 |
|
| August
2003 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| PFR
should stand firm August 20, 2003 I am praying that PFR stands firm. I am not about "denominational" unity when it means that those of us that feel the Scripture is very specific on homosexuality have to give that belief up for "unity." If that ever becomes policy (as it just did in the Episcopal church), I will choose Christ over denominational unity. My days with the Presbyterian Church will be over. Debbie Morrison Wheeler violates tenet of liberal inclusivism August 20, 2003 Accordng to Barbara Wheeler, Presbyterians For Renewal and the Covenant Network of Presbyterians represent the "great middle of the church," as opposed to the "superactivists and their sympathizers." In making this statement, Dr. Wheeler has violated one of the tenets of theological lberalism, namely, "Thou shalt not be exclusive." Dr. Wheeler defined a category called "the great middle of the church," though without identifying who, exactly, this "great middle" is or what they believe, and included herself, the Covenant Network and PFR in it. She also contrasted a second category, comprised of the "superactivists and their sympathizers," again without identifying who they are or what they believe. Rev. Haberer and PFR are included presumably because they are willing to grant that some who say that trusting in the resurrection of the crucified Lord is not absolutely necessary to be a Christian are, in fact, Christians. I respectfully disagree with Rev. Haberer and PFR on this count. Presumably, then, Dr. Wheeler would identify me as a "superactivist," or at the very least a "sympathizer," and seek to bar me from her exclusive clique. I, on the other hand, do not presume to absolutize tolerance and inclusivity. I believe by the testimony of Holy Scripture that God has chosen men, women, and children "out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation" and redeemed them by the blood of his Son. Thus, I believe that the invitation to come to Christ to give up their sins and their sinful worldviews, to be forgiven and transformed by the renewing of their minds, is to be offered to everyone, and that offer is not to be withdrawn until they stand before the judgment throne of God. Likewise, I believe by the testimony of Scripture that not all will come to saving faith in Jesus Christ, remaining fit, by the decree of God Most High, only for destruction (Rom. 9:19-23). Indeed, the Lord Christ himself said, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?' And I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'" (Mt. 7:21-23) And, again, "No one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by the Father," and "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." (Jn. 6:65, 14:6) Now there are some in the Church who are troubling the Church, who say that men and women can serve Christ in ordained leadership in Christ's Church, while holding on to their worldly lifestyles and philosophies. This is utter folly, for those who say such things are themselves unreformed in heart and spirit. Worse still, those who believe such things stand in grave danger of the judgment of God, whose word they mock when they say such things. Christ came that those who trust in him would be delivered from the penalty for sin, namely death. But he left his Word, the Bible, and sent his Spirit to dwell within us, to conform our minds, spirits, and worldviews to match the Scriptures, "and the Scripture cannot be broken." God loves homosexuals, but not because they are homosexuals. Rather, he loves them because they are his creatures made in his image, as are all men and women. He is longsuffering toward all sinners, desiring that none should perish, and yearning that all should come to repentance (II Pet. 3:9), including practicing homosexuals and theological liberals. And repentance means not only saying that you are sorry for your sins, but also that you are sorry enough to turn away from them and to you loving heavenly Father. Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan. Using the language of name-calling August 20, 2003 How is it that it's OK for Dr. Wheeler to use an expression such as "political grandstanding" in talking about her opponents, while using the established judicial processes of the denomination is not OK? "Political grandstanding" is what I would describe as "name-calling," and probably falls within Jesus' warning in Matthew 5:22. Dan Reuter Peace and unity: mixed messages August 20, 2003 The motto "pray without prejudice" sounds really good, but I am afraid that our "great cloud of witnesses" has not often practiced the attitude behind that motto. Was that the motto of John Calvin or Martin Luther? They seemed to have a pretty strong "prejudice" against the Roman Catholic Church. Not only did they not seem to be particularly committed to "unity," but it is an open question whether or not they promoted "peace." For another example of the quest for "peace" and "unity," see the words used by the author of the book of Galatians. That person does not seem to be promoting either "peace" or "unity." Perhaps the author had not had a chance to read How to Win Friends and Influence People. Based upon the way he acted, Jesus apparently had not read that book either. Barbara Wheeler, according to The Layman Online, "claimed historical precedent for this strategy by pointing to Presbyterian controversies in the 1920s when liberal forces successfully co-opted moderate evangelical leaders for this purpose." The key word there is "co-opted." Just as the Auburn Affirmation in 1924 laid the groundwork for the theological pluralism that we see in our denomination today, the current crusade for unity seeks the same pluralism for ethics. We would then have a truly "inclusive" denomination. (By the way, the most "inclusive" religion is Hinduism, if we really want to go all the way). In times like these, we must remember what the author of the book of Revelation said, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm – neither hot nor cold – I am about to spit you out of my mouth." It would seem that the best way to promote unity at the present time would be to forgo that sort of theological precision that resulted in statements like the Barmen Declaration. While it is true that John Wesley said, "Think and let think," perhaps we should listen to another person in church history who has said, "If God had meant for us to think, he would have given us brains." Keith Johnston Berkeley, Calif. God never destroyed any cities because pork was eaten August 19, 2003 The situation in mainline Protestantism would be comic if it were not so sad. Most recently, we have seen educated and scholarly bishops in the Episcopalian church expounding on how the Bible now leads one to embrace the homosexual lifestyle. The logic is astounding. We are to believe that since the Bible proscribes eating pork and raises questions about the role of women, we can now throw out any prohibition in the name of science and modernity. It is a far reach. The role of women has been well studied and it is clear to most scholars that women always had vital roles in God's plan and in our spiritual lives. God never destroyed any cities because women were given too much power. It was wise to be cautious of pork and other foods given the limited hygiene, the lack of understanding of bacterial processes and lack of refrigeration. One might reasonably speculate that these prohibitions could be modified as occurred in the New Testament. In any case, God never destroyed any cities because pork was eaten. Sexual immorality is another matter. Has human behavior and societal structure really changed? Does the fact that homosexuality is more accepted by government and culture or that we understand more about genetic tendencies really change anything? Does the fact that we have impulses to disobey God that may be genetic cut us any slack? I think not. And God certainly did destroy Sodom and Gomorra. Biblical concepts can be and need to be interpreted into today's language and culture. It is best done through prayer, the study of Scripture, and with the understanding that God's way is most likely to be the more difficult, the most restrictive, and the least culturally accommodating way. When did we decide it was better to discern God's will by closing our Bibles, closing our eyes and getting in touch with our pleasure centers? John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. Prayers requested for congregation and culprits August 19, 2003 Thanks much for printing the letter from Scott Wooten. He wrote me back and reported a second, worse act of vandalism. I just forwarded a copy to you.
