Letters - Christianity Today

Slavery or Indentured Service?

Thank you for a fairly well-balanced presentation of Christian Reconstruction [“Democracy as Heresy,” Feb. 20]. However, to claim that a major proposal of the Reconstructionists is the reinstitution of slavery, only later clarifying that this means a form of indentured servanthood, is misleading and prejudical. Also, many criticisms were sophomoric; for example, the claim that Reconstructionists concentrate on the Law rather than the Lawgiver—as if it were impossible to do both.

Christian Reconstruction, like any movement, ought to be judged by whether it faithfully submits to God’s Word. In my opinion, it does.

REV. DOUG ERLANDSON, PH.D.

Peace Reformer Church

Napoleon, Ohio

I question Rodney Clapp’s overview of the movement. Using inflammatory code words like patriarch and disciple did not help, nor did dated references to observations that now have been questioned and re-evaluated in the movement itself. I agree we should “test the waters”—but let’s do so openly and fairly.

KEVIN RIBERDY

Nazareth Academy

LaGrange Park, Ill.

Thank you for giving readers such a good review of the Reconstructionist movement.

MARY L. LYONS

Hyannis, Maine

As a trustee for over six years of R. J. Rushdoony’s “think tank,” the Chalcedon Foundation, I feel qualified to respond to the article. My focus as a “Reconstructionist” is not on politics. My starting point is a “theonomic” view of the Bible as God’s unchanging standard for all people everywhere throughout all of history. His Law has been given out of love for the good of all mankind and applies to all spheres of human action, of which political government is only part of the picture—certainly not the dominant concern. Areas of much more personal concern to most of us “Reconstructionists” are marriage and the family, education, and economics.

I am both surprised and disappointed that, with the exception of Rev. Rushdoony, no other Chalcedon Foundation scholars in the U.S. or abroad were interviewed or mentioned.

DANIEL L. HARRIS

Wheaton, Ill.

Clapp’s article on the whole does a good job of putting Reconstructionism into perspective—except that there are basic problems in the first four paragraphs. The second paragraph states: “Last fall, for the first time, major Christian presses released Reconstructionist literature. Crossway Books copublished with Dominion Press.…” But as far back as 1979, Baker Book House published a book by Greg Bahnsen called Homosexuality: A Biblical Perspective. Also, we did not in fact publish the two books attributed to us. As indicated clearly on title and copyright pages, we are “distributor to the bookstore trade.” The statement is also false because the two books cannot properly be called “Reconstructionist literature.” George Grant’s book is on poverty in America; Gary North’s book is on conspiracy theories of history. We made it a conscious policy not to publish anything that could be called “Reconstructionist literature.”

But there is a further, more serious false statement. Paragraph three reads: “The late Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto relied on Rushdoony’s social analysis.” That is so false as to make it hard to refute. Obviously there are similarities between Schaeffer’s and Rushdoony’s thinking; they’re both Christians. I’m sure every one of us who is evangelical would have things in common with Rushdoony. Schaeffer did not agree with any of the three “foundational points” Clapp identified as the basis of Reconstructionism.

The first four paragraphs imply a link between Schaeffer and the most extreme, offensive forms of Reconstructionism. It’s hard to imagine a person more distant from the Reconstructionists in these areas. To structure the article in such a way as to subtly connect Schaeffer with these views is destructive of some of the most basic things he stood for.

LANE T. DENNIS, PH.D.

Crossway Books

Westchester, Ill.

Yancey: Honest and moving

Philip Yancey’s “Caulking While Rome Burns” [Feb. 20] was one of the more honest and moving writings I have read in some time. His acknowledgement of “the banality of evil” and candor over his “sense of helplessness and doom” touched me deeply and gave me much to think of, both in relation to my work here and in my place in our world.

REV. HARRY L. RISER

New Covenant United Methodist Church

Farmington, N.M.

Corn Again

Since I’m known to be something of a writer, and thus presumably a lover of words, my church has given me the assignment of helping our new members learn Christian jargon. After all, they have to be able to communicate at coffee hour.

Teaching Christian code is not easy. I began with a discussion of such basic terms as the “old nature” and the “new nature.” When I asked for definitions, a class wag immediately said,” ‘Old nature’ is last year’s leaves and ‘new nature’ is this year’s leaves.”

It was downhill from there. I asked for a definition of “Justification” and someone shot back, “What you need when under stress (just a vacation).” I said “sanctification” and someone replied, “What happened to the boat on vacation.” I mentioned “denying yourself” and somebody cried, “The process of removing one’s ny!” I muttered “discipleship” and someone said, “A fishing boat belonging to Peter.”

Frankly, I left thinking those hooligans could fend for themselves at coffee hour. I feel all the more so because now they’ve got me doing it. This morning I sat down to breakfast and a definition forced itself on me: “Total commitment—a person who eats only one kind of cereal.”

EUTYCHUS

What’s a lawyer worth?

I found James Hilt’s article, “Professionals Must Adjust Their Fees” [Speaking Out, Feb. 6], a sad example of the profoundly uninformed. He indicts a wide range of professionals—including attorneys, of which I am one—characterizing them as overchargers who “unintentionally deprive” the poor of needed services. Attorneys are not that much different from anyone else who must work for a living. The plumber who fixes broken pipes and the merchant who sells food also make their living by providing needed services. Yet we do not hear Hilt calling upon them to provide pro bono goods and services.

I would laud any responsible appeal to Christians, without regard to occupation, to give their time and goods to the low income and poor.

KATHRYN V. FIELDS

Bellevue, Wash.

Like Hilt, I have wrestled with this question for several years, with varying degrees of success. It is one for which there appears to be no easy and/or simple answer. Initially, I utilized a sliding scale, going as low as $10 per hour. It became apparent that people who came regularly, prepared for counsel, were at the upper end of that scale. Those paying low fees came infrequently, were ill prepared, and displayed a reluctance to deal with basic issues.

I then went to a nominal flat fee, and found that many people would not come to see me, assuming that one who charged such a small fee must not be worth going to.

I resolved the matter in a somewhat straightforward manner: I have a fixed rate, in the upper-middle range. I inform pastors, doctors, or attorneys who refer to me that if money is a problem, I will be more than happy to work out a reasonable payment plan. Not infrequently, when therapy sessions end and the individual has demonstrated a willingness to meet the financial obligation incurred, I forgive the balance due, sometimes in the hundreds of dollars. This solution seems to have resolved most of the problems for the client and myself.

R. L. SHARP, PH.D.

Christian Consulting & Counseling

Albuquerque, N.M.

The pastor’s crook

David Neff’s editorial “The Down Side of Civility” [Feb. 6] emphasized “polite Protestants” and how they impact politics. The article stirred my thoughts to how often I choose to be the “polite pastor” or “soothing shepherd.” Easily we forget that the one tool of the shepherd was a crook. When a lamb strayed and was facing potential death, on the side of some rocky cliff, the shepherd would firmly thrust that crook around its neck and pull it up by the head. Surely the lamb resented this rough treatment, since it sensed no danger, but the shepherd knew what had to be done. Therefore, be it my own congregation or a political controversy, to fulfill my responsibility I must forgo popularity and admiration, and risk possible resentment in order to use the crook and return the lambs to safety.

CAPT. RICK PEACOCK

The Salvation Army

El Cajon, Calif.

Neff’s editorial boxes evangelical Christianity into a very small corner. Not only are “mainline Protestants” categorized as different from evangelicals (and as much of a threat) as Jews and “secular humanists,” but evangelical Christians are equated with “conservative Protestants,” “the Religious Right,” and, by implication, the social/political platform of the Moral Majority. Neff asks why “the solid evangelical vote is not there.” The answer is obvious to those of us mainline Protestant, evangelical members of the Democratic party: the evangelical consensus is to be found in the proclamation of the gospel (euangelion, Gr.) of Jesus Christ and not in the “party spirit” of any particular political position.

REV. JAMES A. TWEEDIE

Grace Presbyterian Church

Weed, Calif.

Soft-pedaling healing?

In a sense it is not surprising that Fuller Theological Seminary soft-pedals the Christian healing ministry [News, Feb. 6]. There seems to be a widespread tendency to do so in the seminaries—even in Episcopal and Roman Catholic seminaries, although many Episcopal and Roman Catholic parishes regularly schedule healing services and host healing missions. Why this seems to be so, and why so many clergy continue to resist the practice of this ministry—sometimes bitterly—I do not know.

Let me suggest that there are innumerable scriptural references undergirding the contrary view. I think the main reason is that people simply do not understand what the Christian healing ministry is all about.

JOHN M. GORE

Oakton, Va.