Holy Day or Man’s Day?
Congratulations on “Confessions of a Former Sabbath Breaker” [Sept. 2]. What a glorious risk you have taken: Hordes of Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-day Baptists, and members of some 100 tiny Sabbatarian groups may descend upon you with a demand for biblical consistency. Just how does one keep holy a day that has never been made holy? Others, despite Peterson’s caveat, will fear you are heading backwards into Jewish legalism and denying the freedom of the gospel. I will be surprised if your mail basket is not soon filled and overflowing.
For those willing to look at the subject afresh, the careful work From Sabbath to Lord’s Day, edited by D. A. Carson (1981), should be reviewed. Carson affirms that Sunday-keepers who use the Decalogue have no case; seventh-day keepers are much more consistent. He warns against the ground Peterson takes for granted—that any day will do. And Karl Barth quotes De Quervain approvingly: Where the holy day becomes the day of man, society and humanity wither away and the demons rule.
DESMOND FORD, Ph.D.
Good News Unlimited
Auburn, Calif.
Peterson is confused in thinking Sabbath is interchangeable and people are free to pick and choose when they observe the Lord’s Day. There is only one Sabbath according to Scripture. God created the world and everything in it in six days and rested on the seventh.
TERESA JOY
Fargo, N.D.
Our Lord set apart and blessed the seventh day as his and humankind’s shabbat. Would it not be logical, and yes, biblically expedient, for Peterson, in his quest for a Sabbath other than Sunday, to choose the day that conforms with the Creator’s original mandate?
GERALD E. LOGAN
Lincoln, Neb.
Amen-Tionables
Now and then, when I’m feeling rather bold and I hear a public prayer that touches my soul, I lend it my endorsement with a hearty “amen.” In fact, I was getting pretty comfortable with this sort of prayer participation until last week.
I was at an interdenominational prayer breakfast when I noticed it: a sort of hissing from the table next to mine. Then I realized that several people there were saying “Yes, Lord” during the prayer. An even louder hiss grew from another table, where just the word “yes” was being uttered frequently, with people holding on to the “sss” for a couple of seconds.
One of the groups by the door was really getting enthusiastic, with words like “glory” or “hallelujah.” Even their simple “amens” stretched into “aaaymen.”
Things were pretty quiet at my table (most of us were silent nodders) until the grunting started. No one actually opened his mouth, but every now and then someone would puncuate another’s prayer with a staccato “umm.” I even tried it. It seemed a pretty safe method to me; after all, I couldn’t be too embarrassed by making a noise that sounded normal after a big breakfast. Still, I have to admit I haven’t prayed out loud myself much since that morning. I dread the thought that my public prayer might be met by silence.
EUTYCHUS
New Age myth or mythology?
“The Soul of the New Age” [Sept. 2] provides many valuable insights into the “new (but old) way of thinking.” But imprecisions in the language and thought of the article dull its effectiveness in countering a thought system as subtle and ancient as the New Age myth. First, do not lose the distinction between myth and mythology—that is, the belief system as distinct from a study of it. Second, the distinction between historical and mythical narrative is blurred by saying “a myth is a narrative (true or false) that seeks to express in imaginative form” a people’s religious perceptions. The confusion of myth with history with its undesirable results is, I feel, why many naïve Christians show an instinctive aversion to “any mention of myth.”
ARTHUR DAVIES
Holland, Mich.
I consider myself a Christian, and yet have investigated and experienced a lot of the things discussed in this article. I’m wondering why “mainstream” Christians have such a hard time accepting the possibilities of things presently unknown to us. If your belief system includes Atlantis or ghosts or UFOS, then why couldn’t the Lord use these things to speak to you?
CHARLES THAXTON
Mesa, Ariz.
Evangelicals and creation
I thought the CT Institute presentation “How It All Began: Why Can’t Evangelical Scientists Agree?” [Aug. 12] was first-rate. I commend all the participants for their candor. There is no point to be served, as John Woodbridge recognized, by trying to paper over the differences between fiat creationists, theistic evolutionists, and progressive creationists. The challenge of achieving a united front is formidable indeed. Still, there are some causes for optimism, one of them being the remarkable change of opinion attributed to Sir Fred Hoyle by Bill Durbin, Jr.
JOHN R. HADD
McLean, Va.
I am amazed that in such an august treatise you did not mention “Creation Science Association Around the World” or Creation Research Institute, or such individuals as John MacKay, Henry Morris and Duane Gish, and A. E. Wilder-Smith.
REV. PAUL VAUGHAN
Santa Ana, Calif.
Why can’t evangelical scientists agree? Because they don’t believe God’s Word. They don’t accept it as it is written. It takes more faith to believe our wonderful world was evolved from nothing than to believe our God created it in six days.
MARGUERITE TOMLIN
Sandy, Oreg.
I hunt fossils for a living and have studied the creation/evolution issue for ten years, and I have found the evidence to be overwhelmingly in support of Creation, the worldwide Flood, and young Creation.
KEN KIRCHHEVEL
Roundup, Mont.
I found it surprising (and saddening) that Howard Van Till expressed a viewpoint more in line with the writings of Immanuel Kant than of Jesus Christ.
MARK HORNE
Houghton College
Houghton, N.Y.
Failure to reckon the eternity and time differential may cause confusion in interpretation: Eternity is immeasurable but time is measurable. Time is a measured part of eternity. Time is a convenience of God for dealing with a finite creature in his sin.
DAVID A. DOWNIE
Jersey Shore, Pa.
I suspect the notion that God simply spoke “Let there be …” and it came into existence immediately is based not only on a simplistic understanding of what is meant by a “day” in Genesis 1, but also upon a very American measure of greatness. We regard as greatest the person who builds biggest and fastest. Which of the world’s greatest works of art or architecture were created in a day or a week? The more I value and love what I create, the more time and effort I will take to create it and care for it afterwards. So it is with God, who has created me and actively loves me.
EUGENIE JOHNSTON
Ithaca, N.Y.
Misinformed, not misled
The article about Oral Roberts University School of Medicine [July 15], although well written, contained one inaccuracy. Beneath my picture is the caption: “Miller: Feels misled by Oral Roberts.” This is untrue. Actually, I was misinformed by admissions officers of the medical school about the scholarship program.
I’m extremely grateful to Oral Roberts and his ministry for financially supporting me through one year of school, and I encourage partners in the ministry to continue to contribute to the medical missions program.
PAUL K. MILLER
Tulsa, Okla.
Home schooling a “vital ministry”
It was refreshing to read “The Kitchen Classroom” [Aug. 12]. I hope many eyes were opened to this vital area of ministry. The research revealing “good marks” regarding “socialization” should serve to dispel the fears of those considering this path. I have found this to be a major objection to home schooling, and it was good to see this addressed.
REG BARROW
Still Waters Revival Books
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Brian Ray alluded to the “moot exercise” of using current research to defend and promote home-school education. The research is insufficient and inconclusive. However, he chose to use the data to conclude that “home school youth are consistently doing as well or better than their conventional school peers.” In my experience with home schoolers, I find the children are likely to be raised in a supportive, nurturing, stable family environment by parents who are fairly well educated. Perhaps a study using a control group of children from similar family environments who have chosen public education would be more accurate.
DANIEL K. ANDERSON
Minnetonka, Minn.
Missions books in Portuguese
Sharon Mumper’s insightful news report, “Brazilian Christians See Beyond Their Borders” [Aug. 12], contains one inaccurate statement that merits clarification. She quotes Brazilian mission administrator Rosejlan Macedo as saying “there are no missions books in Portuguese, Brazil’s official language.” This is not true. The Conservative Baptist Foreign Mission Society’s publishing house, Edicoes Vida Nova (New Life Editions), currently markets about a dozen titles in the area of missions from its headquarters in São Paulo. These are mostly Portuguese translations of English works. Possibly Mr. Macedo meant to say there are no missions books written by Brazilian authors.
CURTIS A. KREGNESS
Arden Hills, Minn.
Inconsistent, not heretical
Your brief report on the Murray Harris issue contains three major mistakes [News, Aug. 12]. I did not accuse Harris of “heresy” regarding the Resurrection. I claimed merely that denying the physical, material nature of the resurrection body is not consistent with what the [Evangelical] Free Church doctrinal framers meant by “bodily resurrection.” I did not charge that Harris claimed the apostle Paul changed his mind about the physical nature of the Resurrection. I noted rather that Harris was retained on the Trinity faculty (in 1976) even though he then taught in print that Paul was mistaken about his earlier view that believers receive their resurrection bodies at the Second Coming. Harris embraces the curious view that by the time Paul wrote 2 Corinthians 5 he held that believers receive their resurrection bodies at death, even though their physical bodies are obviously still in the grave.
Your article implies the issue is a “personal” matter. This is not true. The issue is one of doctrinal integrity. This is poor journalism, to say nothing of the misunderstanding it perpetrates in the body of Christ.
NORMAN L. GEISLER
Dallas Theological Seminary
Dallas, Tex.
Four items would put the matter in clearer perspective: (1) Geisler has not been active in the EFCA Ministerial Association for over ten years; (2) Geisler didn’t resign from the EFCA until he was informed by me in June that disciplinary procedures against him were being initiated for conduct unbecoming a minister; (3) The charge of heresy brought by Geisler related to “the nature of the resurrection body”; (4) Despite actively trying for over a year to make his case against Harris, and a personal presentation to the ministerial association in June 1988, Geisler’s charges were rejected by a vote of approximately 500 to 10. In addition, the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School faculty and board of directors of the EFCA both voted unanimously to affirm the orthodoxy of Professor Harris.
MICHAEL P. ANDRUS
Chairman, EFCA Ministerial Association
Evangelical Free Church
Manchester, Mo.
