Are Our Lives “Mapped Out”?
I take exception to the wisdom offered by David Neff on understanding God’s will [“Have I Done Well?” Feb. 17]. He starts a good case for God having our lives “mapped out,” then totally changes course with his arbitrary statement, “But is that the necessary implication?” There is a treasure house of Scriptures that teach that, wonder of wonders, God does have an agenda for our lives mapped out in advance.
This presupposes our disposition to be submitted to the will of God in our lives. God does allow us to make other choices, if we choose. And he even uses our mistakes to his glory. God’s agenda for my existence is written in his book, and I choose to believe it!
Ray Lyon
Boca Raton, Fla.
Real Reel Life
You could head this letter “A Different View of the Home Video Screen,” as opposed to Mary Ellen Ashcroft’s “Is Reel Life Real?” [Feb. 17]. My maternal grandfather was a photographer in the glass-plate and flashpan era. His interest has been passed along to many of his descendants. I don’t look upon all the photographs we have as “materialistic,” although they are, in one sense. How else would I have a record of my wedding and my husband, now deceased? Of family vacations? Of my parents’ golden wedding anniversary in 1953? A record for my children of their great-great-great grandparents’ pictures? These photos show me and my children how these people who passed along our Christian heritage looked.
The God-inspired Scriptures in materialistic form are as image-making in my mind as if I had put them in a photo album. The “materialistic” videos contain a spiritually shared richness for my family whenever we view them, just as reading and sharing the Scriptures do.
Dorothy H. Prescott
College Park, Ga.
Greetings from the Trenches
We knew something big was afoot when the chairman of the outreach committee began describing his new system for greeting visitors by shouting, “Ten-hut!” While the rest of the committee hummed “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” he detailed his plan—an irresistible, recluse-proof cross between boot camp and fraternity rush.
From the pulpit, our pastor welcomes visitors and orders them to stand. Church enlistees seated next to the newcomers introduce themselves after the service, subtly taking hold of an elbow or shoulder. These pew-mate privates escort the visitors to the fellowship hall, positioning them in squadrons throughout the room.
The rest of the congregation falls out into orderly platoons of eager greeters. Remaining in formation in the fellowship hall, each platoon member is responsible for meeting one squadron of visitors.
Meanwhile, the Sunday school superintendent scouts the entire room like an AWACS reconnaissance plane, alert to potential new recruits to teach third and fourth grade.
Before deploying this glad-handing strike force, however, we dispatched three covert agents across enemy lines, to the church up the street. We had heard they’d captured—er, “enfolded”—dozens of newcomers, and we wanted to assess the combat-readiness of their program.
“They just give visitors a cup of coffee, a name tag, and invite them to Friday night fellowship,” our spies told us.
The chairman’s court martial was swift, his punishment sure. He makes the coffee for the next three months.
EUTYCHUS
Child Care At Home Or Away
I find it incongruous that boarding school for the children of missionaries has been, until recently, unquestioningly accepted [“Growing Up a World Away,” Feb. 17], while many Christians cannot tolerate the idea of anything but the “traditional” home, with mom there full-time with the kids. If it can be within God’s will, in some circumstances, for missionaries to place their children in the care of others for months between visits home, is it so hard to concede that it might be within God’s will for other families to entrust their children to others for part of a day?
Paula F. Cardoza
Indianapolis, Ind.
My parents were missionaries in Nigeria when I was a child, and I attended a boarding school. My experience was not the best. As I got older it was better, but at the ages of 5, 6, and 7 it was very painful. I was extremely homesick and would often become physically sick. I know it was hard for my parents, too. Some children do adjust, some don’t; but God gave children to the parents to raise, not to teachers or others. If children seem in the way of “God’s work,” then maybe the parents are not in “God’s will.”
Brenda Kelley
Junction City, Kan.
Fundamentalism And Alienation
I would like to comment on Philip Yancey’s column “Growing Up Fundamentalist” [Feb. 17]. Let us acknowledge that there are rare fundamentalist churches that retain the fundamentals of the faith in doctrine but do not add the ugly elements of legalism, extreme separation, and racial bigotry that are usually associated with the term fundamentalists.
Some alienation from unbelieving classmates in a public high school is inevitable if one loves Christ. A committed Christian in a public school is going to be different in speech and dress from his peers who do not trust in Christ. This is not the fault of fundamentalism, but it is part of our identifying with Christ when we choose to follow him.
Judy Anderson
Seattle, Wash.
My upbringing was similar to Yancey’s. Can I relate! Looking back, I am thankful for the “pietism” instilled in me, but I lament the discontinuity from the flow of the historical Christian church. Like Yancey, I am not vindictive about my upbringing in the fundamentalist church. Somehow, I think, I am the wiser for it.
Gary Ryan
University, Miss.
Boeke Not The First
Contrary to your recent editorial [“Interfaith Divorce,” Feb. 17], the Boekecase in Colorado is not the first instance of a civil court deciding which religion is preferable in a child-custody case, nor is it an issue that is likely to go away.
In a number of divorce cases judges seem to have allowed their preference for “mainstream” faiths to dictate a choice of parental custody. Just last year Rita Mendez, a Florida Jehovah’s Witness, fought all the way to the supreme court in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to regain custody of her daughter. A family court granted her Roman Catholic ex-husband custody largely on the grounds that psychologists and other “experts” think Jehovah’s Witnesses are a despised minority in the United States, and a child would be better off growing up in an “accepted” faith. The court decree forbids Mendez to say anything to her daughter that might undermine the child’s Catholic training—even forbidding the mother to mention her religious beliefs.
Since our Constitution gives the government no authority to favor one religion over another, these cases raise troubling questions. After all, in this religiously pluralistic nation each of us would be considered a “despised minority” somewhere.
Rev. Robert L. Maddox
Americans United for Separation of Church and State
Silver Spring, Md.
SPEAKING OUT
The Hymnal Is Not Enough
New things often threaten tradition. It should not surprise us if that even applies to new church music, especially the use of praise songs in worship. But many of us desperately need new worship. But many of us desperately need new worship music to rejuvenate our spiritual lives and revitalize our worship. And if we hope to meet the needs of our young people—and attract the unchurched—the music that will get Christian content across to contemporary people is contemporary music.
Because of the place of hymnals in our evangelical traditions, we may be unable to imagine worship without them. But it is tradition, not Scripture, that makes it seem heretical to suggest that there are other ways to sing together, that what we do in church might even be counterproductive to worship.
While I have always enjoyed singing in the church, it wasn’t until I freed myself from exclusive use of the hymnal that I experienced what praise and worship can be. And it is the new music, sung with eyes closed for 10, 15, or 20 minutes at a time, that makes that experience possible. These short, repetitious songs with memorable choruses help me focus on God; I don’t even need to look at the music. The pleasant result is that now I am learning to worship and praise through hymns, as well as through worship and praise songs.
Unfortunately, many of us have grown up with very little understanding of worship. Our worship services revolve around an informational sermon preceded by a token number of informational hymns. Today, our hymns are little more than transitional devices between other parts of the service.
Besides spending too little time singing, we sing hymns so chock-full of rational content and information that they are unmemorizable. In addition, the hymns are usually written in archaic language and thought forms geared to other times, places, and interests. To sing them, we glue our eyes to the hymnal and sing to the floor.
True worship involves something quite different. It usually takes a lot of singing to create an atmosphere of praise and worship. Singing cannot serve this purpose if it is crammed between the offering, Scripture reading, and sermon. If any music is to foster worship, it should come from the heart and be sung to the Lord, not to the floor.
We also need to realize that styles that are meaningful for one generation or one group of people are often not very meaningful for another. To live out our commission to love and serve people means to love and serve them in their great diversity. Even when it comes to music.
Is the main audience made up of younger people? Contemporary music should predominate. Is it a largely older congregation, one that would be disturbed if anyone tampered with the music? Even for such a group, the worshipfulness of their experience could be enhanced by spending more time in singing (especially singing to God). And if we’re discussing a ministry that, like most, serves a mixture of these two groups (and others), we need to open our services to all kinds of music.
Remember, however, that people need to understand what is happening. We should accompany our changes with instruction that helps people understand the meaning of worship, and we should strive always to keep our focus in worship on God. And those who prefer one form of music need to learn to empathize with those who prefer something quite different.
Whatever the situation, let’s stop being enslaved to the present rationalistic, intellect-centered approach to church that characterizes much of evangelicalism. Worship takes time. It is expressive, not passive. It is, after all, the outpouring of a relationship. Let’s not just sing; let’s praise, and make worship the focal point of our services.
Charles H. Kraft is professor of anthropology and intercultural communication at Fuller Theological Seminary.
Speaking Out offers responsible Christians a forum for their views on contemporary issues. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.
Actions Over Rhetoric
I want to express frustration with your News article [“White House Religion,” Feb. 17]. When Ronald Reagan did not attend church, had a-hundred-and-some of his chosen aides, advisers, and officials indicted for breaking laws and unethical standards, proclaimed self-admitted liar Oliver North as a hero, and had his appointment schedule arranged by an astrologer, his “faith” was never questioned. My frustration comes with questioning one man’s actions while another man’s very words are believed. I’m not saying Bush’s motives are not political, but I do appreciate his activity more than the rhetoric proclaimed by the last administration.
Rev. Ted Weidman
Ford Parkway Baptist Church
St. Paul, Minn.
It is good to hear our Presidents pray and invoke God’s blessing upon America. That’s the way it should be; but it’s hollow, invalid, and hypocritical when the lifestyle is inconsistent with the words.
I heard the President’s prayer in his inaugural address and the statement “God bless America” in his budget message. During the campaign he came out with the term “damn” in a sentence one day, to which I objected in a letter to him. Nearly all the Presidents, in my memory, have used bad language and had behavioral failures beyond what would justifiably be expected of those who profess faith in God and invoke his favor. Anyone who knows much of the Bible knows what it says about our speech, all the way from taking God’s name in vain to every idle word. There are no exceptions made for Presidents or any other people.
Rev. Lowell E. McCoy
Southside Christian Church
Sapulpa, Okla.
Language Not The Problem
I was struck by Robert Bellah’s comments about moral language [“Habits of the Hearth,” Feb. 3]. He observes that even when people do something loving and caring, they describe it in selfish language, in terms of “what it does for me.” His observation is astute, but he mistakes the symptom for the underlying problem.
When people talk this way, they are expressing their lack of any other reason for loving actions. Something in them wants to relate to others and to care about them, but modern secular man has lost hold of any solid credible reasons to reach beyond himself. Because mankind is fallen, our character also includes selfishness. What the self-oriented language reflects is that the selfishness is gradually winning. Bellah is quite right that our moral practices are being undercut, but it’s not by the language. It will do no good to change the way people talk if their internal reality is not changed.
Wayne Shockley
Brooklyn, Wis.
A Sixth Course For Mcgavran
I would strongly urge a sixth course for Donald McGavran’s church-growth students [“Beyond the Maintenance Mentality,” Feb. 3]: How to make church attendance half as pleasant as dozens of other Sunday morning choices, by preaching not everything you want to say on a subject (for 30 minutes), but everything your audience must hear (for 8 minutes). Any seminary that fails to come grips with the fact that church is usually boring, and preachers are usually the most boring part of it, is doing a disservice to the whole concept of evangelism. Many people stay away from church because there’s no good reason for them to go.
As a writer who must daily find ways to keep the message precise and short enough to survive the editor’s scalpel, I often wish preachers had editors, too. In fact they do: they’re the people who edit out the whole message (by staying away) because the main point is obscured by obligatory doctrinal assertions, monotonous rhetorical flourishes, extra verbiage, and irrelevant meanderings.
Paul De Groot
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
More Details Needed
Thanks for the generous expressions of CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s support of the Lausanne movement as we approach the second Lausanne Congress in Manila, July 11–20. I was troubled, however, by the statement made in Art Toalston’s article [News, Feb. 3] regarding the ongoing work and effectiveness of the Lausanne Committee. Particularly troubling were the partial quotes by an unidentified source, calling the Lausanne movement in effect anti-Catholic and anticharismatic. As far as I know, with the exception of one country, the charismatic issue in Lausanne is a nonissue; the staff has a large number of charismatics on it. The Roman Catholic issue is more complex.
I speak for many in the movement who are rejoicing at what God is doing within the Roman Catholic Church. Two emphases stand out—the renewed interest in evangelism, and increasing commitment to Bible translation and distribution. The honorary chairman of the Congress Advisory Council in the Philippines, and Ambassador to the U.S., the Honorable Emmanuel Pelaez, is a Roman Catholic. And there will be Roman Catholics as full participants at the Congress. The position taken by the committee was that Catholics from countries where evangelicals feel free to invite Roman Catholics active in evangelism will be welcome as full participants. We do not compel brethren from countries where they do not feel free to invite them to do so.
Paul McKaughan
Lausanne II in Manila
Pasadena, Calif.
Conflict Mediation Or Arbitration
Your article on the suit filed against James Dobson and his organization by the Alexander-Moegerles [News, Feb. 3] demonstrates the conflict inherent in the Christian Legal Society’s offer of either mediation or arbitration. Mediation must bring people closer and requires openness. If an arbitration is to follow, parties protect their position and there is no openness. In my mediation practice we will not arbitrate, and we are fully committed to a mutual resolution of the conflict. Our mediation agreement prevents the use of information gained through the mediation in any later arbitration or litigation.
Duane Ruth-Heffelbower
Fresno, Calif.
