We get letters Using e-mail, fax, and old-fashioned snail mail, readers’ letters to CT editors totaled nearly 1,500 during 1997. By far, the subject that commanded the greatest attention was the ongoing controversy over the proposed, then withdrawn, inclusive-language edition of the New International Version of the Bible (already published in Great Britain), and the ensuing discussion of Bible translation issues. Other articles that produced strong reactions from readers in 1997 were Daniel Clendenin’s piece on Eastern Orthodoxy (Jan. 6, 1997) and Gary Burge’s analysis of evangelical worship (Oct. 6). Scores of writers also responded to Michael Hamilton’s examination of the legacy of the late Francis Schaeffer (Mar. 3) and to Philip Yancey’s “A State of Ungrace” (Feb. 3), asking if the church has forgotten its central message in fighting contemporary culture wars.
For 1998, keep those cards, letters, faxes, and e-mails coming.
“RIGHT DIAGNOSIS, WRONG RESPONSE” “The Making of a Revolution” [Dec. 8] conveys the “giddy” excitement Phillip Johnson and others feel in believing he leads a revolution that will cause Darwinism to go “belly up.” However, the situation warrants more caution.
The article ignored the question of why many Christians most qualified to assess Johnson’s scientific claims remain unconvinced. His philosophy troubles many Christian scientists more than his scientific claims. He agrees with atheists such as Dawkins, Sagan, and Provine that evolution and a materialistic metaphysics are inseparable, implicitly affirming the logic of their anti-Christian argument—that evolution by natural selection (if true) implies Christianity is false. But this is precisely the issue that needs refutation. Equating natural selection with materialistic metaphysics makes no more sense than equating gravity with materialism because it explains planetary motion without mentioning God. Johnson has ceded the most critical part of the debate to those with an anti-Christian agenda, insisting on a position that is more restrictive than that held by seminal fundamentalist theologian B. B. Warfield.
Remarkably, Johnson labels Christian scientists who disagree with him “accommodationists,” saying they lack objectivity—that “they are thirsty for approval of non-Christian peers” or have been “brainwashed.” What could compromise objectivity more than Johnson’s own belief that acknowledging evolution is tantamount to betraying Jesus?
A concise assessment of Johnson’s work would be: Right political diagnosis—wrong response. Evolution is inappropriately used to advance metaphysical ends, but Johnson’s response is philosophically and scientifically flawed.
Prof. Joel W. Cannon Centenary College of Louisiana Shreveport, La.
Tim Stafford’s report on Phillip Johnson should convince all creationists that nothing new has been added to the “creation-evolution” debate that will persuade the evolutionist to change his mind.
Eugene F. Anthony Ballwin, Mo.
Although I agree wholeheartedly with Johnson’s criticisms of Darwinian evolution, I’m not sure a complete revolution can occur until the efforts of deconstruction are supplemented with those of reconstruction. I have a feeling most people will hold to a bad theory, in this case Darwinian evolution, until they are offered something better.
Tom Oord Rialto, Calif.
* If Johnson is correct that evolutionary theory fails to account adequately for the existing data, I have full confidence that those scientists who have expertise in this area will recognize this state of affairs and move toward some better explanation. This is how science works. I am completely unconvinced of Johnson’s position that the scientific community wants to cling to an inadequate theory because it helps them maintain an atheistic world-view.
Prof. Glenn G. Sparks Purdue University West Lafayette, Ind.
LEARNING TO DIALOGUE* The new ECT statement on salvation improves upon and clarifies the ambiguities of the earlier statement and shows that just as we learn to speak by speaking and to write by writing, so we learn to dialogue by dialoguing [“Evangelicals and Catholics Together: A New Initiative,” Dec. 8]. That Catholic theologians wish to embrace the doctrine of justification by faith alone as accurate biblical teaching, and that they desire to acknowledge that the core of the Reformation theological tradition is in agreement with, and not in contradiction to, the biblical gospel, is most welcome. On the other hand, that evangelical scholars are admitting the term “free” in connection with our willing adherence to the gospel (something Martin Luther would have died ten deaths before acknowledging), and that faith, “though inherently personal, is not a purely private possession but involves our participation in the body of Christ” throughout the centuries of her existence, is a welcome corrective to certain traditions within evangelical Protestantism.
In reading this document I feel like a man who thought he was looking into the heart of an enemy, but who saw there love and understanding. Add my name to the list.
Pastor Tom Scheck Evangelical Free Church Orleans, Neb.
* As a Catholic and long-time subscriber to CT I was heartened to see such a clear articulation of the saving faith that Catholics and evangelicals share in common. I hope the statement receives a wide hearing and that the group that produced it can continue their discussions with mutual love and respect as common brethren in the faith. Although Timothy George’s assessment was well said, it would have been nice to have had a Catholic assessment as well. Also, it seems appropriate to me that in future discussions some respected theologians who are women might be added to the group from both traditions.
Rick McKinney Gaithersburg, Md.
Although I might have used a slightly different expression in a few places if I had written this text, I am so pleased with the context and the mood of this document, and especially of Timothy George’s assessment, that I enthusiastically add my signature to your list.
Prof. Roger Nicole Reformed Theological Seminary Maitland, Fla.
Unity is a fine thing—but not at the price of compromise: I’m sure you will agree. The idea seems fine—but we see no move by the Catholics to give up the real reasons for separation, which are not in the Bible!
Paul B. Cole Big Bear City, Calif.
The continuing attempts of Protestants to call Roman Catholics “brothers and sisters in Christ” reflects the value our society places on compromise rather than the truth of the gospel. I believe there are several substantial issues that separate Protestant and Roman Catholic fellowships: (1) the interpreting of the Bible as part of church tradition rather than as being the sole authority for life and faith; (2) the centuries of accumulated church tradition that are upheld as authoritative truth that often contradicts the most basic biblical pronouncements; (3) the blatant idolatry supported by the highest levels of Roman Catholic tradition; (4) the distortion of the biblical teaching of salvation through Christ’s atoning death; and (5) the reliance upon a complex system of sacraments and works. While the document admits these “differences” of belief, it fails to acknowledge that these are at the core of Roman Catholic tradition, and it is doubtful that these will change. I maintain that the Roman Catholic tradition’s contradiction of Scripture in these issues should keep any from considering them in the family of the Christian faith.
To continue to speak to Roman Catholics as if they were true followers of Jesus Christ is to fail to speak the Word of God accurately to those who most need to hear it.
Christopher Schansberg Scottsburg, Ind.
The best answer to the ECT crowd is that more North American Catholics have been born again in the last 25 years than Europeans evangelized during the Reformation. God helping us, those of us in Roman Catholic evangelization will continue to lead Catholics to biblical salvation and then to urge them to leave the Scarlet Harlot!
Pastor Lyle P. Murphy Grace Bible Mission Lee’s Summit, Mo.
MARY’S UNIQUE ROLE* At a time when some leading Protestants are de-emphasizing theological differences in order to seek agreement with Roman Catholics, it was refreshing to read David Neff’s courageous and biblically based editorial [“Let Mary Be,” Dec. 8] on the unique role that Mary played in God’s great plan of salvation. Let us honor her memory as the blessed Mother of Jesus and learn from her example of joyful obedience. But let us not mix folklore with divinely revealed truth. Indeed, let Mary be!
Humberto M. Rasi Silver Spring, Md.
I believe there is an unfortunate misunderstanding afoot with regard to the question of declaring the Mother of God (an ancient, orthodox declaration rather audacious in itself) Co-Redeemer, Mediatrix, and Advocate, a misunderstanding that Catholics and Protestants alike may be sharing in this matter. Like the title Mother of God, the proposed nomenclature is attempting to highlight a theological truth that on its face only appears to be primarily about the singular personhood of Mary herself. In fact, the office of Co-Redeemer/Mediator/Advocate has a simple name: Christian. Every obedient believer participates in and cooperates with the plan of salvation on behalf of others. In so doing they become, in a very real sense, co-redeemers, mediators, and advocates; furthermore, they are called to “share in the divine nature,” and are ultimately destined to be glorified with Christ and to interact with the life of the Holy Trinity. Mary is simply the highest model of this reality; as the church’s Exemplar, she calls us to imitate her own graced response to God Almighty—like mother, like children. Seen in this light, the proposed “elevation” of Mary is nothing more than an announcement of the immanence of the glorification of the entire church, part and parcel of the gospel itself.
Nicholas A. Marziani, Jr., Associate Rector St. Nicholas’ Episcopal Church Midland, Tex.
* Neff’s editorial treated the concept of Mary as “Co-Redeemer” and “Co-Mediatrix” as something yet to be asserted by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). While it may be true that the current pope has not offered an official statement on the issue, the RCC has not been silent. The fact is that the RCC has declared, with papal authority, that Mary holds both titles. Even Pope John Paul II has said so “on the side.” I have been reading through the “new” Roman Catholic Catechism to see what the RCC believes. A short side trip on the topic of Mary took me to the utterances of Pope Leo XIII who, in 1892 and 1893, proclaimed Mary to be both Co-Mediator with Christ and even Co-Redeemer through her abundant grace. The fact that the current pope has not made a statement does not erase the record. It is already established as doctrine and therefore does not need restatement to be confirmed. Can we really even think of making a treaty with the RCC until the offices of mediator, savior, and redeemer are given solely to Christ?
Pastor Randy Campbell Midland, Mich.
While Leo XIII and Pius X have used these titles for the Virgin Mary, they did so in ways that were not fully binding on Roman Catholics. The petition that Newsweek reported on asked the current pope to proclaim Mary’s roles as Co-Redeemer and Mediatrix of All Graces as dogma—much in the same way that Pius IX declared her Immaculate Conception in what was touted as the first infallible papal declaration. —Eds.
* Neff skates on thin ice with his suggestion that Protestants need a greater appreciation for Mary as Theotokos. This title reflects the Alexandrian tendency to confuse the two natures of Christ, thereby undermining his humanity. In the Latin West, Theotokos was translated Dei Genetrix, or “Mother of God,” a term that certainly fueled medieval Mariolatry on the popular level. It is possible to reject the Antiochian separation of the two natures of Christ and still suggest that Nestorius’s proposal to call Mary Christotokos represented a clearer and more biblical alternative to Theotokos.
James A. Patterson Memphis, Tenn.
AMY’S “REAL LOOK AT LIFE”* I was happy to see CT give Amy Grant’s latest album a fair and balanced review in light of CCM’s supposed identity crisis [“Where’s the Gospel?” Dec. 8]. The only crisis I see is from those in the evangelical community who are pharisaical enough to narrowly define what makes music Christian. I’ve followed Amy since her first album. I’ve loved seeing and hearing her raw honesty about life, love, and the universe. She is not diminished as a Christian artist, wife, and mother for sharing a real look at life. I’ve listened to her critics since she had the chutzpah to “take the cross over” to the secular adult contemporary crowd. Folks seem to forget that she, more than any other Christian artist, has planted seeds of God’s love in the hearts of many people who would probably never be reached by the more traditional “Praise and Worship” genre. Personally, I believe love songs to one’s child, husband, and friends give plenty of praise and worship to the Lord who brought them all together in the first place.
Kathleen Olsen Port Orchard, Wash.
* I agree with William Romanowski’s article/review of Amy Grant’s new album Behind the Eyes. While I can appreciate the album musically and professionally, its lyric content basically left me wanting to call Amy and ask how her quiet time was going. If these songs come from her life and heart over the past couple of years, what does that say about her Christian walk? The article, however, opened up a new way to see it, and basically put me in my place.
I’m forced to check myself—if I were as vulnerable, what would my music be?
Rick Stilwell Columbia, S.C.
* Taking Amy Grant’s latest CD out of context from the rest of her music collection is like pulling selections out of Ecclesiastes and accusing the author of secularism. Let’s grant Christian artists some freedom of authenticity and receive it within the context of their broader Christian testimony, concerning which Grant’s is unquestioned. Had the Israelite community of faith applied the same litmus tests for acceptable music as the contemporary evangelical community, we would not have Song of Solomon in our Bible.
John Hilber Gig Harbor, Wash.
Most Christian music is about entertainment. Any so-called ministry in and of the music itself is in God’s hands, not the entertainer’s. I’m not sure all music people would say that, but as one who listens to it all, I will say it because I have tried to get some “Christian” musicians in my church and discovered that they are under the control of the marketers who book them, and their “ministry” is secondary to the “market” that buys the stuff. If you don’t believe that, try getting a popular entertainer, Christian or otherwise, in your local small community and you will find a brick wall, commonly known as a “booking agent,” who will tell you quickly what matters most—M.O.N.E.Y.—we can book them if you are in the right M.A.R.K.E.T. It’s about money, friends—ministry continues to be in God’s hands, thankfully.
Pastor Gene Young First United Methodist Church Mooresville, Ind.
* The secularization of Amy Grant’s music disappoints me, just as her explicitly Christian music satisfied me. I listen to CCM to hear appealing music that addresses devotional, theological, and practical aspects of my Christian faith. Explicit reference to God, Christ, faith, or related concepts is fundamental. I believe Grant’s latest album is so secular that the gma, CMTA, and RIAA should not classify it as Christian or gospel. Music by a Christian is not necessarily Christian music. If, as the article suggests, one of the main reasons for including Grant’s album in these charts is to boost CCM’s percentage of the overall market and secure “television coverage, sponsorship, and advertising,” then I think the executives making those decisions must grapple with the concept that “you cannot serve God and Mammon.” Let’s keep both Cs in CCM and retain its uniquely Christian nature.
Garth Rieman Arlington, Va.
ONE FEMALE PROFESSOR’S EXPERIENCE* I was discouraged to read “Do Christian Colleges Treat Their Women Faculty Fairly?” [Dec. 8]. I am a female faculty member at a CCCU college, and my experience working in a Christian college has been overwhelmingly positive. Like one of the women quoted, I worked at two secular colleges before coming to Point Loma Nazarene College. My job at plnc is the most satisfying job I have ever had. The level of encouragement and support that I have received from my colleagues and students (both male and female) has been a great blessing to me.
Many of the concerns and experiences discussed in the article happen in secular institutions as well as Christian colleges. As members of Christian communities, those of us who work in cccu schools have an obligation to make sure that all voices are heard and that all talents are recognized as gifts from God regardless of gender or race.
Prof. Maria Zack San Diego, Calif.
* In the article on women faculty in Christian colleges, I was quoted regarding the tenure of women faculty as saying, “What matters most is the amount of scholarship produced.” This should have said, “What matters more (vis a vis student mentoring) is the amount of scholarship produced.” Hopefully, what matters most, our first criterion for tenure in Christian colleges, will continue to be biblically based teaching. My point was that its development can be more difficult for women faculty who often bear heavier responsibilities for mentoring female students. There just aren’t enough of us to go around.
Prof. Shirley J. Roels Calvin College Grand Rapids, Mich.
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY’S DEBT* There is an error in the heading and the News article “$27 Million Payment Trims Debt” [Dec. 8]. Both indicated that the bondholders received $27 million. If that were correct, then the bondholders would have received all of the principal and interest owed to them, and I would not have said what I am quoted as saying. The fact is that the bondholders were owed over $20 million (about $15 million of principal and several million in unpaid interest), but they were not paid nearly that much. None of the bondholders received any of the unpaid interest owed them. The total amount paid to bondholders in 1997 was about half as much as the article indicates they received in September.
Robert E. Newell, CPA Former bondholder’s committee member Seffner, Fla.
For the article, Liberty University spokesperson Mark DeMoss provided a payback figure of $27 million. Now, however, Liberty general counsel Jerry Falwell, Jr., says the last group of bondholders to be repaid received only about $15 million. Falwell agrees that no interest was paid in the settlement, only principal. —Eds.
Brief letters are welcome. They may be edited for space and clarity and must include the writer’s name and address if intended for publication. Write to Eutychus, Christianity Today, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 630/260-0114. E-mail: cteditor@christianitytoday.com ( * ).
Copyright © 1998 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
