Letters/Eutychus: October 22, 1990

Binding Satan

It was with much interest that I read the articles [on Satan], “Giving the Devil His Due,” “Missions and the Demonic,” and the “Life and Times of the Prince of Darkness” [Aug. 20]. Some observations: For example: J. Dudley Woodberry, professor of Islamic studies at Fuller Theological Seminary, [is quoted in a sidebar] as saying that “exorcism seems to be a significant part of conversions from Islam.” This is also true of people who choose Jesus Christ as their Lord if they have been involved in cults, exposed to generational (or their own) occult practice, engaged in sexual perversion, or suffered emotional and/or physical abuse as children.

I have observed that the conservative evangelical church deals primarily with counseling on a psychological level in order to put people back together. This is not unimportant; Jesus wants us to grow in wholeness and emotional health. Something is lacking, however: The gift of discerning bondage by the demonic and addressing it is seldom a part of counseling, and oppression continues.

Nancy Laws Weagraff

South Orleans, Mass.

While your articles on the Devil acknowledge that demonic powers influence the social order, they focus on satanic activity in bizarre phenomena and individual lives. Although the demonic surely operates in these latter two realms, your articles underplay the extent to which the Bible—by using terms like “principalities, dominions, thrones,” “prince of this world”—finds it pervading the socio-political sphere. To be sure, the Scriptures do not directly identify the demonic with any government, institution, or ideology, yet find it operating powerfully through many of these. When this is underemphasized, we become blind to the extent to which the demonic confronts us not only in the spectacular and the highly personal, but also in the pressures, attitudes, and structures that surround us daily.

Thomas N. Finger

Harrisonburg, Va.

The two articles [on Satan] were well done, but these articles dealt primarily with the Devil and demon possession, while little or nothing was said about demon obsession. This, it seems to me, is worthy of an article by itself.

Harvey W. Marks

Lakewood, Colo.

I wonder why Arnold did not include Jesus’ encounter with Satan as told in Matthew 4 and Luke 4? If Jesus was temptable but never became guilty of sin, then temptation for him was not only subjective as a temptable human being but also objective from an outside force already evil. It seems to me that to deny the fact of Satan’s existence is to make Jesus guilty of subjective evil.

George E. Vartenisian

Unionville, Va.

What Jeffrey Burton Russell said about being a regular churchgoer—yet virtually never hearing a message preached about evil or sin—is a shame, but true. The Devil’s greatest tool is that of disguise and deception. The fact that many Christians don’t believe he exists is his greatest weapon. But our lack of understanding doesn’t negate the fact of his existence any more than the atheist’s denial of God denies his existence.

Pastor Terry Forer

Calvary Christian Fellowship

Abita Springs, La.

Too Graphic A Devil

I enjoyed reading “Giving the Devil His Due.” But the horrifying [cover] picture on the front page prevented me from reading the article right away, and I purposefully turned to the back cover each time after reading.

Rossia

Walnut, Calif.

I do not know whether this is due to artist Michael Annino’s talent or my son’s spiritual sensitivity, but here is what happened just after your August 20, 1990, issue arrived in the mail: My three-year-old son took one look at the cover, threw the magazine to the floor, and recoiled, saying, “Mommy, I hate that guy!”

Beth Spring

McLean, Va.

The Billy Graham Center Museum was so impressed with the cover art that they purchased the original from the artist.—Eds.

Whatever Happened to Goober?

I was complaining about TV the other day when my friend’s retort caught me up short: “They’re just giving us what we want,” he said.

At first, I disagreed. I didn’t ask for “Night Court.” But the more I thought about it, the more I realized he was right. All the networks really want to do is dish out programs that people will watch. They couldn’t care less if it’s “Doogie Howser” or “Father Knows Best.”

Personally, I liked “Father Knows Best.” And “Lassie,” “The Phil Silvers Show,” “Topper” (remember that one?), and “Bonanza.” Still do. So it must be that all those good, clean shows went off the air because no one ever hooked up a Nielsen rating doodad to my TV. As a matter of fact, I can’t recall knowing anyone who’s had a Nielsen gadget connected to his television. So where do they get these 1,600 TVs to monitor America’s television tastes?

My friend seemed to know, and before he finished telling me, I wished I’d never asked: “They go down the street to my neighbor who just moved out on his third wife to take up residence with my other neighbor’s babysitter,” he explained. “The babysitter’s a 17-year-old boy who entered detox at age 12. Both are into cosmic consciousness because it helps them ‘tune in to the rhythms of the universe.’ Neither watches TV—they leave that to the six-year-old from my neighbor’s brief relationship with the scorekeeper from his bowling team.”

I guess that explains it. Except for one thing. I read somewhere that according to that same rating system, Robert Schuller is the most watched television evangelist. How can those people who watch “Married with Children” possibly enjoy Robert Schuller?

EUTYCHUS

An Accessible Message For Teens

Larry Poston’s “The Adult Gospel” [Aug. 20] tells us that the average age of conversion to Christianity “in America” is 16, while the average age of “Western” converts to Islam is 31. From this he concludes that there is something different about the way the Christian and the Muslim messages are presented. I am sure there are differences, but there is a more viable explanation, I believe, for the difference in these average ages.

The U.S. and other Western nations are nominally Christian; certainly the Christian witness is far more accessible than the Muslim witness in Western countries. How many American 16-year-olds are intimately exposed to Muslims? Furthermore, if they do hear Islamic teachings as well as Christian teachings, it is far easier for 16-year-olds to announce to their parents that they are Christian than Muslim.

On the other hand, people in their thirties who have the independence to seek out non-Judeo-Christian religions and find reason to reject the Christian message would not need to worry much about parental disapproval. I wonder what the average ages are for converts to Islam and to Christianity in Morocco or Pakistan?

Emil J. Posavac

Loyola University

Chicago, Ill.

The author cites the studies of Edwin Starbuck and Virgil Gillespie in which both researchers determined the “average age” of conversion to Christianity (15.6 and 16 years, respectively).

To me, the term average age implies that the ages of those in a sample were totalled and that total was divided by the number of people in the sample. Thus, to say that the average age of conversion is 16 could be quite misleading.

Jill Miller

Lebanon, Pa.

Self-preservation, moral motives, conviction of sin, response to teaching and example, and social pressure may be sufficient to win some teenagers to the kingdom but probably are not enough to hold on to those who engage in serious thought at a later age. If Christianity holds the “truth” like no other philosophy or faith, it needs to be demonstrated and not ignored. God cannot be diminished by recognizing truth. It is not the “foolishness of the gospel” that turns men away; it is rather the foolishness of Christians that taints the gospel message.

Doug Barnnock

Lake Oswego, Oreg.

Racism Is Racism

Ben Patterson voiced a much-needed caution to balance the mindless euphoria that characterizes America’s reaction to Nelson Mandela [“South Africa’s Ambiguous Hero,” Editorial, Aug. 20]. True, Mandela has suffered much, and unjustly. But that does not make him a great man. He will become great when he grasps and espouses the principle of nonviolence. There is no moral power in the use of force. There is tremendous moral power in standing for truth and justice without resorting to violence!

Pastor David E. Thomas

Village SDA Church

S. Lancaster, Mass.

Patterson says the “ecclesiastical Left” is particularly susceptible to embracing “a political movement or messiah” in an uncritical manner. And these movements and messiahs are later exposed as being less than honorable.

To use his own phrase, “Let’s get real.” Was it not so long ago that the theological Right embraced Ronald Reagan and his political movement? We don’t have to wait for an exposé of Reagan as “less than honorable”—just ask his astrologer. We live in a wonderful world: When you take swipes at the Left, you’d better keep things in perspective with a few humbling swipes at the Right. It’s only fair.

Kate DeSmet

Detroit, Mich.

Rather than castigate those who differ with you, why not look at their lives and work to see what good there is to emulate?

Marty Hansen

Chicago, Ill.

Inclusive Language In The Nrsv

I was very disappointed that in reviewing the NRSV [Books, Aug. 20] and its use of more “inclusive” pronouns, you did not challenge Bruce Metzger’s comment that the changes “were confined to places where the original Greek and Hebrew do not necessarily imply masculine orientation.” On the face of it, this statement is absurd (English is no more gender specific than Greek or Hebrew), but a little investigation would have shown—as even Time magazine pointed out—that one of the places where these changes have had severe consequences is Psalm 8, changing “what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him” to “what are human beings” and “mortals.” This is no minor change as this passage is quoted by the writer of Hebrews, giving it a Christological interpretation.

It is clear in the old RSV that the writer of Hebrews is equating the “son of man” in Psalm 8 with Jesus, making the point that, though we do not see all things bowing in obedience to our Lord, we do see our Lord himself—a meaning utterly destroyed by the NRSV. Now it seems to say our present vision of Jesus is a foreshadowing of mankind’s glorification and rule over creation.

If a translation is going to offend or exclude anyone, I would rather it be human beings than the Son of Man. When ideology takes precedence over the natural reading of the text it makes for poor translation and bad theology. I had expected CT to be more attentive.

Christopher Hathaway

Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry

Ambridge, Pa.

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