In parachurch debate: Truth on both sides August 19, 2003 I have followed with interest the correspondences regarding the question of parachurch – church relations. There are plenty of truthful points on both sides. The existence of parachurch organizations, I believe, is rightly attributed to the failure of many institutional churchs to successful offer the ministries of outreach and evangelism which parachurch organizations take as their purpose. Yes, evangelism should be the work of "the church," but as with so much of our theology, the questions of ecclesiology have also become neglected or muddled by modernity. Traditional Reformed evangelism was grounded in an effective preaching of the Word and taking the Word seriously. The good news of the Gospel was proclaimed and believed and practiced through adherence to the Word, dedicated absorption of the Word through corporate and private Bible study, and practice of the Word through participation in the means of grace – the Sacraments and active ministries of the church. The institutional church, particularly its mainline proponents, sought to modify this Word-oriented evangelism to appeal to "modern" minds and to Christianity's "cultured dispisers." It did so most often by re-interpreting and revising the church's historic doctrines and Scriptures to make them relevant and believable to those most enamored of the Enlightenment's supposedly progressive, empirical and rationally grounded understandings of truth. Many well meaning souls believed that it was what the church could DO that was more important than what the church BELIEVED. The need for the church's ethical teachings and moral strictures to combat the ills of modern society were more important than questioning the competing truth claims of modernity and the ancient faith. The problem with such adapted and modern Christianity is that it doesn't sustain communities of liturgical-bound believers. Practice of the sacraments becomes meaningless without a strong Christology. Where activity matters more than belief, it does not take long to notice that other groups besides the church were often "more active." Politics could, and often did, quickly usurp corporate spiritual discipline and traditionally practiced Christian education. Faith became privatized, and church became less necessary. The needs once met by the old traditional practices of the church did not go away. In response to those needs, less traditional church groups and ministry organizations arose. The best of the parachurch organizations seek to perform a generic, "mere Christianity" evangelism of proclamation and then point those who receive it to more traditional churches. Others have either morphed into new, non-denomination churches with non-traditional structures and methods. In that sense, they are no longer parachurch, but have become institutional churches of a relatively new shape and form. Likely, they too will experience a hardening of the organizational arteries as a result. While the letter writer from Reno was a bit disjointed and mistaken in his facts about parachurches, his letter pointed to a deeper truth. Generic evangelical churches, as well as traditional denominational churches that have held on to the ancient and evangelical faith, have not done as well as we should at turning the mere Christianity of our shared faith into solid, community and life shaping differences in lifestyle and worldview. Even in evangelical circles there is a tendency to focus on the inclusiveness of entry into the Christian life to the detriment of committed discipleship and self-denial called for by the Christian life. Awash in a shallow pool of belief all too divorced from practice, we do become practitioners of various blasphemies. We are all too familiar with the liberal expressions of this. The pro-gay ordination groups with names like Integrity (the American Episcopal Church) and That All May Freely Serve (PCUSA) when their interest is not the integrity and holiness of God or self-denying service, but the "integrity" of standing up for their lifestyle and declaring against all evidence if need be that God also supports it. The only service sought by those who would "freely serve" is only ordained leadership so as to "ordain" their lifestyles with approval also. But while we evangelicals might not be as clever with titles and organized blasphemies, we gloss over the high divorce rates, rampant pre- and extra-marital sexual practices, materialistic grasping, and various other common cultural practices located among our own congregations. We should not be surprised that those whose sins are only less numerically common (truly committed gays, lesbian, and "trans-genered" persons are a small minority no matter whose numbers you use) should come clamoring to have their sins blessed when we've overlooked so many others! The house of God that is all the various churches need to "tidy" up their rooms, remaking them according to the ancient faith. If they did, they might find that the hallway and the rooms were being drawn together and their ministries complementing each other rather than competing. It will not be easy. Reimposing lost disciplines and retraining lax minds is always more difficult. The secular culture will continue its pendulum swings between liscentiousness and pharisaical legalism. The church, with its balanced blessings of law and grace, must weather the changing swings and provide a welcoming anchor to those confused and disoriented by the swaying culture. Rev. Scott Mackey Fort Worth, Texas Only professed believers can commit blasphemy August 18, 2003 One of the saddest signs of the disarray in our church today is that a signficant statement by the new Bishop Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church has gone largely unremarked. He said, in effect, that God was on his side in this vote of the Episcopal church. One of the more cogent sections of Scott Peck's A Different Drum is where he talks about blasphemy. Blasphemy is only something that a person who claims to be a believer can commit. Peck's viewpoint is that God probably is less concerned if we occasionally use four-letter words or whether we agree with a particular dogma or not. Rather, blasphemy, taking the Lord's name is vain, is when we use God's name to justify our own prejudices in our own sight. God then becomes little more than a cloak of virtue to drape over them. Blasphemy, by this definition, is probably one of the most regularly violated of the Ten Commandments in our society today. We've used God's name to justify wars, persecutions, bigotry. And Bishop Robinson has committed blasphemy in using God's name as justification for his own self-interest. Blasphemy is such a common violation of God's laws that it usually goes unremarked. We may excuse it, as we often do, because "everyone does it." I don't know if God would agree with that. But we should remember, as we use God's name for self-justification, that we no longer have a claim to be a follower of Christ, a disciple; rather we are expecting Christ to follow us. We are separating ourselves from Christ in the name of Christ. We are denying the divine inspiration and authority for agape and centering it in ourselves instead. We are committing blasphemy. Bruce M. Williams San Francisco, Calif. A congregation of many tongues August 18, 2003 I think it is a wonderful idea to translate the final report of the Theological Task Force into Spanish and Korean. However, that does not go far enough. In the congregation I commune with, there is a large family from the Congo whose native tongue is French. We also have families from Mexico (second generation), Japan, China (Mandarin dialect), and India (Urdu). (We are a university-centered community.) By the grace of God, these families all speak American as well as fluent English. However, translation into their native tongues would be nice to make them feel more inclusive. Since the PCUSA is taking a definitive stand on matters pertinent to this Presbyterian denomination, matters that will be of concern to our overseas Presbyterian brothers and sisters, I further recommend the final report be in Paskistani, Portugese and Arabic, also. That aside, the remark on the purportedly biased Book of Order sounds more like a shot across the bow of the denomination's vessel by the stated clerk and his genre in Louisville. Karl Everett Hate crime against orthodox Episcopalians? August 18, 2003 On Tuesday, August 5th, late in the night, the Episcopal Church of the Holy Spirit in Graham Texas, located in the Diocese of Fort Worth, was vandalized, and a portion of it was set ablaze. The main church was littered with food from the kitchen and candle wax from the altar. The parish hall received the same treatment. The office area was set on fire. The only lead the police have is writing on the all: "God and Jesus love Homosexuals." A hate crime, probably; committed against orthodox Episcopalians. The thought of an active persecution crossed my mind when I decided to take a stand against Biblical revisionists, but it turned very personal when it hit my church. You see, in that office was a desk, given as a present for graduation from seminary, the chair was my deceased grandfathers; he practiced medicine for 55 years sitting in that chair. The stoles in my office were from my childhood parish priest, now also deceased, who first encouraged my calling to the priesthood. All was destroyed or damaged by this action. My small mission congregation has been shaken; this type of hate and violence are not common in small towns. The politics of hate became very real to me. I ask your prayers for my mission family, and for God to give me the words to comfort my flock. Rev. Scott Wooten Judge stands his ground August 18, 2003 I mightly and wholeheartly agree with Roy Moore for "standing his ground" in the keeping of the Ten Commandments located in his workplace. Remember who created the Constitution and Declaration of Independence – "Under God" and ''In God we Trust." Doyle Patterson Clayton, Ga. PCUSA works for this gay man August 18, 2003 Robert Demarest Cuminale states that gays already have their own church, the Metropolitan Community Church. I beg to differ as a gay man. I found the MCC church to be more of a fundamentalist vein. So as a liberal Presbyterian who happens to be gay, the MCC is not an option. The PCUSA works for me. Earl C. Apel Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Wrongful principle behind parachurch August 18, 2003 Robert Patterson is solid on his assessment of the evangelical parachurch milieu. Even if the parachurch cat's out of the bag, a cat should be termed "a cat." The wrongful principle behind parachurch is a separation of two things, one from the other. 1. FORM (the poor, "frumpy" church-structure's left behind with a husk of Word, Sacraments and Discipline). 2. CONTENT (all the love and fervor is extracted out of church and is celebrated and exercised at parachurch). Now, the above principle is the same notion behind adultery. A husband concludes, "My marriage is a dead husk. … What's a marriage certificate anyway? Just a formal piece of paper ... hey, all the REAL STUFF of love and passion is hovering over here with my courtesan. So, courtesan = God's will." This is wrong in church and home. Please consider two things: The evangelical divorce rate is the same as the American. This is why. Spiritually, we're leading them – downward. To compensate, some evangelical Bible studies falsely "ratchet up" Biblical standards to prohibit all divorce under any circumstance, though it's difficult to get an authoritative answer from them because their form is fluid. That teaching is Crasstian, not Christian, and Paul-a-phobic. The Lion of the tribe of Judah and the Pharisee of Pharisees, of the tribe of Benjamin taught that adultery, and abandonment by an unbeliever were acceptable grounds for divorce, though divorce is not always required under such. In closing, of course parachurch means well and is sweet. But their herds can turn on the victim in a divorce like bulls and cows of Bashan. Recall, saccharine was also meant to be sweet, and oleo-margarine tasted salty. They were modernistic extracts, and they hasten sickness. It's compelling that the Biblical Jesus Christ was in the synagogue every Sabbath as was his custom; Luke 4:18. It was a structured custom AND it was meant. So, be like him. Ask; he'll grant that. Eleck Ream Reno, Nev. Remember the Reformation principle of the priesthood of all believers August 18, 2003 My thanks to Mr. Patterson for beginning to support his assertions; I will certainly be interested to look up the references he has provided (though I do note that only one is recent). I do have a couple other comments, however. First, I'm interested to see that he considers the evangelistic efforts of parachurch movements to be usurping the work of the church, and apparently doesn't consider that "the ministry of church even needs to be supplemented" in this regard. Given the way the church is shrinking in numbers and commitment in our time, I strongly disagree. As the Rev. Goetz says, "Where there is ever a vacuum, something will go in to take it up," and evangelism is an area in which this is definitely true. As for Mr. Patterson's assertion, "Are not parachurch organizations known more for their use of 'new measures' rather than the 'outward and ordinary means' that our confessional standards value?" Eeither I don't see what he's alleging or I simply don't understand what he's talking about, one or the other. Second, it seems to me that Mr. Patterson is essentially arguing that if any work is the church's responsibility, no one else is allowed to do it, regardless of whether the church is actually doing that work or not. From my point of view, the important thing is that the work is getting done by the church catholic, whether that means the church Presbyterian, the church Lutheran, the church Catholic, or the church generic evangelical. I certainly believe the Reformed stream has the most to commend it, but if people are being saved and brought into the kingdom, I'm not going to howl too loudly because the lifeguard has the wrong uniform on. Third, while Mr. Patterson insists that he is "all for ecumenism," I still don't see the thrust or tone of his arguments supporting this assertion. In his contention that parachurch movements doing evangelism are therefore ipso facto competing with and usurping the work of the church, and in his apparent conviction that ecumenical movements are contributing to the erosion of the Reformed tradition simply by drawing adherents to themselves – which entails the assumption that because such movements operate on a "mere Christianity" basis means that those involved never get beyond that (which isn't true in my experience of many of them) – it seems to me that whether Mr. Patterson favors ecumenism in theory, he sees practical ecumenical work only as a usurping of the place which belongs to formal denominations (for such he appears to mean by "the church," which raises the interesting question of whether or not parachurch movements are actually outside "the church" in the Biblical sense) and a threat to the Reformed tradition. Fourth, Christ did not ordain ministers, nor did he inspire the Book of Order, nor did he write the Directory for Worship (which is obvious on its face – if he had, it would have been far better written). Certainly, formal leadership roles are necessary and important, but we would do well to remember the Reformation principle of the priesthood of all believers; Biblically, "the ministry of church" is not to be only "administered by ordained ministers of the Word [and sacrament]" but is the work of all members of the whole church – yes, even parachurch leaders – who are responsible to advance that work as best as they can in the gifts and grace God has given them. Our responsibility as ministers is simply "to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ" (Eph. 4:12, NRSV), and it is all the saints (ourselves included) who are responsible for "the 'means' that Christ gave his apostles." Remember, the first minister of Jesus Christ to be martyred wasn't an apostle, nor was the evangelist who planted the church's first seeds in Africa and in Samaria. I, too, am an unabashed partisan for the Reformed tradition (though from a slightly different current within the broader stream), but I don't think the proper response to parachurch movements is to bash them for what they aren't doing or view them as a threat; rather, I think the proper response is to reach out to those whom parachurch movements have brought into the great house of God and say to them, "Yes, the hall is very nice – but you can't see the full beauty of the house from out here. Why don't you come into the living room?" The hall is only a threat to us if we assume it's competition, rather than the way in. Rev. Rob Harrison Grand Lake, Colo. We must remain vigilant in our teaching, preaching, ordaining August 14, 2003 We are solidly behind your statements regarding the Episcopal Church in the U.S. How tragic that those to whom we took the Gospel, who accepted the Gospel, now look to the U.S. in horror. Is there no church safe from these heretical teachings? Apparently not. We must remain vigilant in our teaching, preaching, ordaining. Joan K. and John W. Yee Praise God for your stand August 14, 2003 Praise God! Praise God! Praise God to your stand on proclaiming and defending your faith as to what Jesus said in the Bible. What was written many years ago was relevant then, as it is relevant today. We must stand to what we believe in. So few do. Thank you. Frieda Schwartz Why such a hue and cry over gay bishop? August 14, 2003 Why is it that such a hue and cry is being raised over the elevation of an active homosexual priest to the bishopric? You'd think, from all the commentary, that the Episcopal Church (USA) had crossed some sort of Rubicon with this move; but the truth is, that happened years ago when Gene Robinson (or whoever was first) was originally ordained. The great divide here isn't the selection of an active homosexual priest to serve as bishop, but the ordination of active homosexuals as priests to begin with. It's the latter which is a difference in kind; the former is only a difference in degree. If the ECUSA has indeed "sever[ed] its ties with Scripture, 2,000 years of Christian moral teaching, the counsel of the 77-million-member Anglican communion, and the overwhelming world-church consensus," that happened not this month, when Canon Robinson was elected bishop, but years ago, when he was ordained priest. It seems to me there's something fishy about our ecclesiology when we implicitly say, "Gay priest OK, but gay bishop bad." Rev. Rob Harrison Grand Lake, Colo. Gays have the Metropolitan Churches August 14, 2003 To Ed McLean: 8-13-03 "Gays need their own church" Ed, they already have one. It is the Metropolitan Churches and it has all the things you said. They twist everything, deny that the Bible is the word of God, condemn Paul as a bigot. Go to their Web site and check it out. Robert Demarest Cuminale Charlotte, N.C. 'What does God say in the Bible, that we should believe?' August 14, 2003 One question I have for to Mr. McLean would be, What does God say in the Bible, that we should believe? "This would allow those of us who believe what God says in the Bible to spend our time trying to save souls and not have to fight off the gays every year." Some believe: "The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc" (Jerry Falwell), "Finding Inner Peace and Strength." Others believe only 15 percent of the so-called red lines were actually spoken by Jesus. Please, Mr. McLean, it would be helpful to me if you were more specific. Dick Blanton Owensboro, Ken. Church should be thankful for parachurch groups August 14, 2003 Thank you Rob Harrison for your excellent response to Mr. Patterson regarding parachurch groups. As one who has been related to mission work for the past 30 years, I have seen how the parachurch groups have helped enhance the witness and ministry of many Presbyterian churches overseas. They have never tried to do anything beyond the local church and have only tried to help supplement the different ministries of the local Presbyterian churches that I was related to in Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela and recently in Brazil. As a matter of fact many parachurch organizations in these countries are made up of a majority of Presbyterians who are in good standing in their local churches. If more of our churches would be doing their work the way they should maybe there wouldn't be a need for parachurch groups. Remember that some of the greatest parachurch ministries were started by committed Presbyterians. Young Life and Campus Crusade for Christ are just two excellent examples. Also, today Inter-Varsity, among other Christian workers has the Rev. and Mrs. Jack Voekel on their staff and they are committed Presbyterians who spent many years as missionaries in Colombia, South America. The church universal has been and continues to be blessed by parachurch groups and instead of knocking them we should be thanking God for them and praying for their ministries. Rev. Eddie Soto Faith Presbyterian Church Tallahassee, Fla. 