 |
|
FEEDBACK  |
|
 |
|
General Assembly 2001 The whole (10-foot?) enchilada August 24, 2001 I suggest that we make 10-foot enchilada replicas to bring to every presbytery debate as a visible message that Amendment A is not middle ground. It is Jane Spahr's "whole enchilada." The other side has made very effective use of visual protests. Here's our opportunity to do one that might add some humor to the debate. Tom Hobson Murphysboro, Ill. Whole church will be affected by Amendment A August 24, 2001 I applaud the insight shown by Robert Mills in "Is Amendment A the middle way?" Some of these same issues I have raised with my own session. I especially applaud the sound reasoning that demonstrates that in order for Amendment A to work, the whole church will have to approve of the ordination of homosexuals. I also wish to point out that the ordination of the homosexuals is a violation of the Book of Confessions. The Heidelberg Catechism, which is one of the confessions of the Book, declares,
Rev. John Johnson Todd Memorial Presbyterian Church Amendment A could require gay ordination August 24, 2001 Regarding Robert P. Mills' "Is Amendment A the middle way?," there are three other points that should be made regarding whether the proposed Amendment 01-A is really a middle ground: First, moving from "may" to "should" to "shall" will not require any further GA or presbytery action. The consistently liberal national PJC could easily find the constitutional inconsistencies created by the new amendment, taken with the general principals of "inclusion," would prohibit sessions and presbyteries from denying ordination to someone solely on the basis of homosexual activity. After all, if as the proposed amendment assumes, homosexual activity is not sin, how could such a person be denied ordination for that reason alone. That a PJC ruling of this kind is likely within a few years is apparent from the recent ruling by the same PJC approving same-sex unions, a ruling which no one had thought possible. If the proponents of the amendment had really wanted to preserve local option, they would have inserted a statement in the amendment explicitly permitting sessions and presbyteries to refuse to ordain practicing homosexuals. Second, the proposed amendment talks only of ordination, not of election or installation. No provision of the Book of Order preserves the power of individual churches to reject a person seeking a call who would not meet local ordination standards. Surely a church cannot now refuse to call a pastor solely on the basis of gender or race. If homosexual activity is no longer considered sinful by the national church, how could a call now be refused to a homosexual by a local church? A true local option would contain protections for local churches on this issue. Finally, an increasing number of states and localities has so-called "human rights" laws and ordinances which prohibit discrimination against homosexuals in employment and other matters. Churches are generally protected from the reach of those laws to the extent that such discrimination is theologically based. Thus the Catholic Church cannot be forced to hire women priests because that would violate its theology. But if our Book of Order permits the ordination of homosexuals we can no longer take the position that such ordinations violate our theology. As a result we will lose our exemption and be forced, in those jurisdictions with such laws, to hire persons (including ministers) without regard to sexual orientation. If the proposed amendment is a middle ground, so was the Munich agreement with Hitler which was heralded as "Peace in our Time." Whit Brisky, clerk First Presbyterian Church Evanston, Ill. Denominational officers losing credibility August 16, 2001 The Layman is a publication. Like other publications, it gives its thoughts and opinions on a variety of subjects of relevant interest to its readers. The sessions who have signed on to the "more light" Presbyterians' "grassroots effort for dissent and non-compliance with amendment B" are actual church governing bodies composed of ordained and installed church officers who have taken oaths of office. I find it interesting and educational, to say the very least, that our denominational officers find free speech by a conservative publication far more threatening to the peace and unity of the church than outright declarations by liberal church governing bodies which say that they will in no case comply with church polity in the matter of ordination. Our denominational officers and offices are fast spending what credibility they may have had to begin with. Joel Thornton Hurley, Va. Being a church means believing in Jesus Christ August 16, 2001 Last time I checked being a "church" meant that you believed in the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. How then can you call yourself a "church" and even consider that Christ might not be the only true way to salvation? This motion should have been laughed out of committee. The entire General Assembly has given a black eye to all Presbyterians. Benjamin P. Glaser Clarksburg, W.Va. Bible is to be believed, obeyed August 16, 2001 On the issue of gay/lesbian sin, Romans chapters 1-3:21 gives the answer to the debates. If the Bible (Holy) is the Word of God, and it is, thus, the Holy Bible is to be believed, received, and obeyed. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Writer likes GA statement on Jesus August 16, 2001 I was a commissioner to the 212th General Assembly. I voted against Amendment O. Had I been a commissioner to the 213th General Assembly, I would have voted for Overture 08. And I pretty much liked their statement on salvation. In your words, I guess you would argue that I was guilty of apostasy. Yet I wouldn't attack you the same way. Don't you wonder why? There are many things about Christian conservatives which I admire, though we disagree on many issues. Can't you say the same about Christian liberals? I want to work with you to spread the love of Jesus. Do you want to work with me? If we were discussing these issues over a cup of coffee, would you choose the same strident language? I'll bet you wouldn't. Won't you write editorials the same way you'd speak to me face-to-face? I believe that you are trying to follow Jesus. Can't you believe that I am, too? Richard Hong Kinnelon, N.J. Leaders' tactics as old as history August 13, 2001 Not only is it about pots and kettles, beams and specks, but the GA staffers are employing a tactic as old as history, i.e., "If you do not like the message, then attack the messenger." It was so in the Old Testament, it was true in Jesus' day and for sure it is true today. I think they are perhaps just jealous that your publications have been such a resounding success and yet they can't figure out why denominational sponsored publications flounder. Just another proof that the GA is totally out of touch with the great folks in the particular churches. Please keep up your valuable work and ministry. The truth will out! Jasper McClellan San Angelo, Texas Moderator, clerk draw the line August 13, 2001 Regarding the letter from the moderator and the stated clerk condemning The Presbyterian Layman: The line has finally been drawn in the sand. It now remains for the members of the PCUSA to decide on which side they will stand. It would be very difficult now for the line to be erased – but it could happen with repentance on the part of the GA moderator and stated clerk, and a public change of mind on the issue of salvation only through Jesus Christ our Lord. There seems to be no other possible road to restored unity. Rev. Robert Lorimer Bloomfield, Ind. Theocrats goes after orthodox Christians August 13, 2001 The PCUSA spin machine is now in full swing, stung by The Layman's precise condemnation of the 213th GA's actions. Make no mistake! They see this as a chance to marginalize the supporters of orthodox Christianity by name-calling and denial of legitimacy. The theocrats in Louisville want to use this as a wedge issue to characterize the attendees of the 213th GA as "mainstream" and those who would criticize their actions as "fringe." Their public attacks against The Layman begin with Chapter One from a vintage campaign plan. It starts with name calling to demonize the opposition. Consider their press release wherein The Layman is called a "conservative group" and their publication is called a "tabloid." It offers a dictionary definition of "apostasy" as its defense against the GA's actions; suggesting the Lay Committee doesn't know what it is talking about. Of course, The Layman used source language (Greek), not the world's language (an English dictionary), to declare: "An apostate assembly is one that has abandoned its religious tradition and the moral principles that emanate from it. That is precisely what this assembly has done." The moderator and clerk proceed with Chapter Two: Denial, as if denying their offense makes it not so. They deny the Lay Committee has the ecclesiastical authority to declare "apostasy" in another effort to delegitimize the charge. The Lay Committee is neither a church nor a church court and so this makes any assessment of the GA's behavior impossible and illegitimate? Really? If the GA quacked like an apostate duck, what should we call it? Their strategy then proceeds to Chapter Three: Hammer the wedge issue by exalting the commissioners. They lift up the nobility of this year's GA commissioners, their selection process, their integrity and their faithfulness. It's just not possible that these ministers of Word and spirit could have acted in error. Really? Ever hear of the Council of Trent? Duly ordained in their own church, they declared all of us apostate for our Protestant beliefs. Did they err? On what basis do we, cast-off pseudo-Christians by their ecclesiastical rules, make that claim? The irony is almost too obvious, isn't it? Yet, the strategy to divide and conquer this church is unmistakable. Next, the moderator and stated clerk use the same parsing dance which worked at the GA to equivocate on a fundamental tenet of Christianity: Is Jesus Christ Lord over all or not? Equivocation, they whine, does not constitute outright apostasy. The 213th GA consensus resolution falls short on two measures: (1) for the powerful language they rejected to produce their "confession", and (2) for the weakness of the resolution wording itself. As pointed out by some, the GA refused to affirm unequivocal language that "there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved" (The San Joaquin overture). They chose vacillating language instead, revealing an anemic witness, which raps like tin drum instead of resounding like a liberty bell for the sinful. One needs only to read The Westminster Confession (Chapter VIII) to compare the resonant voice of the divines against the braying hee-haw of this new "confession." Then, the moderator and clerk approach the issue to "amend G-6.0106," (read "gut G-6.0106") claiming this cannot constitute apostasy because "6b" has only been around since 1997. In fact, the need for 6b never existed until recently because nobody sought to ordain unrepentant fornicators in the church of John Knox. The moderator and clerk disingenuously go on to suggest "no one would suggest that the church was apostate for all the years prior to the adoption of this particular constitutional revision." No one would have dared to soil this church with ordination of unrepentant homosexuals or same-sex marriages in all the years prior to 6b! In conclusion, I predicted the insurgent, radical counter reformation following the ray of light in the 1997 GA. I predicted that grassroots organizing by the forces of dilution, division and denial would peak to overturn 6b. Their tactics are out of campaign manuals found in any major political party. They are tactics designed to achieve a political outcome, driven by leftist philosophical core values, bereft of legitimate Biblical authority. They put the Presbyterian Church on its historical head but solidly orient it with a fallen world. They piously offer dry steam to the parched spiritual lips of this nation's seekers and believers. Only a concerted, coordinated, well funded and sustained effort will restore this denomination to proper order. Failure to do so will allow the barbarians at the gate to storm the city on the hill to extinguish 2000 years of Christian light. Which will it be? Dan Greenblat San Diego Howl of protests not surprising August 10, 2001 It comes as no surprise to some of us that your article accusing the 213th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) of apostasy resulted in a howl of protest from Jack Rogers and his associates. The truth often hurts. It is quite possible in this era to be a Presbyterian and not be a Christian, to condemn orthodoxy in the name of unity and embrace heresy in the name of peacemaking. Grif Vautier Truth will defeat moderator, stated clerk August 9, 2001 Concerning Moderator Jack Rogers and Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick: Wounded by their own transgressions, they lash out in self-righteousness. But their cleverness will not protect them. Their high positions in man's church will not protect them. One little word of truth will defeat them. I have a short prayer for those like myself who are trying to weather the apostasy until there can be a revival in the Presbyterian Church (USA).
Elder What's the rest of the story about moderator's discovery? August 9, 2001 In a number of places, Moderator Jack Rogers has been quoted as saying he changed his mind about ordaining practicing homosexuals after studying the issue in Scripture about eight years ago. I believe there must be much more to the story. No one comes away from an inductive study of the passages concerned believing that God is in favor of homosexuality unless they have a strong predisposition for coming to that conclusion. What I have seen changing people's minds over and over again is the discovery that someone close to them is gay. They don't know how to respond and believe that to find homosexual behavior sinful is to say they do not love the person involved or, worse, condemn them to hell. We have been inculturated by our postmodern world to believe it is better to let someone suffer in sin than to be rejected or to be condemned as unloving for taking a stand. We evangelicals need to face the fact that we have not learned or taught or modeled "hating the sin but loving the sinner" very well, and without that we will continue to see people changing their minds when this issue hits too close to home. Rev. Kevin M. Ford, campus minister Massachusetts Institute of Technology Do clerk, moderator protest too much? August 9, 2001 I write the following in the spirit of our ordination vows, in which I promised before God and the church to be a friend among my colleagues in ministry, and to further the peace, unity and purity of the church. Just as an alcoholic in denial will define problem drinking in every way except the way she drinks, even so methinks Moderator Rogers and Stated Clerk Kirkpatrick doth protest too much that the 213th General Assembly was not apostate. And in the opening of The Outlook's article on their defense of this claim, we're offered up a real definition from a real dictionary (The American Heritage Dictionary) to prove it. Now, I must agree that according to that definition, they can legitimately claim that the General Assembly was not apostate. This reflects their faith commitment, in which they consider themselves to be on the cutting edge of modern prophetic spiritual and intellectual enlightenment by advocating the normalization of homosexual behavior, the "moral equivalency of marriage" in the blessing of homosexual fornication and the ordination of practicing unrepentant homosexuals. So how could a General Assembly that advanced such an agenda be apostate? It has not abandoned any part of their "religious faith, political party, cause or principles." And don't confuse them with the fact that the whole rest of the Christian world – including most of the very PCUSA they purport to lead and represent – repudiates their position. But then, that's the proof of their prophetic stance. And I'd bet they meditate long and take great comfort in Matthew 5:11-12 (assuming that Jesus really did say this rather than some faith community redactor attributing it to Jesus for the higher good of making some sort of theological point) to keep them going strong. But wait! In the text of their letter to the Presbyterian Lay Committee, Rogers and Kirkpatrick use a different definition of apostasy (perhaps found in the same dictionary where Rogers discovers that he is still an evangelical) than the one offered by The Outlook, saying "Apostasy refers to the total repudiation and abandonment of the Christian faith." And by this definition, too, the General Assembly was not apostate because there was no "total" repudiation. Why, all that was said and resolved upon was 99 and 44/100 percent pure. But I think (I hope) it was Jesus who said, "A little leaven leavens the whole lump." And His brother James (2:10) reminds us that "whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." So it would seem Biblically that 56/100 percent repudiation equals 100 percent repudiation. But let's not confuse the already confused with Biblical facts, because their agenda is more important than such trivialities. Besides all this, historically, so they claim, apostasy is only declared by a church court. And since these folks behave as if they own the only court they are willing to recognize as legitimate, there was no apostasy. Frankly, this is exactly the kind of sophistry that has brought us to this crisis. Rather than deal with Biblical truth they want to argue the case as a question of polity. If it were not so sad it would be laughable. They "do not believe that a body like the Lay Committee, which is not a church, has the authority to declare apostasy and would respectfully submit that such a judgment on the 213th General Assembly is in error." I respectfully submit that they are in error in their rejection of the Lay Committee's right – nay, responsibility – to say that any assembly that embraces heresy (and has thus become apostate) has no right to be called a church. As I recall from my seminary polity class, "truth is in order to goodness." And clinging to God's revealed will is always a higher good than elevating human experience as the measure of truth above God's Word. As a friend and colleague in ministry and for the furtherance of the peace, unity and purity of the church, I urge Rogers and Kirkpatrick and all their followers to return to the orthodox faith of the Reformed tradition. Rev. Bill Pawson Pembroke Pines, Fla. Apostasy sermon shows why there are tears August 9, 2001 After reading the sermon you posted by the Rev. Gerrit Dawson, "The Apostasy of the 213th General Assembly," I had two thoughts. First, I am reminded of Psalms 56:8 "You have kept count of my tossings; put my tears in your bottle. Are they not in your record?" Your tears are precious to God – those of Gerrit Dawson as well as the whole Church. Second, by reading the sermon I had a chance to look straight at the statement of faith the General Assembly adopted and I saw something I had not noticed before. This line blared at me. "It is 'his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and final return that restores creation, providing salvation for all those whom God has chosen to redeem." Since when does the restoration of creation have to do with my salvation? Creation will be restored, yes, but that is not the cause of our salvation. In fact our salvation is here now, although not complete until Christ returns and we have resurrected bodies. (Is this not a formula used by radical feminists and others to make restoration of creation the ultimate focus of theology rather than the salvation of sinners?) Viola Larson It doesn't take theologian to unmask statement August 9, 2001
