Related articles and links |  1 of 4

The June 19 exchange between James Dobson ("Why I Use 'Fighting Words' ") and John Woodbridge ("Why Words Matter"), which grew out of Woodbridge's earlier article, "Culture War Casualties" (March 6), produced yet more words from readers. Scores of letters arriving by mail, fax, and e-mail revealed little neutrality. While total response gives the edge in the debate to Dobson ("Dr. Dobson won!" wrote one), most writers sided passionately with one or the other. Yet many took the measure of each: "I had the feeling that both men are right," said Ruth Ann Arnold of Bedford, Texas. "We need Dr. Dobson's fervor, and we need to be reminded by Dr. Woodbridge that we cannot come to hate people we disagree with, and that there is no place for disrespect, distortion, and sarcasm." If nothing else, the articles served to get the juices flowing for many to think through this issue on a deeper level.

The June 19 cover article, "Why Evangelicalism Is the Future of Protestantism," by Alister McGrath, also elicited earnest response. Fred Hutchison of Columbus, Ohio, believes evangelicalism's problems are greater than the author indicates: "A large part of evangelicalism is spiritually shallow," he wrote. "Protestantism does not have much of a contemplative or deeper-life movement." Yet e-mail comments from Bill Burns found the article to be "exceptional in its breadth of understanding of the problems facing the mainline Protestant church in the twentieth century."

One war is enough

John Woodbridge's article critiquing the language and spirit of "culture wars" and James Dobson's response [June 19] were painful illustrations of another war. As a pastor in a university community working with academics, I know about the "paralysis of analysis." As a pastor working with young idealistic activists, I also know the importance of keeping "fire in the fireplace." It seemed to me that the lack of irenic spirit among Christian activists, whom Woodbridge was critiquing, was embarrassingly illustrated in Dobson's response.

The activists among us seldom listen to the analysts, and the analysts seldom support the activists. I sense that Dobson missed not only Woodbridge's point but also an opportunity to model openness and thankfulness. ct readers who are activists will no doubt respond to Dobson with a loud "Amen," while analyst readers will say of the same article, "I told yo- so."

Let's acknowledge that activists and analysts need to receive and respect each other's gifts while not demanding that the other be like his or her counterpart. One culture war is enough.

Pastor Jim Abrahamson

Chapel Hill Bible Church

Chapel Hill, N.C.

- There is a world of difference between "I hate you" and "I must oppose you." I believe Dobson would never condone hate, and I hope Woodbridge would never fail to oppose evil. The crux of the matter deals with the amount of enthusiasm ("zeal") an individual brings to his or her position. Even a casual reading of the Gospels reveals a Jesus who was not shy about his positions and quite infuriating to his opponents.

Mike Bare

Denver, Colo.

The Roman pagan of Jesus' day was committing the same sins as the American pagan of today (homosexuality, infanticide, child abuse, etc.). Nowhere does the Bible quote Jesus condemning the Romans or their sins. There is no biblical or historical evidence that Jesus engaged in any anti-Roman political activity. Jesus' fighting words were all directed at his Jewish Sanhedrin brethren.

Nan Van Andel

Ada, Mich.

We must not forget that the warfare rhetoric of Scripture is intended for Christians. It is to be used in our "war planning rooms" before we engage the enemy or in our "locker rooms" before we walk onto the playing field. It's intended to inspire us, not our opponents. When we constantly use "fighting words" in the public arena, it comes across as glorified "trash talking," which incites the world and spooks the church.

next page... |  1 of 4

August 1 1995, Vol. 39, No. 9