| |
Needing clarity on Layman’s stance
Posted Thursday, February 4, 2010
Congratulations on your 45 years in ministry as noted in the commentary you published by Stephen Brown. His article I think did give some good background on how The Layman came about with the adoption of the Confession of 1967 by the United Presbyterian Church which later became part of the confessions of the PCUSA. This raises some interesting questions.
Does The Layman and more importantly its supporters within the PCUSA today support the Confession of 1967 while the founders of The Layman obviously did not? It is important to have some clarity on this.
I’m only asking because in some of the debates in this forum I read, I get the impression that some believe that others in the PCUSA that don’t follow their line of thinking are not following the Confessions. Yet it seems to me The Layman doesn’t really accept the Confession of 1967 – correct me if I’m wrong. And if the answer is yes, The Layman doesn’t accept the Constitution of the PCUSA that includes the Confessions.
It is clear to me that The Layman believes in the authority of Scripture and this is also true of other Presbyterians in the middle and left. There is no point in discussing this.
I think The Layman owes it to all of us to be clear on where it stands regarding the Confessions of 1967 today in its entirety as well as the other Confessions.
Yours in Christ,
Editor’s note: Mr. Apel is correct in his recollection that the Presbyterian Lay Committee, whose members were ordained as elders committed to the Westminster Confession of Faith, opposed the creation and adoption of The Book of Confessions as part of the denomination’s constitution. Additionally, the Lay Committee opposed granting constitutional authority to The Confession of 1967, a document that was included in The Book of Confessions.
The Lay Committee believed that in adopting a Book of Confessions, the denomination replaced a clearly defined constitutional standard with a library, and that the inclusion of The Confession of 1967 in that library so broadened the scope of our common confession as to render any purported constitutional status meaningless.
Commenting on The Confession of 1967, the Lay Committee said: “The new statement expresses the view that God was active in His Son, who is the living Word, and that the Bible is the ‘unique and authoritative’ testimony of men to what God did in His Son. But the high quality of the Scriptures resides only in the fact that it was written by men who happened to be Jesus’ earliest disciples and in some cases eyewitnesses of that about which they wrote. According to this view, the Bible is not the Word of God, but only a witness (and a potentially fallible one) to the Word of God.” (The Presbyterian Layman, Vol. 1, No. 1, January, 1968)
“Is the Bible God’s Word?” continued the Lay Committee, “or does the Bible become God’s Word only when He speaks to me through it? This is more than an academic mater. It is a question of authority … The new view gives authority to our subjective experience of God speaking; the earlier view subjects the church officer and the church to the objective written Word of God. The crucial point of dispute in the church as a whole today is that of final authority, and our denomination has just changed its position.”
The Presbyterian Lay Committee has not changed its position on this matter. In fact, the denomination’s documented drift away from Biblical standards of Reformed faith since 1967 validates the accuracy of the committee’s assessment.
Today, the PCUSA officially declares that the Book of Confessions is its constitution. But functionally, her people do not share a confessing faith in such basic Christian beliefs as: (1) The Bible is the Word of God written; and (2) Jesus alone is the way of salvation. The PCUSA pays obeisance to a library whose contents are in several respects contradictory and it has so thoroughly embraced the philosophy of deconstruction that none of these documents is allowed to say what they mean and mean what they say.
Consonant with its Reformed forbearers, the Presbyterian Lay Committee declares “Sola Scriptura,” and it celebrates as penultimate authorities those Reformed confessions of faith affirmed by its forbearers that have proven themselves true to God’s Word written.
|
How much longer will God be patient?
Posted Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Just read the report from the GA Marriage Committee. My interpretation of the Bible tells me that the majority is simply reading Scripture thru politically correct eyes rather than following God's Word. Scripture is pretty clear on this subject but progressives (?) want a more user friendly interpretation. Is there any chance that the PCUSA will put aside purity, unity and diversity in a bureaucratic organization and come back to faithfulness and commitment to our Lord? Otherwise, we are just another do-good social organization.
Glad Tracie, Bill and Lisa are hanging in there and filing a minority report. The PCUSA continues its downward spiral. Only God’s intervention will halt it. How much longer will God be patient with this wayward, apostate denomination?
|
GA will love committee’s report
Posted Wednesday, February 3, 2010
No doubt the General Assembly will love it. (The GA) will also pass another homosexuality approval forcing another vote ad infinitum. The denomination continues to roll downhill having lost all semblances of Christian standards.
|
To what extent will ACSWAP go to thwart the openness?
Posted Tuesday, January 26, 2010
According to your article, Ron Kernaghan, co-chair of ACSWP made the statement regarding the quoting or reporting of the committee meeting or documents involved, “If they are using a word or two, it’s OK. The rules of plagiarism applied throughout academia apply here. The repeating of an entire sentence or paragraph is problematic.” Simply put, that’s a ruse. And it is patently false.
The rules of plagiarism, as understood and applied throughout academia, do not set limits such as he describes. What is most at issue simply is that sources are cited and that proper accreditation be made. In fact, the whole purpose of quoting is to put forth content.
What kind of nonsense is this? And to what extent will they go to thwart the openness which characterizes our Presbyterian polity and manner of life?
|
Sacramento connects the dots on Belhar
Posted Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Congratulations to the Sacramento Presbytery for connecting the dots!
When I first enrolled in a PCUSA seminary in 2001, I became familiar with the Belhar Confession in my “Creeds and Confessions” course. Admittedly, I had never heard of this confession and found it unusual that it would share the pages with the Nicene Creed and the Westminster Confession. It was later, during class conversation, that I became immersed in the language of “inclusiveness.” That is when I realized the objective for Belhar: “discriminating ...” (as in recognizing fine distinctions on matters of doctrine and morality) “...may be in violation of our standards.”
It was only a matter of time that Belhar would be used to label certain groups within the church as: “discriminatory – marked by or showing bias.”
Well, I am biased! And who isn’t? I prefer a Presbyterian denomination embrace the Scriptures, the ancient ecumenical creeds, and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and that’s all. Only the PCUSA has gone well beyond this, and now we know why.
|
Twin Cities has an engaged evangelical community
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010
Thanks, Carmen, for the article. Yet, I encourage folks reading it (and this) to realize some important additional items:
- There is an active and engaged evangelical community within the Presbytery of the Twin Cities Area (PTCA). Though small in number, they approach work in the presbytery as an opportunity to “speak the truth in love,” and to proclaim the hope of Jesus Christ to transform sinners. They (and I, until transferring to Kendall Presbytery late last year) worked on a number of ways to try and bring accountability for beliefs and behavior among those ordained to Church Office in PTCA). In this arena, I was blessed to work in a team alongside two very gifted elders, and a very gifted pastor in a Remedial Case filed against the Presbytery; as we (and dozens of elders/ministers in agreement with us) believed the Presbytery erred in approving re-instatement of Mr. Capetz to the practice of ordained ministry. You would do well to consult with this group of evangelicals in the PTCA, as, I believe, you could learn much from their approach.
- There are a number of folks (Laity, Elders, Deacons, and Ministers of Word and Sacrament) from some of these evangelical PCUSA congregations who will be volunteering in various support roles to stage this GA meeting.
- PRAYER is so vital for these folks who seek to continue raising a Banner for Truth in the midst of what could be a very discouraging governing body.
In Christ’s peace and hope,
|
Another reason for skepticism
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010
Can you supply any specific information as to where or to whom we can voice our objection to the way the ACSWP meeting will be handled in regard to the restriction and use of materials or information involved at their meetings? I want to voice my objection to, at least, the idea that observers, press or otherwise, may not even quote or refer to process or content. If that is the case there is absolutely no point in giving them access to the meeting, except perhaps other than to simply placate them. Providing access but then muting observers is disingenuous at the least and perhaps evil at the worst. That is not the way we Presbyterians do things. These things don’t make it easier for pastors to encourage local participation in the larger work of the church. In only eight years of ordained ministry I've heard too many firsthand testimonies from churches and parishioners who are very skeptical of the higher levels of our “connectional” church.
Editor’s note: To reach PCUSA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons (ext. 5375) or Constitutional Services Director Mark Tammen (ext. 5433), call 1-888-728-7228.
|
Better bring a sharp memory
Posted Friday, January 22, 2010
The email you received said:
“Observers are given temporary access to documents before the committee on the understanding that they will not be quoted from or referred to in any outside literature, blogs or conversations until the committee has sent them on to the General Assembly or General Assembly Mission Council.”
Now as I read this ... you can talk about what was said, subject to your ability to hear and rightly remember anything and everything that was said. You just can’t quote the papers. I also wonder that if someone from GAMC was in attendance whether or not their possession of said documents constitutes the sending on of them to said committee. Good luck and have fun.
Peace
|
Not only un-Presbyterian but also un-American
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010
I have been at the table when ACSWP and ACREC were meeting and never heard such a policy. This is not only un-Presbyterian but it’s definitely un-American!
These people serve at the discretion of the PCUSA and if my polity is correct and hasn’t been changed by the liberals in this church, yet, it is the people in the pews that rule it not committees of the General Assembly! That is the beauty of our system of ecclesiastical government. This is exactly what Martin Luther then John Knox and John Calvin railed against! Closed-door church government that could care less about what the people think. Sounds like that crowd in Congress to me.
The issues they discuss and the paper it’s printed on belong to the PCUSA. So I don't get it. Sounds to me like the leadership of some committee is worried about the public having knowledge about their agenda! They don’t want publications like yours to get the word out on what they have up their sleeves on their liberal agenda, and liberal it is!
If Massachusetts can do it, we can too, Presbyterians! Don’t let this stand, absolutely not.
|
Activity is symptomatic of dying organizations
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010
If the Department of Constitutional Services upholds the practice demanded by the ACSWP, the promotion of increased control will be further proof that the denomination is moving through the “bureaucratic phase” of the organizational lifecycle and is therefore caught in the throes of death. This kind of activity is symptomatic of dying organizations. As for the physical and journalistic sequestering, do not fear: Even the stones will cry out.
|
Louisville should heed message sent to Washington, D.C.
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010
In response to the ground rules that were extended to Carmen Fowler in anticipation of her attendance at the Advisory Committee meeting in Louisville, I believe the powers-that-be need the same kind of message that the people of Massachusetts sent to our U.S. government administration and congress Tuesday.
|
Is leadership representing the people of PCUSA?
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010
Perhaps the clan in Louisville is following the lead out of the people in Washington D.C. on how to interpret “transparency and openness.” When a denomination is shrinking and loses over 60,000 members in a single year, most intelligent people would question whether they were acting in a manner which represents their constituents – us – the people of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Our denomination seems to be regressing. If you recall, in the early days of the Catholic Church, only the priests could read and interpret the Bible – couldn’t trust the illiterate and unwashed masses to do those things. Looks like the PCUSA wants to return to such a practice for clearly most Presbyterians are not capable of understanding the various communications and pronouncements coming out of Louisville. Who said history does not repeat itself.
|
PCUSA is acting like U.S. Congress
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010
I no sooner get over reading about all the secret, private, closed, confidential, etc. meetings and sessions that our U.S. Congress is engaging in, when I get this information about similar activities that “our PCUSA” is involved in through such committees. Where do they get the authority to act as monitors over what we can know or say about their dealings? Who do they think pays their salaries to discriminate against the members of our and their denomination? I hope you get some good news from the attorney to which this question has been referred. Is there anyone in Louisville to whom I could express my angst against such imperious actions (that might do something other than trash it).
Prayers are with you in all your endeavors. Keep your hard hat on while beating your head against the wall.
Editor's note: To reach PCUSA Stated Clerk Gradye Parsons (ext. 5375) or Constitutional Services Director Mark Tammen (ext. 5433), call 1-888-728-7228.
|
More consultation between U.S. churches, missionaries needed
Posted Thursday, January 21, 2010
You could call me a career missionary, having served 2 years in Japan and 17 in Malawi. I’ve just read the article [page 2 in the December Layman] about how to do missions on the cheap. My personal response: how sad.
Anyway, I thought I’d pass on the following story for what it’s worth. At African Bible College in Malawi, we run the ABC Community Clinic. One day, our doctor received a box of rolled bandages from my home church. I’m sure the Ladies’ Missionary Bandage Rolling Society had great fun putting it together. But our doctor looked at the outside USPS label that said that postage had cost $52. Upon seeing that, he sadly shook his head and said, “Man, I wish they had just sent $52.”
In an earlier letter, I wrote about the U.S. church that sent us a mission trip that involved a man in a Frosty the Snowman suit jumping around in front of children who will never see snow. As a humble suggestion, perhaps there could be a little more consultation between U.S. churches and missionaries about what is actually needed.
|
Presbytery spending money in a nonsensical manner
Posted Tuesday, January 19, 2010
As I read the report on the presbytery spending $300,000 for lawyers, court costs, etc. trying to prevent the Carrollton church from selling their property to the adjacent Christian school, I couldn’t believe that the presbytery could conceive to spend that tremendous sum of money for this purpose. When you realize where this money came from, the parishioners who gave this as part of their tithing as directed by the Lord, it is unbelievable that there could be any justification at all for this money that was given by these members for the furtherance of the Gospel, to be spent in such a ridiculous and nonsensical manner.
And now to have the synod say that they will support this case with even more money and request $3,000 from each of the churches in the presbytery, including the church with only three members, is ludicrous. Enough said!
|