Defending an Infallible Bible

Kenneth Kantzer’s article [“Why I Still Believe the Bible Is True,” Oct. 7] adds to my puzzlement as to why theologians continue to seek to justify the concept of an infallible Bible. He grants that the Bible can only be understood as a “thoroughly human book,” and that belief in an infallible Bible is not necessary for “either salvation or godly living.” Yet he claims this belief is essential for “consistent Christianity,” when the idea that the Bible is infallible in all its parts has been used—and is still used—to validate practices inconsistent with Christianity.

I once took a course in Old Testament. Since then, as a layman, I have not found it necessary to defend or explain away historic, scientific, or other flaws in the Bible in order to use it as a never-ending source of understanding what God requires and promises. I admit I sometimes have problems, but they can be contained in much less space than Kantzer says he needs for his.

E. ROBERT BROOKS

Wake Forest, N.C.

Debate or shifting position?

Charles Colson’s provocative column “It’s Not Over, Debbie” [Oct. 7] suggests how “debate,” making the unthinkable become commonplace, has been used as a strategic political tool in creating movements for social reform. He relates this to the subtly, yet swiftly emerging, issue of euthanasia. His discussion of the infamous “mercy killing” confession raises a compelling question.

Why promote as an issue for public consideration an illegal act the American Medical Association itself condemns—the administration of a lethal drug with the intention to kill? Where in “Debbie” could there possibly be a springboard for meaningful debate? The story fails to address the kind of truly difficult questions that merit discussion—such as whether or not extraordinary means to prolong life should be withdrawn.

It seems to be a curious political decision for the AMA on one hand to waive its stated position opposing direct killing by a physician, yet on the other hand to encourage the public to talk about it. Could it be that publishing the “Debbie” story is not so much about “stirring a debate” on mercy killing as about preparing for a shift in the AMA’s position?

LAURIE ANNE RAMSEY

Americans United for Life

Chicago, Ill.

Is Swindoll inconsistent?

The expenditure of $1 million for a second home by Chuck Swindoll may not seem inappropriate to him or his board of elders, but to me it seems totally inconsistent with everything I have heard him teach, preach, and write [News, Oct. 7]. However he and his elders may justify such extravagance really doesn’t matter. The real tragedy is that he has given the poor, the oppressed, and a generally skeptical secular world just one more reason not to believe the message of the gospel.

Article continues below

REV. GREG GALLAHER

Summerfield United Methodist Church

Cookeville, Tenn.

Nobody would be upset if a Christian layman built a $1 million home. So to hold a clergyman to a different standard of conduct is really an insidious form of clericalism. I refuse to expect a pastor to refrain from an activity I wouldn’t be willing to refrain from myself. Swindoll’s words have ministered to me often. To read Living Above the Level of Mediocrity is to know he doesn’t believe in doing things halfway. That philosophy extends from vacation homes to helping the homeless. So please give the guy a break.

DAVID E. SUMNER

Knoxville, Tenn.

No perfect families—or churches

I appreciated Rodney Clapp’s article, “Is the Traditional Family Biblical?” [Sept. 16]. However, another question needs to be answered before accepting the church as “first family”: Is the traditional church biblical? Clapp mentioned dysfunctional families where children and adult children of those families cannot get their needs met because of present or past abuse. Often when these people select a church they select a dysfunctional “first family,” with rigidity, control, and manipulation. Just as there are no “perfect families,” there are no “perfect churches.” However, functional nuclear families and local expressions of the church can be found. These are places where Matthew 22:34–40 (love of God, self, and others) is of primary concern for at least the majority of the members.

GARY F. CAMPBELL

Olympia, Wash.

Fly The Friendly Pews

For most visitors, going to church is like getting on an airplane. They take their seats nervously, look straight ahead, and hope nothing extraordinary happens.

So, in an effort to help first-time attenders feel as comfortable as possible, my church made a few program adjustments. At the beginning of our service, the ushers move into the center aisle, and the head usher says, “Thank you for choosing Second Church, with nonstop, 60-minute service. Your ushers today will be Hank, Wilbur, and George.”

Hank, Wilbur, and George then demonstrate the “crash prevention position”—which enables worshipers to pull the hymnal from below the pew in front without crashing their heads into the seatback. “In the unlikely event of your experiencing some doctrinal discomfort during the sermon,” the head usher explains, “there are safety outlines in your bulletin. These explain the scriptural basis for each point.”

Article continues below

Three safety exits are pointed out—two in the main sanctuary and one in the choir loft—should the anthem by the soprano soloist cause a sudden rise in ear pressure.

“Once we reach worship altitude, we will be coming down the aisle to take an offering,” the usher continues. “And according to traditional regulations, raising hands is not permitted, except during the invitation. And clapping is prohibited. Please sit back, relax, and enjoy the service.”

The response has been great. In fact, we had to turn away visitors one Sunday morning when we overbooked the service. But we gave them two free passes to any church activity, including potlucks.

EUTYCHUS

Some simple facts of life seriously challenge the notion that the church should be the sphere of our highest commitment. In other spheres we judge commitment by one’s use of time, treasures, and energy—the only resources available to people. So, to what do we give more time week after week? Let’s face it, only a fraction is given to the church, the rest to the family. To what do we give the bulk of our income? At best the church gets 10 percent and the family the rest. And whose cries do we attend to at three in the morning? For whom do we sacrifice? For whom do we mourn most, and who is our greatest source of comfort? Day in and day out, it is the family.

But we needn’t pit devotion to Christ against devotion to family. This focus on family is not disloyalty to Christ, but the first place where we demonstrate discipleship

REV. MARK J. GALLI

Grace Presbyterian Church

Sacramento, Calif.

Clapp’s portrayal of the Gospels and Paul as somehow seeking the subordination of family life to church life, as if the Christian mission of kingdom-building did not begin in the home, are proof-text teaching that would make the most fatuous fundamentalist red-faced. As in everything, if family (or anything else) pits itself against the kingdom, then Christians must choose Christ’s rule. However, establishing “Christian” homes is the basis of the biblical revelation about the kingdom as early as the Pentateuch!

At a time when American Christian institutions are crumbling under the all-out assault on the family by pagan forces, how can CT justify “weighing in” on the side of “the destroyers” with a questionable popularized concept of “the kingdom”?

REV. TOM PRATT

Calvary Baptist Church

Article continues below

Brighton, Colo.

Clapp will undoubtedly meet some backlash from the evangelical community. But it is good to have a “sneaking suspicion” validated by other believers. So often the local church family is kept afloat by a weary few who sacrifice their own families on the altar of service, playing all the positions. This, while the great preponderance of the congregation worships at the temple of family. (Translation: Watching television together.)

MICHAEL O. WEBB

Sierra Vista, Ariz.

Clapp came dangerously close to endorsing the idolization of the church at the expense of the family. A call to serve Christ in his kingdom is not always synonymous with serving in the local church. It may mean forgoing attendance at another church committee meeting, or saying no to being in the choir, so that I can make time for my neglected family in an already overburdened schedule.

REV. CRAIG L. DIBENEDICTIS

Brick, NJ.

Clapp’s statement that “singles have the missionary advantage of mobility, but marrieds have the missionary advantage of hospitality” is shortsighted. Many singles (myself included) do not have the advantage of mobility. Just because we are without family does not mean that we do not have to support ourselves. The cost of living for a single adult is not one-fourth of that of a family of four. Until the church is willing to support us in ministry, it will never be easy for singles to have ministry as their dominant activity in life.

HEIDI YODER

Denver, Colo.

Clapp is to be commended for his suggestion of making celibacy a credible option for homosexuals. Evangelicals, he emphasizes, must make it clear that singles are “in no sense second best.” This is an especially welcome comment at a time of discrimination because of the (somewhat mistaken) belief that singles are more susceptible to AIDS, and, more important, that they don’t carry their obligations in society. Real personal freedom and emotional security comes from faith in God, not roles.

BILL BOUSHKA

Arlington, Va.

Who is a prophet?

Wayne Grudem’s article “Why Christians Can Still Prophesy” [Sept. 16] has an interesting concept of the meaning of prophecy in the New Testament. I wonder if he considered that the gospel writers consistently used “prophet” in the same sense as did the O.T. writers. There were many O.T. prophets (Gad, Nathan, etc.) who added nothing to the Scriptures. Why should we believe that Paul demoted the gift of prophecy to merely human words and not that revealed by the Spirit of God?

CARROLL V. BRAUER

Article continues below

Westminster, Colo.

Grudem’s careful exegesis seems rooted in his failure to observe a more biblical distinction—between the “work of the Lord” and the infallible measuring stick of Scripture. Since the Old Testament often mentions prophets whose prophecies are not recorded, we may be sure that many things—including our witness for Christ—may be to varying degrees the “word of the Lord,” without belonging to the Canon.

CRAIG S. KEENER

Durham, N.C.

I found Grudem’s article to be a well-managed approach to a difficult and controversial subject. It was helpful.

REV. NICK DESMOND

First Christian Church

inslow, Ariz.

Christianity or Republicanism?

I was disappointed with your article “Republicans or Reaganites?” and with Kim Lawton’s attempt to equate Republicanism with Christianity [News, Sept. 16]. Reagan can joke that when he gets to the “home of the saints, they’d all be Republicans.” However, the Republican party’s platform is not the platform Jesus established while on Earth. In fact, any examination of the Gospels will find Jesus condemning the Pharisees for considering themselves to be more righteous than anyone else as a more grievous and oft-mentioned sin than all of his other teachings combined.

KAL USMAN

Knoxville, Tenn.

Letters are welcome. Brevity is preferred, and all 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.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: