I would like to respond to those who wrote in response to my article "Islam: Friend or Foe?" [TLC, Aug. 11]. To David Holcomb, wonder no more. I do not support the actions of the Crusades and I do not support a kind of "soteriological Olympics." What I do support is the clear and simple teaching of God's holy word. I simply wrote that those who do not accept Jesus as "... the way, the truth and the life," ... will be eternally separated from God. I said nothing about people rotting in hell.

To Bishop Reed, your response seems too much like that of a politician - do not deal with the point raised by your opposite, but use the moment to make your own point. Frankly, Bishop, I am not the least interested in the "pure tenets" of Islam. Islam is not of Jesus Christ and therefore contains nothing "pure" in the sense that only that which is of him is pure. Anything of Islam is of the "father of all lies" in that Islam denies Jesus as Lord of all, including Islam.

To Newland Smith, if I am dismayed that our Presiding Bishop and other diocesan bishops are failing to proclaim the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the one and only Savior of mankind, why would I accept the statements of His Beatitude Michael Sabbah? It does not matter what one's title is or what one's name is, if one denies who Jesus truly is or what he says to those who denied him in his day which applies to us today, then they are of the enemy. Scripture is very clear that there is no middle ground.

To Donald Stauffer, all I can say is why are you still in the Christian faith if you do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Messiah?

(The Rev.) Donald F. Brown

Bakersfield, Calif.

(The author has been ordained since the article was submitted. Ed.)