 |
|
FEEDBACK  |
|
 |
|
June 2002 letters A tale of two congregations and the constitution June 28, 2002 In response to the story, "Assembly requires no compliance to constitution," perhaps someone can help me understand how, in Ohio, two congregations struggle with their relationship to the PCUSA. One congregation, which is liberal, defies the constitution and is approached with a "pastoral" response, even as every one of its stands defy the constitution, creeds, the General Assembly Permanent Judicial Commission and Scripture – intentionally, willfully and defiantly. Another congregation, which is conservative, struggles to carry out its mission in this uncontrolled, chaotic atmosphere and, in its sheer frustration, seeks a Book of Order solution – a transfer to another Reformed body. Again, a prescription identified in the Book of Order, yet the pastor is removed and the church building and assets are seized. Is this the same "pastoral" response? It seems if we keep the covenant, we will be removed and prosecuted; and if we defy our covenant relationship, we will be cared for pastorally? Too bad our convictions require integrity in our affiliations. It clearly makes us a target of a politically powerful, but numerically miniscule minority, in the PCUSA. Perhaps it is time we pastorally look at how we direct all our funds – including per-capita – in the face of unfaithful leadership. The people of the PCUSA have the will and the ability empowered by God's Spirit to be a healthy, faithful community of servants of Jesus Christ, using our gifts and resources to win the lost and change the world. It is time we stopped asking for "permission" to pursue God's call on the PCUSA – part of God's Church – and start acting on it. Your session should ask this simple question: What is our vision for the life of our denomination and its future and how can we direct [and increase] our resources for that purpose. May God bless us as we serve him faithfully. Jim Conner Granger, Ind. The PCUSA is dead meat June 28, 2002 Dead Meat. That is the state of the present PCUSA. From the performance of the commissioners of the General Assembly, that is the condition of this pathetic, apostate, Satan-led franchise. Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou repent. … Revelation 2:5 There was absolutely no indication of any kind of repentance from the poor, pathetic liberals that dominate this "church." Dick Lewis Loves Park, Ill. Assembly's actions distort Christianity June 28, 2002 The 214th General Assembly's position on marriage, homosexuality, late-term abortions, the importance of mission relative to a curriculum that distorts basic Christianity, and its increasingly leftist-socialist drift have convinced me and my family that the Presbyterian Church (USA) no longer has a place for us. We will reluctantly and sorrowfully leave the PCUSA for a church that still remembers why it exists. We will pray for the PCUSA. Jack Kime Illinois Sanction of late-term abortions suppresses the truth June 28, 2002 This recent General Assembly's tragic sanction of late-term abortion brings to mind the image of "blind guides." To suggest that late-term abortion is ever necessary to "preserve a woman's health in circumstances of serious risk to the woman's health" demonstrates yet again the degree to which pro-abortion advocates will knowingly "suppress the truth" (Romans 1:18). It is now widely documented that such late-term abortions actually pose a greater risk to the health of the mother than delivery would. The blatantly distorted rationale offered by this Assembly turns the issue of fetal suffering on its head, and further illustrates that "those professing to be wise" have become "futile in their speculations" and darkened in their hearts (Romans 1:21). Not only does a late-term abortion procedure not "avoid fetal suffering," the grisly dismemberment itself perpetrates the most barbaric and inhumane suffering imaginable upon these vulnerable soon-to-be-born children. Jesus himself spoke against those who would "despise one of these little ones" and reminded us all that "their angels in heaven continually behold the face of my Father" (Matthew 18:10). Pediatric anesthesiologist Dr. Jean Wright testified before the General Assembly Committee on Health & Social Issues, and has documented the extreme levels of fetal pain experienced by these innocent little ones. Gratefully, the U.S. Congress will once again attempt to do what the Presbyterian Church USA will not as it introduces another ban on the gruesome, late-term abortion procedure known as partial-birth abortion. Recently introduced legislation now incorporates the compilation of documented medical evidence from the previous two congressional hearings on the subject. The weight of that evidence clearly reflects the overwhelming consensus of the medical community that "a partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health and lies outside the standard of medical care." This new legislation will correctly assert the independent constitutional authority of Congress as a legitimate "finder of fact" in its compilation of such evidence. Such medical evidence stands unequivocally against the bogus "health" exemption relied upon by the lower trial court in "Carhart." Regrettably, the U.S. Supreme Court was obligated to rely on the lower trial court's findings as the finder of fact in that case. What is more disheartening to Presbyterians of conscience, however, is how feverishly our assorted PCUSA entities embraced the "Carhart" decision in order to bolster their own radical, pro-abortion agenda. Scripture clearly admonishes those "holding to a form of godliness although they have denied its power" (2 Timothy 3:5). This assembly not only failed to speak a word of moral counsel to our culture, but itself stands indicted by the deluge of public opinion opposed to such an obviously barbaric procedure. Polling demonstrates that Americans overwhelmingly favor bans on such late-term abortion procedures, and regard them as obvious, fundamental violations of basic human decency. And "their folly will be obvious to all" (2 Timothy 3:9). Kathy Banaszak Liberty Township, Ohio Action on late-term abortions sickening June 28, 2002 Having been an observer in the Health and Social Issues Committee, I was totally sickened by the committee's action. The committee (as well as the General Assembly plenary) was informed on how late-term abortions were performed in great detail, they were told that babies in-utero feel pain five times greater then a baby after birth. They were told that, according to the Association of OB/GYNs, partial-birth abortions are never necessary, a C-section is safer for the mother, and the baby doesn't die. (How can one argue with that?) They heard from both women and men who have chosen to abort, and the pain that they have experienced because of it. I found it sad that the only people speaking about the unborn child were us pro-life "extremists." I would argue, who is the extremist? Those who aligned themselves as "pro-choice" never mentioned the unborn baby. They were treating the viable baby as a piece of furniture or a commodity that can be easily thrown away. It was heartbreaking. The other fact that needs to be mentioned is that the ACL wanted a loser policy so that they could attach briefs to cases going through the courts to state that we as the PCUSA support late-term abortion (it's already been tried, but failed because of the 1997 statement from the 209th General Assembly). Why hasn't this been talked more about in the open. ACSWP and the ACL don't speak for me. ACSWP was supposed to clarify our policy. However, they wrote a new policy. There have been statements made in 1992 and more recently in 1997. This new policy goes way beyond just interpretation. Read it for yourself. Statements such as to preserve the woman's health in circumstances of serious risk to the women's health? What does that mean? How much more broad can we make it? This includes mental issues such as depression. Fetal suffering – well, the pain they feel during partial-birth abortion certainly doesn't avoid suffering. And medical anomalies – this bothers me because we have to ask, for example, is spinal bifida considered a good reason to abort in late-term? What about a cleft pallet? What does "medical" mean. Doesn't this directly affect our future disabled brothers and sisters? When confronted with Scripture, it made no difference. It was all political. Neither the majority of the committee nor the majority of the General Assembly plenary was interested in what God has to say. I felt like I was in a secular government debate, not the church that Jesus said we were to be. We are to support and help women who find themselves in this situation, not advocate for the destruction of their children. We are now the first mainline denomination that says late-term/partial birth abortion is morally acceptable. How much farther can we go down the road of destruction? What's next? We need to get educated and involved. We truly need to get down on our knees and pray that God will deliver us from our arrogance and lack of respecting God's most precious creation, the unborn. Tara Savino Warrenville, Ill. Refusing to exercise discipline is left's new strategy June 25, 2002 The opponents of Biblical standards within our church (I can think of no diplomatic way of saying this) have apparently devised a new strategy. They cannot get their amendments passed, but they can thwart the exercise of church discipline with stonewalling and other passive resistant tactics. Your coverage of the General Assembly has abundantly supplied us with examples. There is no better way of destroying a church than to refuse to exercise church discipline (I Cor. 5). If we allow this to continue, we will rot from within. We must demand church discipline. If it is not carried out, we must pray fervently and we must take more drastic measures. Dare I say it, withholding funding from a national leadership that refuses to discipline. While they are focused on a new homeland for the Palestinians, they are allowing the homes of a portion of the Israel of God to go up in flames. We cannot allow this. Geoff Robinson Haddon Heights, N.J. Action on late-term abortions is unbelievable June 25, 2002 This is absolutely disgusting and unbelievable -- that any professing Christian or rational individual could possibly support a late-term abortion. I have two children, one was a preemie -- I cannot believe anyone would willfully murder a child -- I saw the heartbeat and at eight months she was fully functional. May God quickly judge any Presbyterian who supports the murder of an innocent child. May God have mercy on the Presbyterian Church and its tacit endorsement of the murder of children. Andrew McCaskill Black Mountain, N.C. |
|
| Page
2 of recent letters Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |