 |
|
FEEDBACK  |
|
 |
|
December letters What about semper reformanda? December 27, 2002 As respects your article on progressive theology coming to the fore in the PCUSA, I would remind your readers that a bumper sticker slogan of the Reformation was "Siempre [sic] Reformanda" – always reforming. Have you forgotten that? Lee H. Lybarger, elder First Presbyterian Church Delaware, Ohio That's just a snippet from the full motto, which, in Latin, is Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda, semper refermata, ad verbum Dei – translated: "The Church Reformed and reforming, according to the Word of God." Contrary to the teachings of modern progressive theology, The Reformers never envisioned a Christian faith that was reforming – or changing – merely for the sake of change, but that the church's thoughts and deeds would be reformed to reflect the teachings of Scripture. [emphasis added] The Editors Why do progressivists say they are Christians? December 27, 2002 The incredible sadness one feels at seeing, once again, the appearance of human pride and arrogance veiled in what is supposedly a compassionate "reformulating" of religion to meet the deepest human needs of contemporary people. I don't doubt (completely) the sincerity of most of the advocates of progressive theology. No doubt, they do feel that meeting human needs is important and that "social justice" is a major imperative for human flourishing. They also do not believe that any of the current religions have produced the requisite mindset or equipping of humans to achieve this ephemeral and ill-defined "social justice." In fact, they see practitioners of the old ways of either Christian faith, Jewish orthodoxy or Islamic zealotry as having often produced the opposite. That more sensible observers of traditional faith have an explanation that illuminates its own failures as well as points at why some schemes for "social justice" will simply be injustice in a new form toward a different group, namely a robust doctrine of sin, is seen as excuse-making and code language for the perpetuation of an unjust status quo. So they wish to offer a "progressive" theology that will eliminate the abuses and excuses, and begin to build the eschatological kingdom through good old human know-how and effort. That has to feel good. How exciting, and perhaps a bit salvific, to be a John Shelby Spong and to proclaim theism as illogical and nonsensical to some presupposed "modern mind," and to offer some new way of talking about … what? God? In what kind of terms? Personal? What is divinity? Some ephemeral realm of "oughtness," that is, some form of categorical imperative that has no objective, ontological existence but nevertheless imposes a high degree of moral rectitude upon us so that social justice is required of us? Obviously, more thought is required. But don't you worry. Able "progressive theologians" of greater intellect or gnosis than we poor unenlightened old traditionalist believers will no doubt figure it all out. But in the meantime we don't have to answer to the old traditionalist God or His Christ. God, re-imagined and made in a new image that begins to look strangely like the progressivist thinkers, is now more believable and enjoyable to obey. As his/her chosen prophets and teachers, we can restructure society in ways that demand little of us and much from others. Sacrifices, if you can call them that, which we are willing to make, can be exalted and made worthy of much praise. Sacrifices that really hurt others can be tsk tsk'ed as necessary and worthy of some nebulous reward in some nebulous time. Now that's a fun god and a god worthy of worship. Replace those ugly old wooden crosses with gold-gilded mirrors as the ultimate symbol of faith! But why be Christian at all? My question to all the well meaning progressivists is, "Why are you not even more progressive? Why do you not abandon the failed religion of Christianity and form your own . . . what? Are you spiritual (sounds dangerously close to theism, for the theistic God is Spirit according to the Scripture) or merely a social/political action lobbying society? Are you the special enclave of gifted insiders, providing special gnosis to those who seek special enlightenment from that vague cloud of divinity/moral "oughtness" which you claim replaces the personal, theistic and triune God of traditional Christian faith? Why hold on to the outward forms of Christianity, or to any of its traditional claims or practices? Do you lack confidence in your new found formulations to make a final separation? Or are you aware that your new formulations need a more solid base than, "Because I discovered it, or I "experienced" it, or it's more believable if you also embrace modern materialistic biological and philosophical claims (which also require faith, for they are as improvable as any theological claim ever was), and so you wish to retain some of the historic trust and name value of Christianity? What about historic Christianity has any continuity with your new "progressive" theology, that you might call it a reformation of Christian faith? What has the "re-imagined" god to do with the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Unbelief takes many forms. I just wish that those who have ceased to believe in traditional Christian faith would make a bold and clean break. Do not live off the patrimony of another belief, one which you claim is inadequate or wrong and one which has acted and is supposedly still acting as a front for an unjust status