Writing a Letter to the Editor – Try it!

One way to touch a lot of people with a Gospel message, or the truth of Biblical teaching is to send a letter to the editor of your local paper. It’s easy to send letters to papers across the country – not just your local paper – since most papers accept online submissions. You’re most likely to have your letter accepted if you write succinctly and politely. It’s also much easier to get published in a small city’s paper than than of a metropolis.

It’s important to wait for the right opportunity: for example, when some article or editorial provokes some righteous indignation within you. Don’t just get mad at the devil’s team. Get even! You’re not going to make a “complete argument,” covering all bases. You’re not even going to convince the folks committed to the wickedness that provokes your letter. What you are trying to do is help open-minded people think for a change. Most people are never confronted with the Biblical point of view.

Below I’ve provided a copies of letters I’ve sent to newspapers or magazines. (I’ve removed some references to protect the guilty – “Mr. X”, for example.) I’ve had quite a number published, and even gotten some feedback from various places in the country. This kind of work, I’d say, is more in the “hobby” category than “ministry,” but every little bit you can do for God’s glory may make a difference in someone’s life.

Feel free to borrow directly or adapt any of the verbiage below if you take such an opportunity yourself.

Letter to a major city newspaper which was published as an editorial (I wouldn’t have know of its publication except that my uncle, who lives in that city, clipped it and sent it to me):

Dear Editor,

An anniversary is upon us. February 12, 1809, witnessed the birth of two historical giants. One legacy continues to ring for freedom, while the other continues to subjugate and steal the lives of millions.

Abraham Lincoln held this nation together by his prayers and the force of his God-given character. His Emancipation Proclamation declared freedom for slaves, and his moral and political leadership produced the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, forever prohibiting the evil of slavery in America. Lincoln’s heart is revealed in the testimony of distinguished former slave Frederick Douglass, who wrote, “In all my interviews with Mr. Lincoln I was impressed with his entire freedom from prejudice against the colored race.”

If Lincoln had failed to preserve the union, the 20th Century, already the bloodiest in world history, might have seen the end of civilization. A fragmented America would have been unable to save the globe from tyranny by winning both World Wars and the Cold War. Whether Hitler’s National Socialism or Stalin’s or Mao’s brand of Communism would have dominated the world would make little difference to the enslaved populace.

Enter Charles Darwin – the originator of the alleged scientific foundations of the Nazis and the Marxists. Karl Marx wrote of Darwin’s “Origin of Species”: “. . . this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view.” For Hitler and the scientific elite of Germany in the 1930s, evolution was the hallmark of modern science and culture and the basis of their racist views. An estimated 100 million have died in the wars and genocides of the Nazis and the Communists in the last century. Evolutionary disrespect for human life has added an additional billion abortions worldwide. Yes – one billion, a one with nine zeroes.

Let those who choose to celebrate this anniversary thank God for sending us Abraham Lincoln and pray for forgiveness for subjecting our children to Darwinism, which infests every public school in the land.

. . . . . . . .

Letter to a Sci-Fi magazine:

Dear Mr. X,

“The Virtual Congressional Caucus” (April, 2000) was refreshing in its portrayal of core American values — in particular, government by constitutional republic, whereby individual liberty is protected from mob rule. I doubt that many Analog readers appreciate the irony of finding such a conservative work in the midst of a magazine so devoted to evolutionism. America’s founding fathers devised our form of government to be intertwined with Christian principles.

Ben Franklin — not a Christian, but likely a deist who did believe in special creation — wrote on the necessity of religion for good citizenship. He outlined four essentials of religion: “the existence
of Deity; that he made the world and governed it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing of good to men; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished, and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter.” (Reference 1)

It was evident to our forebears that true liberty necessitates men and women — and their government — being accountable to God. Government’s accountability must be derived from a constitution that is not easily changed. Interestingly, as our country has embraced evolutionary principles in the science classroom, our legal system has moved inexorably in the same direction. Justice Brennan expresses the “modern” point of view, “declaring that our society must continue its upward progress unbounded by the fetters of original intent or the literal words of the Constitution, through an ‘evolutionary process
(that) is inevitable and, indeed, it is the true interpretative genius of the text.'” (Reference 2)

An evolving Constitution is no constitution at all, of course. Recent trends in “pollocracy” government foreshadow the demise of liberty that Shane Tourtellote’s main character feared in the form of “remote democracy.” Disturbingly, even the fictional Congressman Welles crumbles at the end of the story, assuming the inevitability of changes certain to destroy the God-given foundations that have worked so well for America through the years.


1. Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, Baker Books, 1997.
2. John Eidsmoe, “Creation, Evolution and Constitutional
Interpretation,” Concerned Women 9, Sept 1987.

. . . . . . . .

Letter to a local newspaper:

Dear Editor,

“Which Bible?” (Xxxxx’s letter, mo/day/year) is an excellent question! How can Christians claim that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God when there are so many versions and the differences among them are so substantial? The last 120 years have seen the publication of over 100 new Bible versions. Is there one we can depend on?

In short, yes. God promised to preserve every one of his words and pronounced a curse on those who would change, subtract from, or add to them. The Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the King James version fulfill the promise and avoid the curse. The Old Testament “Masoretic Text” is available today and is traceable to ancient times. The New Testament “Received Text” in Greek is affirmed by thousands of manuscripts traced back to the first century A.D. The King James translation in English was produced by 50 of the greatest scholars who have ever lived, when the English language was at its pinnacle of clarity and beauty. The KJV and its underlying texts have been the source of hundreds of foreign language translations that enabled the great missionary movements of the last several centuries.

The modern versions are based primarily on a couple of obviously corrupt Greek texts discovered in the 19th Century. They have been promoted by unbelieving scholars who despise the Received Text. The textbooks of these critics have taken over Bible colleges so that most pastors and their people now read such pablum as the NIV, NASV, NLT, etc. But these so-called Bibles don’t get read much, they get memorized even less, and they are devoid of power.

In these troubled times, it is wonderful to know that we still have God’s very words preserved for us in English in the King James version. It’s an “old path,” but if you walk in it, you’ll find “rest for your soul.” (Jeremiah 6:16)

. . . . . . . .

Letter to a local newspaper:

Dear editor,

Finding evidence for once-wet rocks is the prime focus for NASA’s billion dollar mission to Mars (3/8/04 Gazette reprint of Florida Today editorial). Such evidence would suggest that “conditions may have even been magical enough to allow organisms to flourish.” Magical, indeed. And immensely more magic would be required to transform minerals into life.

How improbable is the so-called evolutionary origin of life? Imagine that someone covered the entire earth with pennies, one mile thick, then painted one penny blue and buried it at a random location. Blindfolded, you are made to wander the earth until you feel moved to stop, dig down, and select one penny. Your odds of picking the blue penny are wonderfully better than the odds of one living cell arising from primordial muck, even if you could fill the oceans with your favorite amino and nucleic acids and wait for billions of years. In fact, the odds against a natural origin of life are scientifically and mathematically impossible, and I don’t use that word lightly.

Anyone with high school math and some basic knowledge about proteins and DNA can prove this for himself in just a few minutes. The conclusions from such analysis have been around for many years. Here are some relevant quotes from evolutionists who have been confronted with the scientific realities: “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” “The origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” “The origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself.” “The available facts do not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet.”

An unbiased scientist observes that life comes from life, without exception. My dad came from his dad and people always beget people, dogs beget dogs, poplars beget poplars, and paramecia beget paramecia. Where did the first life come from? The Author of life is the Lord Jesus Christ, who is also the Creator of this universe. “Uni – verse”: One – spoken sentence. God spoke the world into existence, but now commands us to repent – repent from replacing Him with impossible evolutionary fantasies. Or, you can keep the blindfold on, just hoping to find that blue penny.

. . . . . . . .

Letter to a local newspaper:

Dear editor,

You’d think they’d be embarrassed by now. The Associated Press’s recent article “Inquiring scientists: Why is sex so popular?” admits that from an evolutionary point of view, the existence of sex is a complete mystery. After all, they say, “sex is a pretty inefficient way to reproduce.” One of the annoying puzzles within this mystery is how a species of rotifer could have persisted through asexual cloning through tens of millions of years – what they call “a no-sex scandal.” But there is no puzzle if the rotifer were part of the wildlife created 6,000 years ago on a young earth! Considering the supporting wealth of geological evidence for a young earth, the rotifer is not surprised to be alive.
What the authors avoid admitting is the larger mystery of how sex could evolve from no-sex in the first place. The physical and biochemical complexities of sexual reproduction are enormous.

Male and female sex organs, sperm (or pollen), eggs, neurological and behavioral systems, the programming for embryological development – these are interwoven systems requiring the precise programming of millions of “lines of code” in the DNA. Sex is an irreducibly complex system – it only works if all the machinery is there from the start. Ergo design and a designer – the Lord Jesus Christ.

Dr. Colin Patterson, a world-renowned evolutionary paleontologist, once asked a gathering of evolutionists at New York’s American Museum of Natural History this question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true?” He reports that “the only answer I got was silence.” In recent years, he admits that things haven’t changed. And Patterson’s question covered the entire field of evolution. Sex is just one of its embarrassing mysteries.

. . . . . . . .

Letter to the editor of a national science magazine:

Dear Mr. X,

I suggest that you are taking the wrong approach in attacking the Kansas Board of Education for removing evolution from its sacrosanct position in the curriculum. Perhaps you could do a great service for them by simply providing references to the scientific papers that form the strongest basis for defending evolution. After all, I could cite hundreds of papers that underpin our understanding of atomic theory, which you have placed on a par with evolution.

I would suggest that you simply identify at least one paper out of the scientific literature for each of the following questions:

1. How did biomolecules like proteins and DNA form under natural conditions? What were the possible chemical reactions?

2. How did the first functional living cell come to be? In the absence of any fossil evidence, is there even a speculative model (quantitative, of course) to describe how it might have happened?

3. What evidence is there that mutations and natural selection actually increase complexity? Are there any quantitative models incorporating genetics (at the DNA level, of course) and population dynamics to show that this is even possible?

4. Considering the huge genetic differences between such creatures as man and chimpanzee, what is the genetics/population model that explains how the divergence from a common ancestor could have possibly arisen by neo-Darwinian mechanisms in even a few million years?

5. What is the quantitative explanation for the “Cambrian explosion” of billions of fossils of fully-developed invertebrates? For that matter, how does neo-Darwinism (or the “punctuated equilibrium” idea) explain the enormous gaps in the fossil record between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and reptiles, between reptiles and birds, etc., etc., etc? Just pick one gap if it’s too time-consuming to supply the literature for several.

6. Is there a model that explains how fully-functioning biosystems could have developed through incremental processes? For example, there are thousands of scientific papers on the structure, function, and biochemistry of the “cilium,” a fascinating biological nano-machine found in many cells. Where is the model that might suggest how the cilium arose from mutation and natural selection?

7. At the macroscopic level, how did winged flight evolve? For insects, what is the evolutionary model that explains the origin of the two fundamentally different types of winged systems?

8. What really is the best scientific evidence for evolution? It couldn’t be the classic schoolbook cases of those peppered moths in England, could it? There was no new speciation there. It couldn’t be the modern examples of bacteria that increase their resistance to drugs, could it? Those cases involve LOSS of complexity and reduction of viability in non-drug environments. I’m sure it also couldn’t be the simple variations among breeds of dogs, cats, or even Darwin’s finches. You need to show development of complexity!

Those questions will suffice for now, although there are hundreds more available for the intellectually curious. By the way, I’m sure you appreciate that hand-waving, popularized story-books — like those written by Dawkins — do not constitute the “scientific literature.” If we want to develop an appreciation for scientific methodology and quantitative analysis in our children, it is vital that we be disciplined in distinguishing theory from mere speculation.

I don’t think I’ll comment on your article’s planned threats of intimidation and discrimination targeted at Kansas school children. Clearly, you would be pleased to conduct the modest literature search I’ve suggested before embarking on such drastic measures.

. . . . . . .

Comments are closed.