 |
||||
| December
2003 letters to the editor Archives of letters to the editor  |
||||
December 29, 2003 I noticed in a recent news article ("Stated Clerk no longer uses threat in his new opinion on per capita") that the statement is made that "Presbyterian polity does not use the term 'ex-communication.' Technically, it's called renunciation of jurisdiction." However, historically speaking, Presbyterian polity does use the term "excommunication" (cf. original Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXX ["Of Church Censures"], para. 4). There are, of course, Presbyterian denominations in this country, such as the Presbyterian Church in America, Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States, Bible Presbyterian Church, Reformed Presbyterian Church/Hanover Presbytery, Reformed Presbyterian Church/General Assembly, Presbyterian Reformed Church, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, American Presbyterian Church, American Reformation Presbyterian Church, etc., which do use the historic confessional term "excommunication." Moreover, it is least arguable that these manifestations of the visible church reflect a more confessional ideal, not only with respect to nomenclature, but substantively, in terms of discipline. To use only one example, it is inconceivable that an unrepentant, militant homosexual would be allowed to remain in good standing in the congregations of any these denominations. Instead, such a wicked person would be excommunicated. I watch the developments in the PCUSA from a distance, but with a great deal of sympathy, especially for a fellow newsman such as Parker Williamson. (Even in my denomination, bureaucracy doesn't like independent news agencies.) In these dark days, with the impending implosion of the PCUSA, people in the pews are undoubtedly going to be looking for places to worship. May I respectfully suggest that a genuinely Presbyterian denomination -- one that understands discipline and that practices it properly -- would be a good place to be? In any case, please be careful in the future not to equate PCUSA practice with "Presbyterianism." Other than certain formal similarities, the two are almost always poles apart. Frank J. Smith, Ph.D. Editor Presbyterian International News Service and Presbyterian & Reformed News Pastor Coeburn (Va.) Presbyterian Church Perfuming a corpse December 29, 2003 I have been a Presbyterian for more than 50 years and think I am on safe ground in saying the PCUSA is "history." Many of us are unwilling to concede the obvious, but there is no other rational outcome to the ongoing unpleasantness. All this talk of "reconciliation" and "healing" is a smokescreen. The revisionists are relentless. They seek total submission. And, in a few years, they will finally wear us down. We must act now, while there is still time. We must begin by restoring some integrity to the dialogue. There will be no reconciliation. And then both sides must appoint commissioners and reach agreement on a property settlement. Until then, we are perfuming a corpse. Richard H. Knight Jr. Nashville, Tenn. Comments on Amendment 03-G December 29, 2003 With other news and controversial issues taking up much space in Presbyterian publications, I would like to call our attention to one of the amendments that is being sent down for vote by presbyteries. Amendment 03-G will require a minister or church employee to be placed on immediate administrative leave as soon as a sexual misconduct complaint is filed with the clerk of the governing body when the issue involves someone under 18 years or who is mentally unable to make decisions for him/herself. This is a change in that this new requirement will supercede any presbytery sexual misconduct policy and goes against the current Advisory Committee on the Constitution's guidance to the church. The ACC also recommended an alternative model that is included on pages 25-26 of the Proposed Amendment booklet. In addition to the concerns listed there and the 'against' arguments in The Presbyterian Outlook online article 12/2/2003, I would like to add a few more thoughts as to why this proposed amendment is inadvisable. I offer these concerns not as an outsider to these matters, but as someone who helped draft and present the sexual misconduct policy for a presbytery back in the 1980s. I also am calling attention to this issue because I have yet to see in print any arguments against it, even though my general presbyter told me that he has yet to hear of anyone who favors this amendment. I am fearful that without public debate, this amendment may be passed by presbyteries without much discussion and quietly become law. The amendment will display an assumption of guilt even before a preliminary hearing can decide if an accusation has merit. A neighboring church's pastor was accused of sexual misconduct a few years ago and the allegations were promptly reported in the local paper and TV news. Sadly, these allegations were true, but what if the complaint was fact-less? Placing a minister or church employee on immediate administrative leave before a preliminary hearing would be newsworthy in many communities. The reputation of the church, pastor or employee would be marked in an instant. Seldom do follow-up articles that report a person is cleared of an accusation garner a headline if it is reported at all. Most presbyteries have worked long and hard to prepare their sexual misconduct policies that meet the needs of their churches and clergy. This