“The Audacious Experiment”
I appreciated Richard John Neuhaus’s comments on the two aspects of the religious freedom clause of the first amendment [“The Upside-down Freedom,” Dec. 9]. He says, “Historically, religious freedom is in largest part an achievement of religion, not a secular achievement against religion.” This may be true, but it is well for Christians to realize that those who drafted the First Amendment were not Christians, but deists. Religion here takes on a vague and general meaning. Also he states, “The Declaration of Independence, which is key to understanding our constitutional history, says that we are endowed by the Creator with certain ‘unalienable rights.’ ” This is again a deistic concept.
As Christians we must focus not on our rights, but on the realization that all we have is a gift, freely given at the price of the life of God’s son. We have yet to see whether “the audacious experiment” of American democracy has worked.
Sally Frahm
Austin, Tex.
Neuhaus stated that the American government is the “oldest continuing government in the world.” In 1988 the English celebrated the 300th anniversary of the revolution of 1688, which, according to the historian A. L. Rowse, was “The Sensible Revolution.” It achieved five things without shedding any blood: (1) The Crown could no longer rule without Parliament; (2) There could be no standing army without the permission of Parliament; (3) Only Parliament could raise taxes; (4) Installing William and Mary on the throne established a Protestant succession; (5) The judiciary achieved independence.
Surely what was omitted was the word republic.
Eric S. Fife
Bradenton, Fla.
Neuhaus asserts that “the moral ligitimacy of the state itself depends upon the state’s acknowledgement of a higher authority”; the U.S. Constitution does not. Rather, it grounds the authority of government on “We the people.” Further, the Declaration of Independence states that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
Frederick Edwords
American Humanist Association
Amherst, N.Y.
A point overlooked that probably explains the increased inversion of the First Amendment is the heightened and more widespread religious pluralism in the U.S. The only way government can protect “free exercise” for people of all persuasions or no persuasion is to give “no establishment” a priority over “free exercise” in legal determinations. For example, in a public school where attendance is required, “no establishment” dictates that mandated prayer be forbidden; but this very decision equally guards the “free exercise” of religion to Baptist, Buddhist, and Jewish children.
Rolland M. Ruf
Collegdale, Tenn.
Moral Hypocrisy?
I think Gary Hardaway is unduly harsh in his column, “No Pardon for North” [Speaking Out, Dec. 9], The act of applying funds generated from one covert, off-the-books transaction (sale of arms to Iran) to another (aid to the contras) is not fairly characterized as “embezzlement,” or even, in my view, “misappropriation.” Second, I don’t believe anyone seriously contends that the Boland Amendment expressly applies to the activities of the NSC. Finally, I do not share Hardaway’s sanguinity about the role of the court in passing judgment on covert activities of the executive branch. I think the notion is utterly foolhardy. What next? Will we be trying our soldiers for murder if they are sent into battle for a cause of which Congress disapproves?
The issue is of grave importance and ought to be squarely faced: Are we to have and exercise a covert capability? To admit the necessity of covert action and then build a hedge of impossible requirements around its exercise is moral hypocrisy. As a lawyer I have much practical experience in our courts and am dismayed at the trend toward turning them into universal plebiscites for the resolution of political and policy issues. They are tools ill-formed for that purpose. If the trend continues, justice is doomed to become the hostage of politics, and the rule of law will perish.
Stephen P. Oliver
Torrance, Calif.
CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s disclaimer does not excuse printing such possibly libelous material. The writer admits that his remarks presuppose North is guilty. As a lawyer I must condemn a writer so unprincipled as to attempt to prejudice a case in court while it is being tried. He speaks of lying, stealing, embezzling, destroying evidence, etc., as though such crimes have been proven, though such is not the case.
Thomas J. Potts
Greenville, S.C.
Whither The Sunday School?
Your article on “Will Sunday School Survive?” [News, Dec. 9] raised realistic questions about its health. Because I was reached with the salvation message through the Sunday school, and work in the Sunday school, I am concerned about potential or perceived loss to an institution that still has vibrancy.
The article raises the possibility that enrollment is up in evangelical denominations and independent churches. This is probably true. I am concerned when Sunday schools in mainline denominations go down, because it reflects a national attitude toward the need for religious education. If there were a greater thirst for the Bible, it would be reflective in both evangelical and mainline groups. Historically, enrollment meant “submembership” into the local church, and was meant primarily for those not old enough for full church membership, or who for other reasons couldn’t qualify. Today, enrollment generally is a mailing list with little “bonding” value.
The Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches marks the decline beginning in 1970, but that was also when a shift was made in measuring Sunday school from enrollment to attendance. Prior to 1971, Sunday school attendance was generally higher than church attendance. Even though the national trend is away from enrollment, I see this as weakening the movement.
Elmer L. Towns
Liberty University
Lynchburg, Va.
According to all I have read from Win Arn, and the statistics he gathers, nearly everything in your article was correct. However, you listed the Nazarenes as experiencing lapsed enrollment during the 1980s. I pulled together our enrollment totals for the U.S., Canada, and the denomination worldwide: In the past nine years the Church of the Nazarene has increased in enrollment overall. Even with just the U.S. figures, we have increased enrollment from 839,248 in 1980 to 861,761 in 1988.
Phil Riley
Church of the Nazarene International
Kansas City, Mo.
Refocusing Advent Observance
Three cheers for Mary Ellen Ashcroft! I cannot say “Amen!” loudly or exuberantly enough for her excellent article, “Away from the Manger” [Dec. 9]. For the past several years, I have tried (without much success) to refocus the observance of Advent in the churches I’ve pastored away from preparing for Jesus’ birth (how can we prepare for something that’s already taken place?)—to preparing for his coming again in glory, triumph, and judgment. In view of the scriptural directive to “watch and be ready,” this seems to be the more urgent and expedient course for us Christians to pursue.
I cannot help wondering if the fact that nearly all our Advent observances focus on the first, rather than the second, coming of Jesus isn’t part of Satan’s strategy to better ensure that that Day’s coming will catch many of us unawares, and unprepared.
Rev. P. Douglas Martin
Gordonsville United Methodist Charge
Gordonsville, Va.
I think it is wonderful we evangelicals are rediscovering the church calendar. But if we really are going to observe Advent (as I think we should), let’s recognize that it is not a season during which we are meant to meditate on Christ’s second coming. There are other times for this, such as Communion, when we “remember his death until he comes.” Advent was meant to be a time when we meditate on the mystery of the Incarnation—how God became flesh and dwelt among us, bringing us salvation not only through an atoning death, but also by sharing our humanity. If we are too comfortable with Christ as a slumbering babe, the problem may be that we have an inadequate appreciation of how fully he shared our humanity, and how important this is for our salvation. Let Advent be a time when we meditate on this.
Christopher Smith
S. Hamilton, Mass.
Addiction Recovery
I read with interest the Alsdurfs’ article on codependency and addiction [CT Institute, Dec. 9]. I consider myself a recovering codependent/coaddict; my husband is a sexual addict in recovery. Both of us have been active church members for many years.
I have been in therapy for close to two years in addition to 12-step programs. For those with codependent behavior—who are trying to change their behavior as well as heal old wounds—a 12-step group is a great source of support and tool for living in recovery. Some in my group are beginning to see the possibilities for a real relationship with God for the first time because of the 12-step group and consideration of the steps. Christians should be wary about criticizing groups that successfully minister to people who are often ostracized and criticized, if not barred outright, by church fellowships. I am grateful to God that the healing of broken people comes first to most churches and pastors when a 12-step group asks for meeting space. Thank you for your thoughtful article on this subject.
Name Withheld
Drugs Not On The Short List
I disagree with Terry Muck [Editorial, “Stoned Logic,” Dec. 9]. Restrictive drug laws make no more sense today than prohibition did a generation ago. Prohibition was an evangelical darling, but it gave subsidy to the mob. For all the “good” intentions, that law helped create an evil empire in our midst. We now make it more wealthy, because the normal human response to any rule is to find a way to break it, even at great personal expense.
Christians would do well to limit their call for prohibition to those acts found in the Decalog, like murder, theft, or adultery. That law is our charter. We foolishly add to that short list.
Terry L. Schoen
Walla Walla, Wash.
Comparable Mirth
At our church board meeting the other night, staff salaries came up for review. One of the new members of our board made a plea for “comparable worth”—the idea that pay be based not on gender-dictated tradition but on “the relative worth of a given job to an organization.”
So, he argued, Agnes, our church secretary ($14,750), should make as much as our pastor ($26,500). And, based on comparable worth, he had a point. The church gets along fine during the pastor’s four weeks of vacation; but let Agnes go away for five days and the Great Commission grinds to a halt.
Then someone pointed out that Pete, our part-time janitor, ought to make the same amount, too. If he didn’t clean up after the junior-high caramel-corn party, the church would stop in its tracks—literally. And there’s Claire, whose pineapple upside-down cake at a potluck has probably drawn more people to church than any high-powered evangelist who has everpounded our pulpit. She’s definitely worth twenty-six five.
Before we knew it, we were figuring the pay scale for Sunday school teachers, prayer warriors, ushers—every one of them make a significant contribution to our congregation. By the time we caught up with ourselves, our church of 130 had a proposed payroll of more than $3 million. Being firm believers in a balanced budget, however, we found a way out: We passed a resolution declaring that we are all of incomparable worth, and tabled any further discussion of salaries.
Meeting adjourned.
EUTYCHUS