quo. Leave the Christian seminaries and schools. Take the name Christian and its denominational representations off of your buildings and build your own national and international structures of support and mission. If you do not believe that you have made such a drastic break with traditional Christian faith, then you better start doing a far better job of showing the continuity your progressive theology has with the historic faith and practice of the church. It is up to you to demonstrate a quantitative and qualitative connection with Christianity to merit continued support from more traditional believers. Without a very well made case for continuity in more than just a handful of ethical teachings, then at best progressive theology is schismatic, dividing the Body of Christ, and at its worst it is full-scale apostasy and a new religion with only the slightest semantical connections to Christian faith, deserving of excommunication from and anathematizing by orthodox and traditionalist Christian believers. Rev. Scott Mackey Ft. Worth, Texas Is it time to put up a for-sale sign? December 27, 2002 I would think that more than 31,000 people leaving the PCUSA in 2001 would be a wake-up call, but with those advocating ReImagining, Sophia, Open Theism and now Progressive theology, the numbers will continue to go the wrong way. Looks like nobody is home to mind the store in PCUSA, with an anything-goes, situational-ethics church. Might as well put up a For Sale sign. The PCUSA is for sale, CHEAP. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Denomination's decline Scripturally and numerically December 27, 2002 There never seems to be any concern by the denominational staff as to why there is such a decline in membership of the PCUSA. Tears are shed over the decline in mission support, but the reasons for it are swept under the rug. Could it be that too many of our clergy and staff have forsaken Scripture in favor of secular values? Is this the reason for the divisions in our denomination? My church enjoys the pleasure of a Bible-teaching and -preaching pastor, who, in 16 years, has seen his congregation grow from 320 to 500 and now is in its third expansion of facilities. This is what people want and will support. This growth would have been more dramatic if not for denominational behavior which is anti-Christ and unbiblical. Following the ReImagining Conference that denied Christ and extolled homosexual behavior, a person who was about to join our congregation declined. The reason given: "You have a wonderful church but I cannot tolerate your denomination." Multiply this across the U.S. and conclude why this denomination seems bent on destroying itself. Jack Vanderbleek Elder, Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. Former B-29 pilot: Use of atomic bomb saved lives December 27, 2002 The December issue, regarding the article about the PCUSA's opposition to the resolution authorizing the president's use of military force against Iraq, The Layman reported that Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick's office published a commentary by Vernon Broyles. Mr. Broyles, staff social justice advocate, asked "why the incineration of several thousand people in the attack on the World Trade Center was a barbaric act of terrorism while the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are seen as a necessary act of war by a civilized nation." Those of us who are old enough to remember know that the dropping of the atomic bomb brought an early end to the war and saved numerous lives. The bomb was dropped August 6, 1945, and the invasion of Japan by Allied Forces was set for November, 1945. Estimates of Allied casualties ranged from 250,000 to a million, with much greater losses to the Japanese. Previous to the atomic bombs being dropped, more Japanese had lost their lives in the fire-bombing raids than in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It possibly saved my life. I was a B-29 pilot in a combat crew waiting to go to Okinawa to fly bombing missions over Japan. We all agree that war is hell but many lives were saved by the atomic bomb. I am thankful that President Truman had the courage to make the decision to drop the bomb, saving hundreds of thousands of American lives and much larger numbers of Japanese. It helped to preserve our freedom to worship our Lord and to fight for "Constitutional Integrity." These facts are documented in the Harry S. Truman Library, Independence, Mo. Don Runkle First Presbyterian Church Quincy, Ill. Support needed for mission work in Mongolia December 27, 2002 My heart nearly stoppped as I read the last edition of The Layman. Since I was a child I have had a heart for missions. Our denomination, having forgotten her first love, seems to have also forgotten the Great Commission. For the last six years, my husband and I have been in prayer for the nation of Mongolia. We wrote letters. We called headquarters. We begged anyone who would listen to send mission workers to reach these people bound in darkness for far too long. We thought our prayers were answered when two theology positions were announced. But then the financial bottom fell out of our denomination's mission budget. Our family has decided we cannot wait any longer on the PCUSA. We are prepared to go either independently or under the auspices of OMF. The Korean Presbyterians have committed themselves to sending their own missionaries. Is the confessing movement ready and willing to do the same? Would there be any support for persons such as our family? We gladly confess salvation through Christ alone, and God's inerrant and infallible Word in the Bible alone, but one thing we cannot do is try to do the Great Commission alone. Can you help? The Rev. Deanna W. Jobst The Lexington Presbyterian Church Lexington, Ind. kdjobst@core.com Why do defiant people focus on PCUSA? December 27, 2002 I am almost speechless . . . but not quite. What are these people trying (and evidently succeeding) to do to the Presbyterian Church? Why don't they pick on the Baptists or Methodists for awhile? I can't understand why they focus their constitutional defiance on us. In 1987, I read an article in the Louisville Courier-Journal that stated "... the Presbyterian Church is known to be the most tolerant toward gays of all the Protestant denominations." That article evidently knew what it was talking about. Satan sends us all kinds of evil, and will continue to do so until he is defeated in the end, but God is on our side. God is the most powerful and surely He will send us the determination and means to defeat these people before they destroy our church. I pray that the complaints and lawsuits will not cease, no matter how many times we are defeated. We must fight this takeover by evil. Lona McArdle Church distressed by minister December 17, 2002 I was surprised about seeing The Layman's story of Rev. Helen Dekker – not because of her view of Christ but because one never expects the past to come back to haunt them. I was the clerk of session when Rev. Dekker came to First Presbyterian in Batavia, N.Y. I went with the interim search committee to hear her preach at a neutral site and thought it strange to hear that Jesus was tempted by the Samaritan Woman, but she did seem to have a good delivery and the committee was at a point of looking for a warm body after being without a pastor for six months (and having had an evangelical pastor for 26 years prior to that). Her third day on the job, Rev. Dekker told the Bible Study group, "Daniel was just a Jewish myth and a legend so that the Jews would know how to pray and live." I called Jimmy DeYoung at Prophecy Today and asked his take on the comment. He told me that if Daniel wasn't a real person then Jesus Christ was a liar, because Jesus quoted the Prophet Daniel in Matthew 24:15. Mr. DeYoung told me to find a church that taught the inerrant Word of God. To say that Rev. Dekker started a stir would be an understatement. Several members of the church went to see her and find out more of her belief system, including many of the questions asked in The Layman article. I, as clerk, talked with her about my faith in Christ and that "I believe that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation," to which she said, "If not for my knowledge of the Greek and Hebrew, I would not believe in God." She told me that the Lord's Supper "was just a meal." At communion she held the "Cup of Solidarity" (never mentioning Christ's blood); the bread was the "Bread from Heaven" (never mentioning Christ's body). She told me that there was "a small group of Fundamentalists who were trying to ruin the church for everyone." I knew what was next. After our next meeting, to set a session agenda, she had a group of five elders call me to a private meeting to ask me to resign as clerk. Their issues: 1) My leadership of a Bible study that was not approved by session (I had asked Pastor Helen if this had to go before Session, and she assured me that because we were reconvening after a summer break, we would not need session approval to do so). 2) My lack of unity (I was not about to unite in denying the deity of our Lord and Savior). But I had thought that Pastor Helen and I had come to agreement to be able to disagree with each other. But, as her covenant statement affirmed, she was going "to make positive changes in leadership." One of the elders said, "You may want to resign as elder, and you may even want to consider giving up your membership – after all you do have your children to think about." I knew that I could stay in there and fight, but I don't think church should be about fighting. I'd rather worship and praise the Lord Jesus, for whom I took a vow to all who could hear at worship that (G-14.0207a) "I would trust in Jesus Christ as my Savior ..." Here are some of the quotes from my fellow elders during all of this:
I did stay on until the tri-board meeting where Rev. Dekker told the leadership of the church that "the Nicene Creed is still being revised" and "is an unfinished piece of work;" that "the Apostle's Creed is like poetry and that we don't even know what we are saying when we say it;" and that the Westminester Confession is "whatever God happens to be saying to you at the time." It was then that God told me to renounce jurisdiction. I read in The Layman article that she has helped Haddon Heights Church rewrite its Mission Statement already. "It is a little different from what we are used to" was a quote from the unnamed woman from the committee on ministry at Haddon Heights. I ask you to remember the frog in the pan of water theory. As I said before, I do not believe that church and worship should be a fight. But I do respect all of you who are fighting to keep Christ in the PCUSA. I will continue to pray for PCUSA, the Confessing Church Movement, all you "believing fighters," as well as Rev. Dekker and Haddon Heights Presbyterian Church. Also please join me in praying for the healing and rebuilding of the First Presbyterian Church in Batavia, N.Y., that is still