amendment would require a re-write of policies that may already adequately deal with this issue in a more appropriate fashion. My wife is a public schoolteacher and has seen a handful of incidents where students falsely accuse teachers in order to hurt them or get back at them for some reason. Although the administration acknowledged the transparency of the accusations, the teachers still had to go through the administrative process to clear their names. Surprisingly, there is little the school can do to students who make false accusations. Students risk little when they cause such pain and embarrassment. A preliminary hearing to see if an accusation has merit would root out most false reports avoiding the need for administrative leave. The ACC's advice to the church follows this format. The Book of Order does not say anything about "administrative leave." There is no mention of this status in D.10.000 or in the index. Does this mean that churches or presbyteries can define administrative leave as it suits them? Does it require full pay or no pay? If this amendment passes, the church will have to add a definition and guidance in the Book of Order via future amendments. Without any mention of the term, there are no time limits on administrative leave or assurance for church employees or clergy when it comes to continuation of their compensation while on administrative leave. We are left up in the air in this matter. Can you imagine? A formal complaint comes to the clerk of session concerning a pre-school teacher at the church-run pre-school. She also happens to be a member of the church. The clerk informs the teacher that she is now on administrative leave. The church will pay her salary for two weeks during this time, but because there is no guidance in the Book of Order on this, the church has chosen to pay her for two weeks and will have to hire a temporary teacher to fill her position. She is asked to stay away from the church property and have no contact with any students (some of whom are from her church). This means she cannot attend worship or teach church school. Because it is the holidays, a preliminary hearing on this matter is delayed for a month when all parties can meet. Word gets around church that she has been "suspended" for sexual abuse of a student. There is outrage and the local news media gets wind of it and writes a story about the accusation. The pastor is interviewed and the media approach students and parents. The members are shocked. The teacher's family is embarrassed and stops coming to worship. The preliminary hearing is held one month later and it turns out that the child was confused and the parent over-reacted. In fact, the teacher was out of town on the day the incident was said to have taken place. A preliminary hearing could have cleared this up in a matter of minutes with little repercussion, yet the new amendment has set in motion a process that wrought havoc on the church, child, teacher, her family and the pre school. I hope that presbyteries will review and discuss this proposed amendment and see for themselves that, although the intent is commendable, the process is inadvisable. Rev. Dr. Keith M. Curran St. Andrew Presbyterian Church Suffolk, Va. One Solitary Life December 29, 2003 "One Solitary Life" was written by the late newspaper columnist Jim Bishop. On his live Christmas album, Andy Williams reads it and gives Bishop credit. Keep the faith! Mike Porter, pastor Norton Presbyterian Church Editors' Note: "One Solitary Life" has been attributed to many people, including Bishop and James Allan Francis in 1926. Since to date there has been no definitive attribution, it most often is attributed to "Author Unknown" or "Anonymous," which is how it was attributed on The Layman Online. Money gets their attention December 23, 2003 Nothing gets the attention of anyone -- but money -- and Louisville is no exception. Cliff and company respond immediately when money is being withheld from the 2004 per-capita budget. First Presbyterian and Covenant Presbyterian, members of Peace River Presbytery fired the first shot a shell over the bow of Louisville. When will Cliff get it? Louisville is in denial of the state of the PCUSA when Louisville threatens to expel the above congregations from the PCUSA. Please, do not embarrass some of us by threats. The same was done to Martin Luther; remember him? Is Cliff the pope? Is Louisville the Vatican? Are there parallels and patterns to the Roman Catholic Church? God's money is to be used for the propagation of the Gospel supporting the Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20, not for anything else that violates the Holy Bible. The groups such as gays, lesbians, Covenant Network and others that violate Holy Scripture and are apostate within the PCUSA, should not get one penny of God's money. If they do, they are destroying the PCUSA from within, in case those apostate groups do not know it. The PCUSA elites want those dollars, and woe be to those that refuse. Cliff? What goes around comes around. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Simple, plain-sense confession needed December 22, 2003 The troops are in disarray. Some are fighting, some are confused, some well remember similar battles and are still nursing old wounds. Evangelicals with a memory ought to know: 1.) Attacking liberal theology by trying to reinstitute church discipline will not work as a corrective to confessional heresy in the PCUSA. It was tried during the 1920s and '30s and all that resulted was the loss of the Board of World Missions, and the ultimate departure of many leading Calvinistic evangelicals from the Northern portion of our now-reunited church. It was tried in the 1960s (setting up the culture for the PCA split and the purge of Columbia Seminary of evangelicals). It was tried again by some in the 1970s and it didn't work when the EPC was founded in the early 1980's. 2.) Withholding funds, even with good theological reason, has never been a useful strategy for reforming the church. It enrages those who still support the "larger church's mission" and it makes every word of testimony irrelevant to those who hear our cry for "fidelity." It has never corrected anything. 3.) Our Puritan fathers and mothers knew that there would be times when counsels would "err." They have erred, do err and shall err. We are very human, very fallen. But we appeal to one another to be reconciled to God by Christ. Imagine a new denomination with all the evangelicals coming together as a new Presbyterian body -- soon there would be new problems -- would we have subscription to the confessions? What confession(s)? Would we use Westminster? Would we seek to unite with the PCA, EPC, ARP, OPC, BPC, CRC? Would we face the women's ordination question again? -- the issues are endless. 4.) One of the main problems in our church is that we have not had dialogue between those on theological poles for decades. During the 1960s when women's ordination was being discussed, there was more theological discussion, more dialogue about the teaching of the Word of God, than now. When the traditionalists lost that battle, it is as if succeeding generations never learned to have a discussion. The conservatives are viewed by the progressives as being schismatics who keep "tearing the church apart" -- often pronouncing invective against denominational leaders but not listening well to those in the church who speak differently, who use language with different meaning, who are driven by very different ends than the traditionalists and evangelicals. Wouldn't dialogue be useful? In our presbyteries the evangelicals take their stand, the progressives take their stand and they hardly acknowledge one another's existences -- we are a divided church. Isn't it time for real, honest, exciting, debate? Debate about simple but foundational ideas like: What does it mean to be a Christian? What is salvation? Who is Jesus Christ? There is little consensus about these matters in our church (a consensus that the confessions should have created), but there is no way to re-establish consensus after 40 or 50 years of neglecting the confession(s) and only enforcing ordination standards in the most outrageous and vocal of heretical infractions. 5.) We need a new, simple, plain-sense Confession of faith. That is a battle worth waging. If a new confession is written and it is Christian, Reformed and Presbyterian then we can align ourselves under that banner. If it is syncretistic, imprecise in Christology, lacking in clarity on the importance of the Cross of Christ and his resurrection from the dead, then there are reasons for aligning under another banner. We now live in a failed reunion between two traditions, and all of our discomfort as evangelicals flow from the failure of that reunion. Our current church really has no confession as a matter of church law de jure. There is a Book of Confessions, yes, but every presbytery has their own very specific de facto confession. They articulate it each time they receive or ordain a minister. That is the root of all our agony. If a church withholds per capita, it is an angry gesture that does nothing with reference to the confessional crisis of our church. Take your withheld per capita money (which I think is a bad idea on the face of it, but let's dream) and fund a Confessional Conference for the PCUSA and let's present 50 overtures from 50 presbyteries with the same new confession -- that would be worth working for. 6.) Nothing is working to effect renewal in our church. Nothing. The Confessing Church Movement was a painless way for churches to address the confessional problem, but it ran into a bolder in the road at the presbytery level. Renewal groups have become places for the disaffected to gather and commiserate with the miserable. Most presbyteries will never adopt a Confessing Church declaration because they already operate with their own de facto Confession (heard clearly when ministers are welcomed or ordained). Most presbyteries are already confessing presbyteries, but they confess something very different from an evangelical credo. Most readers of The Layman will be elders and pastors who believe in the confessions of our church, yet we are complicit in the repudiation of our very confessions which we hold so dear, because we never (certainly rarely) ask specific questions of ordinands from the Book of Confessions (with the occasional quote from the Apostles', Nicene, or Calcedonian Creeds) -- so the disregard for the confession, which is what we say we believe, is to be blamed in part, on our neglect of the Book of Confessions in our Presbyteries and local churches. 7.) Evangelical leadership is seen a group of schismatics waiting for a just cause. It is as if we are daring a presbytery or denominational official to do or say something outrageous so we can depart and say, "Blood be on your own heads!" Could it be that we are in the denominational crisis because evangelicals have failed to lead in theology, failed to train our pastors, failed to live as those who adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith -- because of our silence, or our silliness, the progressives ignore us and all our jabbering? Would not an intelligent conversation as to the meaning of terms, the understanding of our faith, the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ, be a better way to spent our time? 8.) The progressives have a lot to teach the evangelicals. The progressives lead with more decisive purpose; they often speak to failures in traditional approaches to moral issues ("hating sin and loving the sinner" e.g., might be a nice slogan, but it might feel like hate by those it seeks to address -- the progressives really understand that); they can be more honest than the evangelicals -- evangelicals find it hard to disagree and stay in a relationship where mutual respect is practiced with those with whom we differ -- experience with progressives leads me to think that they could teach us a thing or two about listening and telling the truth (yes, we who claim to defend the truth often don't). 9.) Denominational "Renewal Groups" are the dance before the departure. It is as though we are accumulating a list of grievances, and when it reaches a certain point of shared discomfort and pain, we are to leave the denomination. Our Puritan fathers and mothers approached things very differently -- they would live the Gospel, and speak the Gospel, they would love people, they would admonish those who departed the Gospel with their tears, and most important, they would pray. Yes, many Puritans lost their battles for a season. But if I am going to lose, I rather lose that way, and when I am doing those things. Thomas Warren, Pastor Deltona Presbyterian Church Deltona, Fla. The writer was co-founder of Presbyterians Pro-life in1978 (then "Southern Presbyterians Pro-Life) and a director of the organization from1980-1982). Statement didn't mention Bush or Blair December 22, 2003 Come folks, fair is fair. I read the statement issued by the Central Committee of the WCC. It was a boilerplate peacenik reaction to any war where Western Powers are involved. Your article takes a report by the PNS, which is wrongheaded, as adds to their wrong-headedness, unfair accusations against Mr.. Kirkpatrick. I read the WCC statement. It does not contain the name Bush or Blair. I did not study it line by line, but I don't recall its emphasis on "war crimes." I don't doubt the phrase was used in their entire statement. Yet you write, "The statement, adopted by the WCC's Central Committee of which Kirkpatrick is a member, clearly and emphatically stated that the leaders of the war against Iraq should be prosecuted for conducting an illegal war. Bush and Blair, even though unnamed in the resolution, would unquestionably be the prime candidates for war-crimes prosecution." You claim it "states" "clearly and emphatically" Bush and Blair should be prosecuted for "war-crimes." It "states" no such thing. You go from "illegal war" to "war-crimes." They are not the same. The first is a question of authority to start and procecute a war, the second deals with the way that war is prosecuted, that is, the actions of the principles. The first problem is that you personalize the statement, made by a committee, to one of its members. The Presbyterian General Assembly makes many statements. You are a Presbyterian. Are you then personally accountable to every statement made by the GA? I have been a commisioner to two General Assemblies. Each of those bodies, of which I was a member, made statements and took action contrary to my wishes. Am I to be held personally accountable for those actions? Worse, am I to be held accountable for how others choose to interpret those actions? No. It would be unfair to ascribe to my character the false interpretation of actions by a governing body I do not personally control. Then you all wonder why so many liberals are gunning for you. Folks get irritated when they are treated unfairly. Who could blame them? Gary W. Miller Minden, La. The difference between totalitarian and free societies December 18, 2003 When I was a rather young man, my uncle, an attorney, explained the difference between living in a free society and living in a totalitarian state. In a free society, he told me, people are permitted to do whatever is not specifically prohibited by law. In a totalitarian state, people are prohibited from doing anything that is not specifically permitted by law. Thus I found the article "Stated clerk no longer uses threat in his new opinion on per capita" rather thought-provoking. You note that the stated clerk asserts that the Constitution "provides no right on the part of sessions to withhold per capita as a form of protest." And he says, "No General Assembly or General Assembly Judicial Commission has declared that withholding per capita to further political/theological agendas is ever justified." I have to ask, "So? What's your point, Cliff?" You see, the opposite of both these assertions is also true. "The Constitution makes no prohibition against sessions withholding per capita as a form of protest." And "No General Assembly or General Assembly Judicial Commission has declared that redirecting per capita to further political/theological agendas is ever unjustified." The fact is that the Constitution is silent on the issue of sessions withholding per capita. Therefore sessions are free to deal with per capita as the Holy Spirit leads