'Para' means 'along side' or 'helper' August 14, 2003 I hope to add just a bit of clarity to the parachurch discussion. I find it is always a good idea to look at the definitions of the words that we use. The prefix "para" means "along side" or "helper." A PARA-medic is someone who stands beside a medical person and aids them in their work. Since it is hard for doctors to be everywhere and do every thing, the paramedics help the doctors by going where they are not able to go. As I look at many of the "parachurch" organizations, I see them doing work that has not been being done by "the church." For too long, the main line denominations have not had a ministry for our college-age members. There are Presbyterian colleges that do not have full-time chaplains for example. Thus, the need for a para-church campus ministry. Where there is ever a vacuum, something will go in to take it up. For too long, the curriculum of the denominational publishing houses has not met the perceived needs of the local churches, thus parachurch publishing houses. For too long, the Presbyterian Church has not done much for men's ministry. Thus a parachurch organization like Promise Keepers. I really could go on and on, but I hope you get the point. Maybe instead of writing back and forth about just what a parachurch organization is all about, maybe a better set of questions should be about why have we not been doing those things? Could we be spending (wasting?) too much time and energy running around in circles on many things that we are not called by the Bible to do? Rev. Herb Goetz Plain Grove Presbyterian Church Slippery Rock, Pa. Parachurch organizations do indeed claim to do the work of the church August 14, 2003 Given that these are letters to the editor and not college term papers, I don't know what documentation or facts I could provide that would demonstrate to the Rev. Rob Harrison that parachurch organizations do indeed claim to do the work of the church. But allow me to use Campus Crusade, as an example. Its mission statement includes the goal "to help every man, woman and child in the entire world an opportunity to find new life in Jesus Christ." Focus on the Family has a similar concept in its mission statement: "To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible." Are not these examples typical among the multiplicity of people and organizations on the American scene that seek to advance the Great Commission, a task that the Reformed tradition views as the domain of the church? And are not parachurch organizations known more for their use of "new measures" rather than the "outward and ordinary means" that our confessional standards value? Mr. Harrison may think this only "supplements" the work of the church, but I am not persuaded that the ministry of church even needs to be supplemented. The "means" that Christ gave his apostles, as administered by ordained ministers of the Word and guided by the Book of Order and Directory of Worship, I believe, are sufficient. Mr. Harrison is technically correct that there is no one "the" parachurch, and so generalizations need to be qualified and nuanced, which I attempted to do in my previous letters regarding Inter-Varsity. But this does not mean that the parachurch phenomenon cannot be evaluated as a coherent whole. Historian Joel Carpenter not only does this very thing but he also virtually equates the terms "evangelical" and "parachurch" in Impatient to Do God's Work, in Christianity Today (October 17, 1986). D. G. Hart also looks at this larger whole in a more recent and comprehensive treatment in That Old Time Religion in Modern America (Ivan Dee, 2002). As does George Marsden in Understanding Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism (Eerdmans, 1990). My concerns about parachurch organizations have nothing to do with their alleged ecumenicity. I am all for ecumenism, but I am also a partisan, you might say sectarian, Presbyterian who believes that unless we shore up the Reformed tradition in our time, it may not exist within another generation or two. And part of recovering that confessional tradition is considering the possibility that the evangelical, parachurch movement may not be the ally that many conservative Presbyterians have presumed it to be. Robert W. Patterson Leesburg, Va. We need to pray for the faithful witnesses in Episcopal churches August 14, 2003 The Confessing Church Movement is God's blessing to those churches standing up for the truth, and seeking to obey the Great Commission. Christ died for his church that we might be his witnesses throughout the world, preaching and teaching to the lost his message of hope and salvation. When any church or denomination fails in that responsibility, that church/denomination ceases to be a witness, and is a synagogue of Satan. Thus, the Episcopal church, willing to disobey Holy Scripture, has aligned itself with those forces seeking to destroy its witness. To those faithful Bible believing members seeking to maintain a Biblical witness, continue to fight for purity within, and God will bless those efforts. We should endeavor to pray for those faithful witnesses not only in the Episcopal church, but the Methodists, Baptists and independents. The Body of Christ is one as Jesus gave his life for the body, so we need to pray for the Body of Christ to be continually one, and for those outside the body, be a faithful witness to Christ as Jesus instructed in Matthew 28:18-20. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. PCUSA situation requires more than silence August 13, 2003 On judgment day we will not be held accountable to the General Assembly Council or even the PJC. There will be no stated clerk, no seminarian, not even a general presbyter or pastor. We will face Jesus Christ. And, it will be the Jesus Christ revealed in Scripture, not the humanized version we optimistically preach about on Sunday morning. If Matthew 23 is correct, most of us will be in a heap of trouble. We would do well to ask "Who is this Jesus?" Is he the all inclusive, unconditionally forgiving, pacifist Messiah of modern theology? Or is he more like the Biblical version? We know that Jesus had compassion on repentant sinners and he loved the innocence of childhood, but Scripture teaches that he was a very different Jesus when faced with unrepentant and arrogant adults. Jesus hated sin and he lashed out at sinners. He had no tolerance for those who knowing what God demanded continued in their worldly ways. The more they should have known the less patience he had. We read that Jesus wept, but we don't see too much about Jesus laughing. The Pharisees did a lot of worthy things, yet it wasn't nearly enough. He laid into them with a vicious rebuke. No doubt our denomination and our local churches do many wonderful things. But when we waffle on the lordship of Christ when we tiptoe around sexual immorality, when we try to redefine family, and, when we react with anything less than horror at the specter of late-term abortion, I'd wager that Jesus isn't laughing. And I'd wager that He doesn't expect us to silently acquiesce to this shoddy leadership. Too many of us, this sinner included, have given to support the greater good and hoped against hope that our giving went mostly to the good. We have quietly worshiped and tried to ignore the foolishness. Too many pastors and sessions have ducked the difficult issues before us in the name of tolerance and unity, hoping against hope that the problem would solve itself before disturbing our comfortable lives. Is this what Jesus did? Is this what he would have us do? We are all counseled to preserve the peace. Yet, human history teaches that when too much emphasis is placed on peace, purity