The Agape Boat
By now you’re probably aware of the latest in spiritual growth tools—the Christian cruise.
At one time, trips to the Holy Land or Reformation sites were the rage. Today it’s not where you go, it’s how you get there. Cruise boats, complete with onboard lecturers and concert artists, don’t go anywhere in particular. Cruise directors downplay geography.
Ads bill them as an Alaskan Getaway, Mexican Riviera Retreat, or Caribbean Odyssey, and the closest they get to a site of theological import is the Bermuda Triangle, which has vague Trinitarian imagery.
Cruises aren’t new—several seafarers are mentioned in the Bible. But now we know they did it all wrong.
Noah’s cruise could have been a romantic retreat with his wife; instead, the whole family came along (not to mention their animal friends).
Jonah let himself get pushed around by the ship’s crew, his cruise ended prematurely, and he never got a refund. All he got was great sermon material.
Paul endured three shipwrecks. Once he had to tread water for an entire day, and another time the captain’s bad judgment forced Paul unexpectedly to spend a whole winter in Malta. He should have signed up for the Mexican Riviera.
The Bible records only one cruise filled exclusively with Christians. But in that one, Jesus was wakened from a sound sleep by passengers complaining about the weather.
Today’s “disciple ships” are such an improvement. Private rooms, swimming pool, life rings stenciled “Rescue the Perishing,” and a friendly crew offering everything from morning coffee to the daily devotional guide, The Cruise Missal.
Strangely, though, Christian VIPs are almost unanimously critical of these frilly flotillas.
“I was disappointed,” said one. “My wife and I had visions of Love Boat, but instead of an all-star cast, all we saw were three seminary profs, two retired pastors, and a writer of Christian romance novels.”
“I thought cruises were great at first,” another admitted. “They were special, unique. But now every preacher I know has gone on one. You tell people you’re a cruise speaker, and they yawn. I’m going back to leading Holy Land tours.”
That’s okay, shipmate. No one ever said discipleship was easy.
EUTYCHUS
Jews Who Believe in Jesus
Though not a regular reader of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, I chanced to read “Jews Who Believe in Jesus” by Bruce H. Joffe [July 13]. Mr. Joffe makes a number of errors. To refer to people who have accepted Jesus as their Messiah as “Jewish people” is incorrect. The moment one accepts Jesus as Messiah he becomes a Christian. He severs connection with Jewish people just as a Moslem would sever his or her connection with Islam upon acknowledging Jesus to be the greatest of all prophets rather than Mohammed.
The descriptions of the various forms of contemporary Jewish religious life are simplistic and inaccurate. Joffe displays little accurate knowledge of Judaism. Your article on former Jews who have come to believe in Jesus needs to be far more accurate both in title and content. The lack of accuracy is rather offensive.
RABBI HILLEL COHN
San Bernardino, Calif.
I wish to compliment Bruce Joffe for his article. The average Jew knows more about Christianity and Islam than the informed Christian or Moslem knows about Judaism. Judaism is more than just a religion; it is a philosophy, a commitment, and a set of values. Far down on their list of priorities is the belief in the coming of a Messiah and eternal life. Since the “Jews for Jesus” do not reflect Jewish messianism, it is both wrong, and an affront to the Jewish community; therefore, they should not be known as “Jews for Jesus” or “Hebrew-Christians.”
HAROLD M. SPINKA, M.D.
Chicago, Ill.
Bruce Joffe’s article was very insightful. Being a Christian, and coming from a Jewish background, I read it with great interest. Faith must be objective. The object of all mankind’s faith must and will be seen in Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:9–11). I pray that those who sense their roots will be lost if their identity is not preserved will see their wholeness in Jesus Christ. We must not allow our ethnic reality of persons to cloud the superiority of the One to whom we pray, worship, or tell others about. This issue is not new. The early Christians of Jewish identity faced a similar situation.
CHRIS CONE
Dallas, Tex.
