Comments  33

• Jim Berkley 12 Nov, 02:57 PM

  Thank you, Carmen. You are exactly right. You are biblical, which is the only way we ought to be.
  
  You tell a sad, sad truth. But it is the truth.
  
  Mark Achtemeier appears to be headed on the same tragic trajectory that my former professor and friend Jack Rogers has taken. Maybe Mark will enjoy being the latest darling of the progressive circuit, paraded around as the poster child of a false doctrine that leads to ruin. Maybe he won't be deeply ashamed of selling out the Bible for a few liberal back slaps. Maybe he can live with his reputation as a serious scholar becoming rust.
  
  But I am sorry for the millstone Mark will wear. It is not becoming. It is shameful. It is fatal. And there is nothing pleasant about that.
  
  How very sad!

• Elliott Scott 12 Nov, 03:03 PM

  Nicely said, Carmen.
  
  What I like about Dr. Achtemeier's position is that he has the boldness to state that he has subordinated the Word of God to his own desires and experiences. This raises him above those like Jack Rogers and Walter Wink who use a voodoo scholarship to twist the Word into the shape they prefer.
  
  By saying clearly that we have to toss out the Bible when it doesn't suit us, Achtemeier makes it clear where he stands.
  
  I much prefer it when the dragon doesn't go in disguise but paints himself a bright shade of red.

• Noel Anderson 12 Nov, 05:12 PM

  Thanks for saying it as it needs to be said.

• Viola Larson 12 Nov, 05:50 PM

  Thank you Carmen,
  
  I think the direction that Achtemeier has taken is one of those sad points in my Christian journey.
  
  He says he is not subsuming Scripture under experience but he most certainly is. I had expected at least an attempt at careful biblical exegesis. It was anything but that, and was no joy to read.
  The only lesson to be learned from him is that when we grab hold of the sins of culture and begin to run with the grasp of the authority of the Bible on our life begins to loosen.
  

• Scott Mackey 12 Nov, 06:05 PM

  Well said, Carmen. Having been a student of Mark's parents, I cannot help but wonder whether they would not be grieved at his willingness to put his feelings and experiences over the plain meaning of Scripture.
  
  While the term evangelical is evolving into a uselessly elastic title thanks to similar migrations to faulty thinking in Emerging circles and the like, I do not like the sophistry and what I will charitably assume is unconscious self-deception in someone like Dr. Mark Achtemeier.
  
  Lisa Larges is at least a straight-forward rebel and heretic. Scripture must be subservient to Christ - indeed! So, Lisa, tell all of us when Jesus spoke to you and in what fashion? Was it a new post-resurrection appearance? Is it the voice of the Spirit speaking in your own heart or mind? Is it a Jesus you think you see and hear speaking in the Gospels, without context or support of the rest of the New Testament or the testimony of the Old Testament?
  
  Lisa can be excused for thinking she has a direct revelation from Christ. But what thoughtful Reformed and Presbyterian Christian was willing to take her word for it without a great deal of supporting testimony from Scripture, other Christians speaking across history through the influence of the Holy Spirit who I would think would not leave important truths to be divined by only one hearer?
  
  A truth that cannot be verified as truth is no basis for claiming the right to teach others truth! That used to be common sense, as well as a violation of the intent of Presbyterian polity.
  
  The Presbyterian Church of the last half century or more has much to answer for - and I include myself in needing confession for not being more diligent in presbytery floor examinations of candidates for ordination or transfer into presbytery pulpits. Regardless of all the charges of exclusivism and intolerance - the officers and churches of the Presbyterian Church have been far too tolerant and have watched individual ministers and whole congregations drift from biblical faith far too easily.
  
  Now we are divided and faced with questionable choices of serving side-by-side with heresies or promoting schism (no matter how justifiable due to apostasy).
  
  These are hard and sad times indeed.

• Pat McDonald 12 Nov, 08:19 PM

  Why are we surprised? Dr. Achtemeier's actions are another indication of the Bible being fulfilled.
  If God didn't have a problem with homosexuals then why did he destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Wake up people and do not be misled by these servants of satan!

• Beloved Spear 13 Nov, 11:31 AM

  I don't think Dr. Achtemeier would for a moment assume that folks here at the Layman would consider following him, blindly or otherwise. That would be a clear sign of the end times.
  
  The issue here is not that he is ashamed of the Gospel, but that he approaches the Gospel in a very different way. The challenge for y'all is figuring out how to debunk his approach. Why is a Spirit-centered faith not sound, particularly if it is in keeping with the core teachings of Jesus and his redemptive grace?
  
  As you make your case, just be sure not to inadvertently step on Mark 3:29.

• Adel Thalos 13 Nov, 11:34 AM

  Carmen,
  
  I couldn't agree with you more. But now that you have publicly called Dr. Achtemeier a false teacher, one who has rejected the authority of Scripture, what should be done? Is there anything that can be done?

• Dave Moody 13 Nov, 01:00 PM

  Carmen,
  Thanks... spot on.

• Jim Cramer 13 Nov, 01:28 PM

  Dear Carmen and faithful friends,
  
  Another mighty one has fallen, not unexpectedly, and I mourn, too. Like others, I was unaware of the magnitude of this tragic apostasy until the turn of the century. I was too close to the trees to see the forest. Now, the spiritual landscape of the P.C.U.S.A. looks much like that which greeted me after exile from Hurricane Katrina. Yet, I fear, worse is yet to come. I expect the P.C.U.S.A. to implode immanently, but I'm under orders to stand fast no matter what. May God have mercy and sustain His remnant people!
  
  In Him, Jim

• don fortson 13 Nov, 01:43 PM

  This is indeed heresy plain and simple for all to see. I notice the prof. didn't quote any of the church fathers, reformers or confessions. Simple reason: his view is a complete departure from the historical interpretation of God's Word. He may create his own new theology but it is not Christian theology.

• Matt Ferguson 13 Nov, 01:58 PM

  Carmen,
  Thanks for your faithfulness, not only in this post or on this issue but in all your service to God and His Church.
  
  I am left wondering how this will impact the seminary where Dr. Achtemeier teaches. I wouldn't want him teaching my students heading into seminary if his address to the Covenant Network represents what he considers faithful Biblical interpretation.
  
  I imagine the seminary where he teaches (Dubuque Seminary) will take a hit---but he is protected via tenure. Sad for them.
  
  Matt Ferguson
  Hillsboro, IL

• John Shuck 13 Nov, 02:00 PM

  So who is going to tie the millstone around his neck and throw him into the sea? You or those who you stir up with your rhetoric?

• Rev Marci Auld Glass 13 Nov, 02:57 PM

  You should be ashamed of yourself.
  
  While I'm trusting that you aren't suggesting someone actually tie a millstone around Dr. Achtemeier's neck, I would hope that you are aware that our words can have real, life consequences in the here and now.
  
  How would you respond if, heaven forbid, someone read your post and then went out and harmed Dr. Achtemeier?
  
  Your reporter did a fair and balanced job reporting Dr. Achtemeier's speech, which is more than I can say for your response to it. Perhaps you should go back and read it again.
  
  I am in prayer for all of us today. Christ has called us to be his body, yet I am worried that our words to each other might make our bodies bleed in needless division.

• Will McGarvey 13 Nov, 03:27 PM

  Point of clarification, please? Are you suggesting physical harm, vis-a-vis a mob style drowning is appropriate for Dr. Achtemeier? Given the tenor of the original piece and the respondents, I want to make sure.

• Christine Kooi 13 Nov, 03:30 PM

  How literally are you interpreting Scripture here, Rev. Fowler? A reader might infer from your title that you're suggesting that some sort of biblically-sanctioned violence is desirable in Dr. Achtemeier's case. Is that your intention? Is that The Layman's official stance?

• Aric Clark 13 Nov, 05:06 PM

  Wow. Can you hear yourselves clearly in this echo chamber? Time for a millstone? Are you really so far gone that you are applauding the suggestion that Dr. Achtemeier should be brutally murdered for interpreting scripture differently than you? I weep that anyone could even entertain the delusion that they were followers of Christ in spewing such vile hatred.

• Rocky 13 Nov, 10:45 PM

  When you read Dr. Achtermeir's remarks, his change of heart seems to be an affirmation of one of the principles of reformed polity articulated in the first chapter of the Book of Order: truth is in order to goodness.
  
  In other words, how can the traditional church reading of scripture texts pertaining to sexuality be a true reading when that reading has wreaked so much havoc in the lives of faithful men and women?
  
  It is clearly bad for people--psychologically, morally, even pysically--to believe that the sexuality they experience is in and of itself sinful. Dr. Achtemeier has arrived at a place where he no longer believes that God wants people to suffer in that way.
  
  That such a move places him at odds with those who champion a "plain reading" of the text over against any actual engagement in the lives of homosexual men and women is something I'm sure he's not losing sleep over.
  
  Good for him.

• Carmen Fowler 16 Nov, 08:55 AM

  Many of you have simply missed the point.

• Rocky 16 Nov, 10:17 AM

  Don,
  
  You must have missed the extended exposition of Augustine . . .

• Gene 16 Nov, 11:05 AM

  Respectully Rev. Fowler, your point was made in such a manner that it could be easily interpreted in the manner that many here have. Like other posters here, I also am disturbed at what an unbalanced person might think of it. I have always respected The Layman and the Lay Committee, even when I strongly disagreed with them, and find reading it useful and edifying. This was the first time I have read something on The Layman site written by a person in a position of authority in which the tone and manner of writing made me truly uncomfortable.

• Greg Wiest 16 Nov, 11:12 AM

  Clearly there are some who need to go back to seminary so they can figure out that "millstone" is a figure of speech which Jesus used. I guess some of your readers would also conclude that since Jesus spoke these words first that he must be a "violent, mob stirring, murderous Messiah.." No wonder clergy in our denomination can't figure out that homosexuality is wrong, they can't even differentiate when a figure of speech is being used.

• Kathy Clark 16 Nov, 11:23 AM

  Dr. Achtemeier reasons that because God loves homosexuals we must embrace their homosexuality. Following this logic with the clear witness that God loves us all and would that all were saved, we would then have to embrace every action of every person as good so that they can feel accepted, as they are, by God. (Does he still believe that non-homosexuals must die to themselves and be transformed into the image of Christ?)
  Financially this is advantageous in that we would no longer need any prisons, police, judges, courts, etc. We would just enter world chaos, reversing the order of creation, the authority and rule of God and denying His Word, created order and any sense of righteousness.
  Dr. Achtemeir has won acclaim and a voice in the Senate. His price was cheap to sell out the church and his country as he opens political imprisonment under hate crimes laws. The crime of what you believe. He has helped the drive to remove the Bible and the constitution from our country.

• Aric Clark 16 Nov, 09:46 PM

  @ Greg
  
  A "figure of speech" is a colloquial phrase which is widely understood to stand in for something else entirely though the literal meaning of the words doesn't supply such a meaning. For example "piece of cake" which is used to mean something is "easy" even though these words have nothing in common.
  
  What Jesus is doing here is not using a figure of speech. Nor is Carmen. He is using Hyperbole. A rhetorical technique in which one exaggerates beyond reason for effect. As such the meaning of this passage is almost exactly the opposite of what Carmen makes it out to be in this post.
  
  The point is not - if a teacher misleads people you should act against him in some dramatic way. The point is - if a teacher misleads the consequences they will suffer just as a matter of course will be so bad that your couldn't possibly do worse to them. In other words - just let them stew.
  
  Furthermore, Carmen misuses the concept of "little ones" here. "Little ones", especially in Luke refer to vulnerable people, outsiders, those on the fringe of society, often children, slaves, gentiles, widows etc... As such this passage is not about teachers within the church misleading the flock. It is about people setting up obstacles for those outside the church to receive God's love and grace.
  
  Achtemeier, therefore, is on solid ground in deciding that the truth is in order to good, that excluding homosexuals from service and wholeness in the body of Christ is evil and as such necessarily a false teaching. Don't worry though, I'm not going to advocate any kind of action whatsoever against people who teach that homosexuality is a sin, because their own hatred, as Jesus teaches me here in Luke (and in Matthew), is a far worse punishment than I could possibly devise.

• Jim Hazlett 18 Nov, 01:31 PM

  Carmen: We must continually return to the creation ordinance. What was God's intent? God's design for human sexuality was purposeful. God's anatomical design of male and female makes great sense. We know that God's grace in the New Covenant can be operative in our hearts without us rewriting the creation script. Think of how much truth and good exegesis my brother Mark has to give up in order to affirm homosexual marriage. God have mercy on him. God have mercy on our gay and lesbian friends. God have mercy on all of us.

• Adel Thalos 18 Nov, 02:28 PM

  Aric,
  
  You are clearly wrong or overstating your case on each account.
  
  "Figure of Speech" is often exchangeable in literary parlance for rhetoric or locution, so technically Greg is correct. Hyperbole is often referred to as a "figure of speech" in courses on biblical Hebrew and Greek.
  
  Your criticism of Carmen on the use of “little ones” is also wrong. The term is used in Luke 17:2, with parallels in Mark 9:42 and Matthew 18:6, where the term is clarified with “who believe in me”, clearly indicating believers/disciples (probably young in their belief). The use of the term is most common in Matthew where it is exclusively used for disciples (18:6, 10, 14) and literarily “least” is the superlative form found in Matthew 25, which is commonly completely misinterpreted for “least of these my brethren” clearly refers to disciples.
  
  Therefore, while Luke might indeed be emphasizing the "little ones" are the most vulnerable, they are vulnerable believers being exposed to a false teacher who would lead them astray.
  
  Since you began with faulty exegetical twisting, your conclusions are therefore also in error.
  
  This is one of those woe passages that is a warning to those who are engaged in such behavior. Therefore, I believe that Carmen used this correctly as a warning, to Mr. Achtemeier and one that all of us ought to heed.

• Roger Bush 21 Nov, 02:08 PM

  The "millstone" is not the point. The real point is that God's wrath still abides upon evil, and those who cling to it will catch the wrath when He pours it out, and one day He WILL pour it out! I John 1:9 is in the Book for a very good reason!

• Michael Neubert 24 Nov, 12:59 AM

  "That truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” And that no opinion can be either more pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and falsehood upon a level, and represents it as of no consequence what a man’s opinions are."
  
  Dr. Achtemeir could not possibly have had this Presbyterian principle in mind when he adopted a pro-homosexual apologetic.
  
  The touchstone of truth is its tendency to promote holiness. To argue in favor of homosexuality is to argue against holiness. It simply isn't possible to argue reasonably that God approves of homosexual practice in any way whatsoever. Homosexuality is sin. And as the Manhattan Declaration affirms: Scripture, reason and nature agree on this point. Which is to say, no one can come to a different conclusion except as an act of the will in defiance of God. There is no argument in favor of homosexuality, only capitulation and fraud lead one to that position.
  
  Truth promotes holiness, and there is no holiness in homosexual sin. This is the obious error in the discussion of "holy unions". In homosexual union there is no holiness - no holiness, no goodness, no truth.
  
  Goodness, holiness and truth are served when the Church leads people out of sin to grace and forgiveness. The "havoc" that troubles Rocky and other progressives comes mostly from the sad fact that some parts of the church want to deny sinners access to God's grace. That is always painful, always tragic and always results in more suffering - in the life of the unrepentant sinner, and in the compomised witness of the Church in the world.

• Deborah Milam Berkley 26 Nov, 02:21 AM

  I've been discussing this issue elsewhere, and I've discovered that some people are interpreting this in a hysterical manner, as shown in some of the comments above, where they feel that Carmen Fowler is advocating violence against Dr. Achtemeier. Because of this, I feel it necessary to say that the "warning" that Adel Thalos speaks of is not a warning for Dr. Achtemeier to be afraid of bodily harm, but a warning of spiritual consequences to him that may follow his new stance.
  
  It is amazing to me that some people have such a view of theological conservatives, among whom I rank, that they think that we are the type of people that would wish death upon others, or even perpetrate it. Apparently these people have been taken in by the media portrayal of evangelical Christians. Perhaps they should heed their own admonishment to get to know those they write about. If they did, they would find that we are not like that.
  
  It is also interesting to me that no one got upset about the possibility of incitement to physical harm of Dr. Achtemeier until John Shuck commented. He is in fact the person with whom I have been discussing this issue, and I wonder if he originated the whole idea.

• John Shuck 27 Nov, 02:50 PM

  Debbie wrote:
  
  "It is also interesting to me that no one got upset about the possibility of incitement to physical harm of Dr. Achtemeier until John Shuck commented. He is in fact the person with whom I have been discussing this issue, and I wonder if he originated the whole idea."
  
  Debbie! You are right! I have got them all mesmerized!
  
  I think Adel Thalos got into the spirit of Carmen's "time for a millstone?"
  
  Time for action against this false teacher, right Adel?

• Aric Clark 27 Nov, 03:28 PM

  @ Michael Neubert,
  
  Thank you for the string of useless tautologies.
  
  Yes - by their fruit you shall know them: countless homosexuals are actively producing fruits of righteousness to the benefit of the whole church as we speak. Many are in relationships that are accurately described as holy because they conduce toward goodness - they increase the measure of love and justice in the world.
  
  It is by actually looking at the situation and seeing the undeniable proof of the presence of the Holy Spirit that Dr. Achtemeier's mind was changed exactly in accordance with the various dictums you cited with an obvious lack of comprehension.
  
  @ Deborah Berkley,
  
  It's the media's fault? Really? So, no reasonable person would read the title "Time for a Millstone" and the article and then infer that it was a threat of bodily harm? Clearly you'd have to be crazy to interpret it that way.
  
  If Carmen Fowler is not "like that" then she should issue an apology for her extremely poor choice of words. Whether she intended it or not her words are a shameful incitement to violence. I don't think evangelical Christians need the media's help to look like people full of hate.

• Ivory 27 Nov, 08:18 PM

  One thing is certain--God's Word is absolute TRUTH. Seems all posting here have that in agreement.
  Using that as a foundation the reality is that both camps on this issue cannot both be correct. Either both are in error, or one is in error.
  This is not a matter of interpretation, or application.
  So obviously there are a grave many who are preaching and teaching a false gospel and leading many of the sheep astray.
  To interpret Holy Scripture by personal experiences is just foolish, no matter how sincere one might feel.
  Either God's Word stands forever or it doesn't.
  As for me, I will by the grace of God choose to trust Him to be true to His Word once handed down to the saints. And believe that Jesus was speaking divine truth when He said that not one word would pass away.
  I am thankful that I have a pastor who is not the judge of Scripture but delivers the whole counsel of God and is humble enough to declare, "Thus sayeth the Lord."
  Doesn't make him popular or accepted in progressive circles but it does prove His true love for people walking in darkness.
  This commentary I fear, and believe Scripture warns, is more of the false teachers infiltrating the bride of Christ and leading those with itchy ears away from the true Gospel.
  Thankfully, Christ has conquered the enemy, even though for awhile he can celebrate these minor (or major) false victories.

• Peter Bentley 5 Dec, 05:45 PM

  This is a refreshing and helpful public comment, which clearly shows the wider importance of the teaching ministry and those who are called to teach and lead. To interpret in another way is intriguing, though not unexpected, and I have thus followed this debate with interest.