Letters to the Editor - September/October 2008

Bible Bowl, NACC 'Missing a Crucial Opportunity' 
(posted 10-31-08)
As a Bible Bowl alumnus, I am somewhat disappointed in the modern incarnation of our brotherhood’s teen quizzing game. My biggest contention is concerning the separation of the National Bible Bowl Tournament from the North American Christian Convention. I have heard that the split is attributed to logistical problems, but I am curious if it’s more a case of Bible Bowl trying to purposely distance itself from the convention. Regardless of what the reason is, this is not a good thing.

I grew up in a small church with little idea of the vast opportunities for service that were available to me. And I never would have known that those options existed were it not for the NACC. And I never would have attended those conventions in Denver, Anaheim, or Orlando had it not been for our team’s participation in the National Bible Bowl Tournament. In short, my attendance at the NACC (via Bible Bowl) is one of the primary reasons that I entered the ministry.

Are we missing a crucial opportunity to expose the best and brightest young people in our movement to the possibilities of ministry because of the separation of these two entities? I suggest that the powers that be make it a priority to iron out the details and reunite Bible Bowl and the NACC for the good of the brotherhood.
—Steve Carr
Cincinnati, Ohio

Bad Timing; Bad Title 
(posted 10-31-08)
I have been a reader of CHRISTIAN STANDARD for decades. Usually every week I read it from cover to cover. I start on the back page with Paul Williams, one of my favorites; I go to “From the Editor” by Mark Taylor for an overview. I did such with the October 26 issue, until I came to page 12 and cried, “WHAT?”

I could not believe nine days before the election that Nikki Grimes, a children’s book author, was featured in “CHRISTIAN STANDARD Interview.” [Editor’s note: The paragraph that introduces Grimes includes this sentence: “At press time, her book Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope is No. 2 on the New York Times best-selling children’s books list.”]

Scripture tells us there is only ONE child of promise and hope and that is Jesus Christ, God’s one and only Son. I do not believe any government or politician can promise people more than Christ. Jesus said we are not to put hope in anyone or anything but him.

If my husband and I had believed like the one written about in this children’s book (as our doctors did), there would be three fewer preachers and one fewer preacher’s wife today. Thankfully, I had read Paul Williams’s article first. And repeating Paul: “While separation of church and state has been a godsend to the spread of the gospel, the extremism of a deconstructionist postmodern America has created a nation of religious illiterates.”

I wonder if God cries.
—Name Withheld
Via e-mail

Interview Was 'Astounding' 
(posted 10-30-08)
I know it must be difficult to review everything written in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD.  However, the recent interview by Brad Dupray of Nikki Grimes in the October 26 issue was astounding! Specifically her biographical sketch listing her as the author of the book Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope . . .  A known Marxist!  And this appeared in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD.
—Lloyd Cameron
Via e-mail

An Election Analysis 
(posted 10-28-08)
I just read your editorial on elections (“Giving a Shrug About Politics” by Mark A. Taylor, November 2).

Every government program is backed by force or threat of force. The Ds [Democrats] & Rs [Republicans] both do it to you. Voting for either of them is truly “throwing your vote away.” No matter whom you vote for the government gets elected! They don’t do things for you, they do them to you. This is probably why so many people don’t vote.

The best candidate in the primaries was Ron Paul. His basic message sounds much like Christian freedom. It is that as long as you don’t harm another peaceful person you should be free to live your life as you see fit.

The best in the general election is Libertarian Bob Barr. I know that he’ll not win, but if enough people would vote for candidates like these at least it would get the attention of the “major” parties.

In any case, you won’t have voted for either of your oppressors, not voted for the lesser of two evils.

It’s sad that the situation has degenerated to the point that many people feel that they have to vote against someone, rather than for someone.
—Roger Clites
Via e-mail

Heartbreaking 
(posted 10-28-08)
Regarding the article “Water” by Greg Taylor (October 26), I just have to ask: If this didn’t break the hearts of 3,900 people, then what would? If any of us readers of “Reflections” didn’t choke on the rich dinner today (Sunday) fully aware of someone with a name, Maria, then who would?

When will our eyes be opened to clearly see the value of our lives in Christ without the daily affluence that goes way beyond our basic needs? Paul wrote, “I pray also (after the grand inheritance Christ has given us, by the way) that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened . . .” (Ephesians 1:18). And I pray, too, that many will find it in their hearts to find a way to support this ministry. My family heirlooms are going on eBay! They mean nothing compared to a well of clean water.
—Name Withheld
Minnesota

A Partisan Inference? 
(posted 10-28-08)
I am sitting at my computer, stunned. It is October 25, 10 days before one of the most volatile elections is to be held in our country. As I read the “CHRISTIAN STANDARD Interview” an item in Nikki Grimes’s bio caught my attention. “At press time, her book Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope is No. 2 on the New York Times best-selling children’s books list.” This seemed to me to be a bit odd so near the election. I decided I needed to go to her Web site before making a snap judgment. I moved through her site and got to the page about the book. There I found excerpts and her summary of how she came to write on the subject.

Her closing paragraph is as follows: “I know one thing. Come November, Barack Obama has got my vote! And no matter what happens in the election, he is a man who has made history: the first man of color to win a major party nomination for President of the United States. That’s why his story is an important one for young readers to know. That’s why I wrote Barack Obama: Son of Promise, Child of Hope.”

Others reading your article will be led to her site also. Would it not seem that making these statements available to your readers would indicate your endorsement? If not endorsement, exposure? Do you intend to give like exposure to the opposing candidate for president?

I am sure you did not intend to be partisan, but this surely smacks of it. I am disappointed to read such in your publication for in the 60 years I have been exposed to the CHRISTIAN STANDARD I never recall partisan inferences.

I did not make a snap judgment.
—Patricia C. Hays
Columbus, Ohio

A Stunning Statement 
(posted 10-23-08)
I read “Water” (by Greg Taylor, October 26) and I was stunned to come across this early on in the article:

“Humans create injustice and inequity, not God. Folks like us in rich nations have too much. Nearly half the world has too little.”

Pleas to help people have clean water—the burden of this article—are good. But stating them in the lingo of liberation theology is more than bad—it detracts from the plea to help the needy. The equation of “inequity” with “injustice” is a clear signal that we are dealing here, not with a biblical argument, but with Marxist assumptions. If I have less than you, do I have “too little”? If you have more than I do, do you have “too much”?
 
If the socialism implicit in liberation theology were put into effect, it would eliminate inequity by making all equally poor. Often, those parts of the world that suffer from problems such as this are nations that display a lack of economic freedom, either currently or in recent history.
 
The writers at New Wineskins are enamored with this kind of anti-Christian thinking. I am unable to understand why the CHRISTIAN STANDARD continues to feature their material.
—Harold Orndorff
Highland Heights, Kentucky

Opinion Has Changed 
(posted 10-17-08)
Many thanks for publishing the very important and timely article, “A Man with ‘Faithful Eyes’“ by Chuck Sackett (September 28). The question of whether a divorced man may serve as an elder is one that certainly needs to be addressed. It seems to me that our churches have been very inconsistent in our dealing with this issue. We have several men who have been divorced who are preachers and who are having effective ministries. In spite of the fact that we have divorced men serving as preachers, many of our congregations have a policy that a man who has been divorced for any reason may not serve as an elder. In effect we have made divorce into an unpardonable sin.

