We always appreciate hearing from our readers. In the future, we would like to encourage readers to respond in the comment boxes after the articles. But you may also send us letters via e-mail at christianstandard@standardpub.com, and through the mail: Christian Standard,  8805 Governor’s Hill Drive, Suite 400, Cincinnati, OH 45249. We look forward to reading your comments!

A Tragedy Occurring Every Day
(posted 9/6/11)
What would we do, what would we think, how would we react if we had a 9/11 type tragedy every day? Actually we do have such a tragedy every day. Your articles related to the 10th anniversary of 9/11 reminded me of what occurred to me soon after the event. If half the people dying in America on an average day go to Hell, then more Americans go to Hell every day than were killed on 9/11. (Two thirds of Americans very rarely, if ever, go to church—even on Easter—and less than 10 percent go every week.) Little-known but very good research shows that nearly all churches are sociologically full. That means there is very little room for additional people in church. Adding another million churches in this country probably would not be enough.
—Bruce Webster
via e-mail

More Scripture, Less Opinion
(posted 8-29-11)
Until lately, articles in your publication had been making some improvements in incorporating more Scripture. I would hope your publication would expect some type of accountability from its writers for how their views and opinions are formed. What better reference than Scripture? If you do not hold your writers accountable, are you encouraging falsehoods?

One article in the August 21 publication was loaded with the Scripture. I would like to commend Brian Giese for his article, “Life Lessons on Prayer.” The article was from his heart, full of truth, and scripturally sound. His every statement seemed to radiate the Word of God.  I counted no less than 12 references to Scripture and in his conclusion, he rightfully refers to Acts as a book about prayer. I have never met brother Giese but I’m sure it would be a privilege to share time with him. Your publication needs more men and women like him.

To be quite honest, I have been disappointed with several articles you published for lack of Scripture. Daniel Schantz wrote an article pertaining to the dress of current churchgoers (“The T-shirt Aristocracy,” August 21). In his opinion piece, he refers to Scripture just once and, at best, is stretching the Scripture he uses for wearing a tie or dressing casually. When he quotes Ecclesiastes 9:8—“Let your garments always be white, And let your head lack no oil”—is this relative to dress? Does the word “white” refer to cleansing, becoming white or made clean, rather than dressing in some form or fashion?

Jesus went out daily in his casual clothing rather than dressing up or down to preach the good news. Jesus’ interests, as should be ours, were to spread the good news. In Luke 9:3 Jesus sent out his apostles and told them to “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic. There was no mention of a dress code for their journey. Again, their job was to go out and spread the good news, rather than impress their listeners with their clothing. If we would concentrate more on the word and less on man thoughts, we, as disciples, teachers, and preachers would be much better off.

Bottom line, where the Scripture speaks, let it speak and where the Scripture is silent, let it be silent.

Let us not be divided by such trivia, let us follow Matthew 28:19-20, “Therefore go out and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jesus sure can say some powerful stuff!
—Allen Wood Sr.
New Palestine, Indiana

Explanation of Baptism

This comment  is a response to Francis Chan’s “simple but effective explanation of baptism” that was mentioned in August 7, 2011 Media Matters.

(posted 8/17/11)

“One of the entries headed “Have You Seen It” says “Pastors are loving Francis Chan’s simple but effective explanation of baptism” found on youtube.

After going to the site provided, I listened carefully to Chan’s explanation, sincerely desiring this highly accepted speaker to be accurate in explaining this essential step in salvation.  Although there is much I agree with in Chan’s explanation, I’m afraid Chan has missed a very vital point concerning baptism–it is the point where our sins are forgiven and when the Holy Spirit takes up residency within us.

Much like our Baptist friends who have always claimed baptism to be “an outward expression of an inward grace,” Chan’s description of baptism being a “pledge to God” sounds as though he still doesn’t quite “get it.”  He’s absolutely right when he says we should “just do it”, but we need to understand what is taking place when we are buried with Christ and when we rise a new creature in Him.  It is far more than a “pledge to God”.  The Holy Spirit
indwells us upon being baptized because at that moment, the sin in our lives has been washed away, Christ’s blood has been applied, and we are vessels the Holy Spirit can now fill.

I am not surprised that so many pastors are impressed with Chan’s explanation.  It is becoming increasingly more popular to say that baptism is anything and everything except what the Bible says it is.  People try so hard to make a very simplistic concept more than what it very significantly is.  Without baptism, our sins are not forgiveness and the
Holy Spirit does not indwell us.  It’s that simple.”

Cheryl A. Moen, La Crescent, Minnesota

via e-mail

Parents Have Abdicated Responsibility
(posted 7-8-11)
(This letter references the article “13-year-olds Have Sex” by Tony Wood which appeared in the July 3 CHRISTIAN STANDARD print magazine and also at MoreAtStake.com.)

Children are having sex at younger and younger ages because parents have left their place in their children’s lives. It is a parent’s responsibility–not the church’s–to teach about God. (See Deuteronomy 6:4-8.)  The church is to back-up the parent.

If a church can’t/won’t help a parent be a parent, how can a church help a teen become a Christian?

Instead of more programs for teens, how about programs on how to parent?
—Diane Mitchell
via e-mail

‘Missed a Critically Obvious Point’
(posted 7-8-11)
The author missed a critically obvious point (in “And God Bless America” by Doug Priest).  When politicians or leaders say, “And God bless America,” who is their audience?  I’ve never heard any of our leaders use that expression in front of a foreign audience.  When I visit with someone and we get ready to depart, I often say, “May God bless you.”  I usually don’t add, ” . . . and your milkman, and your paperboy, and the Koreans, and the World.”  I hope Mr. Priest isn’t disappointed in me, too!

I’m afraid the CHRISTIAN STANDARD may have had too much ink and too many empty pages, so you settled for “filler” considerably below your “Christian standard.”
—Mike Hucker
La Crosse, Indiana

Two Additional Questions
(posted 6-16-11)
I appreciated the May 8 CHRISTIAN STANDARD—”What’s Happening with Women’s Ministry.”  I wish, however, you would have asked/answered two basic questions in this issue:

1. What is women’s ministry (define)?

2. How does women’s ministry differ (if any) from men’s ministry?
—Jerry Holden
via e-mail

‘Interesting . . . and Somewhat Irritating’
(posted 5-27-11)
I found the articles on Hell in the May 22 CHRISTIAN STANDARD interesting,thought-provoking—and somewhat irritating. I am particularly concerned about what seems to be free use of extra-biblical arguments inthree of these articles.

1. Stanley Grenz says (in “Eternal Suffering or Eternal Damnation,” p. 5), “The lost will suffer varying degrees of punishment.” (Dante was right?) He cites Jesus’ declarations (Matthew 10:15 & 11:20-24; Luke 12:47, 48) that it will be better on Judgment Day for Sodom & Gomorrah and for Tyre & Sidon than for the homes and towns of Israel that rejected him and his disciples. Should these declarations be taken as literal fact or as rhetorical expressions? (See, for example, Luke 14:26.)

2.  Jeff Vines (in “How Could a Loving God Send Anyone to Hell?” p. 7) defines God as “the ultimate respecter of free will.” Is there Scripture for this? Will God grant my last wish, regardless of its nature, to preserve my free will? The Egyptian Pharaoh’s responses to the 10 plagues in the time of Moses (for example, Exodus 7:13, 8:15, and 9:12) suggest that God sometimes moves man as he will, for his purpose, regardless of man’s will.

3.  Dave Richmond says (in “Here’s What I Think About Hell,” p. 14) that “souls cannot be destroyed.” Is there Scripture for this? The only text I found that seemed relevant was 1 Timothy 6:15, which says that God is “the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal.”
—Don Etz
via e-mail

More Thoughts on Hell
(posted 5-17-11)
I was a bit underwhelmed by your articles on Hell in the May 22 issue (not yet posted). Several observations:

1. The introductory letter seemed to imply that Bell, in Love Wins, was teaching universalism, which a fair reading of the book (and especially follow-up interviews) would say is decidedly *not* the case. (For example, see this 90-minute interview with Bell at Denver Seminary (www.denverseminary.edu/news/a-discussion-with-rob-bell/) or his informal “debate” with a reformed blogger on UK’s Premier.TV (www.premier.tv/lovewins). Rather, Bell was making a case for epistemic humility over epistemic closure when it comes to presenting the gospel and answering questions on Hell and the afterlife. He lists multiple historical Christian views of Hell, noting that each has major problems with it, and chooses none of them as the “right” one, but rather leaves the tension between them purposely unresolved.

2. Bell doesn’t deny the existence of Hell, but rather affirms it exists both now and after death. What he calls into question is the certainty with which some Christians teach/hold its manifestation and how God determines who is in and out of it. He does contradict one of your articles which argues that Hell must be a selling point of the gospel, instead suggesting that such a treatment neglects the temporal manifestation of the kingdom for a “theology of evacuation”—a viral marketing plan for fire insurance, if you will.

3. I suspect Bell could just as easily have written the article you reposted from Jeff Vines (http://christianstandard.com/2006/08/how-could-a-loving-god-send-anyone-to-hell/), as he summed up much of the point Bell was trying to convey in Love Wins. Vines’s summation of how to answer the question “How could a loving God send anyone to Hell?”—that it is their own free will and desires which put them there, and that for God to embody love, the individual’s choice to reject him must exist—is the exact same answer Bell gives in the book.

4. One of the best tests to make sure we’re not creating a straw man argument is to say, “Would the person whose idea I am criticizing agree with the way I’ve restated his idea”? In the case of Bell, I think you’ve created somewhat of a straw man in your own article on heresy/heretics. And in this particular case, since he’s made himself available for public and private interviews on the topics he wrote about in Love Wins, you’ve also likely not lived up to the spirit of Matthew 18. (It’s also ironic that you mentioned Billy Graham, since Bell’s answer on “who’s in and who’s out” of Hell was the same as Graham’s and C.S. Lewis’s.)

5. Probably the best article in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD on the topic of Hell was Glen Elliott’s from January (“What Should We Believe About Hell?“) which noted that there is equal biblical support for annihilationism as there is for eternal conscious torment. I found it interesting that May 22’s article against annihilationism primarily used extrabiblical arguments in trying to suggest that this particular view is extrabiblical! (It also misstated that the annihilation position came about in the 1600s. Luther believed in a form of it, and much of the early Jewish-Christian church did, as well.)  The view of the immortality of the soul is primarily borrowed from Greek thought, not explicit scriptural exegesis.  We aren’t told exactly how humans are made “in the image of God,” so trying to use this as a call for epistemic closure on the subject (i.e., that conditional immortality is somehow a heretical or Gnostic treatment of Scripture) is violently in opposition of the basic character of the Restoration Movement.

Perhaps it would be best if we followed our own tradition’s concept of being silent where the Bible is silent, and allowing multiple viable interpretations to exist in tension with each other, rather than trying to force an answer.
—Chris L.
Via website

What Was the Point of ‘Negative’ Article?
(posted 5-17-11)
As I read the article titled “51 miles to Faith” (not yet posted) I had to ask myself, what was the purpose of this article?  Was it to be as blatantly provacative as I thought it was?  I was even more surprised to see that this article was written by a Bible college professor.  I’m not even sure where to begin.

First, I can only conclude that Mr. (Dan) Schantz is venting his pent-up frustration with what he feels today’s churches are doing wrong and thinks that the only church in his 51-mile radius that has it correct is the church he belongs to.  The first sentence of the article sets a very negative tone.  “Going to church in this era of loud, RUDE bands and electronic light shows is often more of a trial to my faith than a boost to it.”  Here are other negatives he has to offer:

—This church knows what to omit: no projection screen, no “inspiring announcements” on the omitted projection screen, no “wailing guitars,” no pounding percussion, no MTV videos to make you dizzy, no electronic priests performing for us, no high-powered Sunday school presentations.

—I wonder what some churches have against “the most inspiring instrument God ever created,” the human voice.

—Only babies with “serious problems” go to the nursery. ( I find this particularly appalling.  That must be very comforting to the visiting family that may have an autistic child.)

—He loves to see his audience of “intact families” as he looks out over the congregation while he preaches.  (It’s not the well who need the doctor!)

—Members here “dress well.”  Men wear clean slacks and suits; women wear dresses.  Women don’t dress “sexy.”

—The teenagers of this church aren’t brats but can actually carry on a conversation with an adult.

—He assumes that 50 small churches of 100 can have more reach than one church of 5,000.  This speaks nothing to the “life” of any church.

It sounds like a lovely church for the demographic it serves.  I’m glad he found a place that meets HIS needs.  Ironically the church I attend sounds very familiar.  Country church in existence for almost 200 years, full of farmers and other blue-collar folks with a bulletin board with the servers’ list on it. We have a pea-gravel parking lot and immaculate pews, no wait, we just got rid of them and replaced them with chairs.  We are a rich blend of ages and personalities as well.  We have a band, though not rude.  We have a projector, one with scrolling announcements.  We have drums.  Our minister wears a microphone so that those who need our electronic hearing assistance devices can hear the sermon.  Some wear jeans, some where slacks, sometimes the preacher wears jeans, sometimes slacks.  I have found that his sermons are equally good regardless of what he wears.  We have divorced couples in our church and in fact, our preacher himself is divorced.

I apologize if I come off as condescending.  After multiple reads, I still can’t see what the point of this article is unless it is to extol the virtues of doing church Mr. Schantz’s way.  We try really hard to help our congregation from becoming selfish, consumers of church who only seek what a church can offer them, not what they can offer God or the church.  There are things that are done in my church that I don’t particularly like, but if we are making disciples, seeking and saving lost people, being a positive force in our community, I could care less if we have drums, guitars, and projection systems because it’s not about me and what I want.  Love God, Love people the best way you can, and realize that not everyone does it the way you or I may do it.  If the gospel is intact, the details aren’t really relevant.
—Ryan Tosh
Via e-mail

‘Informative But a Little Disturbing’
(posted 5-13-11)
As one of the older, conservative ministers of our movement I found the May 8 issue about women informative but a little disturbing. I really appreciated Kay Moll’s words (in “Reaching Their Potential?“). While there was no emphasis on women as ordained preaching minister’s, it was a clearly underlying issue. Our church has just moved to have deaconesses because it is found in Scripture (Romans 16:1) and is also historically authenticated. So I am not  traditional other than following what the Bible actually says without ignoring it or explaining it away just to fit in with the modern world.

Then the May 15 issue came in and I enjoyed it pretty much from cover to cover. It had several articles I will file and also encourage our elders to read.

I suppose that CHRISTIAN STANDARD needs to have this as a goal since “We have found a breadth and depth not present just a generation ago” (“From the Editor,” May 8). No preacher, no church, no publication can please all the people all the time.
—Lynn T. Eynon
Woodstock, Georgia

Disappointed with Women’s Issue
(posted 5-9-11)
I would like to respectfully address my deep disappointment with the May 8 edition of CHRISTIAN STANDARD. The editor noted up front, “Some could think we’re trying to make a statement about women’s roles in the church,” is to me a substantial understatement regarding this edition.

While featuring many noteworthy contributions of women in Christian service which I certainly applaud, some of the articles speak directly to women’s roles in the church WITHOUT an appeal to or foundation in Scripture. That is with the exception of brother Paul Boatman’s reference to simplifying the “theological debate over which Scripture is normative: Galatians 3:28 or 1 Timothy 2:12″ (in “Reaching Their Potential?“). While at least his comments make a reference to Scripture, surely we understand one passage speaks to salvation and inheritance while the other speaks to the function of church ministries.

We are capable of more sound scholarship than the implication of these remarks. And when dean Karen Diefendorf refers to the “schizophrenic view of leadership and gifts . . .” addressed from “our pulpits,” surely more respectful words could be used to refer to an opposing position.

All in all, this edition struck me as promoting many functions of women in Christ’s church, without scriptural warrant, functions which were promoted from a position of pragmatism and cultural imitation. The answer does NOT lie ”within individual leadership” teams as indicated by Pat Rohach; rather in the Word of God.

Considering this subject in light of biblical principle would be more consistent with CHRISTIAN STANDARD’S mission statement: “Devoted to the restoration of New Testament Christianity, its doctrine, its ordinances, and its fruits.”
—Terry L. Peer
Hartford, Kentucky

‘A Giant Step Backward’
(posted 4-25-11)

I was so glad when I came to this page on the Internet that I still found the words “Christian Standard.” So many of our former Christian colleges have abandoned the name “Christian” or the word “Bible’ in their names that one cannot tell who they are. . . .

The rationale for much of the information coming out of schools that were once on fire for the Restoration Movement is that change is necessary in the name of progress, or there is a need for increasing influence in an increasingly secular world, or that it is simply something that had to be done.

I remember the old-fashioned message,”If any man suffer as a ‘Christian’ let him not be ashamed.” If colleges, universities, and “campus congregations” fear for their adherents, they might also consider fearing for their testimony if they have to become covert Christians in order to do the Lord’s work. To me it is a giant step backward, not forward.

I have visited the catacombs in Rome and I would prefer, if at all possible, not to overtly worship below ground until such practice becomes an absolute necessity, which it eventually became for early Christians. However, history has shown that they still did not abandon their righteous name indicating that they followed the Bible and Christ.

I have noticed many denominational institutions have not abandoned their names: Temple Baptist University is still Temple Baptist University, Presbyterian College in Clinton, South Carolina, is still there by last account, etc. Could it be that the bottom line has nothing to do with necessity, liberty, or convenience, but . . . “money”?
—Billy Joe Manuel
via CHRISTIAN STANDARD’s Web site

Great Ideas!
(posted 4-5-11)
I just finished reading the March 27th issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD and in particular the “In Opinions, Liberty” article “In Praise of Congregational Participation” by Becky Ahlberg.  I just want to say, I want to go to church where Becky leads the worship service! All of her ideas sound great and sure would make a difference in a congregational worship service.
—Marilynn Eastin
Cortez, Colorado

Don’t Remove the ‘Welcome Mat’
(posted 4-4-11)
(This letter is in response to “Another Statement About What’s At Stake” by Mark A. Taylor, March 27.)

I am almost 71 years old and a serious worshiper for 35-plus years, but am a relative newcomer to the Christian churches/churches of Christ. I am also a long-term member of a parachurch organization that maintains a pastor prayer list for all the churches in our local area. Frankly, the overall health of those churches is not good—many are on life support and dying a long slow death. There are many reasons, but one primary reason is that they have lost their evangelical zeal.

These are very exciting days for our “association,” but many denominations and churches can point to exciting days in the past. One sure way to join those dying churches is to remove the “welcome mat” for those younger leaders or anyone with a burden for the lost. They are certainly one of the causes of these exciting times for the Christian church.
—Norman Burkey
Joppa, Maryland

‘Appalled at the Comments’
(posted 4-4-11)
I am appalled at the comments of Jud Wilhite and Jim Tune in “Does the Movement Still Matter” in the March 6 print issue. These men are touted as “great ministers,” but I don’t think they are “greater” than the Lord who commanded us to be immersed and receive the Holy Spirit. And I take it from a previous interview they don’t believe in Communion every Lord’s Day either. That’s how we got so many denominations (people thinking their opinions counted more than what God’s Word says). I pray the CHRISTIAN STANDARD is not getting liberal . . .
—Wanda Lonsberry
Deford, Michigan

Need to Continue to Emphasize Minister/Missionary Education
(posted 3-21-11)
I thoroughly enjoyed the March 13 CHRISTIAN STANDARD. I read many of the statistics and articles. I was rather surprised at the comparisons of the colleges and the status of most of their student bodies.

In past years most of the Christian colleges with Christian church backgrounds had the majority of students from Restoration churches.

To me that was very encouraging, as far as future leaders for our churches. This STANDARD showed that there were only about 12 schools that had the majority of students from our churches. I realize that the colleges are going in different directions with their curriculum. Many schools want to have a variety of students who will be able to go out into the world and meet needs that are not necessarily the local church body.

One of our schools that formerly had been a strong school in terms of sending out students for Christian service had a very small percentage of students from our Restoration churches—not sure what it really means as far as future servants.

We do appreciate the colleges that are still very focused on ministry and missions in their curriculums. Christian young people who want  a liberal arts education can really serve in various vocations. But we do not want to lose our emphasis on future ministers, missionaries, and leaders for our churches.
—Marilyn M. Lewis
Via e-mail

Succumbed to Lies of ‘Revisionists’
(posted 3-9-11)
I am responding to the article written by Robert Hull in the February 27 edition entitled “Is There a Christian Nation?”

While I agree with many statements made by Professor Hull, it is obvious to me that he has succumbed to the lies of the postmodern “revisionists,” including our current president, that assert the belief that America was not founded to be, nor is it today, a Christian nation.

I would like to make five points in regard to the article.

First, regardless of what he may think, there is an overwhelming volume of evidence accumulated over the past four centuries to support the claim that America is a Christian nation. What does it mean when we say that America is a Christian nation? A Christian nation is not one in which all citizens are Christians, or the laws require everyone to adhere to Christian theology, or its leaders to be Christians. Nevertheless, over the centuries we have continuously spoken of our nation as being a Christian nation. In fact, America is viewed by most people throughout the world as being the leading Christian nation of the world.

What then makes America a Christian nation? According to Supreme Court Justice David Brewer (1837–1910), America was “of all the nations of the world most justly called a Christian nation” because Christianity “has so largely shaped and molded it.” Founding father and Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said, “With us, Christianity and religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people our institutions did not presuppose Christianity and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it.”

So what is the definition of a Christian nation? A Christian nation is a nation founded on biblical principles, and whose values, society, and institutions have largely been shaped by those principles. This definition has been reaffirmed by American legal scholars and historians for hundreds of years, but is ignored by today’s revisionists.

Second, the professor in stating that there “never can be a Christian nation” almost implies that God does not care about “nations” or what kind of government they have. Nothing could be further from the truth. Throughout the Bible, the sacred writers clearly demonstrate that God desires all “nations” to worship him and to serve him. Psalm 33:12 says, “Blessed is the ‘nation’ whose God is the Lord.” God could have said, “blessed are the people,” but he didn’t say that. Why? The concept of “nations” is important to God because it is through nation-states and political leadership that God grants them the authority to rule. In fact, it is God who establishes all nations and their governments (Romans 13:1) and it is he who removes them as he sees fit (Job 12:23).

Nations, and governments, are important to God and clearly the Scripture says that he will hold them accountable for their actions. Yes, God desires every nation to be a Christian nation, and one day, on that glorious day of Christ’s return, they will be (Revelation 15:4; 21:24-26).

Third, the professor is incorrect when he states our Constitution “forbids an establishment of religion.” It actually states, “Congress shall make no law ‘respecting’ an establishment of religion.” It did not prevent, nor did the founders intend for it to prevent, the establishment of state-sponsored churches. In the early days of the Republic, despite the First Amendment, several states continued to have “official” established churches. The last established church, Massachusetts Congregationalism, was separated from the state in 1833.

Fourth, the Constitution does not call for a “separation of church and state.” This is a myth. Rather, it was the Supreme Court (1947) through judicial activism that “divined” this doctrine into our laws. The “separation of church and state” phrase that it invoked was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became president.

The “establishment” clause had one purpose, and the writings of our founder’s clearly support it: Congress cannot pass any laws that would restrict the state’s right to establish a state-sponsored church, if one would so choose, nor can it pass a law that would establish a national church. This was clearly the intent of the founders when they wrote the First Amendment. The founders did not intend that religion be excluded from all public life. The founders believed religion and politics had to work together for freedom and liberty to flourish. John Adams wrote that “religion and morality” are the foundation of government. He clearly saw that our Constitution was inadequate to govern a people who had no morality. The founders supported religious endeavors. They paid for (with public funds) the first Bibles printed in America. They held church services in our Capitol building and commissioned religious paintings and artwork for the Capitol and other buildings. In Article III of the Northwest Ordinance (1789), they even required prospective states to teach religion and morality in the public schools. It just isn’t true to say our founders intended that there be a separation of church and state.

Lastly, Professor Hull’s article gives credence to those who believe there should be a separation between the secular and the sacred; in other words, “dualism.” But God will not be kept in a box. He is sovereign and in absolute control of everything on earth and in Heaven (1 Chronicles 29:11, 12). He is Lord over all spheres of life: spiritual, political, law, science, philosophy, etc. Christians are to be “salt” and “light” in every area of life, and by doing so, extend his kingdom over all things. I have listed a few references that Professor Hull and others should read if they are interested in knowing the truth about our Christian heritage: David Barton, “Is President Obama Correct? Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?” (retrieved from www.wallbuilders.com, April 2009); David Barton, “Separation of Church and State” (retrieved from www.wallbuilders.com, January 2001); John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution: The Faith of Our Founding Fathers (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987).
–Fred R. Waggoner
Lexington, Kentucky

What Movement Were They Speaking About?
(posted 3-7-11)
Regarding “Does the Movement Still Matter?” (Part 1, February 20; Part 2, March 6).

Hang on a second–I’m still a little confused!  Does the movement still matter?  I’m not certain I know the answer after reading the interview with Jim Tune, Jud Wilhite, and Ben Cachiaras.

After reading this article, I’m confused as to what movement they are a part of.  Is it the movement that believes a person needs to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirt”?  Or is it the movement that believes “God has already predetermined who will receive everlasting life”? Can someone help me understand what the movement is that these guys were talking about?

Maybe it is the movement that says as long as you are “hip” or “cool” and “missionally getting it done” then it doesn’t really matter what else you do or say or stand for.  Maybe it is that movement they were talking about.
–Randy Brooks
Via e-mail