Love and Procreation
Stanley J. Grenz’s article, “What Is Sex For?” [June 12], is, on the whole, sympathetic to positions taken in the recent Vatican document on respect for human life in its origins. But he seems seriously to misunderstand the teaching of the Catholic Church. My wife and I are “beyond the childbearing years,” but the church in no way holds that we must abstain from the marital act, nor teaches that couples seeking to be responsible in the regulation of conception must forgo this beautiful expression of married love. It does teach that the procreative and unitive meanings of the marital act are, by the will of God, inseparably connected and not necessary for the marital act to be good and holy and symbolic of the union between Christ and his church.
When human life comes through the marital act, it is as a “gift” from God crowning the act and giving permanent embodiment to it. But when life comes outside it as a result of artificial insemination, even when the sperm are from the husband, the child is the end product of a process managed and carried out by persons other than the spouses. Human beings are to be “begotten” in an act of marital love, not “made” by technological procedures.
WILLIAM E. MAY
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C.
Grenz’s rejection of the Roman Catholic position leads to automatic rejection of the premise on which the position is based—the “inseparable connection … between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative meaning.” This premise is not exclusively Roman Catholic, but is the historic Christian position.
The present state of our society suggests that the sundering of the two meanings of sex leads to an increasing emphasis on sex as an end in itself, with all its ugly consequences, particularly abortion on demand.
REV. W. FRANCIS B. MAGUIRE
Church of the Good Shepherd
Bonita, Calif.
For Grenz to cite 1 Corinthians 7:3–5 as a proof text for the use of artificial contraception methods is a curiosity, since in the first century, both pagan and Christian had to live with the inextricable connection between the “unitive meaning” and the “procreative meaning” of sexual union.
BRO. MICHAEL PARKER, O.S.B.
St. Andrew’s Priory
Valyermo, Calif.
Beyond abusive rhetoric
Most of the American press presents the abortion issue as having but two sides—sharply divided against each other and frequently expressible in only the most vituperative language or violent behavior. Father James Burtchaell [“In a Family Way,” June 12] has stated my own views better than I have ever been able to state them, has given me a broader view of what my own Christian perspective must be, and has helped me rethink my use of the language of this debate.
R. C. ADAMS
Fresno, Calif.
Burtchaell represents a belief not shared by most Americans—that a human fetus is an immortal soul from the moment of physical conception. But personhood is not a physical or biological achievement; it is a spiritual endowment given us by God. Just when that is given is not surely known by any of us; but the great majority of Jews, Protestants, and even many Roman Catholics believe human personhood is not given until the “breath of life” is breathed into us at birth (Gen. 2:7) and each becomes “a living soul.” The accusation against mothers, doctors, and others of “killing babies” and taking human life in abortion is simply not true and ought not to be given credence.
J. E. SMITH
Minneapolis, Minn.
That God allows freedom of choice is hardly “unfortunate.” There are people who are prochoice but antiabortion from a moral standpoint. Their position can only be explained when understood in the bigger picture of what God allows as true freedom of choice in his kingdom: it includes the opportunity for his creation to reject him outright. The issue is not whether it’s right or wrong to kill an unborn fetus, but if it’s right to coerce someone’s conscience when God himself doesn’t do that.
R. D. RICE, M.D.
Placerville, Calif.
In light of the fact that at least half of the world’s people are barely existing in deepening misery, and even some 20 percent of Americans survive below the the possibility that continuing to have children may actually be sinful?
REV. HARVEY LESTER SPERRY
Farmville, Va.
A Man For All Seasons
I’m not one whose feelings are easily hurt. But since my picture began appearing with this column, some of you have written—rather callously, I’m afraid—about my looks. Some say I look like Mark Twain on a bad day. Others say I look like a frustrated college professor, or an unfavorite uncle.
Well, whatever you think of my looks, they’re versatile. And to prove it, I’ve asked John Lawing, my combination hairdresser-wardrobe manager-makeup artist, to render me in three new outfits. For those of you who think I’m not hip, there’s the Punk Eutychus. For those who think I look curmudgeonly and uncreative, there’s the Bohemian Eutychus. And for those who think I’m not tough, there’s Marshal Euty Dillon.
That ought to do it. I expect no more comments from the balcony. Unless you’re a Hollywood agent.
EUTYCHUS
Let the church care for the poor
I believe it is a solid Christian belief that all people, except those sick or disabled, should work for a living and not be on the welfare rolls. Stephen Monsma’s article “Should the Poor Earn Their Keep?” [June 12] stresses blacks who are on the public dole; but what about whites who make up about 67 percent of those on welfare? The vast majority that I see on welfare are white, and not only a disgrace to fellow whites, but also to Christianity. Is it not a moral responsibility for the Christian church to take care of its own?
ROBERT READ
Bryson City, N.C.
I believe there is a problem with the use Monsma and others have made of Jesus’ admonition recorded in Matthew 25. It is not true the “brethren” of Matthew 25 are the poor and afflicted in a general sense. They are, rather, Christ’s disciples who are about to be sent into a hostile world. The term “brother” is used consistently in Matthew to refer to the disciples and, when seen in this light, it makes much more sense in the context of the chapter.
CHARLES ANDERSON
Lookout Mountain, Ga.
Simon’s scriptural politics
Monsma’s article includes an interview with Sen. Paul Simon [“Work over Welfare,” June 12], who is portrayed as a Christian whose views on welfare reform are influenced by Scripture. But as Simon has maintained a 100 percent proabortion voting record during his years in Congress, I submit that his scriptural basis for his politics is rather selective. Perhaps he could reflect on Psalm 139:13–16 and Exodus 20:13.
GERI SULLIVAN
Renton, Wash.
Don’t expect effective welfare reform soon. Not in this generation—or the next. The patient has become addicted to the pain-killer narcotic. Society and the doctor have become addicted to the patient’s addiction. When the church, society in general, the federal government, and the needy are ready for the church to reassume her God-given responsibility to care for the needy, then Simon will see effective welfare reform.
ROY R. NEWMAN
Crawfordsville, Ind.
Inerrant views of inerrancy?
Randy Frame’s article about the Southern Baptist Inerrancy Conference [“Battle on the Bible,” June 12] is a case of how improper use of language obscures a clear understanding of issues. Over a year ago the Peace Committee established by Southern Baptists to resolve the controversy began to use the terms “moderate-conservative” and “fundamentalist-conservative” to identify the two sides. Frame’s identification of them as “moderate” and “conservative” demonstrates that he has succumbed to the tendency of fundamentalists who use the word “liberal” indiscriminately to mean “anyone who is left of me.” This further demonstrates the problems that occur when orthodoxy is determined by use of a word like “inerrancy.” Everyone has his own definition; the term “liberal inerrantist” is itself an oxymoron. Is one really a liberal just because he does not see the fundamentalist’s view of inerrancy as itself inerrant?
STEVEN E. EUBANKS
Fort Worth, Tex.
Clark Pinnock is wrong: Article XIII of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy’s 1979 statement on inerrancy could not, as he claimed, be subscribed to by “liberal inerrantists.” The statement speaks of “complete truthfulness of the Bible” in accord with the biblical concept of “truth and error,” as defined in the official ICBI commentary:
By biblical standards of truth and error is meant the view used both in the Bible and in everyday life, viz., a correspondence view of truth. This … article is directed toward those who would redefine truth to relate merely to redemptive intent, the purely personal or the like, rather than to mean that which corresponds with reality.
This is precisely what Pinnock and the others who hold the “liberal” view do not accept. Furthermore, the ICBI statement on hermeneutics could not accommodate Robert Gundry’s view that denies the factual historical nature of whole sections of Matthew. Since Pinnock was not at either ICBI meeting, he is no doubt unaware that Gundry’s view was explicitly mentioned as one excluded by Article XIII. Any twisting of the meaning of the framers of these statements so as to accommodate a more liberal view is flatly wrong.
NORMAN L. GEISLER
Dallas Theological Seminary
Dallas, Tex.
You attribute to J. I. Packer the statement that one could “still genuinely uphold the lordship of Christ” and not accept Adam and Eve as historical people. I couldn’t believe what I read. This is double talk.
REV. HOWARD E. DIAL
Berachah Church
Fayetteville, Ga.
Tangled terminology
I’d like to correct an error in the article “Renewal Leaders Issue a Call to Biblical Morality” [News, June 12]. The Episcopal Diocese of Newark (N.J.) did not approve the study on human sexuality presented to its annual convention. The delegates voted to receive the report for study in the parishes of the diocese. The committee that presented the report has been charged with monitoring and supporting this study process. It is probable that resolutions representing many points of view will be brought before the Diocesan Convention in January 1988. The report will not be approved or rejected until then.
ALAN BRUCE SMITH
Church of St. Andrew & Holy
Communion
South Orange, N.J.
Frank’s venomous ink
I was amazed to read reviewer Tim Stafford’s comment that Douglas Frank’s Less Than Conquerers: How Evangelicals Entered the Twentieth Century never betrays a mean spirit [Books, June 12]. The book I read was printed in venom rather than ink. For Frank, the final proof of an evangelical leader’s abdication of social responsibility is opposition to socialism and/or support for—horrors!—entrepreneurial capitalism. Personally, I tremble to claim such insight into the interior motivations of men.
DOUGLAS LLOYD MCINTOSH
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Showing prejudice?
In the article on religion in mainland China [“The Church the Gang of Four Built,” May 15] you omitted all significant mention of the estimated 200,000 Roman Catholics, to say nothing of the Russian Orthodox, Anglicans, or Lutherans. Has CT “excommunicated” them?
REV. G. D. WIEBE
Hayward, Calif.
