Letters to the Editor

Meeting Medved

Two articles in your March 8 issue were tremendous. The interview “Hollywood vs. America” introduced me to a hitherto unknown Michael Medved. And then the book excerpt “The Last Temptation of Hollywood” had me banging my desk in raucous laughter. What a talented journalist! What an insightful man! What an honest critic!

Rev. Bill Solomon

Murfreesboro, Tenn.

As a writer/director, who was recently in L.A., I was excited to discover that there are over 1,000 Christian professionals in the film and television industries working to change Hollywood’s moral climate. Many see themselves as missionaries in a fertile field that holds firmly in its grasp the world’s notions about morality and the church.

Aside from the obvious patronizing of good programs and films, Christians should be praying for their brothers and sisters in Hollywood careers. Christians should also be praying for the effectiveness of parachurch organizations in Hollywood such as Master Media, Inter-Mission, Actors Co-op, Los Angeles Film Studies Center, Women in Secular Entertainment, Premise, L.A. Arts Group, Actors Fellowship, and Associates in Music.

Stan Williams

Northville, Mich.

I resent the article by Michael Medved wherein R. L. Hymers is portrayed as an anti-Semite. I have been a member of B’nai B’rith for 35 years and have been working all that time to improve relations between Christians and Jews. I know Dr. Hymers well. He has helped me on numerous occasions to improve Jewish/Christian relations.

Granted that on one occasion Dr. Hymers used poor judgment regarding a movie that seemed anti-Christian to him and millions of others. But one incident in a person’s life does not make him an anti-Semite, and I write to verify that in the last four years I have known him he has consistently and repeatedly been of help to me towards fighting anti-Semitism.

Ben Friedman

Burbank, Calif.

What you printed from the book by Medved fails to establish “the real story behind why Universal Pictures promoted a blasphemous movie.”

Should not every devoted follower of our Lord resent the film, and were not Mr. Hymers and his people right in protesting it? What is the “long history of legal problems stemming from past violent outbursts” to which Medved refers? Does not the Scripture, which every Christian preacher is called upon to proclaim, speak of impending apocalypse? Does Hymers’s physical appearance have anything to do with the position he takes?

Does the fact that Hymers’s church is not made up of the wealthy and socially elite make their cause less just or make their protest less effective? It would appear from Medved’s article that the only protest that did carry any special weight or attention was that of Hymers and his church.

Bob Jones, Chancellor

Bob Jones University

Greenville, S.C.

I am bemused at the lurid illustrations on the cover and accompanying the article, and the sensationalism in the cover title, “Hollywood’s Towering Inferno.”

It’s hard not to think CT has lost credibility in Los Angeles by its hostile caricature of the film industry. Just try extending a hand to support the good after calling Hollywood a towering inferno. Try making friends with a director after depicting directors as neanderthal gangsters. The evangelical community is not going to be salt and light in a sometimes decaying and dark industry by such a wildly irresponsible visual denunciation of Hollywood. There are fine writers and directors in the industry—some of them evangelicals—who are passionate about making good, life-affirming films.

It doesn’t help the rest of us, either, who may want to take Medved’s advice and be supportive of good films, to have to overcome the impression CT’s cover and illustrations reinforced that evangelicals are anti-Hollywood fanatics. I hope people will read Medved’s book. His concerns and indignation are articulated in a balanced, helpful, and non-sensationalized way.

Myrna R. Grant

Wheaton College

Wheaton, Ill.

Real High Tech Worship

Ever since we added on to our sanctuary, our old sound system hasn’t measured up. So the trustees voted to hire a team of “sound engineers” to put in a new system. You can’t believe the difference it makes.

For one thing, our pastor can walk all across the front of the church while he’s preaching now that he uses this “wireless” microphone clipped to his necktie. You’d be surprised how we all listen more closely, especially since that time he left the switch in the on position while he whispered to the youth pastor during a hymn.

We’ve also discovered our new system has turned some of our, um, mediocre musicians into real stars. Case in point: Sister Blather’s old standard, “His Eye Is on the Sparrow,” really hops with a full orchestral taped background and some pretty dynamic moves she’s developed, thanks to our new Tele-PrompTer and a voice-enhancing mixer board.

