Revisiting the Pagan Olympic Games

Your article "Revisiting the Pagan Olympic Games" was right on target in highlighting the paganizing elements in the modern Games. While the opening ceremony was a wonderful panorama of history and culture, it did not pay enough homage to Greece's Christian and Byzantine roots. I believe the fault lies with Greece's former Socialist government that managed the Olympic project until it was defeated in national elections earlier this year. That government has had many quarrels with the Orthodox Church of Greece because of its many attempts to move the country to a radically secular culture similar to that of France and other E.U. member states.

Many of us Orthodox Christians were very disturbed when the government held the Olympic flame lighting ceremony, which was full of pseudo-pagan ritual on the Feast of the Annunciation, the commemoration of the first time that the good news of the Gospel was proclaimed. While the modern Olympic Games can play a beneficial role in our society by promoting the ideals of sport and international cooperation, we cannot let neo-pagan elements use them as an opportunity to undermine two millennia of Christian civilization.

Mark Vassilakis

Let's remember that the Olympics were going on while Jesus was alive, and continued until after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. Jesus would have never been at the Olympics. It violated the Law and would have defiled Him.

Regarding nudity at the Olympics, runners were nude for another reason—to prove that the men were uncircumcised. Jews who wanted to be in the Olympics had their foreskins sown back on to compete. These Jewish men wanted to participate so badly that they were not willing to let their covenant with Almighty God stop them.

Name withheld

Further research has demonstrated that the Olympics continued until around the eighth century, despite Theodosius. Aspects of pagan culture were also banned by Justinian several centuries later. This included the closing of schools in Athens. The Hippodrome in Constantinople continued until the advent of Leo and the iconoclasts, as did gymnasiums where athletes competed in the nude.

While I agree that there were good "Christian" reasons to ban some of the sports of ancient Greece, the Church itself has played a maor role in the transmission of ancient Greek texts. Clement of Alexandria, for example, is a source for pre-Socratic philosophers. Constantine himself ordered the copying of classical texts onto vellum and parchment. Early Irish Christians revived classical Greek learning—the venerable Bede denounced both the Irish church and the "Greek" church (as he saw it) of committing the Pelagian heresy.

Minas Poulos

Your article needs some points of clarification.

1) The ceremony does not begin with the presentation of an "austere mask". This "mask" is one of the most ancient idols in the world, a greek cycladic mask from 3000 B.C. Many such "masks" were discovered in Greece from archeologists and many such idols are 6,000 or more years older.

2) The pieces of this idol are torn apart to resemble the Greek islands, since the Greek cycladic civilization appeared in the Greek Aegean islands.

3) The cube which appeared in the middle of the scene represented Pythagoras' theory about the creation of the universe.

4) The centaur represents the union of myth and history in ancient Greece. Greece and Greek civilization are as ancient as the mythological centaur is.

Annie Angelopoulou

I thought the article was interesting and informative. However, it might have been better to add just a bit more to anticipate criticism that evangelicals are monument-bashing iconoclasts in league with the Taliban. People today do not grasp the power of the religious influence of old pagan temples. A little explanation of that would be in order. Also, I felt that most of us who know anything about Eros are quite limited in our understanding and tend to limit his "duties" to sexuality. I am trying to recall what C.S. Lewis said about Eros in his book, The Four Loves. Didn't it also include the arts and such?

Kermit Horn

Mr. Gertz doesn't mention the Byzantine Empire's chariot-racing factions, which were in reality political groups that were far more dangerous than any of today's European "soccer hooligans," nor the Byzantine passion for dangerous sports (like chariot racing), nor, for that matter, the Byzantine imperial families' passion for bloodshed among their own ranks. The murders committed by those in power are on a par with what took place in the later Ottoman Empire.

All this from a supposedly Christian society. It makes the pagan Greek Olympics look relatively benign in comparison!

I doubt all citizens of the eastern empire were as violent as their rulers, but those rulers were very flagrant in their transgressions. Perhaps the lesson is that civil religion is not true Christianity. We equate them at our peril.

Ellen Collison

I just read your article on the "pagan" Olympics as you stated, but I fail to understand your point. Was it to devalue Greece's contribution to the world in sports, medicine, philosophy, government, and thought in general? Or to insult the Greek people for their excellent work in hosting the Olympics? And yes, the nation of Greece is Greek Orthodox and they're very proud of it. The references to Ancient Greece were just to show the history of Greece and how it evolved and contributed to the world. Greeks don't worship the Parthenon or Zeus and ancient gods.

I'm offended as a Christian and a Greek by your article.

Joanne Bouldas

Steven Gertz responds:
My article is not an attack on the Greek people, and certainly not on the Greek Orthodox Church! I am simply revealing why early Christians (Greeks among them) would have disapproved of the Olympics as they were then practiced, and, in fact, why the Christian emperor banned the ancient games.

You may be right that the opening ceremonies was intended simply as a celebration of Greek heritage. But my comments were meant to provoke Christians to reevaluate even "ceremonial" paganism in the modern Games.

Again, I do not intend to insult Greeks. But as a Christian, I cannot watch the opening ceremonies without some sense that early Christians, at least, would not have approved of the display of pagan gods. Many of them died for their refusal to worship them.

The Friends of The Christ of The Passion

I take exception to the title, "Bug eating prophet," when used for one described by Jesus as, "—among those born of women there is no one greater than John—" (Luke 7:28 NIV). Your writer may want to rethink his attempt at humor.

Bill

Gutenberg: A God's-Eye View

Thank you very much for making Christian history articles available online. I enjoyed the story on Gutenberg. It reminded me of other brilliant inventors who were taken in by investors or partners and later lost the fortunes they'd worked for. For instance, "Famous Amos" even lost the right to use his own name on his cookie creations. His new brand is "no-name" which is Hawaiian for something better! It also reminded me of the Von Trapp family story which Maria sold for a pittance and was given a tiny percentage of the movie rights--out of the producer's respect and admiration.

I'm also thankful that God continues to work in our lives after we've messed them up, often out of a God-given passion and ambition we've allowed to get out of hand.

Judy

Dear Sir - I read your interesting article on Gutenberg. Although I enjoyed learning more about the man behind the invention of the printing press, I am concerned that certain truths have escaped you based upon your article. Martin Luther(and the scriptures) classified two types of people: theologians of glory(TG) and theologians of the cross(TC). The former is what thrives in modern America and is well illustrated by your article. The parable of the talents you referred to was not about people living up to the "full" potential of their lives in the eyes of God. That perspective you embrace is the TG - measuring events and actions based upon experiences and translating to the kingdom of God. In the parable, it was the FAITH in the return of the master that mattered, not whether one invested money for a fine-fold or ten-times return. Modern American Evangelicalism is caught up in the TG. God is only pleased with His Son, Jesus Christ. Fruits of the Holy Spirit are even in the "common" things - patience, kindness, etc... Not as the world defines "good works", as in your article.

Sincerely,
Frank Marron

I really enjoyed the article on Gutenberg. It was long and full enough that I was given a good understand of who Gutenberg was, but short enough to read in one sitting. I liked the thoughts drawn from it (applicable to so many other "heroes") that he was not perfect, but still able to be used by God. It was interesting and readable. My favorite line, "Isn't history delicious?" - made me smile in the middle of it.

Heather Kulaga

Dear Sirs,
I found your article on Gutenberg interesting but there is one point I think that should have been made. It deals with the fact that Gutenberg not only printed the 42 liner Bible, but also indulgences. I think you should have pointed out that even in the late Middle Ages the Church would have had a great deal of control over what was printed and what was not. If Gutenberg wanted to be able to keep his families contacts with the mint of the Archiepiscopal he would have had to print their material. In point of fact the Church would have been highly suspicious of any new invention that could have the potential to be used against it. The printing press in actuality became the information highway of not only the Reformation but also the Renaissance. God's gifts can come to use in unforeseen ways. I am sure that the Medieval Church thought to harness this invention to their own advantage, but God used it as a tool of reform. We as Evangelicals own a great deal to Gutenberg and his dream.

Sincerely
Molly Kaplan

"Knock, knock." "Who's there?" "The Amish."

As a college student, I did my student teaching practicum in Salem, Ohio, in the 60's. Although the family wasn't Amish, they lived as strict Quakers and spoke the "plain language." They also lived/worshipped within a very tightly bonded "community."

As a fairly new Christian, who came from a financially comfortable (but rushed and emotionally starved) corporate-life-family, I was so drawn to the simple beauties of "community" both within and outside the actual homestead. This family had several children and very meager accommodations, but they were rich in gentle graces, commitment, and just the joy of living in the wonder of God's daily grace. I quickly grasped that these folks had riches that no amount of money could buy! They didn't have to "adopt" me that semester, but they had so much love — they chose to share all of life with me. They had a quiet grace that was absolutely magnetic. They naturally incorporated their deep love and trust in the Lord into every facet of living/relating. And their meeting house times were rich extensions of being the "one body" in the Lord.

I left that three-month experience with more than classroom teaching experience. I got a taste of: (1) what was genuine family bonding and (2) what it was like to live in the wonderment of God's daily demonstration of grace, applied to the most basic circumstances. As my fiance visited with this family, we both tasted something so richly different from our N.J. backgrounds. And this "taste" of something so intrinsically simple, yet rich, continued to flavor our married life, family ways, and Christian community outreach for decades!

Bravo for your sharing the article insights! Although my experience was within the Quaker community, not the Amish, there are similar overtones.

Barbara Sewall

As an international student here in the United States, I am as bewildered by American culture as the Amish are. I cannot understand the American craving for newer models of everything. There is so much waste. Everything is done in excess.

Your article hit some crucial points. Most of the viewers will feel that the exposure should change the Amish folks. This is because they feel that the Amish are backward and need to adopt the modern lifestyle. The only problem I have with the Amish lifestyle is their shunning higher learning. Education is not the problem with the industralized West. It is their priorities that is the problem. They put all their faith in technology, money, and the power that it brings. The battle cry is the latest fashion, music, dance, latest model car, hairstyle, clothes, etc. They think that they can satisfy their hunger with these things, and consequently have pushed God to the bottom of their priority list. The Western lifestyle is suffocating! It consumes the entire being.

I may not live like the Amish, but I am overwhelmed by the Westerner's obssession with possessions, peer pressure, fame, popularity, wealth, and the need to be the top guy on the block. I pray that more people will look at this TV series from a different angle. Maybe they will see that they can learn a lesson or two from their less modern brethren.

Yatta Roslyn Young

Although you made valid points regarding the culture surrounding Old Order sects, I find it amazing that not only your article, but many others on the same subject, never question the validity of a television show's premise that it has actual "Amish" teens interacting with worldly teens. I would agree with Donald Kraybill that it would be a rare occurrence to have an Amish family agree to such an intrusion and corruption of their way of life. In addition, none of the supposed "Amish" young people are actually Amish anymore ( if indeed they ever were) according to the interviews UPN plays on their website . They all talk about "growing up" among the Amish, which leads me to believe they or their families left the Amish a long, long time ago. So, in effect, they are hardly the appropriate spokespeople for a current Amish community.

Reality television shows are manipulative and condescending in addition to pandering to the terrible sense of voyeurism that is, in essence, sin. I would rather not see a Christian journal like yours give any credibility to that venue.

Susan Gill

There is much to agree with in "'Knock, knock.' 'Who's there?' 'The Amish.'" The article also, however, leaves intact the vision of communitarian Christianity as a basically Anabaptist venture. Others of us who appreciate, but do not agree with, portions of Anabaptist theology nonetheless are attempting communal life as Christians. Can, for instance, a communitarian group embrace (post) modern culture? Can it locate in an urban setting in the midst of society rather than be a rural retreat? Can it push the envelope of what it means to "look" like a communitarian, or a Christian? (That is, could we look no different than our secular counterparts, yet bear greatest difference within?)

