Letters - Christianity Today

War and Peace

Like Doug LeBlanc, I am one of those who believe strongly in “conservative” Christianity [“Waging Peace,” July 9]. Twice I have been called by the Holy Spirit to the Episcopal Church—the second time when I was nearly exiting at the back door. It was a calling to stay and work and pray for the glory of God to be revealed and re-revealed, not just to maintain the institution at status quo.

I am convinced that yelling at each other, and demeaning each other publicly or privately, will not bring about the effect that I am looking for in my Episcopal Church. The best of political and procedural maneuvers will not be satisfying. What is the use of a convention floor victory gained by only 1 vote? Or even 20?

If only to clarify for both liberals and conservatives our foundation and basic beliefs, we will need to have moments when we can share openly. To only throw stones is to miss the strategic value of the truism, “Know thine enemy.” For then you can pray and work specifically for the changes you believe are of God.

I can’t leave, either. I want to be obedient to the leading of the Holy Spirit.The Rev. Robert G. EatonSt. John’s Episcopal Church Tulare, California

As an Episcopalian for more than 30 years, I watched my denomination gradually accept nonbiblical teachings, then antibiblical teachings, and then observed the purveyors thereof seizing power and demanding compliance.

I watched the notorious Bishop John Shelby Spong deny every major tenet of the faith and receive no sanction or punishment. I am now watching the church openly persecute its conservative members, to the point where more than 8,000 have quit in the past two years, including more than 70 of its clergy. Sadly, I too have had to leave my denomination, where there is no longer any room for traditional Christianity.

In the process of shaping its own truths, the Episcopal Church has rejected not only the authority but the very content of the Bible, and has taken actions that defy its own foundational documents (the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion and the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral) and its own canon law.

A war is being waged for the soul and the witness of the Episcopal Church. Doug LeBlanc, I fear, has trivialized the issues that divide Episcopalians, as well as the pain endured by those who have been forced by conscience to leave their spiritual homes. Putting an arm around Louie Crew and his supporters will not resalt the salt that has lost its strength and needs to be thrown out.Brian LeoMokena, Illinois

My husband and I are grieving that Douglas LeBlanc fails to discern and respond biblically to neopaganism in the Episcopal Church, but then in a tv movie review [“Neopagan Pity Party,” July 9] states that such neopaganism is “irreconciliable” with Christian beliefs!

As members of the former St. John’s Episcopal Church in Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania, we have paid dearly for maintaining our Christian beliefs and witness. The Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania, Charles E. Bennison, also said he wanted “reconciliation” and “dialogue.” What that meant, however, was our allowing him an official visitation in which he would exercise spiritual authority over us by preaching, celebrating Holy Communion, and confirming our youth.

We refused this, finding his stated beliefs to be “neopagan” and, to quote LeBlanc, “irreconciliable with Christian beliefs.” We were given a date by which to bend the knee to Bishop Bennison and were threatened with “further action” (such as deposing our head rector and taking over our church buildings) if we refused.

So we were forced out of the Episcopal Church, forced out of our property (Bennison refused our offer of $1.3 million to purchase it) and told to vacate on short notice. Our rector, his wife, and his five children were given less than two months to move out of the rectory.

I do not feel that we at St. John’s have “the cold comfort of gathering only with our like-minded brothers and sisters and clucking with satisfaction about how terrible the other side is.” To the contrary, we are in grief and shock at having been driven out of the Episcopal Church for no other reason than being biblically orthodox.

The so-called liberals are in the process of driving out good and godly folk who are doing nothing wrong except following their Christian consciences in the traditional Anglican Way. Please, Mr. LeBlanc, wake up and recognize neopaganism when it is not parading around on a screen dressed up in wizard robes!Susan WendlingWyndmoor, Pennsylvania

How strange that I would read two pieces of literature on the same day—1 Corinthians 5 and “Waging Peace.”

I don’t want to be guilty of the pejorative names we conservatives are called by liberals, but can someone please explain to me how we can get past Paul’s injunction “not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin … Don’t even eat with such people” (1 Cor. 5:11, NLT)?

We should be eager to reconcile with those who thoroughly repent, but until our friends call their sin what God calls it, we’re supposed to stay our distance.

The man living with his father’s wife was convinced that he had done no wrong, and a large segment of the Corinthian church was proud of their tolerance. Paul, however, did not mince words: “How terrible that you should boast about your spirituality, and yet you let this sort of thing go on. Don’t you realize that if even one person is allowed to go on sinning, soon all will be affected?” (v. 6)

Isn’t this exactly what has happened with so many of the mainline denominations who have wanted to “dialogue” about this and other matters that Scripture condemns?David JankowskiMinooka, Illinois

Douglas LeBlanc responds:

Although my essay did not engage the question of autocratic bishops, I agree with Brian Leo and Susan Wendling that such bishops have driven away too many faithful Christians. Still, I know of orthodox churches that persist even under tyrannical bishops.

