Letters

Judging Humanists

Terry Muck really made me jump out of my chair (“God and Man in Buffalo,” Jan. 13). Who dismisses the humanists as devils incarnate? I am confident that Billy Graham does not, and I hope no evangelical indulges in such judgment (notice I said hope). So often we evangelicals assign ourselves the places of honor at “the feast,” knowing we truly are the ones entitled to be distinguished guests.

My guess is that we are in for a rude awakening—which may be the springboard for our rehabilitation in the hereafter. For the here and now, let’s be thankful the humanists are concerned about human rights, pollution, and peace, and respond to their invitation for “dialogue and negotiations.”

Certainly we can learn from them; can we, in dialogue, make the finished product of Christianity (us) credible enough so they may want to hear us out? We can, I think, only if we can be tolerant of their beliefs and accepting of them as persons made in the image of God.

Aline Talsma

Kalamazoo, Mich.

Muck’s piece was reasonably fair, though one cannot really grasp the depth and breadth of the humanist movement in one week, any more than one could the depth and breadth of Christianity in a like period. Muck’s article points to the importance of dialogue and understanding between humanists and evangelicals (and all other religious and/or philosophical traditions). After all, we are neighbors in a shrinking nation and world.

Edd Doerr

American Humanist Association

Amherst, N.Y.

A Ludicrous Statement?

In response to the editorial “Flesh-and-Blood Priorities” [Jan. 13], I would like to make the following points: First, it was stated that “a strong defense is necessary.” To whom? And for what? A strong defense appears to be necessary in order to ensure our physical survival and our enjoyment of certain material comforts and political liberties. These may all be good things; however, the end does not justify the means. If we must threaten innocent women and children with thermonuclear destruction, even if this is in response to a prior perceived threat, this is not moral and cannot be justified on Christian grounds.

Second, it was stated that “the so-called government safety net seemed secure to assist those who find themselves in destitute poverty.” This is a ludicrous statement. If nothing else, the spectacle of thousands of homeless individuals who are certainly in destitute poverty belies this fallacy.

As long as we decide as a nation to spend billions of dollars on dead-end products such as nuclear weapons, tanks, etc., we will not be able to afford prosperity for all.

Jeremy C. Klein, M.D.

Salem, W.V.

Your recent editorial urges President Bush to question “the wisdom of our present defense build-up.” I agree that there is room for fat removal. Redundant bases, bloated pensions, and $400 hammers need trimming. Regarding the size of our defense commitment, there is only one formula. Our defense must be adequate to our global commitments and adequate to the actual threat. We are faced in Europe with Warsaw Pact numerical superiority of 2½:1 in manpower, tanks, planes, and missiles. We are spending about 6 percent of our annual gross national product on defense—about the same as during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years. The Russians are spending 20 percent-plus of their gross national product on the military.

The most compassionate thing our government has done for almost a half-century has been to maintain our freedom with peace by providing a credible defense. Is six cents on every dollar we earn too much to maintain that credibility?

Stanley R. French

Ormond Beach, Fla.

Christians In The Ncc?

Randy Frame, in his article on the National Council of Churches [News, Jan. 13], states that the NCC “represents some 42 million Christians.” Apparently Frame totaled up the denominational membership in the NCC and came up with that figure. The overwhelming majority of NCC membership is made up of Protestant denominations. Most, if not all, are controlled by liberal theology. Therefore the number of evangelicals in each of these communions is small. In any case, evangelicals are a distinct minority in the NCC. The biblical definition of a Christian is John 3:3, “Ye must be born again.” The mainline Protestant NCC denominations reject that injunction as being simplistic.

For Frame to equate church membership with being Christian is simplistic and unscriptural.

David A. Williams

Arlington, Va.

Message Of Encouragement

I heaved a sigh of relief when I read the article “Confronting the New Age” [Jan. 13]: I finally heard what I’ve needed to hear. I was expert at identifying evil, and had a growing fear of Satan that was leading me into retreat. This balanced perspective opened my eyes and was a message of encouragement. I’m revived and ready again to “fight the good fight.”

Lisa Fijal

Winter Springs, Fla.

Lessons From History

In an otherwise challenging and much-needed article on celibacy and sexuality [“Beyond the Stiff Upper Lip,” Jan. 13], Tim Stafford makes an astounding omission in his rehearsal of monastic history. He writes, “[R]ather than going out into the world and preaching the gospel as Jesus and Paul had, [the monks] removed themselves from people out into the desert. (Later religious orders, however, such as the Franciscans and the Jesuits, were quite evangelistic.)”

The omission is all those Benedictines and Celtic monks and Byzantine monks who throughout the Dark Ages and Middle Ages preached the gospel to nothing less than the whole of Europe. It is arguable that the greatest evangelistic force in the world’s history was the self-sacrificial efforts of precisely those ancient monks. Stafford’s criticism of monastic “antimaterial, antisex, antifemale ideology” is perhaps pertinent in a discussion of early Middle Eastern hermits and cenobites, and even then it needs qualifying and careful study so as to avoid making a simplistic assessment; but such criticism must not cause us to forget what we all owe the monks. We owe them, literally, a big, belated “thanks” for the gospel.

Fr. Addison H. Hart

Saint Philip’s Church

Charleston, S.C.

Ad Or Ct Statement?

Since there was no disclaimer or indication that it was an advertisement, are we to assume that CT is now wedded to the Danvers Statement on manhood and womanhood [Jan. 13]? Where the moral underpinnings are at least debatable, I prefer good journals to maintain neutrality so both sides can be fairly aired.

Please tell me that CT has not completely bought into the notion that women as spiritual leaders (and acknowledged as such by the church—hence, ordained) is an unscriptural position.

William Richardson

Andrews University

Berrien Springs, Mich.

The Danvers Statement spread should have been labeled “Advertisement,” for that’s what it was.—Eds.

What Makes An Alcoholic?

I was disappointed in your coverage of alcohol addiction in the December issue [CT Institute], My dad was an alcoholic, as well as my sister, myself, and several children. Alcohol is just like diabetes; it is a disease that, if activated, will control itself. Your articles severely missed the physiological foundations of alcoholism that are generally accepted in treatment today.

To the extent that spiritual, theological, and psychological discussions of alcoholism miss the foundational physiological basis of the disease, they only contribute to a prolonged ignorance in the addict as he searches for a method of control that will never work unless it results in no first drink. We lose many from full-time service for the Lord because they stop drinking for the wrong reason, without knowing the full truth. Bible knowledge, will power, and responsible living have never helped an alcoholic if he takes one drink. This is the bottom line, regardless of spiritual, intellectual, material, or physical conditions.

James L. Martin

Washington, D.C.

As a recovering alcoholic and codependent, I certainly respect CT’s right to question the validity of the disease concept of codependency, but it is unclear what you have to offer someone like myself as an alternative.

Herbert Fingarette criticizes the chemical dependence treatment centers for having an economic stake in fostering the disease concept of alcoholism. Perhaps, perhaps not. But when we are looking at the disease concept, the bottom line is Alcoholics Anonymous. AA was begun in 1935 by recovering drunks—laypeople—not chemical addictions counselors. They were not looking for high-sounding abstract theories; they were struggling to keep themselves from dying from alcoholism. I struggle too. We get enough brickbats from the hard-drinking crowd. I did not anticipate it from evangelicals, although I grew up in an evangelical church.

Maybe it will continue to be the Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, and mainline Protestants who will be enriched by recovering alcoholics, addicts, and codependents who find a Higher Power, and a home within their ranks.

John I.

Bloomington, Ill.

Great articles on codependence! Since your magazine is aimed at American Christians it does a good job of covering “our” issues, but one that you missed is sports mania. Add that to your codependency list. Our churches (and pastors) allow this “disease’s” growth to imperceptibly crowd out our Philippians 2 understanding of Christian servant-hood. Sports for exercise versus sports for entertainment is like marital sex versus pornography. One is essential; the other is a sin. Address sports mania!

Also, why not mention the strategic, and well-organized, work of the Seventh-day Adventists in detoxifying codependents? Their organizations have been at it a long time.

Duane Covrig

Napa, Calif.

When I was a teenager in the 1930s my parents and church told me to adopt a few self-disciplines if I wanted to live the good life. Three of the negatives were: (1) Don’t smoke; you will hurt yourself and annoy others. (2) Don’t drink alcohol; you might hurt yourself; could injure others. (3) Don’t adulterate your sex life; you are certain to hurt both yourself and others. Mentors warned me to expect ridicule as a puritanical prude.

Half a century has elapsed. The public is beginning to wise up to the first two negatives: (1) They are turning thumbs down on smoking and resorting to education and to legislation to discourage smoking. (2) They are beginning to question unbridled consumption of alcohol (and other drugs). There is increasing education (and laws are imminent) to discourage consumption of alcohol (and other drugs).

Will the public ever wise up to number 3 and recognize the connection between (a) individuals choosing to adulterate their sex lives and (b) much of the social ills of teenage pregnancy, abortion, venereal disease, and AIDS? When will the nation (parents, schools, churches, media) begin to educate teenagers to refrain from adulterating their sex lives if they want to live the good life?

John W. Alexander

Madison, Wis.

A C. S. Lewis Original

Hoping that one issue raised in The C. S. Lewis Hoax [Books, Dec. 9, 1988]—the authenticity of at least one of the works published posthumously in The Dark Tower and Other Stories—can be laid to rest, I can attest that “The Man Born Blind” was indeed written by Lewis.

The version Hooper found was in a notebook given him by Lewis’s brother. Unknown to Hooper until last year, when I acquired it, and to Mrs. Lindskoog, whom I phoned after reading her book, a slightly revised manuscript titled “Light” was sent to an unknown journal that neither published it nor returned it. Nearly 60 years later, it turned up in the hands of an obscure English bookdealer, who sold it to my bookdealer in Oxford.

Written on four pages of faded, lined foolscap, the handwriting is clearly Lewis’s, identical to the handwriting in more than 100 pages of Lewis letters and other documents in my collection.

Edwin W. Brown, M.D.

Indianapolis, Ind.

The Great, Late, Local Church

There exists in the earthly realm a point where time and eternity meet ever so briefly—a place that lags seven to ten minutes behind the surrounding human time zone. Call it Christian Standard Time (CST). Find it at your local church.

Last Sunday, when we took the grandkids to church, the nursery worker didn’t show up until 11:08, so we didn’t make it to the sanctuary until after the first hymn. Naturally, we were concerned—we were short of the proper number of Sunday service minutes. But we were able to make up the time we missed; the pastor’s sermon ran ten minutes over.

I was ready to bring up the problem the next time our board met, but when no one else arrived for the 7:30 meeting until 7:42, I decided my new business was old news, and waited until we adjourned at … (you fill in the rest).

“Doesn’t it bother you?” I asked a deacon friend.

“Oh, no,” he told me. “It’s scriptural. The Book of Joel says that God will pour out his Spirit in the latter days. And didn’t Jesus say in John 7, ‘For you, any time is right’?”

Suddenly a lot of things made sense: How Joshua was able to make the sun stand still; why evangelists always say “The buses will wait”; why there are late registrations for retreats; why we have a late service on Sunday; why there are double asterisks in the bulletin indicating when late worshipers will be seated. In our church, asterisks run all the way down to the closing hymn.

I know I’m guilty of a little tardiness now and then. So I figure any effort to reset the clock should begin with me. So I just now made it my New Year’s resolution to be on time.

EUTYCHUS

SPEAKING OUT

Sunday Is No Day for Shopping

My friend Keith, a meat cutter, works on Sunday. He doesn’t like it, and he doesn’t understand why he has to work in the morning when hardly anyone shops. But then noon comes, and the store fills with people wearing their Sunday best, straight from church.

“It’s a shame when Christians have to work on Sunday,” a member of Keith’s church once said to him at the meat counter. Keith held his anger, but what he wanted to shout was, “If Christians wouldn’t shop on Sunday, Christians wouldn’t have to work on Sunday.”

There was a time when almost everyone believed that people needed a weekly respite from the hurly-burly of buying and selling; one day you could count on for rest, family, and the reminder of your place among the people of God. In the 1950s, my mother knew Sunday was coming, and she planned for it. Buying the roast and carrots was a Saturday routine, as much a part of our preparation for Sunday as the evening baths we squeezed in between the adventures of Matt Dillon and Paladin.

Of course, blue laws made this sort of planning necessary: everything was closed on Sundays. Those times have been trod under by our desire for convenience. We have gained a shopping day, but we have lost much more. For Keith, as well as for millions of other workers who must serve seven-day-a-week consumerism, we have sold out Sunday.

Is Sunday as a day of rest still relevant? God’s creation of the Sabbath established more than just a pattern of work and rest; it established the values of community, freedom, and redemption. The Sabbath ministered to basic human needs—physical, emotional, and spiritual. The Lord’s Day is designed to meet those same needs. It embodies eternal values. It offers a respite from chronic materialism. It offers a chance to regain our bearings as we gather as a body of believers and witness to the truth of the resurrection.

“Any day can be the Lord’s Day,” a Christian store manager once told me. “If Sunday isn’t available to us, we can spend another day with the Lord.” While he is not strictly wrong, his advice neglects an important part of the Lord’s Day.

The day is also a symbol that declares we need each other. We need a time that brings us out of our isolation and into the gathered community of the people of God. The store manager’s words are a reflection of our culture’s individualism, so ingrained in each of us that we have applied it to our faith and dismembered the body of Christ.

The selling of Sunday cannot be blamed solely on greedy merchants, gutless employees, or materialistic non-Christians. Much of the blame must be shouldered by the Christians.

Our shopping malls are filled on the Lord’s Day with Christians who must be served by other Christians. One corporate executive told me that Sunday is now the second-busiest retail day of the week. People must work on Sunday because so many people shop on Sunday.

We need not return to blue laws to restore the Lord’s Day. We share society with those who place no special value on Sunday; certainly as mature Christians, we can live out our values without the clout of secular laws. We need only to make a choice not to shop on Sunday—not as a boycott, but as an act of consideration for the Lord and for those who otherwise must serve us.

God gave us one day in seven to serve our deepest needs. Yet, like Esau, we are now willing to sell our birthright rather than suffer a momentary discomfort. Just because we can shop on Sunday does not mean we must shop on Sunday. We can choose to step beyond the economic struggle to a resting place. Surely we can plan our lives to allow one day to stand as a symbol of our highest values. Sunday is the day to declare our independence of anything that is not of God.

Judith Loback is a free-lance writer living in Seattle.

Speaking Out offers responsible Christians a forum for their views on contemporary issues. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

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