Yes, the danger for all evangelicals is that we over-identify with secular culture. But this danger is also a strength. To be able to discuss a television program, then seamlessly and authentically (because it is who we are internally) bring Christ to bear on that discussion, is profoundly Christian. To use our shared life as an economic lever to more powerfully affect our surrounding neighbors' well-being — "as you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me" — is one great method of stewarding our individually limited but communally impressive resources.

I'm not suggesting that the Anabaptist way of doing community is wrong. Rather, I merely suggest that it isn't the only way. I fear that communal life is treated as merely an interesting experiment, and that the "oddity" of various Anabaptist groups' dress and culture allows us to keep the concept of communal life at a safe distance. The communally shared life is a dangerous, yet powerful tool in our evangelical arsenal, and we have far under-utilized it.

Jon Trott

This article is the closest to the "real Amish" I have read since this show started. I grew up in Ohio in Amish community, and I get chills remembering how tough it was. I know about leaving the Amish, having left without any money at all, and I now live in California.

I love this show, and would love to meet Miriam or Ruth. Go, girls. You can do it! I did it too!

Linda Greenip

Good article in many respects, although the author seems to have romanticized the Amish to a great degree. The legalism of the Amish church, for one, isn't even mentioned, nor are the doctrinal problems: the belief that one cannot have assurance of salvation, nor picking preachers by the casting of lots. Amish communalism is also starker and more difficult to live with than he's indicated. (I'm taking John Hostetler as my primary source — he was the 1st, and still, in many respects, the best at presenting Amish history and the Amish way of life.)

As far as "Amish in the City" is concerned, the author's dead on target. I think the city kids should switch places — living on a non-Amish dairy farm for two weeks would be more than enough of a switch for them.

Ellen Collison

I Was in Prison and You Abused Me

Thank you for this article. I, too, am appalled at the happenings at Abu Ghraib and it is without a doubt the source of much of the insurgency and anti-American sentiments in Iraq and the Middle East.

It is terrible that the American Church has been unable to call sin sin and to more broadly condemn the military and intelligence communities for these events.

Thank you for attempting to highlight these events from a historical perspective and what the Church in ages past has wrestled with. Too bad many don't see the writings of these saints of old as a witness to them in this day. David B. Malone

What was not addressed in the article was how on earth can we protest what has happened? It isn't that the average Christian isn't totally outraged — we are! But how does one even go about doing anything about it? Ordinary people do not exactly have a platform they can speak from, so how about writing about what we can do?

Patricia Hammell Kashtock

As a Christian living in New Zealand, I was beginning to wonder if any sane response to the problems of prisoner abuse in Iraq was going to come from the USA. Your article has restored my faith that honest dialogue and reflection remains possible in post September 11 America.

Yes, worse atrocities were perpetrated by Iraqis on their own: yes, America has suffered greviously and yes, whatever the politics of it, many Americans feel that they are not being recognized for the desire to bring democracy.

Yet none of this justifies what was being done in Abu Ghraib. We all need to repent of our sin, in sack-cloth and ashes if need be.

May God bless you for this honest self-assessment!

Anthony Rimell

Steven Gertz is badly confused over the responsibilities of the Christian, and those of the state.

We are to forgive our enemies, but the state is responsible for administering justice and protecting the innocent.

Fred Colby

I agree with your article on the abuse, (although I suggest the words should be torture and murder) of largely innocent Iraqi prisoners in all prisons maintained by the U. S. military.

It is well know that German soldiers and officers during the Nazi era said they were just following orders when they abused, tortured and murdered not only innocent people like Jews, but also prisoners of war. Our soldiers and officers in Iraq and other nations, who are guilty of the abuse, torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners cannot use that excuse. They should—without the excuse of not knowing about the Geneva Convention Laws of War or prisoner of war treatment—know in their hearts and minds that it is "wrong" to mistreat any human being.

I just finished reading Washington's Crossing, a book about the winter of 1776-77 during the Revolutionary War. General George Washington issued very strict orders that British and Hessian prisoners of war were to be treated with respect and that no one should be abused or tortured. His orders still apply today.

The photographs of the abuse and torture of mostly innocent Iraqi men and women is never going to win the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. We have made more enemies and helped in the recruiting of more terrorists.

Richard Peterson

This article was indeed thought provoking but disturbing as well. What strikes me as paradoxical, however, is the general acceptance that there is a "Christian" way to conduct a wartime prison. Given the nature of war and the base impulses it induces in not only soldiers but also civilians, I was not shocked that this type of brutality exists. The images from the prison Abu Gharaif illustrate this problem: Is there a proper place for the Christian in war at all?

The more I grow in my Christian walk, the more it seems unconscionable for those following Christ to embrace war and its inherent practices. Is the American public really so naive as to think that in all other wars, American soldiers were benevolent to their enemies? Are we really so inclined to sanitize everything in order to make this side of war palatable? Those engaged in warfare are trained to kill. I would think that in order to do this effectively, people act on brutal instincts. How else does one react in an alien land and culture with orders to destroy?

Perhaps in the past, when Christian influence was far more evident in the United States, there was a standard of dignified behavior expected from the American soldier. But honestly, does anyone think we still live in a country of that standing today?

Your distress over the lack of outrage from the media's evangelical camp is understandable. Often these groups have so commingled Christianity with patriotism as to obscure the gospel message. To them, it seems, a criticism of America is a criticism of Christianity. Abu Ghraib has shown me not only the state of fallen man and to what levels he can descend, but also of the atrocity of war. Christians are not called to kill their enemy; they have been commanded to love him. The Christian by his very nature is "separated unto God" which often means living on the fringe element of society. Every Christian should be contemplating not the guilt or innocence of Donald Rumsfeld, but the guilt or innocence of a Christian presence in war. "The Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them" (Luke 9:56)

Name withheld

Should We Fight for "Under God"?

I greatly appreciated the article "Under God." Collin Hansen accurately assesed the situation of religious language in American government and the our role as Christians to give the words meaning. As Hansen said, the Supreme Court will only allow "under God" to remain in the pledge if it is determined that it has no religious value. This being the case, I see no reason why Christians should fight to retain it. I also found is interesting how "under God" came into the pledge as a rhetorical device against the Soviet Union. I think it would be accurate to say "under God" has never been used in the pledge to communicate anything more than American supremacy, and now modern society thinks it is even to good for God. Thank you for that interesting and insightful article.

Mark O'Dwyer

It sounds like a nice story but somehow it doesn't ring true. The writer noted that Lincoln never clarified his meaning of "under God" and yet he seemed to know that Lincoln had another motive forinvoking the Almighty.He "knew" that Lincoln wanted to create a feeling of a "civil religion." I'm not saying that this writer couldn't possibly have known what Lincoln's motivations were, he could have many more sources of research than I could possible even dream of, but it just sounds like it was just made up.

I'm fed up with the ACLU and their constantly attacking Christianity and I truly believe that everything this great country is, is because we have the blessing of God. When there was that big fuss about the removal of the huge stone with the Ten Commandments from the court in Alabama I thought just how silly it was for so many people to get so upset at the removal of nothing but a "symbol." People were wailing and crying like they were removing God. Christians don't worship symbols. I truly believe God is at work here. There's a lot of people that are taking notice of God that hadn't given Him much thought before.

I'd like to know if there's any reason for me to believe that the writer of the article really had any way of knowing what President Lincoln's motivation was for invoking the Almighty in the Gettysburgh Address.

Thanks and God Bless,
Bill Scott

Your article states, "Lincoln believed that if he could foster a civil religion, Americans would consider their nation to be sacred and thus indissoluble."

This is a shocking statement. Upon what evidence do you base the statement that Lincoln wanted to foster a 'civil religion'?

Alisa Arnett

This article gives an excellent history and perspective on the issue, but where do we find Lincoln's thoughts on a civil religion?

Charles Troutman
Hagatna, Guam

Collin Hansen responds:

I appreciate the many readers who wrote to question my interpretation of Abraham Lincoln's efforts to cultivate an American "civil religion." My argument is based on Lincoln's efforts to "consecrate" the Gettysburg battlefield, along with the following statement, delivered in 1838 to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois:

Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. (italics in original)

Obviously, one speech does not a coherent agenda make. But Lincoln is greatly revered in America's historical narrative precisely because he did more than any other President to promote the concept that these United States "shall not perish from the earth." This understanding need not diminish the inspirational rhetoric of his Gettysburg Address or the humble righteousness of his Second Inaugural Address. Rather, we must acknowledge the responsibilities of his office. "Civil religion" was but one tool he used keep the states united.

As a Christian, I would hope that everything I do is "under God" whether I add those words out loud or not. As patriotic as the next person, I stillfearthat civil religion andAmerica worship is too often confused with true Christianity. I think this is an informative, well written, and useful article on the subject. It seems to give a balanced view, especially in the historical perspective, and yet left me to make up my own mindabout the issue. Thanks.

Billie Ford

Collin Hansen's recent article on "Should we fight for 'Under God'?" in Christian History was a nice statement of concern over the promotion of 'civil religion.' I also concur that there is not an automatic or "obvious" Christian position on this topic. But I do think there is a Christian case for the view currently favored by the American populace to maintain the theistic acknowledgments in our public civil discourse. My comments below are based on my own understanding of the social and political philosophy that does or should govern our nation. I recognize that legal decisions may often content with more specific principles embodied in case law.

Although special revelation is needed to understand the fullness of God in Christ, that does not preclude the propriety of a nation recognizing through conscience the sovereignty of God in some generic way (perhaps by analogy like the gentile 'God-fearers' appreciated the theistic framework of Judaism in the first century). This sort of generic recognition embodied in public discourse does not by itself preclude religious freedom or result in the establishment of a religion as its content is too minimal. While Christians would want to claim more than this would involve, I don't know why we would not want to support a broad, minimal acknowledgement of God in public civil discourse consistent with general revelation or the multiform theistic religious traditions that have shaped the American landscape.

Furthermore, the idea that there could be a public square that is merely secular but religiously neutral or indifferent is a chimera. While the minimalistic recognition of a deity does create some public imposition on those who lack any religious belief (or whom might have nontheistic religious beliefs), it does reflect both the broad current attitude of our culture and our predominant historical worldviews that produced it. The resulting imposition is not vicious or unreasonable given our cultural heritage and landscape. The real problem for people who do not have any sort of theistic belief would arise if these sorts of largely ceremonial or figural theistic acknowledgements in some way coerced them in their personal conduct to significantly defer to a particular religious life, belief or practice. That situation is not much different from many other areas of cultural difference that are often glossed over in the operation of governments. For instance, antinomians may believe there is no such thing as a moral truth. But the concept of right and wrong permeates our legal system and public discourse (albeit in mixed and non-uniform ways). Our culture has a predominant language that others may not share. They are not required to speak the lingua franca but in many forums clearly must accommodate to it. A society cannot escape acknowledgement of widespread worldview claims or other particularistic features if it is to proceed as a society with a single government. There is no compelling reason why those shared features should be naturalistic as opposed to theistic. Naturalism is not somehow neutral while theism is not. In fact, naturalism as a pure worldview is more of a minority perspective than theism in American culture. Theism, by itself, is a worldview but certainly falls far short of an established religion. Whatever it means for a society to be 'secular', it cannot be simply preferring one worldview (naturalism which is devoid of religious categories or acknowledgements) over another (theism). It also is not possible logically or existentially for secularism to mean a culture that precedes with no worldview acknowledgements in its public, civil discourse. There is no perspective free sterile space in which government can operate. For instance, if we stripped official public discourse of the acknowledgement of God, that would be to imply that that acknowledgement is not due. This is not a neutral posture but a particularistic tenet of belief. If civil discourse cannot escape the reflection of worldviews, why would a theistic one be somehow out of bounds in our public, civil acknowledgements?

