letters: March 2002 letters


FEEDBACK

March 2002 letters For mission money, close Washington office March 28, 2002 Want to find some more money for overseas missions? Shut down the Washington office of the church. We don't need a full-time lobbyist in Washington. The church needs Washington contacts for only two reasons: 1. To scrutinize new legislation for changes that would directly affect the church's mission, or finances. These changes are predominantly tax law related – either to deductibility of donations; foundation or trust taxation; or personal income tax changes that would affect the income of ministers and related staff. Surely, we can find a Presbyterian accountant or tax attorney who would volunteer to follow these developments. Besides, these issues are common to most religious denominations and we can consult with the Washington offices of those other churches. 2. To provide information on other pending legislation of interest to members. We have the Internet for that. This church should not be sacrificing missions for political activism at home. Tom Taggart Athens, Ohio Thorough examination of candidates needed March 28, 2002 I completely agree with Joe Rutherford on the need for exhaustive examination of all candidates for ordination or installation. The examining bodies must be satisfied as to Biblical and doctrinal orthodoxy. Do these candidates truly believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of the Living God, infallible in matters of faith? Have they put their trust in Jesus Christ as their only hope of salvation, acknowledging that they are sinners and cannot by their own merits achieve salvation? Do their personal lives reflect the righteous standards of personal behaviour outlined in I Timothy 3: 1-12? Will they swear to uphold the Constitution of our Church and be guided by the Book of Order? And, if they cannot in good conscience do so, then depart and leave us in peace? We need to examine our candidates for ordination as ministers of Word and Sacrament to discern their depth of theological knowledge and commitment to Calvinist doctrines. We must ask if candidates believe that we all are totally depraved slaves to our sinful nature. Do they subscribe to unconditional election to salvation and acknowledge that faith comes by God's grace alone? Do they accept the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement whereby God brings totally depraved but unconditionally elected individuals to himself without violating his own inexorable holiness? Do they believe that divine grace is irresistible, mercifully changing the depraved soul? Finally, do our candidates for ordination believe that God's purpose would fail if even one of Christ's sheep were not brought and kept within the fold and that our persevering can only be accomplished through God's perseverance? That's Calvinism and we are Presbyterians. To be sure, one does not have to be a Calvinist to be a Christian. To be saved, one must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Son of the Living God and accept Him as Lord and Savior through repentance and faith. Do I expect to see Arminians in heaven? Yes I do. I simply do not want them in our pulpits and on our sessions – or for that matter – in our congregations other than as guests. Accordingly, classes we conduct for new members should focus on what it means to be a Christian, what it means to be Reformed, what Presbyterians believe and what the Church is all about. We can be inclusive in matters of race, color or "worldly condition" – but not our creed. A theologically and doctrinally healthy membership will provide a pool from which to draw solid candidates for ordination and service to the church. "Unity in Diversity" is an oxymoronic concept, one inappropriate to any belief system and foolish to its core. A number of years ago, one of my pastors in a large congregation in Montgomery, Ala., left for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. He told me his examination for ordination in the EPC was exciting – filled with questions about theology, his understanding of Scripture, church history and doctrine. He compared it to his examination for ordination in the PCUSA some years before when a central issue concerned how he felt about gender-neutral language. This denomination had better get serious about what we believe and whose we are, or the PCUSA will continue its current devolution into little more than a Sunday-morning liberal social club. Earl H. Tilford Jr. East Main Presbyterian Church Grove City, Pa. Clerk's letters represented one-sided view March 28, 2002 I am writing this note to The Layman because the PCUSA itself is not interested. Briefly, I am bewildered by the letters sent by Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk, on PCUSA letterhead, to the president of the U.S. and the prime minister of Israel during the recent intifada protesting the use of force by Israel in Palestine. I don't understand why Kirkpatrick sends such letters to these two heads of state, but none to those in charge of the many other countries that are much more violent, murderous and repressive than either the U.S. or Israel. No letters to the PLO, Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Cuba, Iran, Libya, Syria, or even to Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. I have come to the sobering realization that these letters, the lack of others, and the unwillingness of the PCUSA hierarchy to address the issue can only mean that the stated clerk and/or those he represents in the PCUSA are fundamentally anti-Semitic. This is a real problem and has devastated my confidence in the PCUSA. Evan Janovitz Divorce has its victims, not advocates March 28, 2002 Mr. Leon K. Aulberts of Oswego writes a passionate letter trying to equate the position of divorced "infidelity" to the infidelity of homosexuals. I struggled with this problem for many years until I realized the following: I have never met a divorced person who believed that divorce was a good and acceptable practice per se. I have never met a divorced person who said "yes I was divorced, I believe in divorce, and I am going to keep right on divorcing as long and as often as I want." I have never met a divorced person who felt it should be taught in school that divorcing was an approved and honorable alternate to committed marriage. I have seldom met a divorced person who did not feel that the divorce was a regrettable necessity, not a worthy option. In fact, I know few who would not freely confess that it was a sin, and one they repented of. Most of all I have never heard of a divorced candidate for ordination who was happy to advocate divorce, and repeated divorce, as a practice acceptable to God. All of us, ordained or lay, are sinners. The disqualifying nature of the "Unrepentant, practicing homosexual" is the avowed intent to continue in the sinful practice and/or the denial of the sin itself. Dick Underwood Urbana, Ill. Which is worse – schism or heresy? March 28, 2002 After reading several of the news articles on The Layman Web site, I must ask the question: Which is more tolerable, heresy or schism? J. C. Ryle had an insightful statement to make on this issue: "Divisions and separation are most objectionable in religion. They weaken the cause of true Christianity. ... But before we blame people for them, we must be careful that we lay the blame where it is most deserved. False doctrine and heresy are even worse than schism. If people separate themselves from teaching which is positively false and unscriptural, they ought to be praised rather than reproved. In such cases, separation is a virtue and not a sin... The old saying must never be forgotten, 'He is the schismatic who causes the schism'... Controversy in religion is a hateful thing... But there is one thing which is even worse than controversy, and that is false doctrine, allowed, and permitted without protest or molestation." Warnings to the Churches (London: Banner of Truth, 1967), p. 109-110; quoted in Murray, Iain, Evangelicalism Divided (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), p. 141; emphasis in original. I am longing for a return to a Biblical inerrancy and authority. Philip Sheppard, inquirer Beaufort, S.C. Church emphasizes gay-lesbian Christians March 28, 2002 I picked up a brochure from First and Central Presbyterian Church in Wilmington, Del. One whole panel of the trifold brochure is devoted to "Gay and Lesbian Christians." One of the blurbs is as follows: Services of Commitment / First and Central Church celebrates holy unions and services of commitment for same sex couples. Another blurb: A large Gay and Lesbian Community / At First and Central, gay and lesbian people are engaged in every aspect of the church's life. You can be, too. When the church's former pastor died a few years ago, the obituary in the local paper said, "He is survived by his former wife (name) and son (name) and his life partner Julian." My comment to my wife was "I would far sooner join the Roman Catholic Church than be a Presbyterian at First and Central." May God have mercy on the PCUSA, a great reformation of doctrine and life is long overdue! Rev. Edd Cathey Wilmington, Del. Bracketed comments were unnecessary March 28, 2002 While I frequently find myself theologically and personally in disagreement with many of the positions of The Layman, I subscribe to the concept of generosity of heart and hospitality that continues to see us all as sisters and brothers in Christ. So, even when we are in opposition, respecting the journalistic integrity of a quote, for example, just seems to be fair and responsible. For that reason, I was disappointed by Mr. Adams' need to add a bracketed clarification in quoting the Anaconda resolution, referring to the "group of people" as [practicing homosexuals and adulterers]. This was unnecessary and uncharacteristic of what I believe to be your general journalistic standards. The fact that I disagree with his assessment and agree with the Anaconda position is beside the point. Ray Bagnuolo White Plains, N.Y. Since when is 3-1 a 'narrow majority?' March 28, 2002 The Anaconda Presbyterian Church's letter referred to "a narrow majority" who opposed the ordaining of homosexuals and blessing of homosexual marriages. I would hardly call a 3 to 1 defeat a "narrow" majority. Jack Kime Illinois Officers are called to a higher standard March 28, 2002 The Rev. Paul Peterson [the executive of the Yellowstone Presbytery and pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Anaconda, Mont.] says "categorically denying a group of people the right to hold office ... creates a two-tier system of membership" as though that would be unnecessarily divisive. My understanding of St. Paul's instruction to the church is that ordained leadership is called to a higher standard of character and ability that not every member will be able to meet. Further, ministers and elders take a solemn vow to receive and adopt constitutional standards of Reformed doctrine and practice, again a "tighter" criterion than is required for membership. My first Presbyterian church was an OPC congregation that expected full subscription to the Westminster Confession as a test of membership, and I'm sure that's not where Rev. Peterson wants to go. So, by necessity, those eligible for ordained leadership will always be a smaller "tier" or "circle" than the general membership. As a PCA ruling elder investigating affiliation with the PCUSA, I commend all of the leaders and members who have affirmed their stand for the Reformed truth and Presbyterian heritage by joining the Confessing Church movement. This past Monday night the Session of the PCUSA church that we have been attending adopted a Confessing Church resolution, which is a real encouragement to my wife and me as we as work though a decision to join this wonderful congregation. God bless all of you for the courage of your convictions to stand for what is right in the face of whatever opposition Satan will surely continue to stir up. Will Billings Lebanon, Ohio Will officers enforce the constitution? March 28, 2002 I can only imagine what sort of vote-counting the Yellowstone Presbytery has been subjected to if their executive presbyter views the affirmation of the Book of Order as having come about through a "narrow majority." Perhaps the only good news in his statement is that there are finally churches on the liberal side of the denomination willing to put their defiance out into public view. Now comes the test: Will the denomination's officers enforce the constitution or will they blink? Of course this could all be avoided if those who disagree with the provisions of the Book of Order would "peaceably withdraw." Donald D. Denton Jr., D.Min. Richmond, Va. What part of 'no' is not understood? March 28, 2002 As Ronald Reagan used to say, "There you go again." What part of "no" do people in some of our churches not understand? Our denomination has decided not to ordain practicing, non-celibate homosexuals and sexually-active unmarried heterosexuals. We have decided this again and again. There are parts of The Constitution I may not like – but I have sworn in my ordination vows to uphold it in its entireity. As to First Church, Anaconda, Mont., specifically, my recollection from the stated clerk of the General Assembly office is: One can pass all sorts of resolutions and statements provided ones does not act upon any of them in such a way as to violate the constitution. Fine. But if one crosses the line and does something openly and defiantly against the rules, discipline may follow. I agree with your assessment: Where does this put the executive who also is the church's co-pastor? By apparently encouraging a church in his presbytery to make such a statement – which can legitimately be made – is he violating his ordination vow to uphold the peace, unity and purity of the church, even though the congregation has not yet [apparently] actually ordained an ineligible person? And, also as you point out, how can one be wearing two hats in this kind of situation when, as a presbytery executive, he may be involved in a judicial process? Let us hope he also is not Yellowstone Presbytery's stated clerk! Dr. Stephen H. Janssen, pastor Eastminster Presbyterian Church Marietta, Ga. When will the Norcrest Commission move on? March 22, 2002 The Findlay Evangelical Presbyterian Church is an exciting congregation. We have now moved from the Humane Society to a local elementary school to provide the needed Sunday school space. All programs are in full swing, attendance has increased (average approximately 450 weekly), and the congregation has been officially accepted by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. These are exciting times for us. We praise and thank our awesome God and look to the future he has in store for us. It appears as if Rev. Doug Nagel and the Norcrest Commission are struggling to forgive and move on. Recently, the open letter written to The Layman Online and read at the Feb. 5 Maumee Valley Presbytery meeting was sent to the former members of Norcrest who are now at the Findlay EPC. It is old news and what purpose does it serve except to be vindictive? Rev. Doug Nagel's letter is another sad chapter in the heavy-handed handling of the Norcrest Presbyterian Church and Pastor Borsay. His letter seems to be the Maumee Valley Presbytery's effort to demonize Pastor Borsay and the former members of the Norcrest Church by distortion and misinformation. As a former elder of the Norcrest congregation and now an elder of the Findlay EPC, I must respond with the facts. Fact 1 – The real issue is Jesus. The real issue is Jesus and who do you say he is. Pastor Ben, the session and the majority of the congregation could not stay in a denomination who calls Jesus only "unique" and not the one and only savior and Lord. We make no judgments on the individuals or churches who want to stay in the PCUSA and continue to fight for renewal within the denomination. Our hope and prayers are with you for success. Fact 2 – There was no emergency situation in the Norcrest Church. Many of Rev. Nagel's accusations are based on two listening sessions with the Norcrest congregation. He writes, "These conversations taken together seem to indicate a pattern of misinformation and partial information directed toward a desired outcome when the congregational vote was taken." Fifteen people out of a membership of 417 attended those sessions. In other words, the expressed concerns of less than 4 percent of the congregation led the "Norcrest Administrative Commission to a unanimous conclusion that this was a clearly developing emergency situation that called for immediate, quick and decisive action." A timeline helps to understand the questionable nature of their actions. The listening sessions occurred on Jan. 6 and 13. The Norcrest Administrative Commission (NAC) declined an invitation to meet with the Norcrest Session on Jan.13 following the last listening session appointment to discuss any issues or questions. On Jan. 15, the NAC reported to the Maumee Valley Presbytery: "The Norcrest Administrative Commission is not recommending any action by the presbytery at this time. We are still assessing the situation and considering our options. We anticipate bringing recommendations for actions to the March presbytery meeting." On Jan. 18, the NAC recommended to the Committee on Ministry to take emergency action. On Jan. 21, Pastor Borsay was suspended in the formal sense, fired in the practical sense. An explanation of what happened in those three days to elevate the situation to an "emergency" remains a mystery. Fact 3 – The overwhelming majority of the Norcrest congregation was in favor of leaving the denomination. Rev. Nagel writes that "there are major misconceptions regarding the vote on Dec. 2, 2001." He argues that the 19 no votes plus the 187 who did not vote constitute a majority who desire to stay. The actual vote was 209 - 19 in favor of separation. The Norcrest elders reviewed the 187 who did not vote and placed them in categories such as moved but never transferred, active in another church, students and younger members who are out of state, folks who are ill or shut-in, etc. The Norcrest Administrative Committee was informed of our review. They chose to ignore the real picture. The real picture, however, was evident, on the first Sunday after Pastor Borsay was "locked" out: 517 people worshipped with him while a handful of members remained at Norcrest. Fact 4 – The Norcrest Church was open in its communications. All of the congregational discussions and informational sessions held by the Norcrest Church leadership were public and open. Contrary to Rev. Nagel's letter, a member of the NAC received all congregational correspondence, church newsletters and even attended the congregational discussion session held in the summer of 2001. Our request for dismissal should not have been a surprise to the NAC or the presbytery. It should also be noted that the NAC took action without ever meeting with the Norcrest session. Several invitations were declined. Fact 5 – The Book of Order does not empower the Committee on Ministry to unilaterally dissolve the pastoral relationship with a local congregation. The Book of Order provisions cited by Rev. Nagel are either the express responsibility of the presbytery or subject to working with the congregation and/or the session. Neither the congregation nor the session was party to the COM's action. And the presbytery was asked to act on what was done only after the deed. The Norcrest session asked Rev. Nagel, who was acting as moderator at their Jan. 22 meeting, to explain the COM's action. His only explanations were using G-11.05.02i and the opinion that the church was in "schism". His other supporting "evidence" cited in his letter was not communicated to the session. Moreover, Pastor Borsay's "trial" and "removal" was conducted without any adherence to the Book of Discipline, in particular the right of due process. Fact 6 – Pastor Borsay was not responsible for a list of "after the event" deeds. Rev. Nagel's discussion of missing files, etc. is blatantly prejudiced and irrelevant to what actually transpired. Fact 7 – Pastor Borsay was never informed of other allegations brought up by Rev. Nagel. For example, the lack of recorded infant baptisms was never a charge brought to the attention of Pastor Borsay. That and other allegations were not heard until the Feb. 5 meeting of presbytery. Fact 8 – The Maumee Valley Presbytery's treatment of Pastor Borsay was cold, contemptuous and punitive. Rev. Nagel states that the "COM and the presbytery have not sought to be punitive toward Mr. Borsay." On Jan. 21, 2002, Pastor Borsay was publicly humiliated by having his personal belongings packed up by the COM and loaded on a van, while his keys were taken and he was declared a trespasser if he would return to the property. Since that date, no one from the presbytery has even in an official capacity spoken to Pastor Borsay as to his personal welfare or the welfare of his family. No one has advised him of his status. No one has spoken to him as to his income or benefits or rights. At the Feb. 5 meeting of the Maumee Valley Presbytery, no officer of the presbyter was even prepared to speak with authority as to Pastor Borsay's continuing relation to the presbytery, including vacation pay, continuing education pay, severance benefits, insurance, pension, etc. After the vote to dissolve Pastor Borsay's relationship to the Norcrest Church, he walked out of the building knowing very little about the presbytery's intentions in the future. It has since been learned that even his earned vacation pay has been denied. In addition, after the Norcrest session resigned in writing, they received a letter stating that their office, ordination and membership had been revoked effective prior to their resignation. I would hate to see the Muamee Valley Presbytery in punitive mode. Fact 9 – The Bureaucracy comes first. Throughout the entire process I have observed a tragic display of politics and power aimed at the preservation of the bureaucratic union of the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. One may argue that the issue is not theological, that it's not a matter of evangelical versus liberal. The truth is Norcrest and Pastor Borsay went through fire because of strong biblical convictions, so strong that we felt the Holy Spirit leading us out of the denomination. Many liberal pastors and churches are denominational loyalists because they are able to openly defy the constitutional standards, the Book of Order and the Scriptures. While the Presbyterian Church (USA) bends over backwards to accommodate and tolerate what is truly a clear and present danger to the denomination and the Body of Christ. Meanwhile a pastor and congregation are hammered and nailed because they peacefully, decently and in order asked to be dismissed to another reformed body. I pray that the healing can begin and there are no further negative actions taken by the Maumee Valley Presbytery towards the Findlay Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I hope that there are no more reasons to compel me to write another letter regarding this matter. I urge Rev. Doug Nagel and the Norcrest Commission to concentrate their efforts on the needs of the small group remaining at Norcrest Presbyterian Church. Greg Jewett Elder Findlay Evangelical Presbyterian Church Findlay, Ohio Why not divert money to missions? March 22, 2002 Do you know how much money could be diverted to World Missions if the Washington Office and contributions to the World Council were stopped? The article was very disturbing. Ray Welch Jasper, Ga. PCUSA should increase money for missions March 22, 2002 Jesus said, "Go, make disciples." It has been the Presbyterians taking the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the world, and the same must continue. Rather than cut back, the PCUSA should increase the funding and the number of future missionaries. The PCUSA should examine what is being taught in their seminaries and put in place missions programs in the seminaries to continue the tradition of evangelizing the world. It is not that hard to figure out. Louis S. Nowasielski Go into all the world and spread confusion? March 22, 2002 Why would a Church which cannot make a statement to affirm the lordship of Christ or make a stand on the authority of Scripture and will not enforce its own constitution send missionaries anywhere? What would they say and do? Perhaps they could share their feelings and teach others how to shrug their shoulders. Why would a Christian want to be sent to represent such a church? Is there a need to go into all the world to spread confusion? Save your money for the lawyers! Ron Lane Lilburn, Ga. Anticipated loss of members alarming March 22, 2002 I am alarmed at the number of members Presbyterian leaders say we will lose this year: 45,000. While we lose the equivalent of a major congregation a week, the stated clerk writes a letter to a rogue congregation, in the most sufferable terms, praising them for fulfilling their mission to gays and lesbians. When the Word of God is preached and homosexuals are brought to their knees in repentance, then the Church is fulfilling its proper mission toward homosexuals. How can Clifton Kirkpatrick and Jack Rogers face themselves? Blame themselves? I doubt it. They would prefer to blame the "divisive" elements in the church who believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, that the Bible is the complete and authoritative Word of God and that we ought to live righteous lives in conformity to Scripture. May I recommend immediate resignation as an honorable way to admit failure. Earl H. Tilford Jr. East Main Presbyterian Church Grove City, Pa. G-6.106b applies to heterosexuals, too March 22, 2002 Now that G-6.0106b has so overwhelmingly been affirmed, it's time for policy to become practice. We've heard much about the implications of this Book of Order ordination standard on practicing homosexuals. For practicing homosexuals, a line in the sand has been boldly drawn. Meanwhile, here in the hinterland, what I haven't heard being addressed are in implications of G-6.0106b on the myriad of divorced and remarried church officers who are daily failing to live "in fidelity within the covenant of marriage," see Luke 16:18. Over the years, we Presbyterians have been ordaining and installing these "unfaithful" heterosexuals. Where has the outcry been against this "disobedience to Scripture" and the rampant flaunting of our "historic standards?" Where has been the zeal exhibited by those concerned about "ordaining and/or installing" practicing homosexuals when it comes to "ordaining and/or installing" "unfaithful" divorced/remarried persons? I would assume divorced/remarried officers far outnumber those who are practicing homosexuals who are seeking ordination/installation. Where has been the zeal in our publications to discuss Scriptural/historic confessional standards position on the epidemic of "unfaithful" divorced/remarried persons who are our current church officers? G-6.0106b is more than an article addressed just to practicing homosexuals. This article deals with every aspect of holiness in the lives of our church officers. For a denomination, which states that discipline is the third mark of the true church, we have become very selective of our targets for censure. Now that we've focused so strongly on "man and woman" in G-6.0106b, it's time for us to address the rest of the standard and for church officers to be judged for all aspects of their Christian walk. "In obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic standards of the church" where else do we draw our lines in the sand? Leon K. Aalberts Oswego, Ill. Session members have broken their vows March 14, 2002 It would appear to me that the session of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati has taken a bold, but inappropriate, stance on ordination standards. By directing statements to the stated clerk that indicate that they as a body refuse to be governed by the Presbyterian Church's polity, they have openly broken their ordination vows. The session members, in effect, have declared that the confessions and the Book of Order are not applicable standards for faith and practice at Mount Auburn. If the presbytery determines that the session of Mount Auburn has, in fact, renounced the authority of the Presbyterian Church (USA), then the presbytery will be obligated to take further action. Some of the possibilities include appointing an administrative commission to determine whether or not Mount Auburn will remain a viable Presbyterian Church and bringing charges against the members of session and the pastor, which could result in dismissal or sweeping the matter under the rug and refusing to look at it. Since the session members of Mount Auburn have chosen to draw attention to themselves through their public pronouncements, I wonder whether they are setting up a test case for the PJC. The reason for my concern stems from the Churches United in Christ agreement that went into effect Jan. 1 of this year. In that document all member churches agree to recognize the ordination of ministers of all the other members. As at least one of the member churches will ordain practicing homosexuals as ministers, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is in the position of having conflicting standards. We cannot uphold the ordination of a gay man in another denomination and affirm that ordination by permitting him to be a pulpit supply for one of our churches while denying like individuals ordination in the PCUSA. To do so is to create a double standard that becomes no standard at all. I suspect that the statements Mount Auburn published on Feb. 27 and Feb. 27 were written several months ago. Those statements were then held until the vote on Amendment A was official. I believe that the session members at Mount Auburn hopes that the PJC will rule G-6.0106b unconstitutional and render it nonbinding in order to preserve the CUiC agreement. On the other hand, I hope that the PJC will rule that the CUiC agreement does not supersede the Book of Order and that we are not required to recognize the ordination of persons inelligible for under our polity. Jim Coone Belfast, Tenn. Are born-again Christians 'significantly' different, too? March 14, 2002 The Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church statement of dissent did leave me with just one question that I am certain its elders have already addressed in an inclusive manner. They said, "the session counsels present and future nominating committees at Mount Auburn to provide fair representation as well ... in other areas of significant human difference." So, just how many conservative, orthodox, evangelical, Bible-believing elders and deacons have they nominated and/or elected to serve since the policy has been in force? After all, being "born again" must certainly qualify as an area of "significant human difference." Rev. Bill Pawson Pembroke Pines, Fla. Mount Auburn session throws down the gauntlet March 14, 2002 Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati has thrown down the gauntlet, and now it's time for the PCUSA to put up or shut up. The denomination's response to Mount Auburn's challenge will show if the vote in favor of Scriptural morality and chastity is of any real effect or was a symbolic sop thrown to Evangelicals. Watch carefully – if the leadership fails to act, evangelicals in the PCUSA should vote again, this time with their feet. Robinson W. Mitchell Unless he acts, clerk should face ouster March 14, 2002 Let's face it, if Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick refuses to take any action against the session of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church, he is not fulfilling his constitutional duty to defend and uphold the constitution. He should then be summarily removed from office and punitive action be instituted against him. Dick Lewis, elder Loves Park, Ill. Penalizing the faithful and ignoring the defiant March 14, 2002 We live in an age of contradiction and hypocrisy in the PCUSA. The session of one church presents an amiable request for permission to transfer to another denomination and the pastor is locked out of his office and the session dissolved. Yet, another church directly defies the constitution, even flaunts its disobedience, and the presbytery either ignores the matter, attempts reconciliation or tries to change the constitution so that the rebellious can be considered law-abiding. John H. Pavelko Crossroads Presbyterian Church Walled Lake, Mich. Bravo for dissenting Mount Auburn Church March 14, 2002 What an empowering and refreshing breath of fresh air to revive our tired old church! I'm thrilled that the Holy Spirit still moves among us in such a powerful and courageous way. Bravo for Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church! And thank you, Layman Online, for such good news for a change! Maggie Ritchey Pittsburgh, Pa. Running the red light unless traffic's crossing March 14, 2002 Homosexual marriage is illegal in Ohio. So, they are going to require a license for heterosexual couples but not for homosexual couples? I take it these folks stop at red lights only when there is cross traffic? Tom Taggart Athens, Ohio Gifts from churches bankrolled tyrant March 14, 2002 I am very familiar with the financial aid given by the World Council of Churches to Mugabe when he was a guerilla fighter. When I asked the executive secretary of the United Church of Canada, his reply to me about 20 years ago was "It's like giving your child an allowance; you don't tell him what to do with it." If your monetary gifts are used to buy guns to kill other children of God, then I believe you are not doing God's work properly. My sister and her family lived in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, and she helped the native people there. I have of course visited her before the present tyrant took power. My givings to the work of God are very directed in their use and I have direct control over where money goes. This I do because of my experience with others making decisions, such as that made by the World Council of Churches about 20 years ago. Walter H. Beattie, M.D. Ontario, Canada More light on origin of name of camp March 14, 2002 It is correct that the name Lambec will not be found in the Bible, and even though the letters do match the Pennsylvania counties along the Ohio border, that is not quite the origin of the name (although close). The name came about in 1947 when the present property was acquired. It was the first initials of the presbyteries that the camp served. Those were Lake, Allegheny, Mercer, Beaver Valley, Butler, Cleveland and Caledonia. The camp served churches from Pittsburgh to Erie in Pennsylvania and from Cleveland, Ohio, to Rochester, N.Y. Today Camp Lambec, along with it's sister camp Westminster Highlands, is owned and operated by the Camping Association of the Presbyteries of Northwestern Pennsylvania (CAPNWP), and is an extension of the ministries of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in the presbyteries of Beaver/Butler, Lake Erie, Kiskiminetas and Shenango. Camp Lambec has served thousands of youth and families over the past 55 years (Westminster Highlands for 45 years) and we are proud to still use as their motto – 'To know Christ and make Him known." It has been a place to learn, study, reflect or make a joyful noise to our Lord. To learn more about our programs please visit our web site at www.capnwp.org. R. Mark Evans CAPNWP Board President Beaver Falls, Pa. Barmen is relevant to today's Confessing Church Movement March 4, 2002 It is about time that someone with authority spoke about the relevance of the Barmen Declaration for the Confessing Church Movement. I have believed this from the very beginning. James W. Anderson, H.R. We must get involved in the spiritual needs of congregations March 4, 2002 We must get involved. It is our job as elders to attend to the spiritual needs of our congregations. Trustees in our congregation have the duty of the financial issues and the building and grounds. If we don't take a stand on issues of this magnitude, then we are lukewarm and "will be spit out." It seems very simple to me, we must get involved – and our spiritual welfare and health in our churches is at stake. Lyndel Johnson Clerk of Session First Presbyterian Church Stapleton, Neb. Reformed theology still exists at Princeton March 4, 2002 As a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, I rejoice to read of Dr. Mauser's remarks, and to know that Princeton's roots in clear Reformation theology still exist. I have encountered ridicule when I compared the Confessing Church resolutions to the Barmen Declaration. I am admonished that nothing like the vicious anti-Jewish activity of the Nazi regime exists in today's church, so that no parallel exists. I am heartened and strengthened to find a colleague in Dr. Mauser, who understands that the threat to the church is not any kind of political regime, however evil, but rather is the infiltration of neo-pagan ideas and ideologies into the church itself. Rituals and liturgies addressed to other gods, or which remove Jesus Christ from his central and unique position as Savior and Lord of the church, must be challenged. In the Barmen Declaration, our church does challenge those practices. We need to pay heed to our confessions in this time of theological confusion. Ernest Williams Interim pastor First Presbyterian Church Kerrville, Texas Essentials give way to distinctives in ruling March 4, 2002 With all due respect to the authority of the Presbyterian Church (USA), I suppose if the General Assembly passed a resolution that said Jesus was only a man, then we would all be bound by that also. It is interesting to notice in the Book of Order that in describing the beliefs of the church, there is great detail as regarding Reformed distinctives, and less clarity as regards the essentials of Christianity in general, or Protestantism in particular. If, in our tradition, allegiance to something less than God; i.e., to worship the creature rather than the creator, is deemed to be idolatry, it seems to me that the PCUSA has decided that the church is to be worshipped rather than the God who may (or may not) have had something to do with causing it to be formed in the first place. Perhaps God is not as concerned with the "peace ... and unity" of the church as the persons ordained into the PCUSA are required to be. Of course, that's only my opinion and I could be wrong. Keith E. Johnston Berkeley, Calif. Theologian's remarks highlight the choices facing the church March 4, 2002 Mauser's comments highlight the choices facing Presbyterians (PCUSA): Reform the existing church, establish a separate denomination, individually join with a more conservative Presbyterian denomination, or leave the Presbyterian Church altogether. The most obvious best choice is to reform our own PCUSA. The question is whether this is possible in view of the entrenched ultra-liberal faction controlling the General Assembly offices. Establishing a separate denomination may have emotional appeal, but in the end serves to further fragment Presbyterianism. Individually joining a more conservative Presbyterian denomination leaves the PCUSA to those liberals and militant feminists who are in the process of destroying our church. Leaving Presbyterianism completely would serve the purpose of those same liberals. What is the answer? I wish I knew. Jack Kime Illinois Amendment A's defeat doesn't mean that the battle is over March 4, 2002 Amendment 01-A rightfully has been defeated by an overwhelming majority, and that should put the issue to rest, but don't hold your breath because the enemy of our souls will craft up another scheme to disrupt the true church of Jesus Christ. Remember Ephesian 6 about warfare and, in the meantime, rejoice in singing the Doxology: Praise God from whom all blessings flow, Praise Him all creatures here below, Praise Him above all Ye Heavenly Hosts, Praise FATHER, SON and HOLY GHOST. AMEN. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. PCUSA paralyzed with rules March 4, 2002 The PCUSA puts so much focus on its Book of Order and so little emphasis on the Bible, why? The heart of Jesus is and has always been people and love of fellow man. The PCUSA is paralyzed with rules regulations and doctrine. This year, I am moving my membership out of the PCUSA after 15 years. It breaks my heart to see the PCUSA in such a lost state. Jesus is Lord. There should not be any confusion on this. Somehow, I believe the PCUSA has lost its way. I sincerely hope it will find its way back while it still has members. With all the positive things to focus on, the PCUSA seems self-absorbed in its own dialog of rhetoric. George Bryan Church long ago jettisoned the confessions March 4, 2002 The fact that 16 percent of the membership of the PCUSA has seen fit to confess the faith in the three main tenets of the Confessing Church Movement, belies the fact that the confessions of The Book of Confessions had long before been jettisoned as just so much historical background and irrelevant theological past by the courts of the church. The confessions in The Book of Confessions already contain everything necessary to exclude unrepentant adulterers and practicing homosexuals from office. The confessions were already perfectly clear about the authority of the Bible and the only way of salvation in Christ. It seems odd that the PCUSA, which long ago adopted these orthodox confessions, are now having to say in effect: Of all the things we confess as faith we really, really, really believe these three! What is needed is a gradual, yet persistent purging of the church of all officers who do not actually hold to the confessions of faith in The Book of Confessions. Without this, you will either have to start a new Presbyterian Church with a very minimalist confession or join one of the other Presbyterian bodies such as the PCA, OPC, or EPC. If Confessing Church members of the PCUSA join one of these bodies without being willing to truly, honestly confess the historic confessions of Reformed and Presbyterian churches, they will simply be importing the leaven of their doctrinal weakness into these bodies. Rev. S. Edd Cathey Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church Wilmington, Del.
Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links