For years I took a hard-line position on this matter and felt that divorce precluded a man from being qualified for the eldership. The more I have studied God’s Word the more I have become convinced that my position was wrong. While we are not to tolerate blatant disregard for God’s standards of marital fidelity, we must not be so judgmental as to exclude every man who has experienced the trauma of a divorce from a position of leadership in Christ’s church.
—Bob Tinsky
Oblong, Illinois

Too Long Forgotten 
(posted 10-17-08)
There are costly treasures located in most every church I know of, and they are usually found in the coat closet, or piled up on a shelf somewhere. They usually go unnoticed by most people, and they sit, forgotten, gathering dust bunnies. Sometimes they do get moved from place to place in a library, or from room to room. I am speaking about the lost, mislaid, forgotten, and abandoned Bibles, many of which could be used again by someone else.

I have, every so often, gone through the piles of forgotten Bibles. Sometimes I can give the books back to the people who lost them, and usually, they are very happy to receive it. But most of the time, I cannot do this (the owner may have left our church long ago, or else there is no name in the book). So sometimes I set the Bibles in the lobby, and a few will disappear.

I have sent a pile of mostly Gideon Bibles to a prison ministry, and another pile to hurricane victims. It feels good to put Bibles back into use.

We live in perhaps the most unusual country in the world. We pile up Bibles for long periods of time, and in the meantime, people elsewhere are crying for them. This is not a good thing. Let us rectify the situation by having a yearly cleanup of the Bible piles in our churches. Sort them out; give back the ones that can be given back, and let the people go through those that are left over. Then bundle up the remainder and send them to people who need them. (But recycle the badly worn Bibles with torn covers and missing pages.) 
—Jenny Ray
Barberton, Ohio

'Does the Same Principle Apply . . .?' 
(posted 10-17-08)
I agree with Don Wilson’s view of hiring from other churches (“Hunting Or Hunted?” October 19). I too believe that contacting the church when you are wishing to hire one of their staff would help eliminate a lot of problems.
 
However, does the same principle apply when hiring another senior pastor? I am aware of cases where both churches knew in advance of what was being proposed and both churches made plans for in case the hiring went through. However, I am also aware of nearly total secrecy in the hiring of a senior pastor to the point that the name of a candidate was not even given to the staff until the candidate showed up to be introduced to the congregation, preach, and be voted on.
 
Can both churches have a healthy attitude about losing a senior pastor and seeking a senior pastor that is not offensive to one of the other? Churches are many times too possessive of their senior pastor and feel that if they lost him, their programs would fail. Someone needs to address this issue and write an article on it.
—Ron Grover
Benevolence Administration Pastor
Central Christian Church, Wichita KS

A 'Great Communion' Idea 
(posted 10-10-08)
I warmly commend the Great Communion celebration (see “Great Communion—a Great Opportunity” by Douglas Foster, October 5. Since this is a worldwide event, what about “twinning” with a congregation somewhere else in the world, sharing a hymn and maybe a Bible reading and a meditation? It could be an encouragement to some of our smaller congregations—particularly those in developing countries.
—Harold Hayward
Sydney, Australia

Biblical Issues, Not Political Issues 
(posted 10-10-08)
(This is a response to “They Will Know We Are Christians by Our Vote” by Mandy Smith in the April 6, 2008, issue of CHRISTIAN STANDARD.)

Christians are neither Democrats nor Republicans. Political parties do not define a Christian. We must enter into the political scene by evaluating what the party stands for in relation to biblical principles. Second Corinthians 10:5 teaches that we must take every thought captive to Jesus Christ. He is the truth, not any political party.

Mandy Smith suggests that younger evangelicals are more concerned about justice and the environment. All Christians young or old should be biblically sensitive to those issues. She suggests that the Democratic Party is stronger in those areas, and because of that many, young people will vote Democratic.

To support her Democratic position she suggests that the Democratic Party is more involved in discussing religion. So why is it now that that party has suddenly become so spiritual? I have heard only one presidential candidate (back when we had several candidates) say he is a “born-again Christian,” and he was not a Democrat.

Speaking at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, Senator Obama said he did not know what God’s master plan might be. Every Christian knows that God’s master plan is to reconcile mankind to himself through Jesus Christ. Tolerance, a very political principle, is fine, but never at the expense of truth.

Here is another issue: Ms. Smith suggests that one political party cannot represent all of our Christian values. She is correct. This means the Christian must evaluate the values and conclude which party represents the more imperative values. Is opposing the murder of the baby in the womb of equal value to saving the environment or correcting the many injustices we see as Christians in our culture? We might say that most Republicans vote pro-life because of their values or perhaps some in order to get votes. Regardless of the motive, the child in the womb must be allowed to live.

It is of great importance to consider that the next president will be appointing judges to the Supreme Court. A Democratic president will not appoint a pro-life judge. The young Christians of today will be living with the fruit of a liberal or conservative Supreme Court for many years. Let us remember that a liberal court took away the lives of 50 million unborn children. When this injustice is ended we can then deal with the other issues in our society.

These are not liberal or conservative issues, but biblical issues. All Christians can unite in presenting the truths of Christ. Once our politicians and courts decide that there is a life not worth living, then the value of the individual is compromised.

God can bless a nation whose Christians unite for his truths.  community
—Bill Strafford
Plainfield, Indiana

Memories of China 
(posted 10-10-08)
The article concerning China (“China: Refreshing, Intriguing, Confusing, Unsettling,” by LeRoy Lawson, October 12) brought memories of my leading the first invited student group after the opening of The People’s Republic of China. I was asked to speak at The Christian Church in Beijing. The three ministers were each from a different denominational background. This visit led to a telephone conversation with the deputy minister of religion. I explained the Restoration Plea and she wondered where our missionaries were. She stated that any missionary bringing only the gospel and establishing churches with the goal of congregational independence would be welcome. The previous experience prior to World War II where missionaries were involved in espionage had left suspicion of the American missionary effort.
—Don Shaffer
Via e-mail

Thanks from Uganda 
(posted 10-10-08)
I would like to thank you for all the good work you are doing to expand God’s kingdom. According to the situation we are going through as Christians, it’s true the church today has to do its things dynamically.

Lastly, let me take this opportunity to welcome you to Uganda for ministry so that we may also be blessed. God bless the works of your hands.
—Rev. Martin Kabirigi
Via e-mail

The Church as Family, Not Institution 
(posted 9-30-08)
(This letter is in response to “Has the Church Sold Its Soul? (Part 1)” by Paul S. Williams, September 28, 2008.)

The more I look at the New Testament the more I see that the church is the family of God. The New Testament is saturated with family language. The New Testament certainly does not depict the church as any type of institution.

In a family church model the goal is to grow every member in Christ. The role of family leaders is to train and encourage every member to do their part in love. This is not the case with institutional churches. In institutions you have leaders who do almost everything (much of the time for their own ego desires) and members who mostly merely “attend” church. In a healthy family church there are no passive observers; everyone is encouraged and expected to participate. I don’t attend my family, I participate in my family as a full member.

The family approach to church is superior to institutional church because of how it grows every member, not just the leaders and their egos. It may not make great press or draw crowds at conventions, but the outcome is greater health for members and for the church body as a whole.
—Bryan Barrett
Lexington, Kentucky

Another Variation to Consider 
(posted 9-30-08)
Excellent article on divorced men being elders (“A Man with Faithful Eyes,” September 28, 2008). This church seemed to handle the problem very well, better than most, I thought. Did I miss it or was the issue of the qualifications for a man having only one wife, but she has been divorced, discussed? This has come up in elders meetings I have attended; it was taken into consideration based on what Jesus said in Matthew 5:32, “Anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”
—Arlie Reed
Eldorado, Illinois

Confusing Suggestions in Interview 
(posted 9-23-08)
I have certainly enjoyed reading the past several issues of the CHRISTIAN STANDARD. They contained well-written, thought-provoking articles of real depth that have helped me a lot. I especially appreciated the September 14 issue devoted to the theme of worship. I don’t think our churches hear enough about this important subject. Worship is often put on the back burner in the churches. So I welcome this discussion very much.
 
However, the September 14 interview with Gary L. Johnson raised more problems than it solved for me. Often the advice he gives is just too vague (much like his September 7 article, “Getting There Is Worth the Cost”).
 
At the church where he preaches, the worship service is specifically focused on one target group: a married man between 30 and 40 years old. The entire worship service is designed to connect with his world, to give him a worship experience he finds compelling, to evangelize him. Reaching him influences everything done in the worship. And so the church does “not sing all four stanzas of an old gospel hymn because that is not what he is listening to in his truck.” And yet the interview offers no specifics to explain what all this means.

What exactly is a worship service that appeals primarily to a married man 30-40 years old? What music is he listening to in his truck? And how can we find this out? What songs does the church sing on Sunday morning that fit what “he is listening to in his truck?”
 
And yet, even though the entire worship service is focused on the limited needs of an unchurched married man who is 30-40 years old, the sermon is “not Bible-lite” but offers a heavy dose of in-depth Bible teaching. I find it difficult to imagine how both can be true at the same time.
 
And what about the urgent spiritual needs of the members of the congregation (who may be single or married, male or female, 18 or 49 or 79 years old)? When will the worship service meet their needs? Often their needs are ignored so the worship service can become a vehicle for evangelism. If the members object to this, they are told to stop complaining because the worship service was not designed to make them happy but to win new people to the Lord.

This whole idea seems foreign to the New Testament. God’s Word proclaims that corporate worship is primarily designed for the edification of the saints as they give glory, honor, and praise to God. Evangelism is important, but may it never water-down the quality of our worship. The primacy of worship needs to be restored to our churches!
 —Marion E. White
Via e-mail

Thoughts About the NACC
(posted 9-19-08)
The following letters are in response to Editor Mark A. Taylor’s note in the CHRISTIAN STANDARD eNewsletter for September 21.

Under the headline, “NACC 2008 . . . and NACC Tomorrow”--the theme for that week's issue--he wrote:

This week offers several perspectives on the great family gathering this summer in Cincinnati, otherwise known as the North American Christian Convention. Our writers commented not only on this year’s experience but also about the future of the NACC. There’s a wide variety of opinion and thought here. After reading it, let us know what you think about the future of the NACC!  

Here are some of the responses we received:

* * *  

What’s the first thing that comes to your mind when someone says the word worship? Your favorite hymn? The worship band at your church? The volume of the music? The style of the music?

Or do you think of something that has nothing at all to do with music?

This week’s special issue takes up again the topic of worship, but the focus isn’t on music at all. This is especially interesting because most of the writers are church musicians or music leaders. While all of them believe music can help us worship, each of them speaks of more basic issues as the Christian approaches God.

Can anything fresh or new be said about worship? We think you’ll say yes after reading these refreshing articles.

Here is a response we received:

* * *  

'Argument Has Been Disproven Over and Over' 
(posted 9-9-08)
A recent article devoted extensive time and space to the argument that women are biologically unsuited for leadership (see “Masculinity, Femininity, and Church Leadership” by Kelvin Jones, August 24). To reach such a conclusion, one must ignore not only the witness of the Scripture but also the observation of actual life situations.

The “biologically-unsuited-for” argument has a long history. In the 19th century in this country, many authorities worried that women were “biologically unsuited for” the rigors of higher education. It was asserted that women’s brains simply could not understand the complexities of a university education and that their bodies were too weak for the hours of study required at the college level. Until the early 20th century, many voices proclaimed that women were “biologically unsuited for” voting, because voting required the kind of clear, analytical thinking that only men could do. Even in the mid-20th century, women were considered “biologically unsuited for” full-court basketball, a restriction that seems almost humorous now. The “biologically-unsuited-for” argument has been disproven over and over, and I am sorry to see it applied in this new way.

To get a glimpse of the dignity, abilities, and gifts of women, we can begin in Genesis 1 where we read that men and women were created in the image of God and, further, that together they are given dominion over the rest of creation. Yes, there are biological differences between men and women (and, as the French would say, “Viva la difference!”), but the commonalities are much more important. Both men and women are created in the image of God, both men and women are capable of sin and obedience, and both men and women are redeemed by Christ. Both men and women have the capacities for and responsibilities of reason. Both men and women are fully human and are created to live fully as human beings.

Even at the genetic level described in the article, the similarities are far greater than the differences. Jones tells us that women are more compassionate, yet all of us know men who excel at compassion and women who are hard-hearted. The article asserts that men are “especially suited to analysis of complex conceptual problems (such as some doctrinal issues and their implications),” yet we all know men who are tremendously confused about doctrinal issues and women who provide remarkable clarity of insight. The article itself recognizes that there are times when women excel in the supposedly “male” virtues and men excel in the stereotypically “female” virtues. Even if one were to accept Jones’s description of men as “competitive” and women as “cooperative,” it would seem to lead to the conclusion that having men and women working together would provide better leadership than either could provide alone.

Moving beyond Genesis, the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, offers numerous examples of women in leadership, from Deborah and Huldah to Priscilla and Phoebe. Additionally, Jesus never treats women as incapable of theological discourse, as is evident in his interaction with both the Samaritan woman at the well and with Martha at the time of the raising of Lazarus.

The key issue in church leadership is not personal authority; it is faithful service. When the disciples sought authority over others, Jesus offered this stern rebuke: “It shall not be so among you” (Matthew 20:26). We do not want to become a church where intelligent men lead and compassionate women serve. Rather, we want to become a church where intelligent, compassionate men and women serve God, the needs of the world, and one another. Such service is leadership, and it is the type of leadership for which all human beings, male and female, are created.
—Pat Magness
Elizabethton, Tennessee

Some Unanswered Questions 
(posted 9-9-08)
CHRISTIAN STANDARD’s “Year of the Elder” has produced some of the best leadership discussions I have ever encountered. Furthermore, women in leadership is always an issue but rarely discussed. Kudos to CS for addressing it (see the August 17 and 24 issues).

Unfortunately, little in the women in leadership articles answered these questions:

• When we talk about leadership, we discuss our responsibilities. When we talk about women in leadership, we argue authority. Why is that?

• Do we think men were created with authority over women?

• Do we think men are superior to women?

• Are we (men especially) concerned that the church is too feminine, leaving little room for masculinity?

• Are we afraid there won’t be any difference between men and women anymore?

To have a fair and balanced discussion, we must first address these unspoken questions. They lie at the heart of the issue.
—Kristofer Tripp
Via e-mail

Thoughts on Unity, Denominations, and Sects 
(posted 9-4-08)
The CHRISTIAN STANDARD article written by Jim Tune makes wonderful sense (“Just Asking: Five Questions for the Restoration Movement,” September 7). Few might have been able to write more sensibly. But he’s right that our “movement” needs to be a united call for unity in Christ. A large segment of the movement shifted away from loyalty to Bible truth and have no valid right to consider themselves now part of a “Restoration Movement.” They are a denomination. Unapologetically, they are a denomination among the denominations.

Another large segment became sectarian. Adding laws, normally based on either inferences or God’s silence, they seek unity only with converts to their sectarianism. They are sects. Recognizably, each is a sect, no part of a unity movement.

But Jim is in tune with the resurgent Restoration Movement, now most often calling itself the “Stone-Campbell Reformation.” Some who were sectarian are seeing the evil in separation and are moving toward rejoining the movement that is loyal to Christ and willing to accept as brothers others with differing opinions on matters about which the Lord has not legislated. An appropriate name for the unity movement is “Christian Churches/Churches of Christ.” Most congregations choose one of those two names for legal and recognition purposes. Others among us who agree with Bible names for Bible things choose totally nonsectarian names for their congregations.

Jim Tune speaks well for the majority who still seek to be loyal to the Christ who prayed that all who loved him would also love one another.
—Ray Downen
Joplin, Missouri

'Kidnapped by Some and Abandoned by Others' 
(posted 9-4-08)
I don’t know Jim Tune personally, but he has put into words the thoughts that I didn’t know how to express. And he did it with grace and kindness (“Just Asking: Five Questions for the Restoration Movement,” September 7). I love our movement, but am afraid it is being kidnapped by some and abandoned by others. Many do not realize how precious and timely the tenets of the Restoration plea are in today’s society. Jim Tune’s questions should be shared in every classroom in every Bible college, every convention, and every periodical where New Testament Christians gather. Thanks for the best article I have read in a long time.
—Gary Fenner
Sellersburg, Indiana

Restoration Teaching Is Critical 
(posted 9-4-08)
I was pleased by the tone and concern of Jim Tune’s article on the Restoration Movement (“Just Asking: Five Questions for the Restoration Movement,” September 7). He understands the beauty of our plea while comprehending the constant danger we face of ecumenical influences. It is critical for our people to receive at least a cursory teaching about our background . . . otherwise they will not know or appreciate what is at stake. I personally teach our men here the basics of the mottoes that drive our movement so they realize the centrality of Scripture and the dangers of man-made rules and regulations.
—Jeff Strite
Via e-mail

Focusing on Acts 8:3, 4 
(posted 9-4-08)
(This letter is in response to the August 17 and 24 issues of CHRISTIAN STANDARD dealing with God’s Word and women in leadership.)

Noting Acts 8:3, 4, whom did Saul of Tarsus view as enemies needing to be stopped from multiplying followers of Jesus? Both Christian men and women.

Whom did Saul drag off to prison? Both men and women. While escaping to avoid Jewish persecution, who “. . . went about preaching the word”? Men and women.

Commenting about Acts 8:3, 4, Professor Gareth Reese wrote, “The preaching here referred to was doubtless both public and private teaching—the latter being participated in by women as well as men, [J.W.] McGarvey suggests.”  (From Garrett Reese, New Testament History—Acts [Joplin: College Press, 1977], 317.)
—Richard Hostetter
Banner Elk, North Carolina

'An Obligation to Follow God's Will' 
(posted 9-4-08)
(This letter is in response to John Westover’s letter, “A Sore Subject in Today’s World,” posted August 21, 2008.)

I do get mighty tired of: “Paul points out that Adam was created first, then woman came from Adam when God put Adam into a deep sleep; from Adam’s rib woman was created as a ‘helper,’ not as the leader. Paul also points out that it was Eve who was deceived by Satan, and not Adam.”

(Hmmm, did Adam say “no”?)

I always hear this from men who argue against women leading, as if this in itself makes us too evil to take a leadership role. As Soujourner Truth said, “Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him” (from “Ain’t I a Woman?” speech in May 1851).

Women were persecuted for their faith, took active roles in house churches (Priscilla and Lydia, for example), were missionaries, and prophesied. Until around the sixth century, women held leadership roles in congregations. Man removed women from leadership roles, not God.

If one is called of God to lead in whatever capacity, whether male or female, then that person has an obligation to follow God’s will, regardless of what others say.
—Pam Bennett
Via e-mail

A Teen's Perspective on Women in Leadership 
(posted 9-2-08)
John Mulholland, next generations minister with Eastview Christian Church in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, sent us some thoughts penned by one of his high school students, senior Samantha Holley, in reaction to our articles on women in leadership in the August 17 and 24 issues. Samantha feels God is calling her to be a youth minister, but is respectful of, as she says, “people who would speak out in opposition of women holding certain positions in the church.”

We think you will be interested in reading Samantha’s thoughts, originally posted on her Facebook, that John sent to us with Samantha’s permission (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.