Bill Hathaway
Regent University

Holy America, Phoebe!

This article is a wonderful addition to detailed knowledge of revival in the United States, and of the contribution of the Holiness movement in particular. As a Presbyterian Minister, it was only recently that I came to know in more detail and in a personal relationship the history and power of the Holiness Movement. I was truly amazed to see how the seeds sown by Whitfield, Edwards, and Wesley developed into close fellowship and ministry between Presbyterians, Methodists, and Holiness Churches.

Otavio

I would have liked a few more paragraphs on where the "social gospel" is leading us. What are the implications for the Salvation Army today in respect of it's collecting money, especially the massive amount ( $1.6 billion) left to it in a will from the McDonald's family ?

Paddi

Thank you for the article about Phoebe Palmer. As a member of the Church of the Nazarene for almost fifty years, this movement means a great deal to me. Phoebe Palmer is one of the giants who I became aware of in my college days at Eastern Nazarene College reading Dr. Smith's book "Revivalism and Social Reform."

Walter

Do Nigerian Miracle Ministries Discredit the Faith?

We need to look back at the way Pentecostalism grew in the West. In my opinion, the same styles and maneuvers being used in the fast-growing Pentecostal and Charismatic movements on the African continent were employed in the USA. The growth was based much on the manifestation of the work of the Holy Spirit in peoples lives. Miracles were central to the big pull of people to such meetings. Alexander Dawie, Gordon Lindsay, Oral Roberts, Cathrine Kuhlman, and many others where characterised by their miracle crusades.

As these ministries grew, money and issues of prosperity also took center stage. Scandals concerning that have been a disgrace to the western

Church. For the most part, these people were not theologians and had a lot of problems with mission churches. Sometimes their theology was questionable.

What is happening among the Nigerian Charismatics and Pentecostals is a replica of the western Pentecostal Charismatic movement. The influence, inspiration, and running of Churches has been tapped from them. Before any body tackles the issue of modern Pentecostalism and charismtics in Africa, be fair to discuss the influences from the West.

Just as western Pentecostals and Charismatics have departed from the heart of missions to chase less important things, so have their offspring in Africa. What the continent needs is not a Church which will teach them how to get rich quickly, or to trust God for quick finances, but appreciating the value of hard work, enhanced skills for more productivity, and equal opportunities on the global market. As much as there is need for spiritual regeneration, minds and hands need empowerment too. That will definitely give sustainability to the people of Africa.

The gospel of Jesus Christ in Africa has been preached with prejudice. If it was totally the Cross, we would not have seen a million people killed in Rwanda, which supposedly was a "Christian" country, or Burundi. I am convinced the Pentecostal Charismatic movement has a major part to play in the body of Christ in Africa.

But a few things must be taken seriously. The leaders must take time to be deeply informed on matters of theology from an African percpective. Social concerns must be taken into consideration. And we must make a deliberate effort to dialogue with other leaders from mainline churches.

John

Having visited Africa frequently, I'm always amazed by their freshness to what God can and will do. Praying for healing is not a case of "I hope God does"—it's more like "let's start looking for the signs and wonders." Returning to North America is like turning down the bright light of possibilities, and being content with a some times He does attitude.

I wonder how many years it will be until the African and Chinese nations fully take over missions to the unsaved.

Brian

Thank you for a more balanced view of this situation than mainstream Christianity usually recognizes as legitimate. I am concerned about the

West's brand of Christianity that, as the author said, squeezes God into a little box. There must be a proper consideration of both Spirit and Truth.

Even those who tend to be "Word" oriented, pick and choose what part of the Word they translate into belief and practice. I am tired of a limited God who has lost His Biblical power and seems to be made in the image of Man. I am so pleased to read an intelligent discussion of this issue in a well-respected periodical.

Barbara

I have followed with much satisfaction, and some concern, the growth of Africa's church, which is singularly the work of the Holy Spirit. I was equally pleased with the NBC for its wise ruling in favor of the people. It is an unfortunate that many Third World evangelical Christians are easily convinced by demonstrations of miracles, promises of wealth, and the popular teachings of spiritual warfare experts. We can be certain that the rocks, waters, trees, etc do not have evil spirits, that the triumphalistic promises of faith-healers and prosperity teachers come from the mouths of today's "wolves among the sheep" that Christ warned of, and that, overwhelmingly, miracles performed on TV are hoaxes that victimize the poor and give them false hopes, as opposed to the concrete teaching of the Old Testament and Christ himself.

However, the place of the western missionary (I myself am one), is not to condemn all such phenomena outright, so as to dishearten the already overburdened, but to provide constant, steady teaching combined with practical Christian love in the form of community development, serving the sick, improving quality of life, etc. Slowly, African Christianity will gain the intellectual and material resources to continually reinvent and express itself not according to its agreement with western enlightenment Christianity, but as the representative of Christ's new humanity within the cultures of Africa.

Scott

Mel Gibson's Next Act: "The Man of Passion"?

Thanks for the interesting review of the life of Francis of Assisi. As I read it, I recalled a movie I saw many years ago - I'd guess in the early '70's - called "Brother Sun and Sister Moon'. There were some compelling scenes in it which I still remember, one of which was the scene you described of Francis turning even the clothes he was wearing over to his father in the presence of the whole town as an act of renunciation of the wealthy lifestyle to which he had been born. I suspect many of us in our consumer society would be challenged by the re-telling of his life story. How about it Mel?

Linda

I do not think Mel Gibson should do St. Francis for his next movie. It doesn't sound to me like St. Francis is in anyway comparable to Christ and this would be a step down from the Passion. I think his next film should be the life of Christ before the Passion, doing miracles and ministering etc. with the same actors. I think this would attract more large crowds and be another great witnessing tool. I was so impressed with his more realistic approach to Jesus. This would be so much better than most of those Jesus movies in the past with British accents!

Becky

This is most interesting. I, too, have been guilty of caricaturizing St. Francis as the super-humble friar who talked to the animals, was cheerful, and showed incredible generosity. But a few years ago I read a book written by a Franciscan mystic, Ven. Mary of Agreda, of an abbey in Spain: The Mystical City of God. It was and is the book which called me to reconsider Francis.

Something truly monumental happened when Francis was kneeling in the broken-down church and heard Christ His Lord call to Him from the Crucifix before which he was praying; "Francis, repair my Church!" said the voice. No wonder he thought Jesus meant this one church, which was in such disrepair as to be a scandal. So he undertook a campaign to fix the church.

Franciscan nuns, priest and brothers have experienced such wonders within their cloisters it seems it is now time to publicize them through another cinematic masterpiece. Yet another clarion call can go forth to join The Passion, giving the jaded world some exciting facts to chew on along with the Source of all miracles, the Almighty Father, His Word of Truth, and the Fire of the Holy Ghost. If God wills, so be it.

JJ

I agree that Mel Gibson would be the best choice to make such a movie and I hope he will consider it. My husband and I visited Assissi some years ago(before all the damage) and were impressed by St. Francis and the first live creche scene attributed to him. But we found the "Claires" to be uncomfortable companions with the heavily veiled presence and eventual vows of silence.

Nancy

This article is wonderful. I learned more about Francis of Assisi than I ever knew and laughed out loud at the wonderful scene of his public "ceremony" of renouncing his earthly father. What a charming soul this article portrays. Thank you!

Sylvia

The Lord of the Rings, The Passion of the Christ, and the Highway of Holiness

Bravo! And I also appreciate the bit on DaVinci, for it certainly has done tons of harm to many souls out there. It belonged inside this article which spotlights in a truly Biblical manner these miraculous happenings in our time. I have seen the Passion four times and it is not enough—having the good fortune to be blessed with the Holy Catholic Faith pre-Vatican II, of course, I already knew most of what this triumphant artistic 'film' put forth—only I had never had the opportunity to see what only eyes can commute to the soul. Therein lies the difference between listening to and/or reading Holy Writ and various works on Jesus' Passion, Death and Resurrection, and 'being there', as I felt I was each time I saw it. I have told Mr. Gibson and everyone else I know, I consider this "God's Masterpiece", for no human being could have conceived such brilliance without direct inspiration and assistance from Heaven. He has rightly said it was the Holy Ghost's work, and how right he is!

Thank you again for putting three shining examples of renewed hope before those of us who know the Devil has lost, but who are daily faced with the realities of our own nation (never mind the rest of the world) gone bad, wallowing in what the Mother of God has already told us would come upon the entire world, should the Pope fail to do what Heaven has commanded: a dreaded 'Diabolical Disorientation'!

Can anyone honestly say they cannot see this all around them?

JJ

I've thought along the same lines. In the last few years we've seen many public, seemingly authentic confessions of faith in Christ that I would have thought impossible or unlikely. Several new conversions or return to childhood faith have changed individual's personal lives, some in profound, some in quiet ways. At the 2000 election it became more obvious than ever that the American people are lining up on one side or the other. Some politicians have set aside long-held beliefs for the sake of political gain.

The majority of professing Christians, who are still subject to foibles, may differ on particulars, but those seeking a holy life in Christ agree on the most important elements: true repentance, a reordering of their priorities, and a willingness to lose everything for the sake of Christ. For some, like Randy Travis, it's meant a quiet moving away from the spotlight; for somelike Mel Gibson, it's meant months of public scrutiny and criticism, followed by blockbuster box office sales and public vindication. In either case, Christ is preached and God is glorified. Sounds like the 11th chapter of Hebrews. We don't get to choose the immediate outcome, but the end is a heavenly reward.

Judy

I think it's all to do with one's individual perception. For example, one could just as easily make the same claim when the stage play and movie Jesus Christ Superstar got a lot of attention in the early 70's. Also around this time were bestselling books such as The Late, Great Planet Earth by Hal Lindsay (the no. 1 non-fiction book of the 1970's) and the first-run of the musical Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, another Rice/Webber collaboration.

David

It never ceases to amaze me how Satan can pervert the truth. The Passion is a story of love and sacrifice and as a Christian I am told in the Bible that the Jewish people are Gods chosen. As a Christian I am to treat Jewish people well as the chosen. They will have their eyes opened.

Satan takes and perverts the meaning on both sides. For the Jews to turn the Gospel into anti-semitism and for people claiming to be Christians to use Christ's sacrifice as a reason for hatred.

Do these so called Christians who hate the Jews for killing Christ realize that it was Christ's choice and if he hadn't made that choice we would not be forgiven. It was God's will that Jesus die not the Jews.

I will pray that Satan's trickery will not hinder the message of love and forgiveness of our Lord at this most amazing time. The incredible sacrifice ca never incite anything but repentence and forgiveness when TRULY experienced. PRAISE GOD.

Thank You, Brenda Rundle

I will admit, I only skimmed this article, but the sorrow I felt lingered. The Jewish people who fear this film, I think, will be confronted with an event that they NOR their ancestors had any control over. All that happened to Jesus was to fulfil prophesy. Those that took part, could no more have stopped the rains that lifted the arch, as to have changed what happened to our Lord. The Jews did not Kill Jesus. … ..Jesus Died. … .willingly. … .for us.

Being human, there will be those that strike out at the objects of their anger, namly Jewish people. But, those will be people that do not KNOW JESUS, his reason for living, and his reason for dying. Because they claim the title Christian, does not make it so. A Christian will leave this film, humbled, heartbroken, and reminded anew just how unworthy we are of this magnificent sacrifice and gift, the mortal physical life of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ.

