Letters

Whose Sins?

I read with great interest your interview with the Reverend Floyd Johnson [“The Gospel in Black and White,” Mar. 4]. What his church is doing is quite novel, even for today. I took exception, however, to his assertion that the white evangelical church needs to repent of its past support of slavery. It is not fair to speak of support of slavery by the white evangelical church as if it were a unified, cohesive body. Nor is it fair to point fingers at white evangelicals of today and say, “Your ancestors supported slavery. Therefore, you must repent of their sins.” To hold one generation responsible for the sins of another isn’t exactly what I would call justice.

TOM LAWSHAE

Boulder, Colo.

I was pleased to note the extensive treatment of the matter of the largely racially divided church. That concern has been a major point of interest and concern during my lifetime. Perhaps someday we shall agree to associate and strive together as accepted neighbors and friends.

ROBERT STETSON

Rock Island, Ill.

Following to the Cross

Terry Muck’s warnings [Editorial, Mar. 4, “Light in the New Dark Ages”] about apostasy, persecution, and false teachers, along with his call to sacrificial evangelism, relevant theology, and trusting God for miracles today, recall at every point teachings of Jesus unpopular in our time. But he has accurately discerned where America is heading; and Christians should remember that our Lord warned us that if we aren’t willing to follow to the Cross, we shouldn’t follow at all.

CRAIG S. KEENER

Durham, N.C.

Stumbling on truth

Your Speaking Out column in the March 4 issue [“The Press Is Missing the Scoop of the Century”] reveals author David Aikman’s perspicacity. It occurred to me also that these TV commentators, newspaper journalists, and U.S. press people who engage in mutual praise in reality manifest incredible obtuseness. I am reminded of Murphy’s Second Law of Reporting, “Occasionally, a journalist will stumble upon the truth. Invariably, however, he will ignore it, pick himself up and lurch on toward the grand fallacy.” The problem with modern, secular journalists, then, is not humanism, atheism, or hedonism, but it is being “simple Simons.”

REV. BILL SOLOMON

Emmanuel Presbyterian Church

Grover, Mo.

The evangelical community is amassing a base of potential power that dwarfs many other competing interests. A close look at the evangelical communications network should convince even the skeptic of its power: 1,300 radio stations (with one added every 7 days), TV stations (reaching 13 million households, nearly 20 percent of the U.S. viewing public), Christian TV programs on secular stations (a half-billion dollars’ worth of commercial time), and use of TV by thousands of neighborhood Christian churches are all changing the way people perceive the Christian faith and doctrine.

CHRISTINE CROWNER

Saline, Mich.

Erosion of values

Reading reports such as your “Court Ruling Bars Bible Club from School” (News, Mar. 4), prompts me to review past practices and the diversity of present practices regarding the use of public property. As a boy growing up in Idaho and Oregon, I learned early that public property was available to all for reasonable use—first come, first serve—sometimes for a clean-up fee. I continue to be aware of similar “private” uses of public property as well as religious organizations operating in public-school environments, while remaining unaffiliated with the school—merely using available space. We seemed to have a principle of equal access operating in the past; perhaps we still have it in some places—where common sense and fairness are still values. Rulings like the one reported are surely eroding, perhaps displacing, such values.

R. C. ADAMS

Fresno, Calif.

Singles an untapped resource

I am a 28-year-old single Christian, and I feel insulted by William Willimon’s article “Risky Business” [Feb. 19]. Ministers have nerve to criticize today’s single adults when churches are so poorly meeting their needs. Currently 40 percent of the adult U.S. population (over 18) are single; by the year 2000 that number is expected to rise to over 50 percent. Are schools of theology training our ministers how to deal with the special needs and problems of this large percentage of single adults? Single people today need a strong Christian base to help them grow as people, not criticism from the church. If the truth be known, single adults are the churches’ largest untapped resource capable of strong devotion to God and to the church.

ALICE M. ROBINSON

Charleston, S.C.

It is risky business indeed for someone to read an article of this caliber. We learn and accept from the Scriptures that God hates divorce, but nowhere in this article is there even a hint of Christ’s love and his grace. My own family has experienced more divorces than we care to count. But because of the pain and anguish that have besieged them, I find my heart going out to people whose lives have been racked by divorce. This article does nothing to help the process of restoration.

PAMELA PHAIRAS

San Diego, Calif.

The “Quality” Church

One concept to emerge in parenting circles recently is “quality time.” The notion, roughly translated, says to parents: “Don’t feel bad if you don’t spend much time with your children. What counts is not the quantity of time, but the quality of it. A few hours, well spent, make up for many away.”

The argument sounded a little weak to me—until I saw how quality time could revolutionize my church.

I mean, why get together for an hour Sunday morning when five high-quality minutes will do? Think of the roasts that would be spared if church let out at 11:05.

We would start the service with a hymn: the first line of the first verse, that is. And the text for the day would not have to be a full passage, when one verse fragment, intensely read, would suffice.

Then it’s on to the sermon, where the present, time-consuming, three-point message would be easily covered by one high-quality illustration. No time for an invitation, or closing prayer, or fellowship after the service, but our five minutes will have been well spent.

Yes, it takes concentration and dedication to make these five minutes the best they can be, but it’s the only way to produce “quality” Christians—people who live their faith only some of the time, but when they do, they really do.

EUTYCHUS

Viewing the Canon

The CT Institute must be commended for featuring “The Canon: How God Gave His Word to the Church” [Feb. 19], an issue significant for both dogmatic and New Testament studies. The format is attractive, and the sweeping historical view of the problems involved in canonical studies make it ideal for an introduction for college and seminary classes in dogmatical theology on the Scriptures. But a more careful reading was not necessary to indicate that my initial enthusiasm was misplaced.

I have written before about the anti-Lutheran bias and pro-Reformed stance of writers chosen for sections where Lutherans and Reformed simply do not agree. I am speaking solely to the issue of plain, ordinary anti-Lutheran bias. There does come a point where evangelicals and Lutherans have to part company, and it is strange that it must be in the matter of the Scriptures, especially since the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod has in the last two decades been recognized as most successful among major Protestant denominations in restoring and upholding the traditional beliefs on inspiration and inerrancy.

Most objectionable to Lutherans is the principle, essential to heirs of Calvin, that God speaks directly to believers and not only through his outward Word. Evangelicals and Lutherans hold many things in common and we have been dependent upon each other, especially as we addressed the dismembering critical attacks on the Scriptures. Perhaps you will say that a Lutheran voice should have been included and perhaps this will be remedied in the future.

DAVID P. SCAER

Concordia Theological Seminary

Fort Wayne, Ind.

Getting history straight

Philip Yancey might be a fine writer and a compassionate, concerned Christian, but he is no historian [“How Not to Spell Relief” Feb. 19]. He is incorrect in saying that this “society has survived two centuries without a foreign invasion.” Ask him if he has ever heard of the War of 1812 (somewhat less than two centuries ago), which included the burning of our capital, the assault on Fort McHenry, and the Battle of New Orleans (American territory at that time). I hope his theology is not as sloppy as his history.

REV. LEROY E. MILLER

Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Caney, Kan.

Defining euthanasia

In the February 19 issue there was an article in North American Scene headlined “Bishop Backs Euthanasia.” On close reading, it became clear that the bishop in question was simply stating that it may be morally permissible to allow a comatose person to die. To my understanding, this is different from euthanasia; euthanasia is generally accepted as actively causing someone to die “painlessly,” such as by the administration of narcotics or other medications in such a way as to deliberately cause death. Withholding of treatment is not technically euthanasia according to most accepted definitions.

JEREMY C. KLEIN, M.D.

Salem, W. Va.

Permitting a comatose person to die and the issues of withdrawing nourishment or hydration are, admittedly, weighty issues. But in my opinion, they do not represent euthanasia. In deference to Bishop Gelineau, you should invite him to issue a statement.

REV. DONALD P. SHOEMAKER

Grace Community Church

Seal Beach, Calif.

Letters are welcome. Brevity is preferred, and all letters are subject to condensation. Write to Eutychus, CHRISTIANITY TODAY, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, Illinois 60188.

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