But it doesn't take a theologian to unmask the statement of faith adopted by our General Assembly as a joyless, convoluted and maladroit attempt to create a god and a christ in a committee's astigmatic image. Here are the clues. First, who can confess what they don't know? And who would – especially when we do know that God's Grace has no known limits? The statement should have stated, "God's Grace is infinite." The false humility of putting the statement in the negative may sound cute, but it plainly asserts that there are limits on God's Grace. Well, there aren't. Second, despite the mournful lament for lost souls that attempts to touch our emotions, in truth, we need not pray for the salvation of those who come to know Christ. We know it is assured. We have Christ's own assurance that those who know him are saved. What's more, we are not charged to pray that Christ will keep his promises. We are charged to bring souls to Him. That's our job. Finally, the old fashioned arrogance behind "for us" is downright insufferable. The liberal ethos is revealed here. They are better than the savages of the rainforest, the pagans of ancient Asia. Christ died for me, maybe for you, and you. But not for you – you live in a hut – or maybe even a doublewide. Well, I have good news for those of you who think Christ died only for the Presbyterian Church (USA). I have it on good authority that He died for all people because all people sin. And, if you believe that – if you will accept that simple fact – those sins that keep you from entering into the presence of God will be forgiven by just asking. And one day you will see God and be with Him forever, and it will be wonderful beyond anything you or I, or anyone else, can imagine. Jack O'Brien, member Beverly Heights Church Mt. Lebanon, Pa. Commissioners were led by 'spirit of this age' August 8, 2001 I have followed the PCUSA news and activities this past year. I have also read in The Layman the letters written by pastors, elders and members and friends of Presbyterians. I attended the General Assembly in Long Beach. I find myself of one mind with those writing to The Layman expressing sadness and deep concern for the commissioners who went to the General Assembly with a carefully wrought, assiduously pursued plan to undermine the historic Presbyterian Church in its policies and creed. A PCUSA newsletter said they were surprised when Jack Rogers was elected moderator in the first ballot. Why? This was the point man who supported their pro-homosexual agenda. If any ''spirit'' informed the prayers and hard work of the commissioners, it was the spirit of this age. It could not have been a movement of the Holy Spirit, for it has caused a deep erosion of trust as it cuts away the Biblical truths and doctrines of our faith passed down through the ages by men and women led by the Holy Spirit. The total membership now has deep wounds that will not heal before this slowly bleeding denomination reckons itself dead. Rogers and Kirkpatrick told the Lay Committee that the charge of apostasy "is clearly beyond the spirit of our ordination vows." They said, "In our ordination vows we promise to be governed by our church's polity, abide by its discipline, and be a friend among our colleagues in ministry, working with them, subject to the ordering of God's Word and Spirit." But by their very words they are condemned: "Historically, apostasy is only declared by a church court which has rendered a judgment only in response to the gravest of offenses in teaching." With ordination comes commitment to God's standards for holiness as clearly stated in the Book of Order. Many in leadership have abandoned the call to holiness that God so clearly commanded in Scripture. The Layman has defined the great error of PCUSA. "An apostate assembly is one that has abandoned its religious tradition and the moral principles that emanate from it." The Presbyterian Church was founded on the belief in Jesus being our Lord and Savior, and the only way to the Father. It is His saving work through the Word and the Holy Spirit that unites us. So where is the spiritual discernment that Scripture states is a requirement for godly leadership? And what was the persuasive power that ''forced" Jack Rogers to study and reassess the Scriptural injunctions against the practice of homosexuality? Should the presbyteries succumb to this "power" when they vote, then we will have to heed God's command to "Come out and be ye separate" – lest we be part of the great error of this General Assembly. Joan Goodman Archibald Gauntlet has been thrown June 22, 2001 The battle lines are drawn The gauntlet has been thrown. This is it. All Bible-believing Presbyterians must respond with everything we have. This is spiritual war of the highest level. Surely, Calvin and Knox are pulling for us. The Louisville General Assembly will go down as the most hell-bound GA of all. God have mercy on the commissioners who voted to repeal the Godly standards and to open the door for full scale acceptance of sin as a way of life. Woe to the hypocrites! John Jenkins Wisconsin Crippling our witness June 22, 2001 Only a church bureaucracy on its last theological leg would have to negotiate a politically correct way to state the redemptive nature of the historical Jesus. The commissioners to the 213th General Assembly spoke the truth when they ratified the thought that "we are humbled in our witness to Christ by our realization that our understanding of him and his way is limited and distorted by our sin." They might have better stated that we continue to cripple our witness by our unwillingness to follow the clear command of Scripture and choose instead the more comfortable distortion of universal humanism. How fitting that this General Assembly considers itself "Rooted and Grounded