suffers. Evildoers call for peace as surely as criminals call for lax enforcement. And if ever there were cause for a just war, it is now and against those who presently lead the PCUSA. When we make an undesignated gift, per capita or otherwise, we support and sanction the humanist theology and the political agenda of Louisville. When we fail to speak out against them with voice and with dollar, and, if necessary, with our feet, we are one with them and will be judged accordingly. John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. Scripture reading shows parallels between Israel and PCUSA August 13, 2003 I was struck while reading in Jeremiah 13 of the parallels between the nation of Israel and its leaders and the present-day conundrum within the Presbyterian Church USA. Verses 12 and 13, were especially poignant. God instructs Jeremiah to prophesy that "Every wineskin should be filled with wine. And if they say to you, 'Don't we know that every wineskin should be filled with wine?' then tell them, "This is what the Lord says: I am going to fill with drunkenness all who live in this land, including the kings who sit on David's throne, the priests, the prophets and all those living in Jerusalem. I will smash them one against the other, fathers and sons alike declares the Lord. I will allow no pity or mercy or compassion to keep me from destroying them." The context of these verses is God's lamentation over Israel's ill-conceived pride or arrogance. The arrogance is evident in their reply, "Tell us something we don't already know. We know that we will harvest enough to produce abundant wine to fill every wineskin and bottle we choose to fill. We're in control of the situation." Taken literally, they probably could produce adequate reserves of wine for their daily consumption. But they were so deaf to hearing God's word that they missed that the wineskins he would fill with drunkenness and confusion were their own spiritual leaders and the people who followed their directives. The wine would be God's wrath against their arrogance in charting their destiny under their own wisdom and abandoning the wisdom and power and word of God. The sign of their drunkenness would be to "smash them one against the other" – to confound their deliberations and further divide their strength into contentious and factious camps or councils whose emphasis was on their own perceived rights and desires rather than on God's spoken truths and direction for them. What they arrogantly perceived as their plan of order for their nation and future would, in fact, lead to their demise. Their alliances with those who would eventually take them into captivity and lead to their downfall were not of their planning as they had supposed but were God's wrath being raised against them. The arrogance and disarray evidenced historically in the Presbyterian Church and currently abounding in its General Assembly is a parallel too frightening to ignore. The remedy God offered the Israelites, to turn back to him in repentance and let him direct, was ignored. Arrogance may have won the day but it lost the blessing. Molly Lamb Dover, Tenn. Anglicans have lost their title of a church August 13, 2003 The act of ordaining a homosexual person as bishop by the Anglicans is no surprise. However, in my opinion, the Anglicans have lost their title of a church. The church is the body of Christ and it can not have "scars" of homosexuality on its face. The body of Christ has to be perfect without any scar. Now I am sure that the word "church" should be deleted as far as Anglicans are concerned. It is a new religion that worships lust. Therefore, I say Christianity and homosexuality are two different ways of life and can not be identified in a single word "church." Bishop Timotheus Nasir Presbyterian Bishop of Pakistan, Gujranwala, Pakistan You are holding the banner of truth August 13, 2003 Dear Brothers and Sisters, I call you so because you are in the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a pastor, and I want you to know that you are doing the best, not only for your families, country and the believers, above all, you are holding the banner of truth, the Only Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ. Our prayers are with you as you give the part of the world that you live, the reason to live and believe what you believe, thus giving them, the reason to believe. God bless and give strength to all of you. Pastor Geoffrey Wanjala Munialo Nairobi, Kenya PCUSA leadership would like to follow in Episcopal Church's footsteps August 13, 2003 The Episcopal Church did something that our church leadership would like to do. I for one see a time when God will call his bride out from the world (literally), and seal the ark from the outside world. Then the end will come. Of course, "No one knows the day nor the hour," but we can read the signs. My prayer is that our church leadership is in the inside of the ark, not on the outside looking in, banging on the door to let them in. I don't like division within anyone's church, but when the leadership blatantly ordains an unrepentant man as a leader of its denomination, it is time to leave, shake off the dust off your feet, and go. John Fenton Gays need their own church August 13, 2003 While I personally think the decision is tragic, it makes me believe more and more that gays need their own church. The time has arrived for them to establish a homosexual church and stop trying to destroy all the mainline denominations. This church could be called anything they want to call it. They could write their own Bible and believe anything that they want to. All the homosexuals could go to the same church and write their own rules as to what they believe. This would allow those of us who believe what God says in the Bible to spend our time trying to save souls and not have to fight off the gay's every year. Ed McLean Maitland, Fla. Parachurch organizations supplement work of local church August 13, 2003 Mr. Patterson's response to my letter prompts a few thoughts on my part. First, not only does he not really answer my challenge that his arguments consist only of logic and assumptions, not demonstrated fact (all he adds to the equation is name-dropping, without concrete references to the work of Messrs. Noll, Marsden, et al.), but he concludes with yet another unsupported assertion, that parachurch organizations "claim they aren't the church, but then they claim they want to do the work of the church." I'd like to see him defend that claim in detail, if he can; from where I sit, it seems ludicrous. Second, I didn't actually call it "good" that parachurch ministries operate on a "mere Christianity" basis; my point was, rather, that since such groups are ecumenical ministries, it is "necessary" that they operate on such a basis, and that Mr. Patterson is, in essence, criticizing them for being ecumenical in nature. It seems to me that if Mr. Patterson is opposed to grassroots ecumenism, he should be honest enough to come out and say so. Third, parachurch organizations are of necessity ecumenical precisely because they are "not" trying to do the work of the local church, but rather to supplement it. It is theirs, if you will, to guard and maintain the hall – through which, you should