains because you are forcing your answer on to your question. It is unfortunate that you are closed to answers to your question that do not fit with your preconceived notions. There is solace in this as you can wait another few years and then write another weak article on “My Question Remains.”
--James L. Carter
Batavia, Ohio

Turn to God's Word
(posted 5-18-07)
Dear Mr. Williams: I am sorry that you are having such a struggle with the question of why some people have bigger paychecks than others (see "My Question Remains"). God's Word has so much to say that will help you with the subject. Jesus says (and this is just a partial listing), be content with what you have; be grateful for your daily bread; do not let jealousy reign in your heart; do not covet; do not love the things of this world.

It seems to me that you have your focus on the wrong thing. Keep your eyes focused on your calling in Christ and encourage your son to do the same. And perhaps you can use your column to teach godly, biblical wisdom about these issues and not mimic the whinings of the world.
—Tammy Wilson
Lamar, Missouri

'The Real Issue Is . . .'
(posted 5-18-07)
It seems that Paul Williams has really struck a nerve with some people in his articles dealing with money (see "My Question Remains"). I agree that we should not be surprised that such economic inequalities exist, nor should we as Christians set our focus on getting our piece of the health and wealth pie. I believe we would all do well to adopt the petition recorded in Proverbs 30:8, 9 regarding our financial desires. Jesus taught us to rely on God for our daily needs.

It seems that somehow this discussion is turning into a divisive political debate, when the real issue is following the example and commands of our Lord. I am concerned that many Christians in America still try to serve two masters. They (or might I say we) try to follow God while chasing the American dream of prosperity. I am surprised at some fellow believers who seem to be defending the idea that you can have it both ways when Jesus clearly taught otherwise. We would be wise to heed the instruction of 1 Timothy 6.

Please do not misunderstand, I am very patriotic, and I am blessed to live in the greatest country on the planet. In fact, I am about as "right wing" as you can get, and I have been known to engage in the political rhetoric with the rest of the talking heads. But I do not think we can dismiss our obligation to minister to "the least of these" by smugly declaring that people deserve to be where they are because of the choices they have made. Jesus often showed the most grace to people who made bad choices, and reserved the most scathing rebukes for the religious people of his day. Unfortunately, in our fallen world inhabited by corrupt people, wrongs are not always righted, and common sense often does not prevail.

Additionally, I think that the only slippery slope worth getting concerned about is the moral and spiritual decline in America over the last half-century. Indeed we do live in the land of opportunity, but I believe the greater opportunity is the freedom to worship and share the gospel wherever and whenever we choose. We must remember that our time here on Earth is but a vapor, and the United States in not our true home. Ultimately, as Christians our citizenship is in Heaven with the Lord, and in the case of nonbelievers, Jesus said they stand condemned already and are bound for an eternity in Hell.

It is imperative that we not forget why we are here in the first place, not for ourselves, but to seek the lost regardless of socioeconomic status and point them to Christ while there is still time, because Satan is an equal opportunity destroyer.
—Loren Pyle
Somerset, Pennsylvania

'A Bit Frightening'
(posted 5-18-07)
Mr. Williams—I have no doubt that you are a wonderful, compassionate Christian and an expert in Christian theology.  I do, however, question whether that expertise extends to economics and political philosophy (see "My Question Remains").

Your column was a bit frightening to me.  To the extent that you are just suggesting that Christians should practice generosity and charity and good works, then that, of course, is without question.  However, you ask what Christians are going to do about it, and you wonder how long we are going to tolerate these exorbitant salaries.  You seem to be suggesting that we somehow shouldn't "tolerate" these salaries, as if we should what—control these through law or some other method of force?  We either allow the free market to work (and it has proven to be the best system ever at eliminating poverty) or we create a system that redistributes through government force, which not only stifles economic well-being, but has led to great horrors.

Socialism and communism have been tried and have visibly failed. Millions of people have been killed because of the slave states created by Marxist ideology.  To pay people according to the Paul Williams view of what people should make could only be done through government force.  People are not going to voluntarily pay and get paid according to your opinion about what their work is worth.

It is not my place to "tolerate" or not tolerate someone's salary.  It is none of my business.  A person is worth what he can earn in a free market, which values his services according to supply and demand.

Like your son, I was a teacher.  I obviously didn't choose that career in order to become rich, but that was my free choice.  I could have gone into the financial industry if that had been my desire.  It wasn't my desire, and I shouldn't complain about those who make the choice to go into that industry if that is what they want.  I have no authority to decide things such as that for other people.

Just what is the proper ratio of CEO salaries to average salaries?  Who are you to say, and why should your opinion as to what is proper pay be given control?  Is a salary exorbitant because Paul Williams doesn't like it?

Many people who complain about wealthy people who have worked hard and achieved much seem to be motivated by envy and greed. They accuse the "upper classes" of being greedy, but they seem often to be greedy and full of covetousness themselves. Where in Scripture does Jesus say a man who works hard and achieves should not be rewarded according to the value the market places in him?  Where does it say in Scripture that inequity (as defined by Paul Williams) is not acceptable?

The best opportunity for poor people to rise out of poverty is provided by our free-market system.  Let's not mess that up! Let's not say "enough is enough," just because you think job pay should be distributed differently.
—Lance Alter
Burlington, Indiana

'Socialistic Controls' Not a Good Suggestion
(posted 5-14-07)
[Dear Paul Williams:] I did not see your first article but was amazed at the one in CHRISTIAN STANDARD’s May 6th issue (“My Question Remains”). Your article implies that socialism is more biblical. My conviction is that the capitalistic, free enterprise system that is alive in America today works hand in glove with Christianity.

There are a couple of inferences in your article that I would like to respond to. First, in your article you talk about the difference of the salaries of CEOs in America, Japan, and Great Britain in comparison to the associates that work for them. I, for one, do not want to live in Japan or Great Britain and definitely do not want to follow in their economic footsteps. I believe individuals should be rewarded for the work they do and that the scale on which they can be rewarded should not be capped by government. If an individual needs the proverbial carrot dangled in front of them to keep them competitive and motivated to achieve more, why should the government take that away?
 
This leads me to another portion of your article where you bring up the three young men, one being your son, and discuss the differences in their salaries. Those three young men made the choices that determined their salaries. I think that’s much better than government making that determination. You ask the reader to locate the Scripture that defines such inequity as acceptable. I ask you: Find me the Scripture that says compensation for our work should be dictated by the government.
 
Paul, I hope I am wrong in the conclusion I have reached. Unfortunately, I believe that I am not the only one who reached this conclusion and I trust you can clear that up. We live in the greatest nation in the world and we have made more progress than any other. This is true because of our capitalistic, free enterprise system that both you and Christianity should support without instilling a lot of socialistic controls.
—Jack Londen

Response from Paul Williams:

Jack,

Thanks for your response to my recent column on executive pay. I am sorry if the column left the impression that I am a socialist.

I have no interest on jumping on any pendulum swinging to the extreme of socialism. In fact, my political views have been quite conservative for most of my living days. I am just interested in keeping our capitalist system balanced, and within the parameters of the teaching of Jesus.

You made some good points in your correspondence. It is true, my son and each of his friends are being compensated according to the vocations they have chosen. But should a schoolteacher willing to commit his life to working with poor and underprivileged children in the inner city of

Philadelphia be paid well below what almost any other American is making with a comparable master’s degree? That is where I believe we are, in fact, out of balance. I do not believe socialism is the answer. I believe a healthier capitalism is the answer.

You also state that government should not be limiting executive pay. I am in complete agreement with you on that point, though you twice accuse me of being in favor of government intervention. Nowhere in the column did I make such a suggestion. I do not feel that the government should intervene. I believe shareholders should intervene. And beyond that, consumers should intervene. After all, everyone makes decisions about where to shop and what products to buy. Let’s reward those corporations that have at their foundations a strong social conscience that reflects the teachings of Christ.

Jack, I have much respect for the work you have done through the years, and for the fact that you are an individual who has been blessed financially, and has freely shared those blessings for the good of the kingdom. I only wish there were more like you.

In Christ, Paul

'Government Restricts and Impedes'
(posted 5-14-07)
To truly enable people to rise out of poverty we must return to worshiping God and stop worshiping government. All levels of government prohibit people from entering various fields of work and otherwise hamper them from reaching their fullest potential,

We must recognize that everything that government does, or attempts to do, is based on force or threat of force.

God gave us freedom and the resources to try to accomplish those things to which we aspire but government restricts and impedes us in the accomplishing of many things. It is especially difficult for those who are poor to deal with those restrictions.

Worse yet is government participation in and usurping of economic activity. For example, by the year 1913 relative freedom had enabled people in the USA to rise to the highest economic level in the world, In that year the Federal Reserve System was created and the Federal Income Tax Amendment to the Constitution was ratified into law.

The Fed was allegedly established to stabilize the economy but notice that the depths of the Great Depression occurred 20 years after the Fed was established and many recessions have followed. The Fed stimulates the economy to create economic booms and then has to put on the brakes to prevent runaway inflation. Monetary inflation robs the poor most because they do not have the means to protect themselves against the destruction of the value of their money. Monetary inflation is a hidden tax on everyone but it hurts the poor the most.

The USA grew to be prosperous before the enactment of the Income Tax Amendment. Since then it has been struggling to maintain the momentum. That tax penalizes those who contribute to the economy. It takes funds that could, and generally would, be used to create new jobs and upgrade the equipment of workers already employed.

Around the world, those countries that allow their residents the most freedom are the most prosperous. The primary way to help the poor, in the long run, is to work for fewer restrictions on their attempts to help themselves. Private charity can enable them to get started but the only way to help them permanently is to enable them to help themselves.
—Roger M. Clites
Johnson City, Tennessee

'Why Did Jesus Give So Much Attention to the Poor?'
(posted 5-14-07)
I read with great interest the essay by Paul Williams—“My Question Remains”—in the May 6 issue of the STANDARD. I was not surprised to see that he had received some negative comments on previous articles on this subject. I had written last summer to say, “Say it again, Paul!” and now I will do that again.

In beginning, I realize that this letter is far too long. But it is written by an “old guy” who has in years of retirement put together into some perspective the gleanings from lots of Bible study and personal experience and observation.

The so-called Christian Right has in recent years gained some political clout and as a result, achieved national attention in the media. They fight valiantly against abortion, homosexual or “gay” rights, stem cell research, flag burning, etc. They also hold closely to the “Republican mantra” of low wages, low taxes, high profits, and the doctrine of “laissez-faire” in business. This last is, as the King said in Anna and the King of Siam, (or was it in The King And I?) “a puzzlement.” How can anyone with even the most minimal knowledge of the Bible feel that way?

Why did Jesus give so much attention to the “poor?” Why is it that Jesus always meant what he said, EXCEPT when he said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven? What was Mary talking about when she sang, “He has put down the mighty from their thrones, And exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, And the rich he has sent away empty”? Or was James just kidding in Chapters 2:6, 7 and 5:1‑6?

The prophets were not silent on the subject. Good example, Amos, whose message is replete with condemnation for those whose arrogance led them to practice oppressive tactics toward the “poor” who constituted the working classes. Psalm 8:17, 18 is not irrelevant. And when you consider the Law of Moses, the landed classes, who constituted those we would call the “rich” in that rural‑pastoral economy were required by Law to set aside their fields every seventh year and what grew voluntarily could be harvested by the needy. The fact is, if one carefully considers all pertinent facts, one can see that the intent was that a certain equality was to be maintained—those constituting the working classes were not to be overpowered by an aristocracy greatly privileged. This last is what worries me in the current economic trend in our country. The “world” at large has operated on this basis, and no nation can long exist this way as history demonstrates. The founders of our nation did their best to avoid this trap, but human nature persists in its effort to maintain the status quo.

Jesus referred to the “poor” or the “common folk” as sheep without a shepherd. They are, unfortunately, easily manipulated, and often vote in ways contrary to their own interests. It is one function of the government to try to maintain fairness, and to make sure that those who “bear the burden and heat of the day” be given their fair share of the rewards to their work. It is a fine line to walk, but that is where a genuinely Christian conscience comes into play.
—Loren Swedburg
Mason, Ohio

'Try Applying These Principles' 
(posted 7-10-07)
I write this (I have written on this general subject before, see above) in response to the letter written by Ben Miller of Jacksonville, Florida (see below), who was in turn commenting on Paul Williams’s May 6 column (“My Question Remains”). I do not know Mr. Miller personally, but I do find that he and I are not on the same page biblically. And I think Paul Williams has the same Bible as I do.  
  
First, let us not use the term “socialistic” here. I find it best to use my own definitions—fairness, reasonable, justice. No one here is talking about “the redistribution of wealth.” Let us instead talk about a fair distribution of the return to one’s contribution to society. No reasonable person expects the worker at the bottom rung of the ladder to be paid equally with the one at the top (Jesus’ parable about the workers in the vineyard might cause thought here). But is it justice for those at the top to exert the pressures of law and government to resist the raising of the minimum wage (thus raising all wages) in order for their personal shares to reach levels from beyond reasonable to the level of sheer greed and opulence? Remember that revered financial wizard recently pointed out what executives everywhere already knew: “The key to profits is the control of labor costs.” 
  
Says Mr. Miller, the overpayment of CEOs is the responsibility of the stockholders. Since when do the stockholders have any say in the matter? A small group of “buddies” holds control of the stock and the bulk of the stockholders get a proxy form asking them to go along with the program. One who does not is simply branded a troublemaker and a nut. Point of act: the business world and the so-called free market are among the last strongholds against democracy in this world.  
  
I would ask, “Has Mr. Miller ever read the Bible with this general topic in mind? Start with the book of James and work back to the law of Moses. Were the poor of Jesus’ day any different—somehow more worthy—than those of today? And as for the place of government, have we forgotten that Israel prior to the captivity was a theocracy? Even after the monarchy, the kings were roundly condemned by the prophets for forsaking the law of God delivered to Moses. Recall what the law says: If an Israelite asks you for a loan and you have the means to give it, give it interest free (a Gentile, you may charge interest). If the debtor is unable to repay, after seven years, the loan is cancelled. Every Sabbath of Sabbaths—49 years—all property reverts to the original landholder and everything starts over again (what would our rich dynasties think about that?). 
  
If you own land, the poor can walk through your fields and pluck and eat grain. No baskets, no pockets, but all he or she could eat. Same with the vineyard. When you harvest, if the laborers drop stalks when bundling, do not pick them up. Leave them for the poor, the gleaners (see the book of Ruth). Do not let the harvesters get too close to the field edges, and round the corners. Crop there is for the gleaners. And every seven years, leave the land lie fallow. Volunteer grain is to be gathered by the poor.  
  
This was not “voluntary” or “faith-based.” This was law. Kings were not to abridge or amend; they were supposed to enforce. Talk about government control. And this was God!  
  
Try applying these principles to big business today. Well, I’ve said enough. Too much, maybe. Hang in there, Paul. I’m with you all the way.
—Loren Swedburg 
Mason, Ohio

'Too Socialistic to Go Unnoticed'
(posted 5-14-07)
Dear Mr. Williams: I have always admired your back page articles in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD; in fact your recent one on men taking responsibility for lives was, at my suggestion, used as a study for a Wednesday night men’s class. However, yours of May 6th entitled “My Question Remains” concerning the unequal distribution of wealth seems too “socialistic” to go unnoticed.

Certainly, many CEOs in high places seem grossly overpaid, but that, in my view, is the responsibility of the stockholders of those companies, in the free enterprise system in which we live, that brought us to the comparative wealth of our country.

That an inner-city schoolteacher and a police officer should have the same income as a Wall Street software consultant (whatever that is) in my opinion does not recognize the marketability of the skills involved, and would never happen without an authoritative central government. That destroys our free enterprise way of life, and probably limits our choice of Christian evangelistic activities. Think China.
—Ben Miller
Jacksonville, Florida

'Not Enough Voices Like His'
(posted 5-11-07)
Thank you for publishing the column by Paul Williams (“My Question Remains”). There are not enough voices like his being heard in the mainstream of Christian churches/churches of Christ, and I am glad his insights and questions are printed in the pages of CHRISTIAN STANDARD. His column on May 6 raised the issue of economic (in)equality in the United States, and as the responses to the column reveal, the more basic issue is our identity as Christians and Americans. Can we be both? The majority of Christians living in the United States have answered this question uncritically and have naively accepted distinctly American cultural values such as capitalism and individualism, swallowing them (so to speak) hook, line, and sinker.
 
Thank you, Paul Williams, for the work that you do.
—Kristofer Reed

Excellent Insight
(posted 5-10-07)
David Fiensy’s piece on Jesus’ tomb was an excellent outlay of our modern dilemma concerning information media (May 6). Our culture is becoming a “sight oriented,” stimulated information disseminating arena. His insight that most of these Discovery Channel-type programs are “. . . works by amateur historians writing with little knowledge . . .” is important as the hype hits the airways each Christmas and Easter. If we combine the general biblical illiteracy in contemporary culture there emerges a pseudo counterculture that has invaded the public mind. Let us renew our efforts to simple New Testament Christianity and the attached biblical scholarship that has attended it over the centuries. We do well to listen to the sound voices of reason over the centuries than to the latest hip hype pseudo scholarship and a track-to-oblivion theology.
—Dr. Keith J. Wise
St. Louis, Michigan

'Treading a Slippery Slope"
(posted 5-8-07)
Mr. (Paul) Williams (“My Question Remains,” May 6): You are, indeed, treading a slippery slope when mixing your liberal political leanings with a church publication meant for all Christians to read. Inequities as to what people earn, versus the energy/intelligence expended, has been a problem as long as I can remember—and I’m staring down at turning 72 this year. The exorbitant salaries that sports figures make, in particular, bug me no end . . . but it’s called “capitalism,” and as long as people continue to buy tickets and attend football, basketball, and baseball games and the owners can pay out those exorbitant salaries and still make a handsome profit, that’s the way it’s going to be. And judging from the brouhaha over what CEOs have been making (and getting into trouble over), that inequity just might be straightening itself out already. In spite of what The New York Times would have you believe.

You ask, “Show me where Jesus endorses the view that if you work in the financial industry, the fat life is your birthright.” I beg your pardon? Neither my husband, nor I, nor any of our children work in the financial industry, but if they did, I’d be monumentally insulted over that “fat life” comment. You really believe that EVERYBODY who works in the financial industry thinks he’s entitled to the “fat life”? Ridiculous. It sounds like it came right out of something Fidel Castro would write.

Perhaps we “tolerate” (as you say in your column) those obvious inequities because we believe in the American political system—flaws and all—and trust that eventually common sense will prevail, wrongs will be righted, and compared to all the other methods of government we’ve seen in all the other countries of the world, we believe our governmental system is still the best.

And if you think our health-care system leaves much to be desired, wait until the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants we have now are “legally” granted health benefits that they have not helped pay towards. Your son and his two friends you wrote about will be paying an exorbitant amount of taxes to support the illegals for many years to come . . . and one, of course, earns twice what the other two earn, combined . . . but I don’t have to tell you which one will be paying the most in taxes, do I?

You, Mr. Williams, made it quite obvious that you lean towards the socialist/communist precept that the “distribution of wealth” is the only way to go. You’re right. Enough is enough. I think I’ve read my last CHRISTIAN STANDARD.
—Jan Compton

Spreading Wealth Around Equally Won't Solve World's Problems
(posted 5-8-07)
I would like to comment on the “What are Christians going to do about it?” question that Paul Williams asked in his article, “My Question Remains” (May 6). My answer is that Christians will do what they have always done: take care of the sick, feed and clothe the poor, help the needy, and take the gospel to the lost.

Mr. Williams, being the socialist he strongly appears to be, seems to believe that just spreading the wealth around equally would solve our world’s ills. Not true! Jesus said we would always have the poor with us and I believe he is correct. Some are poor because they are squashed by strong or powerful people, others by health issues, others because of the circumstances they were born into, and others because of the choices they made and continue to make. In America, I believe the latter is the main (but not only) cause, and if Mr. Williams is a fair man and just looks around, he will come to that conclusion.

However, I suspect that Mr. Williams isn’t really talking about the poor; he is talking about what he sees as the inequity of paid salaries. He considers it unfair that the teacher who teaches our young or the policeman who keeps us safe don’t make as much as the CEO who runs a huge corporation. If he only knew how few of those there are. Most businesses in America are small businesses—people struggling along or making just enough to keep their business going and employ a few people. However, there are so many of these small businesses that they employ most of the people in the United States. I am one of those small employers.

Mr. Williams wants to know why we don’t care that there are people who make these huge salaries. Well, the fact is that I do care if someone gets it because he/she is a crook and is cheating the shareholders, but I don’t care if it is because they are great at their job. What is it to the person who works for his company? Probably nothing? Jobs at a company have a value that is set on them and it is that value that decides what the person who does the job makes. If you do that job really well, you might make a little more, but the CEO’s salary doesn’t enter in. What’s it to me if I don’t work there? It doesn’t affect me or how much I make. But if the CEO is great at his job and my company does business with his company, I’m very happy his company is profitable so I can buy his goods or sell him mine. I don’t care how much he makes. Maybe I’m a shareholder and the way he runs the company makes my stock go up. I’m a happy camper and I don’t care how much he makes.

When I do care how much he makes is when he decides he is going to give back and he supports and funds the arts in our town, a very expensive new wing to the community hospital, or the university where my son goes; or when he gives new computers to the library, fights AIDS in Africa, or flies a child in dire need of special surgery from his war-torn home in a third world county to a U.S. hospital in the corporate jet. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett just gave billions of dollars away. Lots of money can be very beneficial, especially if it is used to employ others and to help in other ways.

Quit being jealous of people who make lots of money. Let’s look to ourselves to do all that we can do to help others, be grateful for what we have, share it, and thank God that we live in America where we are free and can make choices about our lives. And you, Mr. Williams, are free to go to some third world county and live like most of the people in that county or you can equally divide what you have with any poor people here in the States that you want to—no one will stop you, especially not I. America, the land of OPPORTUNITY!
—Pat Osborne
Germantown, Tennessee

'We Should Not Be Surprised'
(posted 5-2-07)
I would like to comment on Paul Williams’s column for May 6 ("My Question Remains").
 
You mention your son and two of his friends from high school; and note that one of them “earns twice what the other two earn, combined.” Surely you are aware of the fact that life revolves around choices we make. Your son could have chosen to go into the field in which his friend works. According to his ability, he could be making as much or more than his friend. Instead, he chose to go into a field devoted to helping others. The world does not honor those who so choose with a lot of money; but the Lord assures us that greatness is measured by the extent to which we give ourselves to the service of others. We should not be surprised that the world does not treat fairly those who live by the standards Jesus taught.
 
We live in a free society. People choose their life work based on their priorities. Because of the freedoms we enjoy here in America, there are unlimited opportunities to make money available to those who choose to focus on getting rich. We may also choose to give up riches in order to do something with our lives we consider more important. In a free, market-driven society, there will always be inequities. Does that mean we should be pleased that people who are self-focused make more money than those who give of themselves for the benefit of others? Of course not, but we would be wise to value the freedoms that make those inequities inevitable and turn our attention and time to pointing hearts toward Jesus and his value system.
—Ed White
Alabaster, Alabama

MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS

Thanks for Online Version
(posted 6-27-07)
Thank you for making the CHRISTIAN STANDARD available online the week prior to being distributed to church members and classes. It gives me the opportunity to use the thoughts and illustrations during my sermons and lessons. It makes the younger audience aware of what has been a great resource of the churches for years.
—Larry Revert

'Doesn't God Know the Future'?
(posted 5-25-07)
Concerning open theism: doesn’t God know the future—and plan for it? (For articles about open theism, see the March 11 and 18, 2007, issues).

Back in the 1960s I was studying the Xhosa language at an isolated mission station in the Transkei region of South Africa. One Sunday morning I drove the three-hour trip to visit the church at Tarkastad. We had the usual four-hour morning service, followed by lunch, then the afternoon service. By the time I left the church, it was dark and stormy. Fortunately, the road to Lady Frere was tarred, but from there to the mission was a winding, hilly road that reminded me of the red clay roads I grew up with in Georgia.

The road crossed the river seven times in 10 miles over rocky, rough fords (“drifts” in South Africa). I made the first six crossings OK, but when I plunged into the river for the last one, the engine drowned out. As the muddy, rushing water swirled around the car, I remembered those Transkei flash floods that turn a car over and over till it’s smashed to bits and the occupants are dead.

Then a man appeared on the riverbank. I don’t know whether God dropped an angel out of Heaven or whether he started the man on that slog down the muddy road to arrive at the river when I needed him. The man waded out to the car, opened the door, and said, “See, it’s not deep.” He helped me out of the car and over to the riverbank.

I walked the couple of miles to the mission. Men there got a pickup and by the time we got back to the drift, the river was down. We towed the car to the mission, dried the plugs, and it was OK.

It seems that those people who doubt God knows the future have never been in a situaiton where God had to prepare help long before they needed it.
—John Kernan