Letters to the Editor

To send us a Letter to the Editor, click here. (Full instructions are at the bottom of this page.) 

We Must Speak the Truth
(posted 11-20-09)
I read Thomas Caulley’s article with great interest (“Christians, Politics, & Ethical Speech,” November 22). Just a few of observations:

1. There is one political party that formally advocates (in platform) abortion and gay rights. Both political parties are far—very far—from perfect. But informed citizens know we must choose one over the other when we vote. We must choose which one best—not perfectly—but best, reflects our faith values.

2. The radio/TV pundits most conservatives listen to do not formulate our thinking—they reflect it. I listen to them to hear what the “liberals” have said in the past and now claim never to have said—such as Barack Obama’s remarks about a single-payer health care system.

3. It is interesting that Caulley lives in Germany—a nation that failed to be critical of its leaders at a crucial time in history—and millions—MILLIONS—of innocent and helpless people died. We in the U.S. have already had millions of unborn children sacrificed to the gods of liberal politics and conservative cowardice.

4. Whether Caulley realizes it or not, despite the niceties learned from his mom, we are headed for a cataclysmic cultural shift if Christians are cowed into submission by Christian leaders who teach that we should not criticize those in power. It is already illegal in Canada for Christian ministers to preach against homosexuality (hate speech). And, in a minister’s group I attend, we recently discussed what will happen when gay marriage is made legal and we are faced with civil and possibly criminal charges for refusing to perform gay weddings. This is the road we’re headed down, Mr. Caulley.

By the way, Sir, there’s plenty of hate speech going in Germany. A young missionary couple we support is constantly harassed—at virtually every public meeting—by gay protesters.

My biblical worldview shapes my conservative values—not the other way around. I’m genuinely concerned that my children and grandchildren will lose their rights of freedom of worship and freedom of speech if we do not confront those who would threaten those rights.

We are to speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15). Perhaps we have not always been so loving—though I hear nothing as bad as what Caulley describes—but we are to speak the truth!
—Terry Clark
Meadville, Pennsylvania

'Let Us Be Careful'
(posted 11-19-09)
As we listen to the biblical wisdom of Thomas Scott Caulley (“Christians, Politics, & Ethical Speech,” November 22), let us be careful not to throw off our affiliation with evangelical political conservatives (e.g., James Dobson) only to take on the shackles of evangelical political liberals (e.g., Jim Wallis).
—Matt Johnson
Levittown, Pennsylvania

'Where Have You Been?'
(posted 11-19-09)
Recently there have been several articles in various magazines, newspapers, and now Thomas Scott Caulley’s piece in CHRISTIAN STANDARD (“Christians, Politics, & Ethical Speech,” November 22), on the subject of name-calling and hate speech in the political arena.

My questions to Dr. Caulley and these other writers are: Where have you been for the past nine years? Do you remember James Carville? Paul Begala? Ariana Huffington? MoveOn.org? The Reverend Al Sharpton? Harry Reid, who said five years ago that the Iraq War was lost? Nancy Pelosi, who called President George W. Bush a liar? The NAACP, who said President Bush condoned the murder of the young African-American who was dragged through the streets in Texas? Democratic leaders, who said President Bush deliberately withheld federal assistance from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina so that more black people would die?

These are just a fraction of the lies that we in the United States have heard on a daily basis for the past eight years. This propaganda was taken abroad so that the citizens of other countries could be influenced. Largely as a result of this constant onslaught of distortions and name-calling, Americans elected an inexperienced, highly partisan man on the basis of two words: “hope” and “change.” We hoped for the best by electing Barack Obama to the most powerful political office in the world. But what we got was “change” we had not planned on.
Here are some facts for Dr. Caulley:

1. The United States is bankrupt (President Obama’s own words). Our government is either printing money at a rapid pace—thereby devaluing the dollar—or borrowing money from China and other questionable allies.

2. Congress is continuing to ignore the soon-to-be bankrupt Social Security and Medicare programs.

3. Congress and the president are pushing through legislation that they admit they have not even read!

4. Cap and trade and health care reform will add enormous debt to our already bankrupt economy.

5. The stimulus bill is not being spent to help the average American; in fact, only a small portion of the $1 trillion has been given out at this point in time.

6. After just a few months in office, President Obama has orchestrated the federal takeover of banks, the auto industry, and is attempting to do the same with health care.

7. President Obama has appointed more than 15 “czars” to set policy on just about every aspect of American society, thus going over the legislative arm of the federal government. Even Democratic leaders have objected to this usurpation of executive power.

8. The White House is claiming to have either “saved” or “created” thousands of jobs in congressional districts that have been revealed as nonexistent!

Yes, Christians are upset and have used words like liberal and socialist to define political leaders. But that is what Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Dodd, Shumer, et al., are! This is not name-calling, but telling it like it is. These leaders want to “change” the direction of our country. Their worldview is alien to the majority of Americans, Christian or otherwise. Most Americans are pro-life; the aforementioned people are not. Americans want to retain their liberties and not be directed cradle to grave by men and women who rarely step outside the Washington, D.C., beltway.

As President Obama and his like-minded partisans in Congress want to model our country after the European Union, the EU is realizing that the socialism it has espoused for decades is not working.
So, yes, Dr. Caulley. Christians need to temper their remarks. But Christians also need to speak out against lies and a worldview that cheapens human life, whether it is the unborn, the newly born, or the old and infirm.

Come back to America, Dr. Caulley. See for yourself.
—Linda Smith
Carmel, Indiana

'Accurate, Timely, and Well Articulated'
(posted 11-19-09)
Thomas Scott Caulley’s article reflects clearly a Christian perspective (“Christians, Politics, & Ethical Speech,” November 22). It is accurate, timely, and well articulated. Unfortunately, these qualities are so often not enough. I hope that I am mistaken but my guess is that it will be roundly denounced. You are brave for printing it.
—Charles Garrison
Via e-mail

Schaefer Helped Confront Anti-Christian Revolution
(posted 11-16-09)
I am not sure why Standard Publishing and a gifted man like LeRoy Lawson believe this article to be beneficial for the church in 2009 (see “Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us,” September 6). Do we really need to discredit Francis Schaeffer 20-plus years after his death? PBS decided it would publicize the son’s bashing of his family and featured him on a special a few years ago. No one would have even known who Frank was if it hadn’t been for his father’s work. It is a sad thing to note the dark side of any family, and I suppose PBS thought this would be “news.”

How then did God use Francis Schaeffer? During the late 1960s through the 1980s his influence in the Christian community was profound. The church did not know how to speak to the culture, which was becoming more and more hostile to Christianity. Schools had not prepared our ministers to defend the Scriptures against the onslaught of the humanism pervading our culture. In the 1970s the right to abort a child was law and few spoke against it. My first exposure to the importance of the abortion question was at the NACC in the early 1970s through a workshop by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke. The foundation to confront the problem of abortion was brought to light to the larger Christian community by Schaeffer and his work with former U.S. Surgeon General Dr. C. Everett Koop.

Lincoln Christian College (via James Strauss) and Cedarville College, a Baptist college in Ohio, were two schools in tune with and on the leading edge of responding to the 1960s and ’70s popular culture. True, Schaeffer was criticized for not being a great scholar, while those who might fit that description did not step up to the plate when the Christian community needed them. Actually Schaeffer never claimed to be a great scholar. His calling was to look at the larger picture of history and Western culture and indicate how Christianity could confront the unbiblical tenets being proclaimed at that time. He was concerned about how we as a nation got to the place we were in popular thinking and what we Christians needed to know to understand where and how such thinking came to be. In order to get to the root of this, he covered periods of history in great sweeps and generalizations to set the framework. His films conveyed these ideas in a way that even a simple person could grasp.

