Misunderstood Subject
The article by Allen C. Guelzo, “Fear of Forgiving” [Feb. 8], was outstanding. I am of the opinion that forgiveness is one of the most misunderstood subjects of the Bible. Guelzo covered all the dimensions of the subject in a clear, precise, and understandable way, making it easy to apply. Good for him!
Fred Klopfer
Canal Winchester, Ohio
When Guelzo writes, “Forgiveness does not mean pardon,” I think he is making a statement open to misinterpretation. Sometimes forgiveness does involve pardon—especially when there can be matters of “restoration” involved. What happens in the story of the Prodigal Son if not a form of actual pardon?
Tied to this is the statement that “Forgiveness is personal: it refers to the impact an offense has on you and your need to release the resentment you feel.” What about many situations in the church where judgment and forgiveness are indeed “corporate,” not just personal in the sense of an individual’s concern? There is no better example of this than in the story on page 55 of the same issue of a pastor [Gordon MacDonald] who has been restored.
Larry Isbell
Venus, Pa.
I appreciated the clarification that forgiveness was not equivalent to either pardon or excuse as some would suggest. I then read the update on David Hocking asserting his privilege to resume pastoral ministry less than three months after the revelations of his sexual misconduct were made public. Are there no consequences to this sin that has left in its aftermath a bewildered congregation of 6,000+ members?
Barbi Krome
Danville, Calif.
The point of prophecy
Everyone interested in eschatology should read carefully D. Brent Sandy’s “Did Daniel See Mussolini?” [Feb. 8]. Every Sunday when I turn on the radio or TV, I hear a new detailed plan of what will occur in the days to come. Each person who reads this article should clip out these two sentences and place them in his or her Bible: “The primary point of prophecy is to assure readers that God is going to accomplish his plans, in unique and amazing ways. Its function is both to warn and comfort, not to assuage our curiosity about what the next year will hold.”
Eugene Lincoln
Hagerstown, Md.
Respect needs to be revived
I was encouraged by the article “Abstinence: The Radical Choice for Sex Ed” [Feb. 8]. The title of one sex education curriculum, Sex Respect, intrigued me. I think respect is a concept that needs reviving in our society. How about a curriculum with the generic title “Respect”? It could be approached from a Christian or a secular point of view. Some of the topics which could be presented and discussed: Respect for authority: God (for Christians), parents, teachers, law, government. Respect for self: body and mind (spirit, too, for Christians), including sex, eating, exercise, recreation, drugs. Respect for others, including sex, race, social status, economic situation, disability. Respect for the earth, including conservation and recycling. I’m praying a Christian educator will develop this concept.
Elvina N. Martens. M.D.
Sterling, Ill.
The article may have inadvertently perpetuated some confusion regarding the relationship of the Sex Respect abstinence curriculum materials by Coleen Mast, and the Committee on the Status of Women (also known as Project Respect) and its president and director, Kathleen Sullivan. The article seems to treat them as part of the same entity. However, Mast is an independent contractor and sole author of the Sex Respect textbooks. She assigned copyrights in the textbooks to Respect Incorporated, the sole lawful publisher and distributor of Sex Respect materials.
Although the Committee on the Status of Women received government funding to test the effectiveness of Mast’s Sex Respect program in the public schools, a U.S. District Court decision on February 17 makes clear that the organization has no right to reproduce or publish the materials. The Federal District Court in Chicago [was expected] to issue an order on March 17 enjoining the Committee on the Status of Women from further infringing Respect Incorporated’s copyrights.
Neil F. Markva
Attorney for Coleen Mast
and Respect Incorporated
Springfield, Va.
Blaming The Darkness
The recent wave of novels about “spiritual warfare” has opened my eyes and brought me immeasurable comfort. For years I have been blaming much of my poor behavior on my own depravity and attributing many of my bad habits to lack of spiritual discipline. But now I see the light. Or rather, now I see the spooks.
It’s so easy to let the little imps convince me that I’m somehow responsible for my foibles. If I allowed them, they would have me in a constant state of self-scrutiny, wondering if I were living up to standards and mistakenly thinking such intense conviction could come from a credible source.
My prayer time has evolved dramatically now that I am sensitized to spiritual warfare. All that time I was spending on misguided confession is now focused on launching spiritual Patriot Missiles at ugly little demons. On a clear night, I can almost see them vaporize.
Of course, not everyone is handling the spiritual warfare scene as well as I am. Mabel Crawley stood up in the middle of the sermon last week and shouted, “Duck, Pastor, here comes a big one!”
While the ushers were “assisting” Mabel, a junior-high boy across the congregation echoed, “I’ll get him, Mabel!” and launched a marble from his slingshot, shattering the water glass the pastor keeps on the pulpit.
The boy was later disciplined for being opportunistically mischievous rather than spiritually sensitive. Of course, I know where the real blame belongs, because now I see the spooks.
I appreciate all the work that people like Pat Socia and Tony Campolo are doing toward making abstinence as common a word as condom.
Sherry Carnuccio
Philadelphia, Pa.
Needed: Christ-centered love
Tony Campolo’s [Editorial, “Sex Ed’s Failure Rate,” Feb. 8] reveals a significant problem in the church’s thinking on this and many other issues. While it is admirable to encourage children and youth to focus on love rather than sex, love without the knowledge of Jesus Christ can only be a poor, human substitute grounded in the shifting sand of our insecurities instead of the Rock.
Instead of Scripture, Campolo focuses on what sociologists, a neo-Freudian Marxist psychoanalyst, and M. Scott Peck either say about love or how what they say is compatible “with the nonreligious and religious alike” (whatever “religious” means). Nowhere does he mention the need for a Christ-centered love (except in the implied compatibility of 1 Cor. 12:30 with the previously noted people’s ideas).
Brent Stackhouse
Austin, Tex.
Campolo’s suggestion that a virtual consensus may be reached on the meaning of love, and that this consensus will move us in the right direction, overlooks the fact that the “love ethic” of secular humanists has had no small role in moving us in the wrong direction. Isn’t the presence of love at least as significant a factor in sexual temptation as the absence of love? Why lovers should refrain from love-making is a “burning” question, to which no compelling answer is to be found outside of the moral framework of revelation. Absent a consensus on marriage as the exclusive domain of the sex act, one can hardly expect that more of the situationist version of love will lead to less sex among lovers.
Rev. Timothy R. Bennett
Main Street Baptist Church
Binghampton, N.Y.
Gays and the spirit of Jesus
I sought, but frankly could not find, the spirit of Jesus in Alexander Webster’s editorial, “Homosexuals in Uniform?” [Feb. 8]. Rather, I found the very antithesis of the Lord’s example of unconditional love—namely, that unholy trinity of fear, ignorance, and hatred. The homophobic views espoused by Fr. Webster are exactly that.
The reactionary world view of this editorial must not prevail against rational, honest dialogue and a willingness to engage in biblical scholarship informed by and reflective of the many advances made in hermeneutics and exegesis in the last 50 years.
Common sense should dictate government military policy. European armies have successfully never excluded anyone from serving on account of sexual orientation, and Canada’s lifting of their ban on gays several years ago certainly did not result in a flood of madness and depravity. As followers of Jesus Christ, let us at long last realize the ideal of our essential equality before God and one another.
Joseph Wei
Farmington, Conn.
The writer says the issue boils down to two questions: what do gays do, and should there be public sanction for it? Nothing I’ve seen in Clinton’s proposals says anything about requiring the military to approve what gays do, any more than it approved the unnatural, unhealthy, and ungodly lifestyle (including sodomy) exhibited by heterosexual males in the navy’s Tailhook scandal.
Yes, homosexual practice is wrong. Heterosexual practice can also be wrong. The deeds can be punished, but the inclination or preference should not be proof of wrongdoing.
Sam Duncan
Kimberton, Pa.
As a former active-duty USAF chaplain for over 22 years, I can attest to the strain of combat, separations, and hardship on all military personnel. Attempting to legitimize, sanction, and protect deviant behavior within the military will make impossible the task of chaplains, judge advocates, commanders, and all who are interested in good order and discipline.
Harland R. Getts
New Ipswich, N.H.
Working through the pain
We deeply appreciated “Let’s Stop Childless Abuse” [Speaking Out, Feb. 8]. Like the author and his wife, we have struggled with the nightmare of infertility and have been deeply hurt by ignorant and insensitive comments directed at us by well-meaning Christians. Few people, for example, realize the high emotional and financial risks involved in the “simple” solution of adoption.
In general, we have found more sympathetic understanding among unsaved acquaintances and co-workers than within the church. By God’s grace, we have matured through this devastating situation. But we are still working through the pain inflicted on us by fellow believers.
Bob and Pam Davies
Novato, Calif.
Alternative education
William Willimon’s article, “I was Wrong About Christian Schools” [Feb. 8], gives a good rationale for pursuit of this normal alternative to children’s education. It does, however, imply that state-run education is rather hopeless. I would suggest that the primary reason for the effective results of Christian schools and other private or parochial schools rests not on the superiority of teaching, cost-effectiveness, or any other measures applied to education. The success is a function of simply paying attention to people—in this case, the children. As the half-century-old classic Westinghouse study showed, people, when they are given attention, are more productive.
In the public schools, more attention is given to the disruptive student, while the majority are left to get along with minimal support. The difference is simply that the contract between private school and student is that if they don’t want to be there, the school can, in effect, “fire” them. The public schools have no such contract.
Don Mechlin
Philadelphia, Pa.
Something to be desired
Robert Bittner’s defense of Quentin Schultze’s book Redeeming Television leaves something to be desired [Books, Feb. 8]. His comparison with Coleen Cook’s All That Glitters was pretty shallow. All That Glitters exposes TV’s inherent defects as well as its immoral intrusions into our cultures. I do not see how we can have what Schultze calls “informed viewers” without the kind of research and informed analysis this book offers.
To suggest carte blanche “support” of public television, and the demand that Christians watch the other more objectionable shows before we offer criticism, just won’t cut it. Cook, as Bittner admits, offers two chapters of responsible, constructive, Christian responses for TV viewers who are not afraid to “think” critically. For Christians, a “thoughtful and balanced critique of the medium” will require that kind of disciplined analysis, not blind affirmations.
William J. Brown
New Orleans, La.
Focus rebuts news article
It is difficult to convey the disappointment and sense of betrayal we feel after reading your article “Focus Under Fire” [News, March 8]. Focus has been warmly received in Colorado Springs, and we enjoy friendships with all the major evangelical ministry leaders here as well as the pastors of evangelical churches. The passage of Amendment Two in Colorado, which prohibits special civil rights status for homosexuals, has raised tensions, but misleading articles such as yours undermine the courageous stands taken by evangelicals.
Specifically: Your article states that [Citizen’s Project’s] “6,000 supporters may be the loudest critics of Focus on the Family.” Are all 6,000 people on this local mailing list loud critics of Focus?
The same paragraph adds: “but they are not the only critics.” Yet there is no one who appears by name in your article to support this contention. [There is no] reference [to] any of the dozens of pastors and ministry leaders who would have said precisely the opposite.
The article says, “Many residents … say the town has been sharply divided since Amendment Two won 53 percent of the state’s vote.” Why use the statewide figure of 53 percent in an article about Colorado Springs [where] Amendment Two passed by 66 percent—a landslide?
[Concerning] the attack on the therapist, following the first and only day of news stories about the attack, all the papers in Colorado seemed to drop the story. Why? Rumors have abounded that the incident might have been a setup. There is no evidence that the therapist was assaulted by any “angry evangelical homophobe,” nor evidence to suggest that she was attacked by anyone.
You mention the suicide by the homosexual following Amendment Two’s passage. However, the man was dying from AIDS, and he had tried unsuccessfully to commit suicide prior to the passage of Amendment Two. Some of the media left out those details, including CT, leaving the implication that conservative activism now has this man’s blood on its hands.
You say, “Ever since the election, Focus has publicly been trying to distance itself from the homosexual controversy.” Focus hasn’t done or said anything that differs from any statement or action we made prior to the election.
We at Focus have a well-rounded set of family concerns we believe God has called us to address, although the press chooses to concentrate only on that 5 percent of our time and effort we devote to public-policy matters.
I believe it is accurate to say that Focus derives from the strongest traditions of the evangelical movement. We are of the same fabric as Nelson Bell, Billy Graham, and Carl Henry. There is nothing we stand for that has not been eloquently propounded in CT over the years.
The “many critics” referred to in various ways throughout your article are not really the many, they are the few who are magnified by the hostile press. We have critics, but to the extent they are religious, their tradition is neo-orthodox, classically liberal, or militantly secularist. They promulgate the ideas CT has fought against across the years. Yet your article lacks this context. There is no point of philosophical reference for the Citizen’s Project except to imply that someone has to keep watch on those darn fundies, and these good citizens have risen to the task. There is no acknowledge[ment of] the moral backbone of the evangelicals in Colorado Springs, nor the worthwhile nature of the endeavors here, nor the reality of the sin against which the evangelicals stand. In short, there is little to distinguish your article from the secular press.
Tom Minnery
Focus on the Family
Colorado Springs, Colo.
