Letters

Israel at 40

I was pleased to read the editorial “Israel at Forty,” by David Neff [April 22]. Having lived and worked in Jerusalem for seven years, much of that time within a hundred yards of the Church of the Resurrection (Holy Sepulchre), I found particularly apt the illustration of the status quo agreements governing the different church groups using that site for worship. The regulations may seem petty, and the outsider may see them as reflective only of disorder and disunity. But the more one experiences the life and worship in the church, the more the rules become a celebration of diversity and reflection of real differences that cannot be compromised but only held in tension. So also will an eventual Israeli-Palestinian accord have to be seen, and the result accepted, not as a complete peace and reconciliation—but as an agreement to live in tension and tentative recognition of one another’s reality, hoping that future generations may find new ways to co-exist.

JOHN A. LUNDBLAD

King of Kings Lutheran Church

Oceanside, Calif.

The Jews have a historic and legal right to the land. Palestinians have never had a homeland, and until recent events, never sought one. Just to identify a “Palestinian” is fruitless; but if we mean the Arabs in the occupied areas of Israel, the Israelis have treated them better than their brother Arabs who refuse to assimilate them, or to offer them refuge. However, they are quick to use them for cannon fodder in their effort to eradicate the nation of Israel. As long as it is the stated purpose of Arabs to eliminate the Jewish state, justice cannot be served.

A. C. JACOBSON

Central Baptist Church of Joy

Spokane, Wash.

We who are Christians in America should realize we are dealing with Semitic peoples. Both the Arabs and the Jewish people are the descendants of Isaac and Ishmael; we cannot be anti-Semitic unless we are unfair to both sides at once. We should have no guilt trip about the Israelis as we watch the nightly news.

LEON G. JOHNSON

Bath, N.Y.

I cannot believe your editorial. Israel offered Gaza to Egypt after the Six Day War, but Egypt would not accept. Lebanon was the only Arab country to take in Palestinians, and they have destroyed that country. The Jews are not always right, but pat solutions are easier to offer than to put into practice.

ROBERT T. AND JOAN S. DAGGATT

Hemet, Calif.

I would like to raise some questions:

1. If you cast away the biblical interpretation of Israel’s right to the land because it is a “historically late interpretation,” are you willing to do the same with the doctrine of justification by faith?

2. While you lamented the 200 Arab men, women, and children killed at Deir Yassin, why did you fail to mention the historical background that led up to this incident?

3. Neither did you mention the more than 500 PLO terrorist attacks that have left 400 Israelis dead and 2,000 wounded. Why? Nor did you mention the additional 557 PLO terrorist attacks on Israelis and Jews outside of Israel that killed 55 Israelis and 444 non-Israelis. Is this of any concern?

4. Why did you not mention that the PLO constitution calls for complete destruction of Israel, a position the PLO has never repudiated?

5. You fail to deal with the issue that the Jewish people were literally forced out of their homeland over 1,900 years ago. Is this just? If you want Israel to live by your standard of justice, are you willing to live by it, too? Will you press the U.S. government to return large tracts of land taken from the Indian nations of America? Will you and your family move back to Europe so this can happen?

REV. TERRYL DELANEY

Grace Community Baptist

Washingtonville, N.Y.

Not-So-Personal Opinions

In this election year, hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear the results of some opinion poll. Measuring public opinion has become an exacting science.

But really, all this demographic wizardry wouldn’t be necessary if pollsters knew a simple secret thousands of church members have known for years. If you want to get a reliable measurement of people’s thoughts and feelings—if you want to find out what’s really happening—all you have to do is join a prayer chain.

I am the seventh person to be called on my church’s prayer chain, and in a recent week I learned these facts:

• Five out of six members, a full 83.33 percent, felt last Sunday’s special music group was too loud.

• Four of six believe Claire must still be sick, since she wasn’t in church on Sunday, and wasn’t supposed to visit her aunt in Cleveland until next week.

• Half the church (three of six respondents) is upset that choir rehearsal got moved to Tuesday night, because the handbell choir meets that night—and what if somebody wants to do both?

Think of what pollsters could learn if they joined prayer chains! And best of all, they might wind up praying, and in the process they would talk to Someone who, too often, is not asked for his opinion.

EUTYCHUS

The President’s friends

I cannot remain silent in the face of your attack on Attorney General Edwin Meese [“All the President’s Friends,” Editorial, April 22]. What you say about the need to choose public servants for competency rather than ideological purity is fine. But precisely what is (not might be) Meese’s “latest gaffe”? Scripture presumes a man innocent until proven guilty. You don’t apply that standard to Meese.

Meese has done more to help fight such problems as pornography, organized crime, and illegal drug traffic than any other attorney general in recent memory. He has brought important questions about constitutional interpretation to the foreground. He has cooperated with evangelicals. If he is indicted, it will be for “offenses” from which Congress has made its own members immune. And for the record: Ray Donovan was indicted—and acquitted—on charges so flimsy that the judge chewed out the prosecutor.

E. CALVIN BEISNER

Pea Ridge, Ark.

Paul was no psychologist!

James Dobson, like “Christian psychologists” generally in the organized church [“His Father’s Son,” April 22], is successful for the very reason that he avoids biblical and theological precepts in his approach. He thus subtly panders to the multitudes within Christendom who have rejected the Scriptures and sound doctrine in favor of having their ears tickled by the myths and quick fixes of the pseudo-science of psychology. Not one of the Old Testament prophets was a psychologist. Neither was Jesus nor any of his apostles. Paul the apostle was not a psychologist. Whence, do you suppose, does Dobson draw his inspiration?

MURL MING

Mabelvale, Ark.

Disregarding Christian influence?

“Bottom-line Morality” [April 22] is good reading, and I appreciate the insights of Dennis Vogt and Warren Brown. However, it should surely be evident that bottom-line morality is more easily kept by the Christian who sees God’s purpose. Humanistic values do not include God, and persistently preach away from such commitment. The fearful inclination of “Bottom-line’s” rhetoric to shy away from giving Christian influence its proper role in the strength of this nation is an inadvertent step into the humanists’ camp.

J. RUSSELL BURCHAM

Kennett, Mo.

Defending the status quo?

After reading William Willimon’s article [“An Offering of Slogans,” April 22], I felt I had to respond to what appeared to be a thinly disguised defense of the status quo. His claim that justice awaits definition is patently false except in a purely Platonic sense. My six-year-old has a keen sense of justice. “That’s not fair” is a rallying cry of the playground. Without this conceptual ability, we would be unable to treat one another fairly, or attempt to change our world for the better.

Willimon seems to suggest that we should not attempt to change our world at all. He implies that this activity is strictly the domain of God. Not only is this premise absurd, it is unscriptural. How does he explain or justify the role of the church in the abolitionist movement of the last century or any of the other reform movements of history? Were these activities mere human meddling?

GERALDINE LUCE

Groton, N.Y.

Willimon is right to caution us that our zealous and sincere efforts to follow Christ may become ideologically rigid. But that does not seem nearly as great a danger as a church that has no vision for being that alternative community where God’s passion for peace and justice is fully expressed.

EDGAR METZLER

Mennonite Board of Congregational Ministries

Elkhart, Ind.

Ground-breaking AIDS coverage

Your cover story, “AIDS in Africa,” [News, April 8], is a ground-breaking, and most welcomed, recognition of the extraordinary diversity and complexity of the HIV epidemic. Thank you for helping make the African portion of the tragedy far more visible. We Americans are largely unaware of the special devastation of the disease on Central African countries. And the tragedy is compounded by our silence and inaction in being attentive to the special challenges the African experience poses for U.S.-based religious leaders. Your attention to this aspect of the epidemic is timely and powerful.

B. J. STILES

National Leadership Coalition on AIDS

Washington, D.C.

Come on, CT, let’s call a spade a spade! Is it the prostitutes who are the major transmitters, or the people who use prostitutes who are the major transmitters? If no one used prostitutes, they would not be major transmitters.

ELIZABETH DEKAM

Sierra Madre, Calif.

Thank you for your article on AIDS in Africa. Accurate, restrained, and compassionate reporting like this is sorely needed in what is written about the disease, both in Africa and here in North America. As a physician involved in the treatment of patients with AIDS and AIDS-related diseases here in the U.S., and in preparing to become a medical missionary in East Africa, I feel this disease provides a golden opportunity for the church to show compassion to the world. I pray that we evangelicals will not miss this opportunity.

DAVID G. THOMAE, M.D.

Pensacola, Fla.

Three statements in the accompanying article, “Missionaries in Africa Are Not Immune to AIDS,” need clarification. First, a photo caption states that “the fight against other diseases may be spreading AIDS.” What is true is that inadequate techniques of sterilization used by certain persons in campaigns of immunization may be spreading AIDS. Second, you report the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health is aware of six missionaries who apparently tested positive for the AIDS virus. This is without documentation and should be clarified. Third, you report the opinion of an unnamed medical adviser of a mission organization that “hundreds of missionaries may be infected with the [AIDS] virus,” but he then admits that no studies have been done to document this. The opinion is without scientific or statistical justification and needs immediate clarification on your part.

DANIEL E. FOUNTAIN, M.D.

Wheaton College

Wheaton, Ill.

Dr. Fountain is correct in noting that “inadequate techniques of sterilization” in the fight against some diseases may be spreading AIDS. As for formal documentation, our reporter discovered and reported that part of the problem in dealing with AIDS among missionaries is a serious lack of such documentation.

—Eds.

If King were alive …

In “What Would He Do Today?” [April 8], David McKenna suggests that if Martin Luther King were alive today he would have a political agenda similar to Jesse Jackson’s. He besmirches King’s name. King was aware of the appeal of communism to oppressed people, but he rejected its empty promises. He was no dupe, no “useful idiot.” He did not embrace thugs like Castro or commend Che Guevara. Nor did he despise Christian civilization and chant with Stanford students: “Hey, hey, ho, ho. Western culture’s got to go.”

MICHAEL BRAY

Ray Brook, N.Y.

I was disappointed in the sparse coverage of the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s assassination. Surely the significance of this anniversary of a Baptist minister who helped our nation start cleansing itself of the sins of discrimination and racism merited more than a page and two-thirds in the News section.

GLENN F. ARNOLD

Wheaton College

Wheaton, Ill.

A new recruiting policy?

Your article “Will Christian Colleges Survive the Dollar Pinch?” [News, April 8] has a comment which puzzles me. What do you mean when you say, “A trend away from separatism—which characterized many evangelical institutions years ago—may open the doors of schools to students who had not previously considered attending a Christian college”? Is this a recruiting policy? Do you mean evangelicals who have recruited from liberal churches either by accepting unsaved students or by minimizing the difference between liberal leadership and evangelical leadership? Or do you mean evangelical colleges are inviting unsaved faculty members and unsaved trustees to their institutions?

JOHN R. DUNKIN

The Master’s College

Newhall, Calif.

No wonder Barrington College went under! All this time everyone, including CT, thought it was in Massachusetts. C’mon, folks! Rhode Island may be the smallest state, but it’s too great a place to be ignored. Barrington, Rhode Island, was the home of Barrington College before its merger with Gordon College.

PHIL MADEIRA

Nashville, Tenn.

Christians who need help

Thank you for “The Mind Doctors” and “The Cross and the Couch” [April 8]. It is time we realized Christians can have mental health problems and that there are professionals who can help. I have been seeking a graduate school that would offer an integration of theology and psychology; to my amazement, I received a lot of flak. Only Fuller Theological Seminary offers this. By and large, there is little offered for those of us who desire to integrate these two disciplines.

RICHARD BRANFORD

Jackson, Tenn.

“The Mind Doctors” only scratched the surface of many facets of our relationship with God and the issues of ministry. Where we stand before God factually (theology) and where we stand before God emotionally (psychology) consume much of our resources. Just as theology cannot be fully understood except as we see God in relationship to man and man in relationship to God, so psychology cannot be fully (accurately) understood except as we see man in relationship to God and God in relationship to man. We may have come a long way in our understanding of these issues, but much ground yet needs to be broken.

REV. FREDERICK C. NOSE

DeWitt Community Church

DeWitt, Mich.

The writers of “The Mind Doctors” said of us that “most of their critique centers on the fringes of psychology—with the fringes thus representing all psychology.” Besides the therapies they list, we critique the following in our book Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way: (Freud); client-centered therapy (Rogers); reality therapy (Glasser); and transactional analysis (Harris). According to a survey we did in cooperation with the Christian Association for Psychological Studies, these have been the most influential therapies in the practices of Christian therapists. Our books, including our recent PsychoHeresy, are criticisms of mainline, not fringe, psychotherapy on the basis that it is not science, is not proven to be effective, and is known to harm. The use of psychotherapy and the underlying psychologies in the church is not justified from either a scientific or biblical point of view. When used, it is always a slam at the sufficiency of the Word of God.

MARTIN AND DEIDRE BOBGAN

EastGate Publishers

Santa Barbara, Calif.

The phrase “all truth is God’s truth” has become a platform for delivering some new truth of God’s not found in the Scriptures. God’s truth is found in the Holy Bible alone. All “truth” is not God’s truth. Any time this deceptive banner appears, it should alert all Christians to what at best can only be man’s truth.

DAVID L. GREENE

Jefferson, Mass.

Of baseball and atonement

I was provoked and enriched by Tim Stafford’s article [‘Baseball and the Atonement,” April 8] as he draws an analogy between the identification process of a sports fan with his team and a believer’s identification with Jesus’ activities on his behalf. However, the analogy never answers all the questions proposed early in his article. How one man’s death can reach across 2,000 years to touch another person is creatively illustrated by his analogy because it deals with the process as it is in the heart and mind of the believer. Yet, how one person can carry another’s sin or how one person’s righteousness can lead to another’s forgiveness is not covered by the analogy because these things deal not with what goes on in the mind and heart of the believer, but in what goes on in the mind, heart, and activity of God. As believers we acknowledge Jesus as both our Christ and God’s Christ. Our atonement was first and primarily God’s atonement. Its efficacy for us exists because God was in Christ working his work for us.

There are two identifications. Stafford deals with our identification with him who gave himself for us; the other is greater and more significant because it is God’s identification with us who had forsaken and even hated him. I doubt Stafford intended to confuse the two, only to illustrate the one. I am indebted to him, for I shall surely “steal” the illustration in a sermon.

THOMAS C. SORENSEN

Aurora, Colo.

Stafford’s article was not only utterly ridiculous as an analogy, but also perilously close to being heretical. Identifying with Jesus, like identifying with the Oakland Athletics, Stafford says, effects vicarious benefits for us. We are not saved, however, by being fans of Jesus. What Stafford says of Jesus could be applied to any other great personality of history and in no way distinguishes Jesus as unique.

RANDALL E. OTTO

Dublin, Pa.

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