 |
|
FEEDBACK  |
|
 |
|
Jack B. Rogers, moderator Paul Revere was a 'snitch!' February 1, 2002 Jack Rogers may well think that he was like Paul Revere. Being British, though, I need to remind our moderator... 'Paul Revere was a snitch!' Rev. Neil Craigan Rogers is loose with words and inaccurate February 1, 2002 For a man in his position in our church, Jack Rogers is very loose with words and highly inaccurate. I am one of the many more than 10% in conflict with Louisville and their associates. Rogers merely represents a continuing effort of a significant minority to alter our church's attitude toward Christ. As for CUiC, before they mount the racist horse, they should learn the definition of the word. Racist is probably the most misused word in human relations in our country. If you doubt that, just try a dictionary as I did. Of course, the dictionary I used was not the personal collection of a history and race re-writer. Walter H. Stewart Rogers is not like Washington, more like Benedict Arnold February 1, 2002 Moderator Jack Rogers as Paul Revere? George Washington? PUH-LEEEZE! I think Benedict Arnold is more like it. Rev. Bill Pawson Minister in Other Service Tropical Florida Presbytery Pembroke Pines, Fla. Jack Rogers' identity crisis February 1, 2002 Since before he took office, Moderator Jack Rogers has been attempting to define himself - first as "bridge-builder," then as "truth-teller," and now as "statesman." In other words, he has been focusing more on his own question, "Who am I?" rather than the significantly more important question Jesus posed to His disciples and by their testimony to us today: "Who do you say that I am?" Moderator Rogers exemplifies this interpretive principle in his book, Reading the Bible and the Confessions the Presbyterian Way. In this book, he insists that the Scriptures and the Confessions need to be interpreted. However, without an objective standard by which they are to be interpreted, this hermeneutic rapidly degenerates into, "What do I want the Bible to say?" And it is this question that our moderator sought to answer when he attempted to foist on the church his notion that homosexual practice is reconcilable to the life of holiness all Christians are called to lead. Both of the questions he has posed are rooted in man's sinful desire to define reality for himself, for he has, in both cases, sought subjective answers that have meaning primarily in the context he sets for himself. The question Christ posed, however, calls the Christian to reflect on the objective character of Christ so that we ask, "Who is Jesus Christ?" and not, "Who is Jesus Christ to me?" or worse, "Who do I want Jesus Christ to be?" The problem of the post-modern mind is that it seeks to define reality for itself. Whereas the modern mind denied objective, transcendent reality for the lack of direct empirical evidence, the post-modern mind denies objective, transcendent reality that is not subsumed under its authority. Thus the claim, "It isn't real unless it's real to me." Therefore, it would behoove our moderator to seek to answer Jesus' question and interpret Scripture objectively on God's terms, and not on his own subjective terms. Loren J. Golden Overland Park, Kan. Moderator tries statesmanship to counteract negative reactions February 1, 2002 Mr. Rogers is in a state of denial. If he thinks "ninety percent of the church is not in conflict," then he has no concept of reality. I have been an elder for 20-some years and I have now come to the conclusion that this denomination is totally irrelevant. I have stopped my money flow and will be attending the CCM conference in Atlanta. He is not Paul Revere, he is not George Washington, he is Chicken Little. Dick Lewis Elder Bethany Presbyterian Church Loves Park, Ill. Does the moderator really want to talk? January 4, 2002 Several months ago, Moderator Jack Rogers was quoted as saying that he no longer was receiving invitations from his friends and former contacts in evangelical circles to speak or meet with them. Dr. Rogers seemed to be disappointed in what amounted to a decrease in dialogue between people of differing points of view in the denomination. With that in mind, the Evangelical Network of Beaver-Butler Presbytery extended an invitation to Dr. Rogers to meet with us to dialogue on some of the critical issues facing the denomination. In a letter to Dr. Rogers dated October 31, 2001, an open invitation was extended to him to meet with us at his convenience (since we meet at various times and are very flexible on scheduling) to discuss issues related to integrity, civility and fairness in the denomination. That invitation was not even acknowledged, so on December 2, a follow-up letter was sent to him, repeating the invitation and asking for a response. To date, there has been no response whatsoever from the Moderator. In recent months, Dr. Rogers has changed his self-proclaimed purpose from "bridge-builder" to "truth-teller." In his new role, he has continued to burn bridges and has yet to tell the truth about the origins of the Confessing Church Movement. In addition, he has been noticeably silent (along with Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick) on the constitutional defiance of Redwoods Presbytery in the Kathleen Morrison ordination. Dr. Rogers' track record since his election clearly speaks for itself. He has proven to be a moderator for only a portion of the denomination, while continuing to antagonize a constantly growing number of Confessing Presbyterians. We really don't expect to see that change. However, at the very least, it would seem that a moderator should respond to personal mail which includes invitations, even if it is to decline the invitation. His refusal to even acknowledge Beaver-Butler's Evangelical Network (the "home" of the Confessing Church Movement and the writers of the "irreconcilable impasse" overture) with a response further erodes whatever credibility or respect his presence in his office still has left. Dr. Rogers, to this point our communications to you have intentionally been kept private. However, not having had the courtesy of even a private reply, we now make the invitation public. The invitation signed by myself and 17 other Presbyterian pastors and elders still stands. If it's still sitting in a 2-month backlog of mail on your desk, we hope that you will pull it out and respond as soon as possible. Rev. Harper Brady Concord Presbyterian Church Baden, Pa. Moderator Rogers and his names! January 31, 2002 Mr. Rogers - Perhaps your comparison of yourself to George Washington is a bit premature. If I recall my history, George brought the country together. I suspect, sir, you will always be known as the one who did his level best to fractionalize the denomination he represented by his 'emotions' getting the better of him. Take heart, Mr. Rogers, you wouldn't have been re-elected to your present post; George was! Paul Revere indeed; perhaps Ichabod Crane! Ken Tazelaar Waukegan, Ill. Bible trumps life experiences December 19, 2001 I offer two responses to the article "Moderator, stated clerk: Don't focus on sex issues." If Moderator Jack Rogers thinks the "sex issue" is "a subordinate issue," he is sorely mistaken. Is he that out of touch? Former Moderator Freda Gardner has urged members of the Theological Task Force to bring their "life experiences" into the discussions. Theology has to connect with real life, but life experience has never been understood to trump Biblical revelation and theology. The common thread of the issues before us is the authority of Scripture. Too much focus on "life experience" at the expense of the authority of Scripture has given us the mess we are in. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. Can anyone see the elephant? December 19, 2001 Regarding his suggestion that we not focus on sex issues, it seems to me that General Assembly Moderator Jack B. Rogers is saying there's an elephant in the room, but we should ignore it. David C. Ghen Redington Beach, Fla. Writer agrees with moderator December 14, 2001 I have been reading the December issue of The Layman and have read again your response to the "attack" of our moderator upon your organization as being "fundamentalist" and "divisive." I agree with him. Over the years, I understood your agenda to say, in one word or another, "Ain't it awful" to what is happening in our church by finding and displaying isolated incidents or issues and making them "defining moments" of what you regard to be the "truth" of our church. In so doing, you have accommodated to the cultural war so evident on "talk radio" which needs to find "villains" and "victims." Over the years of your powerful and popular communication, you have been successful in generating a church divided. You win! But you lose when you define the General Assembly as having been "apostate." You lose when you take no notice of your powerful lobby that paints the moderator into a corner, and then castigates him – and encourages others to do the same. You lose when you define those who support Amendment A as those who would wish to "ordain as elders (or deacons or pastors) self-affirming, practicing homosexuals and heterosexuals who engage in non-marital sex." You lose when you have treated me and your brothers and sisters in the Presbyterian Church as those who have abandoned the faith and have "gone along" with society. You lose when you choose to support a movement in the church, using your powerful tools of communication, which suggests that the church is not to be trusted in its own confessions of faithfulness throughout the generations. How dare you define the "jots and tittles" of what it means to be "faithful to Scripture." I am saddened and offended. But I have also retired from active ministry, and can only pray that forgiveness and mercy will overcome the continuing damage this issue – and your defining the church by this issue – has brought upon us. Bob McQuilkin Frankfort, Mich. Bring charges against Rogers November 15, 2001 Jack Rogers is seriously deluded if he thinks that