them. And, indeed, when the General Assembly and GAPJC have spoken on the matter of per capita, it has always come down on the side of the freedom of congregations, through their sessions, to administer benevolences as they are led by God. I think that is because we understand that our denomination is a free religious society, and not the Democratic Presbyterian Republic of Louisville. But these facts do not seem to deter Chairman Cliff from issuing opinions more at home in the Third Reich or Castro's Cuba than the Presbyterian Church "USA." Our Comrade Clerk seems to want to obfuscate the simple truth about the freedom we Presbtyerians enjoy under our Constitution. It appears that der Schtated Klerk's operating principle is to "always assume the session is operating with inaccurate information. If that does not help increase the session's anxiety, the presbytery has permission to provide a copy of this Opinion to the session, that it may be confused about its rights and responsibilities." The Ayatollah Kirkpatrick appears hell-bent on ensuring that nothing interrupts the flow of cash that provides him and his fellow travelers the means to advance their unBiblical, godless, antinomian, heretical, apostate and perverted agenda. Is this really the kind of leadership we want at the top of our denomination? We can only pray that his contract won't be renewed. And if it is, shame on the GA. When will God's faithful people say "Enough is enough"? Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church A Confessing Church Canton, Ohio Guard your wallet from ecclesiastical pickpockets December 18, 2003 After reading current Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick's advisory opinion, I've come to a conclusion that it is nothing more than a policy/position paper. Although he quotes the 2003 General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission, saying, "… while our Constitution does not technically permit presbyteries to make per capita mandatory …," he sounds as if he would enthusiastically support an overture to make per capita compulsory. As faithful stewards of the Lord's resources, we had better be sure our wallets are secure as we walk among this band of elected (selected?) ecclesiastical pickpockets. David Morrison Pittsburgh, Pa. Pray for our servicemen in Iraq December 18, 2003 As an Army Reserve chaplain, it was my duty on December 11 to notify one of my chaplain colleagues that he was being called to active duty. He will soon be in the Middle East. We had had a long talk last summer about this possibility, and he was ready. That was Thursday. On Friday I talked with him again: "Dave, how are you doing?" "I'm OK." "How's Nancy doing?" "She's OK. It was hard last night when I told her, but she's OK." Why do people volunteer to do this? At the deepest level, military people do what they do out of love -- love for their country, and love of sweet freedom. Many families in the States know peace and security because some families give theirs away. It isn't perfect love because there is some fear, but it's pretty close. This season is a good time to lift our courageous soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines before the Throne of Grace. And as we do, let us remember their brave families who will be celebrating the birth of the Prince of Peace with a loved one far away. Jim DeCamp First Presbyterian Church Oostburg, Wis. Sadly, the signs of the times are coming true December 18, 2003
The cover reminded me of a picture my father took while I was a student at Princeton Theological Seminary (see attached). This sign is directly in front of the Admissions and Administration building, and immediately beside the offices for the Theology Department. Sadly, it is all too true of the direction our denomination has been heading. Who knew that such signs could be so prophetic. Thank you for your continued voice of reform and renewal of the church, and for never wavering on the truth that has been entrusted to us. Rev. Ethan Sayler It's all about salvation, Jew or Greek December 18, 2003 In response to Shulster and McElrath, if a Jewish person walks into a Messianic synagogue, shouldn't that tip them off that there is something different? And even if they went there unknowingly, they have a choice to leave anytime. I don't think they are holding people against their will. I agree with helping the church. What is wrong with giving Christian Jews the opportunity to worship according to their customs? I think it is great and it is even better if they save someone from eternal damnation. It's all about salvation, Jew or Greek. Dave Anderson Allison Park, Pa. About Pat Ryder's letter December 17, 2003 In his letter of Dec. 15, Pat Ryder says something that is a sure sign of why the PCUSA is falling apart. The fact is that the leadership of the PCUSA is not Reformed. Pat Ryder is a newly ordained deacon, but admits to attending a Pentecostal church on occasion. Not something I expect from a minor leader of a Reformed denomination. Is he so ignorant of Reformed theology that he can be comfortable going to a church that doesn't believe in the eternal security of the believer? Does he believe that baptism is a literal cleansing ceremony? Is he modalistic in his conception of God? I grew up in a Dutch Reformed denomination, moved south and joined a Presbyterian denomination although I left it for the PCA because it has seemed to have too many people like Mr. Ryder as pastors, elders and deacons. Those who were orthodox