For really special effects, the sound guys throw in a little echo at just the right moment. You can’t imagine how words like brimstone and judgment—and then Democrat—came off when they added a touch of reverb. Of course, after the service, there was a long line of Democrats waiting to talk to the pastor about that.

But technology can solve just about anything. Pastor told the congregation the music director would send everyone a computer letter explaining how all the new equipment cannot possibly be responsible for political outbursts during the music. “Human failure,” he called it. And, considering original sin, “theologically appropriate.”

Discerning fantasy from faith

Ron Habermas [“Does Peter Pan Corrupt Our Children?” March 8] obscures an important difference between fantasy figures (Peter Pan, Santa Claus) and faith figures (God, Jesus Christ, Allah) for children. Those of fantasy are eventually falsified while those of faith are supported as real by the social world, family, church, and associates in which the child lives. Those committed to a particular faith will shield their children from any indication that the basis of the faith is not real and will counter any tendency to question that “reality.”

Habermas is correct in saying, “Faith must be grown just right.” Its “reality” requires continual nurturing, to which the prolific output of apologetics and fantasies found in Christian bookstores attests.

Kenneth H. Bonnell

Los Angeles, Calif.

The author understands neither the mechanism of faith nor the development of a child’s mind. There are two spheres or domains by which human beings process information: (1) the visual domain that historically was almost exclusively our natural environment and (2) the language domain of the spoken and written word. The visual domain inputs verifiable reality. The domain of language is able to go beyond what is verifiable to include ultimate truth.

The very existence of God and the trust in the inerrant Word are always from the language domain. It’s not just Peter Pan that corrupts our children. It’s the video medium itself in its presentation of substitute, artificial reality in the visual domain that retards and impedes their language development, abstract thinking, and ultimately their ability to deal with ultimate truth.

Now videos, even moral Christian ones, have greatly multiplied the negative effects of this substitute reality in the visual domain.

Virginia Schaeffer

Indianapolis, Ind.

Our right to free speech

Have we come to the place in the U.S. where every person and organization has the right to free speech except Christian believers and Christian movements and organizations? Steve Rabey’s article “Focus Under Fire” [News, March 8] seems to imply just that.

It has almost come to the place where any time a believer or organization opens its mouth it is labeled as “political.” What’s wrong with a Christian believer becoming involved in politics?

Reading through 1 Kings I came across what King Asa did to the sodomites in Judah (1 Kings 15:11–12). Whoever made the statement that “Evangelicals in Colorado need to decide if we’re about antigay legislation or proclaiming the gospel, and the two are not necessarily the same thing,” needs to open his Bible to that passage.

Carroll M. Swenson

Oklahoma City, Okla.

I, too, am the director of a national, evangelical Christian organization here who would like to say something about Focus’s focus on issues other than their ministry, and, like others, I wish to remain unnamed. I don’t want to deal with the stress of tangling with Focus’s strident and adversarial responses.

Most of the 50 or so Christian organizations in the Springs stick to their ministry—if Navigators, to discipling; if International Bibles, to distributing Bibles; if Young Life, to reaching teens.

But it “seems” that Focus is focusing on homosexuality, Amendment 2, abortion, pornography, and other issues in a negative way rather than “focusing on the family” or “on Christ” in a positive way. This may be why they are the target of accusations, whereas other Christian organizations in town simply carry on their respective ministries and are not targeted by such accusations.

A brother in Him

Colorado Springs, Colo.

Your article illustrates the temporal, seductive allurement of political power. Twenty years ago “psychologist and best-selling author” James Dobson concentrated on helping parents with mundane childhood problems—toilet training, reading, and social skills. Today Dobson sternly lectures Americans about his idiosyncratic views of the family; pesters George Bush and Dan Quayle about “antifamily” personnel in the previous Republican administration—while basking in the limelight of interviewing them; and heads a $78 million “ministry” seeking a “campus” in Colorado Springs.

With sadness, I’ve watched Dr. Dobson become the evangelical “Dr. Spock.”

