Related articles and links |  1 of 4

God at war
* In their attempt to rehabilitate Israel's warrior-God ["When God Declares War," Oct. 28], Daniel Reid and Tremper Longman offer a curious apology: "the destruction of one's enemies for the sake of a deity was not an exclusively Israelite notion." In other words, Yahweh demanded human sacrifice, but so did the other deities.

This is theodicy—all the gods are doing it? This aspect of Israel's God: the rage, the caprice, the violence—in earlier years I defended it; in recent years I dismissed it. I now appropriate it in an ironic temper: as a rebuke to myself or to any person or cause that first deifies itself and then destroys its enemies in God's name. The authors' attempt to link Jesus' messianic mission, especially his crucifixion, to Israel's holy wars is preposterous. His death in fact repudiated that program, a program, which, we may recall, belonged not to Jesus but to Judas.

-Rev. Michael E. Anderson
Holy Nativity Episcopal Church
Clarendon Hills, Ill.

Provocative, profitable Bible study
* I was delighted to read David Neff's account of the Genesis discussion project ["Bill Moyers's National Bible Study," Oct. 28]. This fall I am coteaching a course, "Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue," with a theology professor at United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities, a seminary decidedly more liberal than Bethel, an evangelical institution. Each week, 28 of us—half from each school—meet to discuss the nature of biblical authority, God, sin, salvation, and other themes (including ethical topics) central to Christian faith. As students and professors, we strive to understand and learn from one another, but we also freely disagree with and challenge one another. Both "sides" are finding the course not only provocative but also profitable. After reading Neff, I now want to do the same with Muslims, Jews, and representatives of other religions!

-Prof. Robert V. Rakestraw
Bethel Theological Seminary
St. Paul, Minn.

I have some reservations regarding the value of Bill Moyers's national Bible study. Genesis 3:15 refers to the coming Messiah; in fact, much of the O.T. refers to his coming. The Bible says it was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, [so] how can you have a meaningful Bible study among groups of different beliefs, and some with none at all—at least with any confidence in the future?

-Paul J. Evans
Rockford, Ill.

Neff replies: Evangelicals who hold Bible studies with those of other faiths have to rely on the power of the Word itself: It never returns to God void. Helping unbelievers expose themselves to God's self-disclosing Word is a form of evangelism that respects and relies on God's sovereignty.

Public opinion holds no hope
In the Colson/Pearcey column "Why Not Gay Marriage?" [Oct. 28], I certainly agree that we as Christians should be willing and able to defend our faith (including our view of marriage) in the public arena; however, there are at least two concepts that the authors ought to rethink: (1) Simply quoting the Bible in a post-Christian culture doesn't cut any ice; and (2) the only real hope for deterring (gay marriage legislation) is through public opinion. God uses his Word with supernatural might that not only can cut ice, but can cut even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. If public opinion is our only real hope for anything, then God help us all.

-Rev. Lanny Penwell
Platteville, Wis.

Colson's article could have as logically been written in 1950 against interracial marriages. His "complementarity model" argument would have fit well in 1930 against married couples who practiced birth control. Interfaith marriages and marriages of divorcees would have threatened his concept of "public good" in 1950 society.

next page... |  1 of 4

December 9 1996, Vol. 40, No. 14