Given interest in our main theme, many readers may view only this issue and
be confused by our format. We are too sometimes. Normally, our publication
is a collection of one-page columns addressing various aspects of life from the
angle of a particular theme. Sometimes a columnist's category falls naturally
into our main theme and sometimes the columnist talks about something else entirely.
So don't be surprised if in looking for discussions of Eastern Orthodoxy you
stumble across unrelated topics. Life goes on. Our regular readers may be curious
to know that we have expanded some regular columns, tripled another, and for
this issue, omitted three.
In preparing our discussion of Eastern Orthodoxy, we asked Fr. Peter Gillquist of the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission and Fr. Jack Sparks of the St. Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology to read this issue and serve as an additional check on our representation of Eastern Orthodoxy. These men started to read our essays, but then gave up part way through, without providing us with the sustained interaction that we desired. We regret the loss of their input.
For any other Eastern Orthodox believers who come upon this issue, we hope that you will focus on our arguments and not any sideline failings. Try not to impugn our motives or dismiss us for trivial reasons. Don't take on a martyr's attitude or reject our arguments for being too "Western." These aren't helpful at all. We've tried to present a simple, non-academic, brief critique of some of the main issues in Eastern Orthodoxy. Please consider the arguments.
Jane Connell,
San Jose, CA
Dear Editor,
. . . . Under what authority do you unequivocally judge Rush Limbaugh (or anyone
else who professes faith in God) to be an unbeliever ( Sharpening Iron, Vol.
6, No. 3)? I've read his books, watched his TV program and read my colleague,
Dan Everitt's book, Rush Limbaugh and the Bible , and none of that appears to
invalidate the apparently sincere and sufficient proclamation of faith in God
I witnessed from Mr. Limbaugh. But somehow you "know" him to be "a non-believer."
Gee, how omniscient of you. And it only took a little violation of Scripture
for you to make that judgment. . . . [H]is brand of pride pales in relationship
to the one who feels it within his realm to judge another's spiritual position
in Christ. . . . May I suggest that you and your staff let loose of those things
that are God's alone, and you surely will add class and credibility to your ministry.
Jon Harris,
Toccoa, GA
Douglas Wilson replies: We simply stated that Rush Limbaugh is a "non-believer," i.e.,
a non-Christian. We were not claiming to be able to see his heart; we were simply
taking his statements at face value. If Rush were to make a confession of
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, we would be delighted to extend the right hand
of fellowship. Having done so, our concerns about identifying the Christian
worldview with secular right-wing politics would still remain.
Dear Editor,
I read the first Disputatio with great enthusiasm, and I hope you will continue
with this column. From the standpoint of logical argument, however, you failed
to represent the Reformed viewpoint for the reason Dr. Cottrell correctly identified:
you did not admit into discussion his definition concerning the provenance of
so-called free will. You certainly may dispute his claim (which is expected),
but you may not insist in effect that he doesn't know his own mind on the matter,
by attempting to force a reading of his position which he does not pretend to
hold, i.e., determinism. . . .
Gregg Goyins,
Boise, ID
Douglas Wilson replies: Certainly Dr. Cottrell knows his own mind on the subject
of free will. My position was that determinism is theologically inescapable,
even for those who claim to have escaped it. If it is true that he who says
A must say B, the theological world remains populated with people who know their
mind on A but are still reluctant to say B. Dr. Cottrell's understanding of "free
will" is inconsistent with his affirmation of a sovereign Creator.
Dear Editor,
. . . . [In Vol. 6, No. 2, "Non Est"] Jones states that Buddhism is a "false" religion.
. . and equates it with "numerous false religions" which "seek to copy and pervert
God's original revelation." . . . Buddhism may be "different" or based upon what
Jones believes may be a faulty premise, but it is nevertheless a valid religion,
especially for those who follow it. The test of a religion is its workability.
Buddhism works for its practitioners even if not for Jones or anyone else.
Stasys Baltrunas,
Walla Walla,WA
Douglas Jones replies: Thank you for even taking the time to look at the essay
and for your thoughtful response. "Workability" can be a helpful guide if one
can see from the beginning to the end. Christianity is superbly "workable" since
a sovereign, omniscient Lord reveals and ensures that it alone will "work." But
non-Christian appeals to workability can't help because they can't show how things
turn out in the long run. If Buddhism feels good in the short run but condemns
one later, then we should say that it fails miserably. My brief article attempted
to give reasons to reject Buddhism now , on the basis of its own claims.