I do not believe my friendship with Louie Crew trivializes biblical truth or anyone else’s pain. If conflict requires that we have no friends on the other side, how are we supposed to stretch people’s minds—simply by sending them e-mail?

I appreciate David Jankowski’s commitment to 1 Corinthians 5. I honor the apostle Paul’s wisdom when choosing a local church; I become a member only if clergy preach the gospel (and God’s demands on our lives) clearly and joyously.

Beyond my local church, though, I consider discussions with liberals to be opportunities for evangelism, compassion, and apologetics.

Fulfilled, Ordained, and Godly

My thanks to Lauren Winner for her timely and insightful “Solitary Refinement” [June 11]. I empathize with Winner’s key point that there is a sharp and dominant dichotomy that the church maintains between the married and the single.

Having recently graduated from college and in the process of searching for new churches, I was accosted (and believe the appropriateness of the term!) for the first time by those seeking my involvement in singles ministries. I was struck by the fact that my postgraduate life had me pigeonholed into a sharply defined category, and one that carries a stigma for many Christians. As Winner so aptly puts it, when singleness prevails through the mid-30s, people “woefully begin to think, ‘Well, maybe I have the gift of celibacy.'”

As one who, like Winner, seeks a balance between the militant feminist crying for independence from men and the coed who mindlessly pursues an Mrs. degree, I applaud her desire for a redefinition of singleness as an equally fulfilling, equally ordained, equally godly lifestyle.

My one challenge would be this: Winner remarks, “It’s not that I think I will be a better minister if I am single; it’s that God may be calling me to remember how dependent I am on him—that no man will ever be an adequate substitute.” The line is subtle between singlehood viewed as an option as satisfying as marriage and singlehood viewed as an exalted relationship of dependence on God in a way unknown to married couples.

Whether we are married or single, God longs for us to know in ever-increasing measure our dependence on him. He makes the argument to all, whether we take up wedding vows or not, that man will never serve as an adequate substitute.

Perhaps the challenge for the contemporary church, as we prayerfully seek ways to destigmatize and support those single in the body, is to first acknowledge that whatever God may call us to, he calls us to those lives with an eye toward our ultimate satisfaction.Olivia LinWheaton, Illinois

Lauren Winner has sounded a clarion call to the church regarding development of a clear theology of marriage, singleness, and sex. In reading the remarks of her friends and acquaintences, what stands out most is the lack of consensus among them on just these issues.

Given the divorce rate among evangelicals, the real pain, confusion and denial in many Christian marriages must be addressed and a path to wholeness laid out and walked. Likewise, singleness and single people must be valued every bit as much as marriage and married people, and a vision offered of the single life that is higher than simply holding out until “the mate God selected for me” comes along.

Otherwise, Christianity will have very little to say to the increasingly influential, relationship-driven postmodern generation (a large percentage of whom are not married)—nor to those of any age seeking honesty, maturity, and substance in any relationship.Dana AmesUkiah, California

Supplanting Plantinga

I am afraid I must take issue with John Stackhouse’s assessment [“Mind Over Skepticism,” June 11] of Alvin Plantinga as “arguably the greatest philosopher of the last century.” Stackhouse asserts that Plantinga is not merely the best Christian philosopher but “the most important philosopher of any stripe.”

While Plantinga is arguably the most important and best philosopher of religion, Stackhouse’s claims simply are not borne up by the evidence.

Plantinga is primarily an epistemologist, metaphysician, and philosopher of religion. His influence does not extend far beyond these areas. While his work in epistemology is important, very few epistemologists (even Christians) would regard Plantinga as the most influential and important living epistemologist.

Plantinga has pioneered the way for young Christian philosophers like myself to work in the academy, an oftentimes hostile environment, and not be completely written off for being an outspoken Christian. For that reason alone I believe he is to be revered among philosophers.

But Stackhouse’s hyperbolic remarks betray the narrow provincialism of many Christians who fail to put into perspective the relevance and importance of the contributions of those with whom they share a common faith.Andrei A. BuckareffRochester, New York

Clarification on RU-486

In the article “Counteroffensive Launched on RU-486” [June 11], I was misquoted on the issue of abortion, one of the most defining moral stances in my personal life and medical practice.