Confessing Churches are ill-informed. We understand the issues very well: Jack Rogers has abandoned the Reformed faith. I call for the General Assembly Judicial Committee to bring charges against Jack Rogers. Karl E. Gulick Elder Remembering Jack Rogers November 15, 2001 As a member of Calvary PCA in Glendale, Calif., I want to express my prayers and best wishes to you in trying to set things right in the PCUSA. I remember Jack Rogers. I used to be a member at Pasadena Presbyterian Church where he was a leading figure. (I left PPC after I understood how far off they were.) I remember Mr. Rogers teaching Sunday school classes, saying how narrow people were for maintaining a strict theology. I read his book on the Presbyterian creeds, with all of its spin about how wonderful and inclusive the PCUSA was becoming. So when I read he is now accepting of homosexuality, and he won't even affirm that Jesus is the only way, and denounces those who insist on the orthodox position, this does not surprise me. Mike Rodgers Pasadena, Calif. Moderator's analogy is wrong November 15, 2001 "Radical fundamentalists," Moderator Rogers asserts. What an interesting analogy: to compare long-time contributing, loyal Presbyterians with conservative beliefs as "radical fundamentalists" akin to the Muslim fundamentalists, the Taliban. Think about that for a moment. What comes to mind when you think about the Taliban? Apparently, Mr. Rogers is ignorant of the Taliban culture of brutal torture, beating of women, total and maniacal control of its people through hate and murder. Fellow Presbyterians, if this isn't enough, what is? I grew up in the '50s and '60s in a small, rural dairy farming community. My Presbyterian church had a wonderful and important presence in my life. My values are intact today partly because of this church, which aided my parents in my upbringing. I was a freshman in college in New York State in 1969 during the turbulent Vietnam war protests. My faith and patriotism were tested. I hold both dear today. I am saddened over the changes in the Presbyterian Church over these 40 + years and the deconstructive movement within. This deconstructive movement has permeated the very fiber of the controlling bodies of the Presbyterian Church with its liberal propaganda. The only option like-minded Presbyterians have is to break away from these liberals who aim to deconstruct Presbyterianism, Christianity, our republic and capitalism. Socialists we are not. Liberalism is a threat to our country and to our church. Fundamentalists? Well, if you refer to our fundamental belief in the Scripture and as Jesus Christ our Savior and in the fundamental beliefs on which our church was founded, then, yes. Carol Carelli-Sennett It's time for moderator to get real November 15, 2001 Now that the PCUSA is feeling the heat of their apostasy, Jack Rogers is starting the game of pitting one organization against another as to who started the Confessing Church Movement. Get real, Rogers; you are part of the policies of the PCUSA destroying itself, and now you are starting trouble as to who started the CCM. Does it really matter? The point is this: It had to be done because the PCUSA has drifted so far left of Biblical authority, and it does not matter who started the CCM; The CCM is a reality, and will be around for a long, long time. What else is in your bag of tricks Rogers? Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Call for moderator's resignation November 7, 2001 We need to call for the resignation of Rogers and his sidekick clerk NOW! Why is he even entertaining this group? Of all the people in the denomination, he spends the General Assembly's money being a speaker at a convention of 300 Sophiaettes. There are days when you wonder if you can even go on being a Presbyterian. If it wasn't for the Confessing Church Movement and The Layman I couldn't. LuAnne Cooke Findlay, Ohio Moderator's attacks are unbelievable November 7, 2001 I just finished reading Dr. Rogers address to the Covenant Network's gathering in Pasadena. The vitriolic attacks on the Confessing Church Movement and The Layman in general and Bob Howard in particular, are in a word – unbelievable. Mr. Howard did not rush the stage and hijack the PowerPoint projector as one might infer from Dr. Rogers' address. Mr. Howard's presentation was an intended, necessary and incomplete summary of the Coalition gathering, the agenda of which I imagine was being adjusted up to the opening day. One would hope Dr. Rogers' impression of Mr. Howard's presentation was a function of only attending the final day of the Gathering and not having the necessary context to make an accurate assessment, and not a mind shut tight against that was going on in Orlando. One would hope. To accuse The Layman and the Confessing Church Movement of being Christian fundamentalists is disingenuous at best. There hasn't been a Christian fundamentalist in the Presbyterian church since the 1920s. Any Presbyterian clergy or congregation even remotely tempted towards the sort of Scripture reading Dr. Rogers accuses the Confessing Church of engaging in left long ago, in '73 or '81. Is there any evidence, not accusations, which says otherwise? To use words such as "fundamentalist" in November 2001 after all that has happened seems to me to be an attempt to add more heat than light to the debate and to conceal more than reveal regarding the nature of said debate. The impetus of the three-point confession defining the Confessing Church Movement isn't to exclude anyone from the redemption given to humanity in Christ, but rather to highlight the singular source and shape of that redemption. The three points are an attempt to answer three things:
To reduce Dr. Gagnon's rather substantial (and I might add expensive) work from a reputable and not particularly sympathetic publishing house as simply an argument from natural theology and then dismiss it is to do a grave disservice to him, the scholarship he has invested in it, and the people who are studying it. On the efficacy of natural theology pointing to a certain order in creation, its a wonderful tool to point one to the creator God. Scripture constantly references natural theology (Psalm 19 as one example, Romans 1 as another). Scripture also says that because of our bent nature we can't see it and consistently get it wrong. Only through the spectacles of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit as apprehended through Scripture can we see and think straight re: God, nature, salvation, etc. Finally, my frustration is not with the issues ripping the PC(USA) apart – although there is plenty of frustration there. Rather, it is with the unbelievable statements that are being made by people in the structure of the PCUSA. These statements might be sincerely felt and wholly held, but they are flat out unhelpful to meaningful conversation. Finally, I leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton – "the point of having an open mind is the same as having an open mouth – to close upon something solid and satisfying." Dave Moody Corona Presbyterian Church Denver, Col. Don't take action against Lay Committee November 7, 2001 [Dear Dr. Rogers:] I was troubled to read your reported remarks threatening judicial action against leaders of the Presbyterian Lay Committee. I hope that you were not reported correctly. If you did make such threats, I hope you will reconsider. I offer two things for your consideration. First, developments of recent years, including the attitudes of denominational leaders such as you, have augmented the influence of the Lay Committee. I think this is beyond dispute. Fifteen years ago, we could not have imagined people such as Professor Leith and Dr. Achtemeier speaking at conferences sponsored by the Lay Committee. Today they are allies. Please reflect on what that means. Second, judicial action against leaders of the Lay Committee will be perceived by many as an attempt to silence opposition. The backlash from this is likely to be catastrophic. The larger of the two churches I serve, for example, will immediately lose its most active, articulate, and generous members. If they do not take the church with them, or if the denomination retains the real estate, what remains will be a liability and not an asset. There would not be enough money contributed to maintain the building and the presbytery would have to sell it for the value of the land alone. Can this possibly be what you want to happen? I don't believe it! Please think and pray about this long and hard before you move down the road to judicial action. These are not the 1930s. The denominational loyalty which rescued the Presbyterian Church then is largely nonexistent among ordinary church members today. Dan Reuter Butler Presbyterian Church Butler, Pa. Go ahead and file charges November 7, 2001 I have just read the article "Moderator continues attack on Confessing Church, Lay Committee." Just how inept can he be and still retain the position of moderator? Go ahead and file charges! That's what the liberals want to do, anyway. Let's have a trial. But, then, the moderator would possibly be called and examined. Does he have the guts to do so? One more thing: This whole comparison to Barmen. Let's put this in the right light. The current moderator and the General Assembly are attempting to lead the church as a whole in a direction that is completely opposite to the clear and simple teachings of Scripture. There can be no compromise! No accommodation! John Johnson Laurens, S.C. Proof is in the transcript November 7, 2001 Recently, I spent a year clerking for an appellate judge. My job was to read appellate briefs every day, including a number from insurance company lawyers. Hence, I've developed a certain skepticism about statements claiming to report what someone else said. But, then, that's why the trial court sends along a transcript of the trial. I don't join in all of the positions taken by the Layman board. At times in the past I think you found conspiracy in what was merely confusion. As the war of words escalated after General Assembly, I've often wished for an independent reporter on the scene. Perhaps a nice Jewish kid reporting for the Asahi Shinbun. Today's stories in the Layman Online were no exception. Jack Rogers Says This! Jack Rogers Calls The Layman That! Then I read the text of Rogers' speech before the Covenant Network. Jack Rogers Convicted With His Own Words! The Lay Committee a militant fundamentalist organization? The Lay Committee to take over the Church! The Lay Committee to discipline churches that do not follow their anti-modernist doctrines! And, as to the Confessing Churches – a schismatic group with a three-point political agenda! But now I am reporting ... A law professor I had would quote from Proverbs when an unprepared student would dodge a question: "The wicked flee where no man pursues, the righteous are as bold as lions." Let those with ears, hear; those with eyes, read. Tom Taggart Athens, Ohio Moderator is very intolerant November 7, 2001 I think our moderator is a very intolerant person who is angry because the Confessing Church Movement and the Lay Committee stood firm against Amendment A to remove G-6.0106b and against the endorsement of the moderator to said amendment. We should learn from this and we, as commissioners to the General Assembly, should try to know better the person for whom we vote for moderator of our denomination. In the meanwhile, we should let our moderator know we do not agree with him voting on amendment A. Elder Franklin Rodríguez Emanuel Presbyterian Church Las Marías, Puerto Rico Attack without reasoning November 7, 2001 Once again, as we continue to hear the moderator attack basic doctrine and flail away with reasoning that makes no sense. I continue to go back to Ecclesiastes 10:2: "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Dave Anderson Memorial Park Church Allison Park, Pa. Difference between sole and unique November 7, 2001 Mr. Moderator, while I may not be the world's smartest person I do know the difference between "sole" and "unique." Chocolate ice cream is unique but certainly is not the only flavor. New York City is unique but it is only one among many world-class cities. And, for our purposes, Mohammed, Buddha, Jesus of Nazareth, and scores of other great religious leaders are 'unique', each in their own way, but only one – Jesus Christ – can redeem lost man and reestablish our relationship with the sole Father, Creator and Sustainer of us all. Perhaps it is this particular affront on orthodox Presbyterians that is the reason behind their determined resolve as they use this movement to say, as did the father of Protestantism, "Here I stand, I can do no other." In these words, and in the spirit of the Confessing Church Movement, true Protestantism lives on. Otto L. Reinisch Glenview, Ill. Misunderstanding or misrepresentation? November 7, 2001 Moderator Rogers is either deliberately refusing to understand the Confessing Church Movement and the Presbyterian Lay Committee or he is deliberately misrepresenting them. The Presbyterian Lay Committee and the Confessing Churches have charged that the 213th General Assembly failed to confess Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior. When Moderator Rogers stated, "The claim that we did not confess our faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is also a lie. I had that bunch [the General Assembly] on their feet at least six times doing it," he deliberately missed the point and misrepresented the accusation brought against the GA. The GA had been asked to proclaim Jesus Christ as the only Lord and Savior in response to the scandal that arose following the keynote address of the 2000 Presbyterian Peacemaking Conference in which the Rev. Dirk Ficca asserted that there may be other valid paths to salvation other than faith in the sinless life, atoning death, and life-giving resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead, the GA said, "Although we do not know the limits of God's grace and pray for those who may come to know Christ, for us the assurance of salvation is found only in confessing Christ and trusting him alone." The GA wasn't asked to affirm that Jesus Christ is their own personal Lord and Savior, or that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The GA was asked to affirm that Jesus Christ is the only Lord and Savior of fallen humanity. The statement the GA made left open the door by which someone might say, "Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, but God may have dealt differently with someone with a different faith than mine." In fact, one minister commissioner said just that when he stated, "I do not have the right to say other people cannot find God in other ways. If God is all powerful, God can find ways to save Hindus, Jews and other people." When people in our denomination make claims like this, they often believe they are expressing humility or defending the sovereignty of God in choosing methods to save individuals who never come to saving faith in Jesus Christ. In reality, however, such statements express unbelief. The Apostle Peter said of Jesus, "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4.12) Likewise, Jesus Himself said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14.6) And again, "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17.3) And ultimately, "He who believes in (the Son of God) is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3.18) God has explicitly stated that he saves men and women from his just condemnation for their sins exclusively through faith and trust in Jesus' works of active and passive obedience, which are accounted to the elect as positive righteousness; in his death on the Cross, by which all our sins of omission and commission were accounted to him and thus atoned for in full; and in his physical and historical resurrection, by which we are assured that at his return we too shall rise again to reign with him eternally. This is the gospel. To hold and teach that God might save some men and women by another saving efficacy is a different gospel, a gospel foreign to the Christian faith. And as the Apostle Paul wrote, "If anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1.9) Thus, it is for this reason that the Presbyterian Lay Committee has accused the 213th General Assembly of apostasy, not merely for what was said, but also for what was not said. In response to this, Dr. Rogers, as moderator of the 213th General Assembly, has consistently misrepresented the accusations leveled against the GA, and has consistently disparaged the Presbyterian Lay Committee and the Confessing Church Movement, both of which are deeply troubled by the GA's actions. When he had been questioned for leveling greater criticism against those insisting that the Church maintain Biblical fidelity than against those insisting on disobeying the denomination's ordination standards, he said, "One reason is that people on the left aren't doing anything mean to me. People on the right certainly are." In this, he sounds like Ahab, who said of the Prophet Micaiah, "I hate him, because he does not prophesy good concerning me, but evil." Loren J. Golden Overland Park, Kan. Rogers' remarks vitriolic November 6, 2001 I attended the meeting at which Jack Rogers spoke to those present at the Westminster Presbyterian Church in Greensboro N.C. on Oct. 22. Rogers spoke for about 35 minutes and then took questions. After several questions, he sensed that he was in a "friendly atmosphere." He started in on the Lay Committee and sensing more support, really unloaded. I can only characterize his remarks as "vitriolic!" I reserved my comments for nearly the very last. I think that I was polite, but I pulled no punches as I briefly outlined my life as a Presbyterian. I was born into the Northern Church in 1920; left with my parents in 1936 when they were somewhat instrumental in the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (I always felt they should have stayed and fought); and finally, upon moving to North Carolina, joined First Presbyterian Church of Burlington. I was very happy there until the union with the PCUSA in 1983. I, as perhaps with many other "Southerners," thought that the PCUSA had changed. I could not have been more wrong in all of my life! Rogers did not respond to any of my comments, nor pay any attention to my suggestion that he might suggest that "All congregations of the PCUSA should carefully examine the questions at hand before they send delegates to the presbytery(s) to vote on the issues." He had gladly fielded all other comments and responded. I was disappointed that he did not seem to recognize my objections. Never, have I been in the presence of a person in such a prominent position and been so little intimidated! Whitney P. Mullen Burlington, N.C. Unsubstantiated claims November 6, 2001 In spite of all the criticism from the left, The Layman is doing the needed job of holding the PCUSA accountable. You should realize how effective you are as the likes of our esteemed moderator hurls unsubstantiated claims that The Layman and Bob Howard are lying and pushing for schism within the denomination. Dr. Jack himself is doing more for schism than any one individual. This is the only thing I can agree with him on; a split will probably happen. This will make it possible for the cleansed PCUSA to go about the Lord's work. We have had too many years of conflict and it is time to remove the troublemakers. Dr. Rogers' spewing of hate and false statements is the act of an irrational individual. What a circus our church must look like to the world. The other denominations are probably happy that Jack is a Presbyterian and not in their denomination. Bill Arthur Tucson, Ariz. Taking the wide path November 6, 2001 Reading Jack Roger's statement that he represented the middle of the church, I was somewhat surprised. My feeling that most people in the middle didn't have a clue to what is happening within the PCUSA and our moderator certainly has taken a stand against those individuals who are sick and tired of this denomination taking the wide pathway. And as he blames The Layman for being political, what does he think he is doing? The Bible is either the Word of God or it isn't. It can't be both. Jesus is either Lord and Savior to whom we must submit or he isn't. You can't really have it both ways. I am excited that a new reformation is starting to take place, and I will continue to press ahead to that end within the PCUSA. But if I find that I can no longer serve in this church I will have to leave, because to me the issues that divide us are uncompromising. We either believe or we don't, but Paul told us that there would be days like this. My hope is that in the end the truth will win out. Rev. Stewart E. Bair Sr. Interim pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church Sharon Hill, Pa. The 'Immoderator' November 6, 2001 If Moderator Rogers actually said those things you say he said (and I have no reason to believe he didn't), he is the most immoderate of moderators. His frantic comments remind me that a drowning man can be dangerous to those trying to save him as he flails about. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. Careful with characterizations November 6, 2001 Using Jack Rogers' logic and examples, must we be careful not to characterize all Presbyterians as Christians? Art Montgomery First Presbyterian Church Salt Lake City, Utah Finally, moderator's got it! November 6, 2001 While reading the various reports on the meeting of the Covenant Network, the article "Rogers calls Lay Committee 'militant fundamentalists'" gave me a brief spark of hope. For just a nanosecond my heart turned gay. I thought, "HE'S GOT IT!" Jack Rogers had finally applied his superior intellect to the question of why there is a renewal movement in the PCUSA. Why there is a flourishing Confessing Church Movement. Why a Presbyterian Coalition and well-attended Gatherings. Why so much opposition to his so-called leadership as moderator and bridge-bomber (as a truth-teller myself, I can't by any stretch of the imagination call it "bridge-building"). What gave me this ephemeral moment of hope? Jack Rogers said, "Do we want to toss aside the wisdom of the church and a democratic process for the dictatorship of a special-interest group with a self-serving political agenda?" But all too quickly my dancing turned to mourning. I had to accept reality. Jack Rogers had fundamentally missed the fundamental truth in his own words (but then he's not a fundamentalist). Looking in a mirror, Jack Rogers could not see his own face nor that of the special-interest group with a self-serving political agenda of normalizing homosexual fornication, declaring an immoral equivelant of marriage for those trapped in this deathstyle and leading the PCUSA to abandon the Christian faith to bring this about. And my heart trembled as it wept, recognizing this fulfillment of God's Word, "that when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were they thankful; but they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man." Imagine that. How sad. Rev. Bill Pawson Pembroke Pines, Fla. Will the real Jack Rogers please stand up? November 2, 2001 Will the real Jack Rogers "stand up please." Does he even know himself who the real Jack Rogers is anymore? Is it Professor Jack or Pagan Jack or Jack the Flack or Pastor Jack or Political Jack. Or is it just Poor 'ol Jack. His rantings against the Confessing Churches and the "Layman conspiracy" makes me think he is just plain Flapped Jack. I certainly hope he is still Prayerful Jack. Isn't it more than a little ironic that his intemperate attacks come from the one we call "Moderator?" If his is the "third way" or the "middle way" or the "more excellent way," I'll have none of it. And I'll guess I'm not alone. Derek Simmons Elder Santa Rosa First Presbyterian Church, A Confessing Church Should Rogers think about resigning? November 2, 2001 GA Moderator Jack Rogers' contorted thought patterns, loss of mental focus, persecution fancies and whining seem to indicate that he is succumbing to the pressures of the job, most of which were brought on by his own actions and statements. You don't suppose he might think of resigning, do you? Let's call the Scripture and Theology 911 unit quick! Rabun Harper Chatsworth, California Jack Rogers: There he goes again November 2, 2001 Just when I thought our moderator had hit a new low, good 'ol' Jack Rogers pops off another, even more blatant attack on the CCM. In attacking the CCM and PLC for having a "political" agenda, Rogers employed a tactic used by the radical left to take over social institutions since the 1960s. Political ends, they suggest, are inappropriate for institutions committed to doing good. Inevitably, their definition of "political" is "contrary to our agenda." The facts of the past half century show that a leftist political agenda based on the pagan culture du jour has taken over the church. Consider:
I did a search. I don't find "amend," "update" or "improve" anywhere in Scripture. If orthodox, evangelical Christians intend to return the PCUSA to Scriptural standards, Rogers or anyone else would be hard-pressed to find Biblical support for opposition. Instead, they will use press releases and General Assembly initiatives to redefine the church for man. And the membership will continue to leave... Gary Loftis Markham Woods Presbyterian Church Lake Mary, Fla. Theology turned upside down October 18, 2001 Let's see: Those who hold to the revelation of Scripture, 3500 or so years of understanding, the clear teachings of the confessions and the order of creation are the ones causing the so-called sinful schism. And those who have thrown over all of the above in advocating what is unequivocally sinful are not in sin and not causing schism. Hmmmm, north is south, right is wrong, and up is down. Yeah, I get it. So, pastoral means for Moderator Jack Rogers and his neighborhood those who disagree with him are stupid because they are being duped by "the revelation of Scripture, 3500 or so years of understanding, the clear teachings of the confessions, and the order of creation." Those who agree with him are the "enlightened ones." They are 21st century gnostics because they have special knowledge and know more than "the revelation of Scripture, 3500 or so years of understanding, the clear teachings of the confessions, and the order of creation." Same old song over and over again, Mr. Rogers and his neighbors might say. Yes, it is. And it is the same old Lord of all, Savior of the elect, coming Judge of the quick and the dead, who changes not and whose revelation is steadfast. And the latest diatribe from Mr. Rogers' neighborhood is the same old tired bombast. Be not fooled, Mr. Rogers. God is not mocked. David A. Medeiros Stoneham, Mass. Were Luther and Calvin sinful schismatics? October 18, 2001 Is it true that Moderator Jack Rogers said, "Schism is sin?" That's pretty sweeping. Is he suggesting that Martin Luther and John Calvin sinned when they led a part of the church into a reformation and a group called Protestants? Ken Kettlewell Springfield, Ohio Church leaders are like Bible's troublemakers October 18, 2001 Seeing the leaders of the PCUSA go out to churches to persuade them to not confess their belief in the Lordship of Christ and the truth of Scripture and the need for holiness reminds me of those who went before Paul and Luke to try to cause trouble in the early church. They had a message of works – that they needed to be circumcised and created all kinds of schism and confusion. The leaders of our church, and the moderator in particular, fail to stand up for the need for holiness and repentance before God. Yet, the Jews could not go into the holy place or even say the name of God except the priest once a year. The curtain was torn away when Christ died, but we cheapen his work on the cross and our access to him as Lord and Savior when we allow these sexual sins to be paraded in the church. Linda Lee Squeaky wheels get the oil October 1, 2001 With regard to your "Moderator says mail running 2-1 from people 'angry with church" article, my heartfelt congratulations are due to our church's leaders. You see, the squeaky wheels get the oil. Due to that fact, the people who think things are fine, tend not to say anything. I have always noticed the tendency in ministries for the negatives to snowball, while the positives fade fast, like the staccato notes on our old pianos. Of course, we can thank a few of our friends in advocacy publishing for at least supporting this theory, if not perpetuating it. This means we are doing fairly well! The people with a problem will always be the ones writing the letters. In this case, assuming the other third of Moderator Rogers' mail is supportive, (rather than, say... invoices, telephone bills, or unsolicited copies of political advocacy publishing) then I am inclined to say... "Congratulations, you're doing great!" As an evangelical who continues to be shunned from evangelical groups due to my overwhelming positivity toward our leaders and programs, I say our denomination must be doing well. Now here's another possibility … maybe the idea behind your story is that the denomination is not supporting public opinion of its constituents. That gives us a bit of a double-edged sword, as American public opinion is played like an electronic fiddle through sensationalistic media, and the membership of the PCUSA tends to gravitate toward sensationalism as well, whether labeled "liberal" or "conservative." But we wouldn't have sensationalistic media in our midst, now would we? I'm making name tags for pots and kettles, both of which are black. There's a marker on the table, help yourselves. Add this letter to the "angry with advocacy groups" portion of whatever fractions you apply to your mail. Andy Byrne Youth Ministry Director Greenville, N.C. Moderator's conference: start with Jesus October 1, 2001 It would be best to start the conference proclaiming Jesus Christ is Lord. When that is done, then Jesus is our peace. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |