Letters to the Editor - September/October 2006

eNewsletter

FREE!!

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

Letters to the Editor - September/October 2006

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

RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 29 ISSUE

A Central Point of Contact Would Help
(posted 12-21-06)
Regarding the second part of the “Assessing Candidates for Ordination” series (October 29), I have one question. Did the author and her spouse undergo such scrutiny before being allowed to take the positions where (they are) presently employed? I wonder whether Alexander and Thomas Campbell, Barton W. Smith, or Raccoon John Smith and their wives would have been ordained under such a procedure?
—Mark A. McClanahan
Doraville, Georgia

A Central Point of Contact Would Help
(posted 10-26-06)
Pertaining to the article about “Ordination” and “getting it right the first time” (“Assessing Candidates for Ordination: Part Two of a Three-Part Series” by Paige Matthews, October 29). People, including ministers, change. It would be great if we (nondenominational independent churches) could have a central point of contact to report those pastors who violate their calling. There are those who would tear a church apart then move to do the same somewhere else. I am sure most of us have seen this happen, with no way to stop the damage caused. I know that every elder, deacon, board, and congregation truly desires to “get it right the first time.”
—Bill Perkey
Rich Hill, Missouri

RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 22 ISSUE

What Tax Issues?
(posted 11-9-06)
In Michael Shannon’s article “Ordination: Is It Biblical? Is It Practical?” (October 22), he states, “There are tax issues in the United States that are affected by ordination. Certain tax benefits are available to ordained ministers . . .” This is not true! Different states sometimes require ordination for ministers to officiate at weddings, but ordination is not a legal status for the federal government. I don’t know what the writer has in mind, but likely it has to do with the Clergy Housing Allowance. With the separation of church and state, the federal government does not decide who is ordained and who is not. The CHRISTIAN STANDARD should print a correction.
—John C. Allred
Via e-mail

Reply from Mike Shannon: The writer is quite right that the federal government does not decide who is ordained and who isn’t, unless they are investigating bogus ordinations related to tax evasion or fraud. I was merely referring to the fact that ordained ministers are among those who are entitled to a housing allowance and that ordained ministers are allowed to opt out of Social Security if they have a religious objection.

A Connection Between Two Articles
(posted 10-31-06)
Two recent articles in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD are so good that they inspire me to make a connection that might be easy to overlook.

Darrel Rowland's article “Is the Church Getting Too Involved in Politics” (October 8) and Kendall Faull's “Shepherds Don't Do That” (October 22) are both prescient and profound in their implications for the church and the nation. But how are they connected?

If Faull's article was representative of church leadership rather than being the rare exception, then the implied peril in Rowland's article would be less likely to occur. Rowland insightfully observes that there is an inherent danger in the politicization of the church. When political operatives are given free rein, the realm of perception overshadows the cause of truth, and we are all the poorer for it.

Rowland recognizes we are sick and Faull offers a prescription for what ails us. Faull's corrective would result in a healthier Church, complete with a multitude of honed consciences, ready to hold their political leaders accountable, regardless of party affiliation.
—Chris Brammer
Austin, Texas

'The Pastor Is God's Messenger'
(posted 10-31-06)
When I read the “From the Editor” column “Line 'em Up and Lay It on 'em,” I was disturbed by the remarks of the young girl about the church service. I guess I'm one of the old folks from the senior generation. I'm 78. I believe the pastor of the church is to bring a message from God, through the Holy Spirit, to the congregation that will help them in their daily walk with God the following week. If someone wants dialogue and discussion, they should attend Sunday school; I believe that is where discussion and dialogue should occur. Also, they should attend a Bible study during the week.

I don't believe any pastor is on a "soap box" or that he believes he is a one-man show. The pastor is God's messenger. I always take my Bible to the service and open it to the passage from which the pastor is giving his sermon, so I know it is from the Bible. I take notes, and if he goes to other passages in the Bible, I turn to them. I get a lot out of my pastor's sermons.
—Louise Hunter
Placerville, California

'Let Us Keep the Focus'
(posted 10-25-06)
Please convey my appreciation to Doug Priest for his kindly reminder and encouragement that our worship is to the Lord (“My Two Cents on the Worship Controversy,” October 22). Let us keep the focus where it belongs.
—M. Stephen Gerton
Winslow, Arizona

Concentrate on Your Worship
(posted 10-25-06)
God bless you for your continued efforts to publish Christian articles, helps, advice, etc. I especially appreciated the "Reflections" article by Doug Priest in the October 22 CHRISTIAN STANDARD (“My Two Cents on the Worship Controversy”). Being the song leader for my congregation, I have sometimes struggled with the responses or lack thereof when it comes to types of music used in worship.

After one especially heart-hurting service, as I remarked about my "disappointment for the Lord," my son-in-law suggested I "just go up there and invite them to worship with you, and concentrate on ‘your’ worship of the Lord."

I have never forgotten that and I try to stay faithful to those words of wisdom that set my own heart free.

The article by Stephen Bond ("Leadership Lessons from a Long Swim") was very inspiring and a good lesson in perseverance . . . .
—Sharon
Via e-mail

Yes, Preaching Like in Scripture!
(posted 1-3-07)
Rick Willis, in his letter, says there was no such worship as our traditional “Line ‘em Up and Lay It on ‘em” in the New Testament, and challenges us to show one instance of such preaching to believers. Hasn’t he ever read Acts 20:7? Here is the only actual account of a worship service in the New Testament. First Corinthians 14 is a general account of a service, mainly to explain glossolia.

But Acts 20:7 is a real description of worship. Paul had waited for almost a week to meet with the Lystra congregation, even though he was in a hurry to get to Jerusalem by Pentecost (20:15). This gathering was not in a “home church” but in a building crowded with people. Whether on Saturday night by Jewish times or Sunday evening makes no difference; it was on the “first day of the week” to agree with the emphasis of all gospel accounts that Jesus rose on the first day. They observed the Lord’s Supper, “breaking of bread.” Probably had a love feast as people at that hour would have been hungry. Then Paul preached to them possibly for four hours, leaving time for the Communion and meal at first. The word here does not picture a discussion led by Paul, but him preaching to them. One literal version translates it “lectured.”

After the Eutychus incident at midnight, many of the people of necessity would have or did leave. Then the word for Paul talking to them does picture a discussion dialogue, justifying our Sunday school accompanying the worship service, and small group meetings. As Paul was leaving early to walk across the peninsula, this led to a personal meal snack for him, but not the Lord’s Supper that would have been at the earlier hour.

