A New Perspective
I was impressed with R. Paul Stevens’s article [“Breaking the Gender Impasse,” Jan. 13], for he suggests a unique and sensible approach to a stubborn dilemma. His question “What if the ambiguity at the root of the women’s-ministry debate is not accidental but God-inspired?” provides a new perspective that I appreciate.
However, he loses credibility when he says, “According to Scripture, headship is priority within a relationship of equals.” This is a contradiction of terms and reminds me of Orwell’s Animal Farm: All pigs are created equal, but some are more equal than others. Priority is incompatible with equality, and despite his claim that priority is not hierarchical, I fail to see the logic.
It is the English language that attaches the metaphor of priority to the Greek term kephalē, as in “head of the department.” The Greek language holds no such metaphor. Kephalē simply means “source of life,” as in the head of a river. Paul is not discussing priority of man over woman but painting a beautiful word picture of the mysterious and different view of identity that men and women hold of themselves.
Brenda Wilbee
Bellingham, Wash.
I appreciated Stevens highlighting the scriptural arguments supporting both sides of the debate. As a rural parish pastor, the problem I see is that I don’t think to acknowledge the contradictions and ambiguities contained in Scripture. Many come to church (and Scripture) for clear-cut, specific, concrete directions for their already mysteriously changing lives. I’m not convinced they can live with the uncertainties and ambiguities of writing our own “mystery play,” as Stevens suggests.
Rev. David Coffin
Trinity Lutheran Church (ELCA)
Malinta, Ohio
I sympathize with the author’s attempt to align biblical teachings of women and their ministry in the body of Christ with popular sentiment, but I fear he has done so at the expense of solid biblical hermeneutics. How could he ignore the most explicit passage of 1 Timothy 2:8–15 where the justification of women not having authority over men is based on Creation? How can he gloss over “Wives, subject yourselves to your husbands” in Ephesians 5:21–33?
Prof. Otto J. Helweg
Memphis State University
Memphis, Tenn.
Stevens errs when he mentions “the curse experienced by males and females.” The Lord does not curse either the woman or the man in Genesis 3: The serpent and the ground are cursed, but nowhere are the humans cursed because of their fall.
While only a minor point in an otherwise enlightening article, this correction also serves to negate the premise that only the woman was cursed—this latter view sometimes being used to bolster the position that the Christian ministry is restricted to males only.
David P. Aiken
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Rise, Slam-Dunk, Give God The Glory
There are those who argue that God doesn’t get the respect he deserves. Sometimes I think he gets more credit than he wants.
A boxer once credited the Lord for helping him punch his opponent into the Twilight Zone. Then there was the football player who made a diving, juggling catch in the end zone. His explanation of the stellar effort mentioned nothing about his speed, agility, coordination, and training: It was God who made that catch.
Now that’s the kind of theology I can relate to. I see myself on the basketball court, going one-on-one with Michael Jordan. He’s 6’ 6” and can jump. I’m a shade under 5’ 8”, 35 years his senior, with a vertical leap the height of a New York curb—normally. But this time, I was up at 5 A M. praying!
I’ve got the ball. I fake to the right and make my move. Michael goes for the fake; I drive by him. He recovers just as I go airborne. Together we rise until we are at eye level to each other. But as he starts his descent, I’m still on my way up, headed for a reverse, two-handed, game-winning jam, grabbing the rim so my ankles don’t hit Michael’s forehead.
On my way to the television cameras to say hello to Mom, I go to my knees and thank the Almighty.
Keep eatin’ those Wheaties, Michael. Heh-heh-heh!
EUTYCHUS
The majestic whisper of God
“Praying with the KGB” [Jan. 13] is the most incredible article I have read in a decade. I could barely read a section without tears of wonder and joy and worship streaming down my face. As the Christian Bridge delegation met with officials of the KGB, the Journalists’ Club, Zagorsk Prison, and the Academy of Social Scientists in Russia—and an ex-con named Basil—I felt I should take off my shoes and fall on my face, for it seemed I was standing on holy ground.
Thank you, Philip Yancey, for letting us glimpse the majestic whisper of God shouting all over Russia (if not in American newspapers), “I am Lord of all the earth!”
Neta Jackson
Evanston, Ill.
I spent a fascinating month last fall visiting Moscow, Kiev, Volgograd, and St. Petersburg. Upon returning to the U.S., it has been difficult and often frustrating to respond to questions about my experience due to the impossibility of describing either the people or the state through objective value statements. It was refreshing, therefore, to read Yancey’s report. I found myself saying silent “amens” as I read about encounters and conversations not too unlike my own. Never have I experienced a place where there was more of a search for hope and “a more ravenous appetite for God.”
David J. Frenchak
SCUPE
Chicago, Ill.
Yancey’s article was inspiring, insightful, and challenging, but woefully lacking in appreciation of both Orthodox spirituality and good missiology. To correct his presumption that Orthodoxy lacks a dimension of an intimate personal relationship with Jesus (the heart of evangelical Christianity), Yancey should study the wealth of Orthodox writings on the Jesus Prayer, or read the great Eastern Fathers.
Let us not miss the point and the opportunity. As the East opens, the Christian church is already there in its Orthodox expressions, its Catholic expression, and in a myriad of Protestant expressions—all of which need a great evangelical revival. It is time for a renewed appreciation of the full beauty of the Christian church and an end to any form of triumphalism.
Keith A. Fournier
Chesapeake, Va.
Yancey’s sympathy for the traditions of the Orthodox faith, as well as his eagerness to move on with evangelizing the nation, demonstrates the conflict the republics face. Orthodoxy understands Russia’s history but had too little freedom and practice to comprehend its future. If evangelical Christianity can work in concert with the established church to broaden its ministry and employ/explore new ways to encourage those Russians outside its influence to know Christ as Lord, they will be spared plunging into the vacuum world of drugs and indifference and bitterness.
In my visits to the Soviet Union several years back, I saw no hint of this miraculous change. Surely God has heard the prayers of the faithful. Now it is up to the faithful not to let this great historic opportunity pass into oblivion.
Dr. Richard Andersen
St. Timothy’s Lutheran Church
San Jose, Calif.
Killing is not Jesus’ way
Charles Scriven, in “Second Thoughts About the War” [Speaking Out, Jan. 13], presents a point of view Christians ought to trumpet from the housetops: The use of killing force is not Jesus’ way of fighting evil. I cannot believe the Gulf War could have been from him; it was not “for God and country.”
Even judging by the just-war theory, it is doubtful if the Gulf War would pass as just: Was the good result, ousting Saddam from Kuwait, overwhelmingly greater than the evil results of the war—100,000 Iraqis killed, health and living conditions devastated, 500 children still dying every day? What humane (let alone Christian) standard of values could answer that question in the affirmative?
Paul A. Kingsbury
Cavendish, Vt.
What is further needed is a forum discussing how Desert Storm met the just-war criteria and whether these criteria are truly biblical for the Christian. I fear most Christians are unconcerned as to whether or not the Gulf War met any just-war criteria. Uncritical acceptance by Christians of this country’s recent self-serving attacks on other countries (Libya, Grenada, Panama) and their leaders under the guise of justice is very disturbing.
Scott Liechty
Wheaton, Ill.
Scriven revises history and ignores Scripture. There were pacifists in the early church. Tertullian, the first I know of, notes that soldiers were accepted as church members. Early Christians mainly objected to military service because it involved the worship of Caesar.
The first Gentile to join the early church was a centurion (Acts 10). Jesus spoke to one soldier (Matt. 8:5–13; Luke 7:2–10). John the Baptist met with several (Luke 3:14). There is no hint that any of these servicemen were told to leave the military.
Augustine was confronted with a different problem. The state was officially Christian, not pagan, so he set out the restrictions that ought to apply to a Christian state facing armed conflict. Today we have a new question: To what extent do Augustine’s just-war requirements apply to contemporary secular states?
David F. Siemens, Jr., Ph.D.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Just say no to promiscuous sex
Thank you for Ken Sidey’s editorial “The Magic Word” [Jan. 13]. I get so tired of stories about passing out condoms and teaching safe sex. Now, it’s “If Magic Johnson can get AIDS, anyone can.” As your editorial points out, that is not true. Anyone who is celibate, or faithful to a spouse who is also faithful, cannot, will not, and is in no danger of getting the AIDS virus the way Magic did.
The “just say no” antidrug campaign is beginning to be hailed as a success. Somehow, however, it is not acceptable to teach “just say no” to premarital, promiscuous sex. The argument is that sex is a strong biological drive, and teens are just not going to be able to resist. Several things are wrong with this approach. First, the moral consensus of our society for hundreds of years was that premarital sex was wrong, and people did for the most part abstain: it is indeed possible to control our raging hormones. Second, the message this sends our children—that they are victims of their own bodies, without the will or strength to choose how they will live—is a most deadly thing to teach. Finally, the safe sex campaign teaches children to disregard their souls and minds in favor of their bodies. The lesson they learn is not to choose what is best, but to ask, “How can I indulge my appetites and protect myself from disease?”
The AIDS crisis is frightening, and the only truly safe sex is abstinence and fidelity. Or to put it another way, for best results, follow manufacturer’s directions.
Maria L. Boccia, Ph.D.
University of Colorado
Health Sciences Center
Denver, Colo.
Before Graham, “Project Light”
While I rejoice at the work God has been accomplishing through Billy Graham and his team in the recent Buenos Aires Crusade [News, Jan. 13], I am disappointed in having seen no mention of the television crusade Project Light, conducted by the Christian Broadcasting Network in October 1990. Fifty thousand trained Argentinian counselors and 3,000 churches were involved in this campaign on prime-time television all over the nation, and 3,000,000 people professed faith in Jesus Christ.
Walter Colin Johnson, M.D.
Hanover, Mass.
Alas, not an elder!
In his review of Culture Wars [Books, Jan. 13], Robert Patterson identified me as an elder of the Presbyterian Church in America. It is, alas, untrue. I have not held, nor do I now (nor will I likely be asked in the future to) hold this position. As rumor, though, it is not a bad start. Perhaps one day someone will mistakenly honor me with the title “minister” or, better still, “bishop.”
Prof. James Davison Hunter
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Va.
Growth not “slight” at Covenant
The article “Seminaries—Enrollment Up Slightly” [News, Nov. 11] does not reflect the experience of Covenant Theological Seminary. The growth we have experienced could not be described as “slight.” Total enrollment in degree-seeking programs has grown from 135 during the 1988–89 academic year to 409 for the 1991–92 year—a growth of 227 percent over a three-year period.
Paul D. Kooistra, President
Covenant Theological Seminary
St. Louis, Mo.
Uncritical acceptance
You are to be commended for setting out to “remedy” your readers’ not having “thought about the moral implications of family planning.” Evangelical pastors have uncritically accepted cultural assumptions on this matter and, as a result, abandoned their moral teaching position in a key area of family life.
Many evangelicals of my parents’ generation had moral reservations about planning their family size. My generation’s concern is not just another legacy of the sixties or legalism; it’s also inherited from parents who raised us in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Did it not occur to the editors that a serious treatment of the issue must include at least one mention of Malachi 2:15a? “Has not the LORD made them [husband and wife] one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.”
Timothy B. Bayly
Grace Presbyterian Church
Pardeeville, Wis.
Children as blessings
I was disappointed that scant attention was given to the fact that God calls children “blessings” throughout Scripture. The real question is: “Why do Christians restrict the number of children they have when God is explicit in calling children ‘blessings’?”
Scott A. Will
Wake Forest, N.C.
We were disappointed at the absence of views that consider the broader impact of our personal choices about family size. We agree that children are a blessing from the Lord, but they are also resource consumers on a planet of vanishing resources. Bearing many children is a self-indulgent decision that many Christians make without considering their responsibility to their fellow residents of the Earth.
Rick & Nancy Lindroth
Rick & Rhonda Nass
John & Carrie Scherpelz
Madison, Wis.
Raymond Van Leeuwen attempts to free the Christian to use birth control by explaining that Genesis 1:28 is not a command but a blessing. But what kind of faith would respond to God that I don’t want his blessing? God’s Word clearly says children are a reward, a gift, a blessing. If I use birth control, it is tantamount to saying that I know better than God what is good for me.
Miriam J. Kauk
Lansdale, Pa.
The real issues
Upon reading your stories on birth control, I quickly concluded the real issue is not birth control but children: We don’t want them! (At least not too many or too close together.) Heaven forbid that God would burden us with a baby before we can “afford” one!
Debbie Thompson
Ft. Lee, Va.
Only when conception-blocking is misused (adultery, fornication) can a Christian make any case against such birth control. Debra Evans inadvertently makes such a case; others oppose birth control from a legalistic reading of Scripture. But such hermeneutics must also take a dim view of anesthesia, genetic medicine, environmental protection—even democracy. George Brushaber wisely concludes that blocking conception is acceptable, indeed, often desirable, for many married couples.
A final thought: We are God’s adopted children. The only begotten child God ever had was sacrificed for the adopted ones. Evidently, God loves adoption and adopted children.
Paul & Betsy Bennett
Royal Oak, Md.
I congratulate you for being willing to tackle such a controversial subject. I am disappointed you did not include an article written from the viewpoint of one of the prolife or home-school activists challenging the practice [of birth control]. Others less strident and confrontative than Mary Pride could have presented their view for your readers.
That aside, no one addressed the real theological issue in this debate: Where does conception come from? Does God cause it directly or is it the chance result of the biological mechanisms he created? How you answer this question will determine whether you as a Christian should practice birth control.
If we are uncomfortable with allowing God too much sovereignty, perhaps we should examine Psalm 139. According to verse 16, God ordains (appoints) every day of our life before we are born. This means not just how many days we will live on this earth, but which days. If this is so, then conception is also appointed by God. There are no accidents. If there are no accidents, what are we trying to prevent by the use of birth control?
Deborah Dunn
Weno Chuuk, Micronesia
I sense an unequal representation of the issue. There were no articles totally against the use of birth control. Many Christians today are struggling with this issue and need to hear all Christian viewpoints.
Julie Missildine
Gales Ferry, Conn.
Past values abandoned
Birth control carries more profound implications for our culture than any we debate politically. To return to the beliefs of the first 19 Christian centuries would largely take Christian women out of the workplace, and Christians in general out of the affluent lifestyles that childlessness affords. We would live simpler, more distinctive lifestyles, in patterns of life some of our great-grandparents knew.
Betty & Dan Fitzsimmons
No address provided
