April 2003 letters to the editor Archives of letters to the editor

WCC panel's recommendations are suspect April 30, 2003 What kind of recommendation can we expect from a panel which is examining the World Council of Churches, when the stated clerk and one member of the panel are members of WCC's Central Committee? Why did not these two disqualify themselves from recommending on WCC support by the General Assembly, since they have a conflict of interest? I'm not commenting on the merits of their recommendation. I'm merely suggesting that the makeup of the panel makes any of its recommendations suspect. Rev. Ernest Williams Mission, Texas PCUSA should stop funding WCC and NCC April 30, 2003 So a denominational committee wants us to continue to affirm the World Council of Churches and send them major financial gifts to keep them afloat. I am not a commissioner to the General Assembly, but I know how I'd vote on that one if I were. If I were a commissioner, I think I'd make a motion from the floor that the PCUSA withdraw its membership and ban the giving of any further financial resources to the WCC (and while we are at it, I'd throw in the National Council of Churches, too). I mean, stop and think about it: how many missionaries, who would actually spread the life-transforming gospel of Jesus Christ (rather than that of Karl Marx) could $1,437,806.75 support? Aren't there any commissioners out there with the moral courage to make such a motion? When will God's faithful people say, "Enough is enough?" Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Church A Confessing Church Canton, Ohio WCC or missionaries: a matter of priority April 30, 2003 Hmmm, seems like we could put some of the money that we are sending to WCC on our own missionaries. But I guess the WCC is way more important than fulfilling the Great Commission. Marc Karasek Be fair: Conservatives ignored genocide April 30, 2003 If we are going to be fair about our liberal presidents and genocide, let's be fair. We just found, dead, an Iraqui, whom I believe the news media called Chemical (or Gas) Ali, or something like that, who in the year 1988 mass-murdered Kurds in Iraq. OK, who was president? Jimmy Carter? No, 1976-1980: How about Bill Clinton? No, 1992-2000. Well, there were only two presidents between these two men: Ronald Reagan and George Bush. What did they do to bring this mass slaughter of human life to the forefront? And why do you bypass these two when you are writing to a Christian organization? As to genocide, I heard a lot of conservative Republicans and Christians talk about our being in Serbia and Kosovo, saying they were not against our troops over there, which I truly believe they were not against our troops, just the policy and President Clinton who got them there. That was until we started digging up graves with hundreds of people buried in them. Those graves were part of ethnic cleansing, to get rid of Muslims in a Christian country. Unfortunately, Christians participated in this process called ethnic cleansing. Then conservatives came to the rescue. So, where were Reagen and Bush? Why didn't they scream at the top of their lungs about it on TV? Why didn't George Bush scream about it as a part of our reasons for going into Iraq, then just to get them out of Kuwait? Not only does this show true bias, but it also shows this nation's lack of knowledge about worldwide genocide, and our faith's silence on the whole topic in the 20th Century. But there were those who screamed in this country – people like Rapael Lampkin to get the genocide bill passed in the U.S., George McGovern (Cambodia), Bob Dole, Bill Proxmire, labeled so far left he left America, and a few others, both liberal and conservative. The Problem from Hell (the history of Genocide) has been ignored by both liberal and conservative presidents in the past century. To show your bias is wrong, read The Problem from Hell and learn about how both sides failed humanity. I apologize for the harshness, but sometimes I just get tired. Doug Gailey, elder St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Dunedin, Fla. Are we flogging a dead horse? April 30, 2003 Why do I get the distinct impression we may be "flogging a dead horse" on these issues. It seems that the denomination powers that be are determined to have their way. If the assembly does not take affirming actions, I will be asking the Lord to direct us to a church home will uphold the timeless Biblical standards that reflect his will. Carl Smith, deacon First Presbyterian Church Spokane, Wash. Layman article lacks principled balance April 28, 2003 Your publication consistently maintains the highest standard of objectivity of any I have encountered. The points you make are strong ones, but you do not abandon principled balance in making them. This impressive standard is notably (and distressingly) missing in your "Iraq" article by John Adams (The Layman, February, 2003, page 3). We, as a country, have compiled a sorry record in recent years of unprovoked aggressions carried out on pretexts which turn out, when the facts emerge, to have been specious when not outright falsehoods. Serbia, Kuwait and Afghanistan are flagrant examples of this. Judging by our track record, Iraq is likely to be another such example. To impugn unworthy motives to someone questioning the moral legitimacy of our involvement there – on no other or better grounds than his failure to uncritically accept our president's sweeping allegations (to date completely unsubstantiated) enthusiastically as established fact – is a shameful departure from the intellectual integrity for which The Layman is justly noted. My two cents worth. Bill Wagner Houtzdale, Pa. Withholding per capita is a stewardship issue April 28, 2003 Heartland's per-capita policy is not a surprise. It was only a matter of time until some presbytery decided to crack down. After all, we're discussing money here. And to advocate the redirecting of per capita is to promote schism? Heavens, our GA Stated Clerk would be horrified at such obvious violations of ordination vows. Yet the redirecting or withholding of per capita is a stewardship issue. Why would you give money to an entity that cannot be trusted to send that money to the cause(s) for which it was given? Why should churches be expected to send money year after year when the funds continue to be spent for items that those churches oppose? Let me point out one salient example: the bailout of the National Council of Churches. When the move was being considered, the mail was overwhelmingly against such wasteful spending – yet those who were in a position to decide made the decision to be "prophetic" and the money was spent. My experience in particular churches is that giving declines when the trust level declines. Why would one expect the higher governing bodies to be any different than particular churches in such matters? I suspect that if Stephen Van Kuiken had been on trial for a per-capita-related issue, such as preaching against the paying of per capita (and thus promoting schism), he would be defrocked today. Rev. John R. Kerr Hookstown, Pa. PCUSA is out of touch with a lot of us April 28, 2003 To punish those congregations for not contributing their per-capita giving to Louisville because those congregations feel their money is not wisely used is hypocrisy from the little vatican (Louisville). And pope Cliff is threatening punitive action? Seems like Cliff is not reading the Holy Bible about evangelism. To fund the NCC and WCC, which are infested with some apostates, at the expense of funding missions is hypocrisy. Matthew 28:18-20 instructs us to go and make disciples of Christ, not political action. Mark 16:30 instructs us to preach the gospel to every living creature, not get involved in opposing the war on Iraq and letting us know the PCUSA high command opposes the war, while the rest of the country supports the war. Seems like the PCUSA is out of touch with a lot of us, and I wonder why. By the way, Saddam Hussein, the murderer, is no longer in power, thanks to this nation's understanding of history. Remember World War II? Remember Neville Chamberlain telling us, "Peace is at Hand?" Remember Henry Kissinger saying the same thing and selling out South Vietnam? Remember Jimmy ("Who") Carter selling out the Iranians and allowing those fundy nutcase clerics wrecking Iran? Last, but not least, Billy Clinton – do I have to say more? Now the PCUSA wants to fund the NCC and WCC and use God's money for non-gospel projects at the expense of sending missionaries throughout the USA and the world? The devil and his demons are rejoicing seeing the PCUSA is destroying itself from within. But the payday will come. I would like to ask Cliff and the boys this. Can you honestly look into the eyes of those missionaries and say there is not enough money to fund missions while at the same time have enough money to fund worthless projects? Lou S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Letter-writer using different glasses April 28, 2003 I was saddened and a little perplexed by "Evangelical conservatives in apoplexy" (April 24) from John McNeese. At least, I was until I realized he and I are really not seeing this world through the same worldview glasses. I am trusting the Word of God to remain correct throughout time. When I finally remembered that, it helped me to think through his need to throw a gratuitous racial bigotry charge into his attack. And, yes, I know to use the word "attack" looks like one of the other recent letters which charges those of us who are being a bit more forceful with our defense of God's Word with ... not being nice. Keep Mr. McNeese's letter around, Layman Online. It is an excellent example of a spontaneous "in-your-face-because-I can't-think-of-anything-more-clever-to-say-but-I've-got-to-say-something-right-now" explosion. By the way, I completely deny Mr. McNeese's charges. Sex is easily perverted and no heterosexuals are perfect, but "because they're not, I can do anything I want," is not a good worldview for those who love our Lord. And, we must remember, only He can resurrect America to anything resembling what He would want. As good as we seem to remember them, though, it would not be to the standards of the 1950s. Greg Leaman Oostburg Wisc. PCUSA is wrong place for these pastors April 28, 2003 If these two pastors [Stephen Van Kuiken and Harold Potter of Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati] feel that it is God's will for them to marry same-sex people they need to read God's word. I also think they should not be Presbyterians if they will not abide by the Book of Order. They should not be Presbyterian pastors any longer. Loving others has nothing to do with performing same-sex marriage. Loving others is to teach them God's love and truth – not help them to live in sin. Gaye Fahringer How can NCC and WCC be best opposed? April 28, 2003 I know it's your intent to focus on PCUSA news for conservatives and provide a forum for expression and not your job to educate us on the details of denominational political practice or to open yourselves up as an even bigger target for the liberal/progressive critics. However, it would be helpful to somehow include suggestions, or recommend another helpful avenue, for how best to protest the budget inclusion of the NCC and WCC. It would seem pointless to petition Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick because he is so committed and entrenched. It has bothered me for a long time that he has so much influence and so few apparent checks on his authority, let alone any regard for the carefully studied and clearly repeated majority opinion in our denomination. What options are left that could actually have a real impact? Is there any way to do something besides share opinions here with other conservatives, and actually get the attention of the GAC? Jeannie McElroy Your prayers and views do make a difference. The Web site of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has a directory of General Assembly Council members with their home addresses and E-mail addresses. Revisionism dressed up as compassion April 28, 2003 Those of us who are evangelicals should remember Mr. McNeese in our prayers, especially as he struggles to de-conservatize the good people of rural Oklahoma. I'm sure it is a constant burden to him, battling the forces of heterophilia in what many (perhaps he himself) might consider something of a cultural wasteland. But can there be any excuse for the wholesale cheap shot of associating fellow-Presbyterians with racists? This – more than the report – merits our apoplectic shock. Equally benumbing is the report's notion that the Mother-Father-Children model of the family is simply dispensable or merely a preference among preferences. You might as well say that eating food is merely a preference alongside eating manure. Sometimes reading "advisory" reports feels just that way. The problem is less with homosexuals per se than it is with married heterosexuals who support the gay cause – straights who rally around the rainbow flag – without presenting so much as a single, compelling argument. We wait to no avail. What we hear is not rational discourse, but merely an attitude that says "Don't be such a fundamentalist," or "Why must you be so hateful?" The entire movement begins and ends in simple reactionism. "We don't know why we should change and we can't tell you, nor can we offer you decent Scriptural support for making this decision, but it is time to change. We change because we change, and we don't care to evaluate our changes." Most of us are not biting. So he should give us the rationale – one or two real reasons – why it is now time for the Church to reverse its worldwide, 2000-year-old unanimity on sexual ethics and we can finally have a real discussion. Until then, his reactionism looks like little more than the wholesale adaption of ready-made, '60s-style, civil rights rhetoric (for which the appropriate analogies have never been established). Give us something better than family-revisionism dressed up as compassion. Apoplectic? Perhaps, but the alternative is simple coprophagy. Noel Anderson Michillinda Presbyterian Church Pasadena, Calif. What was military budget of Rome-conquering Christians? April 28, 2003 [Re: Methodist bishops chide Bush on his 'wickedness'] 1. It is interesting to me that church leaders who criticize the president for starting a war are assumed to take the extreme opposite political view on every issue ("welfare state"?). Some Christians seem to think that you're either a Democrat or a Christian, a conservative or evil, atheist or Republican. It is just possible that there is more to political and religious views than the "us" or "them." 2. As for the actual subject of the bishops' article, I'd like to ask this question: How much do you think Christ would recommend spending on arms? (Asked another way, what was the military budget of the early Christians when they conquered the Roman empire?) Answer: 0 Jim Farris Germantown, Tenn. Withholding per capita April 28, 2003 The national office of the Presbyterian Church no longer represents me. I will withold the portion allotted in my per capita and urge all caring Presbyterians to do likewise. Frank D. Elkins Salt Lake City, Utah Denomination needs to do exit-polling April 28, 2003 With the large exodus of members each year from the PCUSA, it appears that our fearless leaders in Louisville should do what successful business are doing – conduct an exit poll to determine why all these people are leaving our denomination. If they did this, they then would know, and that would enable them to provide some leadership. Ed McLean Maitland, Fla. Evangelical conservatives in apoplexy April 24, 2003 The evangelical conservatives are in apoplexy over "Living Faithfully with Families in Transition," a report from the Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy of the General Assembly. According to these champions of purity, these advocates of resurrecting the America of the 1950s, homosexuals and African-Americans appear to be main culprits in the decline of the traditional family unit. And to think I believed the culprits were promiscuous heterosexuals who were unable to maintain stable, loving, and lasting relationships. John McNeese Ponca City, Okla. Authority column was excellent April 24, 2003 Re: "Speaking with authority" column by Parker T. Williamson. Excellent! Jim Vaughn Hurst, Texas Constitutional