I think this gives us sufficient evidence for our traditional services as we have been practicing them in the restoration of the New Testament church.
—Donald A. Nash
Grayson, Kentucky

Preaching Like in Scripture?
(posted 10-25-06)
I enjoyed reading Mark Taylor’s "From The Editor" on October 22 (“Line ’em Up and Lay It on ’em”), where he discusses the traditional Sunday service with the typically 30-minute sermon and how many people are either basing their church attendance on finding the best speaker, or they are seeking other alternatives. He states, "I have to wonder if today's excellent 30-minute sermon is more a contemporary art form than a biblical requirement." I would agree with that sentiment.

Like you, I'm among the "old folks" who love a good sermon, and I get one regularly from the preacher at Southern Heights Christian Church in Lebanon, Missouri, where I serve. Terry Rhoads is exceptionally gifted as our preaching minister and as we invite friends to hear him, the gospel is presented, and Christians grow in faith from such exposure to God's Word. But I have asked myself many times: Is our modern-day version of "preaching" what we see in Scripture? The answer I come up with each time is, No.

As I read and survey the New Testament I see very little that leads me to believe the evangelist carried out such a role in the early church. Some would say, “Maybe the evangelist did not, but what about the preaching elders referred to in 1 Timothy 5 who are worthy of double honor?” My response to that would be: “Show me where they are ‘preaching’ to a congregation of believers.”

Preaching in Scripture, as I view it, is primarily—if not exclusively—for the nonbeliever who needs to hear the good news of Jesus Christ and respond.

Whether it's the crowd in the marketplace, the family in the home, or one-on-one—as any of us share this good news we are truly "preaching the word." On Sundays, when the church gathers to celebrate the Lord's Supper, fellowship, pray, take offerings, and study the apostle's doctrine, I see nothing that prohibits the type of "dialogue" and "discussion" formats desired by the readers of CHRISTIAN STANDARD you quoted in your editorial. In fact, their desire may be more in line with what the first-century Christians actually practiced. Maybe we should question our tradition of randomly mixing worship with evangelism on Sundays. We may be watering down both processes.

Can we accomplish much good with the traditional form of "preaching to the church" on Sundays, mixing in the invited crowd of nonbelievers? Sure we can; we have! But sometimes we must be nontraditional just to open the door that leads back to God's preferred way of doing things. We in the Restoration Movement surely should understand that. The current desire to seek nontraditional forms of worship and sharing on Sundays may be just such an effort. With God's Word ever in front of us, I applaud such thinking.
—Rick Willis
Lebanon, Missouri

Experience, Stories Matter
(posted 10-19-06)
Mark Taylor’s editorial for this week (“Line ’em Up and Lay It on ’em”) was excellent. A couple additional thoughts from a youngster...

1. It’s not the length of the sermon, but the experience of the sermon that matters. Communicators to the under-45 crowd need to realize we’re more tactile and kinesthetic in our lifestyles and worldview. We like to taste, touch, see, smell, and hear. The most memorable sermons for me have been visual and experiential. I was at a Kansas City UMC megachurch a few years back and the pastor “salted” us (with real salt) as a reminder to be “salt in the world.” I can still taste and feel the salt on me.

2. The mystery of God is revealed through “my story.” In a culture carved visually from Hollywood, television, and other visual media, it’s all about story and narrative. Nearly every television show is rooted in story. And when we can merge our story with theirs, it creates an intense bond. People become very connected to reality stars and their shows because they relate to them personally. It was hard to relate to Mike Brady and Ward Cleaver. Too many preachers resist transparency, personal illustration, and story.
—Rick Chromey
Grayson, Kentucky

RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 8 ISSUE

What Miracle?
(posted 12-7-06)
Regarding the "At His Table" essay for October 8, I am curious as to which miracle the author refers. Is it the one regarding the building of the house with a large enough upper room to facilitate the Passover celebration for Jesus and the disciples? Was it the one in compelling the owner to be receptive of permitting the celebration? Was it the one that made the women of the house incapacitated so that a man had to carry the water? Was it the one that humbled the man so that he would carry the water? Was it the one that controlled the man's time so that he would be walking where the disciples could find him? Or were there no miracles but just happenstance which Jesus foreknew (for he does know the future) so that he could tell the disciples where to go, when to go, who to follow, knowing that the owner of the house was willing, and that the upper room in the house was large enough and fitted for the celebration. What do you think? I know what the author thinks. In his mind it took a miracle. I do not believe that Jesus worked miracles which manipulated people as puppets.
—Mark A. McClanahan
Doraville, Georgia

It's Good We Are Speaking Up
(posted 10-18-06)
Thanks to brothers Joe Wright, Marshall Hayden, and Russell Johnson for their stand on the important social and moral issues of the day ("Faith on the Front Lines," October 8). It is high time we weighed in for "right" in the titanic battle for the mind and soul of America.

Heretofore it has been leaders of other religious groups that have carried the banner and saber: James Dobson (Nazarene), Donald Wildmon (Methodist), D. James Kennedy (Presbyterian), Jerry Falwell (Baptist), Tim LaHaye (Baptist), and numerous others (none of our Stone-Campbell heritage).

When you are in the battle of your life for survival of Christian/American principles, it is sometimes hard to abide by all the Marquess of Queensberry rules. The enemy (judicial tyranny and their clientele) do not. Wright got much more praise than ridicule when he dared to speak the truth. When I prayed for the Ohio House of Representatives, "in Jesus name," I received no criticism. When the rabbi prays, I don't expect him to pray in Jesus' name, but when brother Jones prays, I do. What better way to witness for Jesus Christ, which a free society allows!
—Ray S. Jones
Oxford, Ohio

Brilliant Article, Editorial
(posted 10-18-06)
The article by Darrel Rowland in your October 8 issue is brilliant, as way Paul Williams's editorial. Good work!
—Peg Brewington
via e-mail

We Must Never Deny Jesus' Name
(posted 10-17-06)
I don’t doubt for a moment that the Navy chaplain who wrote “Prayer in the Public Square” (CHRISTIAN STANDARD, October 8) is a godly man who does a lot of good things; but I believe it is tragic that he and so many others have bought into the pluralistic prayer approach that is being pushed by the politically correct crowd.

It seems that the name of Jesus is too controversial today to be spoken in public in any way other than profanity. The fact is in modern society you can talk about God all you want with hardly any protest. You can say, “Our Father in Heaven,” and a few might flinch. You can say, “Great Spirit of the universe,” and people will nod their approval. You can say, “Allah,” and people will consider you tolerant. But if you actually speak the name of Jesus in public prayer it is altogether likely you will be condemned as insensitive, articles may appear in the paper, and the ACLU may threaten suit. Indeed, a federal court ruled it is unconstitutional to pray in the name of Jesus in our state Legislature here in Indiana. Any other name is fine, but not the name of Jesus.

The reason is very simple. The name Jesus is divisive, extreme, exclusive, narrow, and intolerant because he dared to say, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). Peter said of Jesus, “There is salvation in no one else! There is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them” (Acts 4:12). Paul tells us, “At the name of Jesus every knee will bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Philippians 2:10, 11). In specific regard to prayer, Jesus said, “The Father will give you whatever you ask for, using my name” (John 15:16).

Now all of that is either true or it is not. If it is not, then let’s close up shop and go home. But if it is true then let us never deny that name, even by our silence.

Jesus said, “If a person is ashamed of me and my message in these adulterous and sinful days, I the Son of Man, will be ashamed of that person when I return in the glory of my Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38).

The Roman empire into which the church was born was certainly a pluralistic one, but those early Christians refused to worship at the altar of religious pluralism, choosing instead to give their very lives rather than in any way compromise their belief that Jesus was indeed Lord.
—John Caldwell
Avon, Indiana

Study the Candidates
(posted 10-13-06)
One Lord, one faith? Yes.

One party? No.

Bad politicians are elected by good people who don't vote (I think President Truman said that). Vote the candidate and his beliefs, not the party.

Even then we get disappointed by those we vote for, to wit our current president.

In these times of turmoil, both global and at home (politically), good people more than ever MUST study the candidates, not just what they say, but what they have done. Then they must vote.
—Tom Sadler
Jacksonville, Florida

Speaking of Primary Allegiances . . .
(posted 10-6-06)
Your article “Faith on the Front Lines” (October 8) brought a disturbing thought to me as a public school teacher and union member. Brother Russell Johnson wrote about some of the people who left his church, saying that their primary allegiance was to their “teacher’s union.” I hope I never wake up and find my church’s primary allegiance is to a political stance and not ministering to all.

I understand that in Ohio, school choice vouchers are a hot political topic. But it would be a nightmare to me to find myself attacked in my church home for what is my daily ministry, teaching in a public school. Fortunately in my church, instead of shunning public schools and public school teachers, we accept our Christian and civic responsibility of participating in and supporting our public schools. There is room and necessity for both religious and secular schools and there is no biblical mandate keeping us from participating in both.

I do not agree with all the positions of my teacher’s union and I am working from the inside to effect change (my civic responsibility driven by my Christian faith). The sad fact is when you enter a classroom you are wide open to legal attack from your charges and sometimes your employers. Teacher’s unions provide critical legal protection that makes it possible for teachers to continue to teach, and that protection is what drives many Christian public school teachers into unions that hold some unbiblical and unnecessary public positions.

I’m not accusing my brothers and sisters at Fairfield Christian Church of having a more primary allegiance to a political position than their members, but I would caution them to consider the idea.
—Mitch Ruth
DeMossville, Kentucky

'The Current Digression'
(posted 10-5-06)
I was pleasantly surprised with your courage to tackle the issue of so many conservative Christians these days to confuse a political party with God’s kingdom in the October 8 issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD. Articles by Darrel Rowland ("Is the Church Getting too Involved in Politics") and Jack Reese ("Our Fatherland, Our Home") were especially incisive.

The followers of Jesus have been tempted to impose the faith on others since the days of the original twelve. I believe we will live to regret the current digression.
—Robert B. Greene
Bel Air, Maryland

A Challenging Essay
(posted 10-5-06)
This letter is in response to Jack Reese’s article “Our Fatherland, Our Home.” I would like to applaud Dr. Reese’s challenging essay. As Christians and Americans, it is all too easy to assume the goals of the gospel and the goals of our liberal nation-state are one and the same. And yet, the church’s existence is predicated on the reign of God, a reign that undermines and usurps all other reigns, especially those of the “globalized” world. Louis Hall, in his letter to the editor, admits he fails to see the point. Is not our nation, he asks, a nation that has sent missionaries to the world? Perhaps he has failed to fully read Dr. Reese’s article. In fact, the church, the body of Christ, sends missionaries to the world. The nation may represent the geographical context from which these missionaries came; the church, though, is the true political body that sends out workers for the gospel. Reese is right; when American Christians say “we,” they need to be clear about who the “we” really are.
—Micah Weedman
Kankakee, Illinois

Don't Join in the Bashing
(posted 10-4-06)
I fail to see the point Jack R. Reese was trying to make in “Our Fatherland, Our Home” in the October 8 issue. I don’t know a single Christian who believes America is his final home or that God loves America more than any other country. He asks what we should think when we walk into our church buildings and see the American flag displayed? He then suggests that it makes us think Christianity is an American religion and that America is a Christian nation. How absurd. As one who has traveled and preached in 17 foreign countries and lived in two, let me tell you what the sight of the flag brings to my mind:

“This flag represents a country that desires freedom for the whole world and has given its finest men and women to assure this. It represents a nation that has been first on the scene in times of famine, earthquake, and storm to offer aid to hurting people. It represents a nation that has sent missionaries to the ends of the earth so that the lost may know of Christ and be saved.” How’s that for starters?

In a day when enemies of Christ seem to delight in putting down American citizenship, we don’t need a Christian college dean to join the bashing. Fifty-two years ago I shouldered a rifle and left home to defend America. I would do it again.
—Louis D. Hall
Patrick Springs, Virginia

'Thanks for Thinking'
(posted 9-26-06)
Good “From the Editor” article on balance (“The Most Challenging Pursuit,” October 8). Concise. You portrayed the goal and the obstacle very well. Thanks for thinking.
—Dan Pence
Bethel, Ohio

RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 1 ISSUE

Criticisms Generalized, Trivial
(posted 9-29-06)
I just finished reading Jeffrey Metzger’s article, “Why I Came Back to the Christian Church” (October 1). I was honestly a little discouraged by this article. While I also am a lifelong Christian church/church of Christ member, I found his criticisms of denominational churches to be quite generalized and in some cases, trivial.

I worked as a youth intern in a denominational church for a year after Bible college, and I can absolutely understand Mr. Metzger’s dislike of church politics and procedures. I don’t think, however, that inappropriate church politics and procedures can only (or mostly) be found in denominational churches. I think the term “church politics” is an oxymoron, but people are people in every church structure, and that’ll be noticed fairly quickly in most settings.

His argument that denominational hierarchy is always a waste of resources also seems a little one-sided. While the case in point may seem obvious to those of us in the Restoration Movement, we should recognize our own uptightness on some issues. If there had been an actual case of heresy involved, it would have been GOOD for the denominational leaders to be involved. Granted, the proper channels might have been exhausted first, but heresy is not a small deal. In fact, my main concern with nondenominational churches is that when there is an abuse of power, there is no one outside that particular body to hold the offender(s) responsible.

And the assertion that denominational churches have more boring meetings? That may be true, but it’s hardly a fair or relevant argument. There are politics in nondenominational churches. We mostly do that behind closed doors and then put a good face on for the others in our fellowship, rather than discuss our politics publicly, but again—so they have boring meetings?

In short, I can understand Mr. Metzger’s frustrations, but I think his approach was inappropriate. We are NOT the only Christians, and we’re also not the only ones doing church well. “That’s not the kingdom of God”? Perhaps rather than spout off opinions about other church structures, especially in a publication for Restoration Movement believers where those opinions will never be heard by those in the denominational churches, it would be wiser to humbly consider what we can learn from other believers. Or at least take up these arguments in a setting where a discussion is possible.
—Mrs. Jonathan Hittle
Fort Collins, Colorado

'One Thing Troubles Me'
(posted 9-29-06)
Interesting, enlightening and challenging, the thoughts that Kent Williams shared in writing about Washington’s Christian Fellowship Church (“Why I Left the Christian Church,” October 1). He and that congregation seem to be living out the familiar “Christians only, but not the only Christians” principles that the Restoration Movement stands for and on.

One thing troubles me, though—the implication that he “left the Christian church/churches of Christ” as if leaving a denomination group. A seemingly preferable observation would be that Kent has been instrumental in leading this congregation to a true New Testament position.

In closing, a question: Why are so many of us shying away from including “of Christ” or “Christian” in the names of churches? “As for me and my house,” I want to intentionally be a part of a body of believers that is not afraid or ashamed to wear Christ’s name openly for all to see. I make that observation to our people regularly and often.
—Mike Gillespie
Cumming, Georgia

Add the Year of the Quote
(posted 9-29-06)
Regarding the brother who says that he left the Christian Church to go preach at the church near Washington, D.C. (“Why I Left the Christian Church” by Kent Williams, October 1), I think he should not quote the Campbells in the early years about “their dear denominational brethren.” They themselves were still in denominational churches at the time.

I spoke at a conservative men’s retreat and asked for a thumbs-up and a thumbs-down to several quotations. They gave half thumbs-up and half thumbs-down. I congratulated them for their discernment. The thumbs-down were all to quotes from young Alexander Campbell. The thumbs-up were all to quotes from the aged Martin Luther. Campbell was just coming out of the maze of sectarianism and Luther was writing long after his followers had crystallized his early thinking.

I think when the brethren quote the Restoration fathers, they should put the year from which the quote was taken. It seems to me that this is the only honest thing to do, if possible. This is especially true when they are quoting them as if their writings were authoritative and the end of the argument. To quote the early Restorationist should never be used to try to prove what the Restoration Movement should be today.

Remember that the sects are the ones who kicked them out of their religious affiliation when they began to teach where their studies led them. When we say “We are not the only Christians,” we speak not of the sect being Christian but people who may have become a Christian who have not learned to discern that he is in a fellowship of believers from which he should come out as soon as possible.

If this brother has found an undenominational group that has found the truth of Scripture, and they have called him to come and preach to them, then I rejoice with him. If, however, his quotations of Campbell are used as the basis to encourage others to enter into sectarian pulpits, then I cannot rejoice. If they think that way, I hope they read the article by Jeffrey Metzger ("Why I Came Back to the Christian Church,” October 1) to be aware of the problems they are going to face.
—George L. Faull
Summit Theological Seminary

RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 24 ISSUE

It Matters a Great Deal
(posted 11-22-06)
I was glad to see the articles on creation-evolution in the issue for 24 September. It’s a discussion that I hoped you would get into, as it seems to be stirring up quite a ferment.

I want to commend Paul McDorman’s presentation of the essential terminology and concepts in “Creation and Evolution: A Debate Primer.” He indicates that the faculties of many Bible colleges and universities have swapped the historical accuracy of Genesis for a theistic evolutionary theory. Perhaps the way was prepared for this change by a concept I heard from a Bible college president several years ago: “It doesn’t matter what you believe about the first two chapters of Genesis.”

That’s a startling statement. If it doesn’t matter what you believe, you can put your own spin on God’s report of what he did and call it a poem or an allegory or a myth or even “junk science.”

If it doesn’t matter what you believe about Genesis 1, what do you do with John 1? What do you do with Colossians 1:15-20? What do you do with Revelation 10:5 and 6?

If it doesn’t matter what you believe about Satan’s temptation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, what do you do with Satan’s temptation of Christ in the wilderness?

You can believe anything you want to about God’s institution of marriage in Genesis 2:24. Homosexuals believe it’s OK with God if Adam marries Adam and Eve marries Eve.

It doesn’t matter what you believe about the first two chapters of Genesis? The implications are enormous.
—John Kernan
South Africa

An Additional Theory
(posted 10-4-06)
I am a member of Smyrna (Georgia) Christian Church. I read your articles in CHRISTIAN STANDARD on the debate going on in the Christian community concerning creation. The article by Paul McDorman ("Creation and Evolution: A Debate Primer") was good in that it presented facts without editorializing. There is another belief that is gaining considerable renewed interest not only in the Christian arena, but also in the scientific-Christian community, that deserves equal time with the beliefs mentioned by Mr. McDorman. That is the Gap/Pre-Adamite theory.

The early Hebrew writings such as the Targum of Onkelos expounded a creation-destruction-creation approach; the Hebrew linguistics for Genesis 1:2 support such a belief; a considerable number of religious theologians including Origin, Scofield, and Dake believe in a Gap/Pre-Adamite explanation; and the science that supports an old-earth creation supports it as well.

Just to be comprehensive, would you please place a short write-up in CHRISTIAN STANDARD on this approach for your readers’ benefit? I have included one that I use in my book that is short and clearly defines the theory:

The Gap/Pre-Adamite theory on the creation of the universe is so named because it reveals a considerable gap in time (billions of years) between the events of Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 and the existence of beings on earth before the creation of Adam. According to this theory, the original creation of the universe (Genesis 1:1) and the events described in Genesis 1:2-2:24 represent not one, but two occurrences, separated by billions of years. On the basis of Isaiah and Ezekiel Scriptures, Satan is believed to have led a rebellion of angelic beings against God, and as punishment, was removed from Heaven and confined to the earth. During his tenure on earth, in the Garden of Eden, long before Adam and Eve, he was responsible for earth’s destruction. Later, God refurbished the planet and created Adam and Eve.

An important ancillary advantage of this theory is that it relegates the disagreement over how God initially created the earth and its inhabitants to an academic, rather than a theological, argument among Christians because God does not reveal to us how he created Satan, the other angels, and pre-Adamite beings.
—Charles H. Lee
Marietta, Georgia

'Well-Thought-Out and Well-Researched'
(posted 9-26-06)
Regarding the September 24 issue on creation and evolution. THANK YOU!

I have long been a Christian, who works professionally in the sciences, and this topic is near and dear to my heart. Over the years, I have read countless books and articles and there is one almost universal truth. Scientists (unbelieving) who write about theology mostly don’t know what they are talking about. Ministers who write and speak on science often know even less about that topic.

There are a few notable exceptions, and your article is one of the shining examples of a well-thought-out and well-researched explanation for the layman in the church today. I especially appreciate that you did not insist that any particular viewpoint was the “correct one.” Once I gave a Wednesday night lecture at church on the Big Bang, and I thought one of the elders was going to have me tarred-and-feathered.

The only thing I would have added is that, with the possible exception of the “Materialistic Evolution” point of view, you will find all of these points of view in the Christian church today. One must not assume that just because someone has come to a different conclusion about the mechanics of creation, that they have some disregard for the engineer/designer behind it, that they treat the Scriptures lightly, or that they are simply compromising.

Remember, “In essentials, unity, but in opinions, liberty.” There are a lot of opinions on this topic!

Thanks again!
—Richard S. Wright Jr.
Lake Mary, Florida

RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 17 ISSUE

Unity Is Found in the Love of God
(posted 10-31-06)
What about the speakers at conventions? What about the writers in Christian papers? Is there a problem between them?

I have not heard objections locally about how other Christian churches worship. We usually use instruments, but occasionally the instruments are silenced and we sing a cappella. Sometimes we have special music that is a cappella, both soloists and groups. We also have sign language specials, both soloists and choirs. We have also had congregational sign language praise. We have worshiped to music only, with no words, with God providing the words.

If we can worship our God in so many ways in one church, it is hard to understand speakers and writers having problems with how others worship. I have been reading about “we” and “they.” As true Christians, we should include all Christians in the unity of “we.” I feel there is distance, pain, struggle, and a question of what to do among the speakers and writers in the September 17 issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD. Pointing to the past can pull us back. If we will learn from the past and point toward the future (Heaven), we can continue to move forward.

Worship leaders, preachers, and writers have been placed in a difficult situation because many are eager to criticize them. But, at the same time, they have an opportunity to challenge everyone to follow God’s Word. We shouldn’t put so much pressure on ourselves in trying to explain what someone said many years ago. Instead, when there is a conflict, we should look to the Bible.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with a high percentage of what I am reading in these Christian papers. My question is to the worshiper in the pew. Does using a guitar, pitch pipe, piano, etc. present a problem? What does the Bible say? The unity is found in the love of God, not in the style of our worship.

Do we not feel more comfortable worshiping in our own family than elsewhere? Even if we change our style? I guess I am trying to say, I didn't know we were apart from other Christians just because we approach the throne in different ways. Yes we worship the same God. So why are we divided?
–Carl Miller
Georgetown, Ohio

A Rich Experience
(posted 9-19-06)
I just finished reading some of the articles concerning the North American Christian Convention. It certainly was an inspiring and historic event. After reading some of the articles this statement came to mind.

“We are made poorer by the things we miss!” I was glad to be in attendance and now feel much richer for the experience.
—Richard Throckmorton, minister
via e-mail

The "Big Deal" Explained
(posted 9-19-06)
I would like to respond to Terry Clark’s letter to the editor, “What’s the Big Deal?” (below). I think it is a big deal to Jesus considering in John 17 he spent most of his prayer time praying for unity. In verses 20 and 21 he is praying for all believers when he said, “I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.”

The reason he prays for unity is so the world may know that Jesus is God’s Son. To the unchurched world, Christianity is a kingdom divided against itself. What a wonderful testimony it is for two groups who have not been able to come to an agreement, to put aside their differences and worship together.

If we want to win the world for Christ we need to strive for more unity in the kingdom, and this is a start.
—Scott Baker
Tallmadge, Ohio

"What's the Big Deal?"
(posted 9-8-06)
Regarding the Sept. 17 issue about the NACC and the reconciliation with our a cappella brethren: I'm sorry, but what's the big deal? A local minister I know is all excited about the reconciliation effort. He has asked me to several meetings with the a cappella guys. I told him I don't have time.

Evangelizing the lost is my priority. It's pretty simple to me. The a cappella folks are saved. We are saved. Why not spend our time, energy, and money on reaching people who are not saved? Permit me to use a very simple illustration. We are in an ocean and people all around us are drowning. Our a cappella brethren are in one boat, and we are in another. Instead of concerning ourselves with rescuing the dying people all around us, we are expending all our energy tying our boats together so we can sing Kum Bah Yah in beautiful four-part harmony.

I love our a cappella brethren, and I hope they love me. Are we noticing, however, that people all around us are dying and going to Hell because we're wasting time figuring out whether to sing with a piano or not at our reconciliation services?

I've been in the ministry for 33 years and have never had a person say, "If you guys and the non-instrument church would just get together, I'd believe the gospel and become a Christian." People in the world don't care. Our efforts at reconciliation do not affect them at all! Aren't they the ones that deserve our attention, our energy, and our effort? How much money did churches spend to have people attend and support the NACC? My guess—and it's only a guess—is that it would total more than all our churches combined sent to missionaries in Africa last year.

I know God hates division, and wants his church to be united, but unity has to do with the heart, not joining together in one building for a worship service. I'm sure the reconciliation meetings make us all feel better. The boats are tightly lashed, and the singing is melodious. Perhaps, if we sing just a little louder, we won't hear the cries of those who are drowning.
—Terry Clark
Meadville, Pennsylvania

RESPONSE TO SEPTEMBER 10 ISSUE

Mental Illness, Not Burnout
(posted 11-20-06)
I read with great interest, and also with some degree of dismay, the lead article “When It’s Better Not to Fight” in the September 10 issue. The author/preacher went through a very chaotic two years. He is to be commended for staying in the ministry.

Several flags were waving as I read this narrative:

1. Church members also sensed that things were not right.
2. General funds declined.
3. Morale of the staff fell dramatically.
4. False accusations were being made.
5. Threatening calls were made to the staff.
6. The senior minister was experiencing burnout.

With all of these flags waving as if in a hurricane, my question begs for an answer: WHERE WERE THE ELDERS? They had to be aware of the problem, as it seems everyone else was. Were the elders handpicked by the senior minister and thus, did they felt compelled to support him or at least to stay in the background? Was the senior minister the CEO of the church as so many senior ministers are in the West?

The elders are to be the shepherds of the local congregation. They are to be aware of problems and situations in the church that could create division and trouble.

Again, it appears the elders were blind to the situation and chose to not be involved. What a tragedy.
—Richard Colbry
Mesa, Arizona
(Editor's Note: Due to an oversight, this letter was not posted in a timely manner. We apologize.)

Mental Illness, Not Burnout
(posted 10-20-06)
In the September 10 CHRISTIAN STANDARD, Editor-at-Large Paul S. Williams (in “Gay and Innocent and Heartless”) attacks highly paid CEOs and attempts to make the point that the church is heartless because it doesn't do something about "the unequal distribution of wealth in the world."

Not only is the redistribution of wealth a basic tenet of communism, but Mr. Williams's position is unbiblical since there is no scriptural basis for denying the accumulation of wealth. In fact, if we look at the examples of Solomon and Job in the Old Testament, we can conclude that great wealth was a blessing of God.

Even in the New Testament, the parable of the rich young ruler was about a test of faith rather than a criticism of the man's riches. While we all can agree that the CEOs of some large corporations are paid exorbitant sums and that some of their business practices may be questionable, no one can deny the fact that if they make their companies money then they deserve their compensation. A similar argument can also be made for highly paid sports figures and movie stars. Again, if they bring in substantial amounts of money for their work and performances, then they are deserving since as the apostle Paul said, "A workman is worthy of his hire."

While helping the poor may be a proper Christian activity, taking from the rich to give to the poor is more suited to Robin Hood than Jesus Christ. No one is denying there are poor people in the world who need help and that Christians should help them. In this regard, it should be pointed out that Americans and American churches are hands down the most generous and giving on the face of the earth. Could they do more? Of course they could . . . and they should.

The examples Mr. Williams gave in his article also bear some examination. The poverty that exists in West Philadelphia, the South Bronx, Floyd County in Kentucky, Haiti, India, and Zimbabwe are more due to culture, social practices, and corrupt governments than the heartlessness of Christians. As Ronald Reagan pointed out in his famous speech supporting Barry Goldwater's 1964 bid for the presidency, "We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one." It would seem that Mr. Williams is one of those people.
—David J. Moore
Spokane, Washington

Mental Illness, Not Burnout
(posted 9-19-06)
It was with great concern that I read the article “When It Was Better Not to Fight” in the September 10 issue.

The author, an associate pastor whose name was withheld, described a senior pastor whose behavior had deteriorated so badly, the author and his wife retreated to an isolated cabin “to hide, afraid of what might happen to us back at home.”

As I reread the article I noted the senior pastor’s behavior included paranoia that staff members were initiating a coup, threatening phone calls, and false accusations. The situation resulted in a decline in offering, budget deficit, and a number of families who exited the church. The strain on the author was so great he feared for his safety and sought professional counseling for himself.

The author chose to label the pastor’s problem “a classic case of burnout.” A great many professional counselors see the same scenario and call it a classic case of mental illness.

Mental illness remains a taboo subject in our culture and even more so in our churches. Emotional burnout by a pastor would not leave coworkers feeling in physical danger, lied about, or threatened. A number of mental illnesses would exhibit such behavior.

I was alarmed the author believed he had only two options: to fight back to protect his own reputation or to hold his tongue. He spent most of the article listing what tools he used to help him hold his tongue.

Certainly, there are a number of times we are called upon to let the Lord fight for us, and silence in the face of attack would be the most appropriate response. In the case of mental illness that may go unchecked and unaddressed for over two years, however, it seems sad to think the only options are to fight back or be silent. Aren’t there other possible responses that would be loving and compassionate, and exhibit attitudes of care and concern?

I wonder if it really was necessary that the senior pastor “left behind many confused, hurting people.” Clearly, this situation was much bigger than the author’s reputation—it was also about the health of the body of Christ in a local congregation. Could an assertive (not aggressive) approach have been taken on the part of the church staff, leadership, and members to support and call into question privately the pastor’s behavior? I wonder, too, if it was necessary for the senior pastor to suffer for several years with his difficulties before he simply left the community. Did he just take his erratic behavior with him to inflict on another local church? Might he and his family have been spared months/years of silent despair and shame if brothers and sisters had united in sharing their concerns and encouraged him to seek help?

I wish I could offer a more detailed, enlightened suggestion of how another church might handle a similar situation, but since circumstances such as this are rarely discussed in churches or addressed successfully, most congregations are sorely ill equipped to think of more than fight or be silent choices.

If a friend had an obvious need for physical medicine, we would do all we could to encourage that person to seek help. If the challenge is mental illness, we freeze up, we look the other way, or call it “emotional burn-out.” We simply do not know what to say or do to encourage a friend to seek help for emotional struggles. Our church leaders do not teach us because they usually don’t know either.

I have appreciated articles The CHRISTIAN STANDARD has offered with solid, biblical teaching on becoming peacemakers (not merely peacekeepers) when conflicts arise in the body of Christ. Let us not, however, remain unable to identify when a situation is conflict and when it might be mental illness.

I would encourage your publishing house to include articles on practical, caring ways congregations can recognize and respond to mental health issues in members, leaders, and church staff who struggle with this challenge. Let us continue to “speak the truth in love” (Ephesians 4:15).
—Heather Harlan Bacus
Jacksonville, Illinois

"Continue to Inform and Alert Us"
(posted 9-19-06)
Thank you, Paul Williams, for your September 10 article, “Gay and Innocent and Heartless.” I hope you continue to inform and alert us about the needs around us and throughout the world. I believe we have many opportunities to do more, but quite often we overlook what the Lord sends our way. It is my prayer that your article will cause an awakening among us all.
—Marilyn Jenkins
via e-mail

"What Exactly Would You Have Us 'Do'?"
(posted 9-19-06)
Just what, Mr. Williams, would you have the church do? What good would going to India or Haiti do? Perhaps staying home and donating the cost of that airline ticket to some needy cause would be a better idea.

We all know there are inequities; our family is primarily made up of teachers and farmers, neither profession making us rich; mostly we tread water. What exactly would you have us “do”? Your editorial just makes me disgusted.
—Nancy Hoesly
via e-mail

"Thou Shalt Not Be Wealthy"?
(posted 9-11-06)
This is in response to “Gay and Innocent and Heartless” by Paul S. Williams (September 10). I do not understand why he has this class envy. Coveting the resources of the wealthy is not going to improve the circumstances of those in need. Looking at the Ten Commandments, I do not see, "thou shalt not be wealthy," however I do see "thou shall not covet."

Who is to determine what amount is fair for someone to earn, Paul S. Williams? As soon as an arbitrary amount is set, we will begin to see other precious freedoms erode.

Rather than whine about the wealthy, is it not better for us to do what we can for those in need. I believe we have had examples of some of the wealthy being called by God to help those in need. What would have happened in those circumstances had their wealth been limited to “X” amount of dollars preventing them from attaining the resources they needed to fulfill their calling.

Let's not whine about how much someone else makes, let's allow God to use us for his glory so that none can mistake that it is God who brings hope, not some worldly wealthy person. Let us be VICTORS in Christ and not VICTIMS of the world.
—Richard June
Anamosa, Iowa

Buying into "Social Justice"?
(posted 9-11-06)
In his "And So It Goes" column in the September 10 CHRISTIAN STANDARD, Paul S. Williams brings up the need to do something about "unequal wealth" again. I would like to have him clarify the issue, because it would appear he is buying into the "social justice" gospel. CEO salaries are popular to attack these days, but I think the larger picture of the phenomenon of rewarding "stars" should be looked at. This happens in a free society. Sports stars, entertainment stars, CEO stars, and even "ministry stars" pull down the multimillion dollar paychecks. However, much of the poverty that Paul Williams asks us to look at has resulted not from high salaries at big corporations, but from various welfare schemes that have produced a welfare class. The religious leaders in other traditions than ours have sometimes advocated higher taxes and more welfare to solve the unequal wealth problem.

What does Paul Williams advocate? Communism and Socialism have tried to solve this problem, but Christianity has not found those systems more just than ours.
—Bob Chatham
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

"It Is Commerce Without Morality"
(posted 9-8-06)
I’d like to thank Paul Williams for pointing out in a couple of recent columns the problem of economic inequality and injustice that seems to be growing in our system. I agree the church should do more about it, if we are truly “salt and light” in the world. It is commerce without morality.

I recently sat in the home of a man in Mexico . . . one room with a bed, hot plate, table, and a few chairs for him, his wife, and daughter. You’d think he was an uneducated, unemployed man. In fact, he is educated (a good Sunday School teacher) and works as a foreman in the local plant for a major U.S. automaker making $12 a day. I read where his CEO that year made about $19 million, or 5,000 times more than the man making his seat belts. This should surely disturb the heart of any Christian.

I look at the Old Testament commands regarding wages, the poor, the example of collecting the manna, the warnings of the prophets, and references in Psalms and Proverbs, and believe that the heart of God is that we treat workers and the poor fairly.

There are also plenty of New Testament examples in the teachings of Jesus, Paul’s writings in 2 Corinthians, James, and even simply the Golden Rule: “Do unto others. . . .”

Our major public campaigns as a church seem to be against abortion, pornography, and homosexual marriage. I agree there are Scriptures to justify standing against these social ills, but Jesus never mentioned any of them specifically, but did talk about the treatment of people and the poor.

His mission statement of Luke 4 should give us a hint. Driving the money changers out of the temple for defrauding the public in the name of religion, the rich young ruler, teaching on greed, the warning to the Pharisees about their treatment of widows and ignoring justice, love, and mercy should all be clues for us to stand up for fairness in the marketplace.
—Francis Nash
Owingsville, Kentucky

'Hits the Nail on the Head'
(posted 9-8-06)
Paul Williams’s “Gay and Innocent and Heartless” article in the September 10 issue hits the nail on the head. The lukewarmness encouraged by the ear-itching drivel coming out of our American Christian lifestyle reflects too much of the reality show-crazed American lifescape. This article tells us that the fruit of the spirit of America does not represent Christ at all. But that’s not important to American Christians because it's not urgent or relevant to our own lives at this moment in time.

Temporal shortsightedness will have eternal consequences for not only us, but also those we don't witness to in daily walk because, as American Christians, we blend into the background of our culture.
—Alan Kirkpatrick
Hebron, Indiana

'I Thought the Church Had Forgotten . . .'
(posted 9-8-06)
Thank you, Paul Williams. I thought the church had forgotten this part of its message (“Gay and Innocent and Heartless”). Will watch for more on this theme.
—Wayne Warner
Via e-mail

'Principal Players Did Not Speak Truth in Love'
(posted 9-6-06)
I read through "When It Was Better Not to Fight" (September 10) with increasing astonishment.

As senior minister "Jim's" behavior became more and more aberrant, "Name Withheld," an associate minister, believed that the best course of action was to say nothing.

Name Withheld wrote poignantly of the pain he endured. But a lot of it seems needless. If Name Withheld and others were receiving "threatening phone calls" and "venomous letters" from Jim, something very serious was going on. Name Withheld and his wife finally left town for a few days because "the possibility of physical harm was real." From whom—Jim? Then Jim was exhibiting more than symptoms of burnout.

We are admonished to speak the truth with love (see Ephesians 4:15). With love, speak truth. Speak.

To whom should Name Withheld have spoken? The Restoration fellowship is dogmatic about being nondenominational, but here is a classic case in which there should have been someone at a higher level than the local church to whom the church could appeal. Who was Jim accountable to? Who was safeguarding this church? Name Withheld believed that God had placed Jim in authority over him in position in this church, but who was Jim's authority? Did he even answer to his elders or board, or was he above them all in his "glory days of ministry," accountable to no one?

And most important, who was there to minister to Jim? His turning up at a convention several years after this period and hugging Name Withheld tells us he's still in the fellowship and probably in the ministry. One can only hope he has received help and is doing better.

"When It Was Better Not to Fight" is not the best title for this article. We're not called to decide whether or not to fight with one another or to defend ourselves, but are called to love and unity, healing and restoration. How about "When Church Leaders Sit on Their Hands"? From what we read in the article, these events came to the sad conclusion they did because the principal players did not speak truth in love.
—Pam Pugh
Chicago, IL

'What's the Solution?'
(posted 9-6-06)
I read Paul Williams’s article on economic injustice with great interest (“Gay and Innocent and Heartless,” September 10). I'd love to talk with him about this face-to-face sometime. I agree with his heart, but I'm not sure about his words. I know he is not utopian, but his words sounded a bit utopian. His article clearly indicates he thinks there is a problem, but I'm not clear on what he thinks the problem is. Is it a problem that some people make a lot more than others? If so, why? If so, what's the solution? Is he suggesting a societal solution, or a personal solution—i.e. the person who is blessed with more should be more generous? If he is suggesting a societal solution, what is it?

Reinhold Niebuhr said, "The utopian illusions and sentimental aberrations of modern liberal culture are really all derived from the basic error of negating the fact of original sin." That's why Jesus never talked in utopian terms. However, utopian language has long been the language of those social manipulators who wanted a few to have greater power to dictate what people deserved to have more money/resources/blessings at the cost of others.

I can't find my copy right now, but Herbert Slossberg wrote a great book, Idols for Destruction, based on a passage from Hosea ("they build idols for their own destruction"). His chapter on "Idols of Mammon" is great.

I agree with Paul’s heart. I appreciate his challenge for us to think. I'm sure he has more economic theory knowledge in his left elbow than I have in my whole noggin, but I thought he might appreciate my perceptions.
—Brett Andrews
Via e-mail

Response from Paul Williams: That’s the response I’m looking for. I am afraid the only answer is to change the human heart, one heart at a time. And I think we’ll have to reach into the upper echelons of our culture better than we have, if we’re going to have a chance at that. . . .

MISCELLANEOUS LETTERS

Solomon Wasn't 'Illegitimate' (Part 1)
(posted 10-25-06)
In Abraham Cary's lesson comments—“Lesson for October 29: God Grants Wisdom to Solomon”--he says Solomon was "Bathsheba's illegitimate child." According to 2 Samuel 12:15-23, that first or illegitimate child died. After that, according to 2 Samuel 12:24, "David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and he went to her and lay with her. She gave birth to a son, and they named him Solomon."
—Walter L. "Jack" Spratt
Butler, Missouri

Solomon Wasn't 'Illegitimate' (Part 2)
(posted 10-25-06)
In your Sunday School lesson this week (“Lesson for October 29: God Grants Wisdom to Solomon”), you mentioned that Solomon was King David's illegitimate son. That is incorrect. David's illegitimate son died. David and Bathsheba were married when Solomon was conceived (2 Samuel 12). Otherwise, thank you so much for a very good lesson for the week.
—Sonya
Via e-mail

Editor's Note: Thank you for reading the lesson so carefully and informing us of the error! We have corrected the wording.

'Things Are Finally Changing'
(posted 9-26-06)
I cried as I read the accounts of the unity efforts between the brethren of noninstrumental churches and instrumental ones. Tears of joy. Things are finally changing. You see, I am in the middle of both churches. I grew up worshiping and serving in a Midwest Christian church. After marrying, my family was transferred many places and many times we attended noninstrumental churches when the Christian church was not nearby.

We made many friends in the noninstrumental churches. The teaching was good but inevitably, as people got to know us, we were always asked to “repent publicly of the instrument . . . then you can serve.” We did not repent, but continued to worship there.

I remember the hurt on my mother’s face when I told her we were attending a noninstrumental church. She had been criticized so many times for playing the piano in church and she was concerned I would soon criticize her too. I remember how it felt to be told that I could not teach or even work in the library because of my “musical sin.” My husband and I would pray for acceptance and unity. We were in the middle. We loved the people on both sides of the issue.

I am so proud of the leaders in the churches. How wonderful it will be when we are finally unified and the instrument is just a nonessential aide in worship. It is time that we are all “One in the Lord.”
—Nancy Lentz
Phoenix, Arizona

A Proposal for Unity
(posted 9-1-06)
I have been following with interest the efforts toward unity between the a cappella churches of Christ and the independent Christian churches/churches of Christ that has been reported in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD these past months. It is indeed a tragedy that these two parties of the very movement that was initiated for the restoration of biblical Christianity and the unity of all Christians have been separated over this issue. I believe that efforts toward unity are indeed pleasing to our heavenly father and his Son, Jesus Christ.

It is my understanding that at the time of Alexander Campbell and Barton Stone, et. al., that the worship of the first Restoration Movement congregations was by and large without the use of the instrument. The instrument was added years later culminating in 1906 with the official recognition of the two separate movements within the Restoration Movement.

We of the instrumental side of the movement would do well to remember what Paul taught about Christian liberty and unity, etc., in both 1 Corinthians 8 and Galatians 5. We should not be quick to label those who believe that the use of the instrument is a sin and consequently a matter of doctrine as legalists. Asking them to accept the instrument would be like asking us to accept something that we hold as sin to be a matter of indifference. Those of us who hold that the use of instruments is a matter of indifference then should be led by the words of Paul and be willing to give them up for the sake of unity until such time as all can agree that they are either a matter of essentials or nonessentials.

I would suggest to you that this effort would lead to true unity through the spirit of God as found in the teaching of the Bible. If we are truly interested in the unity of our movement and if we really consider this issue to be a matter of nonessentials, then are we the ones who are the legalists as we expect acceptance of our position? How many congregations of the instrumental churches would be willing to sacrifice their instruments for the cause of unity if we truly believe it is an issue of indifference?
—Bill Littrell
Jonesboro, Illinois

We invite your thoughts about CHRISTIAN STANDARD articles and columns, and welcome interaction among our readers. Some letters posted here may be later printed in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD print version.

Letters regarding the contents of the magazine will be considered for publication in "Mailbox" unless specifically marked "not for publication." Published letters may be shortened to meet editorial requirements. Letters mailed to us must be signed, but names will be withheld upon request. Letters also may be sent via this contact form or by fax (513-931-0950). Please provide your city, state, and phone number for verification.

To send us a Letter to the Editor, click here. Or, if you prefer, our mailing address is:

CHRISTIAN STANDARD
8121 Hamilton Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45231


Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved. CHRISTIAN STANDARD is a publication of Standard Publishing.	Home \| News In Brief \| Past Articles \| Letters to the Editor \| Contact Us From The Editor \| And So It Goes \| Sunday School Lesson \| Buzz \| Leader's Toolbox \| Calendar