Kelly Martindale
Indiana

Thank yor for this thoughtful and sensitive article. It contained many historical references which were not known by me, and I'm certain by others. At this time, your article was greatly needed.

Russ Wimmer

This article is wonderful and expresses what I think most Christians think. The only thing that turns me off about seeing the film is all the hype. When Mel Gibson decided to go on television with Diane Sawyer I decided I didn't really want to see this wonderful movie.

Mary A. O'Donnell

After reading your article my heart sank in pain. I am very aware of the Jews' involvement in Christ's death. We all put Jesus on that cross. Jesus told us Christians to love our enemies. Who are they? They are those who hate God the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son of God. What a shame that people will commit horrendous violence in the name of God. If anyone wishes to punish someone for killing the Son of God who came to earth in the flesh should put to death the closest person responsible first, themselves. I am shamed by any anti-Semitism, or any other racism for that matter. It just shows our sinfulness.

Michael Patterson

Thank you for this timely piece. I have shared it with a small group of church members dedicated to reaching out to our Jewish friends at this time in order to enhance dialogue. I will be going to see 'The Passion' with a dear friend and rabbi, after which we will share our perspectives with our congregations. Your piece has provided the necessary context for my members as they prepare to see this film.

Michael Bledsoe
Riverside Baptist Church
Washington, D.C.

Excellent article that puts Jewish fear in perspective. It helped me understand the terrible reactions Jews have faced through the centuries. Understanding the root and foundation of their fear will help in loving outreach to them and all who do not really grasp the purpose and intent of the Passion.

Thanks,
Don Johnson

I think it is reprehensible that people claiming to be Christians would rise up in a mob mentality and kill any one. It seems to me that the Christian churches did not do a very good job of teaching the real meaning of the Gospels. This just goes to show that men are wicked in their hearts and not basically good. We need a savior.

James

I'm pleased to see someone brave enough to let Christians know the history of Jews-Christians. It seems the tendency of Christians in the 21st century is to deny that Christians had anything to do with the Holocast-with the exception of the Ten Booms of this world. We forget that we (the US) turned away shiploads of Jews, not allowing them in our borders thus sending them to certain death in concentration camps. We are unaware that the Ten Booms of this world are notable because there were so few of them, not so many.

Mary Ellen Groat
Marlette, MI

I think this article falls short of the mark. First of all the Jews do not have a death sentence. Crucifixion is a Roman sentence notinJewish law.

The Christians of today certainly don't have a hatred against the Jews. Wasn't Christ a Jew?

The love of Christ far outshines any hatred against the Jews.

Regards,
Chuck Jones

The last paragraph is exactly right. However, I think that without the indwelling witness of the Holy Spirit, non-christians and some christians will not understand Eph. 3:18.

Thanks for the article, I plan to see the film and I plan to cry and feel unworthy of such love.

Duane DuVall

Dear Christian History:

Thanks for your article about The Passion. I think someone should remind Foxman that this story is not only historical, but it is viewed in thousands of passion plays, and movies by millions of Christians every single year. If he thinks one new movie is going to incite more hatred against Jews he is mistaken. It is also foolish to bring up Hitler in reference to Gibson's movie. I mean, saying that Jews should be afraid of this movie because Hitler went to the Oberammergau play, is like being afraid of a Little League game because Castro used to play baseball. The fact is we are not addressing the real issue: the ADL doesn't want any Christian expression on the popular front. It is not Christians they are afraid of, it is-one of their own-Jesus. Paul said in 1Cor 1:23 that Christ crucified is a stumbling block to the Jews. Hitler is just a red herring.

For Him,
Tim Foutz

I suggest,as an escapee from Nazi Germany, that the essence of the final sentence of this article be repeated again and again to the largest possible audience. The Christians who acted as "true Christians" during and after WWII considered His message of salvation and love, not the horrific death that ever since Constantine has been focused on "the Jews."

Respectfully,
Peter H. Cahn

The Ancient Rise and Recent Fall of Tithing

Dear Staff at Christian History:

Please read "Should the Church Teach Tithing (A Theologian's Conclusion about a Taboo Doctrine)" by Russell Earl Kelly, Phd. Next to the Bible this book will change your life. It is that theologically sound and powerful. There are many good theological books on this subject, but this book (theological, academic, not for the faint of heart) should be read by anyone wanting the "facts" as related to scripture, time, and history of Israel and the Church. God bless.

S. Taylor

This article was enlightening. However, God uses this word "tithe" in Malachi. Being in the Old Testament, I hear the debate about whether or not this is legalism because it was given before Christ, under the old system of religious law. But I always answer this criticism with the fact that the Lord doesn't ask for 10%, but 100%! of our lives. For when one is saved by the GRACE of God, He redeems all of life, baptizing me into Christ … and my wallet too.

Thank you for this article. God bless you in your work to edify the church and glorify our Precious Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Rev. Randall Blackmon First Baptist Church of Cambridge, Maryland

This is a highly interesting article but, does little to help those of us who have a genuine problem with tithing from a NT standpoint, all the scriptures I can find in the NT seem to point to the passing away of the system of tithing and a replacing of it with the simple dictum: GIVE. just GIVE, give to meet the need. Whatever that need will be. Also your article seems to carry a misunderstanding of those of us who question tithing, that we don't believe in giving, that is simply not true, we just question that there should be a set amount , One final picky point: you stated in your article that Abraham gave Melchizedek a tithe of all he had, not quite, he gave him a tithe of the spoil he took. I know, its nitpicky, but be careful there are folks out there who don't read their Bibles they might get confused.

God Bless,
Pete

I think it needs to be noted that just as many believers are opting out of the traditional congregational churches, they are also opting to place their tithes elsewhere. I don't think it's an issue of not giving, it's just that the church as we know it is losing its influence, and for me, that's a good thing. I've left the traditional assembly for more small group/house church idea and my tithe goes to a plethora of ministries. All are in the body of Christ and no amount of impassioned preaching is going to convince me that they will be better used in a local congregation. Audrey Martin

The statistics released by the Barna Research Group, upon which this article is based, are inherently flawed. The statistics do not reflect the true Christian concept of giving (don't let your right hand know what your left hand is doing … ). They only report what they believe adults contributed to churches. Wakey, wakey! We ARE the church!

How could Barna know about the money that one church member paid out of his pocket for another's electric bill when the second was laid off from his job? How could Barna know about the lady who has chickens; she brings her extra eggs to the church where they are given to families in need. What about the anonymous bags of groceries left on the porch of a struggling family? Or the struggling, single mom whose rent was anonymously paid? The negative (gee, people don't tithe anymore) outlook is just wrong, from where I sit. I see people giving to the church every day. It's just not all filtering through the collection plate and form 1040. There IS hope. Don't worship statistics while ignoring the REAL giving. The latter goes waaaay beyond a mere ten percent.

Sincerely,
Connie Kennedy Church Secretary Daphne United Methodist Church Daphne, Alabama

Tithing is a good idea, and so are sabbatical years and Jubilee Years. Do you know of any church that teaches tithing that also follows these two practices? I wouldn't mind paying the tithe, as long as the church will pay for my year off with pay every 7th year,and pay off all my debts every 49th year. Yes, I know that tithes were actually more than ten percent, and offerings were separate in the Old Testament times; but they were supporting a whole theocratic system of government that we do not have today, many of those functions being taken over by Social Security and other taxes we pay. Another question on the tithe is: does it go to the church you attend or to other groups? I would think the local church should get most, since you are receiving a direct benefit and have your direct involvement there, whilst in the case of outside organizations, you have little control and less involvement in their work (and we all know of cases of abuse of the monies).

Yours,
Randy Koper Romans 4:8

i liked very much that this was addressed.

Could it have been more forceful in its impact? Yes!!! Certainly so many New Testament scriptures reveal God's intent in our giving. …i.e … as mentioned, rich young ruler…. But most of all, we serve a savior who gave us all … a creator who gives us every breath we take, every bit of creative brain-power to invent, to do business; every bit of the health we have. … why shouldn't the born-again Christian relate his giving to God's ultimate blessing?

My righteous, uneducated father, always told me to never let a dollar bill get between me & Jesus. … it has never left me. … it is implanted in the vision of my soul's eyes forever. Why are we not raising our young people to view God's work as first, ours secondary? … Whats wrong with holding up Stanley Tams, Le Tourneau as models of Christian entrepeneurship? We are losing the battle, many of them, because we are wimps in modeling to our children.

David Lorraine long appointee short term mission coordinator, Greater Europe Mission, Euro team former teacher, & professor Taylor University

Did Eric Rudolph Act in a "Tradition of Christian Terror"?

Good article on Eric Rudolph. I would say that he was not a "Christian terrorist" because the group he was attached to is not Christian in itself. Christian Identity is a cult and therefore not Christian. Eric Rudolph is a lost man who used terrorist means, but he is not a Christian terrorist.

Sincerely,
Wm. F. Harrell, Pastor Abilene Baptist Church Augusta, Ga.

Excellent article! I am a conservative, evangelical Christian, and it grieves me that so many conservative Christians are ignorant of church history, and of the fact that whenever the Church becomes excessively entangled with the State and wields the weapons of the State, the results are invariably disastrous for both Church and State.

I hope that many of my brothers and sisters in Christ will take note not only of the crusades and inquisitions, but of some of the terrible crimes committed by the Reformers and early colonizers of this hemisphere. May we learn from our history and not repeat the mistakes of the past, fighting heavenly battles with earthly weapons. Many well-meaning Christians would like to see a Christian theocracy established in the United States and are laboring toward that end. God forbid! While we are to be salt and light in this world, I fear the specter of even the most spiritual Christians wielding earthly power far more than I fear the derision of the sceptic. There is not a Christian on this earth that I would trust with such power. Only Jesus has the right to rule with an iron scepter May we learn from our past and work for the kingdom that is not of this world.

One of the best ways to avoid disaster is to learn from our past. Keep up the good work.

Chris Doran Fayetteville, North Carolina

Your article was presented as a well-balanced approach to the often dangerous perceptions that ensue when Christianity (to be sure, any faith) is, for whatever reason, superimposed with the actions of an individual, private or public group, or state. While, for the sake of brevity, you found it necessary to quote from Strobel and HIS dialogue with Woodbridge, it may have been helpful had you at least added some of the MANY resources that further support your conclusion.

That being said, I believe that the greater question pertaining to Eric Rudolph is not whether he acted as a "Christian" but whether he acted in a manner consistent with the current expression of "evangelical Christian/United States religion." At a time when a self-imposed president describes himself as a Christian to an unwilling constituency—not to mention an even more unwilling coalition of the cowed, intimidated, and threatened—such questions will continue to present themselves. Perhaps the most important task for the church is, as you have done somewhat in this article, to "rightly divide" the kingdom of God from the self-serving actions of those who claim to serve God. This is not to disparage the effects of Father's grace nor the inexpressible gift of Jesus' sacrifice in the lives of these individuals. It is, however, to make clear that we all serve as less than perfect ambassadors of that kingdom.

I believe the more pertinent question is whether Eric Rudolph and other self appointed warriors have not, in fact, acted out of their confusion regarding the issues I've described above. If we consider the actions of Eric Rudolph in light of the actions of the state, we can clearly see a justified act of pre-emption. Rudolph rightly sees a real and present threat to the lives of people created by Father and desires to act to protect them. Further, the threat is not one that must be embellished (let alone entirely contrived) but is imminent and ongoing. If Eric Rudolph would be tried by the church, his crime would be little more than that of all of us; that is, one of confusion. If he is to be tried by the state, he CANNOT be tried for his pre-emptive actions against an imminent and extremely dangerous threat insofar as that is the current stance of the state. The only action I see for which he can be tried by the state is for acting outside of official sanction and even that is unclear in light of the response of the state to world opinion. Besides, at such times as this, acting without civil sanction is exactly the kind of call to conscience Father demands of us. In fact, it may be that as a Christian, Rudolph believes he was acting under the greater sanction of God. In this case, the error is believing that God counts ANY life as greater or lesser than any other.

