Letters to the Editor - November/December 2008

Commendable Commentary
(posted 12-23-08)
(This letter is in response to the Sunday School Lesson for December 28, 2008: “John the Baptist Preaches God’s Message” [Luke 3:7-18] by Toby Hill. The first two paragraphs are excerpted from that lesson.)

John told the crowds the Holy Spirit would be given by the king. They may have wondered if the coming king would be like King David, who had won great battles. Or perhaps he would be like one of the judges who had exercised great power. Still others might be expecting a latter-day prophet, who would reclaim the truth in power.

But John makes clear that the coming king would be unlike any other. This king would baptize—immerse—them in the Holy Spirit. This was far beyond what they could have hoped for. Then John tells them the king will also baptize with fire (v. 16). I believe this fire is a punishment for not repenting. The people had already been told that a tree that will not produce fruit will be “thrown into the fire” (v. 9).

I delight in Toby Hill’s brief commentary on this lesson. Part of his commentary is not the popular view among “Restoration preachers.” However, his commentary is according to “it is written.” As it is written, John preached that the people who repent will be “baptized in/with the Holy Spirit” (good wheat in the barn—saved) and the people who don’t repent (chaff—lost) will be “baptized in/with fire” (judgment).

My looking further into Acts 1:5: The apostles (repentant wheat) will be in the “barn,” receiving the Spirit in a few days (Acts 2:38). However, as it is written, before that happens, they will be given supernatural authority and ability to carry out their “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:16-20; Acts 1:8, 21-26; 2:1-4).

As it is written, all professing Christians (people who say “Lord, Lord” to Jesus) will be “baptized” by Jesus. A “few” will get the Holy Spirit, while the “many” will get the fire (Matthew 7:21-23). It will depend on who their teachers will have been (Matthew 7:13-20).

To avoid misusing John’s terms “baptism of the Holy Spirit” and “baptism of fire,” Bible students must carefully read and understand Luke’s first letter to Theophilus before they attempt to read his second letter.

I commend brother Hill on his careful reading and commentary of the text in this lesson, and CHRISTIAN STANDARD for printing it.
—Clifford Britton
Via e-mail

'Sometimes Our . . . Thinking Is . . . too Narrow'
(posted 12-23-08)
I wonder if Michael Lum (see letter below) has actually read the book Wild at Heart? I wonder what mind-set he has? Is it the “ultraconservative, I can’t read anything that isn’t written by a Restoration Movement writer” mind-set? If it is . . . oh how small the box his thinking is confined to. There are many good works, Wild at Heart included, that we can benefit from. We may need to sift through some chaff to get the good kernels, but that does not mean we should throw these books out altogether. Sometimes our Restoration Movement thinking is just a little too narrow.
—Jerry Langley
Retired minister

'Thank You for Speaking Up'
(posted 12-16-08)
(This letter is in response to “Reflections from a Bartender’s Son” by Chuck Sackett, December 14.)

Awesome thoughts! Thank you for speaking up and out on a subject that has troubled my heart and the hearts of many other church leaders. Part of the “go to the pub” mentality has come from the shallow thinking of such books as Wild at Heart.

As Christian men, our sons and daughters do not need to find us at bars and have to walk by our liquor cabinets in our homes; they need to see us living the Word daily. We are not to be “conformed to this world,” but are called to live “transformed lives” (Romans 12:1, 2).

I lost a good friend from high school to alcohol poisoning and we have all seen the death and destruction caused by drinking across our nation and on our highways. My parents saw a powerful minister who baptized hundreds slip away and lose his ministry and testimony due to alcohol. We need to learn to “hate” sin and stay away from it the way God hates it (Proverbs 6:16-19). Why some want to lead their families by standing on the edge of the cliff is beyond me.

Keep up the great work and sharing the truth—many are standing with you!
—Michael Lum
Webb City, Missouri

'Something Needs to Change'
(posted 12-16-08)
In regards to “The Looming Christian College Crisis” (December 7) by Doug Gibson . . .
 
This article pointed out some very important issues regarding the cost of a Christian college education and the local church’s viewpoint on supporting the Christian colleges. Both need equal consideration. One thought I would like churches to ponder is how they expect a young man to have a Bible college education or even a seminary degree and then be able to work in a small church?
 
Most churches do not pay well enough for a young preacher to even begin to pay off his Bible college education, and yet a college degree is still a requirement for employment at most churches with attendances of 100 members or fewer. Something needs to change. The churches need to either change their requirements for a preacher or minister or else need to support the colleges enough to bring down the cost of the education.
 
I fully support our Christian colleges and seminaries. I have received both my undergrad and graduate degrees from biblical institutions. I did this so I could be fully prepared as a minister of the gospel. The hard part is finding a preaching position at a church that can pay enough to help with the $40,000 the education cost, which is a smaller sum than most graduates will have had to pay.
 
Both the churches and the Christian colleges and seminaries need to get a grasp on the importance of having educated leaders in the church and figure out a way in today’s society to make it affordable.
—Brent Crosswhite
Glencoe, Oklahoma

Describe Your Reasons
(posted 12-16-08)
I look forward to reading the Letters to the Editor each week—I learn as much from them sometimes as I do from the articles. That being said, may I make a small request of my fellow readers? When you write to express your deep concern about a trend or an article, would you please describe the reasons behind it in a bit of detail? There have been too many letters that said, in effect, “I am troubled,” without sharing why.
—Al Forthman
Gaithersburg, Maryland

Too Many Christian Colleges
(posted 12-10-08)
Concerning the article “The Looming Christian College Crisis” (by Doug Gibson, December 7) . . .

No wonder colleges/seminaries/graduate programs associated with Christian churches/churches of Christ are in crisis. At last count the Directory of the Ministry listed 43. Just think of it, 43 presidents, deans, promotional folks, faculties, and campuses for a membership of about l.5 million!

Do our a cappella brethren have this many educational institutions? Does any religious group comparable in size try to adequately sponsor so many? Whose idea was it to institute so many?

The term “center of evangelism” has been used as justification for starting another college. Does such reason mean supporting a four-year school teaching liberal arts, maintaining sport programs, expensive maintenance, and recruiting in order to evangelize? Wasn’t the local congregation to be the “center of evangelism”? If a college must be established for this purpose, why not use a two-year program such as churches of Christ do meeting on church campuses to save purchasing land and building programs/interest payments?

If it’s necessary to ensure our college-age students attend a Christian college so they won’t lose their faith, then must the church sponsor law, medical, dental, and other specialty curriculum schools we don’t now have? If this is the case, then we must heed the church education programs advocated by James Riley Estep Jr. (“Form Without Substance”) and Ben Walker (“More Than Fun and Games”) in CHRISTIAN STANDARD on November 30.

Meanwhile, it’s time for some consolidation.
—Richard Hostetter
Banner Elk, North Carolina

Disappointed by Colleges and 'Would-be' Pastors
(posted 12-10-08)
(This letter pertains to “The Looming Christian College Crisis,” December 7.)

I have recently been visiting your online magazine and I have been pleased to see what has been written recently.

I have a hobby or ministry of evaluating preaching and church trends, which also includes the Christian colleges. I want to call churches back to the gospel and Christ-centered preaching.

Over the years I have observed what has been produced by these Christian colleges and I’m concerned about what many of these “would-be” pastors or worship leaders have been taught. They come to us saying, “This is how you should do ministry,” and we reply emphatically, “No it is not!”

I have also visited and attended classes at three Christian colleges. I also have visited several churches planted by these colleges. I must say I am a little disappointed with what is being done in the name of Christ. It seems that the gospel is assumed, and that we ultimately have a teaching that is moralistic, therapeutic, and deistic. I could get this same teaching from Anthony Robbins, Joel Osteen, or the Mormon Church. So, in a sense what I have seen coming out of these several years is basically a Christless Christianity.

So, to the point of this note to the editor—from my standpoint, I’ve lost any kind of confidence in the Christian colleges. And I have a daughter attending one of these at this very moment. I’m especially concerned after recently attending the Missionary Convention; I listened to the keynote speaker and interviewed many representatives of colleges and mission organizations. So now I’m starting to wonder if this Christless Christianity has infected the entire American church. It is very discouraging and it is with a heavy heart that I write this and I plead with you in the Christian churches to do a self-evaluation once again, and maybe it is time for a “Reformation” to bring us back to a Christ-centered, gospel-preaching church.

Here are two possible resources: a book by Christian Smith and Melinda Denton, Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (hardcover); and a book and a Web site by Mike Horton called Christless Christianity.
—Chris Allen
Via e-mail
Blog: www.reform-shire.blogspot.com

'Sad'
(posted 12-10-08)
Dave Ferguson’s piece “Stop Baptizing!” is likely only one reason the Standard is losing subscribers! Sad.
—Sky Wright
Via e-mail

An 'Honor and Privilege'
(posted 12-10-08)
I truly appreciated your article, “Stop Baptizing!” by Dave Ferguson. I had the honor and privilege of baptizing my daughter on her request. Most of all I was humbled. Of all things accomplished or done in my life, this is a high point never to be forgotten as it has eternal significance while many other things are only temporal.

I never believed that only the “paid staff,” as they are called in your article, are the only ones who may baptize. That said, when my daughter asked me if I would baptize her, I answered, “Most certainly, if I am allowed.” I will always remember the intimate presence of the Holy Spirit that day in particular.

I’ve been to many churches over my lifetime, as I served in the armed forces. I agree that whether implicit or explicit, there is either tradition or organizational factors that inhibit or relegate baptism only to those ordained or of some positional authority within local congregations. In my personal observance, some of the first signs of organizational-related inhibition can be seen during times of corporate prayer when only selected individuals are called upon. Yet, at the same time we may wonder why there is not more participation when we hold prayer-specific events.
—Name Withheld

'One Observation to Add'
(posted 12-10-08)
I deeply appreciated brother Chuck Sackett’s fine article, “Reflections from a Bartender’s Son” (December 14). Unfortunately, my own sin history underscores his points.

I have one observation to add: It seems easier to enforce a choice to simply say, “I don’t drink,” than it is to say later, “No, I’ve reached my limit,” especially in a social setting.
—Name Withheld

'We Cannot Be Shortsighted'
(posted 12-8-08)
I appreciated reading the article by Doug Gibson on church support for Christian colleges (“The Looming Christian College Crisis,” December 7). Milligan College has enjoyed many years of strong support from our churches, but that level of support has been stagnant or slightly declining for several years. We have observed the increasing interest in foreign missions and church planting on the part of mission’s committees. Certainly, I agree that these are worthy of support.

Our concern, however, is that those very organizations need well-prepared individuals to lead them and to carry out their ministries. Milligan has, along with other Christian colleges, sought to provide the world with individuals who seek to have a positive impact on their communities, their churches, and the world—by living lives of servant leadership. Our graduates enter a variety of fields, including pulpit, youth, and music ministries, as well as foreign missions. Certainly, they become valuable resources for God’s work.

While the organizations they serve are certainly worthy of our churches’ support, we cannot, however, be shortsighted in our funding of higher education. Our Christian colleges are producing tomorrow’s leaders and Doug is right in pointing out that it has become increasingly difficult for students and parents to bear the entire burden of this critically important investment. It is critical that our churches begin to reemphasize this important partnership with Christian higher education.
—Don Jeanes
President, Milligan College (Tennessee)

'Un-yoking Themselves from a Building'
(posted 12-5-08)
I understand the concern of some over the Garnett Church of Christ article (“Changing Signs and Signs of Change in a Tulsa Congregation,” by Greg Taylor, November 16), but here is the point that may have been missed—they [the church] have not ceased to exist or changed their name. Instead, they have given over their building for community service. In doing so, they are not unequally yoking themselves with the world. Rather, they are un-yoking themselves from a building (and the idea of it being seen as somehow a “holy place”).

Instead, they view it as a ministry tool—which the name change (of the building, not of the church) captures beautifully.
—Al Forthman
Gaithersburg, Maryland

'Brings Needed Clarity'
(posted 12-5-08)
Brother Lynn Gardner, as usual, brings needed clarity to the emergent church discussion [see Gardner’s letter below]. For some time now we have heard that we are living in a postmodern era, with a different perspective on absolute truth. Well enough. It is valuable to understand the times in which we live. Even more valuable is our ability to communicate the timeless truths of the gospel in the language that people speak. While doing so, however, we must not ourselves become immersed in the error of the age.

I love Paul’s approach on Mars Hill in this regard. Even though the sight of all of those pagan idols must have sickened him, he used the language and longings of the people to share the true gospel (of “an Unknown God,” Acts 17:23).

He wasn’t absorbing the pagans’ philosophy, but he was speaking their language. And although not many came to faith, some did. We need to express that which is eternally True in the language of a postmodern world, without becoming Truth-denyers ourselves.
—Al Forthman
Gaithersburg, Maryland

'The Differences Are Fundamental'
(posted 12-3-08)
Bill Baker’s two articles on the Emerging Church Movement (“Part 1,” November 23; “Part 2,” November 30) raise some serious questions. He was fair in representing some of their views. The tone was one of general acceptance. Many of the similarities between the Emerging Church Movement and the Restoration Movement are superficial, but the differences are fundamental.
 
Baker states that the emerging churches “are rooted in the authority of the Bible.” But he does not distinguish how differently postmodernists and the pioneers of the Restoration Movement view truth and authority. We dare not set aside the reformers’ insistence on the truth and authority of Scripture with the label “modern” and replace it with a postmodernist reading of the Bible with its rejection of objective truth and emphasis on uncertainty.
 
Future historians may view postmodernism as one of the anti-philosophies in the fallout from the Enlightenment—following romanticism, logical positivism, and existentialism. Theological liberalism had roots in rationalism; Neo-Orthodoxy in existentialism; and the Emerging Church Movement in postmodernism. Can a church stand if it is built on sand?
 
I realize space may have been a factor in what could be included in the article on resources but a listing of resources should also include some critiques of the Emerging Church Movement and postmodernism. Here are a few:
 
• Millard J. Erickson, Paul Kjoss Helseth, and Justin Taylor, eds. Reclaiming the Center: Confronting Evangelical Accommodation in Postmodern Times (Wheaton: Crossway, 2004).

Unhappy with Two Articles 
(posted 11-17-08)
Shame on Mark Taylor and Jason Rodenbeck for their articles “Giving a Shrug About Politics” and “Beyond Tweaking the Code” in the November 2 issue. With the danger that marriage will be redefined and abortion will become more widespread, your two articles subtly encouraged Christians to stay out of politics, just a few days before the election. How many thousands will stay home and not vote because of your articles? Remember what you have written when the next two appointments are made to our Supreme Court and pray for forgiveness. As Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.“
—Tom Harvey
Columbus, Ohio

Another Suggestion for the NACC 
(posted 11-17-08)
I read with interest the letter from Paul Blowers regarding the North American Christian Convention in the November 9 issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD. (Editor’s note: Mr. Blowers’s letter is accessible via this site; it was posted September 19). I wholeheartedly agree with several suggestions he made. He is right in stating that some of the changes of the NACC have not been good and that the convention has lost much of the emphasis upon “articulating a vision of what it means to be the Stone-Campbell Movement in relation to the world and the world church.”

I agree also with what brother Blowers has to say about putting more emphasis on our original plea for unity. I would like to suggest, however, that we also need to continue to stress the efforts of our forefathers to restore the church of the New Testament. It seems to me that too many of the congregations that claim identity with our movement have opted to be simply part of the Evangelical community and have abandoned, or at least watered down, the emphasis to restore New Testament faith and doctrine.

I rejoice that the NACC has made some attempts to bring about a greater fellowship between the instrumental and noninstrumental churches. How far we go, however, in embracing or seeking any kind of unity with “ecumenical” churches and the “emerging” church needs still to be measured by the standard of faithfulness to basic foundational truths of the Christian faith.

Let me add that I agree with the suggestion of Emmett Murphy (in a letter posted that same day) that it would be well for the NACC and National Missionary Convention to meet on alternate years. Some others have suggested combining the two conventions. This might be good occasionally but there is something unique about each convention that needs to be retained.

I should also like to ask why all the books recommended in the November 9 issue are from denominational writers. Isn’t anyone reading any books written by people from our own fellowship? I am not averse to reading from a wide variety of authors since I am aware that truth is truth regardless of who the author happens to be. I am wondering, however, if part of the reason we are drifting so rapidly away from our spiritual heritage is because we are feeding our minds more and more on material promulgated by denominational preachers.

One more thing. That picture on the cover of the November 9 issue if one of the ugliest you have used.
—Robert J. Tinsky
Via e-mail

Don't Ignore Good Fiction 
(posted 11-11-08)
(This letter is in response to the November 9 issue, specifically to the problem of Christians no longer reading.)

Only slightly less a problem, but perhaps more dangerous because of the failure on the part of Christian theologians and scholars to see it, is that, in talking about the importance of reading, we are ignoring the value of reading good fiction—the kind of visionary story telling that make up great classics and the occasional popular novel.

To fail to read stories is to fail to learn through one of God’s most important modes of thought: the imagination. Theologians are only beginning to see (and write about) what an English teacher named C.S. Lewis (who just happened to be able to write some pretty good theology as well as fiction) was saying 60 years ago: that the imagination leads to knowledge that is just as important as the knowledge we reach by reason (in some areas, such as moral development and encouragement, even more so).

Unless I missed one, every book listed in the November 9 STANDARD was non-fiction. To limit ourselves to that kind of reading is a huge mistake. Had I “world enough and time” in this letter I would explain why—interested readers might take a look at the explanations I have given over the years in issues of Standard Publishing’s other weekly magazine, The Lookout.
—Charlie W. Starr
Grayson, Kentucky

Focus on Preaching the Word 
(posted 11-11-08)
(This letter is in response to “The Local Church Needs Scholars” by Fred Hansen, November 9.)

I like the way brother Fred Hansen took the time to say what was on his heart so clearly. I do think what is on his heart is a lesser need than the glaring need expressed on most days when the church gathers though.

I have been searching for a ministry for several years. I have spent 23 years in the preaching ministry. During my time away from preaching, I have visited many Restoration and Evangelical churches. I have listened to many evangelists on radio and TV, and pored through books. The largest issue for me is that preachers approach preaching as though they were members of a “Toaster’s” club. Preaching has become a mix of flesh and Spirit.
 
Preachers used to wrestle with the proper use of illustrations. This is not the struggle it used to be. Take time to listen to sermons. Account for the minutes. How much time is spent focused on the Word? How much is spent on the illustrations? How much time is spent on the sidetracking off of the illustrations? Total up the time on a graph or pie chart. Inquire from the listeners what was remembered.
 
After this, consider the speaker’s scholarship. Was it deep? Was it presented in a useful manner? Was it true to the Word? How does it compare with the point and usage of time compared to other scholars? If we are going to judge the effectiveness of scholarship, we have to have something to compare it to. Then, would Jesus or the apostles have budgeted their time in this manner?
 
My biggest problem with modern preaching is not scholarship or the lack of it. My concern is the point of the message of preaching. Great pains are taken to make relevant illustrations. Great efforts are made to draw the hearer into the world of the illustration as if it is needed to understand the truth of Scripture.
 
There is no excuse for a lack of attempt at scholarship. But, scholarship is not as big an issue with me as people actually thinking that people can better understand the spiritual by associating it with the carnal.
—Bill Dinwiddie
Garner, North Carolina

An Absence of Restoration Writers, Books 
(posted 11-11-08)
It is disappointing that not a single contributing editor recommended a book written by (or about!) someone from the Restoration Movement (see November 9 issue). While the books they recommended may be OK—and apparently made a difference in their lives—why weren’t any Stone-Campbell religious heritage authors or books included? It can’t be because of a lack of authors or books. There are plenty of each and some books may turn out to be “difference makers” too.
—Ken Christensen
Bloomington, Illinois

'Relevant and Important' 
(posted 11-6-08)
Fred Hansen’s article discussing the local church and its need for scholars is extremely relevant and important (see “The Local Church Needs Scholars,” November 9).

When I attended Bible college I was shocked regarding the attitude of some pastors and even my fellow students regarding education, scholarship, and even the idea of actually completing one’s degree. There was some support if a student planned on attending one of our seminaries, but if one began to discuss the idea of attending a graduate program for training in psychology or another helping profession, the room would become cold. . . . I actually had fellow students question the spirituality regarding a decision for graduate or postgraduate education.

There were times I felt that my education was not helpful when offering to serve in the church or in faith-based ministries, but of course I was young and I could have been the problem.

I was taught in Bible college that we needed to be aware of our audience, and though probably impossible, to have the ability to communicate with people at all levels of sophistication. The Good Shepherd was not satisfied when closing the gate and finishing the count at 99.
—Charles “Corky” Riley, MA, LMFT
Visalia, California

More Thoughts on the Role of Christians and Politics 
(posted 11-6-08)
The recent article by Jason Rodenbeck (“Beyond Tweaking the Code,” November 2) has given me pause to truly reflect on the role of Christians and politics.

My struggle is with some of Jason’s definitions and assumptions about the message and ministry of Christ. Just because certain extreme views have “hijacked” the term Christian does not negate the true meaning of the word. The inappropriate behavior of Christians does not reflect poorly on the word—but on Christ himself. My responsibility is to make sure I bring honor to the term, not abandon it because the world says it doesn’t like what it represents.

On one hand, it is very clear that in all things we are to “be in the world and not of it.” And yet, how many times do we see in Scripture the challenge to be “salt and light”? What does that mean? When Christ cleared out the temple was he not making a political statement? John the Baptist did not lose his head for proclaiming the gospel of Christ–it was for his stance on adultery.

Telling one to repent, as John often did, implies that one is to call into account someone’s lifestyle and beliefs. Yet all I hear is the complaint that we are not to “judge, lest we be judged.”

Which is it?

When Paul demanded to see Caesar, he had no problem with his political and spiritual life intersecting in order to advance the gospel. His conversations with Festus and Felix were clear examples of “speaking truth to power.” Paul did not shy away from telling these men how they should rule and live.

I can basically agree with Jason when defining Jesus’ teachings as countercultural, counter-religious, counter-political, and counterintuitive. However, I do not believe that prevents us from engaging the politics of our culture. And I thoroughly reject the notion that by using politics, the law, or basic logic to engage our culture means that I don’t trust the Messiah. I trust him by using the mind and knowledge he has entrusted me with. I feel I am following the plea of Paul to Timothy in being prepared to give an answer for my beliefs when asked why I take a stand against bad laws.

The premise that countering abortion legally and philosophically is not part of our effort to offer “support, love, mercy, compassion” to pregnant girls makes no sense to me. I AM being Christ like when I speak against the practice AND when I display love and grace to those who are in that predicament.

When I spoke for the marriage amendment here in Florida, it was to protect my children from a future where our government would not and could not define marriage as anything other than what God intended. In doing so, I feel I fulfilled ONE principle in the teachings of Christ in Matthew 18:6 to not let any of these little ones stumble.

Again, I am not sure I disagree with Jason’s overall premise, but I feel it may be a little naïve or limited in scope—I feel we can “tweak the code” AND be true followers of Christ at the same time. In all instances, our conduct and tweaking must point to Christ—not a political system.
—Larry Lewis
Deland, Florida

'Profound and Timely' 
(posted 11-5-08)
The article by Jason Rodenbeck, “Beyond Tweaking the Code” (November 2), manages to be both profound and timely—pointing to an understanding of the church and of salvation that calls for serious consideration.
 
Hope to hear more from him.
—Paul V. Axton
Professor, Central Christian College of the Bible
Moberly, Missouri

Shepherds, Not Corporate Board Members 
(posted 11-5-08)
It was with some satisfaction that I read the article “A New Leadership Model as Old as the New Testament” (by Scott Cromer, November 2). I have long argued for a return to New Testament Christianity (does that phrase sound familiar?) by a revision of our church leadership.

We have for far too long hindered the effectiveness of the church by employing a “board meeting mentality” in most of our congregations. Elders who think they are corporate board members rarely fulfill their biblical responsibilities: dedicating themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word. Being a shepherd is the first and foremost duty of an elder. Deciding budgets, carpet colors, hiring staff, etc., is a far cry from what God designed elders to do.

Thank you for reminding all of us of our failure to lead God’s church as we should through an eldership that functions like shepherds instead of CEOs.
—Bob Roberson
Senior Minister, Central Christian Church
Greeneville, Tennessee

A Second Look at Our Founding Fathers 
(posted 11-5-08)
My friend Paul Williams was not up to his usual high standard in his “Certain Unalienable Rights” column (October 26). It is true that our Founding Fathers were opposed to an established state church. They didn’t, for instance, want taxes used to build Presbyterian churches and to pay Presbyterian ministers to the exclusion of other denominations. They especially didn’t want government police powers used against Christians who were not part of the state church. It had not been long since such powers had been used to put people in prison or worse and at least some of our founders had first or secondhand knowledge of this kind of action against their own ancestors. It is also true that not all our founders were conventional Christians. But many of them were, including several ordained ministers; and even Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin said/wrote things concerning God that fit a Jewish/Christian God much better than a deist god.
 
I don’t think the modern idea of “separation of church and state” ever occurred to our Founding Fathers. They saw religion (generic Christianity) as a 24/7 part of life, not something you do for an hour a week. It is also true that well into the early 1800s many state and local governments had constitutions or laws that required all public officeholders to be Christians. In 1892 the U.S Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision that included more than 80 citations, said, “This is a Christian nation.” It is very possible that these justices had, at some point in their lives, talked to people who had known some of the Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers generally believed that Christian principles were essential to our form of government.
 
(I think it is important when reading early American history and the writing of our Founding Fathers to recognize the change in the meaning of the word religion. Up through the middle of the 1900s, different denominations were considered different religions and the word religion was almost synonymous with the word Christianity.) 
—Bruce Webster
Indianapolis, Indiana

Articles Are Compatible 
(posted 11-5-08)
There is an interesting paragraph in Stephen Bond’s article (“Chemistry: Key to Teamwork”) in the October 19 issue: “Our concern for staff chemistry led Summit to recruit mostly homegrown talent.” He goes on to say these leaders demonstrated God-given calling, fruit-bearing gifts, and alignment with Summit’s vision for volunteers.

This works in the larger congregation and it will work in small and midsized churches as well. This is why I purposed in my August 10 article, “How Your Small & Midsized Church Can GROW,” that we bring into an associate relationship with the preacher the elders and volunteer leaders in such areas as Christian education, music, and youth. These people will continue what they are now doing, but with a more formal ministry description and regular strategy and planning meetings. My second suggestion was for the somewhat larger congregations to form ministry teams and give each team leader the same relationship to the preacher as an associate in ministry.

We can develop and accomplish in the small and midsized churches many of the same things that are taking place in megachurches.
—Leonard Wymore
Johnson City, Tennessee

October 5 Issue 'a Tragic Comedy' 
(posted 11-5-08)
If someone wrote a tragic comedy he could not do better than the October 5 issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD magazine. Speaking of this publication, I’m sure you have read the illustration of the raising of our nation’s flag on Iwo Jima (although I’ve not been able to validate this). As the story goes, a radio call went up to the men with the flag (which they referred to as “The Standard”) that the standard was beyond the front line and they should retreat. Instead they were said to have replied, “Come up to the Standard.”

I looked with interest upon the October 5 issue when I saw the headline “Has the Church Sold Its Soul?” What an intriguing challenge. Then I went inside the covers where there was the loud trumpet call to compromise.

Over the years, since Alexander Campbell cast the vision, and then clarified it by examining those who wished to be called “Disciples,” we have struggled with this. Brother Campbell would not permit heretic or renegade preachers in the movement. He carefully examined their doctrines to see that they were true to the Scripture. By raising that Standard, many leaders, and thus often entire churches, abandoned other creeds, etc., for the simple and true Gospel.

But, what were we called to do in this October 5 edition of CHRISTIAN STANDARD? The call was made loud and clear to compromise the Gospel. Gather with people who ordain “pastors” (preachers) whose lives violate Scripture. We are called to lay aside the very biblical standards that brother Campbell tirelessly espoused in order to do what? To partake of the Lord’s Supper in a totally unworthy manner!

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the list of Task Force Members on page 8 (744) contains only names from the left side of the aisle. There isn’t one single person who could be called a traditional, conservative Restoration Christian.

What was the event that started Campbell on his quest for pure and simple Christianity? Those of us who have read and studied know that the final straw was over the Lord’s Supper, when he had to lay down his token and prove himself worthy of partaking. In the same way, this task force has asked us to lay down a token of compromise. All that is needed is to proclaim that the Word of God doesn’t mean what it says. Jesus Christ is NOT the only way to salvation. His commands for holy and pure living aren’t hard and fast. The qualifications he gave for evangelists, elders and deacons can be ignored, etc.

In short, all that we need to do in order to sup is to sell out our souls and the soul of our church. Like Alexander Campbell and the men on Iwo Jima, instead I’ll walk away and respond, “NO, you come up to the Standard!”

The October 5 CHRISTIAN STANDARD drew a line in the proverbial sand. I prefer to stand on the right side, the side of the cross.
—Bill Cook
Covington, Indiana

'I Like It' 
(posted 11-5-08)
Do you want to miss the 10:30 a.m. service where I regularly go? Absolutely not! It is one of the joys of my life.

To rise as the organ begins the procession hymn—this past Sunday (Sept. 29) it was “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken”—with the choir properly robed, and singing beautifully. Also in the procession are the acolytes with cross and candles showing that Christ died on the cross for the salvation of the world. The burning candles show he is the light of the world. I like having one of the priests holding aloft the Bible, our guide to Christian life and learning.

I like kneeling for prayers, sitting for instruction, and standing for singing. I like having readings from the Old Testament, singing a Psalm, the Letters, and having the reading of the Gospel from the middle aisle of the nave. Most of the time I enjoy the sermon. I like the saying of the Nicene Creed by the congregation. I like the “Prayers of the People,” which include petitions and praises. I like listening to the choir sing something beautiful while the offering is being taken. This past Sunday they sang, “Let This Mind Be in You” by Lee Hoiby, which is from Philippians, our Letter reading for the day.

I like going to the high altar and kneeling to take the Eucharist. I like that the bread and wine are taken by a priest and chalice bearer to anyone unable to go to the altar.

I know that pomp and such would turn off a lot of people, but I am not one of them. To use poor grammar, I love it!

I’ll end this with another statement of what I like. I like the CHRISTIAN STANDARD.
—Mary Jo Williamson

'Take Our Cue from Scripture' 
(posted 11-5-08)
In regard to the articles on “Women in Ministry” and “Women in Leadership” in the Aug. 17 and 24 issues of CHRISTIAN STANDARD, both have stated their case for their conclusions well.

Undoubtedly this is a more open issue today than in the past because of the feminist movement’s attempts to eliminate the difference between the sexes. Galatians 3:28 has been a much cited verse. Paul’s reference “No male and/or female” doesn’t mean a woman ceases to be a female person. Onesimus did not cease being a slave when Paul converted him to Christ (Philemon 16). Woman as a member of the body enjoys the same spiritual blessings and promises as do men but that does not do away with the order of our creation.

The crux of the matter is that even dedicated Christians have allowed our culture to be permeated with the idea that to make a distinction between male and female is chauvinistic and claim it unthinkable that God made such a distinction.

Women have suffered much from the feminist movement. There is no question that God intended women to teach other women and children. Why be so concerned with justifying women taking the man’s place of leadership when we women are not doing a very good job in what we can be sure God has appointed us to do.

The propaganda that “self” should be put “first” is no doubt in direct opposition to Christ’s teaching. Serve is such a negative word to our society and yet our Lord came to serve and not to be served.

Shouldn’t we take our cue from Scripture instead of our culture?
—A Weekly Reader (Name Withheld)

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