In truth, the Hebrew-Christian movement is not nearly as widespread as Joffe would have us believe. A more accurate estimate of the number of Jews involved (frequently Gentiles participate as well) is probably much less than 10,000 nationwide. Furthermore, while Hebrew-Christians crave credibility, both from Christians and Jews, and seek to pass themselves off to unwitting Christians as another Jewish group albeit one that affirms belief in Jesus, this is simply not the case. In fact, both they and their hybrid message are rejected as representing a “fourth branch of Judaism” not only by traditional Jews, but by the entire Jewish community. A more accurate depiction of Jewish attitudes toward Jewish believers in Jesus would be akin to theirs toward cults. Here, however, the Hebrew-Christian movement additionally creates friction and distrust between evangelicals and Jews and has a harmful impact on Christian-Jewish relations. These people are regarded as a front for evangelical and fundamentalist Christians whose sole aim is to wean Jews away from their ancestral faith.
RABBI YECHIEL ECKSTEIN
Holyland Fellowship of Christians & Jews
Chicago, Ill.
Will’s Worldly Wisdom
CT’s interview with George Will [“The Convictions of America’s Most Respected Newspaper Columnist,” July 13] brought to mind Paul’s comments summarized in 1 Corinthians 1:20, “Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” Will reflects this worldly wisdom, and reveals that he, as have all other wise men of the world, believes Christianity, indeed, all religious thought, to be a creation of man—merely an expression of longing for something more than food. “That’s why some people go to church,” Will concludes. This is emptiness and darkness, not to mention arrogant and ignorant. What did CT hope to gain? I’ll stick with Paul, who told the world that Jesus and his cross would be foolishness to the wise of the world.
MARK A. SCHARFENAKER
Denver, Colo.
George Will’s admiration for the welfare state demonstrates why we are in such an economic mess. Believing it is fine to forcibly take money from some people to give to other people perverts the role of government and puts Will in a league with the liberals.
Will a conservative? I thought I was a conservative!
GARY BRYSON
Cedar Mountain, N.C.
What Is “Civil Religion”?
In his editorials, Kenneth Kantzer is a master at clarifying complex issues and bringing us to a point of consensus. However, “American Civil Religion” [July 13] skips over the difficult questions. He writes that evangelicals may support civil religion provided that America is “under God.” But are we here in the U.S.A. in fact “under God”? He states that “biblical Christians are patriotic.” But if patriotism means that I value the lives, traditions, and well-being of Americans over the rest of humankind, I must opt out.
Finally, what is appropriate for Christians in other lands? Should they have their civil religions too? Or is America somehow a special nation before God?
PATRICK WALL
San Luis Obispo, Calif.
Kantzer’s warm embrace of civil religion in the recent issues of your magazine was rightly accompanied by a warning against idolatry of the state. There is, however, a far more subtle danger. Kantzer points out that civil religion has adopted (however selectively) some of the terms and ideals of Christianity. This being so, the danger lies not so much in our forsaking the one for the other as in confusing the two. We Christians must exercise care not only that we not worship the state, but that we are not duped into hearing evangelical Christianity in the well-chosen platitudes of politicans eager to please. Certainly Presidents have been known to employ this device with astonishing success.
ROBERT J. BAST
Holland, Mich.
Who Are the UCC?
This letter is written in response to “United Church of Christ Members Want to End ‘Theological Disarray’ ” [July 13]. Let the facts be straight. The United Church of Christ is not the successor to the Congregational Christian Churches. There are those who believe that the Congregational Christian Churches who chose to participate in the merger that resulted in the formation of the United Church of Christ did so at the sacrifice of Congregational polity, which is the distinguishing characteristic of historic Congregationalism. Over 400 Congregational Christian Churches did not participate in that merger; we are known as the National Association of Congregational Christian Churches of the United States.
If the United Church of Christ wishes to urge “sound teaching in our church” (notice: church), then perhaps they should become familiar with those who continue to give witness to local autonomy and freedom in Christ as followers of the Congregational way.
REV. KARL D. SCHIMPF
Milwaukee, Wis.
Eutychus’s Service Stop
I liked the analyses about gas stations by the new Eutychus in the July 13 issue. There could have been something said about those who run out without paying, too. Plenty of our church “customers” don’t kick in the full amount for service rendered.
Eutychus has been my life support in CT. He has often kept my engine (subscription) running. I will be reading between the lines.
REV. JOHN C. LOUTHAIN
Marion, Ind.
Oops!
The Enterprise, from which Raymond Bakke’s article “The City and the Scriptures” [July 15] was taken, is the publication of the Canadian Baptist Overseas Mission Board, not Northern Baptist Theological Seminary as stated.
REV. CAMERON WATTS
Claremont Baptist Church
Claremont, Ont., Canada
