The Power of Art

The Power of Art
* I am a hopeless nonartist from a family of artists. I am hung up on the cognitive and the analytical. My right brain is usually foreign territory for me to traverse. But when I am suddenly surprised by the power of aesthetic passion (the arts), as I was in the April 6 issue, I am amazed at how my life, my mind, my spirit are so enriched. "Were You There?" is a fabulous addition to ct's pages. Please, sir, I want some more!

Chip Moody
Phoenix, Ariz.

* Another wonderful, thought-provoking, spiritually stretching issue! Many thanks! But when will an artist realistically portray the Last Supper and include the women (and children) who were undoubtedly there?

Millie Samuelson
McPherson, Kans.

Justice and the Death Penalty
* The editorial ["The Lesson of Karla Faye Tucker," Apr. 6] asserts that "Christians know that we all deserve death," implying that capital punishment is unfairly reserved for murderers. But this gives short shrift (pun intended) to the legal distinction between innocence and guilt that is required of our earthly communities by God.

The justice of capital punishment becomes evident when we ask not, "Does a murderer deserve to die?" but rather, "Does a murderer deserve to live?" This focuses attention on the innocent life that was stolen by the murderer, and hence why society requires the forfeiture of the murderer's life. The Bible, in more places than ct cares to cite, suggests this answer, and makes deterrence, unequal enforcement, and consolation of the victim's survivors ancillary issues at best, and rhetorical red herrings at worst. May ct continue this conversation by doing justice to the best arguments for the death penalty, and extending mercy to those of us still beholden to the biblical concept of retributive punishment of wrongdoers.

Lucas Morel
Siloam Springs, Ariz.

* While it may be popularly true that there is a (sinful) instinct to want someone to suffer what they have caused someone else to suffer, the biblical principle of punishment has a different feel. As Paul notes in the passage the editor mentions, the magistrate has divine sanction for punishment. It goes without saying that a private morality, free of a vengeful and grudge-bearing spirit, is God's purpose on a personal level [that] is commanded. The biblical mandate for public relationships is different, and in that setting a dispassionate application of punishment for public order is appropriate.

Rev. Bill Fennema
Grand Rapids, Mich.

* I have long believed that the biblical mandate for capital punishment has nothing to do with vengeance, justice, or deterrence. I believe it has to do with mercy. It is not for the benefit of society. It is for the benefit of the murderer.

Barring a radical conversion such as that of Karla Faye Tucker, what are the options available to a murderer? (1) An empty life of perpetual uselessness extended indefinitely by incarceration; (2) An unreformed return to society where one must live always with fear and with the knowledge that one cannot atone for a heinous act; (3) Death.

I really believe that an all-wise, all-loving God, knowing the relative insignificance of this life compared to eternity, provided capital punishment as an act of mercy to the perpetrator. This belief has not, unfortunately, helped me resolve my ambivalence about capital punishment. But it has given me a less selfish perspective from which to view it.

I. Dale Carroll, M.D.
St. Joseph, Mich.

I appreciate the fact that your editorial on the death penalty reminds the reader that God extended grace with consequences to the first murderer, Cain. Our Heavenly Father came to the garden seeking the sinner after the first sin, and he later came to the scene of the first crime seeking to relate with both the criminal and the victim. We, following this example, need to be seekers of those hiding from God and seekers of the ones who fail to relate lovingly in the problem situations of life. Meanwhile, as those in the business of reconciliation, we can trust God for the vengeance that is his and his alone.

Deborah J. Smith
Cincinnati, Ohio

J. I. Packer As Mentor
* Wendy Murray Zoba's article "Knowing Packer" [Apr. 6] was such a gift. I became a Christian in 1970, began my "growing up" in Jesus in the 1970s in InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in college—and J. I. Packer, through his book Knowing God, was one of my "mentors." Not only do I feel like I now know him, but I am even more grateful to God for his sovereignly leading me to read Packer's book and to start my journey to God's heart through it.