I am prolife and support laws that protect life from its beginnings. To be “prochoice from a legal standpoint but against abortion on moral grounds,” as the article stated I described myself, is ethically indefensible. Such a position counters Christ’s admonitions to be pungent salt and shining light in a tasteless, darkened culture.

My comments on choice were that, as with Adam and Eve, God allows us the choice for good or evil. But he wants us to choose the good. In this sense, God is not against choice. (My saying this was what likely led to the writer’s confusion.)

As a society, we cannot ultimately remove evil choices, but we can discourage them by passing laws against them—something I advocate.Gene Rudd, M.D.Associate Executive Director Christian Medical Association Bristol, Tennessee

Daycare and Dads

As a working mother, I have to mention two glaring problems with your editorial on daycare [“Raising a Wild Child,” June 11].

First of all, where are the dads? If you want to take working mothers to task, that’s fine. But your editorial goes straight from describing the studies on childcare and aggression to discussing the reasons women work. To skip over the role of fathers without even a mention is to take an antiquated view of parenting.

Evangelicals, more than anyone else, should be supporting the idea that fathers have an enormous impact on their children and should be deeply involved in their lives. Even if you want to place the bulk of the responsibility for caring for children on mothers, fathers are still part of the equation.

Yes, our society’s dependence on daycare has plenty to do with women joining the workforce, but it also has to do with fathers who work 60 to 80 hour weeks to keep up in a competitive job market. Fathers can and should be part of the solution to the childcare conundrum.

I also must take issue with your list of reasons women work. While there are economic and psychological rewards, I also believe that many women work for the same reason men do—we feel God has gifted us in a certain area and want to serve him in the work that we do.

I adore my children and wish I could spend every second of my day gazing into their sweet faces. At the same time, I know God has put me in my career for a reason. God has shown me over and over again that I am in the right place and that he is using me to serve his kingdom. Your failure to mention that God can and does gift women and lead them to work where he can minister through them is a gross oversight.

The church has held up the ideal of the stay-at-home mom for a long time. But the reality is that more than 60 percent of women—including evangelicals—work outside the home in some capacity. Rather than heaping more guilt on Christian women, the church needs to find real ways to support moms and dads as they seek to parent their children.Carla BarnhillManaging Editor Christian Parenting Today Carol Stream, Illinois

When I read your editorial about childcare [June 11], I felt like weeping. I have struggled mightily with being caught between that rock and that hard place. To work or not to work, that is the question!

I am a well-educated woman, now in my 40s, who has devoted my life to being at home with my kids. I worked part time off and on, usually in my field, but now that the kids are all in school, I find that my patchwork résumé does nothing for me. I can’t get a “real” job.

My husband and I sacrificed to keep me at home supporting the kids and his career, and now we are looking at a bleak retirement picture. It will be a miracle if we don’t end up a burden on the kids before our time. We certainly stand zero chance of helping them with education expenses.

I’m not sure I would recommend that other women follow the path I have followed. We were counting on my earnings once the children were all in school, but that won’t happen until I’ve “retooled” at a high cost (at least two years of further education).

The only solution I can see is for management and workers to see the value in part-time work and part-time workers. Then families like ours won’t be so penalized when mothers are dedicated to their kids. Part-time work, and hence some childcare, is better than forcing the choice between full time or no time.

I know there’s something to be said for having a decent plan for retirement, even if it means part-time childcare.Sandra TomerAmes, Iowa

All that Jabez

Regarding the CT review of The Prayer of Jabez [“Significance in a Small Package,” June 11], I have found the New King James translation of 1 Chronicles 4:10 removes some of what you call “existential meaning” and “the chance, short-term encounter for God.”

First, if Jabez is a noble young man, and if his prayer is heard by God, we know he is not praying amiss so that he could spend it on personal pleasure (James 4:3). Rather, he would be focused on God’s will being done through him.

Furthermore, he recognized that his own sins would hinder what he was asking from God, not only for himself, but also for his expanding sphere of influence. Here the NKJV says, “Oh … that you would keep me from evil that I may not cause pain.” That is quite different from saying, “let your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain” (NIV).

Anyone who struggles with personal sin amid ungodly circumstances knows that, in your words, “enduring faithfulness at humble and thankless tasks” and “perseverance [amid] ordinary suffering” are called for.

Finally, Jabez’s prayer was answered because he prayed according to God’s will. That is, he looked beyond himself and recognized that “Thine is the Kingdom and the power and the glory.” It is the effectual and fervent prayer of the righteous man that is heard. Are we looking to Jabez’s prayer as a formula for a life free from harm and free from pain, or are we praying to promote his glory?Martha RiedigerScottsdale, Arizona