necessary. Steven Clemm Former clerk of session First Presbyterian Church Batavia, N.Y. Layman 'distorted' news about minister December 17, 2002 I sometimes find it difficult to believe we are brothers and sisters in the same community of faith that acknowledges Jesus Christ as Lord. Your continued distortion of the "news" in the church and your bold headlines (eg. "Presbytery welcomes unbeliever as minister") that attack honest theological debate about critical issues that affect our discipleship. You have attacked our church for over 25 years, and have enlisted the support of many who wring their hands after reading your distorted accounts of "what's happening." Then you are dismayed that the church is in such sad shape. What have you contributed to the "peace, purity and unity of our church?" You have interpreted the "success" of the church in terms of its size and wealth – which is difficult to defend biblically. I believe I am your brother in Christ, yet you have labeled me as "apostate" and unfaithful to my Lord because I don't agree with some of what you have written. Your unhappiness with our church has created as many problems during the years of my ministry as you have wished to "reform." The "loyal opposition" needs another voice. Or at least a rest. Bob McQuilkin Frankfort, Mich. Confessions, Capetz hard to reconcile December 17, 2002 Professor Paul Capetz pleads that he was misrepresented. He claims that he is guilty of no heresy as heresy is seen in The Book of Confessions. I am willing to believe him. However, I have trouble reconciling some of the things he claimed with the Westminster Confession, which is found in the PCUSA's Book of Confessions. For example, according to the Westminster Confession, Jesus is without sin (WCF, Chapter Eight, Paragraph 2). However, according to Paul Capetz, Jesus was at one point in his life an ethnocentrist who coldly refused a Syro-Phoenician woman's request for healing and tried to dismiss her with an insult but received "correction" from her by being bested in an argument. Is this possible for one who is without sin? Returning to the Westminster Confession, I see that it also claims that, "The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of himself, which he, through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father; and purchased, not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him." (WCF, Chapter Eight, Paragraph 5). Paul Capetz, by contrast, said a great deal about Jesus' death, but nothing like this, surely a surprising omission from an orthodox man. What he does claim about the atonement is that we must understand what the early church taught about it in its cultural context and that Jesus' death is a sacrifice in the sense that Martin Luther King's was a sacrifice. Would Professor Capetz be willing to clarify his statements on these two issues? Would he also be willing to state unequivocally that Jesus, though fully human, was without any sin and that his death truly was a sacrifice, a propitiation for the sins of men, not in the eyes of first and second century Christians only, but in the eyes of God? David C. Spor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church Welcome, French Confession December 17, 2002 I am glad to see that the French Confession sent to all Presbyteries for study five or more years ago and for which instructions were given for a report to be made has finally come to your attention. I agree it certainly belongs in our Book of Confessions. I am an elder and member of Fredonia Church and an elected member of Council of the Presbytery of Shenango. John W. King Per capita: 'free will offerings?' December 17, 2002 This [policy of the Presbytery of Scioto Valley requiring per-capita payments] sounds like a repeat of the Independent Board debates in the 1930s. As far as church history is concerned, especially giving to foreign missions, see the plan of union of the Old School/New School in 1869-70, and with the Calvinistic Methodists in 1920. Especially the latter speaks of missions as "free will offerings." D. Clair Davis Professor of church history Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia, Pa. Normal procedure wasn't followed December 17, 2002 Your articles about Carmen Fowler and the Presbyterian Coalition have a yellow tinge to them. Had this issue ever been submitted to presbytery in a normal and proper way, everything might have gone better. The Rev. Howard Edington preferred to ignore their suggestions and bull it through and was refused. Edington is having trouble at his own church for the same tactics there. Ron Strickler Just one more leadership disappointment December 17, 2002 How pathetic can one denomination be? Our leadership in Louisville thinks that is an appropriate site [ticket sales for The Vagina Monologues] with which to link? No wonder we are losing 30,000 members annually -- there is no distinct difference between the standard of the world and the leadership of the PCUSA. The Muslims are right when they call us "sinners" and "evil." And one more leadership disappointment is heaped upon the pile. David Huusko It's time to say enough is enough December 12, 2002 When I finished reading Parker Williamson's fine assessment of "the naked truth" about the Covenant Network, then I read the "Statement of Compliance with G-6.0106b of the PC(USA) Book of Order" issued by Christ Church of Burlington, Vt., and saw before my very eyes a prime example of exactly what Mr. Williamson had written to be the case. In essence the session of Christ Church has declared: "Concerning homosexual behavior and ordination, we know what God has said in Holy Scripture, we have heard what our Book of Order and Confessions say, we have listened to what our Church has voted on, affirmed, and ruled. But we don't care. We will declare we are in compliance and will do what we want to anyway. And too bad if you don't like it." My considered response is that it's time for God's people to say, "Enough is enough." Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Church Canton, Ohio Defiant churches should be expelled December 12, 2002 I sincerely believe that those Presbyterian churches that openly defy the Presbyterian Constitution should be expelled from the Presbyterian denomination and legally forced to drop the name "Presbyterian" from their church's affiliation. Obviously, if they feel they cannot comply with our constitution, or attempt to get around it with obtuse language, they should not be allowed to call themselves Presbyterians. This gives the Presbyterian Church a bad name to have gays openly in control of certain Presbyterian churches. When this happens, people will naturally associate "Presbyterian" with "gay." Since Amendment 01-A was defeated 3-1, it should be evident that the majority of Presbyterians across the USA do not want homosexuals in control. If the people supporting this gay lifestyle will only look deeply at the crisis the Roman Catholic Church is in today, they surely would see that gays should never be in a position of authority whereby they can influence or come in contact with children or teenagers. Lona McArdle Second Presbyterian Church Newark, Ohio Choose Jesus over the culture December 12, 2002 For some years now I've received The Layman and rejoice in reading articles and news not available anywhere else. And this is especially the case with the current issue that I received this afternoon. I refer to the article titled "Deep faith, commitment help describe Bob Fish," especially the line in the article as follows: "Some of our national church leaders become so accommodating to the cultural trends that they wish to fit the trends." This line impressed me, for I preached a sermon last Sunday on the subject, "Whose Side Are You On?" That is, to put it briefly, the church is being challenged whether we should cave in to modern culture or hold on to our faith in Jesus Christ. In reading Revelation 2:12-17, the church at Pergamum in its day and time was facing the identical challenge. That is, shall we bow to Balaam and the Nicolaitans or uphold faith in the Messiah. The Presbyterian Church (USA) is facing – and has been facing – this very issue. All I can say is "Praise the Lord" for men like Bob Fish. Rev. Herman Dam 1207 Virginia Avenue Murfreesboro, Tenn. Leadership in the wrong direction December 12, 2002 Maybe we're being too hard on Stated Clerk Kirkpatrick in regard to his leadership. He is leading (in a rather passive-aggressive way), but he's leading the denomination away from what many of us see as the basic tenets of the Bible. While he can't publicly declare this, his actions (or lack there of) speak for themselves. I don't think it's possible to get him to enforce policies he doesn't agree with, much as we might wish he would. Rev. Kevin Jennings Taylor Ridge, Ill. Article about unbelieving minister brings sadness December 12, 2002 My heart dropped and tears came to my eyes when I started reading "Presbytery welcomes unbeliever as minister." As I read the article, I could not believe that the Rev Graeme Veitch would endorse Ms. Dekker as an interim minister. For her to deny the "idea" that Jesus died to save us from our sins is to deny the gospel. The entire Bible points to Jesus, my Christ, Lord and Savior, coming to earth, born of a virgin, to suffer for my sins, be placed in a tomb, be victorious over Hell and rise again in three days. How can a minister, who does not believe in the gospel lead a congregation to the truth? (Remember, Pilate asked, "What is Truth?") How can Mr. John Nurnberger welcome her as a minister? I understand that if she were a non-believer entering a church for the first time how he would extend a hand of welcome to her. To accept her, however, as a minister is tantamount to sacrilege! The church is the Christ's bride. There are no unbelievers in Christ's church. Has the book of Titus been torn from text? Does Paul's ministry or example mean nothing? Her example teaches there is another way. What did Paul say about anyone or angel who should come down and teach another gospel? Have people put aside the Bible in favor of a kinder, gentler, and backboneless concept of not offending. I am not judging her. I only speak what I have learned and experienced through God's grace. Ms. Dekker speaks of God's love. It was love (agape) that sent Christ Jesus to die for our sins. It is also love that the parent disciplines a child. To quote Ms. Dekker, "… brought me under the wings of God's love" is an important point. But there is more to God's love that He requires. Whether Ms. Dekker is an interim minister or serves as any official in the church, there needs to be a rectifying of Ms. Dekker's position in the church until she accepts and believes in the gospel she is suppose to profess. I pray for Ms. Dekker and Mr. Nurnberger, that they will discover by reading and studying and find the truth. For the trees are blooming and the end is near. Sincerely, Riduan Dunia Apple Valley, Calif. |
|
| December
letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |