Letters

* Christine Gardner’s “Sudan Slave Redemption” [Special News Report, Aug. 9] well illustrated the complexities of the Sudanese slavery issue. Slavery is wrong. World Relief applauds and supports abolition movements to end slavery in Sudan, but to truly facilitate churches working together, World Relief must honor the well-thought-out priorities of the Sudanese church.

While slavery is an issue for them, it is currently not the primary one. Ending the war that has claimed 2 million lives, keeping another 2.4 million from starving to death, and teaching them about Jesus are the top concerns they repeatedly voice to me.

As Pastor Arkangelo Wani Lemi observed to me while I watched death happen, “My people will not starve to death. We have brothers and sisters in the West; we are part of a family.” Making that a reality has become part of the passion of my life, for loving Jesus means that I cannot stand by and let my brothers and sisters die. That is why my oldest son is in Sudan today and why we must hear the heart cry of God’s people. Fight slavery, yes; but save lives and share Jesus as well.

Clive Calver, President World Relief Carol Stream, Ill.

Christian Solidarity International is the voice of the voiceless, their advocates. Thus, while it is not possible to buy the freedom of the tens of thousands that are enslaved, advocacy is an important part of CSI’s work. They go to the Human Rights Commission in Geneva and New York to testify about what they have seen and pressure the government of Sudan to mend its ways. While Westerners and some Christians might find it immoral to buy and sell people, in Sudan it is the only way loved ones can be reunited with family members.

Theresa Perry-McNeil Christian Solidarity International–USA Littleton, Colo.

* It would be tragic if your article slowed CSI’s program of emancipating women and children from the hands of monsters. Slave redemption critics whom Christine Gardner interviewed are people who have chosen to become personal and political enemies of CSI.

For years, UNICEF ignored UN reports about black women and children slaves in Sudan. CSI’s emancipations of thousands embarrassed them. Under pressure, the agency announced it would combat slavery in Sudan, but days later UNICEF retracted that promise, admitting it can’t act without Khartoum’s permission! Meanwhile, as UNICEF refuses to re deem slaves in Sudan, they help mothers in India buy back their children from slavers. UNICEF says the world should solve the “root causes” of the war before they can take children out of bondage. This is morally obtuse and is put forth only to cover UNICEF’s cowardly submission to Khartoum’s UN power.

The American Anti-Slavery Group supports CSI, in part because 40 village elders and senior spokesmen from South Sudan are publicly asking CSI to continue its work. We are a multi-ethnic grassroots organization of Christians, Jews, and Muslims, Africans and African Americans. We will not leave people in chains. No matter what.

Charles Jacobs, President Anti-Slavery Group Boston, Mass.

Does CT, like others, see the suffering of the Sudanese slaves as a “trendy issue” for Americans? Or is it that fear of the diffusal of financial resources lurks behind statements coming from representatives of evangelical Christian organizations?

Had CT researched more thoroughly, it would have found there are tens of thousands of chattel slaves in Sudan. Many are Christians. They are captured in devastating raids, beaten, threatened with execution, forced to convert to Islam, and made to work without pay. Many of the girls and women are repeatedly raped and have their genitals excised to gratify the sexual tastes of their masters.

The overwhelming majority of those victimized by slave raids are full of appreciation for the support they have received from CSI in its effort to release their loved ones from bondage. They find it incomprehensible that any American evangelical should justify keeping women and children enslaved. By further marginalizing the “despised and rejected” victims of slavery, CT has let slip an important opportunity to stand in solidarity with the persecuted body of Christ and other victims of repression.

John Eibner Christian Solidarity International Zurich, Switzerland

Has CT ignored the voices of Sudan’s Christians? In “How Apin Akot Redeemed His Daughter,” (CT, March 2, 1998, p. 56) Baronness Cox with great sensitivity told the successful story of how a father (with support from Westerners) saved his daughter from slavery. Also in “Sudanese Christians Bloody, but Unbowed” (CT, Aug. 10, 1998, p. 24), Connie Kisuke, a Nairobi journalist, chronicled how Sudanese Christians are surviving the war, while growing their churches. In June 1999, Kisuke was on assignment in southern Sudan for CT News. But due to ongoing violence, she was unable to visit the region where slaves are abducted. —Eds.

