READERS' EXCHANGE

 

Let us pray for a world that is in trouble. The “good old days” were not ideal. It seems to me, however, that in my 85 years I never saw as much hatred, violence, greed and disrespect for life as we now have. —Cloyd Anthony, Hardy, AR.

More and more we are reminded how fallen this world is and how disappointments and heartaches will always be part of our lot here. We could not bear it except for the hope of something better awaiting us at the end. — Jim & Clovis Ledbetter, Birmingham, AL.

My first impulse after reading your “Women and Children in the Early Church” was to write and point out all the inconsistencies in both your and Paul’s reasoning, but then I decided that you have come a long way out of the jungle with only the help of the Holy Spirit and that eventually He will help you to understand what is shameful and what is not. Of course you don’t know what you would do (or even think) if you were a woman in 1986. As well as you like to preach the gospel you might think you were really getting a raw deal in the church! Please do not disfellowship me or stop my subscription because I disagree with you and Paul that it is shameful for a woman to speak before a mixed assembly in or out of the church. I agree that it probably was thought shameful in A.D. 56. — Elizabeth Manure, Bend, OR.

(I love you as much when you disagree with what I say as when you agree, and if we cut off all those who sometimes disagree we might not have a sub list left. Furthermore, I have no illusions about my conclusions being the last word on a subject. You may be right. — Ed.)

Although you continue to point out the need for a more open and liberated view of women and children, you clearly respect Paul’s restrictions. Everyone I read anymore, it seems, either totally ignores the “embarrassing” scriptures or rationalize away their force. We have a way to go in giving our women their full due, but we don’t make any real progress when we forsake fidelity to the Word. — Thomas Langford, Lubbock, TX.