and Reformed in their beliefs seemed to be relegated to the lunatic fringe and never allowed into the ruling elite by the CEO pastors and their rubber stamp boards. I recently ran into an elder from that church I left. While we were talking, he told me it was good I left to seek the Christ that I imagine. He also said that Scriptural interpretation was subjective and that anyone could make it say what he wished. Some elder. I found the Ash Wednesday service with real ashes very Reformed, as well as the pastor's admission one morning that, after his graduation from seminary, he had assisted in a Roman Catholic Mass until someone called the bishop and a stop was brought to it. I am sorry that the PCUSA has fallen to this level, but since I believe that God uses all things for his glory, perhaps he is using the PCUSA to strain out the true believers into true churches. Until the standard for the leadership is raised, you will continue to shrink. Robert Demarest Cuminale Charlotte, N.C. About Rev. Jenson's letter December 17, 2003 In response to the Rev. Kristine Jane Jenson's letter, who says that we are "keeping a whole group of people outside our church leadership," we need to ask: "Shall we keep thieves, liars, alcoholics, adulterers also out of leadership? How dare we limit the Spirit's work in such a way?" I have many dear friends who are alcoholic. We will ordain them and do -- but we don't think they ought to be getting drunk whenever they like. That is not good for them or the church. Rev. Jenson, like all liberals, fails to make the distinction between orientation and behavior. It doesn't matter whether or not gays are "nice people." What matters is commitment and self-control. Is the good of the whole church more important than personal, sexual gratification? All Presbyterian leaders should be able answer yes in word and deed. Gays should, too. Behavior is circumscribed; orientation per se is not. Noel K. Anderson, pastor Pasadena, Calif. Are you being served? December 17, 2003 My wife and I belong to a "cafeteria church" (PCUSA) and we are growing increasingly discontented with the nouveau menu that is being served. Very little nourishment in that no-meat PC stew. We think we'll seek an establishment that serves a more traditional and spiritually- healthier fare. Dale Kriewall We're experiencing success on per-capita issue December 17, 2003 Our membership is currently petitioning (re: per capita) our session with good initial success. The only negative we have encountered is whether it will affect "missions." Our goal would be to redirect these funds directly to session-approved missions, thereby achieving just the opposite result. Walter Blakley We must follow the truth in deciding on 'Family' paper December 17, 2003 From 'Families in Transition' becomes 'transforming' (John H. Adams; The Layman Online, Dec 16): "Nonetheless, the revised paper -- as it now stands -- fails to state clearly what the PCUSA says about some of the controversial issues, including co-habitation, homosexual behavior and same-sex unions. The majority of the writing team prevailed in seeking to express limited comment and allowing readers to reach their own conclusions about lifestyles that conflict with Biblical teaching." (italics added) Therein lies the rub, my co-Presbyterians. Perhaps the majority of the writing team was rightly responsive to the leading of God's Holy Spirit. If so, it will require that we, as pew-sitting Presbyterians, know what the Bible teaches concerning ... let's just be all inclusive and say "sin." Then, without a doubt, we shall reach the same conclusions which the Word of God tells us about "sin" including, of course, "some of the controversial issues, including co-habitation, homosexual behavior and same-sex unions." Perhaps, however, the writing team generously wants to allow those Presbyterians who are wondering and wandering to find a "new" word for today. "After all," some might ask, "doesn't the Bible only contain the wisdom God may have had when he may have drafted it at least 2,000 years ago?" In that way, the "new word" will allow some to feel good about themselves no matter what is decided about "sin." The co-Presbyterians who approach this option this way may still, of course, have grave concerns about those of us who truly agree with what we call the "unchanging Word of God." We even believe God has never changed nor will he ever change his mind. If we are wrong, we are most to be pitied. And, I am quite sure, we are not to be pitied. So, co-Presbyterians, you are being given another option -- yes, but only by a committee -- for your religious walk. Please understand, however, that God himself did inspire Paul to write the following truth for all time. You better test the thought presented and test it hard, for we all will answer to him who wrote it. Yes, all, there is/will be a test on this subject and it is appears not all will pass! II Corinthians 13:5 "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you -- unless indeed you fail the test?" (NASV) Greg Leaman Oostburg, Wisc. Messianic congregation lures unsuspecting Jews December 16, 2003 My Presbyterian spouse and I are appalled and disgusted by your support of a deceptive enterprise [Avodat Yisrael near Philadelphia] designed to lure unsuspecting Jews into the folds of Christianity. Your money would be far better spent showing some genuine compassion for the suffering of Jews and Christians under the onslaught of "Islamofascism." There are now more Moslems in America than Presbyterians and the trends are clear. You are indeed marching into irrelevancy and financial difficulties. Perhaps an honest outreach to the thousands of prisoners embracing Islam each year would be a much more fertile field for your proselytizing endeavors … or might it be that prisoners have no money and Jews do? Stanley Anthony Shulster Katheryn J. McElrath Ashland, Ore. The Layman Online and The Layman have published stories about Avodat Yisrael, a Messianic Christian congregation, but have not endorsed the ministry. The editors Questions for our church in our time December 12, 2003 As I read the latest issue of The Layman, a myriad of questions came to mind concerning how our branch of the Church of Jesus Christ is being run. Questions such as: How can our stated clerk can support boycotts of Taco Bell and Mount Olive Pickle Company over the issue of wages for fruit pickers when neither company hires pickers and, at the same time, claim that ministers who support the withholding of per-capita payments to General Assembly are being false to their ordination vows. How can the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly give such rave reviews of Mr. Kirkpatrick when he says it is not his job to enforce the church constitution; when he has worked to undermine sections of the Book of Order to which he personally disagrees; and when he has proposed reducing the Book of Order to the first four chapters, leaving the rest to be considered optional? Who are the people who make up the COGA and how are they chosen for their positions? Where do liberals in our denomination get the idea that they have the authority to change the language of the Scriptures and decide what is important to God? When God says, in His Holy Word, that sin cannot be forgiven without the shedding of blood, how can these people say that God did not send Jesus to the cross for us, and that "all that blood and gore of the cross" are not necessary? When the themes of the ReImagining effort were so soundly rejected by the General Assembly, why do they keep surfacing in publications from Louisville and why has our national staff included speakers who advocate these anti-Christian ideas at Presbyterian events? How can our church's courts continue to refuse to discipline those who openly defy the church's Constitution? Indeed, how can a minister of the Word and Sacrament say that his conscience would not permit him to obey church law that prohibits sex outside of marriage, when such law is based entirely on the Scriptures? How can John Detterick and the rest of the Louisville staff continue to try to find ways to thwart the people in the pews that are telling them they do not approve of the way our church's money is being spent? When 70 percent of the income from members is now restricted, how much longer can our national staff fail to heed the message? Where did they get the idea that the great end of the church was to funnel money to other organizations such as the World Council of Churches for so-called "social-activism" when it means withdrawing support for a substantial number of missionaries? On the "Messianic mission" issue, where did the policy come from that says the PCUSA will refrain from direct evangelization of Jews? Isn't that what the apostles did to establish the Christian Church in the first place? I could go on and on with such questions, raised by this issue alone, but I will close with what I consider to be the major question facing our church when it comes to determining how best to save our church from oblivion and get it back on the path of serving our Lord Jesus Christ and His Great Commission. Isn't it time to relieve Clifton Kirkpatrick, John Detterick and the majority of the national staff from their duties and replace them with people dedicated to doing the work of Jesus Christ? Before anyone twists my words to make the accusation that these questions are evidence that The Layman is causing undue dissension in the church, I would challenge them to show that any of the articles that raised the questions is untrue. Howard W. Tice Elder Southwest Presbyterian Church Wichita, Kansas Some thoughts during this time December 12, 2003 Christmas is almost here and, if you are like me, you surely have at least one good Presbyterian friend that you can't seem the right gift for. I did a search today on Amazon.com and found some very interesting new book titles. To find these I typed in the search box the following words: Presbyterians, politics, humor, and Louisville. Here is what I found : 101 legal Ways to Pervert Presbyterian Polity by Peggy Hedden. John Calvin Must Have Been Some Cool Dude by Barbara Wheeler. The Lighter Side of Presbyterian Life by Gradye Parsons. My Secret Life as a Baptist in the Presbyterian Church by Bill Pawson. How to Unvalidate Your Ministry by Parker T. Williams John H. Adams's Guide to Yellow Journalism for Churches. How to Change Long-Held Beliefs in Reformed Theology by Jack Rogers. One Layman's Failed Hostile Takeover Attempt by Alex Metherill. My Unrepentant Life by Don Stroud. Stop the Church – I Want to Get Off by Paul Rolf Jansen. Bloopers and Other Wild Things in Judicial Cases by Mark Tammen. Some Things I Should Not Have Heard at Church by Marj Carpenter. How to Fool Your Way Through an Ordination Exam by Katie Morrison. Have a Merry Christmas! David Walters First Presbyterian Church Andalusia, Ala. |
||||
| December
2003 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||||
