Invitation Tech
The Sunday morning invitation has become an involved process. My pastor tells me it takes time to ascertain that every head is really bowed and every eye actually closed.
And if he goes through the preliminary stage of having people raise their hands, he not only has to scribble down names, but has to acknowledge each with a verbal “thank you” or “I see that hand.” It’s complicated.
But modern technology could greatly simplify things. Closed-circuit television monitors could scan the congregation looking for an unbowed head or unclosed eye, and a mild electric current running beneath the pew could encourage cooperation.
Little video monitors—like they use in self-service banking—could be installed beside each hymnbook rack. These would list all the decision options being offered that day, and punching the designated button would register your commitment with the appropriate pastor or mission board.
If hand raising were still necessary, an electric eye—like those used in burglar alarms and grocery store doors—could beam low across the congregation, and a break in that beam would measure the location and height (measuring degree of commitment) of lifted hands. A computerized tally of all decisions could appear on a scoreboard behind the choir, and verbal “thank yous” would not be needed since individual electronic printers could produce personalized acknowledgements, suitable for placement in your Bible as a reminder of your most recent decision.
All considered, it makes you wonder how the church got along for so long without technology. I guess it just depended on a Higher Power.
EUTYCHUS
Materialism: Everyone’s Battle
I read Charles Colson’s “A Call to Rescue the Yuppies” [May 17] with some discomfort. I wonder if many of us evangelicals are in a position to rescue anyone. Living in the most affluent country in the world seems to lock even the most spiritually sensitive into a lifelong battle with Mammon. As Colson suggests, we may “know about the bankruptcy of transient power, money, and worldly goals,” but that doesn’t always prevent us—individuals, churches, organizations—from adopting acquisitive behavior, albeit on a less visible, more “sanctified” scale. I suggest all of us are in need of rescuing.
KELSEY MENEHAN
Bethesda, Md.
Colson’s article is an example of the idolatrous attempt to raise a political viewpoint to the level of absolute biblical truth. Capitalism does not necessarily mandate materialism, libertarianism does not necessarily mandate libertinism, and Colson should do more homework.
JAMES B. JOHNSON
McClellan AFB, Calif.
Great! Colson’s article on yuppiedom reminded me of an excellent piece that Lewis Lapham did for Harper’s a few years ago on mammonism.
JAMES M. DUNN
Baptist Joint Committee
on Public Affairs
Washington, D.C.
Colson usually hits the nail on the head, but this time he has hammered himself on the thumb. He fails to realize that American evangelicals are really closet yuppies, and have been for decades.
MARK ALBRECHT
Elm Grove, Wisc.
The yuppies have only rediscovered the values of mainstream America and mimicked their parents. Unfortunately, Colson accentuates what’s worst in the under-40 generation. That his list of outstanding young evangelical leaders under 40 was one of the shortest he’s ever compiled suggests he hasn’t looked beyond his own circles to find them.
In Denver, we have no shortage of young evangelical leaders; many are young urban professionals. Some donate professional skills to inner-city ministries; many are deeply involved in their churches; some spend vacations on short-term missions. Others are grappling with problems of minority unemployment, inadequate housing, mental illness, and the needs of youth. They may never make the Christian lecture circuit, but they represent servant-style leadership at its best.
THOMAS F. AUSTIN
Denver, Colo.
In light of Colson’s thoughts, I found incongruous an ad [in the same issue] whose headline boasted: “You can serve the Lord and boost your income … at the same time!”
LT. RICK PEACOCK
The Salvation Army
Glendale, Calif.
On Becoming Roman Catholic
Regarding Thomas Howard [News, May 17] and his move to Roman Catholicism, his comment that he never “met an evangelical who does not lament the desperate, barren, parched nature of evangelical worship” shows what a cloistered life he has lived. Admittedly, some right-wing fundamentalist and many old-fashioned liberal Protestant churches leave us pretty desperate; but that is the price one pays in a democracy. And why did someone not ask what plans he has for working himself out of purgatory?
ROBERT W. TRIMMER, PH.D.
Elkhart, Ind.
We are saddened when Protestantism “loses” an articulate evangelical spokesman. Perhaps the sadness is God’s gift: Does it expose our denominational idolatry?
SUSAN C. CLARK
Hillsboro, Kans.
The bottom line for this evangelical-Catholic comparison is: “Which approach is God using most to transform sinners and make them new creatures in Christ?” Having lived 27 years in Catholic South America, I am positive the ratio is at least a thousand to one—in favor of Protestant evangelicals.
REV. ROBERT C. SAVAGE
Muskegon, Mich.
In May I celebrated the first anniversary of my reception in the Catholic church. I only regret that I did not take the step sooner. Reading Dr. Woodbridge’s comments, I realize that my evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ are still bearing false witness against their neighbor through ignorance—which would be excusable if it could not be remedied by a good-faith visit to the nearest Catholic rectory.
JANET LIDLE
Clifton Heights, Pa.
For the reasons Howard has embraced Roman Catholicism, I separated myself from the Church of Rome. Some of us want our relationship with God to be pure and simple, totally devoid of legalisms, bureaucracies, and intermediaries. We prefer direct accountability with our Creator. Others prefer the protectionist umbrella that is offered by a religious superstructure.
DONALD MCKAY
Cazenovia, N.Y.
Howard’s “conversion” disturbed me less than the manner of Woodbridge’s interview. Biblical references should have been offered against specific doctrines of the Roman religion, giving Howard the opportunity to reconcile and harmonize them (e.g., the rosary, purgatory, prayer for the dead, the immaculate conception of Mary, Mary’s assumption). It is amazing that, among the individuals who most influenced his decision to “convert,” Paul, Peter, James, John, the Hebrews writer, and Jude had no chance. Pity!
ELIAS M. GOMES
LaMirada, Calif.
On the positive side, Howard has correctly diagnosed a number of serious illnesses in American evangelicalism, including a rationalistic view of the Holy Eucharist, worship life divorced from transcendence, a lack of a corporate sense of the church universal, and a nonexistent sense of history. Evangelicals ignore these issues at their peril. Negatively, Howard has tragically substituted one authoritiarian structure for another while failing to see the similarities between Roman Catholicism and American evangelicalism in their mutual commitment to synergism. The doctrine of infused righteousness articulated at Trent and the current evangelical infatuation with legalism as an added ingredient to Christ’s atonement are one and the same.
REV. MARK DANKOF
World Confessional
Lutheran Association
Highland Park, Ill.
I conclude that in the U.S. the Catholic church has created an image of faithfulness to Scripture that intellectuals like Howard have accepted. Unfortunately, that image is quite different in much of the rest of the world. Here in Mexico: (1) The Catholic church is quoted continually in the press as attacking evangelicals, calling them sects, CIA agents, destroyers of the national culture. (2) When the Pope visited Mexico he emphasized the Virgin of Guadelupe; in the U.S., he stressed Jesus Christ—because he is a politician. (3) The shameful attacks on Wycliffe Bible Translators in Mexico come from the Catholic church and Communists. (4) For a number of years, evangelical radio programs have not been permitted in Mexico. (5) The Catholic church must accept a large degree of responsibility for Mexico’s tremendous social and economic problems. A truly Christ-honoring church would have sought the good of the people, taught them the Scriptures, and promoted education and Christian morality for the masses.
ELISABETH F. ISAIS
Mexico City, Mexico
Why is Howard’s personal choice such a threat? He was not attacking evangelicalism, but merely sharing his testimony. What right has any Christian to attack another’s God-given testimony?
DR. ALAN J. MACMILLAN
Orleans, Mass.
I am always sad when someone moves from what I understand to be a more scriptural position to what seems to be less scriptural, when someone turns from truth to outright error. How sad when someone chooses beautiful Error over unadorned Truth.
PHILLIP R. WILLIAMS
Northwest Baptist Seminary
Tacoma, Wash.
Whether one agrees with his conversion or not, you must admire Howard’s honesty.
ROY L. MERRIFIELD
Key West, Fla.
How ironic that John Woodbridge’s criticism of Howard’s conversion appears in the same issue with an article honoring Flannery O’Connor’s orthodox Christianity. And how different are those expressions of Christian faith from Woodbridge’s grumblings about infallibility—a word he repeats nine times, though it is never used by Howard—authority and infallibility not being the same thing. Woodbridge’s apparent confusion in this area seriously clouds his interpretation of Howard’s convictions. The account of Flannery O’Connor’s faith stands in refreshing contrast.
RAY C. WOODCOCK
Waynesville, N.C.
I was converted from Roman Catholicism many years ago, through the work of God’s Holy Spirit. Subsequent study of the Bible has only strengthed this conversion; as I see it, the differences between evangelical Christianity and Roman Catholicism are basically doctrinal. A number of points do not seem to have been properly or adequately discussed in relation to doctrine in the Howard article.
JOHN H. PENROSE
Wheaton, Ill.
The three-part Howard story appeared as coverage of a newsworthy event, and was not intended as an inclusive doctrinal discussion or analysis.
—Eds.
A Double Standard
W. Dayton Roberts’s editorial, “Liberation Theologies” [May 17], was an interesting commentary on the nature of the movement. Not once did he mention the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia or any of the Iron Curtain countries that routinely oppress their citizens through both physical and psychological violence. This refusal on the part of “liberation theologians” to acknowledge the flagrant and brutal injustice practiced by these socialist governments makes a mockery of the ideal of true Christian justice, which they so loudly proclaim. While acting against social injustice is plainly Christian doctrine, as Roberts asserts, to do so under the double standard of “liberation theology” is not Christian charity but secular, liberal self-righteousness.
RANDALL HAY
Walnut Creek, Calif.
The editorial was very thought provoking, but there was a flaw: After attacking the liberation theologians, Roberts offers no alternative social theology that would correct social injustices in Third World countries as well as present Jesus’ gospel. Or does he not have an alternative?
VICTOR D. PADILLA, JR.
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Roberts should get the true information of what is going on before he accuses the “Roman Catholic baggage” of liberal theologies. Is he not aware why the Pontif went to Latin America? Let him read the Feb. 4, 1985, issue of Time: “He [the Pope] called upon the region’s hierarchy to correct errant Catholic thinkers with charity and firmness. ‘Too many theologians,’ said the Pope, ‘proclaim not the truth of Christ but their own theories.’ ”
The errant thinkers do not make up the Catholic church. Liberation theologies are not what the church is teaching. True Catholics obey what the church teaches, since they know that it is infallible.
GIEDRE VAITYS
Northfield, Ill.
Battered Pastors—And More
I have just read “The Problems of Battered Pastors” [May 17] and found so many things to agree with. In fact, I typed a note to my minister and said it would make a wonderful article for discussion at a staff/parish meeting. I am the minister’s secretary and fully aware of the things mentioned in the article. I think staff/parish committees need to know also that there are other employees in the church who are sometimes abused.
GRACE GEIGER
Bronx, N.Y.
The quote of the Congregational pastor that “it’s the composite image that gets you …” was the gem for me.
REV. MARVIN D. WEBSTER
Santa Cruz, Calif.
Alcoholism: What Works
If the entire book is as good as your excerpt, I can’t wait to get the Spickard/Thompson Dying for a Drink [May 17], As an evangelical military chaplain, it is my experience that it never works to try initially to present the gospel to a practicing alcoholic. What does work is that during the recovery process, many begin a spiritual journey during which a clear Christian witness can help them expand their AA horizons.
DON K. CLEMENTS
Chaplain Corps, USN
Newport, R.I.
The CT Institute: First Fruit
The first fruit of the Christianity Today Institute, “The Christian as Citizen” [April 19], was immensely meaningful to me. So often we Christians are speaking to ourselves. I feel this material should be made available to every member of Congress (and the Supreme Court). It sets forth so well the essential identity of evangelical Christianity—a matter of prime significance, which is woefully unknown and therefore grossly misunderstood in Washington.
FRANK CURRIE
International Students Incorporated
Colorado Springs, Colo.
In these articles no mention is made of the Carter presidency. In spite of his religious background, Carter often didn’t seem to know what was the right or best thing to do or how to get it done. His determination to rescue the hostages [in Iran] was thwarted not by enemy activity but by the rescue planes inexplicably slamming into each other, for God intervened—saving America. And saving Carter too, because of his very real faith, not merely in some theological surmise, but in the actual existence of a supernatural power.
VANESSA BEDFORD
Cleveland, Ohio
I basically agree with the comments made by Henry, Monsma, and Kantzer on the juridical relationship of church and slate. Perhaps my greatest concern is that the supplement adopts uncritically the “clauses-in-tension” interpretation of the free exercise and establishment clauses of the First Amendment. I think that view is both historically incorrect and doctrinally unsustainable; and importantly, it will lead to a denigration of religious liberty for Christians and others. Simply stated, the view is that religious liberty is protected only under the free exercise clause, whereas the establishment clause prevents only undue interference by religious organizations with the state.
Since the purpose of the CT Institute is to keep a dialogue going rather than to write the “final word,” I think CTi should issue a supplemental report. It will not do for the institute simply to drop this topic and move on to others.
CARL H. ESBECK
University of Missouri
Columbia, Mo.
I found the general orientation of the essays and discussions rather narrow-minded. Properly, the supplement should have been entitled “The Christian as an American Citizen.” I am increasingly disturbed by the pervasive attitude, usually unspoken, that present-day Christianity is centered in, and revolves around, the United States, or the Christians therein. If we are going to speak of “the Christian as citizen,” we need to think in terms of what it means to be a Christian who is a citizen of any nation, be it communistic, democratic, totally Christian, or whatever.
GEOFFREY L. SCHULTZ
Kent, Wash.
In his interview, Jim Wallis asserts that the Bible shows a clear priority for the poor. But, eschewing ideology, he goes on to say that no particular political perspective can be justified from the Bible, because the Bible does not prescribe any specific solutions for the plight of the poor. This “raises the question about our response to the poor in concrete ways.” What Wallis seems to be saying is that our ends must be biblically justified, but our means may require empirical justification. Perhaps he will welcome these nonideological words from Charles Krauthammer of The New Republic:
“The experience of the West, and now of East Asia as well, suggests that capitalism is the most likely route to rapid development, and thus ultimately, if inconveniently, is the preferential option of the poor” (TNR, 12/24/84, p. 13).
JOHN R. MUETHER
Dresher, Pa.