remember, it is necessary to pass in order to reach the great rooms – while we as elders and ministers guard and maintain the great rooms; and offhand, I'd be inclined to say that they've done a better job with their task than many of the guardians of specific traditions have with theirs (as the election of V. Gene Robinson demonstrates). Fourth, discussing the "parachurch world" or "parachurch movement" as if it were a coherent whole is unsupportable, especially if one wants to include the Christian music industry (which is a business, and should be considered as such), Christian publishing houses (ditto), etc. There is no one "the" parachurch. As such, it must be conceded – by me as much as by Mr. Patterson – that neither criticisms nor defenses can be applied globally; one must discuss each ministry on its own merits. And, fifth, I have no interest in defending megachurches – mark me down as a lover of the small church, thanks – but, once again, Mr. Patterson offers up as argument an unsupported, broad-brush allegation with his insistence that "the focus of Christian nurture [in the megachurch] is a beehive of activities through the week that separate covenant children from their parents, not the regular observance of the Lord's Day and corporate worship (morning and evening) by families of the entire congregation." In some, very likely; in others of my acquaintance, not at all. Honestly, Mr. Patterson, I still think you would do well to line up your facts, rather than simply your opinions, before you offer your critique; I also think a little nuance would be in order – we need something more than "parachurch bad, Presbyterianism good." Rev. Rob Harrison Grand Lake, Colo. Our soldiers are dedicated souls August 11, 2003 I am a second generation Presbyterian minister, member of South Louisiana Presbytery and an Army chaplain. I am currently serving as the division chaplain of Taskforce Ironhorse (4th Infantry Division and other supporting units) in Tikrit, Iraq. You would be very proud of the heroic work of these young Americans who face danger daily to clear our area of "evildoers" or "the wicked" (Biblical term; other terms would be "terrorists, murderers, thieves, extortionists, and thugs") while also helping the Iraqis to rebuild their infrastructure. Since I arrived four months ago, we have helped our area of north central Iraq to get electrical power and potable water running, to restablish police forces, get gasoline and LPG distribution going, to open schools and get hospitals to a high level of medical care. We have had some casualties, yet our soldiers are dedicated souls who see that they are making a difference in the current stability and the future prosperity of Iraq, and perhaps the Middle East. I visit our chaplains and assistants as well as our great soldiers when I go about the division area, and I am inspired by the great ministry and outpouring of faith. We know many of you are praying for us, and we are humbled and moved by your faith. Please continue to pray for the safety of our soldiers, airmen, marines and civilian workers in this theater, as well as for the Iraqi people (to include the evildoers and those they would try to mislead and recruit), and for our families at home – our heroes. One request for the readers of The Layman: Thank you for your prayers. If you wish to help our soldiers, especially in remote areas, please send used or old paperbacks, magazines and DVDs (they watch them on laptops or project them onto walls) to me to distribute to our soldiers, airmen, and civilian workers in Taskforce Ironhorse at:
Gilley G. Richardson Chaplain (Lieutenant Colonel) U.S. Army Taskforce Ironhorse Chaplain 'There is too much apathy here, but who cares?' August 11, 2003 Remember the old saying, "There is too much apathy here, but who cares?" That would appear to sum up the "spirit" of some of the theological task force as it meets in Chicago. I am also reminded of the spiritual state of the church in Laedocia as recorded in Revelation 3. One has to wonder what possible merit exists for "investing" time and other resources in such meetings. How much money has been squandered over these past three years? I am assuming that "my church taxes" contribute to these "events." It is clear to many of us that Barbara Wheeler et al. embody and represent the "spirit of Rousseau" in their deliberations. Those who seek and, dare I say, have "the mind of Christ," realize that we stand diametrically opposed to each other. If indeed that is the case, what purpose and meaning is there to have fear for "breaking unity?" What unity is Ms. Wheeler referring to? What Christ, or, for that matter, which Jesus? What fellowship exists currently? I wish time permitted me to write a treatise on "fellowship." The New Testament is clear about who experienced and celebrated fellowship - ordinary human beings who shared their "salvation story," who had been overwhelmed by God's grace and power, which resulted in transformed lives. Once transformed, these saints continued to be urged by the Spirit through human voices to walk in holiness. We would all benefit from further reflections on what is means to be regenerated. A first venture may find you reading I Cor. 2;14 and Louis Berkhof (who is he?). It would seem that people like myself are, as Ms. Wheeler states, those who "deny the power of Christ's death." I in turn wonder whether Ms. Wheeler and the Covenant Network are not denying the power of Christ's resurrection. A concluding thought; I would encourage us not to despair over the continuing losses. Nor over the election of Bishop Robinson. These are exciting times! Satan is sifting the institutional church. Yet, as in Luke 22:31-32, Christ is praying for us. Our response can only be like that of Ezekiel 2:4ff. "…You shall say to them, Thus says the Lord God, … whether they hear or whether they refuse, for they are a rebellious house, yet they will know that a prophet has been among them." Pastor Jerry J. Voss Millbrook Church Fresno, Calif. Discussion questions for the Presbyterian elite August 11, 2003 I have a couple of suggestions for further spirited discussions among the Presbyterian elite: (1) How many angels can dance on the head of a needle? (2) What is the best configuration in which to arrange the deck chairs to keep the PCUSA Titanic afloat? Walter Lynn West Side Presbyterian Church Ridgewood, N.J. Is it possible for us to show a little grace for one another? August 11, 2003 I feel a deep sense of sadness and pain over so much of the accusations and criticisms taking place in the church and the various publications telling of the events. It seems like we are determined to find fault and tear things apart instead of celebrating the joy and grace of God. My wife and I recently attended the Women's Gathering in Louisville. Yes, I was one of a handful of men at the event. It was wonderful to attend the Gathering as a couple, worship together, attend the plenary sessions together and enjoy fellowship with others at the meals. We left refreshed and inspired. No, the event was not perfect and not everything spoke to me. Some things my wife found meaningful did not speak to me, and for other things it was the reverse. That is often the way life is. However, we both found