Letters

The Glory Shone

I always come away enriched by Philip Yancey’s articles, but he topped them all with the account of the Messiah concert he attended [“Hallelujah!” Dec. 15]. I wept as I grasped some of the significance of the God who thundered on Mount Sinai sending his Son in a form no one could fear: a helpless baby. Besides giving us a greater appreciation of Handel’s masterpiece, Yancey has given us a grand overview of God’s masterpiece of redemption through Jesus. God must have put Yancey in that “out-of-body state” to clear his mind—and eventually ours—of the material, everyday things that usually cloud our vision of God’s glory. I’m thankful that for a few moments during the Christmas season, the glory shone through for me.

Mary Pittard

San Antonio, Tex.

The Message Is Important

Thanks for the editorial “Epitaph for the Eighties” [Dec. 15]. I say Amen, especially for the statement “the message is ultimately far more important than the medium.”

Only man-made plans need adjusting as their designers learn, or as they desire to please their peers. The philosophy of a humiliated Son of God fits all who are willing to wear it, not those who feel they must adjust, change, decorate, or neutralize that gospel to accommodate it to modern thought and lifestyles.

Lyn Allison Yeager

Smithton United Methodist Church

Smithton, Mo.

In reference to your editorial: Many evangelicals did not give carte blanche support to Ronald Reagan’s political agenda. In fact, at least a few of us didn’t even vote for him! Your presumption that all evangelicals jumped for joy when Reagan took office does little but give ammunition to the critics who maintain that theologically conservative Christianity is a captive of the radical Religious Right.

Rick Fannin

Cary, N.C.

Left-Brain, Right-Brain Worship

Harry Boonstra’s book review, “Right-Brained Worship” [People in the Presence of God, Dec. 15], is yet another attempt to promote left brain/right brain psychology as a scientific fact and, worse, as scriptural fact. It is neither.

Much data question the “fact” of left brain/right brain psychology. Yet Boonstra calls the book “solid” and says “left brain orientation has often produced cerebral, rigid, wordy worship.” Can Liesch and Boonstra produce scientific data for this opinion?

Dr. R. W. Henson

Waukesha, Wis.

From Unbelief To Faith

Michael Maudlin, in his review of Piercing the Darkness, by Frank Peretti, states that “the theology is a little loose.” He doesn’t see much of an emphasis on human responsibility. In other words, “The Devil made me do it.” Never in his review is the main character, Sally Beth Roe, mentioned. Sally’s quest is for “absolutes—a genuine right and a genuine wrong.” Her reading of Psalm 119 leads her to the insight that guilt is a fact, not just a feeling, which at one time in her life was abhorrent. She admits asking the spirit guide, Jonas, into her mind and body, and though initially she blamed him for the death of her infant, she later says, “I killed my baby.” From unbelief to faith in Christ’s atoning work, human responsibility is alive and well in Sally’s life. Her character epitomizes the New Age man or woman totally deceived by the evil of the movement. Sally’s darkness is pierced, and there is hope for her and for countless others.

Joan Vander Hart

Sioux Center, Iowa

An Immodest Proposal

Like all good evangelicals, I say thumbs down to pornography. But I say we are going about the battle all wrong. Take the effort against Dial-a-Porn. You win a battle here and there, put a sleazeball or two out of business for a few weeks. But let’s not kid ourselves: It’s just a matter of time before they’re back in some form or another.

The answer, my dear brothers and sisters, is not to crush the opposition, but to outsmart them, to whip them at their own game. Which leads to my proposal: Dial-an-Evangelist. We could advertise in all the same places as the porn merchants, lead “customers” on just a bit, give them a number to call. Maybe start it off with some heavy breathing as an attention grabber. Then nail ’em right between the eyes with a spiritual law or two—maybe all four if there’s time. They’ll be evangelized before they know what hit ’em!

It’s a foolproof plan, because the key to evangelism is getting a captive audience. And how do you improve on somebody calling you so they can hear the gospel? And get them to pay for it to boot: $2.00 a shot, 45¢ for each additional sermon illustration! Proceeds go, naturally, to charity, as this would be a nonprofit ministry.

All right, I admit the whole thing would be slightly misleading. And it might be hard to find an evangelist who would compromise his integrity. Then again.…

EUTYCHUS

What Financial Accountability?

Regarding Terry Muck’s editorial “Healing the Church—After Bakker” [Nov. 17]: I agree with his observation about the weakness of the parachurch approach to ministry in contrast to that of the local church. Dare we say it? Parachurch organizations have hurt more than helped the cause of Christ in this culture.

But I disagree strongly with his report of good news regarding the ethical and financial accountability of religious leaders like Bakker. The inference that the advent of ECFA and EFICOM means the American donor can sleep a little easier tonight is unfortunately inaccurate. Nineteen years of work in religious broadcasting taught me that the loose cannon on the deck of the church is the parachurch leader. I’m convinced the only regulation of such free-wheeling entrepreneurs that will protect the donating public must come from the government.

I attended the organizing meeting of ECFA ten years ago and have watched its activities. I have concluded that it, and the almost stillborn EFICOM, are phantom policing agencies. They leave the contributing public as exposed and vulnerable to fraud as if neither existed. The Bakker story is a compelling example of this point.

Gil Alexander-Moegerle

San Dimas, Calif.

Your point is well taken: “The court decision lances the boil, and healing now needs to take place.” Thanks for addressing the matter. But you tuck into the editorial an unnecessary affirmation. You say, “Bakker is part of the body of Christ.” Is this a statement of verifiable fact, or a pronouncement based on a theological dogma quite outside the editorial’s argument? I do not argue that your editorial should have said the opposite—that “Bakker is not a part of the body of Christ.” Who, on earth, knows? But such an unsupported pronouncement, without intending to, baptizes as legitimate the antinomianism too common in the church. It is neither appropriate, nor necessary, to make such affirmation with reference to a person whose outrageous and unrepentant conduct has shocked both the church and the unbelieving world.

Bishop Donald N. Bastian

The Free Methodist Church in Canada

Mississauga, Ont., Canada

What Bakker did was wrong; I have no qualms about that. What he did was take advantage of the ignorance of immature Christians; and that unknowing condition of believers is primarily the fault of the leadership within the body of Christ. If Christian leaders were teaching believers how to differentiate between the Solid Rock and the shifting sand, then situations like the one Bakker took advantage of would be fewer and farther between.

You say the ministry of Jim Bakker has been a painful swelling on the body and liken it to a “boil.” But how is it that you do not call for prayer and intercession for his healing?

Rev. Gregory L. Brown

Good Shepherd Home Fellowships

Bishop, Calif.

SPEAKING OUT

Jewishness Is Not Legalism

Working with a ministry that plants messianic (Jewish-Christian) congregations, I have accepted the fact that the Jewish community will resist the gospel.

What especially pains me is the response of our “adopted” spiritual family: fellow evangelical Christians. They often attempt to discredit our Bible-believing, soul-winning congregations by passing along popular fallacies about messianic congregations.

Most widespread is the charge that we are “exclusivistic.” Nothing is further from the truth. Not only are non-Jewish believers received as equal members of the body, but they also have the same opportunity to become trustees, deacons, and elders. Other charges include complaints that we “revel in our Jewishness” (though, in fact, we “revel” in the Lord Yeshua), and that we attempt to avoid the offense of the Cross by diluting the gospel with our Jewishness (though we are often persecuted because we communicate the gospel too clearly for the unsaved Jewish community’s sensibilities). It is even charged that we are “deceiving and ensnaring ignorant Jews by our Jewish trappings.” (Is every “First Baptist Church” ensnaring ignorant Gentiles with gentile trappings?)

There is one problem behind all these accusations: Some Christians seem to think that true Christianity has only one cultural expression—gentile.

This is not only a misunderstanding of the instrumental purpose of their own culture, but of the gospel that, to be authentic, must be freed from any single cultural expression (Acts 15; Gal. 2). The apostle Paul saw that if the gospel were to have significant impact on gentile culture, it would have to be communicated apart from its Jewish context. No doubt this disturbed the brethren in the Jerusalem community—who only understood the gospel in its Jewish frame of reference. Now the situation has been reversed, and some gentile Christians are the ones becoming disturbed as the gospel is lived out through a relevant Jewish lifestyle.

Why do many North American Christian leaders encourage black Christians, Spanish-speaking Christians, and Chinese Christians to express the gospel fully through their own particular culture—but not Jewish believers? One pastor put it this way: “It’s too dangerous for Jews to have Jewish-style worship—it would naturally lead to legalism in their congregation.”

But Jewishness is not legalism. It is not legalistic to utilize culture for worship and witness. It is legalistic to depend upon culture for right standing with God. Paul’s problem with the legalists of his day was that they equated their traditions with salvation or holiness.

Fortunately, the recent “Willowbank Declaration” states: “We affirm that Jewish people who come to faith in Messiah have liberty before God to observe or not to observe traditional Jewish customs and ceremonies that are consistent with the Christian Scriptures.”

Nevertheless, many are still confused on this issue. They must think that singing in a minor key or celebrating the story of Esther at Purim will somehow lead messianic believers back into animal sacrifices or dependence on works-righteousness. But certainly Jewish culture is no more likely to lure a Jew into legalism than Northern European culture is to lead Gentiles into worshiping Thor or Wotan.

North American Christians should reconsider the distinction between culture and gospel—and thus evaluate fellowship by the plumb line of Scripture.

Then, they should follow the example of Barnabas, who on hearing of a “gentile” ministry in Antioch, investigated and found a genuine work of God.

Finally, North American Christians should encourage fledgling congregations as fellow members of the body and praise God for this effective form of ministry amongst the Jews.

Sam Nadler is executive director of Chosen People Ministries in Charlotte, North Carolina.

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

A Splendid Piece Of Work

American Lutherans, of which I am one, must be pleased with “American Lutherans: Here They Stand” [Nov. 3], It was a splendid piece of work! Dishno, Nafzger, and Maudlin all wrote clear and concise articles. You are to be congratulated and thanked.

I want especially to commend Samuel Nafzger’s article, “What They Believe.” Our theology often seems confusing and contradictory to neophytes and outsiders because of our dual emphasis on law and gospel. He expressed the distinction we make with clarity, retaining the emphasis on grace.

Kurt Wall

Mt. Tabor Lutheran Church

Salt Lake City, Utah

I have questioned my qualifications as a Lutheran because of not having come up through the traditional childhood baptism and confirmation. Since reading your articles, I am proud to be called a Lutheran, even an ELCA member, which I am. It should have saved me a lot of mental anguish if I had been brought up that way and appreciated it.

Vernon Holst

Newell, S.D.

As to whether we Lutherans are “evangelical,” I for one opposed the use of the term in the name of the new church on the grounds that, within the North American context, the term was more confusing than descriptive. It seems to me to be another example of our holding on to the “old country” while ignoring the realities of the “new country.” Overall, the whole section was a pleasant surprise. But given Kantzer’s attitude, he may be waiting for a long time for us to match his expectations of us.

Rev. Greg Anderson

Prince of Peace Lutheran Church

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Several times in the issue it seemed there was misunderstanding of why Lutherans are not united if, for example, “all of the Lutheran bodies in the U.S. share an identical confession of faith.” The answer is simple: not all Lutherans “share” the same approach to the Lutheran Confessions. ELS, LCMS, and WELS pastors and congregations subscribe unconditionally to the Lutheran confessions because they are a correct exposition of Scripture. Most other Lutherans subscribe to the Lutheran Confessions only insofar as they give a correct exposition of Scripture. The different approaches to confessional subscription among Lutherans parallel the differences between those who affirm that the Bible is (unconditionally) the Word of God and those who merely say the Bible contains (conditionally) the Word of God.

Those who place conditions on the authority of Scripture and/or their denomination’s confession will find themselves on a different path than those who subscribe unconditionally to the same. This is why the differences between the ELS, LCMS, and WELS (and some smaller, confessionally minded synods) are relatively minor compared to their differences with the ELCA.

Rev. Steve O. Scheiderer

Grace (LCMS) Lutheran Church

Paris, Tex.

Children Of Divorce

The article “The Biggest Divorce” [Nov. 17] was not only well written and thoughtful, but very necessary. I especially appreciated the suggestions given for churches to help those dealing with divorce. It seems to be a subject many churches shy away from. Considering the many social problems existing today, it is important that people be reminded of divorce and encouraged to help.

Jonathan De Mol

Sioux Center, Iowa

When Does The Decade Really End?

I am fascinated by the cover of the November 17 issue of CT. It would have been excellent for a November issue in 1990. The cover implied the last decade of the century begins on January 1, 1990; but the last decade does not begin until January 1, 1991. The next millennium, the new century, does not begin until January 1, 2001, with the year 2000 the final year of the twentieth century. I assume you know that, but someone seems to have had a slip of memory.

I am hopeful, as we draw near to the end of the century, that people will be clear as to when the new century will begin.

Arthur C. Tennies

New Washington, Ind.

We know, we know! But it is hard to swim against the tide. We tend to agree with New York Times columnist William Safire, who says the people who insist on waiting for 1991—or 2001—to celebrate a new era “are going to miss all the parties.… Such linguistic and mathematical correctness gets tromped on and flattened by the hooves of the happily inaccurate herd, leaving a small knot of hard-faced language protesters holding a sign that reads ‘Not Yet’ amid the cork-popping celebrants of the new millennium.”—Eds.

Although many of us may desperately wish that it could be so, the road we travel into the twenty-first century has no yellow stripe down the middle!

Becky Merrill Groothuis

Eugene, Oreg.

Book Awards And Popular Opinion

It is disappointing to see that your nominations in History and Biography for best book of the year [Books, Nov. 17] exclude most of the best serious Christian scholarship, including several works of Christianity Today Institute fellows or resource scholars. It is especially ironic that you exclude Nathan Hatch’s The Democratization of American Religion, which already has been awarded a prize by the American Society of Church History and, I am told, is Yale Press’s nominee for the Pulitzer Prize in History. Hatch has long argued that the evangelical impulse to decide everything by popular opinion polls leads to anti-intellectualism. CT does not even wait for the results of the poll.

George Marsden

Duke University

Durham, N.C.

Given the opportunity to nominate appropriate books, Yale Press selected titles other than Hatch’s volume for our list.—Eds.

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