Understand, I believe that ALL life is sacred and to be valued as such. Thus, pre-emptive action must not be the stance of the church. That is not to say that we are called to do nothing. It is to say that we must be careful not to confuse the great commission with anything resembling the "divine right of kings or kingdoms." Whether or not Eric Rudolph was acting in a tradition of Christianity will, no doubt, be debated by many for years. It is certain, however, that there is no tradition or justification for "Christian terror." That, it seems, is the venue of the state.

Rev. Dr. Craig Hexham

Armstrong Article: I enjoyed it for somewhat setting the record straight. It was balanced. We need to keep before us that violence is sub-Christian, but still a part of our struggles to be sanctified. We need to differentiate, as Armstrong seeks to do, between things done legitimately in Christ's name, and evil done using it as an excuse. As a Native American Missionary, I think we could add to his examples the evil brought upon Native peoples in the name of Christ.

Rev. Steve Galegor Grace American Indian Ministries Albuquerque, NM

Did Eric Rudolph Act in a "Tradition of Christian Terror"? No. Sroebel's interview with church historian John D. Woodbridge about the Crusades and the Inquisition was instructive but totally irrelevant to the question of what we are to make of Eric Rudolph's acts of terrorism. Rudolf acted from his beliefs within the Christian Identity Movement, a racist and heretical cult with origins in British Israelism. Crusaders and Inquisitors misused the power structures within the legitimate Church. However, no one should confuse the actions and beliefs of the Christian Identity Movement (which involve a false view of the races and a false eschatology) with orthodox Christianity. Christians in general and, perhaps, fundamentalists in particular have much to atone for, but Eric Rudolph is neither a Christian nor a fundamentalist.

Mark Sells

Dear Sir:

Too many responses by Evangelicals have a wimp factor about them, your's included.

Too often they seem like dipolomatic responses rather than the hard-cold unpleasant facts. If the facts offend so be it!

Why did you not mention the fact that there was a prior Muslim Crusade against Christianity in Europe; They invaded France (stopped at Tours) Spain, Eastern Europe.

The Crusades were provoked against the Muslims by the Muslims themselves. They attacked the pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem etc.. The Crusaders did not origionally go an occupatuioal force but as a protective force.

The Good became Bad and the bad became Ugly but their origional intent was not so.

I feel that you could have been stronger in these areas.

Bob

Just your average Christian

READER RESPONSES:

"The African Lion Roars in the Western Church"

I read this story with horror and shudder at this parody of a church! I thought this issue was settled at the Lambeth conference.
I was raised as an Anglican in the Church of Nigeria until I left for the United States in 1986. Homosexualism in the clergy is not knew to the Episcopal church in the United sttes. As a matter of fact, the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge Mass. sponsors a "Queer Club" This same institution once had a homosexual President-Dean - The Rt Rev Otis Charles who described the revelation of his homosexuality as "a sacrament" soon after his retirement as an active bishop.
I am utterly dismayed that these people - our siritual leaders and advisors have conveniently overlooked scriptures where God forbids homosexuality and calls it sin! It is no wonder that the African churches are pulling away. I have not stepped into an Episcopal church since I became aware of their stance on homosexual clergy. I will also boycott the Church of England whenever I happen to be in England. Clearly, Pentecostal churches have a better understanding of the full gospel.

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ!

I think this is an excellent article. Especially the last paragraph, "The Western church would do well to listen to these new voices from afar off, with their "African reasons." They may turn out to come from our own Home.". I pray the Western church would listen to GOD, whom is audibly speaking through his servants. The African church is commended for its integrity in not compromising. I would never be a part of any religious order that blatantly contradicts biblical teachings.

Thank you, Archbishop Akinola, for standing on the word of God. I see you as a voice crying in the wilderness, against this Satanic attack on the Church. I bid you God-speed.

A very interesting story indeed. I believe that one day soon, the Western World will wake up to a roaring lion, attacking the immorality and corruption and decadence that has eaten away at us. The Bible says in 1Peter that the devil is a roaring lion wanting to devour us, well he is feeding already. Now another comes to us to fight over the carrion. What a mess we have made in this world. Thank God , He sent us Jesus !

Peter Wassill
St Catharines, Ontario
Canada

Wow! Excellent.

As a white American who was in a loving international evangelical church in Geneva, Switzerland, for 10 years (until late 1998), worshipping and fellowshipping with Christians from all over the world, including Nigeria, Cameroon, and other countries of Africa, I find this a very refreshing read. The African Christians I know in Geneva are extremely committed and full of leadership in that Geneva church for administration and prayer areas, particularly. This is an article I stumbled upon, and am am grateful for it. I learned a lot and am encouraged by it. We need strong leaders worldwide in the increasingly "shepherdless" church today! American Christians like me, returning home from Europe, find the church a puzzling place these days—where relationship, the basis of living in Christ, is often swallowed up by programs and entertainment. We need more teaching on the history of the church, from Acts forward. Communion, baptism, tithing, a sharing/loving community, and other parts of church tradition, teaching and life, are puzzlingly pushed aside, it seems. This is an impression from nearly 5 years back in the U. S.

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jean Purcell
Opine Publishing

God's Blessings,
Sincerely,
Jean Purcell
Opine Publishing

I applaud the leaders of the African Church(Anglican). It seems as though the very people we sent missionaries to may have to inturn send missionaries back to us. Have the leaders of the Anglican Church in England and the U.S. lost their minds? Why would these men even think of leading the Church down such a road so far from the scriptures and the faith of the early Church? I was once a member of The Anglican Church here in the U.S., but felt I could no longer stay in communion with this organization just for reasons such as these. May our Great God and Creator continue to lead these men of Africa in the faith of our fathers and keep them forever in the palm of His hand … maybe they'll be able to persuade the western Church to see the error of their thinking!! Blessings to you and your work.

G. Johnson-USA

It is so good to read about true brothers and sisters in the Lord. Revelations says to be either hot or cold, the luke warm are spit out. America is luke warm.

Roz

What great news, they have not stuck with the truth on their own, obviously the Holy Spirit has convicted them and now I see why the Good News had to be spread to the four corners of the earth and that is because the Truth would prevail when the very elect would be fooled!

Nadine Tauri.

I love this article. I myself am German and live in the United States since 12 years. Europeans feel contempt for Bush's religious remarks just because it has no place for them in their lives. Also do they become suspicious about leaders of that ilk. While most people that I know feel Bush is far better than Clinton and brings a new breeze into the White House that is for many Christians refreshing, Europeans do not share the same sentiment.

However, personally I have my doubts about our leadership and it worries me that many Christians seem to support him blindly while at least a segment voices their criticism like the roadmap for peace and some other issues that seem to be questionable if Bush is really a devout Christian. God alone, though,can make that judgement.

Andy Bendzin

I like this article. It drew a circle around the various movements in history that led to the separation of Europe from its root in Christianity: connectioning each to the whole by one degree at a time. It took the complicated and made it simple to understand.

Chaplain
Captain James C. McDonald
US ARMY, RETIRED

I agree with the assertion that church-state separation has distinguished the more successful American church from the more moribund European churches. One particular aspect of the established church I would like to lift up is that of the church tax. Established churches receive revenues from all who live within their parish. Individuals can opt out, but then can receive no services from the church: baptism, weddings, or funerals.

I believe this has made the established churches unresponsive to the culture and the needs of their parishioners, since their income was more or less unrelated to attendance. American churches must "compete" for congregants among a variety of worship styles. We may well grumble about that reality, but it has kept the American churches fresher and more relevant in their worship and outreach.

Rev. John Germaine
Pastor, First UMC
Ashtabula, OH

I agree with the article in that whenever the Church has allowed the State to have authority over religious matters, it is usually the Church which ends up getting burned. Jesus said it clearly: "Give to Caesar (the State) what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God." Separation of Church and State — when it is recognized for what it was meant to be, i.e., no "state-sponsored" church — is a blessing which allows both Church and State to flourish.

Unfortunately, for too many people in the U.S. "separation of Church and State" means that religious views have no place in discerning what is best for the common good. This could lead us to the same sterile secularization we find in Europe. Polls which tell us that "86% (or whatever the figure may be) of the American people believe in God" are, I believe, misleading, forI think that for a great part of that percentage of believers, belief in God does not translate into making societal decisions based on what God has revealed,but on what people feel good about believing. When we encounter a teaching of God which we don't like (e.g., the evil of abortion as the killing of the innocent), we disregard it. Our politicians may talk "God talk," but when it comes to making decisions, they turn to "majority preference — right or wrong." I fear we too often make God in our own image instead of living as those made in the image of God.

Nevertheless, I believe history shows it is quite rare that State-sponsored religion ends up doing anything positive for Church or State. Only when a legitimate saint would be a secular ruler has State-supported religion been beneficial — and saints are usually killed by those they would like to benefit.

Msgr. Thomas Dzielak
Rock Falls, Illinois

I believe that the point made for the decadence of European Christianity is appropriate, but limited. I believe, as a European, that another reason, possibly among many more,for this sad slope is simply the people of God not seeking to be the people of God any longer. In this sense the American Church is not immune to that danger. As we have seen with the over-intellectualism and dryness and consequent spiritual death of several denominations here in America, the disinterest in the faith has become rampant. The institution may still be there, but the participation is no more than a simple routine or meaningless tradition for the people involved.

So, 1) let's not boast about a church in America, that yes, has avoided the danger of secularization, but at the same time is vulnerable to the "quenching of the Spirit" as any other church in the world, as the evidence already shows. 2) Let us not discount the church in Europe as a desperate case;with postmodernism as the banner of the next generation, the door is wide open for a renewal in the lives of those who have recognized the lies of the modern shattered confidence in science and materialism.

Stefan Booy
Little Rock, AR

The comment; "Witness, to take just one example, the current sad turmoil in the Anglican Communion between the theological liberals of the statistically stagnant British mother church and their conservative brethren in rapidly growing, vibrant African and Asian dioceses" and the conclusion; "thank God that American churches remain independent of secular authorities" serve as examples which highlight and affirm the prejudices of the author of this article which can be summarized as 'Conservative good, liberal bad'; and 'American good, All else bad'.

To begin, to describe the Anglican Communion in Britain as liberal is inaccurate. There are powerful advocates of both liberal and conservative elements in church leadership and in the laity. If conservatism = growth and liberalism = stagnation; the direct assertion of this article; then kindly explain why the conservative wing of British Anglicanism is not thriving while liberalism declines quietly out of existence? In fact it could be argued that the conservative wing of British Anglicanism have become so out of touch with ordinary British people that they can no longer exert any influence over them, spiritual or secular. The modern situation is paralleled by that of 18th century England which eventually led to the Evangelical Revival led by figures such as John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield and the subsequent rise of churches outside of the State Establishment.

The challenges to Christian churches in Britain and Europe cut across all denominations, only a few of which are linked to the State. In Britain and Ireland for example, denominations within the Establishment are Anglicanism in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Catholicism in Eire and in Scotland the Church of Scotland. There are many groups, Methodists, Baptists, non church of Scotland Presbyterians, Anglicans in Scotland, all protestant groups in Eire, Pentecostal groups and Independent churches anywhere in the islands; non of which have a State link.