much of the emphasis on globalization to be a refreshing and prophetic voice in the midst of all the jingoistic nationalism taking place since 9/11. We have both grown increasingly uncomfortable with the excesses in rhetoric and nationalistic emphasis these last two years. And this is coming from a pastor who asked a young man to sing "God Bless the USA" in worship on Sunday, September 16, 2001! None of the reviews and reflections on the Women's Gathering that I have seen has mentioned that the Sinikithemba Choir from South Africa sang the "Star-Spangled Banner" and the South African National Anthem in a moving and inspiring manner showing a healthy nationalism in the context of internationalism. Why is that? Statements have been made about the massive number of people walking out of the plenary sessions in protest over the speakers remarks. We sat near one of the exits. Many people did walk out, but many of them also walked back in after visiting the restroom. The plenary sessions were too long for the average bladder. I had to answer nature's call myself on more than one occasion. Some may have left in protest, but that is not what I saw. Nor did I feel any of the presentations were critical of our young men and women in the military. Quite the opposite, there was a genuine concern for the health and safety in a war situation with questionable motives. Where are those weapons of mass destruction?! If we Americans have been misled on what we were told was the ultimate purpose for this war, sending our young men and women into harm's way, we are called to hold those accountable responsible. To fight and die for truth and freedom is noble, but to do so for a lie despicable. In another area, criticism has been leveled at certain plenary speakers for calling for a change in ordination standards to allow for the ordination of homosexuals. I only heard a couple of sly references to the issue, and both were in the context of civil rights. While I do not support the ordination of homosexuals, I believe they are entitled to the same civil rights as anyone else. One article was critical of the selection of speakers who are working for a change in the Book of Order regarding ordination standards. If no one ever worked to change the Book of Order there would be fewer overtures to the G.A.! Organizations such as Presbyterians Pro-Life would not exist. Aren't they working to change the denomination's policy on abortion? Finally, I have one more point of confusion. I have read articles critical of "liberals" for pushing an "experiential" theology. In my seminary theology classes experiential theology was usually associated with the evangelicals and charismatics because they emphasize the need for a "conversion experience" and developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ - an experience. Liberal theology, on the other hand, tended to focus more on interpretation, with the use of form and historical-critical methods. I find it interesting that today, it is the so-labeled "liberal" churches who often have the most "traditional" Reformed worship services. Often, it is the "liberal" churches who think the only appropriate praise songs for worship are the Gloria Patri and the Doxology! This is why I find all the labeling so relative and often inaccurate. The "liberals" are really conservative about some things, and the "conservatives" are liberal about some things. Sometimes it appears to me one group will oppose some issue simply because another side is for it! In my ministry I have tried to show the love and justice of Jesus Christ, serving with energy, intelligence, imagination and love. There have been times when I was woefully inadequate. Thank God for grace! However, since suffering a subarachnoid hemorrhage a year and a half ago, I know how grace has led me safe this far, and will lead me home. I also know how many things are not worth getting all bent out of shape about. Is it possible for all of us to show a little grace for one another? Is it possible for us to learn from one another? My personal theology has been enriched by Marcus Borg as well as Karl Barth, by John Leith as well as Paul Tillich. Liberals, conservatives, liberation theologians, process theology, evangelical, and neo-orthodox all have something to teach us. Call we listen instead of fighting? Whenever I am distressed I usually find the writings of the late Henri Nouwen to be calming and comforting. What is there about Nouwen endearing him to conservatives and liberals, Protestants and Catholics, old and young? I have heard people say they disagreed with Henri on some point, but I have never heard him attacked or condemned. Instead, he is respected and his thoughts appreciated. I believe this is because he saw every person as a child of God. He was the living Christ in others, and as a result others seen Christ in him. What will it take for us to see Christ in each other? Is it too unrealistic to ask for people to tone down the rhetoric, to stop using language designed to insight and inflame, to listen to each other and see how Christ might be using another perspective to enlarge our vision? I hope it's not. John Pehrson Salina, Kansas Jesus gives an 'example' of how to be a servant August 11, 2003 Re: Study on foot-washing ritual spawns spirited discussion; The Layman Online; Aug. 7 Since Mr. Adams did not report it, I assume no one at the TTFPUP meeting pointed out that the foot-washing performed by Jesus for his disciples was a common, expected and very necessary custom of that day – and for practical reasons. With sandals as the footwear of the day and dirt as the most common walking surface, it was both a gracious action to wash a visitor's feet as well as a practical one for the homemaker of the day. Context! His disciples were arguing and asking about who would be the greatest in Christ's Kingdom. He was showing them to be great, one must be the servant of others. I am not convinced he was establishing foot-washing as a sacrament to be observed through all generations as he did the Lord's Supper (the focal point of that evening) or baptism. In fact in John 13:15, Jesus says he is giving them an example of how to be a servant. Our task is to see the same kinds of opportunities to minister to one another in today's church and do it. And foot-washing is not the priority it once was in today's congregations. It would probably be easier on us if we did decide to let that be the way we show our servanthood to our fellow believers. A once-a-month foot-washing service and our consciences would be cleared. No, let's simply turn our eyes on Jesus, look full in his wonderful face and see how he wants us to serve our fellow Christians, instead of kicking dirt at each other. Maybe even just passing out worship booklets to everyone would count. By the way, I am, actually, a melanin-challenged, imported American (many generations ago), Protestant (MCIAP – hmm, I doubt if that will catch on). And I find it very interesting that when the TTFPUP group found something about which to discuss "spiritedly" it was one with which they could direct their disappointment at us MCIAPs as indicated by the following quotes:
Greg Leaman |
|
| August
2003 letters, page 3 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |