Anyone with guts?
In your article about third-party candidates, "Autumn of their contentment" (Oct. 10), you state that the Clinton scandal has united conservatives under the Republican banner because Republicans have far more in common with each other than with Democrats. Elsewhere in the same issue Joel Belz bemoans the fact that we seem not even to have a Congress ready to remove Bill Clinton from office, as he so richly deserves. The House Republicans should easily impeach. With the help of the few Democrats that have denounced the president, the Senate Republicans would stand a fighting chance of conviction. Yet the Republicans show no sign of the courage that it takes to do the right thing. They may yet impeach, but I doubt it. The Clinton scandal and the Republican response have deepened my commitment to the American Heritage Party. - Paul Douglas Franklin, Yakima, Wash.
Proud to be third party
As I flipped open this week's issue of WORLD I was thrilled to see Peg Luksik's picture as part of the feature article, "Autumn of their contentment." Mrs. Luksik has become well known in our state among educators, congressmen, and pro-life people as a serious Independent running for governor this November. Thousands of people around our state are proud to support a third-party candidate, feeling that this is the time to say no to the Republican (and Democratic) party agenda. You cannot imagine my dismay upon reading your article. Your evaluation brought discredit to all those would-be Independent party candidates who have the guts to say no to the two parties that do not represent the majority of people in the United States. - Pam Shryock, Brookhaven, Pa.
Don't split the party
Helping to split the Republican base for any reason is the same as voting for the Democratic party. Only a strong, united Republican party will be able to defeat the liberals in November. No political party is perfect and none will ever be, but why give votes to those who are consistently and flagrantly anti-Christian? - Roger A. Schwind, Arcadia, Calif.
Dirty little secret
Your two most recent cover stories, "Endangered species" (Oct. 3) and "The good war" (Oct. 10), point to the dirty little secret of too many pro-life groups: Party loyalty takes precedence over pro-life principles. My pro-life activism over the last 10 years has shown me that Republicans aren't necessarily pro-life, nor Democrats pro-choice; and a vote for a third-party candidate is never wasted if all that can be said of the better of the major party candidates is that he or she is "the lesser of two evils." - Karen Swallow Prior, Buffalo, N.Y.
Trust God for survival
A comment in "A tough call" (Oct. 10) disturbed me. You said,"We don't want to raise the price any higher and the key to holding the line is gaining advertising revenue, which means accepting some ads we do not necessarily like." I would hope that you would have enough faith that God wants your magazine to continue that you would not accept ads that you do not like. - Mandi Beaman (18), Indianapolis, Ind.
Disappointed in ad policy
In response to "A tough call," I must say I am disappointed with the decision regarding what ads your magazine will accept. I would like to be able to recommend WORLD to my congregation. What do I say to the "babes in Christ"? Read the articles but don't read the ads? - Rick Young, Albion, Maine
Haven't crossed the line
Regarding "A tough call," I just want to say right on. As a matter of fact, I may have to subscribe now to make up for someone you may have lost due to your philosophy. Media such as this are rare and much needed in our society, where truth has been replaced by agendas at the cost of common sense and reason. - Michael Roberts, Memphis, Tenn.
I seriously object to your Remarkable Providences editorial (Oct. 10) and request you cancel my subscription-Not! Although most of the World staff espouse the seriously flawed Reformed theology, you still produce the absolutely best weekly magazine in the market today. Your biblical worldview cannot be met by any other magazine, and I truly appreciate it. - Larry Reagan, Lusby, Md.
Glad for drivel-free magazine
I will not cancel my subscription. Might probably renew for two years next time or perhaps for eternity. The tone, style, content, and focus is truly superb after the infantile drivel from Time, Newsweek, and U.S. News and World Report and the postmodern pietism of other "Christian" magazines. WORLD gives me a lift every time I read it, and even if you advertised Christian mud wrestling or Christian body piercing, I would continue to support you and the magazine. - German T. Cruz, Atlanta, Ga.
Greetings in the Lord from Australia. I have a confession to make: Out of nowhere my wife and I started to receive WORLD magazine. Upon opening the envelope that contained the first issue my initial reaction was to sigh and say to my wife "not another one of these so-called Christian magazines," you know the ones that purport to be biblically based but end up supporting gay and lesbian rights or the New Age movement, or subtly pushing secular ideologies. Hesitantly, I began to skim the pages, then found to my surprise that your magazine is so encouraging and informative. I praise the Lord for your mission statement. - David & Tina Bambrick, Tasmania, Australia
Bash and bait
I thought we were signing up for a news magazine from a Christian perspective. Didn't expect to receive a Democrat-bashing, Bill Clinton-baiting political rag. - Mr. & Mrs. Joe Anderson, Bloomington, Ind.
The price is right
Marvin Olasky's editorial made me consider the cost of the countless blessings we enjoy in this country. I have been guilty of taking too much for granted. The most frightening aspect of such neglect is the risk of loss. I really look forward to each issue of WORLD. I appreciate the wit and wisdom, the appeals to reason, and the refreshment of hearing the truth. I would hate to lose your valuable perspective on current events. If the cost includes having to endure advertising that may be unappealing, it seems a trivial price. After all, anyone with enough intelligence to subscribe to WORLD certainly possesses the acumen to differentiate between editorial and advertisement. - Chuck Wood, Seneca, S.C.
Should be required
John Piper's piece, "A biblical impeachment," is the most lucid, cogent argument I've read yet on why Mr. Clinton should leave office. This gem should be must reading in the Senate and House of Representatives. - John A. Pummell, Alexandria, Va.
Legalize sex lies
Mr. Piper has summed up the biblical, moral, and social gravity of the situation very thoroughly. Assuming that the House Judiciary Committee confirms substantial evidence of perjury and other crimes, I have a suggestion for anyone in Congress who cannot vote with such a finding: Sponsor legislation that would exempt everyone, not just Mr. Clinton, from charges of perjury when their lies under oath are "just about sex." - David A. Wells, Huntington, W.Va.
Wrong passage and conclusion
Proponents of Jubilee 2000 make two mistakes in pointing to Deuteronomy 15:1-2 as biblical justification for their insistence on Third World debt relief ("Jubilee politics," Oct. 10). First, the passage relates to the sabbatical year (every seventh year), not to the Jubilee year (the year following every seventh sabbatical year). The passage on the Jubilee year is Leviticus 25, not Deuteronomy 15. Second, "cancel" is a bad translation (New International Version) of the Hebrew verb in Deuteronomy 15:1-2. The verb, shamat, means to "let drop," and it does not necessitate permanence. Its use in another sabbatical law context, Exodus 23:10-11 ("Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its produce, but the seventh year you shall let it rest (shamat) and lie fallow....") certainly cannot support a permanent dropping (after all, the Israelites were to begin farming the land again the following year). Other uses of shamat (and its noun form, shemittah) throughout the Old Testament better support temporary than permanent dropping. The parallel with Exodus 23:10-11, therefore, supports translating Deuteronomy 15:1-2 as, "At the end of every seven years you must suspend debts. This is how it is to be done. Every creditor shall suspend the loan he has made...." Then of course there's the problem of how to apply such a command, specifically crafted for God's chosen nation under his special laws in his special land, to other nations not so privileged-not to mention the problem of applying this law for individual debts to national debts. The one-year suspension of personal debts during a sabbatical year (when no one was supposed to be working) made sense, and it was consistent with the biblical requirement that debts be repaid (Romans 13:8). - E. Calvin Beisner, Lookout Mountain, Tenn.