Gerrie Riihimaki
Eugene, Oreg.

I am a retired seminary professor who used Packer's books as collateral reading in many of my courses. I join a host of others in appreciating many of his insights and contributions.

I respectfully and strongly differ with his evaluation of the Keswick tradition and emphasis. Contrary to its tradition being "pietistic goofiness," as Packer called it, the Keswick emphases ultimately were attempts to unfold and apply the very teaching of mortification of sin for which Packer extols Owen, the great Puritan. I hardly think that some of the better known speakers at Keswick, including F. B. Meyer, H. C. G. Moule, Andrew Murray, John R. W. Stott, Hudson Taylor, and R. A. Torrey, can be linked with such terminology. As Ian Sellers states: "Keswick maintains that the Christian's tendency to sin is not extinguished but merely counteracted by victorious living in the Spirit" (The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, Zondervan, 1975).

Frederic R. Howe, Th.D.
Cincinnati, Ohio

Thank you for the excellent article about James I. Packer and for the stimulating photographs that accompany it. Surely his services to the evangelical community and his steadfast commitment to the Word of God deserve such a tribute as well as Dr. McGrath's fine biography.

Roger Nicole
Reformed Theological Seminary
Orlando, Fla.

Women Getting Together
The movers come tomorrow, but I just had to respond to the Special News Report: "Good News for Women?" [Apr. 6]. I'm thrilled that women are getting together in many excellent conferences. I hope someone like Mary Cagney will take note of the growing numbers attending the AD2000 Women's Track Conferences.

Two books (Women As Risk-takers for God, by Lorry Lutz, and Our Time Has Come, edited by Judy Mbugua) show there are women not avoiding hot-button issues.

Pat Argue
Kirkland, Wash.

* Although I know too little about films to be a movie critic, Randall Balmer's comments about Hollywood's Renegade Apostle aroused my warm admiration. The final paragraph is a gem of wisdom millions of Christians could benefit by reading.

Gerald Wright
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

King and the Evangelical Church
Thanks for the insightful cover write-up on Martin Luther King, Jr., evangelicals, and race relations in the United States [Mar. 2]. As an African evangelical, I believe candidly that the church's task of evangelism carries along with it the mandate from God to speak against social injustice wherever it is found—whether it is racism in America or tribalism in Africa.

What we cannot fathom is why the conservative/evangelical church's relative silence over the civil-rights movement of the 1950s and '60s and all it sought to achieve. Was this reticence due to Martin Luther King's alleged promotion of the "social gospel," "communist involvement," or sexual impropriety? Granted that these allegations are true, the question still remains: Were the concerns Dr. King raised genuine and ones the church as the beacon of light should have been addressing?

Nathan Irmiya Elawa
Jimeta-Yola, Nigeria

America has admitted and tried to deal with the primary racism of the white community. Meanwhile, the secondary problem of black racism has not only been ignored, but actually encouraged to where it has become institutionalized in our society. Like some others who strongly supported civil rights and opposed white racism in the 1960s, I don't feel hypocritical in opposing black racism now. Blacks have had their agendas supported and funded by government for nearly 30 years and are worse off than before. They got what they wanted, but not what they needed; what the integration movement was all about: the elimination of racial barriers so that blacks would be treated as individuals. Your article laments that evangelicals missed the chance to confront white racism. The irony is poignant that you now miss the opportunity to confront black racism. Once again, social acceptability takes priority over social justice.

Stanton Carter
Livermore, Calif.

It's not enough to catch up to Dr. King's dream. Rather, believers must surpass his vision in a new commitment to the costly discipleship required to redeem these times. His ministry was not about dreams and feel-good pieties, but about a transformatory faith that reconstructs lives and systems in obedience to Jesus' reign. Christians might more fully identify with King's work by seriously reappropriating the fundamentals of his spiritual formation—the prophetic Scriptures, the pacifism of A. J. Muste, the socialism of Norman Thomas, the charisms of all who've borne the burden of unmerited suffering.

Carol Davidson
Battle Creek, Mich.

Forgiven Trespasses
I opened your March 2 edition to read the article "Still Wrestling with the Devil," by Randall Balmer, with myself fully dressed in my sanctimonious Sunday's best! Halfway through the article, I found myself being delicately disrobed by the Holy Spirit. I have oftentimes believed that I had forgiven trespasses as the Lord had forgiven mine, but Balmer's article made it painfully obvious that I had not.

Thank you for printing such a balanced article. I pray that God reaches out and restores Jimmy Swaggart 100 percent in both the spiritual and ministry efforts. As Balmer points out, humanity has us all in its clutches! God bless Jimmy for "staying the course."

Larry Elsey
Millville, N. J.

Accountability is appropriate for behavior but not for condemning personal traits. Balmer's article is slanderous, but I would stop short of accusing him of being a slanderer. You can say that Swaggart looks like an actor, but to call his preaching "performing" is a slam on the sincerity of his character. Balmer may have started the article with good intentions but should have deserted it once Swaggart refused to be interviewed. We Christians insist on feeding upon our own wounded. The fact that Balmer was amused reveals his less than encouraging intentions. The sins dug up again here are the type that are usually symptomatic of greater personal problems, which may have been the only angle worthy of meaningful exploration. Balmer brings no integrity to the piece in the last two paragraphs where he attempts reconciliation.

Derek Lehman
Winnipeg, Man., Canada

What a magnificent piece of journalism on Jimmy Swaggart. Balanced yet truthful, it breathes the down-home culture that he was raised in. As one raised in the Assemblies of God in the 1940s and '50s, but now a Presbyterian, I agree with Randall Balmer's suggestion that free-flowing ecclesiastical styles of Pentecostalism may have led to Swaggart's excesses. However, that characteristic is also Pentecostalism's strength.

The article's best part is Balmer's observation of the demons that we all wrestle with. We see ourselves in Jimmy Swaggart, and if we're honest, we too are in need of amazing grace.

Gary W. Collins
Boulder, Colo.

[I read] this amazing statement run in the March 2 issue of Christianity Today: "Surely the transgressions of Bakker and Swaggart were not that much more egregious than Pat Robertson accepting Rupert Murdoch's millions for the sale of the Family Channel, a property that Robertson developed from tax-deductible contributions of the faithful." Frankly, I am shocked that a Christian publication of your stature would put out anything as misleading as this. The truth is:

1. The Family Channel was not sold to Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch's company bought International Family Entertainment, a New York Stock Exchange publicly traded company with a number of divisions and corporate subsidiaries.

2. What Murdoch bought was not "developed from tax-deductible contributions of the faithful." International Family Entertainment was financed by Telecommunications, Inc., Mario Gabelli, Alliance Capital, and many other investor companies and stockholders.

3. The Family Channel was sold in 1990 to International Family Entertainment when the Internal Revenue Service forced CBN to divest it because the Family Channel was too profitable to keep within a nonprofit charity.

4. When it was sold there were absolutely no "contributions of the faithful" that had not been repaid to CBN dozens of times over.

5. The entire transaction was described by our Washington counsel as a "dream deal." Out of it Regent University now has a $305 million endowment, which makes it the best-funded evangelical educational institution in the country. CBN has received at least $250 million, which has enabled it to win well over 100 million people to faith in Jesus Christ around the world to date. CBN is the remainder beneficiary of a trust which I set up, which hopefully will bring it as much money as it has already received. On top of that, CBN has retained in perpetuity 17.5 hours of extremely valuable air time each week on the Family Channel for its religious programs.

Pat Robertson
The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc.
Virginia Beach, Va.

Randall Balmer responds:
I am willing to concede Pat Robertson's point. Yes, it is technically true that "The Family Channel was not sold to Rupert Murdoch." Rupert Murdoch's corporation purchased International Family Entertainment, of which Mr. Robertson and his son, Tim, had a considerable financial stake, and IFE, in turn, owned the Family Channel. Beyond this obfuscation, however, the central question remains: Did Mr. Robertson and his son, Tim, or did they not garner "a personal profit of $227 million from the sale of the parent company of the Family Channel," as reported in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot and elsewhere? And isn't it true that this property was developed out of the 700 Club or CBN, which in turn was built from, in my words, "the tax-deductible contributions of the faithful"? To put it another way, is there any way that Robertson could have realized millions of dollars in profits had his charitable organizations not received countless checks for 10, 20, and 50 dollars?

Libertarians and government
I am grateful to Ronald J. Sider and Fred Clark for addressing the issue of libertarianism ["Should We Give Up on Government?" Mar. 2]. I was disappointed, however, at their failure to provide persuasive scriptural support for their position against it. After stating that there is a "large body of biblical teaching that says the government has a responsibility to care for the poor," the authors quote seven passages of Scripture to support this assertion. Upon closer scrutiny, however, most of these passages state only that government has a responsibility to protect the poor from injustice—this being a proper function of government according to the libertarian view. Not a single passage cited constitutes a clear biblical mandate for the redistribution of wealth through the power of government—which is what I assume the authors mean by "caring" for the poor.

There may be a biblical case against libertarianism—and even for providing for the needs of the poor through the power of government—but I do not think that Sider and Clark have succeeded in presenting it.

Michael S. Iachetta
Plano, Tex.

One of the critical issues of our day is the increasing concentration of power in the hands of the central government and its increasing reach into every aspect of our lives. "Conservatives" in general and the so-called Christian Right in particular have failed to resist that behemoth in a serious way. They have been rendered impotent because they have succumbed to the most transparent seduction of political power—one that the liberals gave in to long ago. Sometimes called the "golem temptation," it is the dream of using the behemoth's mighty power to do good on a lavish scale (shades of the Grand Inquisitor!). Libertarians, in contrast, make resisting the behemoth their central and focused goal—an attitude that (in my opinion) is necessary to any hope of success against it.

Libertarianism isn't workable as a way of life. It is inadequate as a basis for society. But no Christian need buy into it at that level in order to affirm it as an effective tool for critique and deconstruction. As an ideology of politics it will (like any other) produce abominations if it is applied with enough consistency over a long enough period of time. But right now, that is a contingent danger. Right now, all of us face dangers that are much closer and more concrete. In that context, Sider's and Clark's plea that we "not give up on government" seem a perverse entreaty to those who are caught in the jaws of the behemoth. It seems a bit like asking David not to "give up on Goliath."

Why are Christians attracted to the libertarian agenda? The answer is simple. Against the relentless encroachments of centralized power, libertarians have a pruning hook that might actually trim some of it back. Nobody else does.

Brooks Alexander
Berkeley, Calif.

The attempt to discredit libertarianism by informing us that a millionaire pornographer has libertarian sentiments is unworthy of serious thinkers.

Also egregious is the exegesis of the Hebrew scriptures on which Sider and Clark seek to ground their assertions that libertarianism violates biblical principles. No doubt, we can discern general principles in the history of God's dealings with Israel: faith in God calls for just treatment of the marginalized. But the facile move from what God prescribed for a theocratic monarchy to the specifics of what's morally proper for a modern secular state belies an unprincipled, opportunistic use of the biblical text.

In the ideal, as Sider and Clark point out, government is God's servant for good. But, as Augustine saw, in reality it is often little more than a den of thieves. Which it is will in part depend on whether its Christian citizens testify to the moral bounds within which ought to operate, rather than acquiescing to the statist idolatry of the dominant culture.

Prof. Donald H. Wacome
Northwestern College
Orange City, Iowa

Brief letters are welcome. They may be edited for space and clarity and must include the writer's name and address if intended for publication. Due to the volume of mail, we cannot respond personally to individual letters. Write to Eutychus, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 630/260-0114. E-mail: cteditor@christianitytoday.com ( * ).

Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.