While State links are no doubt a factor in the decline of the Church in Europe, the assertion that the decline of Christianity is a direct result of simply liberalism and being part of the State establishment does not fully fit the facts of the situation. I repeat again my concern, the author is projecting his own conservative and pro-American prejudices on what is a far more complex situation.

Christianity in America is no doubt in a position of great strength. However, it is hardly without its difficulties. Even from the perspective of a distant observer, racism appears common. How many Christian churches in America enjoy mixed race worship? The congregations appear to be predominately either black, white or Hispanic! In South Africa, the State imposed apartheid, including into church life. We thank God for the influence of the Anglican community, particularly in the person of Desmond Tutu in standing up to that injustice. In America, apartheid appears to exist in the Church without State collusion! American Christians are not in a position to judge others without careful assessment of their own position.

May I conclude by bringing a word of warning to my brothers and sisters in Christ in America. The Church in Europe is undergoing a time of trial and change. It is from such trial and challenge that the people of God can grow. The dead wood and branches are cut away, fresh growth emerges from the stump. In Europe and in Britain, the time for revival of the Word of God becomes more imminent and the people of God are being challenged to be prepared. In America, thank God that He is moving in your community, but do not rest on your laurels. Times of testing and trial will lie ahead, whether or not you have State links.

Colin J. Duncan
Northern Ireland

This article regarding European Christianity's "failure to thrive" is a powerful statement. It puts a major portion of Christian history into perspective.

I am Baptist. My forefathers fought, and sometimes died, were imprisoned and persecuted because they staked their faith on separtation of church and state. But now, I have the feeling that people from my traditon (SBC) are favoring an end to church and state separation. That sounds like the majority approach, as I hear it. Would that more lay people could know of this article. I think it would strengthen them to resist the powers of clergy who are crying for church-state union. Of course, they only want that if it is their church.

Thank you for a superb article.

Russ Wimmer

I found the article about European Christianity fascinating. In part because no mention was made of the Biblical prediction that "in the last days" all kinds of strange teachings will appear to tickle receptive ears. Also because the article stressed the ties between church and culture - a subject that I think the Church ignores all too often.

I too wonder about the influence of Constantine. Once upon a time, I rejoiced that he made the Church legal. Then I saw the damage of also making the church an arm of the government. Not just the subversion of the church into worldly power structures, but also because the aura of holiness, of "God speaking" was attached to political dictums; later to scientific dictums. It's hard to argue with God. Well, actually, the Bishops were playing power games before Constantine. He just broadened their forums.

I am in the midst of a book called "After Eating the Apricot" by John Goldingay, in which the author repeatedly makes the point that God uses us for His own ends, whether we cooperate with or fight Him. Some of that dynamic is surely being played out in the Church of the 21st century.

Your article reminded me of a class I took few years ago labeled "Modern European Thought" during which the teacher took pains to point out the advance of secularism, especially among the scientists; eg, Newton was very religious while Descartes was almost totally man-centered. This was taught in a public [ie, secular] school. I have often wondered about the teacher: was he a Christian or not.

Your article made the point that separation of church and state may be what is keeping faith alive and well in the U.S. I would ask about Canada; is faith equally alive and well there? I see it [separation of church and state] as a factor - but maybe not the most important factor, which has to be reserved for God Himself. Surely when the Israelites were sent into captivity, and so many of them settled into the Babylonian way of life, it must have seemed as if Israel and the worship of Yahweh were doomed to disappear. But they did not. Europe has been led into a secular Babylon, and it may be that the U.S. is on the same road, but God is still God. We can look for 'whys' and 'wherefores'; it will always come back to: God is still God.

If not Europe, then He will bring forth faith in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Now, being a good Protestant, I do subscribe to the notion that the less central control the better because mankind is not all that good at running their own affairs, so I wonder about the Roman Catholic influence in those areas of the world. I am confident that God will not allow His church to fade away into non-existence. Changed, maybe; but alive. Change is always with us - to do away with old wine skins. PTL.

Alisan Kacoroski

If you visit Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris these days, as I did mostrecently in the summer of 2001, you will find a vibrant, evangelical (!)Catholic Christianity thriving there. All one has to do is pick up thematerial (available to tourists in a dozen languages) and be impressedthat faithful witness to the Triune God, and service to God and neighborin the world, are still alive in that place. God uses a faithful remnant in every country and in every time to carry forth the Gospel.

I know many American conservatives have it in for the French these days but let's not go and lambaste the "old Europe" for the secular mote in its eye when we have plenty of beams in our own. I have to admit I get kind of tired about hearing how great American Christianity is, and I do not believe it is unpatriotic to point to our many shortcomings in this regard. America is without doubt the most consumerist, least community-oriented country in the world. Of course we have religious freedom and diversity, but too many of our megachurches put on spectacle and show for the attendees without calling them to community and service, and our American Flag is right up there on the dais; I'm afraid it's all too easy for American Christians to feel smug that God has blessed us above all others—as if the accident of birth and nationality was more important than the universal truth that all are children of God and in need of God's grace.

And if separation of church and state is so important, why do we hear so many on the Religious Right argue endlessly in defense of emblems of civil religion like "In God we Trust" on the money, or the display of crèches in the town square at Christmas? "Pride goes before a fall," and "to whom much is given, from him much shall be required" —perhaps those are the best lessons about what happened to "Christian" Europe, not just the long history of uniting church and state. A hundred years ago, European civilization was at the peak of power, pride in material success, and cultural self-confidence. Whole continents of (non-white) people worked to supply it with resources far beyond what it could mine or grow at home. It had a standard of living that was the envy of the world and its products dominated all the world's markets. What happened was far more than the consequences of government-sponsored religion. Americans might think more about these things.

Sincerely,
Donald B. Saunders
Boone, NC

The Palestinian Christians: Strangers in a Familiar Land

This is a clear (albeit very condensed) snapshot of the situation of Christians in Israel. Their plight has been overlooked and ignored by the West and I hazard a guess that most Christians in North America have not even realized that there are Christians indigenous to Israel. This is the kind of article that is needed to educate us and I would like to see more, please. It would be interesting to know more about the Greek Orthodox Church.

Diane

Mr Gertz's article is fair with regards to past treatment of Christians under Muslim rule. Unfortunately, he falls for a certain propaganda regarding treatment of Palestinian Christians today. Mr Gertz leaves his readers with the impression that Palestinians Christians are treated by Israel the way they are because they are Christians. This is not true. Palestinian Arabs, who happen to be Christian, are in the condition they are in because they have thrown their support behind the antisemitic regime of Yassar Arafat.

What I fail to understand, and Mr. Gertz fails to clarify, is why a Christian community would support an regime that has a history of persecuting Christians as well as Jews?

BTW, anyone, not just Palestinian Christians, who is not a citizen of Israel is forbidden from serving in the military. This strikes me as a rather prudent policy and it has nothing to do with one's religion. Middle Eastern Christians, who are citizens of Israel, are allowed to serve in the IDF.

Daniel P. Crandall

This was a most fascinating, enlightening article. So many "Christians" defend Israel at all costs, citing the Bible as the source of their defense, and have no clue as to the terrorism & persecution that the Israelites have perpetrated against the Palestinian Christians! Palestine is always considered to be the "bad guys". This just further proves that all our God's children, and that he does not play "favorites" with any one nation or ethnic group.

I have passed your article on in the hopes that it will educate others in the Christian community. Thank you again for the educational article.

Rev. Kimberly Demmitt, Ph.D.

This article fails in the question of "who is a Christian?" It confuses itself by repeating the assumption that a Christian is one who is born into a certain community or family. There is only one type of Christian, drawn from every tongue tribe and nation, on profession of repentance of sin and faith in Jesus the Messiah as Saviour and Lord.

The article also fails to note that the real indigenous Christian community in Israel and PA areas is made up of Messianic Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinian Arabs. Anglican Bishop Riah Abu Al-Assal is a liberal who has no regard for an evangelical high view of Scripture. He and others in the Palestinian Authority are using "Christianity" as another line of attack on their Jewish neighbours.

So what is a Palestinian Christian? Is it a Palestinian that is not a Muslim? No. Anyone who is a Christian is one that is confronted with the glory of God's love in the Lord Jesus Christ and responds with repentance of sin.

Rev Richard Gibson

Excellent article! I am pleased someone has had the courage to speak out for our Palestinian Christian brothers and sisters. In times past, as I would try to explain to people that the only "Christians" in Israel were in fact Arab, and discriminated against, I would be accused of anti-Semitism. The fact is that these brothers and sisters in Christ are indeed caught in the middle between Jews and Muslims who are hostile to their faith. If we all truly profess one God, then it is shameful to see this methodical mistreatment of Palestinian Christians.

Paul Thomas

Breaking Down the Faith/Learning Wall

What a splendid analysis of the predicament in which Baylor finds itself. We have all been waiting for an honest and informed journalistic approach to Baylor's recent problems. No such coverage has been found in the Texas newspapers—or in the national media. Thank goodness, the Baylor Regents were able to see through the half-truths and self-deceived whining of malcontents on the Baylor faculty—the media did nothing to help them. The only problem with this column is that it is not long enough. I hope we hear more from you on these matters. Robert Sloan has been a hero to many of us for some time now. Your column goes someway toward helping others to understand why we regard him so highly.

David Solomon
W.P. and H.B. White Director,
Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture

We believe very strongly in Baylor as a university determined to keep it's firm commitment to being a steadfastly Christian university. It will be hard, given the anti-Christian worldview predominant in the world around us, but I have to believe God will continue to honor a school trying so hard and a man with such an unshakable vision to shepherd our young men and women in a Christian worldview, highly intellectual, high-academic university.

Everytime we are on campus, we are continually aware of the love on that campus. As corny as that is to say, it is there, and you can feel the welcome all around you. Our daughter felt that and, though she is having to work very hard this first semester, is proud to be a Baylor Bear.

Rick and Jody Harralson
Waco, Texas

I was very excited to see the article about Baylor and about Dr. Sloan. As a member of the faculty who was recently named as Dean of the School of Nursing, I strongly support Dr. Sloan's leadership and his vision. It was refreshing to read an objective article about what we are trying to do at Baylor—-and why we are trying to do it.

Thanks,
Judy Wright Lott

In this article you have opened my eyes to a side of the secular-evangelical Christian education debate that I have not considered, especially when you mention the more academic and theological emphasis of the Reformed tradition vs. the Baptist tradition. This is good writing for many of us who want to be informed and think, but realize we need academics helping us.

Bob Bremner

Now is the time, Baylor University is the place, Baptists are the people, and Robert Sloan's exciting vision is the road map. Faith is being relegated to the closet these days, and it is time for a bold new effort at putting Christian faith back into academics. Baylor 2012 does this. Baylor University is in the hands of visionaries now who not only know how to conceive Baylor 2012 but know how to get things done and don't give up when they encounter resistance. Baptists are developing theological sophistication these days while maintaining personal piety. The Baptist emphasis on individual responsibility and competence makes this combination of mind and soul both dynamic and cohesive. The vision of integrating faith and learning in the classroom will prove to be the liberation of a grand institution from both secularism and anti-intellectualism. It is a pioneering move. I earned a Ph.D. in religion from Baylor as well as a B.A., and I now have a son in Truett Seminary at Baylor. I am applauding Sloan every chance I get.