William H. Cook

Niagara Falls, N.Y.

The article implies (incorrectly, I believe) the activity of Focus on the Family was political in nature insofar as influencing votes on the Amendment 2 legislation passed by the voters in November. The “lightning rod” at which opposition was directed was not Focus on the Family but the cross of Jesus Christ and the gospel message.

This article could have been in any secular publication in the world. It is sad that the central truth of Jesus Christ and the high standards called for in the use of the name “Christian” are not adhered to by all organizations and individuals who use it. The integrity of Focus is intact; their actions are “Christian,” not political.

Maureen G. Buck

Flint, Mich.

Forgiven by God and church

Inasmuch as I am a Christian on death row awaiting execution, thanks for Luis Palau’s editorial on the need of inmates to be forgiven by God and the church [“Notorious Conversions,” March 8]. Our flock is small, while the challenges are great. Daily I pray that instead of debating what our punishment should be, or dwelling on past sins that Christ has already forgiven, my brothers and sisters would pray for our souls, be a witness to those here yet unsaved, and support us. Both victim and offender need healing and God’s grace, and the witness of his people.

George Del Vecchio

Menard, Ill.

Mistaking means for end?

The contrast between the perspective of Richard John Neuhaus and that of his reviewer, Doug Bandow, is revealing. [“Making Money for God,” Books, March 8]. Neuhaus argues that a prosperous, free-market economy may be necessary for achieving a minimum level of economic justice. Bandow argues that a prosperous, free-market economy is sufficient for justice.

I suppose Bandow can be commended for consistently clinging to his libertarian economic ideology in the face of so many compelling biblical and historical arguments against it. If such faith were placed in God, rather than in economic theory, it would move mountains. Unfortunately, like too many Christians who are captive to secular ideologies, Bandow’s obsession with a particular economic technique has caused him to lose sight of the purpose of economics. He mistakes the means for the end.

Fred Clark

Ardmore, Pa.

The killer tobacco

Thanks for your editorial “A Tax We Can Live With” [March 8]. Someone needs to wave this flag all the time. I’ve spent my professional life, about 50 years, fighting the effects of tobacco. It is undoubtedly a killer.

Bernard V. Bowen

Madison, Tenn.

I do not smoke but I have Christian friends who do, and I do not feel the message of the gospel can be served by using this country’s tax laws to change their behavior. If, in fact, your concern is really for the health of the populace, why don’t you stop using your automobile or plastic and paper products that so positively pollute the environment through their manufacture and use.

Kathryne A. McCullar

Swannanoe, N.C.

Evaluating sex-ed programs

When evaluating sex-education programs, it’s important to scrutinize the evidence [“Abstinence: The Radical Alternative to Sex Education,” Feb. 8]. Much stronger evidence exists in favor of abstinence education. A 1989–90 study involving 26 schools and 3,577 students revealed that students who took the Sex Respect program were barely half as likely to get pregnant as those who did not receive abstinence-based education. Only 5 percent of the Sex Respect girls became pregnant, compared to 9 percent in the control group. This is ostensibly the largest controlled study ever conducted of a sex-education program.

A more recent study of three abstinence-based programs by Stan Weed found that students in the low-medium values group who were taught abstinence were 40 percent less likely to surrender their virginity within one year. These are the very students who are most “at risk.” Advocates of “comprehensive” sex education or condom distribution should be challenged to produce similar evidence; to my knowledge, it simply does not exist.

Edward F. Gehringer

Raleigh, N.C.

Election Redux

Did a majority of CT ‘s readers vote for former President Bush, and do they fail to understand how any Christian could have done otherwise? Seems so. After we published Bob Vroon ‘s letter (March 8) in which he stated that he had voted for President Clinton on biblical principles—the “dominant biblical theme of God’s special concern for the poor”—we received a barrage of letters.

One thing is certain: Christians disagree on politics, and many cannot understand their brothers and sisters in opposition.

The issue is “fairness”

I cannot keep silent after reading the editorial “Homosexuals in Uniform” [Feb. 8]. I am since my earliest teen years gay by orientation, not by choice. I am currently in therapy with Metanoia Ministries, a Christian organization whose aim is to transform gay people into functioning Christians and whole human beings. I have no illusions about the temptations or orientation ever fully going away, but I do know that with faith God will transform my life into a being fully honoring him and reflecting his blessings.

Nevertheless, I was angered by this editorial. President Clinton has stated clearly that in opening the services to gays, he is not giving them (or anyone else) a license for immorality. The issue is fairness. Thousands of gay men and women have served in the armed forces over the years with honor and without harming the morale of their fellow soldiers. If America is so afraid to have gays in the military and insists on continuing the ban, every man or woman denied the chance to serve simply because of orientation should then be granted an automatic three-year exemption from federal income taxes.

George Shewbart

Seattle, Wash.

I encourage you in your biblical stand on the issue of homosexuality. It is important that you stay the course on this matter and let it be known that refusal to acquiesce to the gay agenda is both a legitimate and loving response.

I expressed my differences on the homosexuality issue at a local clergy meeting with a liberal colleague. We agreed to study the issue and speak again. I read five books and the Scriptures in preparation, but I found that my colleague had not prepared similarly. Indeed, he had “no need” to because his mind was made up! My scriptural studies led me to conclude that without doing violence to the text it is impossible to escape the conclusion that homosexual [practice] is sin.

Pastor Sam Richards

E. Winthrop, Maine

Christian vs. public schools

I just read William Willimon’s article “I Was Wrong About Christian Schools” [Feb. 8]. To some degree, I agree with him but also feel his analysis of the situation is faulty.

Both my husband and I are in our fifties and have had experience attending, teaching, and administering in public as well as Christian (Lutheran) schools. Contrary to Willimon’s assessment, we have not found Christian teachers any more committed, morally upright, or loving toward their students than public-school teachers.

Whether or not students learned was, and is, greatly dependent upon the family situation and the parents’ attitude toward teachers and education. When parents prepare children for a learning situation, have expectations that they will work and achieve, show interest in their schooling, give help when needed, and actively support the school and its teachers, children will learn. However, when parents openly criticize their children’s school and teachers, defy authority, do not teach children to be responsible individuals, take no interest in what goes on in school, are abusive or neglectful, or are substance abusers, their children will not learn. Christian schools are able to be more successful in large measure because the majority of their students come from the first type of home situation.

We need schools that teach morals and values that will build good citizens. This will be possible in public as well as Christian schools only when parents realize and carry out their responsibility in the education process.

Lois Opel

Mt. Clemens, Mich.

I have taught high school English in the government (“public”) schools for 15 years. I have taken the Ten Commandments down from my classroom wall as per the principal’s orders. I hear teens use God’s name as an ordinary expletive. I see them pass out condoms.

I tutor a pregnant, home-bound eighth-grader evenings and weekends. I have witnessed academic and moral decline on a grand scale. The minority of teachers who are Christians are increasingly muzzled as to the public witness they can bear. I plan to teach in the government (“public”) schools until I retire—but they’re no place for kids.

Wanda Gehret Shirk

Ulysses, Pa.

Virginia Mollenkott responds

Twice recently [News, Dec. 14; Letters, Feb. 8] you have printed the misinformation that I believe God is female. What nonsense!

I believe that God is exactly what the Bible says: spirit. Because the term God is an androcentric term (as witness the parallel gynocentric term Goddess), for the health of human relationships I balance the androcentrism of the traditional term by using feminine (gynocentric) pronouns concerning God. But I have explained repeatedly both orally and in print that all of our God-language is metaphoric, that none of it is the ultimate truth, and that spirit is neither male nor female or perhaps both male and female (Gen. 1:27). I fear for the future of evangelicalism if neither conservative theology students nor their professors can hear and report more accurately than they have done concerning me.

As for monism, I learned it from the author of Paradise Lost, John Milton. More so, I learned it from the same source where he learned it: the Bible. How else do you explain such passages as Ephesians 4:6, which tells of “one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all”? There are many such passages.

Prof. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott

William Paterson College of New Jersey

Hewitt, N.J.

Brief letters are welcome; 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.