Related articles and links |  1 of 5

* Willimon's dichotomy between objective truth and the person of Jesus is undeserving of his otherwise gifted mind ["Jesus' Peculiar Truth," March 4]. Objective truth (which he never carefully defines) simply means that we don't create truth, but discover it in a reality that exists independently of ourselves. This view is neither "Enlightenment," as he claims, nor unbiblical.

New Testament creedal statements are not only confessions of faith, but assertions of fact. Faith in the person of Jesus is intimately tied to objective historical truth. Let's not confuse the excesses of naturalistic rationalism with the objectivity of truth. The result can be none other than a return to the "encounter theology" of theological liberalism.

- Jim Leffel

Columbus, Ohio

* While finding myself in hearty agreement with Willimon's central point--that Christianity is about a Person rather than a set of propositions--I am puzzled as to why he poses an unnecessary dilemma: that somehow the proclamation of the gospel and the defense of objective truth are (tactically, at least) mutually exclusive endeavors. To claim that unbelievers may be misled into thinking they can reason their way to God is to misunderstand the purpose and role of apologetics. Apologetic teaching does not supplant the proclamation of the gospel, it only serves as a supplement.

To downplay the teaching of objective truth in favor of "just preaching the gospel" is to ignore the reality that our entire access to the Person he advocates rests on the reliability of a book that is misunderstood and maligned in our modern day. Sometimes we must overcome the defenses of the mind before an individual can lower the barriers of the heart.

- Arthur F. Witulski

Tucson, Ariz.

* Thank you for featuring the excellent article "Who Do Scholars Say That I Am?" as your [March 4] cover story. With so much attention given nationally in the secular media to the Jesus Seminar, the scholarly balance and "equal time" by James Edwards is refreshing, intellectually stimulating, and edifying to the body of Christ. As a lay associate in a Lutheran (ELCA) church, I am often confronted by parishioners who are dazed and confused by the media blitz generated by the likes of the Jesus Seminar. This article will go a long way toward calming such theological waters.

- Randall J. Upgren

Bismarck, N.Dak.

Oden's editorial ["Why I Believe in Heresy," March 4] is ironic on two counts. First, Oden would not be in a position to write such a statement if a mechanism for identifying heresy and enforcing sanctions against it had been in place in the "pre-orthodox" portion of his career. He might be selling insurance instead of teaching theology in a denominational seminary.

Second, the use of Luther as an exemplary heresy fighter raises the very question Oden wants to deny. Luther's writings were denounced as heresy by the church in which he served as a priest. So was he a heretic or not? Differing answers to this question have led to the fracturing of Christendom into competing denominations over a period of nearly 500 years. Thus, the fight over heresy led to division in the church and not to unity.

Heresy is a pejorative word, and its use has often led to the heightening of conflict rather than to resolution. The term changes the nature of theology from a discussion among believers to a battle between belligerents. Having written theology from a variety of perspectives, Oden now wishes us to see his current phase as the standard by which all others are judged. What will happen if he changes his mind again?

next page... |  1 of 5

share this page

April 29 1996, Vol. 40, No. 5