by Matthew A. C. Newsome

Recently in The Wanderer newspaper, an editorial appeared about writing letters to the editor as a means of getting the more traditional-minded Christian voice heard in the media.  I applaud the idea!  I think that letters to the editor can be a wonderful evangelization tool.  No, I doubt that anyone will experience a full conversion after reading a single letter in his morning paper over coffee.  But seeds can be planted.  And sometimes all it takes is one seed to produce some wonderful fruit!

The media today is saturated with secular, anti-Christian, liberal view points and hedonism.  One has to go out of their way to find a more conservative voice of reason, and to see the Christian faith accurately represented is a rare gem indeed!  But, as many of us know, this inaccurately reflects the actual values of most Americans.  How can our voices be heard?

Letters to the editor.  Let's take my local newspaper for example.  It runs letters daily, and averages about 2,500 letters per year.  An individual author can publish up to 15 letters in a given year (source, www.citizen-times.com).  This is a wonderful opportunity to have your voice heard, and unfortunately most of the people who take advantage of it do so merely to complain about traffic, celebrity quirks, or election signs not being taken down in time.  A lot of people are afraid to write about religion, or "hot-button" moral issues such as abortion.  But you would be surprised at how often these topics do come up in the editorial pages of our newspapers, and how well received they often are.

Why should you write a letter to the editor?  First off, you stand a much better chance of being published than if you set out to write a magazine article, or a book.  This means people will actually read what you have to say.  Second of all, even if it does not make it to print (and not all of them will), at least someone in the newsroom reads your views.  You can let the media know you are out there.  We need to let readers as well as the news media know that not all of America buys into the relativistic, revisionist, politically correct post-Christian mindset that is assumed.

To help further the cause of evangelizing the media, I have collected here various letters I have sent off to my own local paper (Asheville, NC, Citizen-Times) for your consumption.

AC-T Feb. 14, 2002.  Fetus is indeed an unborn child.
In a recent letter to the editor a writer wrote that it is "deceiving" to call a fetus an unborn child, and compares it to calling flour an "unbaked pie." By doing so she is closing her eyes to reality. Flour by itself is not a pie. It must be mixed with other ingredients and baked. It must be added to and altered to become a pie. But a fetus is an unborn child. Modern genetics confirms that all that is needed to make a complete person is present from conception. A five year-old does not look like the 60 year-old he will become, he is the same person. So is the fetus the same as the child that will be born. We don't need to alter or add to the fetus. All we have to do is choose not to kill that unborn child.

Submitted 2/25/02 to Greenville News.  Unpublished.
On Sunday, Feb. 24, Deb Reichardson-Moore wrote in her article on the new “gender inclusive” version of the Bible, that William Tyndale “was burned at the stake for the heresy of translating the [Bible] into English in 1525.” With the controversy over Catholics in Greenville being attacked by certain Baptist groups, I think care should be taken not to add to the anti-Catholic’s ammunition by putting a spin on history. Tyndale was a man who was well known for his heretical views and his condemnation of Church authority.  For this reason, the English Church would not allow him to make his translation, so he produced it in Worms, under the influence of Luther.  In it, many passages were deliberately mistranslated to condemn Catholic doctrine and support Lutheran theology.  The Bishop of London said he could count over 2000 errors. He also included along with his translation a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church that no one could mistake his bias.  Secular authorities as well as Church authorities condemned it.  King Henry VIII, founder of the Anglican Church, issued several laws forbidding the book.  Moreover, it was actually the secular court of the Holy Roman Emperor that finally tried and condemned Tyndale to death. Tyndale’s Bible was condemned by the Catholic Church for the same reason that many Baptists will condemn the “inclusive” NIV version.  It simply is not an accurate rendition of Sacred Scripture.  And here at least Catholics and Baptists are in agreement.  Don’t mess with the Word of God!

AC-T March 1, 2002.  Christians converted by example, not force.
The author of the letter, "Offering Historical Notes of Pagans, Christians," (AC-T, Feb. 26), needs to double-check her history before she makes too many claims. Firstly, the idea that the early Christians converted pagans by force is ridiculous. Imagine St. Augustine and his few missionary companions landing in England in the sixth century and telling the thousands of pagans there that they must convert or be tortured and burned at the stake. Their heads would have been sent back to Rome in a sack. The first Christians to evangelize Western Europe made conversions by example, not force. Secondly, the Christian dichotomy of good/evil does not come from the Manichean heresy of the third century. If that was the case, one would not find any writings to support this prior to the third century, when in fact one reads of this all through the Old and New Testaments, as well as early extra-Biblical Christian texts. Manicheaism was a synthesis of many religions, including Buddhism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity, all of which had their notions of good and evil before Mani perverted them into his Dualistic heresy. We can all learn from history, but let's make sure we get our facts straight.

AC-T Nov. 19, 2002.  Responding to letter writer who constantly attacks religion.
The author of the letter, "Connections between religious authority and politicians deep," (AC-T, Oct. 23), has published anti-Catholic letters and editorials in the past. Now we see that his hatred is aimed at religion itself. In his letter, he accuses clergy of all types of being in it for "power, fame and fortune." Show that to your local pastor and see if it does not draw a few chuckles. He equates "Bible thumpers" with terrorists -- something I think all the church-based relief organizations that responded after Sept. 11 would take issue with. And he equates belief with ignorance, which is an insult to all the intelligent people of faith who are doctors, teachers, lawyers et al. Twice he has stated that, "Knowledge, not belief, will set you free" (Oct. 22 and Aug. 14). Ironically, the one he is misquoting is Christ. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free," (John 8:32). What we have here is an angry man who has no belief. He can shout as loud as he wants, but his unbelief will gain him nothing in the end. The truth is why people enter the ministry. It is what intelligent people seek, and what will ultimately set you free.

AC-T Dec. 1, 2002.  Letter selectively used quotes to discuss history of Church.
The author of the letter, "Reflecting on quotes from the Reformation fathers," (AC-T, Nov. 22), set out to do one thing - pit Christianity against reason. And he succeeded, by quoting two of the "Reformation fathers," Luther and Calvin. But, as more than half of all Christians are not products of the Reformation, this is a very misleading tactic. If you want a barometer of Christian thought, look to the leader of the largest and oldest Christian Church, Pope John Paul II, who writes, "Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth." Or if one prefers an earlier example, we have the testimony of St. Augustine, who said, "If faith does not think, it is nothing." The union of faith and reason suffered greatly at the hands of the Protestant reformers, it is true. But if you want a more balanced view of Christendom's past, I suggest looking at those who built it up, not rendered it asunder.