in Love." They apparently refer to human love and it has proven shallow ground. One longs for the day when our great denomination will, without further study, declare itself firmly and forever rooted in the unchanging Word of God. John A. Cowan Cartersville, Ga. General Assembly breaks faith June 22, 2001 The General Assembly has just demonstrated its shocking inability to affirm that Christ alone is Lord, a very basic theological pillar of Christian faith. It has also set into motion the constitutional changes that will permit ordinands who are unrepentant of sexual sin to be elevated into offices of church leadership. While there are many individual congregations that continue to hold onto a high view of Scripture within the PCUSA, the General Assembly has broken faith with them and with the godly heritage which the denomination has historically enjoyed. When the PCUSA cannot affirm a Biblical view of Jesus Christ and adopts the sexual perspectives of the cultural left rather than the univocal teachings of the Church over the past two millennia, it is time to acknowledge that the PCUSA has abandoned us. Although the biblical injunction "be not unequally yoked" is most often cited to encourage our young folks to marry believers, it is relevant now in deciding whether or not we ought any longer to be affiliated with a denomination which does not know who Jesus is and which exalts sin. Scott R. Kelly Collingswood, N.J. Assembly vote isn't mainstream June 22, 2001 We are in a very tenuous state, I believe, in the PC(USA). I feel that some ministers and churches may already be weighing the options open to them. I for one. I don't truly believe this vote reflects mainstream Presbyterians in smaller churches across our denomination. I have already had some members of my church express their deep concern over this vote. I am currently working on a confessional statement for our church. After I heard about the slur the now moderator, Jack B. Rogers, made about the confessional church movement, I am even more convinced that every church that is concerned about this vote, voice that concern through a confessional statement to its presbytery. I also believe that funds will be cut off to the General Assembly in light of this. If we don't lose a large percentage of our membership immediately, after they read about this, perhaps we can reclaim and keep these members by reminding them that right now this only to be voted on. Eugene Edwards Houston, Texas Making God in man's image June 22, 2001 I am disappointed in the timidity of the General Assembly. We need to finish the job! Let's also delete the Biblical standards against adultery, lust, greed, anger and other forms of sensuality. Then we will have made God in man's image. In a few years, we can simply drop all the God-talk which we really don't believe anyway. George M. Weaver Pearl Harbor for PCUSA June 22, 2001 The proposal to rescind G-6.0106b is not the rubicon of the PC(USA). It is more profound than that. It is more akin to Pearl Harbor or the Council of Trent. Why Pearl Harbor? This is a direct attack upon the sleeping giant of the church. It is extremist and imperialist. It says that "fidelity and chastity" must be banned and are unacceptable in a PC(USA) which fully embraces the world. Does the giant awake with righteous indignation or roll over and pull the blanket more tightly into its eyes? Why the Council of Trent? The counter-Reformation zeal of reactionaries in the Catholic Church was fully revealed at Trent. All those who held Protestant tenets were declared anathema. This recision of G-6.0106b is nothing less than a reactionary force rising up inside the PCUSA to restore the comfortable slide into spiritual oblivion which was correctly arrested by the GA which adopted "fidelity and chastity." The zealots held sway at the GA and they threaten the life of the denomination. The reaction to this attack on Biblical standards will determine the very life of the PCUSA. This is the absolute prelude to schism. Should this recision succeed, the PCUSA will divide into two irreconcilable camps, one lovingly Biblical the other hopelessly conforming the Bible to social trends and sexual fashion. If the "giant" of the church reasserts itself, it must not just vote down this apostasy. It must do two more things: 1. It must revise its selection process for Commissioners. It is clear the GA is an unrepresentative body bearing no resemblance to the beliefs of the members. That disconnect must be repaired to bring order to the GA, which is out of control, anti-Biblical, and wholly destructive to the health of the church. 2. It must require recorded votes by commissioners on proposed changes to the Book of Order and fiscal allocations Those votes, the core of the direction being given, must be known to the members who sent forth the Commissioners as their representatives. Where is accountability without recorded votes? What does a Commissioner have to hide? We rightfully expect this from Congress, why not the commissioners? Prepare for the final battle, PCUSA. The church lost another 35,000 members in 1999 and the loss of Amendment O accelerated that defection rate. That is a drop in the bucket. If this latest radical and reactionary effort to rescind G-6.0106b wins, start picking a new denomination. Dan Greenblat San Diego PCUSA needs purifying June 22, 2001 As an elder for over 40 years, and a lover of the Presbyterian Church for longer, I hope and pray that God will use the Confessing Church Movement to purify our denomination, especially upholding the sanctity of marriage among our ordained leaders. Of course all members are called to the same standard, but leaders must adhere to a stricter standard. To my simple mind, the Bible holds plainly that sexual acts between people of the same sex are sinful. I cannot believe that such acts are within the will of God! It stands to reason that we can turn back the attempt to lower our standards when it comes to a vote in the Presbyteries. Through prayer and work under the will of God we can save our beloved church from apostasy. The lowly lay person has been silent too long. R. B. Dietrick Wilmington, NC What the Scripture says June 22, 2001 Has anyone in the assembly read the Holy Scripture? I perceive that some that claim to be God's people have erred concerning the truth, just as the apostle Paul warned against. There is only one God (Exodus 20). His son Jesus paid the price for our sin (you can read prophecies all through the old testament and the accounts in the 4 gospels). Jesus is the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Him. Any that try to come up any other way are thieves and robbers (John 10:8). Those who claim that they are of God and do not acknowledge Jesus as Messaiah, the only way, need to get on their face before almighty God and repent. The consequences are great for treason against the Most High, saying the sacrifice of His Only Son isn't sufficient to save everyone is a slap in the face of Jehovah. Jason Strickland PCUSA should quote it all June 22, 2001 The majority report on "Jesus is Lord" quotes the Reformed Church statement, but the Reformed church statement while discussing the difficulties of confessing Christ as Lord in a pluralistic society begins with "...the churches of the Reformation have consistently emphasized that Christ is both necessary and entirely sufficient for salvation. The Reformed emphasis on solus Christus ("Christ alone") reminds us that there is no other mediator between God and humandkind. This focus upon Christ alone is closely related to Reformed emphases on sola gratiae ("grace alone") and sola fide ("faith alone"), which underscore the necessity and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf and the necessity and sufficiency of faith in Christ, without reliance on human works..." It concludes with "There is simply no place for self-congratulatory superiority in our pointing to the uniqueness of Jesus Christ. At the same time there is no place of hesitancy, lack of confidence, or lack of conviction as the church points to Christ's uniqueness. If Christians really believe that the love of God revealed in Christ is the only hope for this world, if they really believe that Jesus is 'King of kings and Lord of lords' then they cannot be silent about the claim of the gospel on the life of every person, every community, every culture. Christians who claim to have been transformed by the surprising love of Christ cannot and must not keep that love to themselves. If Jesus really is Lord, then his gracious lordship must be made known to all. No task is more central to the church's mission." Raymond Weiss Orange City, Iowa Confess, then secede June 22, 2001 The reuniting took place in 1983. If the presbyteries do not stop the lunacy sent to them from the 213th (I was a commissioner who voted most of the time in the minority), then I believe we ought to seek to be separated (back maybe to the lines of the Presbyteian Church in the United States) by 2003. We can admit that twenty years was sufficient to show us that although we may take Christ as our Lord and Savior (although that too was questionable with some at the 213th), our cultural differences in fact do make us two very different churches. There is nothing wrong with two denominations. Isn't that at least part of what the Reformation was about? Confessing Church - today. Seceeding church - 2003. Rev. Terry Bozarth First Presbyterian Church Lockhart-Luling, Texas Flabbergasted and outraged June 22, 2001 My Session was both flabbergasted and outraged that anyone, let alone denominational leaders, would try to foist this canard on the church. At least the wolves have finally removed the "sheeps clothing" (what a sad irony) and exposed themselves for who they truly are -- people driven not by "love," but by lust and greed. Perhaps now the silent majority in the pews will awaken and affirm the truth of God instead of the lies of intellectuals. Rev. Kevin Jennings Why denomination is declining June 22, 2001 Should the fidelity/chastity standard this be removed from the Book of Order, I will no longer be able to remain faithful to the Presbyterian denomination. Reviewing the many actions taken by the General Assembly I find this to be so liberal in doctrine that it is absolutely ludicrous. We wonder why the denomination is declining each year? I believe we have the answer. What is being taught in our Seminaries? There must be a root of this radical movement. I am thankful for The Presbyterian Layman and their honesty as to what is going on. Dick Davidson Embarrassed about the PCUSA June 22, 2001 It is wonderful to read that churches representing more than 141,000 members have committed themselves to the affirmations of the Confessing Church Movement. I find Moderator Rogers' recent comment that the Confessing Church Movement represents "a tiny group within the evangelical community of the Presbyterian Church" to be both sad and humorous. Sad that he doesn't recognize in these growing numbers a growing dissatisfaction with the goings-on of the church and funny in that his definition of "tiny" reveals his being in denial about the chord this movement has struck. I believe Moderator Rogers is also missing the mark when he said "a lot of other evangelicals are embarrassed by it." Well, this evangelical is not embarrassed at all by the Confessing Church Movement but I'm plenty embarrassed about the PCUSA denomination. The actions of the 213th General Assembly simply serves to underscore my embarrassment. After more than ten years of devoted service to the church as an elder, teacher, and member, I'm moving on. Frankly, the Confessing Church Movement is about two years too late for me. I had high hopes and high praise at one time for the renewal efforts in the PCUSA but have decided they are not energized enough to boldly stand up for truth and waste far too much time trying to "reconcile" with folks who don't want to reconcile. Cary W. Wilkins Houston, Texas News from PCUSA saddening June 22, 2001 I am a member of the PCUSA and belong to First Presbyterian Church in Greenville, S.C. I am very saddened by the news that the General Assembly reversed its stance on the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Although I do not feel that people who participate in sinful behaviors should be demonized, intimidated or shunned, I think they should not be appointed to positions of leadership within the organized church. Their behavior is Scripturally regarded as sinful and not to be honored or held in a position of esteem, such as leadership. I am carefully examining my own local churches position and how it will react to this news. I pray that this will not be ratified by a majority of churches. Suzanne Misiaveg Why we're losing members June 22, 2001 The PCUSA leadership wonders why there has been such a dramatic loss of membership in 2000? I think the church is asking the question backwards. The real question is why anyone who believes in an omnipotent God and Holy Spirit inspired Scripture would want to be a member of an apostate association like PCUSA. When there is evident compounding growth of some churches (including non-denominational and PCA churches) you have to be mental dim from a business prospective not to recognize the difference. As a former member and elder, I could not continue our family association with a denomination that so obviously places cultural inclusiveness as its highest priority. Just look at all the time and resources wasted in the name of "diversity" that instead could have been properly used to advance the kingdom of God. Maybe next year the General Assembly meeting could place an idol of Sophia in the middle of the labyrinths they used to become "co-creators with Divine forces." This could complete the conversion of PCUSA to embrace paganism. After all you do not want anyone to feel they have not been included in your diversity goal. Dr. H. Thompson Stevens Just who is Jesus? June 22, 2001 The recent controversy over whether Jesus Christ is the only source of salvation has caused me to think about whether there could actually be other valid "paths" to God. What I have discovered is the following: - Jesus clearly claimed that he was the only way to salvation (John 3:36, John 14:6). - Therefore if He is NOT the only way to God, Jesus is a liar. - If Jesus is a liar, then He is a sinner. - If Jesus is a sinner, He is consequently NOT God. - If Jesus is in fact not God, but just a good man or a prophet, then He is not a "path" to God at all and we who worship Him are condemned. However, - If Jesus IS God in the flesh, then He is without sin. - If He is without sin, then His words (and therefore the entire Bible) are true. - If Jesus' words are true, then He is "the way, the truth and the light." Finally, if Jesus is the only way to salvation, we have a responsibility to share that good news with the whole world and to confess it boldly. Chip Blackshear Lafayette, La. The Word is clear June 22, 2001 A letter in response to General Assembly calls Jesus "Unique" but does not affirm that he is Lord alone. The Book of Confessions that Jesus alone is Savior and Lord for all humanity. The Word of God is clear about who Jesus is, Jesus is the Christ the Savior of the World, mankind. Those who put there trust in Him are saved. The Word of God is so clear! I will stand on the Word of God. God's Word can be trusted. Jim Krebs Vista, Calif. |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |