Jeremy,

Forgive me if your piece was meant to be satirical, but a few thoughts:

1. The Bible simply does not tell us was Christ did during his twenties. I don't believe there is any grounds for assuming Christ 'refused' to do anything during this time. It wrong to simply (and cynically) fill in the gaps. We simply do not know.

2. I would argue that when Christ argued with the teachers in the temple, he WAS being obedient to his true, divine parentage, which should trump the wishes of his mortal parents.

3. You write, "Christians should stay away from the type of people who defile the human body and distort sexuality the way prostitutes do." Why? Aren't these people in the most dire need of our love and witness? I would argue Christ's example here is perfect.

4. Does the Bible actually say that Christ encouraged his disciples to leave their wives? Their JOBS, perhaps. At any rate, I would also argue that our relationship with God must ultimately be more important than any relationship we form with others. At the same time, I don't think the Bible is explicit in the least about Jesus requiring his disciples to abandon their families.

5. I don't think you can necessarily equate being congenial with 'not sinning'. Christ came to establish a new covenant and demonstrate how the Law had been abused and misunderstood. Such work demands ACTION.

6. Lastly, I would suggest that anyone who is willing to die in my place (though I absolutely deserve nothing of the sort) IS about as kind and perfect a neighbor as one can imagine.

I think you do well to point out that Christ was a man of action and certainly radical and countercultural in his day. For Christians who subscribe to an image of a fluffy, touchy-feely image of Jesus this is a good wake up call. But I think it is wrong to interpret such action, such radicalism as sin on the part of Christ.

Yes, I think we often DO have no clue as to what really sin is.

best,
Jeff Winkle, Assistant Prof. of Classics

From: Luke Moore

Jeremy,

You probably do not know me, but I write to you, regarding your Nov. 17 Chimes article : "Were Jesus' actions really without sin?" as an ambassador of Jesus Christ.

First, I would like to ask whether or not you are truly asking that question or if you are playing a joke for some unknown reason? Second, I would like to ask you why you ran that article in the Chimes? If you had a particular reason, please articulate it. I will not assume your motives.

Because you did run it in our school paper, which represents Christ in this world by association with his name, I would like to give you some feedback. Read on if you are in a teachable mind. You start by saying that as you read the Bible, you "get the feeling that Jesus is not what the church depicted him to be. By the measures that many conservative Christians use to judge devotion to faith..." Do you get this feeling from what you read or do you have this feeling already, without really considering scripture?

Do you mean "what the church depicts (not depicted) him to be?"-which are you referring to? If you are seriously asking a question about the person and deeds of Jesus, why do you care about how the church depicts him? Why would you even consider the measures that other Christian use to measure devotion to faith? Are not the first and second hand accounts of Jesus that God has given us enough to determine how Christ depicted himself? Should we not concern ourselves with God's own measure of righteousness, faithfulness and holiness, not peoples'?

Dude, might I suggest that you start here: believe in him who not only told how he would die, how long he would be dead, that he would return to life, and what would happen afterward, but who also did exactly what he said, died at the hands of sinners, stayed dead for three days and rose again--40 days thereafter ascending to God the Father's right hand to rule over all with the Father. If you do start there, then you can believe that the scriptures are from God the Father to testify to what actually happened, what Jesus did and said, the meanings and consequences of those deeds and words--for if God can fulfill dozens of ancient prophecies about a Messiah in one person's birth life and death only to, then raise him from the dead, never to die, then truly nothing is impossible for this same God.

Start there. If you believe in the resurrection, it is the lens you see all of the Old Testament, the New and your own life through. It establishes that Jesus can indeed rescue those who believe on him from death. It establishes that he is THE ONE from God to save us all.

Your article comes across as if it were from someone who first assumed that Jesus was just like us. Yes, Jesus became a man, but he was in very nature God before and there is no indication in scripture from which we can conclude that when Jesus started being a person he also stopped being God.

With the citations of reasons you thought Jesus sinned, it seems as if you continued to impute your own understanding and "Conservative Christianity's" understanding (which I sense you resist, but you used it to support your 'claims') onto Jesus. Have you studied Jewish wedding parties, especially of orthodox Jews of his period? Are you not assuming that they are like our college parties? How can you know that the people at that wedding feast were continually getting drunk? Do you really know what it was that Jesus served? There are more than one greek words for wine as opposed to english's one word. One of those words describes a drink not unlike grape juice, yet still a wine, a new wine. That might be worth your learning about.

Regarding Jesus' use of his lifetime: do you hear, listen, and obediently respond to the directive voice of God even one percentage as closely as Jesus (I know I have not reached his level of obedience -hearing and doing)? If you have equaleded his communication with the Father, then maybe you should try to do better. Then, when you do better, then, maybe then, you can start to suggest to the Father and Son how to better bring about salvation to all the world. Maybe it is too big for you and I to immediately see and understand, but God had a plan for the saving of all Adam and Eves' descendants. Jesus' waiting until he was thirty was part of that plan. After three years of turning the world upside down, he had trained 12 others(who could train others who could train others...) to do the same (and more) in all the earth. Evertything was timed to a tee. Have you ever compared the dates and actions of Jesus with the Jewish calender of holidays and feasts? The correlation of the two is mind boggliing. Truly, when God layed out the law of Moses it all pointed to the coming and living of his Son, Jesus. If Jesus, you or I go out to do 'good' things before God tells us to, what good will we do in our own strength? It will be a wasted effort, fruitless. Have you ever had a fruitless effort? We know God the Father "O.K.ed" Jesus' works because God's power was with him, backing up his words and actions.

You suggest that with more time in 'ministry' Jesus could have trained the disciples better. You, again, seem oblivious to the fact that you are talking about our resurrected Lord of Lords. He could have done it in seconds. He did it in such a fashion as to teach us and the disicples how to do it as people who were filled with His Spirit. He trained disciples to go train others so that THEY could continue the very same works and Kingdom-of -God-progress that Jesus did. Yes, more people were to see, hear, be delivered, set free, made to walk, healed and on and on... his followers were to be the ones who continued to do that. God himself showed us how by becoming flesh and dwelling amongst us.

You suggest Jesus sinned by disobeying or dishonoring his parents. Read the text again, ask yourself where you saw that. Was it a dishonor that he , Jesus, was in the house of his Father? Is not Jesus' dad God the Father unlike any of us? He is the ONLY begotten Son, born of a virgin. God IS his father. Yes, Mary and Joseph worried and searched, but after they found the boy did not Mary "cherish those things in her heart?"(my paraphrase). Have you ever been so enthralled with the presence of God that you do not want to go home? If you want, I will tell how I have--and my parents were not mad when I got homw late. Again, Jesus was one of us, and he was more than us.

You suggest that Jesus sinned in anger when he cleared the temple of tax collectors and profiteers. Have you not read the command:"Be angry and sin not." It's in there. Dude, if I may call you dude, have you ever been so mad at evil that you actually did something to let those doing the evil know that they were dead wrong? Have you read (I am going thru Jeremiah and Lamentations) the Old Testament accounts of God carrying out his wrath, his judgement on evil, rebellion and hard heartedness? When God's wrath boils over his patience and forgiveness, it causes severe destruction. How great is God's love for us that we have been given time to repent and recieve his forgiveness BEFORE Jesus returns and cleans not just the temple but the whole earth as JUDGE. I do not want to be against him on that day, nor this one. You are right, Jesus was severe and his severity may burst a few liberal AND conservative bubbles about who people think Jesus is, but that does not mean what he did was not holy. The next time you find someone making a profit off of God or find a husband beating his wife for burning dinner, then, GET ANGRY and do not sin. Not being angry at such things is perversion of holiness. I could go on, but that might be better done in person if this strikes a chord that actually exists.

I happen to be friends with an Indian Christian family recently arrived from their nation. When they read your article they were deeply offended by your lack of reverance for Jesus Christ. You might want to consider how your writing edifies or tears people down. I too was offended by your apparent carelessness in discerning what is worthy of print at a college that represents Jesus Christ. Our work, because of our association with him, either exalts him or defames him. I do not stand against asking good questions and dialoguing about life's stumpers, but there is, I believe a more appropriate context for it, or a need for more care in doing it. Your article comes across as a defamation of our Resurrected Lord.

Disreguard all of this if you do not believe Jesus was resurrected. Because if he wasn't, then he is dead, we are still in our sins and Christianity is just one among a myriad of man-made belief systems and your thoughts are as true as you want them to be.

I am open to further dialogue, especially face to face.
In Jesus Christ, Luke Moore

From: James A. Pyrich

I submitted a letter to you earlier. While I do not retract my disappointment with the Chimes, I'd like to alter that letter--in other words, please do not publish it in its current form. After I thought a bit more about it, my character attacks on Mr. DeRoo were not proper and made in anger. I do not personally know Mr. DeRoo nor can I ever presume to know where he stands with God. I do feel that his article shows a very un-Christian stance, and if it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, then he did a poor job. Consequently, Chimes did a poor job in allowing this article to be published.

Here is a revised edition of that letter that I want to publish:

Somehow, I never expected Jesus to be compared to Dr. Dobson and Bill Clinton in the same breath.

Similarly, I never expected anybody here to so outwardly and brashly slander the name of Jesus, who is also Christ.

While I do not know Mr. DeRoo personally and can never presume to know his heart before God, the article to his name is un-Christian, and it is quite unclear what the intent of the article is supposed to be.

As it stands, Mr. DeRoo accurately plays the role of our modern press in his deconstruction of Jesus. However, he did not go as far as the Pharisees of Jesus' day when they claimed that the power of Christ came from demons.

It seems to me that Mr. DeRoo's reading of the Bible assumes Jesus as a man, and only a man. Then if Jesus was a man, just a man, and just like us, then we cannot imagine him not sinning.

The crucial missing element is that Jesus is both God and man--fully human yet fully divine. If you remove Jesus, God is unapproachable to us Gentiles. Furthermore, the entire New Testament is a lie. In addition to this, Paul et al are fools, as are every Christian both past and present.

Having an article like this in the Chimes, the main newspaper of a purportedly Christian college, is highly damaging to the Christian faith. I am disappointed and dissatisfied with the quality of the newspaper thus far this year.

James A. Pyrich

From: Dave Gifford

Jeremy DeRoo's article "Were Jesus' actions really without sin?" (Chimes Nov. 17) fails to mention blasphemy, a sin Jesus was convicted of. But then, perhaps Mr. DeRoo is not convinced of the sinfulness of blasphemy, since his essay is full of it.

I briefly thought he was attempting some sort of satiric social critique of modern Christian values as being incongruous with Jesus' lifestyle, since in none of the things he mentions (discounting his exaggerated description of them) does Jesus actually sin by biblical standards. But right up to the last paragraph his target is clearly Jesus himself, who has done things that by DeRoo's account we all supposedly know are wrong.

If I'm wrong and this is indeed meant to be social critique in disguise it is both unsuccessful in communicating its purpose and needlessly offensive in the process. I'm not at all convinced satire would justify the inappropriate language that he applies to the Lord.

The article has given me a timely illustration for the Catechism class I'm leading tomorrow on the third commandment (Questions 99-100, q. v.); however, I will not be renewing my subscription to Chimes.

Sincerely,

Dave Gifford Student at both the college and the seminary.

From: Ryan DeVries

I believe that someone needs to come into the Chimes office with a crowbar and pry the perspectives editor's lips off of Paul Schrader's butt. Although I respect Paul Schrader and his incredible work, I regret that his legacy lives on here at Calvin, and we, as a campus, must now suffer through this in the form of hack Paul Schrader wannabes running around campus writing for either the Dialouge or the Perspective section of Chimes.

Were you worried that the Dialouge story about Jesus (a blatent rip off of Paul Schrader) caused more controversy than you, so you had to catch up? I could practically hear the laughter and glee that came to Jeremy Deroo with every angry letter he recieved because of his latest article. Hopefully, people realized that the story was nothing more than a gasp for controversy and did not dignify it with a response.

So, please remove the mindset of, "maybe if I get booted from Chimes, I will be successful just like my boy Paul." Paul Schrader had passion and talent, and you either got it or you don't.

From: Andy C. Horne

Dear Sir or Ma'am to whom this may concern:

It is not by any positive aspect that I am writing this letter to you today. I am not a student at Calvin College, but I do have a number of friends that attend there. I am a student at Alma College. I like school there but I am in the process of deciding if I really want to stay there. The school and people are wonderful, but I decided that it lacks something from the religious aspect. I have visited Calvin College a number of times and was very impressed with most everything. Then this morning, I happened to be looking through the web page, and found the "Perspectives" section of the "Chimes" news. There was an article that was very degrating to not only Jesus, the Lord and Giver of life, but it was also very harsh to those who chose to follow Him. As far as I am concerned, the article, "Were Jesus actions really without sin?", was unknowledgable, and I do not believe that the person who constructed the letter really thought about what he/she was writing. But I wanted to construct this letter to inform you that you may want to be careful in what you decide to put in your newspaper. I for one am now reconsidering going to Calvin College in the spring. I do realize that no matter what school one chooses to attend, he/she will always run in to people who do not believe the same thing as his/her own self. But at a Christian facility, such as Calvin, you would not think that the school newspaper would aid a heretic and his/her beliefs. Where as I believe that it is ok to voice your opinion, you should do it on the proper grounds, and you should be completely factual. The constructor of the article mentioned many Bible verses in the article, yet he/she did not mention the fact that Jesus acknowledges every one of those instances, and He then goes so far as to explain each one. So, if it is at all possible, would you see to it that the person who wrote that article gets this statement, "Get the story straight, or else, don't act like you are knowlegable on the subject." Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Andy C. Horne

From: Jason Lore

Dear Jeremy,

This email is in reference to the article you wrote in the 11/17 Chimes. "Were Jesus' Actions Without Sin?" Jeremy, though I appreciate your attempt at objectivity, it is my opinion that you were sorely mistaken in your article. The gross use of unmerited generalizations (Jesus was a partier because he drank wine? Hardly.) and spotty logic (Jesus started his ministry when he was 30 because 30 was the traditional age when a rabbi started his work, not because he was selfish... maybe you should sit in on rel. 103) made for an article, that I must say, made me a little put out. You published a piece of material that was heretical to say the least. Was Jesus sinful?? Man alive, were that the premise, all of us would be well on our way to hell. To simply print this material because you're trying to invoke thought into our fickle little minds, is hardly justification for holding the one who died for you on trial. If you're trying to put God under a microscope... heh, good luck.

My request is that you think about the article's you're writting. I've written for school papers before and I know how easy it is to write the first thing that comes to mind. Please, just consider the consequences of your actions, you're writting to a significant number of people.

Please don't consider this hate mail. Quite the contrary, I love my God and that is why I write.

-Jason Lore

From: Neal DeRoo

dear Editor:

when i first read through my brother's article, i thought " o, this is going to raise some trouble". i was right. but, as i thought about it more, "Were Jesus' actions really without sin?" began to make more and more sense to me. i could see what jeremy was getting at, what he was trying to say. now, i'm not saying it was a perfect article, but i think he brought up a very important point - where do we get our standards for judging right and wrong? and, as i read through jeremy's explanation of his article on-line, and read through some of the other letters that chimes received because of this article, something really hit me. the article says: „By the measures that many conservative Christians use to judge devotion to faith, I do not think Jesus would have rated very highly.‰ then, jeremy explains this statement: "This should immediately tip off the reader to the fact that I am not claiming the error lies with Jesus so much as with us." as i read the sentence from the article, and then read jeremy's explanation, the thought occurred to me: how firmly entrenched are we in the idea that what we think, or what our church thinks, is entirely truthful, and above reproach, above question? after all, jeremy compared the way many Christians nowadays see the world with things Jesus did, and we assumed that he must have been saying that is was JESUS who was wrong. how arrogant is it that we didn't even take into account the possibility that we could be wrong? instead, right away, assuming we must be right,and that no one would dare be questioning the way we see the world, we judged that it was Jesus' actions that were on trial in this article, and the outrage overflowed - how could a writer in a newspaper at a Christian college accuse Jesus of being sinful? but he wasn't. my brother just made the mistake of assuming that people here at Calvin, Christians, would know that Jesus was not sinful, and so would understand that he was challenging them and their actions, not Jesus and his actions. how sad it is that we have proved this assumption wrong. how sad it is that, when we see that Jesus' actions may not line up with the way we conventionally see the world, we right away assume the writer is saying that Jesus is wrong. Heaven Forbid someone should challenge conservative Christian morality! it seems to me that the angry responses to "Were Jesus' actions really without sin?" merely prove the point my brother is trying to make about our view of the world, of right and wrong, and, in fact, shows that it is even worse than my brother at first thought - not only do our standards of right and wrong not always agree with Jesus' actions, but when they don't agree, we assume that it is Jesus that is wrong, or Jesus who is on trial. not only can we not see our own guilt, but now we can no longer even see that we are on trial. i commend and thank jeremy for trying to take our blinders off. i hope we will. i really, really hope we will.

Neal DeRoo
class of '03

From: Leighton and Danielle Jones

Jeremy,

We just finished reading your perspectives piece in the Chimes, on Jesus' actions and sin. Your article really upset us. We felt that you took the water into wine story completely out of context. Where in that passage does it say anything about a 7 day drunken party? Or that the guests were drunk and Jesus wasn't witnessing to them? We feel that you took the story and put it in modern day context, compared it to a normal college party, or even to a modern wedding party in our culture and you should not do that. There are historical points about weddings and wine that you should have researched and included in order to compare the situations. Back in Jesus' time, people used wine as a beverage because the water was impure. Also, there were a difference between wines as a substitute for water and as a drunkard's drink. If you took the historical perspective on the wedding party, stating it was 7 days, than why not on wine? Yes we read "...after the guest had too much to drink" If sin is also what you fail to take a stand on then why did Christ supply the wine? What kind of wine did he supply?... the best? The scripture says that Jesus and his disciples were invited, not that they attended the entire week long party. We also feel that you are ignoring the fact that Jesus had a specific reason for being on earth, and that reason was not to heal all the sick people and fix the problems on Earth. This was not his mission. His mission was to seek and save what was lost. God did not send His son to cure the disesases of the world. Also, because Jesus had a mission on Earth, he needed time to prepare himself for the work to be done. You cannot judge God's timing....It was God's will that Jesus did not begin his work until he was thirty. As far as we know he spent those thirty years working and learning. Suppose some judges you in 15 years on why you went to college instead of immediately sharing your God given gifts with everyone? Would you say that

you needed time to learn, experiences, the right situations inorder to do and be who you are then? Granted Jesus knew he was God, but he was also man... the question is then how much man was and is Jesus. We'd rather wait to unravel your positioning and questioning of Jesus' dishonoring his parents after you are married and lose your child, one of many, in a HUGE gathering of people. His parents where "unaware" of Jesus' lack of presence with them. And suppose it is more likely that Jesus knew it was smart to stay where he was, talking with the priests in his Father's house, instead of getting even more lost trying to find his parents. One more point...please read Matthew 10:34-37 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;"

We don't want to piss you off, as you tested our view with your article we felt we needed to test your view, and as we are not the best of writers, didn't feel comfortable writing a letter to Chimes. We also are wondering if you really truly believe that Jesus sinned. It is not clear from your last line of the article whether you do believe what you are writing, or if you are just trying to make a point about our view of sin today. Or if you were just writing to get a reaction out of people (which worked obviously). Could you please write back to us about this?? We are curious! Thanks! -Tiffany

Leighton and Danielle Jones

From: William Jensen

DeRoo's article in this last weeks issue of Chimes certianly was a shocking read. I, however, seemed to have given it a more charitable read than most, judging by many of the letters written into Chimes that are now posted on the site.

My first clue that DeRoo was perhaps not serious in his analysis of Christ came in the first paragraph when he wrote, " By the measure many conservative Christians use to judge devotion to faith, I do not think Jesus would have rated very highly." This seemed to me to set the tone for the article as one in which the example that Christ set out in Scripture is compared to modern Christians standards. So as I read on I kept looking for the "punch-line" to the article, the part where he says, I don't really believe this, I'm just critiquing modern Christianity. Well, he never said that, and as I read on, I found myself getting a bit offended at what he wrote. Then, at last, he closes with the sentence, "Either Jesus was a sinner, or we do not have a clue what sin is." At last, the "punch-line."

The article as a whole seemed to be about reducing the contemporary Christians position, as DeRoo understood it, to the absurd. He seemed to assume the modern Christian morals and standards for faithful Christian living and then see how Christ fit into that image. In the article Christ failed the test, according to DeRoo, Christ would not make a very good Christian in many modern Christians minds. This conclusion seems evident in the last sentence of the article, either Jesus sinned, or we do not have the right understanding of sin, well, assuming that DeRoo is right in his analysis of modern Christianty, I would prefer the later. I'm not sure if he was always right on in his analysis of modern Christianity, but that's not what I'm trying to address. I would agree that perhaps he took his arguments a bit far in some places, and perhaps didn't always offer the strongest examples, but I believe his point to be valid, perhaps much of modern Christians' Christianity is not in line with the life of Christ? Perhaps at times we have a wrong image of what it is to be a Christian? I think that if DeRoo is right, that Christ would not meet some of our standards, then our standards are wrong.

William Jensen

From: Jake VanderPlas

To those of you who are ready to condemn Jeremy DeRoo to the fires of hell, be careful what you say. I believe his article had a great point, which should not be ignored, though it could have been stated less impetuously. My view of his article is this:

A. He pointed out several biblical truths – things that Jesus actually did.

B. He correctly observed that by some peoples’ standards, these actions could be considered sinful.

C. Based on these truths, he accurately deduced that there are only two alternatives:
1. Jesus’ actions were sinful
2. The definition of sin used in B is wrong

This is not a point that should be censored or ignored. Too many of us have blind faith, and turn the other direction when hard questions such as these come up. Right now you’re surrounded by people who believe the same thing you do. But what would you do if you were faced with this question when surrounded by those who are against you? A Calvin education should prepare us to face the world head on. And Mr. DeRoo’s article is a good step toward that.

Jake VanderPlas

From: Braden Bolkema

Dear Calvin College,

In reading the responses to Jeremy's article in the Chimes from 17. November, I believe the most outstanding problem was not the content of the article, no matter how off-color you may have perceived it to be. True, "Were Jesus' actions really without sin?" was definitely not your ordinary piece of writing, but my particular complaint stems not from the article itself, but rather from the lack of discernment shown by some of those who responded to it. At this college, as at educational institutions of all varieties, we are encouraged to think about things as thoroughly as possible so as to avoid making any presumptions. In reading the responses to Jeremy's article, and I did read all of them, it appears to be quite likely that some of them were written as immediate responses (initial reactions), as though Jeremy's intent was to anger you rather than provoke your thinking process, which his clarifications do help in assisting. I will be the first to admit that I have not always looked at things with an open mind, but as a Christian and a student at a Christian college, I am, to some degree, a product of the system, and that system has at one time or another brought all of us to conclusions without thorough analysis. Some of the responses were well thought out, and I understand that Jeremy's clarifications came after some (or all) of those responses, but the fact that so few of you seem to have considered the article to be something other than Jeremy's personal beliefs strikes me. It is obvious that this article provoked many thoughts and passionate dialog, but I feel obligated to say that I am disappointed in the lack of a complete perspective prior to passage of judgment. I expect better from myself, and I see no plausable reason why you should not expect the same from yourselves.

Sincerely,
Braden Bolkema, '01

From: Steven Koster

Next time, include a Aesop moral-of-the-story at the end to explain your point. That way, you can draw a picture for those too upset to think by having their subculture poked at.

BTW, Jesus told stories that upset people! And sometimes he didn't even explain them!

-Steven Koster '89

From Becki Tyler

I am writing about Jeremy Deroo's article in the 11/17 issue of Chimes, "Were Jesus' actions really without sin?" I think that it is great to continualy contemplate and meditate upon our faith and Christ. My problem with the article is that it was so poorly written. This article is prompting much discussion because it is unclear what the point is. It is difficult to decide if Jeremy is sarcastic, joking or sincere. I notice that Jeremy has a a 7 page explanation of his article on the Chimes website. The fact that it takes Jeremy 7 pages to explain his article says to me that his point of view and subsequent article deserved more thought on his part before publishing. I hope that in the future, the Chimes editor will consider asking for a few more drafts from his contributors before sending the article to press. The content of the article aside, this article reflects poorly on professionalism of this newspaper.

Sincerly,
Becki Tyler

From: David Smith, Asst. Prof. of German

Dear Jeremy,

I can sympathise with the problems you have run into with an audience which failed to appreciate satire. (I recently found myself in a debate with someone who seemed to think that the Fawlty Towers episode about the Germans was intended to affirm anti-German prejudices, rather than lampoon them......British humour is often dry, self-deprecating and ironic, and doesn't always seem to work this side of the pond). I found your article thought-provoking. I have one little suggestion to add to the discussion (or at least as much of it as I have had time to read). Part of what makes Swift's 'Modest Proposal', mentioned in the Chimes editorial response, recognisable as satire by the time the reader is a few paragraphs in is that the position being proposed is so clearly ludicrous - no-one in Swift's day was actually proposing the eating of children. With your piece the situation is more complex. While the "Jesus was a sinner" position appears immediately wrong and outrageous to orthodox Christians, those same Christians also tend to be painfully aware that there are many out there who do in fact hold similarly unorthodox views - in fact the publication of odd views of Jesus seems to have become quite an industry recently. I suspect that this has worked against your satire being as immediately evident as Swift's - the greater likelihood of anyone actually holding the view you sketch means the reader is more likely to take it as a view rather than a caricature.

Hope this helps, and that you manage to calm your concerned readers (without removing the stimulus to thought),

Regards
David Smith
Asst. Prof. of German

From: Stacy Vander Meeden

Hey! I loved the sarcastic "Was Jesus really without sin?" article. Very thought-provoking. Makes me think perhaps our definition of sin isn't always what God has in mind. Prod away, we need more of this!

Stacy Vander Meeden

From: Joe Kamphuis

I am writing this as a Calvin Seminary student. I am a Junior, and I am just learning the "ropes" of theology since I was a Business major at Calvin last year. Jeremy DeRoo is a fine young man. I know I am supposed to evaluate his work objectively, but I do not believe complete objectivity is possible anyway. Jeremy DeRoo was not blaspheming, although I have to admit my first reaction to his title was negative. He stated the entire purpose of his essay in the very last sentence, "Either Jesus was a sinner, or we do not have a clue what sin is." That is the point. He is trying to get us to look at what sin is, and how we have narrowly defined it. This was his point. He was asking us all to look at our own standards for others and examine them in the light of scripture and the light of Jesus' life. Jesus was sinless and I do not for one second believe that Jeremy does not also believe He was sinless. Jeremy very cleverly used absurdity to demonstrate our own absurdity with the way try to place boundaries on God and faith. I spent one summer with Jeremy in a cross-cultural setting, and he has a great heart. So do not judge this essay by its title. Read it, and be open to question your own faith and how it has been defined. This is not an admonition to sin, instead it is a plea to seek out the more important things in life and care about people more than we care about rules.

Thank you.
Joe Kamphuis

From: Katie Keller

Dear Chimes staff,

I thought I would be one of many to put my two cents in regarding the fiasco of Jeremy DeRoo's recent article. While after reading his revised commentary on Chimes' webpage I was put at ease somewhat, I think that his inadequacies as a writer got him into a lot of hot water. While I agree that it is important to be challenged with unique viewpoints, encouraging us to see Jesus in a different light, I think it is obvious from the reaction of the Calvin community that this article failed to do that. The fact that only the author and other editors at Chimes understood DeRoo's intentions is further evidence to that fact. After all is said and done, I think that the current Chimes staff and all of the rest of us have learned a valuable lesson: think very carefully about the effect of your words before you speak.

Sincerely,
Katie Keller

From: Leigh Patten

Dear Jeremy,

I don't want to get into specifics about your article; from reading responses you have posted I can see that others have have covered many of my beliefs. But I want to tell you a little about my reaction.

My daughter, who is in her second year at Calvin sent me some excerpts from prior "Chimes" articles and wanted me to check out the Web version. As I looked it over (nice web site, by the way) I checked out the Perspectives sections and read the first article there. As I read the article my first thought was that this was satire, but by the time I made it to the last paragraph I wasn't sure. Maybe you can imagine the sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach as I read that last paragraph. I expected it all to be set right but it wasn't there.

If you were trying to make the point that our perception of sin has been grossly influenced by tradition, I am in agreement. I hope that was your point. I am not a scholar in writing styles so I thought maybe I missed the point and I read the last lines over several times. If your intent was to get the reader to look at what sin really is, may I respectively say that you blew it. Or am I just dense? Remember that there are "dense" people out here in cyber land that might not be able to follow your line of thought to the same extent that you were thinking. In other words, there are people out here who are no doubt tripped up by this. You know, I like to read people's opinions on all types of things and I have come across articles that sound like this before, and they come from many secular sources. But to come from a collage who identifies itself as a Christian collage, well, that was the source of my pain. I never had the chance to go to collage, and I have been overjoyed that my daughter gets to go: not to just any collage, but a Christian collage!

I believe with all my heart the verse -2 Cor 5:21 "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." I want to encourage you if your intent was to point out inconsistencies in our lives as Christians; I certainly have them.

Was this satire?

Sincerely,
Leigh Patten