Letters to the Editor - November/December 2006

eNewsletter

FREE!!

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

Letters to the Editor - November/December 2006

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

RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 24 ISSUE

'The Magi Were Not Wandering Aimlessly'
(posted 1-3-07)
I appreciated Brian Lowery’s December 24 article “Tis the Season,” and his encouragement to reach out to people who are seeking, especially at Christmas. However, Mr. Lowery cites Matthew 2:1-12 to illustrate others who are seeking, and I became confused regarding his reference to the Magi. Mr. Lowery wrote, “The wonderful part is that in their seeking they stumbled upon something—someone—they weren’t even really looking for, but found anyway.”

The Magi were not wandering aimlessly in search for something. They were specifically seeking the Christ child as stated in the first two verses of Mr. Lowery’s citation, Matthew 2:1, 2, “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, ‘Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him’” (NIV).

Indeed, as Mr. Lowery states, there are questions surrounding the Magi, but there is no question about whom they were seeking.
—Ruth Gelter
Bethel, Ohio

Reply from Brian Lowery: I couldn't agree more with Ms. Gelter that by the time of the Magi’s interaction with Herod they were clearly looking for the Child who the star was proclaiming. I certainly wouldn't see them as wandering aimlessly or "meandering" at that point in their story—the two simple verses prove that just isn't the case. When I wrote the line concerning the Magi's "stumbling upon Jesus" (after stumbling upon a star and such), I was speaking more to their possible backstory. As I pointed out in the article, they were perhaps astrologers trying to map the future, squaring what they found in the skies with ancient prophecies and other religious or mystical sources. In this sense, I do think they were perhaps at one time wandering a bit aimlessly in their meandering about in this thought or that philosophy and even on the night of the first "Christmas." Their search was indeed sharpened over time (maybe even years some scholars argue, gamely messing up our nativity sets!) and by the stop through Herod's palace they knew exactly what and whom they were looking for (as Ms. Gelter rightfully points out). Perhaps I could have been a bit clearer in my writing. Sorry about the misunderstanding and thanks so much for the interaction with the article. Blessings!

Conclusion 'Too Severe'?
(posted 1-3-07)
Ray Kelley’s letter critiquing Mark Scott’s reference to Rome as the “center of the inhabited world” (in “The Insignificant in Christmas,” December 24), and to similar statements by other authors, makes a valid point. (See also “The Fullness of Time,” CHRISTIAN STANDARD, 14 September 1963.) Our education has tended to give us the impression that “the inhabited world” began with Greece and Rome, expanded into northern Europe, and then crossed the Atlantic Ocean to North America. (One old high school world history text even called its subject The Westward March of Man.) According to this view, only in the 19th and 20th centuries did the rest of the globe somehow join “the inhabited world.”

We need to develop a global view of history, but Kelley’s critical conclusion may be too severe. I read Scott’s statement as a kind of rhetorical flourish, comparable to Daniel’s statement to Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:38) that “in your hands he (God) has placed mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all,” and to Paul’s assertion in Colossians 1:6 that “all over the world (kosmos) this gospel is bearing fruit and growing.” Other authors today may be using expressions about Rome in a similar sense.
—Donald Etz
Dayton, Ohio

A Cringe-Inducing Phrase
(posted 12-21-06)
I read with interest “The Insignificant in Christmas” (December 24) by Mark Scott. The title and basic concept of the article were very interesting; however, one phrase caused me to cringe. After explaining how Rome, the capital of the Mediterranean world, was given only “passing mention” in Luke 2, the statement “center of the inhabited world” was placed in parenthesis. Frankly, such a statement bewildered me. It took me back to my elementary days in the 1950s when we heard phrases like “Rome, the capital of the known world.” Both are totally incorrect statements.

The Roman Empire never conquered the Tigris and Euphrates River valley, which was the center of the Babylonian and Persian empires. Alexander the Great’s empire reached past this area to the East into Northern India. Although the Romans may not have had total knowledge of India, they did know these countries were active commercial centers because they imported various items from them.

Furthermore, we should not forget China, which was an active vibrant civilization at the time of the birth of Christ.

It is inaccurate to state “Rome was the center of the inhabited world.” This comment is either a result of ignorance or our Euro-American snobbery, neither of which should be perpetuated in the pages of the CHRISTIAN STANDARD.
—W. Ray Kelley
Live Oak, Florida

RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 17 ISSUE

Much Success with 12-Step Programs
(posted 12-21-06)
As a 65-year-old, 40-year recovering alcoholic, I want to thank you and Dan Gilliam for the excellent article, “The 12-Stepping Church” (December 17). About 15 years ago we began a Christ-centered, 12-step program in a church we served in Nebraska. We have continued them in Kansas and Texas. We have seen many people come to Christ through these programs, families restored, and the addiction cycle interrupted. Again, thank you for alerting the brotherhood concerning this needed ministry in our local churches.
—Tom Reynolds
El Paso, Texas

Celebrate Recovery a Solid, Scriptural Program
(posted 12-21-06)
I thought your article “The 12-Stepping Church” (by Dan C. Gilliam, December 17) was going to be about Celebrate Recovery, a recovery program developed by John Baker based on eight principles from the Beatitudes. This is a 12-step program with Scripture that backs up each step. Celebrate Recovery is the bridge from not only sobriety, but any hurt, hang-up, or habit to the salvation of the One and only true higher power—Jesus Christ.
—Julie Stevens
Adrian, Missouri

RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 10 ISSUE

A Good Basis for Sermon
(posted 1-3-07)
Aaron Chambers’s “The Easy Button” (December 10) was excellent. I am using it as the basis for a sermon. Ministry (professional or volunteer) is not easy, and God never said it would be. Thanks for a great article.
—Danny Shoemane
Winder, Georgia

RESPONSE TO DECEMBER 3 ISSUE

Church Figure "Is Misleading"
(posted 12-6-06)
Just a note to say that the statement, "Right now there are fewer than a dozen Restoration Movement churches in the country," in the "Developing Canadian Leaders" section of BUZZ (December 3) is misleading. If that statement is referring to Ontario, then the statement is true no doubt. However, if it is in reference to all of Canada, there are more than a dozen Restoration Movement churches in Alberta alone. Alberta Bible College, where I taught some courses many years ago and from which my daughter is a recent graduate, is doing a good job of training emerging leaders in the Canadian West.

However, Toronto and Calgary are many miles (or should I say kilometers?) apart and there is much to be done to train Christian leaders and to plant new churches in all of Canada, including Alberta. Impact Canada is doing a good job in helping to get things moving!
—Judy C. Mason
Texico, Illinois
Editor’s Note: The statement in the article is incorrect. The 2006 edition of the Directory of the Ministry lists 58 Christian churches/churches of Christ in Canada. We apologize for the error. We have modified the online version of the article.

Price for Not Counseling Is Much Higher
(posted 12-6-06)
As a biblical counselor and certified chaplain I am appalled at the article by Phil LeMaster (“The High Cost of Marital Counseling,” December 3). If he is a minister of the gospel, he is under a mandate to counsel members of his flock (Romans 15:14). He complains about the price of counseling being too high. I'd like to suggest that the price for not counseling in accordance with biblical principles would be much higher.

Since counseling and evangelism go hand in hand, the price to pay would be souls headed for Hell.
—Paul H. Davis
Via e-mail

RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 26 ISSUE

It's Like a Movie . . .
(posted 12-21-06)
I haven’t had a chance to read other letters regarding open theism, but I had to share with you my friend’s way of explaining free will and God’s foreknowledge. She said that our lives are like a movie that we direct, and that God has a preview. This works for me, though admittedly, I may not be thinking about it deeply enough.
—Loretta Park
Lewistown, Montana

Appreciation for Articles
(posted 12-7-06)
My appreciation for the articles on open theism (by Paul Kissling and Patrick Nullens, November 19 and 26) and the very wise piece by Phil LeMaster on ministers and marriage counseling (“The High Cost of Marital Counseling,” December 3).

On open theism, I quote Isaiah 40:28, "His understanding is unsearchable." Kissling and Nullens handled a difficult subject superbly.
—Bruce Parmenter
Lincoln, Illinois

Refuting Open Theism
(posted 11-26-06)
In the articles supporting open theism by Paul Kissling (“Open to Open Theism” parts 1 and 2, November 19 and 26), he expresses concerns he has with "traditional systematic theology" and then proceeds to re-imagine a God who is, in almost every respect, not the God of the Bible. His "God" seems to have no foreknowledge, cannot know the future because it hasn't happened to be known, and does not pre-ordain events. I am not a trained theologian, nor even an ordained minister, and I have no allegiance to "traditional systematic theology" (in fact, I can probably sympathize with some of his concerns about it), but I must speak up for the God of the Bible.

To fully refute open theism would require an extensive survey of the Bible. However, there is one passage in the New Testament that will suffice to show that Kissling's "God" is not the One who gave us the Scriptures. That passage is Ephesians 1:3-14 (quoted here from the New American Standard Bible).

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory."

It is unmistakable in this passage that God "chose us in Him before the foundation of the world." This implies foreknowledge, at the very east. But the next verse says "He predestined us to adoption as sons." So the fact of the existence of God's foreknowledge and predestination are made clear here, even if we are not sure how it all works out in our lives and in history. This alone contradicts the "God" of open theism.

Mr. Kissling gives an overview of biblical history that I can summarize this way: God tried one thing to relate to mankind. It didn't work. Then he tried something else. It didn't work either. God kept changing strategy, hoping to find something that would work. Starting from the above passage, let me suggest a more biblical view of the history of God and mankind.

God's purpose is to raise up a people who will be "to the praise of the glory of His grace" (v. 6 above). In order that his grace would be shown to be most glorious, he has created humans who could and would rebel against him. Over the centuries he used various means of communicating and relating to humanity, and specifically to the Jewish people, to show that the problem between God and man was not because he wasn't using the right method, but that we were unwilling, in our sinful state, to relate to him as God no matter how he approached us. At the proper time, he spoke to us through his own Son, Jesus, and through the crucifixion and resurrection "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8, New King James Version) "purchased for God with His blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation" (Revelation 5:9, NASB). Redeemed men and women from every stubborn, rebellious, wayward people group on earth will stand in praise of the glory of God's grace, because God has acted to make it so "from the foundation of the world."

Just how or whether human freewill fits into God's plan is a matter to be debated, but we should not make the mistake of imagining our own "God" because we don't like the fact that he knows himself to be the beginning, end, and the center of the universe, and that he expects us to treat him as such. To me, the following seem to be the basis of most modern and postmodern strayings from New Testament doctrine—the treatment of human freewill as an absolute and the desire for a God who does not come across as God-centered.

I, for one, accept the God of the Bible, "who works all things after the counsel of His will" (Ephesians 1:11). I know that I have received his grace (including all the things listed in the Ephesians passage above) through believing and being baptized, but I also recognize that the faith which saves is a gift from God, not from myself (Ephesians 2:8). I even understand this grace to be the expression of God's love. However, I know that the ultimate purpose of God's working in my life is not my salvation (which would make God's purpose centered on my need) nor the expression of his love (which would make it based on his need to express love to someone), but on his desire to be praised for the glory of his grace. That he is ultimately concerned about his desire to be praised is clear from the above passage, where it is mentioned three times. We may not like this God, and many who do not have made up their own god to worship. I pray that we will not allow people like Mr. Kissling to lead us to believe that a "God who is unchanging ... and who has absolute and comprehensive knowledge and control of all things" is "not the God portrayed in the Bible." Though the words the Bible uses may be different, those concepts do describe the God who revealed himself in the Bible. The god of open theism is an idol.
—Steve Ingle
Douglasville, Georgia

RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 19 ISSUE

"What Became of Restoration?"
(posted 12-21-06)
Regarding “Keeping the Family Together” (by Paul S. Williams, November 19): It certainly looks like leaders of big and small churches, whether intending to “sink into the evangelical community at large,” do intend to become more and more like the churches around us. We have our hierarchy and our terminology. First we had the senior minister, who became the senior pastor. What is this if not hierarchy? And there is the associate pastor. And those senior pastors are not likely to give up their titles, Jesus’ condemnation of titles notwithstanding (Matthew 23:8-10). Now we even have women as children’s pastors. Whoops! Didn’t God, through Paul, have something to say about who the pastors (elders: Ephesians 4:11) are? Just a generation ago we were dead set against “pastorizing” our preachers. Now it is all the rage. What became of restoration?
—David M. Bayless
Belém, Brazil

"It Is God's Doing, Not Ours"
(posted 12-6-06)
I appreciate and share the concerns of Paul Williams in his article "Keeping the Family Together" (November 19). I have a multiple-generation heritage in our brotherhood and my great-grandfather was in Pittsburgh for the Centennial Celebration in 1909. But from my experience I see our brotherhood expanding—it's just that not everyone knows it because it is God's doing, not ours.

This year I have met with leaders of three denominational churches that are making plans to leave their denominations in order to follow the New Testament patterns they have found in Scripture. They have moved to being elder-led, observing Communion weekly, and following the New Testament pattern of salvation—by following Scripture not our brotherhood meetings or institutions.

In 1983 I met a Christian minister in Ulverstone, Tasmania, and he began to tell about the things he and his leadership had found in Scripture. When I agreed with him on each item, he eventually paused and said, "How many of you are there?" What joy he experienced when he realized that he was not alone and that the New Testament can lead us to truth. Maybe that's where we are here in our little corner of the world in America.

We need to trust God to lead his people to find the truth—it might not look the way we're used to ... but if we are in the center of God's will, others will join us as they find the truth in God's Word too.

If we have found the truth, then let's continue to hold onto the truth without wavering—and God seems to be leading others to finding that "standard" without our help—because it is a standard! I'm glad to be part of restoring both the family and the church to the New Testament patterns.
—Jeff Coon
New Whiteland, Indiana

Foreknowledge and Choices--"Both Are True"
(posted 12-6-06)
In Michael Lum's e-mail letter to the editor (“Appreciated Open Theism Article,” November 19 issue), he reasons that God's interaction with Cain could not be a true choice on Cain's part if he was "predestined" to sin. However, the Bible, in addition to teaching God's sovereign ordination of all things (wonderfully explained in Steve Ingle's e-mail letter, “Refuting Open Theism,” November 26 issue), also teaches that man makes choices, which are the result of what is in his heart, and furthermore, that he is not relieved of the responsibility for his choice. This is illustrated in Peter's sermon at Pentecost, when he spoke of Christ "being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God," and then added concerning Christ and his treatment by the crowd, "You have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death" (Acts 2:23, New King James Version). Clearly, the sovereignty and foreknowledge of God are taught on the one hand, and man's choices and the resulting responsibility and consequences are taught on the other hand.

Both are true. We should be careful not to reject truths in the Bible simply because we cannot fully reconcile them in our minds. We accept the truth of the Trinity, where we are taught that God is One, and yet we know he is also three distinct Persons. This we accept and believe in spite of our inability to fully grasp and understand this truth. Let's also accept God's teaching about his knowledge and control of the future.
—P. Wanamaker
Norton, Massachusetts

A Closer Look at Trendy Illustrations
(posted 11-26-06)
I have been thinking about the statements made by Paul Williams in his column entitled "Keeping the Family Together" (November 19). To some extent I agree that church loyalty is not what it ought to be and in some instances not what it was in times past.

He uses as an illustration, however, the fact that attendance at the North American Christian Convention, as well as regional and state conventions, continues to decline. I wonder if this is because there are so many different conventions, conferences, family camps, symposiums, and other retreats. If we added the attendance of all these together we might find that the total number of participants exceeds the number who at one time attended the NACC and various state conventions. People can attend only so many special events each year and may be choosing venues that are more specialized in the focus of the agenda. One thing that hurt the attendance at the NACC in recent years was the insistence on such loud music and the use of choruses totally unfamiliar to many in attendance. Also a terrible mistake was made by trying to have regional conventions one year rather than one large gathering. The 2006 convention was a definite improvement in the music style and will hopefully serve as a model for future conventions.

Another example of the decline of church loyalty that Mr. Williams gave was the fact that “the number of those reading this magazine continues to decline as well.” Perhaps the new direction given to the magazine in the past few years to gear it mainly towards those in leadership positions may be at least partially responsible for this. It may be that that this new direction does not lead to articles that, by and large, appeal to the majority of those who occupy the pews of our congregations.

Mr. Williams is correct as he laments the fact that the children of Christian church leaders are not attending churches affiliated with the movement. Not only is this true of the children but I have seen an increasing tendency on the part of those in leadership positions to leave a Restoration Movement congregation and become part of a denominational church. I fear that we have not been preaching and teaching the principles of the New Testament Church clearly and loudly enough. Too much preaching today deals with family and personal problems, which is good, but we also need a return to some strong doctrinal preaching.

I agree that the larger churches need to do more to interact with other Christian churches. It is easy to become so absorbed in the multiplicity of programs offered by the larger churches that there seems little time or desire to fellowship with other congregations. I have long felt that the larger congregations should promote and actively participate in area rallies so they can be of encouragement to the folk in small congregations.

I further question Mr. Williams' conclusion in which he stated: "If this movement is going to thrive into the future, we will need to change our priorities now. Churches across America must find new ways to get the family together, or the Christian church movement will be relegated to a few dusty pages in a church history book." Is our God limited to large gatherings to keep alive the dream and goal of restoring New Testament Christianity? It seems to me that with all the smaller conferences and conventions being held God is doing a pretty good job of keeping alive the vitality of the Restoration Movement. I pray that I am not wrong in this assessment.
—Bob Tinsky
Oblong, Illinois

'The Restoration Movement Is Dying'
(posted 11-22-06)
Paul Williams's “And So It Goes” really hit home (“Keeping the Family Together” November 19). I realized it really is true. The Restoration Movement is dying. Everyone is buying into the “big” and the “bold” and the “beautiful”; the worship, the messages, the entertainment. Who are they really for? Where does Jesus really fit into the new picture? Are people really changing? Is there a true repentance?

Acts 2:38 is still in the Bible. Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The truth never changes. It is man who changes the truth. We will still be held accountable.

“I know whom I have believed in and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto him against that day!” Praise God, I can still quote Scripture! I praise God for what the Restoration Movement has stood for. I don’t know about you, but I’ll keep on proclaiming the truth until I die!
—Kathy Walter
Orlando, Florida

Further Reflections on the Breakup
(posted 11-22-06)
Paul Williams’s article “Keeping the Family Together” (November 19) strikes a very relevant chord. I would propose some further reasons why the apparent breakup of our family is happening.

Paul suggests we must change our priorities to remedy the affliction—yet many of us out here in the hinterland believe that “that” very solution is what provoked the “relatives” into the state of disharmony that we must now confront.

When the North American Christian Convention started foisting faith-only denominational speakers upon our brotherhood at our own convention, and when the STANDARD serves up articles that applaud the merits of our leaders who gleefully embrace the tenets of “evangelicalism,” is anybody really surprised that many in our Restoration family feel more and more alienated by this unwanted and unwarranted “change of priorities.”

The more conservative of our brethren seem not to be afforded the same voice and respect that the “Rick Warren groupies” among us appear to receive.

The reason children who grow up in many of our churches do not seem to remain committed to our churches is because our movement is becoming more and more wishy-washy about our Restoration heritage and identity. The centrality of strong Bible preaching and teaching has been shoved aside to make more room for things that entertain. These poorly fed offspring are not committed to the churches they’ve grown up in because those churches are not committed to the foundation of faith that has identified us as a people for the past 200 years.

Why was our movement the fastest-growing religious body in America in the 19^th century? Because our preachers, elders, and churches had a clearly defined, biblically sound doctrinal position and message, and everybody knew exactly what churches of Christ/Christian churches believed and stood for. Many of our churches today are more “baptist” than they are Christians-only.

I appreciate Paul Williams’s honesty and candor in this matter. I graduated from the same Bible college and was taught and inspired by the same professors as him. Pray! Let us not find ourselves “relegated to a few dusty pages in a church history book.”
—Bob Wickline
Bethel, Ohio

Personal Relationship Is Better
(posted 11-22-06)
I found the articles on open theism interesting and challenging (November 19 and 26). They are bound to stir some “juices” among those with academic interests.

After reading the articles, I pretty much came to roost where I was all along. When finite minds seek to understand the infinite God, a disconnect results. The Bible reveals what we need to know about God but it doesn’t reveal everything about him. We could not handle it! Augustine, Calvin, Jacob Arminius, and all the others through history increased our knowledge, but knowing about God isn’t nearly as important as knowing God. Enjoying a personal relationship with him is far better than being able to explain all the ins and outs of his nature.

Maybe it really is best just to “speak where the Scriptures speak....” Still I can learn and can contemplate the magnificent One who created the universe and still knows my name!
—Michael Hines
Sun City, Arizona

Appreciated Open Theism Article
(posted 11-20-06)
I thought the article on open theism was excellent. For too long we have made light of God’s ability (including his ability to chose not to know all things). There are things that obviously God can do and will not do (evil, lie, etc.). God without a doubt can know what he wants about the future, and I firmly believe he can also choose not to know. Consider the following: In Genesis 4, when God warned Cain about “sin crouching at the door” and the two choices (good or evil), was there really a choice or not? ... or was Cain predestined to choose to do evil? Seems to me that if there was no choice, God was at least pulling a horrible prank, and/or at worst was not telling Cain (or the readers of Scripture) the truth. We can be assured that our God always tells the truth. This would certainly point to what is now being called “open theism” or “dynamic control.” Thanks for your teaching!
—Michael Lum
Via e-mail

RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 12 ISSUE

'Mistakenly Attributed'
(posted 11-15-06)
Paul S. Williams’s “And So It Goes” column in November 12 issue ("Pleasing to the Eye") presented an interesting brief snapshot of the growing trend of church building design that reflects the church’s culture and the surrounding community’s history and architecture. However, Mr. Williams mistakenly attributed the church master planning and design work of Visioneering Studios in Irvine, California, to Imagineering Studios (which I believe is a Walt Disney design group in Glendale, California). Our church—Blue Springs (Missouri) Christian Church—is currently working with Visioneering Studios to develop our church campus master plan. This gifted and ministry-focused organization merits full plaudits and attribution for each of its innovative projects, including Christ’s Church of the Valley in Collegeville, Pennsylvania, and Crossroads Christian Church in Corona, California, both mentioned by Mr. Williams. The “architectural evangelism” practiced by Visioneering Studios has much to recommend it to our churches.
—Dennis Ewens
Grain Valley, Missouri

Editor's Note: The writer is correct and we apologize for the error. Visioneering Studios (www.visioneeringstudios.com) is a member of Provision Ministry Group, Irvine, California. "Imagineering" is a term associated with The Walt Disney Company. The online version of the article has been corrected.

On Trust and Feelings
(posted 11-9-06)
My friend Rick Lowry did a great job presenting an apologetic for confession (“Battling Boredom,” November 12). We don’t take mutual accountability seriously. It is a trust issue! We all wonder, “Can I really trust you to accept me when you know my deepest, darkest secrets?” I once participated in an accountability group of six guys. We all had our struggles, but even though five of the six had known each other most of their lives it took two years and the confession of one of the members before the logjam broke.

On another issue, Rick started his article by noting “John’s” growing boredom with things often considered spiritual. I was taken with the fact that “John” did all the right things but he still didn’t feel his relationship with Christ had grown deeper. He, Rick said, wanted more! He wanted to feel the excitement once again.

When I read such statements, I’m reminded of the conditions of the “burned over district” in western New York in the 1830s. So many revivals swept through the region, with all their accompanying excitement, that believers kept searching for the next big thrill. Out of that came Mormonism, which offered something new and exciting, and Richard McNemar and John Dunlavy abandoned the Kentucky Christians for the Shakers because they, too, were searching for something that would give their otherwise boring Christian life some feeling of excitement.

We in the Restoration Movement emphasized the intellectual side of the Christian message for so long that we neglected the emotional. In an effort to restore the balance, we drew heavily from the Charismatic emphasis on praise. Not that such an emphasis was wrong, but now the pendulum has swung, and when pendulums swing they often go too far. We must realize that our faith produces character, perseverance, and patience. In essence, faith leads to the construction of an entire worldview that differentiates it from that of the world. Christianity is more than excitement, it is a way of life.

Returning for a moment to my opening paragraph, I’m not at all certain that confession—or any other spiritual discipline—will satisfy for long if we want a feeling. We all go through those dry spells when our spiritual life tends to drag on and we have lost the glow of our initial commitment. It is, I think, during those times that God is closest to us, seeking to remind us that a time is coming when his presence will once again become as real for us as in those beginning days. God doesn’t call us to feel, he calls us to trust him with our whole being.
—Michael Hines
Peoria, Arizona

RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 5 ISSUE

Appreciated Ordination Series
(posted 11-22-06)
I really appreciated the three articles on ordination (October 22, 29, and Nov. 5). These were timely for me as I am working through ordinations, commissioning, and licensing for housing allowance eligibility. Recognition by ordination certainly has value in the church and beyond.

The authors made several points deserving serious consideration by a lot of churches. Mike Shannon (“Ordination: Is It Biblical? Is It Practical?” October 22) touched on the inclusion of elders, but the focus seemed to be on the preaching ministry. Perhaps we do not consider enough about ordination of elders and other ministries. Also, we may be a bit inconsistent with the application of some items tending to limit the concept of “priesthood of all believers.” This has significant tax implications.

Tom Lawson (“Lifetime Ordination,” November 5) reflected on “lifetime ordination,” but we often do not apply the concept within one congregation. Each congregation being a separate legal entity could also have some impact as outlined in Church and Clergy Tax Guide. I would also be curious to know if any congregation has ever considered assessments for other ministries suggested by Paige Mathews (“Assessing Candidates for Ordination,” October 29) for the preaching minister.
—Bob Kitchen
Batavia, Ohio