At Lincoln, Strauss was ahead of most in presenting the challenge to young preachers to “take every thought captive to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). The task of demolishing strongholds is possible only by being armed with all of Scripture and the sword of the Holy Spirit. Professor Strauss also critiqued Schaeffer, but he did not discount his message and his purpose. The power of Scripture is very forceful against other worldviews and it provides a solid-rock foundation. For the sake of those building their houses on sand, the Christian must know and understand the authority base of unbelievers and point them to God’s Word. This takes a great deal of work.

The culture of the 1960s started an anti-Christian revolution. It needed to be confronted. Schaeffer, Strauss, Paul Little, Os Guinness, InterVarsity Press, and many others stepped up to the plate.

Because we have excellent biblical worldview resource and materials today, the average Christian can prepare himself and his family and other Christian brothers to respond to the unbelief that threatens our culture and our world.

One comment by Lawson that puzzles me is his concern for unity and peace in regard to Schaeffer’s work. Should we not have confronted the abortion mills and humanistic culture that still exist today? In my reading I find Schaeffer challenging Christians to get out of our comfort zones. I never find him implying that every Christian should follow and be like him.

From time to time the CHRISTIAN STANDARD disappoints me. I sometimes sense a point of view leaning toward the philosophy of the so-called emerging church. (See article of May 2008 proposing a foundation of Obama-friendly beliefs.)

What is a fundamentalist or an evangelical? Schaeffer wasn’t sure he wanted to be put in the category with evangelicals. Is the word fundamentalist a negative label? The proponents of the emerging church would say, “yes.” They believe that doctrinal teaching is not the foundation we should build upon in our congregations, but that human relationships should be foremost. I do not believe that is what Jesus taught.
—Bill Strafford
Plainfield, Indiana

It Seems to Be 'Fuzzy Thinking'
(posted 11-4-09)
(This letter is reaction to an item that appeared under the heading “Thank God It’s Friday” in the “BUZZ” column in the November 8 issue. Click here to read it the article.)
 
I have not written in a couple of decades but felt compelled to now because of the Fort Collins, Colorado, article. Christians worship and praise God on the first day of the week because our Lord was raised on Sunday. If Friday is your only day of worship and praise . . . who do you worship and what do you commemorate?

It would seem we would lose our distinctive by not asking the world to march to our Lord’s drum but instead to try to fit the Lord into the world’s schedule. Is there a reason the New Testament mentioned that early worship, praise, and study happened every day of the week, sometimes, but always on the first day of the week?

This seems to me to be the result of what was called “fuzzy thinking” in the 1960s.

Experimenting with methods is always a good thing, but experimenting with Acts 20:7—which I see as precedent and, therefore, doctrine—seems always to lead to experimenting with baptism and the Lord’s Supper (and others). This experimenting has caused the church undue grief for 1,500 years. If the New Testament is not to be taken as precedent, then we would have a falling out . . .
—Alan Day
Via e-mail

'Is This the Path to Enlightenment?'
(posted 11-2-09)
We can’t assume that all books in Christian bookstores have a solid theological basis. The recommended reading list in the Nov. 1 issue was a good reminder of this.
 
Laying aside the secular classics in the list, the spirituality of at least a third of the others includes: a casual view of Scripture, universalism, a downplaying of the virgin birth, a denial of the atonement, a hate-the-church attitude, a Christianity-doesn’t-work approach, mantra meditation, astral projection, consulting the dead, interspirituality (the mixing of all religions), and “the Christ-thing which has no name.”
 
So . . . 33 percent of the “must-read” Christian books have a low regard for basic Bible doctrine and a high regard for occult mysticism. Is this the path to enlightenment?
—Lynn Lusby Pratt
Cincinnati Ohio

One More 'Must-Read' Book
(posted 10-28-09)
I couldn’t help but notice that your contributing editors’ list of “must-read books” (November 1 issue) is conspicuously missing the most important book of all—the Bible. In pointing this out, my tongue is only halfway in my cheek, since I’m running across more and more preachers who can quote freely on an issue from all these cutting-edge books, but haven’t a clue what the Scripture actually has to say on the same topic. Even their sermons tend to spotlight the contributions of these modern authors rather than shining forth from the ancient light of the apostles and prophets. Let’s not make the fatal mistake of so many leaders of the past, going all the way back into the days of Old Testament Israel, who become philosophers of their ages at the expense of losing touch with the inspired, written Word of their God.
—Thomas J. Short
Mishawaka, Indiana

People Dress Their Best to Meet the President
(posted 10-19-09)
When I read Paul Williams’s column “We Have a Conundrum Here” in the September 20 issue, it reminded me of a photograph that was in the news back in July when President Obama invited Cambridge, Massachusetts, police Sgt. James Crowley and Harvard University Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. to the White House to have a beer with him (CLICK HERE to view a photo of that meeting). The photo shows the two men dressed up in suits and ties. The professor even had cuff links—all very spiffy. The friendly, informal meeting was presumably set up to defuse the simmering racist feelings that developed after the police officer arrested the professor during what was mistakenly thought to be an attempted break-in.
 
While the story was indeed newsworthy, the photo caught my eye because it brought to mind how almost anyone will put on their best clothes when they are in the presence of the president of the United States—even when the meeting is informal. In this particular case, I would imagine that the professor is accustomed to dressing up on many occasions; but I can easily picture the officer having to go out and buy a new suit.
 
However, when many Christians meet as a body to seek an audience with the Creator, they sometimes look as if they are wearing the same clothes they wore Saturday night (I have to plead guilty here). I know—God judges the heart of man and not his outward appearance. But as the photo vividly reveals, what we wear often reflects the respect in our hearts that we have for a person or his office. Paul Williams is fascinated that talk-show hosts wear suits and ties, but I find it more fascinating that probably any man will wear a suit and tie if the occasion is important enough. Maybe that reveals what we think about God and the Lord’s Day.
—Paul McDorman
Cincinnati, Ohio

Two More Resources for Those Who Are Grieving
(posted 10-15-09)
I very much appreciate Victor Parachin’s article on grief ministry (“Grief Ministry: How Your Church Can Help,” October 18). Until losing our son last year, we did not have a clue how devastating grief could be. There are many resources available. We are currently involved with GriefShare, which is excellent. Also, The Compassionate Friends meet throughout the world. This group is for those who have lost children. There are many resources for grief ministry, and I hope that this topic is revisited with a wider view toward informing others of these resources. Thanks again for calling attention to this vital, but often neglected, ministry.
—John Dobbs
Monroe, Louisiana

Thanks for the Catalyst Coverage
(These three letters are in response to Brandon Smith's live coverage of the Catalyst Conference from Atlanta, Georgia, Oct. 7-9. Smith's Web site is www.mynameisbrandon.com)

I just wanted to thank you supporting Brandon Smith’s effort to bring Catalyst to those of us that couldn't be there. It was just what I needed at just the right time. Something you probably don’t hear often (verbatim) . . . CHRISTIAN STANDARD rocks!
—Brian Mowers
Statesville, North Carolina

Schaeffer Had Good Points, Too
(posted 9-23-09)
I was greatly disturbed by LeRoy Lawson’s recent article about Francis Schaeffer (“From My Bookshelf: Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us,” September 6, 2009). Over the years I have enjoyed many articles by Mr. Lawson, but I take strong issue with this one. Lawson says he is eager to cut Schaeffer some slack, yet he completely dismisses the positive role Schaeffer has had and continues to have in the lives of many people. He gives the impression Schaeffer had only negative traits. Below is a taste (not a complete list) of how Lawson views/describes Schaeffer:

“Celebrated guru . . . pugilistic pastor . . . embraced much of the godless culture . . . reverted to his former rigidity . . . rushed into battle . . . wherever he was, Schaeffer found opponents . . . was on the attack against others who saw things differently . . . could not be neutral about anything . . . not a great scholar . . . he disappointed . . . jumped to conclusions . . . generalized too broadly . . . a dilettante, not an expert . . . personal life was not consistent with his public persona . . . temper tantrums . . . wife-abuse . . . neglect of his children . . . debilitating periods of depression . . . his pride . . . ambition . . . near-constant defensiveness . . .”

Thanks for cutting Schaeffer some slack! I would hate to see what might have been said otherwise. In fact, as I reread the article, Lawson offers no positive descriptions of Schaeffer!

Lawson says it is to the discredit of Frank Schaeffer (Francis Schaeffer’s son) that his book focuses on his father/parents’ dark side. “Enough parent bashing,” Lawson says. On the one hand, he chastises Frank Schaeffer for focusing on this dark side and for parent bashing, on the other hand he quotes this same material in support of his view of the elder Schaeffer. Is that not to Lawson’s discredit, as well?

Lawson refers to Schaeffer’s fundamentalist past and gives the impression Schaeffer continued all his life to separate from everyone who did not agree with him. Yet Schaeffer’s L’Abri ministry was largely to folks who would have challenged his framework on every front . . . and yet people kept coming because they knew Schaeffer would take their questions and doubts seriously when the churches had little compassion for such questions. Seeing the image of God in each individual, Schaeffer took each person with utmost seriousness.

Lawson refers to Schaeffer’s neglect of his children, yet he does not mention the perspective of Schaeffer’s other children. Lawson says Frank Schaeffer (the son) “probably tells the truth,” but is something that is “probably true” sufficient basis for such a critique? Is it worth repeating?

Lawson refers to Schaeffer’s “unbending brand of reformed theology.” Where does such a statement come from? Didn’t Schaeffer actually present a Reformed view that is more consistent with the “mere Christianity” that C.S. Lewis spoke of than a typical hyper-Reformed position? This more balanced view of the Reformed perspective is continued on in the work of the Francis Schaeffer Foundation, headed by Udo and Debby Middelmann, Schaeffer’s son-in-law and daughter. Their work has continued the task of distancing the biblical worldview from this unbending, hyper-Reformed perspective or any fundamentalistic version of it. I think of Schaeffer’s spiritual crisis that led to the writing of his wonderful book True Spirituality, a modern classic with respect to dealing with the existential realities of the Christian life. And what about The Mark of the Christian, in which he strongly argues that love is the final apologetic?

I’m not sure I see the relevance of using the Restoration Movement slogan about being “Christians only, but not the only Christians” as the closing doxology to a deliberate attempt to write off the significance of another human being’s life and ministry. Schaeffer never believed he was the only Christian, nor did he act in such a manner.

Lawson mentions Schaeffer’s debilitating periods of depression as an expression of the inconsistency of his personal life with his public persona. I certainly hope he is not implying Schaeffer’s depression somehow indicates a personal moral failing!

I believe Schaeffer can still be of much assistance in bridging the two worlds that Lawson mentioned. This is an area where many churches and Christians need much help. Happily, what began with Schaeffer is being continued on from a variety of settings. His emphasis that Christ is the Lord over the whole of life is drastically needed. This critique of a platonic form of spirituality is being argued for by many good scholars on the contemporary scene. These folks are certainly not fundamentalist. The work of the Schaeffer Foundation continues to argue against a form of Christian faith that is narrowly defined and only concerned about the soul. So, yes, Schaeffer can still be of tremendous help in bridging the two worlds and I’m thankful for such help.

Though I do not read Francis Schaeffer’s books often, my response comes out of a sincere appreciation for his work and ministry. He has provided a basic framework for life that I think has been immensely valuable. All of us are inconsistent with respect to our faith and some inconsistencies are more visible than others, but the visible ones are no worse than the hidden ones that go unnoticed by many.

Francis Schaeffer never pretended he was better than he was. It is the Christian community that put him on a pedestal. He was a realist with a strong view of the fallen reality of which we all participate. He knew his shortcomings. I wonder how well we know our own. I actually think Frank [the son] got it right when he said he once thought the two sides of his father’s personality were an act of hypocrisy, but later he concluded, “I think differently now. I believe Dad was a very brave man.” Yes brave, because he continued to fulfill his calling in spite of his personal limitations. May each of us do the same no matter what our limitations!
—Name Withheld

'Respect for Their Profession?'
(posted 9-22-09)
I just finished reading Paul Williams’s column “We Have a Conundrum Here” in the September 20 issue. Paul’s observation concerning how certain individuals dress is very interesting to me. I have been noticing for quite some time how TV news commentators and college basketball coaches, among others, dress in suits and ties. Could this be a matter of respect for their profession? If this is correct, then what does that say about our preachers today?
—Bea Herrin
Enid, OK

A More Favorable View of Schaeffer
(posted 9-16-09)
LeRoy Lawson’s review of two books on Francis Schaeffer (“Seeing Ourselves as Others See Us,” September 6) gave an unfair judgment on the man and his mission.

Lawson paints Schaeffer as a fundamentalist dilettante, who loved controversy. Schaeffer left his fundamentalist past before starting L’Abri precisely because of its loveless way. In his books and broader ministry, he never emphasized points that would separate him from the larger Evangelical community, such as infant baptism or even predestination (he was a Westminster Confession Presbyterian). He tried to stick to “mere Christianity” (Lawson to the contrary). Schaeffer even refused to have his early pamphlet on baptism included in his Complete Works. Far from being a pugilist, Schaeffer met with the infamous Bishop James Pike and lovingly challenged his descent into spiritism.

Schaeffer was no dilettante, but an evangelist and prophet who studied culture in the crush of a demanding ministry. He was never an academic per se, and lacked even a permanent study—often writing from his bedroom. Nevertheless, he often gave keen insights into history and culture. He never claimed to be the last word on anything, but inspired many—such as myself, a professional philosopher—to take the world of ideas seriously as a Christian.

If Lawson had read Colin Duriez’s Francis Schaeffer: An Authentic Life (which used many personal interviews with those who knew Schaeffer well, unlike the books Lawson reviewed), he might have come away with a more just account of this great (albeit flawed) man.
—Douglas Groothuis
Littleton, Colorado

Pastoral Care Affords Many Opportunities
(posted 9-3-09)
I read with much interest the article by David A. Fiensy in the August 9 CHRISTIAN STANDARD, “Whatever Happened to Pastoral Care?”

In a society where the focus is placed on your immediate family and survival, many feel there is little time to answer to the needs of others. To the contrary, my husband, Stan, and I found that when we give time to hospital and nursing home calls, calls in the home or through AT&T, God has blessed us with enough time to fulfill our own personal needs. I was awed by my husband’s ability to empathize with family members in their loss of a loved one, or when a family was in need of prayer. His love for the congregation drew everyone closer together, and thus closer to God. We saw souls won to Christ as a result of the love shown.

Perhaps the qualification of a 24-hour commitment to a church turns off many of our new ministers. Stan was often called to a hospital or home in the middle of the night . . . and he went willingly, and with a sincere concern for the family’s needs. Although he personally could not work miracles, he knew the Man who could, and the family was comforted by Stan’s presence and prayers. He was able to witness to other family members while there, and what an opportunity it afforded!
—Jane Thomas
Brownstown, Indiana

For letters from July and August 2009, click here
For letters from May and June 2009, click here
For letters from March and April 2009, click here
For letters from January and February 2009, click here
For letters from November and December 2008, click here
For letters from September and October 2008, click here
For letters from July and August 2008, click here
For letters from May and June 2008, click here
For letters from March and April 2008, click here
For letters from January and February  2008, click here
For letters from November and December 2007, click here
For letters from September and October 2007, click here
For letters from July and August 2007, click here
For letters from May and June 2007, click here
For letters from March and April 2007, click here
For letters from January and February 2007, click here
For letters from November and December 2006, click here
For letters from September and October 2006, click here
For letters from July and August 2006, click here
For letters from April through June 2006, click here.
For letters from January through March 2006, click here.
For letters from October through December 2005, click here.
For letters from July through September 2005, click here.
For letters from February through June 2005, click here.