* Apparently Barbara Vogel’s elementary schoolchildren have more conscience than do my community college students who go blank when I ask what we can do about modern African slavery. One African-American student said she was more concerned about pre–Civil War slavery (about which she can do nothing) than with modern Sudanese slavery, which she said was OK because they were enslaved as part of a holy war to convert people. She further contended that to claim Europeans in the Middle Ages and Renaissance bought into an already existing system was a cop-out, salve to the white man’s conscience. A colleague was shocked when one of her Middle East students said there was nothing wrong with slavery: his family owned several. Meanwhile, Jesse Jack son, obviously embarrassed by modern African slavery, has been quoted as saying the subject needs more study. While the CT article suggests Jackson’s call for study may be warranted, such is not the case in Mauritania, where antislavery laws have yet to solve the problem.

Thurber D. Proffitt San Diego, Calif.

Peretti’s “Spice”; Grisham’s “Salt” * As a fan of both John Grisham and Frank Peretti, I read with interest Susan Wise Bauer’s article of contrast between The Visitation and The Testament [The Book Report: “Peretti Out-Grishams Grisham,” Aug. 9]. While I enjoyed her analysis of the irony of a secular novelist being sold in Christian bookstores and vice versa, I think her conclusion is off base.

Having read both books, I was delighted to see these authors move away from their comfort zones and exercise their creative talents in different ways. Peretti brought his Christian fiction down to earth, and Grisham elevated his secular fiction toward heaven.

Contrary to Bauer, I found Grisham’s work to be surprisingly realistic. The characters had a tangibility that I could easily connect to. The selflessness of the missionary and the demonizing of alcoholism made the story more believable, not less.

Peretti’s work is like an exotic spice, while Grisham offers a down-to-earth saltiness. Neither delivers a bitter taste to the sensibilities, and both are helpful to the advancement of Christians who write fiction.

Dave Milbrandt La Verne, Calif.

* I would like to take issue with Susan Bauer’s contention that Grisham’s character, the missionary Rachel, is “unworldly, unselfish, and totally unbelievable.” My sister was a missionary with Wycliffe Bible Translators, and while I knew Grisham had never met her, I found that fact hard to believe. His Rachel is so like my sister it is uncanny. Believe me, there are many unworldly and unselfish missionaries, unremarked and unknown by the average Christian in the affluent pews of America.

Shirley Forbes Denmark, Wis.

A “Clear Answer” Is Needed Timothy George’s answer to the question “What Is an Evangelical?” [Directions, Aug. 9] was more historical overview than concise answer. I would suggest a clear answer can be best served by the declaration published by the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals as follows: (1) Scripture alone, (2) Christ alone, (3) Grace alone, (4) Faith alone, (5) To God alone be the glory. These five points serve to delve into the absolutes of the evangelical faith.

Donald A. Parvin Cambridge, Ohio

Timothy George notes that the good news about Jesus Christ is “an utterly free gift that comes through faith alone.” This is, of course, standard evangelical doctrine. Would one of your editors please explain why evangelicals studiously ignore the major challenges to this belief?

1. Every verse in the Bible that deals specifically with the Day of Judgment—there are nearly 50—says our behavior is crucial, not our faith in Christ.

2. Since most of the persons who have inhabited our planet never heard about Christ, or have heard only fragments about him, they would have no chance for salvation based on evangelical theory, be cause of the sheer accident of the age in which they lived or the areas in which they were born.

Furthermore, people who “accept Jesus as their Savior” but find their behavior unchanged probably don’t have real faith anyway. Changed behavior proves their faith is more than mere verbal assent.

It is my belief that all impulses for good come from the promptings of the Holy Spirit. If those who never heard of Christ (or heard too little or too inaccurately to arouse interest) none the less responded to that Spirit when it spoke to them, they have done as much as they could do to please God. While no one can ever be “good enough” to merit eternal life, responding affirmatively to the Holy Spirit when it speaks to them (once Jesus has died for our sins) should qualify persons to be beneficiaries of God’s eternal grace and mercy. Isn’t that what a just God would do?

Reo M. Christenson Miamisburg, Ohio

Presbyterians and Gay Ordination In an otherwise fine issue of CT (Aug. 9), writer Jim Jones makes several unfortunate mistakes about the outcome of this summer’s Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) general assembly on the issue of homosexual ordination [News: “Fidelity Clause Retained“]. Our denomination shows positive signs of renewal; inaccurate re porting hurts those efforts.

Our Stated Clerk has clarified that what the assembly adopted was a call for study and dialogue “of the nature of the unity we seek in our diversity.” It is true that many of those who promote the homosexual agenda in the PCUSA are seeking to turn that action into a rehash of what has been settled and resettled constitutionally. Contrary to Jones’s report, the resource materials are to aid that consideration of our unity, not whether we ought to ordain those who engage in unrepentant sinful sexual behavior.

Jones’s report of the mandated re write of our sexuality curriculum is also misreported. Nothing in the action calls for continued discussion of the use of condoms.

Finally, Jones reports that our denomination’s chief spokesperson is Jerry Van Marter. That will come as a surprise to most Presbyterians, including, I trust, Mr. Van Marter. He is the PCUSA’s coordinator for news services and one of a number of reporters who, like Jones, covered the assembly. In the future I would be happy to point your reporter to spokes persons whom I hope can improve the accuracy of the reporting.

Terry Schlossberg, Executive Director Presbyterians Pro-Life Burke, Va.

* You mention “delegates approved a plan to rewrite church materials on sex education to include an emphasis on abstinence. The materials will continue to discuss the use of condoms.” Lest anyone be misled, in fact, discussion of birth control will be in a section on birth control for married couples, not for the unmarried. That was specifically one of the concerns raised and answered during debate.

Richard Brondyke Quincy, Mass.

* The article concludes with the statement, “Delegates also launched a new evangelism emphasis to help stop a loss of members that began 39 years ago.”

Doesn’t anyone in the denomination recognize that during this century Presbyterians and their leaders have drifted from the tenets of the Bible? This “drift” can be closely linked with the drop in membership. We not only consider approval of homosexuality and abortion, but also deny the need for salvation through Jesus Christ! (A survey published in Presbyterians Today in 1998 showed only 47 percent of Presbyterian pastors and church leaders believe Jesus Christ is the only way to God.) If just any beliefs are good enough, then there is no need to bring people to Christ, so we members, following the lead from pastors and leaders, have quit doing just that. Is it any wonder that membership is down?

Reed Siebenthal Muncie, Ind.

Why Do We Worship? * Michael Hamilton, in his article “The Triumph of the Praise Songs” [July 12], makes some very interesting and valid points. His article, however, accepts a widespread and mistaken purpose of the church gathered on Sunday mornings: to worship. Worship is truly an expression of one’s devotion to the Lord, but it is not limited to a certain time and place. In stead, it is the whole of one’s life lived in response to his grace and characterized as service to others (Rom. 12:1). The view that Sunday morning is the time for worship limits worship. More than looking to express our devotion to God through songs, shouldn’t we be looking for ways to encourage and strengthen our fellow Christians while we have the opportunity?

John L. Land Montgomery, Ala.

* It is far from true that “praise and worship” has prevailed. A great number of churches with more-or-less traditional worship styles continue to thrive, as do others that combine the new and the old. Further, numerous Christian leaders refuse to baptize the preferences of today’s dominant generation and then form the church’s worship priorities in obedience to demographic pointers.

But Hamilton overlooks the interest of many Xers and those younger in worship which is deep, rich, and rooted. Further, the importance of history and tradition for many older worshipers is ignored. He doesn’t even interact with leading worship theologians such as Marva Dawn and Robert Webber.

Is it not true that when the Spirit of God moves, walls between us can be broken down—including barriers of musical rigidity?

Hamilton reduces worship to a means to an end by giving it no place in the church’s purpose. But worship is what we were made for, it is the church’s grand objective, and it will be the Christian’s eternal vocation!

Pastor Peter K. Nelson Hinsdale Baptist Church Hinsdale, Ill.

Hamilton writes that complaints about worship music claim “to be rooted in theological principles” but end up aligning “perfectly with the critic’s own musical taste.” But most people rarely exhibit [only] one type of musical taste. It also avoids the weightier consideration of propriety. An individual may enjoy both Beethoven and U2, but also sense that neither is fitting for the worship of God. A sense of propriety does still exist on occasions of great moment—weddings, funerals, graduations, and presidential inaugurations—where music, dress, and words are chosen that will carry the gravity of the ceremony. The question, then, is why so many in the Christian church no longer consider the assembling of God with his people to be such a serious occasion.

D. G. Hart Philadelphia, Pa.

Statistically Satisfying Codes? I read “A Cracked Code” looking for some answers [Directions, July 12]. The main point was certainly solid: the truth of Genesis is in its contents and not in its letter sequences. It was also important to state “there is no universally accepted original Hebrew text” for Genesis. This is rarely stressed in discussions about the Bible.

Beyond these two points, however, the article seems to misunderstand or misrepresent the questions raised in Michael Drosnin’s book The Bible Code. As a mathematician, I would like to know whether anyone has refuted the mathematical claim that the Bible code methodology yields results statistically significant in Genesis but not in other texts—such as Moby Dick. An article that points out some of Drosnin’s mistakes must be a relief to those looking for reasons to ignore the topic. But is of no help to anyone who has read Drosnin’s book.

Vance Christiaanse Clay, N.Y.

Beyond “Manmade” Systems * Thank you for Roger E. Olson’s article, “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Arminian” [Sept. 6]. His ironic spirit and analysis of the current Reformed/ Arminian tensions were excellent.

As a lifelong Calvinist, I am distressed over the recent exchange of theological “brickbats”! Every “manmade” system of theological organization is flawed—because each is “manmade.” Are we constructing yet another schism over man’s inventions? As a lifelong “evangelical ecumenist,” I long for the unity that seemed to be growing in the 1980s. Evangelicals of Arminian, Holiness, Pentecostal, and Reformed traditions worked hard to focus on the essentials of our common evangelical faith. We had too long focused on suspicions, stereotypes, and “strawman” arguments.

I saw this intentional unity during my leadership years in the National Association of Evangelicals and our united care for the needy worldwide through World Relief. Our unity and reconciliation were not perfect, of course; just ask the National Black Evangelical Association. But we were on a good path.

Is the evangelical community in America allowing the dissimulation of another day to rear its head again? I hope not. My prayer is that Kevin Mannoia, NAE’s new president, from the theologically Arminian Free Methodist Church, will be successful in reawakening the irenic values of “evangelical ecumenists” nationwide.

Pastor Art Gay First Baptist Church Portland, Maine

An Evangelical Consensus? In response to the “Call for Evangelical Unity” and the “Evangelical Celebration,” we wish to express our joy that proponents and opponents of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), as well as other brothers and sisters in Christ, have come together to affirm their unity in the gospel.

We wish to express our regret, however, that they have done so by issuing a statement of evangelical belief that is, in some of its phrases, not in fact generically evangelical. Thus the statement serves needlessly to marginalize or alienate fellow evangelicals.

In particular, we are perplexed that this presentation of the gospel focuses so much on justification and so little on sanctification. To do so reflects an understanding of the gospel that is not truly representative, for instance, of many forms of the evangelical tradition, including Anabaptist, Methodist, Holiness, Pentecostal, charismatic, and yes, Re formed varieties. Surely our brothers and sisters who signed this statement would agree that the process by which God transforms us into the likeness of his Son and brings us home to glory is as important as his justification of us.

Furthermore, we are disappointed that the traditional evangelical affirmation that “Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation” (which we stoutly affirm) is linked with the controversial opinion that “the Bible offers no hope that sincere worshipers of other religions will be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ.” God’s treatment of those in other religious traditions who have not heard and rejected an authentic presentation of the gospel by the Holy Spirit in fact has been a subject of evangelical investigation and disputation for centuries.

In this regard, we are surprised by the affirmation that “saving faith includes mental assent to the content of the gospel.” We wonder how God saves infants and mentally retarded people; or people who lived before the time of Christ; or anyone who doesn’t hear the actual propositions of the gospel message in his or her lifetime.

Such phrasing represents only the “exclusivist” camp in these matters of evangelical dispute and leaves out “inclusivist” evangelicals. It therefore does not belong in a “uniting” document.

We join with CT, therefore, in celebrating the majority of this document with which we agree. We are sorry, however, that it does not in fact represent adequately the evangelical consensus it purports to reflect.

Gerald R. McDermott Nancey Murphy Alan G. Padgett Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. John G. Stackhouse, Jr. Jonathan R. Wilson Nicholas Wolterstorff

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. Due to the volume of mail, we cannot respond personally to individual letters. Write to Eutychus, Christianity Today, 465 Gundersen Drive, Carol Stream, IL 60188; fax: 630/260-0114. E-mail: cteditor@christianitytoday.com ( * ).

Copyright © 1999 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.