crisis: No apparent end April 24, 2003 There is still "no sign" that Presbyterians are ready for their sufferings to end. The anguished rant of Bill Pawson continues and "calls to integrity" mount up, but there is no apparent will to end the constitutional crisis. Conservatives are fooling themselves to imagine that the coming General Assembly will do this for them. Recent PJC decisions are portents to this effect. Stratagems to break through the crisis with the authority of the judiciary have failed, with devastating implications. Radical legislative solutions which require masses to discern and act together must be considered too fantastic. Human devices will not abate this crisis. Gary Starkey Yakima, Wash. Wafting on wings of emotion April 24, 2003 One can only wonder at how difficult life must be for people who substitute feelings for thought and a careful (not selected) hearing of an authoritative word of truth which has proven its correspondence to reality as it is lived for thousands of years. Do Ms. Barr and Mr. Chen waft on the wings of emotion consistently, or do they covertly use their minds to selectively "feel" for persons and causes? Ms. Barr, one can be a true Christian and indeed feel for gays and lesbians and many other forms of sexually confused and lost persons yet still be opposed to the mockery of blessing unions which God has called sinful and which human experience has shown to be harmful, most especially to those who practice them! Oh, I know that modern culture and the bias-laden so-called "social scientists" have endeavored to convince themselves and the world at-large that homosexual behaviors are merely "lifestyle" choices and are natural (possibly even genetic). The real root causes of homosexual choices are rarely, if ever, examined. In today's climate, they cannot even be examined without a charge of homophobia or some other sinister evil intent. It is too easy to blame heterosexual prejudice and hatred for the misery felt by homosexuals through the ages. Ms. Barr, Mr. Chen, if God does consider homosexual behavior to be sinful behavior, and if some people continue to practice that behavior and even relish it and place their own identity in it (as when one claims to "be" either gay or lesbian), is it not possible that God may punish their sins? Is it possible, that without repentance and a willingness to allow Jesus to Be Lord of their sex lives, as He should be over heterosexual's sex lives as well, they will be found to have rejected Him as Savior too and so end up in eternal punishment? I know you probably don't believe in Hell either. Certainly you cannot have a very intellectual or real life experience of the seriousness of human sinfulness or you would at least countenance the possibility that homosexual behavior is wrong. Mr. Chen, law and gospel are more closely related than most of us care to imagine. The law, when it proscribes harmful and ultimately God-rejecting behaviors and patterns of thought, can be seen to be a grace to those who heed its admonitions. The law may seem a cage looked at from without and with a view to everything being okay, but it may be a sanctuary for those who live within its limits and prosper from avoiding many negative choices that do exist in the real world. Sadly, Mr. Chen, neither law or gospel really triumphed at Cincinnati Presbytery. If your tender heart is truly gospel, let them leave the law-ridden Presbyterian Church and begin anew. Oh, but that would leave the Presbyterian Church still affirming that homosexual behavior is sinful – or against the law of God. We all know that homosexuals will continue to be hurt and oppressed as long as one person believes that. So to heck with the possibility of an absolute truth that some do not like. Let's all risk Hell to follow a gospel that feels right to us. But what will have happened to true difference and diversity, Mr. Chen? When diversity becomes so different and opposite, it becomes a contradiction to hold such diverse parties in a mockery of unity. Ms. Barr, Mr. Chen, have the courage of your feelings and flee the law-ridden Presbyterian church and please take those who share your feeling for truth with you. We will still love you and pray for you, as you can do for us. And may God prosper those who more closely approach His truth. Rev. Scott R. Mackey Fort Worth, Texas Bitterness is an ugly thing April 24, 2003 Recently, a woman who had spurned me a few years ago sought to engage me in cordial conversation. My response was less than admirable. Feelings of hurt and bitterness that had lain dormant rose to the surface and I answered curtly in a manner that cut off communication and fled. I had told myself that I had forgiven her for the hurt she had caused me, but my reaction was proof that I hadn't. Rather than ask God to take away my pain and resentment, I nursed the grudge until other matters distracted my heart and mind, and the feelings of bitterness settled to the bottom of my soul. The Apostle Paul wrote, "Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice. And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God in Christ forgave you." (Eph. 4.29-32) Bitterness is an ugly thing – a cancer of the soul that rots the fruit of the Spirit. It grieves the Spirit of God, who labors in vain to cultivate a forgiving heart and a loving soul. A bitter heart is not attuned to the praise, worship, and love of God, for a bitter heart knows nothing but its own hurt. A bitter heart does not forgive, and as our Lord said, "If you do not forgive men (and women) their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." (Mt. 6.15) And bitterness is at least as great a threat to the peace, purity, and unity of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as is theological liberalism. Consider the bitter tone of most of the Letters to the Editor that have appeared on The Layman Online in response to Cincinnati Presbytery's mild rebuke of Rev. Stephen Van Kuiken for performing homosexual marriages. Calls for the denomination to enforce the constitution are made with a bitter, defeatist tone that implies little or no hope that the constitution will ever be enforced. Similarly, others have said, "See, these liberals will never change. Let us lead the faithful remnant out of the denomination so it will finally fall to its long-foreseen demise." When liberals, who do not keep the Law, rebuke us for "hateful" or "self-righteous" speech, when our letters are filled with bitter accusations and renunciations, are they not more righteous than we? "But Loren," someone might say, "if you had been here through the long, declining decades, watching as liberal ideology has gradually supplanted the Gospel, you would be bitter too." I have been a Presbyterian for only twelve years, and I have heard pastors and elders complain about the actions of theological liberals at the presbytery and national levels of church government. Calls for denominational officials to "do the right thing" and enforce the constitution have far too often been made with bitter, vindictive, and recriminatory language and tones. The Presbyterian Church cries out to the Lord to deliver her from the cultural accommodationism of theological liberalism. I suggest that it is the bitterness in the hearts of evangelical Presbyterians that keeps the Holy Spirit from reviving, renewing, and reforming the Presbyterian Church (USA). One regular letter writer to The Layman Online wrote a letter to me in which he said, "My softness and cheerful exhortation is reserved for those who can still believe Jesus was by a virgin born, died for our sins, and rose again on the third day. Those inside the church, who reject such Biblical instruction, by force of their arrogant intellect or sinful apostasy, can expect plain language to proclaim the truth of the Lord." This is sad. When rebuking another, even when that individual claims to be a Christian while demonstrating evidence to the contrary, a Christian ought to strive to keep his or her words gracious (Col. 4.5-6). Likewise, Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?" (Mt. 5.44-47) It may be fairly pointed out that Jesus sternly rebuked the Scribes and Pharisees, calling them a "brood of vipers." Should we do the same to those who would pervert the grace of our Lord into licentiousness? Search your hearts carefully, dear brothers and sisters in Christ. Can you issue a stern rebuke without gracious words to one who has grieved the church, and by extension to you, without engendering bitterness in your own soul? How then shall we treat theological liberals? The answer must be: with love and kindness. The errors of theological liberalism must be opposed, for they are antithetical to the truth of Jesus Christ and are therefore sin. But the liberal is a human being – a man or woman made in the image of God, and for that reason alone is worthy of love and respect. If disciplinary action is necessary, it is to convince the theological liberal, just as any other sinner, of his or her offense against God. Even if excommunication ultimately proves necessary, it is with the hope that the impenitent sinner might repent and be restored. (Mt. 18.15-17, I Cor. 5.1-5, II Cor. 2.5-11) Nevertheless, we are obligated by the Lord Jesus Christ to show love and compassion to all men and women, including theological liberals. Even if the liberal reproaches you with bitter words, do not respond to him in kind. Speak the Truth in love, not bitterness. Perhaps by your demonstration of love and compassion, the liberal may come to know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior – think of the conversion of the Apostle Paul in Acts 9. But I assure you, the liberal will not come to know Jesus Christ by a testimony of bitter words. Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan. Show a little backbone April 24, 2003 How can anyone read the Bible as he is told to read it and still let a man stand and call himself a man of God and perform same sex marriages. When does man stop trying to make it comfortable for himself and do things his way instead of the way God says to do it? If you will stay within the confines of the Bible you will find that there is no place for same-sex marriages as well as no place for same sex anything. Man is made for woman and woman for man. It is no wonder we have the world going crazy all around us when people who call themselves men of God will not have the backbone to stand up and call it like it is. Stop debating on what you think and let the Holy Spirit guide you and you will not go wrong. If people will stop trying to change God's Word, you will find that it is the same today as it was over 2009 years ago. Please take a stand for Jesus and tell your people the truth. Numbers and money will mean nothing when the rapture takes place and so many are left behind because we wanted to appease someone's ways of thinking. Rev. Rick Johnson

April 2003 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links