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. <