David E. Crosby, Ph.D., Pastor
First Baptist Church of New Orleans

Our Brothers and Sisters, the Episcopalians

The article is well prepared and written, but probably over-generous in the concluding suggestion implied by "What will America lose … The last paragraphs sound rational, compassionate, and well, Episcopalian. There is certainly no reason to sneer, because the circumstances leading to the divisions are tragic. In the description of the evolution of the Episcopalian belief structure, the author has essentially described "apostasy." The result described is that of an elite social institution, rather than a church proclaiming the truth of the Gospel. To the degree that is true, America suffered loss a long time ago. A history of families dating to the revolution creates great tradition but has little resemblance to "ambassadors for Christ," representing "salt" to the country. However, the rift between conservative elements and the majority governing the church demonstrates that there is yet a "remnant" of Episcopalian believers who are not willing to totally deny Biblical authority in deference to modern social acceptance, defined today by "political correctness." In that regard the division has the potential to reinvigorate the church by forcing it to consider the basis of its core beliefs. It would seem that such an effort would be well overdue.

Christianity itself is already under attack in America and this circumstance will likely add fuel for the opposition. But even those attacks may benefit the Christian church as a whole, contrary to their intention. The strength of the church tends to increase with persecution. The value inherent in the Episcopal institution described in the article will endure because the privileged as well as the poor are ever with us. It seems that the Biblical and Evangelical message has been largely absent from the Episcopal camp for some time. Perhaps the article should have concluded by asking, "What will America lose if more of its churches fail to sound a clear call to repentance and the need to turn to God?"

Bud Brown
Faith Baptist Church
Grove City, Ohio
(But I wear shoes when I go out.)

I think that to compare the church to the man lying by the side of the road that was ignored by the Pharisee is ridiculous. Where do you draw the line? It seems that this compromise lower the state of morality to gutter level. If homosexuality is acceptable why not fornication, adultery, and pedophiles. Do we vote to determine the standard or lack of standard that we choose to eliminate from the bible? I heard one of the church representative say that the bible was not the author of church doctrine but the Holy Spirit is. So God destroyed Sodom and all those that were in it, and though the mind of the Spirit of God realized that in 2003 that he was wrong and guilty do to His narrow mindedness. Why does Chris Armstrong want to sympathies with this movement. Many want to show compassion because of the saying he who is without sin cast the first stone. We are not sympathizing with an individual sinner. This is a institution bent on changing the standard of morality for millions people in order to alleviate guilt and demand acceptance for his perversion of Gods divine order and standard of what is right and wrong. Rev. Dan Robinson

As a Priest in the Episcopal Church, I found the article to be very accurate and understanding of the problems facing our church today; filled with compassion, rather than enjoying the turmoil facing another branch of the body of Christ.

George+

I am an Episcopal lay woman. I greatly appreciate your lengthy review of the history of the Episcopal roots and continuing controversy. I am hopeful that something can be done to discipline the errant Bishops of the church who have brought the current crisis upon us. Thank you for your thoughtfulness. Ruth Rietmann

Dear Christian History,
I was excited to read your article entitled "Our Brother and Sisters, the Episcopalians" I read the first two paragraphs and suddenly wondered what exactly the real purpose of this article is. I ran across the line, "Remember?-that's the church that divided from Roman Catholicism when Henry VIII needed a quickie divorce." I appreciate the desire to be informed about other denominations and have always considered that understanding is a far greater Christian virtue than ignorance. However, the tone of this statement seemed to undercut my perceived notion of the purpose of the article. Was it not intended to inform evangelicals about a substantial group of "Brother and Sisters?" To summarily describe their denomination as "that church that divided … when Henry VII needed a quickie divorce" paints the denomination as an illegitimate, self-serving institution. Surely that was the reason for the initial split with Roman Catholicism but it was in no way the end of it. Immediately after the split, Anglicanism was nearly identical to Roman Catholicism. It was until after Henry VII's death that it became a doctrinally unique denomination. I really feel that placing that line in the second paragraph of the article places undue bias against a denomination which, heaven knows has enough criticism to deal with. If we are in the business of understanding our Brother and Sisters in Christ, perhaps we ought to treat them as we would like to be treated: fairly, openly, and lovingly. I commend you for the attempt but I think it was unfortunately marred by such a bold statement to introduce the topic. Thanks for you time.

In Christ,
Todd Blackham

A very interesting article. But there is one glaring error of historical fact. It contained this statement:

"To understand Episcopalianism, you need to know that it arose from the Church of England, or Anglicanism. Remember? -that's the church that divided from Roman Catholicism when Henry VIII needed a quickie divorce."

Henry VIII did not seek a "quickie divorce". He NEVER sought, nor received a divorce from any of his wives. What he sought was an ecclesiastical annulment for an irregular marriage that had required a special papal dispensation in the first place.

And "quickie"? Henry waited TWELVE YEARS for the pope to respond to his request. But the pope was virtual prisoner of the emperor who was related by blood (nephew, I believe) to the wife that Henry wanted an annulment from. So the pope stalled.

Eventually, England broke from Rome, declared England "an empire unto herself" with the king as the head of the church on earth (just as the early emperors had been) with the provision, insisted upon by the bishops, "insofar as God's law doth allow". A new archbishop of Canterbury, appointed by Henry VIII, then granted the annulment that Henry had been waiting so long for.

"Quickie divorce?!!!" Check it out. You might want to print a correction, because glib off-the-cuff remarks like yours perpetuate a grave misunderstanding of the origin of the Episcopal Church.

Gary+
An Episcopal priest

Is there any viable notion of an "apostate" church or communion?

There must be some way that we can minister to Episcopalians without trying to shore up a communion that has, in its effort to be all things to all people, abandoned a basic concern of our Father who placed great emphasis on issues of sexual immorality.

Perhaps the new Anglican Church that has appeared on the scene will be a curative place for damaged Episcopalians in our present time.

Preston Nowlin

I think this is a wonderful article for presenting the need for unity among American denominations, not for the purpose of dissolving organizational boundaries into weakened effectiveness, but for the mandate of bringing healing to the wounded along the side of the same road we all walk, lifting them back up to continue the journey, and reassuring the fellow believers of their viability and identity within the greater community. We should all staunchly defend what we know to be moral truth, the wisdom of God continually exalted over man's "wisdom," and continually encourage those faithful who have been wrongly defaced by their own.

Armstrong's piece provides useful insight for understanding the historical context out of which the current Episcopalian dissonance arises. His caution to gleeful critics who may take sadistic pleasure in the widening rift is a timely and compelling warning, as he calls instead for a more mature, familial response, say, love of one's brother/sister, not to say God and neighbor, a central message, too, in the Niebuhrian corpus [Purpose of the Church and Its Ministry]! One would wish for a similarly insightful treatment of the content and substance of the divisiveness, and, perhaps, at least a stab at the sources of reconciliation and healing, eg., in the commonalities which validate our unity and which bind us together as family within the Body of Christ. How about the Gospel as a starter?

—- David G. Grosse

Hello!

Just wanted to tell you that I thoroughly enjoyed and deeply appreciated the article on the Episcopalians from the Christian History website. Thank you for bringing clarity to the history and the contribution that American Anglicanism has made in our nation.

You guys (and ladies!) at Christian History are great! You make history the most interesting subject on earth! :) Blessings to all of you. Thanks for stimulating my thinking each time we "get together" over the internet.

Carol Crabtree
a reader in Dallas

Greetings,
Grace be to you, and peace,
from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephes. 1:2)

I came to Christ in an Episcopal Church and its "broadness" was what allowed this fallen away Unitarian to be able to enter the Christian world. Having said that, I have become more "orthodox" and "charismatic" belonging now to the Pentecostal Holiness denomination since leaving the Episcopal Church because it accepted all sorts of sexual arrangements as somehow "legitimate".

Your article is a good review of the Episcopal Church's early history. You might have noted another strategy for the broad tent: denial of reality. This was most evident in the Civil War where there were unoccupied seats and silent voices reserved for those who had seceded from the Union. During reconstruction these seats were reoccupied as if they had never left.

Episcopalians often say that their strength was in worship, as opposed to theology, and that is outlined in the Book of Common Prayer. The revisionists altered the BCP in 1976 and continue to press for changes in the allowed services and sacraments.

Unfortunately, Episcopalians have run into quicksand. It was not the robber who set upon the victim. Rather she lost her way and refused to follow Scripture and Tradition and instead favored her own Reason.

A possible image. She is an old widow on her death bed and her children (Methodists, Presbyterians, and others) are waiting for the reading of the will. Perhaps God will perform a miracle and change the hearts of her revisionist Bishops but it is more likely she will die and be replaced by other more vigorous and even rebellious offspring.

Peace and Blessings

Richard Briggs

Hello from a New Zealand Anglican,

An interesting and well-crafted article!

I don't know how similar the Anglican's in NZ are to the US Episcopalians, but I am aware of similar conflicts within our part of the Anglican church. The same topic of ordaining gay clergy, or not doing so, rages here too, and not only in the Anglican church.

There is an outspoken, more liberal section of NZ Anglicanism very in favour, but the more 'traditional' Anglican, and especially the evangelical-charismatic parts of the church are vehemently opposed. Not only on the sexuality issue either. That is really the pinnacle of a long history of differences in opinion, practice, and theological perspective. One advantage of the openness of the Anglican church has been that people from every possible theological perspective have been able to find a niche in it somewhere. It is not expected that we all hold to precisely the same practices and preferences in our worship, styles of service, or theological beliefs.

One thing often overlooked by those believers who don't think Anglicans can be very serious about Jesus or their faith, is that the Thirty-nine Articles (foundational document of the church supposedly adhered to by all ordained clergy), promote a lifestyle of prayer, and of belief in the authority of Scripture.

For all its many faults, I for one will stick with the Anglicans (at least for the time being!) and their acceptance of people from all theological backgrounds.

When Denominations Divide

I totally disagree with the notion that "nobody wins in a schism." A simple perusal of church history sheds light on many beneficial schisms: East/West provided a more culturally adept Christian witness for the Eastern Christianiy; the Reformation provided a rebirth of the entire Christian movement, those protesters, and Catholics, with the ensuing "Counter-Reformation"; the UMC provided a renewal available to Anglicans seeking a "holiness" religious experience; and so on, and so forth.

Contrary to your aforementioned premise: truth always dispels darkness, and nothing causes more church splits than a God-sent revival.

Brant Jordan
Assemblies of God minister

The history is interesting but the conclusion is weak.

While it may be true that everyone loses something, what is the alternative, compromise Biblical teaching and principles? Peace, peace, peace and stand for nothing but unity at any expense?

We need better thinking than this. Peace takes at least two parties and must be based on something not merely the absence of conflict.

Larry Hatfield
El Sobrante, CA

Breaking The Da Vinci Code

Thank you for this article. This book just confirms for me that some people are still searching and that some are still trying to disprove the authorship of theBible. Also thanks for the history because most people will not researchto test what they have heard.

Thanks
James

Although I read this some months ago, our church finally had an evening session on "the Da Vinci Code," and this was one of the sites we were directed to.

My reaction to the book was, I think, somewhat different than many whom I've talked to: I was angry. Angry, because I knew my faith was well grounded and well supported. The book certainly did not make me "question my faith." But what I did not know was some of the earliest history of the church, which CT has wisely re-introduced us to. I was also angry because Brown's skill essentially "set me up," forcing me onto a battlefield of early church history that I knew little about. That won't be the case again, thanks to my pastor, and resources such as your site provides.

Larry Schweikart
Springboro, OH

I think you are nuts insisting that the Bible is the infallible word of God. I believed that for 45 years of my life but finally got out when I was able to take an objective look at the Bible. There are so many goofy and unethical things going on in the Bible and supposedly with the stamp of approval of a loving God. It is about time you got real!!! I'll bet you were raised in Christianity and have never been able to step outside the arrogant, exclusivism of your faith and take an honest look at the other world religions. I have looked at the evidence of transformed lives in all of the major religions and frankly find Christianity lacking. I see just as much evidence,if not more,of changed lives in non-Christian religions than in Chr. In fact, the judmentalism, intolerance, and lack of honoring diversity is more evident in Christians than in any other people of faith I have come to know since getting out of Christian circles about 8 yrs. ago. I challenge you to take an objective look at teachings in the Bible. The matter of what the Bible says about women is a good place to start. What a mean and degrading thing the Bible has done for years to women and their role. By the way, I am a male.

Hope you are open to some food for thought,

Dale Beeghly
Oregon

I just read Collin Hansen's article on Dan Brown and the Da Vinci Code. This is a novel for crying out loud! I am sure Mr. Hansen has written fiction; sometimes it reflects our views sometimes not. Hansen's article typifies the "Insecure Christian Syndrome" that is so prevalent. Another recent example of Christian insecurity includes the Harry Potter outcry. If Mr. Hansen wanted to use the book as a "hook" to grab the reader's attentionand then lay out the historical facts then, fine. But don't write an article vilifying a very talented novelist because of his storyline. I found Dan Brown's book very creative; untrue but creative.

Regards,
Mike Pape

An excellent, well-written, piece. Just what I was looking for after hearing so much brouhaha about the book. Although I have vague recollections from a college class in church history I couldn't put everything into perspective. You certainly have a grasp of history. Thank you.

Janice Rizzo

Thank you for discussing this book. Is it the shock factor that has attracted so many people to read it? It seems to have the same morbid fascination as a car wreck. One really doesn't want to look, but looks anyway. The Da Vinci Code was chosen by a book discussion group of which I am a member. I skipped the last 150 pages and read the end. I would sugguest it to no one! Sex and violence sell. I prefer more sax and violens.

Sincerely,
Jane Webber

I would like to begin by commending you on a well-written and thoughtful piece. Your analysis of Mr. Brown's book shows fantastic insight into the history of the church, and a distinct knowledge of the development of Christianity. I believe what you have written is true, to a degree. I also believe Mr. Brown has some legitimacy in his writings. I ask that when we look at the views of others, especially in reflection of historical development, we keep in mind our lack of legitimate foundation for any side of the argument. Your tea leaves (and yes, that is what they are) are read differently than Mr. Brown's. The truth is somewhere in between the two analyses.

I apologize for the form of this response, it was written in haste. My best wishes to you.

Matthew F. O'Brien
P.S. This is from one of the toughest, most stubborn, entrenched-in-his-views, Irishmen you would ever meet. This subject must have many sides for me to be in the middle.

I thought this was a good summary of the issues involved relating to the Divinity of Christ. Truthfully, I was amazed at how many people thought Brown's book was historically accurate. I thought Collin Hansen's article targeted the use and misuse and conflation of facts by Brown relating to this subject. I also liked the way Collin gave the rationale of Kyrios as used in the N.T. and the methodology of the early church in resolving issues relating to such issues.

Thank you,

Ray Curran

I appreciated your article on this controversial novel, yet I am beginning to question some of the motives of the early Orthodox Church—not the Bible itself (which I believe to be the literal word of God) but the marginalization of women perpetrated by the Church. Jesus goes out of His way to include, respect, value, and minister to women, allowing them to be in His "group" thiswent against the custom of the time. Yet the "Church" has effectively continued to silence the voice and ministry of half the world's population by excluding women from Church leadership. I am only just beginning to question the differences between how Jesus treated women and how the Church treats women, and by no means am I a "feminist", yet there are many passages in the Bible that describe God in feminine terms—most notably—Wisdom is described as female. So it is beginning to look to me that the patriarchal culture we live in and the Church supports may actually be out of balance.

There are a lot of heretical theories going around these days, of which I do not support, yet there is this little voice … I wonder if the early, early folks got it right … hmmm. But as to the novel—it is a work of fiction, I'm content to let it be.

Blessings,

Susan

I have been waiting for a Christian response to the Da Vinci Code!! Thank you. I noted immediately in reading the book that Dan Brown in his Acknowledgments cited the Gnostic Society Library. From my info from the internet he followed their teachings which have been revived in the past years. As Paul Maier wrote "Gnosticism is reflected in current ultrafeminist theologies that advocate the worship of Sophia along side or in place of God." This is not the first time I have encountered the Sophia/goddess theory and would really appreciate some fine Christian minds responding to that portion of Brown's book and the Sophia/goddess worship idea. Isn't gnosticism the force behind Christian Scientism also? As a Christian woman I am deeply disturbed that so many of my friends are enthralled with the Da Vinci Code. The book has provoked many conversations. Let's see some more critiques of it!

Nancy Ritsema

For goodness sake, this book is a fictional novel - exciting, but FICTION. Yes, there is a Da Vinci, yes there are Knights Templar, yes, there is the society within the Roman church (can't remember its name), but the narrative that weaves the book together is FICTION. Have we given up reading to the extent that we do not understand that FICTION is FICTION????? This book is not on the non-fiction or self-help best seller list, it is on the FICTION best seller list. This book was a "can't put it down until I finish it" book, but at no time did I think it was factual.

There are many other books that are fiction woven around facts, in fact I just read The Vanishing Man. In it the author wove a murder mystery around the subject of illusionists, escapists and other magician-type topics. Why not question why this author used real facts to write a fictional novel??? Is it because we have a knee-jerk reaction to "religious" issues. The Da Vinci Code is not about religious issues, it is an enjoyable fictional account of "what ifs" and that makes a good book.

Name withheld

Those of us who've been privileged with a seminary education are aware of the struggles and arguments in the early church as they sought to formulate doctrine. We know of the political and power battles. But many "in the pew" are unaware to it. They take too lightly "this we believe."

The church (meaning the people) today needs to be aware and insightful of the ancient struggle, since they continue today. We need to continue to fight to keep the faith pure. Articles such as this remind people that heretical teachings can still infiltrate the church; we must be ever vigilant.

Your article presents a good deal of history in a very succinct and understandable manner.

Mrs. Dolores B. Szyszko

This article is as biased as the Da Vinci Code book. I expected better of Christian History which I usually trust and admire. There were a variety of Christologies prior to Nicea—idea of all sorts. Let's be honest about that. This article gives the impression that there was total agreement on the divinity and that Nicea simply blessed that—not true—Nicea was forcing a Greek concept onto Hebrew history and it was in a political situation. Sincere and well-educated people throughout history have died over the Trinity issue and many people today can still argue with credibility that there is no biblical basis for the idea of the Trinity at all.

Name withheld

Thanks for the article. It was very useful in helping a seeker friend who happened to have recently read the book. It is amazing how much credence people place in fictional works as sources of accurate historical facts. Your article had many relevant historical dates and accurate summaries of events. It did so without being overwhelming to those without a seminary background like my friend. The tone of the article was a great balance of respect for those reading and yet academic confidence. It was not preachy or arrogant!

Great Job!

Rev. Jamey Hunt

I think your assessment is correct. One thing that has kept ringing in my head since I have been reading this book is the fact that 11 of the 12 Apostles died for Christ. It does not seem likely that a people would die for a mere human especially if that human had been dead for several years. We do not see followers of David Koresh out still proselytizing in the name of David K. One could argue that Peter or Paul was making a great marketing opportunity, but would they go to prison for a dead man, would they risk their life? It implies that Christ has to be more than a simple man.

Name withheld

I lovedyour most recent article debunking The Da Vinci Code, but felt that it was missing one crucial element: the greatest proof of the orthodoxy of Christian belief concerning Jesus is the scripture texts themselves! Reputable scholarship, Christian and non-Christian,now dates the New Testament texts to within a hundred years of Jesus' death—conservative scholars even to within 20-50 years. It provides a much stronger and clearer case than relying only upon second and third century church fathers.

Sincerely,

Aaron Hicks

I just read your article "Good News to the Jew First" and thought it was excellent. I've never considered the Gospels to be anti-Semitic and certainly not to the degree that was expressed in this article. I pray that Mr. Hikind and other Jews do give the film a chance, and that God will open their eyes to His Truth.

Reading this has inspired me to read the books of Oskar Skarsaune and James Carroll. Like many Christians, I can't wait to see the movie. Thanks for bringing this issue to light. Prayers should increase for our Jewish brothers/sisters.

Toni Miles

Without having seen Gibson's new movie it's hard to make a completely informed opinion. But if the film accurately follows the biblical accounts of Christ's trial and crucifixion, the Jewish opponents of Jesus certainly come across as the bad guys. But there should be no guilt by association. This current generation of Jews is no more responsible for Jesus' death than I (being white) am responsible for lynchings of blacks in the South.

I have a hard time understanding some very misguided Christians, past and present, who blame the Jewish race for Christ's death. As a whole, Christians are among the most supportive of the Jewish state of Israel, and feel a kinship with individual Jews because Jesus was Jewish and both Judaism and Christianity have the Old Testament in common.

Harlan Simantel

When people find fault with Christians being anti Semitic, committing violence against Jews during the Crusades & the Inquisition, etc., they don't allow that so-called "Christian" people also included people who used the title for selfish purposes. They pick out the ones who misuse power and position and ignore the millions who truly live the essence of Christ's message. Christianity springs from the heart. Unfortunately, people are fallen and can be deceitful for their own gain. Once again, thank you for not buying the lie and digging out the truth from history.

Tami Johanningsmeier

Good points. However, any article seriously addressing the movie needs to address the Gospel accounts. John's reports of Jesus' scathing remarks to "the Jews" raise many questions for people in regard to anti-Semitism.

C. Caswell

I don't disagree with your article, but as an evangelical Christian who has worked with the Jewish community for 25 years, I feel that Christians can afford to be charitable about the current fears in the Jewish community relative to the Gibson film.

Why? One of the classic vehicles for the transmission of Jew-hatred in the Middle Ages was the Passion Play. Taking the text of the Gospels out of its original Jewish world, where nearly all of Jesus' early disciples were Jewish, and into the milieu of Gentile Europe guaranteed the canard that "the Jews killed Christ" would create within the minds of the local folk an unsympathetic view of their Jewish neighbors.

Customs of observing Christian feast days by tormenting and terrifying local Jews became common in Europe. Myths about Jews killing Christian children in order to get blood for ritual sacrifices abounded. Enforced ghettoization, occasional burning of towns and synagogues, expulsions, crusades, inquisitions, pogroms, and ultimately the Nazi Holocaust, characterized the Christian relationship to the Jews for centuries in Europe.

Fast-forward to 2003 and enter Mel Gibson and his soon-to-be released movie, "The Passion." No one in our organization, Bridges for Peace, has actually seen the film so we do not feel qualified to comment on the content. However, as we gaze back over Christian history, we feel unqualified to instruct the Jewish community as to what might be their appropriate reaction to perceived signs of on-going antisemitism. Our organization has been in the forefront of the battle to educate the church about its own dreadful history. Even in America there are few of our modern Jewish neighbors who have been spared some form of antisemitic experience.

As Christians we rejoice when the Gospel story is well told and, while really sound dramatizations of Bible stories are few and far between, we hope that Mel Gibson's new effort will be the faith-building inspiration that its makers apparently intended.

But we would like to encourage our fellow Christians to take a sober view of medieval Christian history before getting into a feud that could seriously damage newly developing relationships with our Jewish friends and neighbors. There are reasons why we make our Jewish neighbors nervous. Learn the history before you join the chorus in defense of a new Christian film.

JoAnn Magnuson
Bridges for Peace
jmagnuson@bfpusa.org
952-898-0919

				Subscribe to Christian History & Biography RISK-FREE! Name Street Address City/State/Zip E-mail Address No credit card required. Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only. Click here for International orders. If you decide you want to keep Christian History & Biography coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive three more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The trial issues are yours to keep, regardless. Give a gift subscription | Buy past issues