LETTERS

LOTS OR BALLOTS?

I appreciated David Robertson's article "Pentecostal Spirit—Natural Today!" (June Journal, p. 10) for its thoughtful analysis. However, I must disagree with his statement that the replacement for Judas Iscariot was "democratically elected ... by secret ballot." Not at all!

In Acts 1:25, 26 the Greek word kleros appears three times. Kleros means lot, not ballot. To people of the first century BC, the casting of lots was an expression of appeal to divine agency; God would determine whose lot would leap out. The decision would be completely removed from human considerations that might influence an election by people. Eugene Peterson, in The Message aptly translated the passage as "they drew straw."

I fear Mr. Robertson has imposed modern standards upon people whose ideas were quite different.

H. M. WYETH
ANAHOLA, HAWALL, US

David Robertson responds: I really like the emphasis on divine guidance this reader gives to the Greek words translated drawing lots as given in the election of Mathias in Acts 1:26. That sense also comes through in the congregation stopping to pray before voting. Both interpretations of the phrase seem to put the election outside of a usual political election and emphasize the Holy Spirit that dominated the Pentecostal meeting and, I think, that was the telling point of the narrative.

While "drawing straws" is one paraphrase of drawing lots, it is not the only one. For instance the Anchor Bible says: "The expression in vs. 26, they gave them lots, can be understood as voting by ballot so that it need not be a question of the drawing of lots" (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 10). I did pick this view of events as it seemed to me to be more closely aligned with the congregational way the early church was formed and how a large inspired meeting of this kind would most probably act.

KNOWING OUR PASTOR

Thanks to Betty Jenks for the thought-provoking perspective on knowing our pastor—the Bible and Science and Health (June Journal, "Do You Know Your Pastor?" p. 50). It added to my own daily appreciation of these books and reminded me of the response my mother once gave to one who was slightly appalled at seeing her make blue chalk marks all through her nice leather books! She explained that she actually considered them vital "tools," ones she used every day, and, yes, she'd happily replace them if, and when, worn out.

I've appreciated having the Study Edition of the Christian Science Bible Lesson on a few backpack travels, but have otherwise generally loved having the actual books in hand.

GAY TOWNSEND
SALISBURY, MARYLAND, US

I would love to have some articles that state the place of the pastor, and the place of our periodicals, in our healing work. The periodicals should, and do, encourage, inform, and uplift. However, first and foremost, the Bible and Mrs. Eddy's teaching found in Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures and the Manual of The Mother Church are the vital (and valid) part of our studies.

Many times I hear individuals sharing ideas from the periodicals. This is good. But what puzzles me is the suggestion that the articles can be studied in lieu of the pastor. I find that in some oral testimonies it is often implied, if not directly stated, that other people's healings can be duplicated by doing what they did, or thinking what they thought.

Certainly a healing can occur as our thought is lifted when we read an article, but it is important to be sure that it is one's own demonstration. We should always be led directly to our pastor and that joyous listening to God that gives us the individual ideas that we need to grow spiritually and results in healing.

SARAH GRABLE
SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI, US

STIMULATING IDEAS ABOUT CHURCH

Many stimulating ideas are being presented about "church" in the Journal. You're making us think about how we in branch churches do things. That's excellent.

The April Journal includes a letter from a reader suggesting that branch churches which admit any new members before those persons have completely resolved a bad habit will thus have "... two distinct ... membership levels: members who are eligible to [hold various offices or perform church-related duties] and members who are not." I can't find anything in the Manual that narrowly defines the "purity level" required for Mother Church or branch church workers or office holders, nor for membership in The Mother Church. The Manual does say that readers "... must keep themselves unspotted from the world,—uncontaminated with evil ..." (p. 31). And The Mother Church Reading Room Librarian is required to "have no bad habits" (p. 63).

Definitions of those descriptors are missing. Thus it is up to each branch church to settle on its own definitions. For example, are any of us, even the most experienced and devout, "unspotted from the world"? Are any of us "uncontaminated with evil"? Should a committed follower of this Science of being who is trying to stop a bad habit be considered less "unspotted" or "uncontaminated" than those members who sometimes engage in judgmentalism or fall prey to popular maladies?

Our churches should be extremely grateful and honor those who feel drawn to contribute despite personal challenges.

BOB GREGSON
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, US

The article by Ann Edwards in the November 2008, Journal ("Who's That Knocking on Your Church Door?" p. 10) raises powerful questions for church members. I did not read the article when it came out (alas, I was a few months behind then). Before I read it, a fairly recent Bible Lesson had a section with the same Bible verses. As many times over the years as I've read the conversion-of-Saul story, the ideas emphasized in the article had never jumped out at me ... but they did this time.

I think back to my college Org days (yes, Org, not CSO). We interviewed a fellow student for membership. He was perfect ... but smoked. We voted not to accept him. I've thought about this over the years and wondered whatever happened to him. Did we miss a Paul? Did we turn him from Christian Science? Do you indeed have to be perfect humanly to join our church? Was not this young man honest? Did his honesty not count for something?

WESLEY JOHN KETZ, JR.
BATESVILLE, ARIZONA, US

As Ann Edwards points out so well in her November 2008 article, the great preacher Paul, to whom we all owe so much, was the reformed sinner Saul. The February 2009 letters in response to her article, expressed a loving desire to reach out to those in need (a Christian "must"), but did they perhaps confuse that legitimate activity with wholly separate questions of membership requirements? That is, did they inadvertently overlook the crucial fact that Saul had repented when he was welcomed into the church? The early church in no way brought in a man still persecuting the church, its members, and its teachings. Would that perhaps have been a mite self-destructive?

Jesus never welcomed sin: he destroyed it. If we would offer the true solace and healing Jesus offered, don't we, too, have to stand fast against the chains of sin seeming to grip God's man? "Go, and sin no more," the Master said. If we try to skip over Love's demand to rebuke sin, don't we strengthen our brother's shackles, and our own? Isn't such "love" about as much good as salt without savor? Isn't it even the kiss of Judas, rather than the desperately yearned for embrace of Christ? The Word embraces with the true compassion of a "two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder" of sinning mortal man and God's man (Heb. 4:12). Love can do nothing less. It makes free.

BARBARA J. BOLTIN
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON, US

A letter in the April Journal (p. 7) questioned whether it would be good for a branch church to set up "two-tiered membership" by welcoming people who use alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs. I'd be surprised if there were branch churches in the industrialized world that are fielding so many applications that they have to turn people away, but if there are, they could do a lot worse than have two-tiered membership, if everyone experiences a welcoming environment for working on their spiritual growth. Lines between "tiers" would inevitably blur and disappear, if members were working together to learn about God's infinite goodness and express it.

The Journal is doing a great job of presenting examples of branch churches that are creating a sense or renewal and vitality. We can aid this process for our churches, Reading Rooms, and Sunday schools, by applying our prayers and love to encouraging fellowship with all seekers, inside and outside the church.

MARILYN MCPHERSON
BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA, US