May 2003 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor

Unborn children need PCUSA advocates May 22, 2003 I beg to differ with the logic presented in Overture 03-23 from the Presbytery of Greater Atlanta: "General Assembly staff includes pastoral groups for racial ethnic concerns and women's concerns and ..." (Commissioners asked to fund office for homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders; The Layman Online; May 22) While there may be something claiming to represent the concerns of women, it does so strictly and adamantly from the far tip of the pro-choice (I use the kinder term) limb. There is no representation of the Presbyterians Pro-Life view anywhere in the Louisville offices – no support, not even a link reference on the PCUSA Web site. I do strongly admire and support the work of the PPL. So, let's work on giving a true innocent, the pre-emerged baby, a voice in our denominational hierarchy before we even consider adding a "... staff person concerned with the hundreds, if not thousands, of gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender members and their families in our local churches with special needs." There have been millions of such babies who have long lacked a denominational voice. "Adults" with the special needs mentioned in the overture first need to seek the mind of their own potential personal advocate, our Lord Jesus Christ. Greg Leaman Oostburg, Wis. A worldview of radical anti-Americanism May 22, 2003 The onset of any General Assembly offers an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the health of the Presbyterian Church (USA) by the reports issued and the overtures offered for commissioners' deliberations. The actions or non-actions of the assembly then help clarify the picture, as do the eventual votes on assembly actions by the presbyteries. This year is no exception, and the early returns offer sad reminders of the divided state of the church and remarkable degree of separation. The report of the racial ethnic advocacy committee demonstrates a worldview of radical anti-Americanism and a racial-ethnic group-think philosophy that is unable or does not desire to factor in individual responsibility or case-by-case evidence. By mere assumption, for-profit prisons and the percentage rates of racial-ethnic incarceration and length of sentence data are indicative of mere prejudice and unequal treatment. Charges of govermental genocide by asserted "germ warfare," fit the wildest ravings of "someone" being responsible for the sexually transmitted diseases and drug use of individuals who also happen to be people of color or supposedly unique ethnic background. I am continually amazed that people who can critique conservative and evangelical Christians as being hopelessly credulous for believing out-dated and out-moded doctrines such as the virgin birth of Christ or the bodily resurrection of Christ or the Trinity and a Chacedonian Christology, can nevertheless stake a faith commitment of their own on liberal presuppositions such as the overwhelming control of racial identity in the thoughts of individuals. Whites can only act, regardless of what they may profess or believe they intend, in ways which endorse white privilege and oppress people of color. The justice system, therefore, fails, because too many people of color are arrested, tried, convicted, and harshly sentenced for crimes simply because they are people of color. People of color inordinately suffer because of poverty, drug use, and the ravages of certain deadly diseases. The assumption is that their own actions or life choices cannot be responsible for the greater disparity in statistical numbers (never mind the flexibility and unreliability of statistical measurements), so therefore someone else must be to blame – so why not our own government? If the American government – federal, state, and local – were as these enlightened avatars say, what hope can they offer that their chosen form of government and social problem solutions will be any better? How is it that one minority can be free from the contamination of a majority, and not many minorities (of various kinds) that make up the majority not also be free in various degrees – resulting in a proper functioning of our current governmental system? This report, and the horribly flawed report on families, demonstrate how two virulently opposed worldviews vie for control in our denomination. They use the same religious based language but mean totally different things and come to totally different conclusions of what is demanded. Peace might be achieved if we closed down all the national offices and agreed to preach our own separate gospels to whatever audiences we choose, but then it would not be a Presbyterian form of polity. What would one do with foundation monies, seminaries and other institutional parts of a formerly connectional church? The attempt by one side or the other to make use of the monies, schools and institutional apparatus for their view will disrupt the peace. Unity seems impossible in either scenario. Unity must be in Christ, but when the identity and nature of Christ is one of the differences, how can a church be unified in Him? Either the church will continue to radicalize the choices and reduce the alternatives for moderate/compromise choices, and force more congregations to choose upon which side they shall stand leading to the ultimate split, or one side must surrender and give in to either an enforcement of the current polity or retreat from an unenforceable polity that has failed and cannot prevent disunity. The picture awaits Assembly action and presbytery reaction to come into clearer focus. Rev. Scott Mackey Fort Worth, Texas Issues have nothing to do with being Presbyterian May 22, 2003 Genocide, reparations, "warmongering" by the US, "disenfranchisement" of minorities, etc. Is there no far-left issue that the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns will not use to push its agenda? I find the positions being increasingly advocated by the General Assembly and its offices/committees to be so far out of line with traditional Presbyterian doctrine, values and interests that I wonder how much longer the PCUSA can continue to call itself Christian, let alone Presbyterian. When I left the PCUSA (after more than 35 years), I hoped that in a few years it would find its soul again. I no longer have hope. It is disgusting. Jack Kime Maryville, Ill. What are the real priorities? May 22, 2003 In all the "verbage" about the coming General Assembly, has anyone noticed what's missing? In two words: evangelism and mission. The attention and agenda for the GA are going to be dominated by social issues, concerns and reports, but is anyone asking questions like: "What has been the effect of the missionary 'cutbacks' of one year ago on proclaiming the Good News around the world?" "How and when are these positions going to be reinstated?" "How have local congregations been empowered and equipped to articulate their faith in light of not filling the office of the Director for Evangelism?" The General Assembly, in past meetings, has declared mission and evangelism to be two of the greatest priorities for the PCUSA. Yet, when it comes to funding, agendas and emphases, they routinely appear at the bottom of the list. Funds from the new Mission Initiative should be used for expanding our efforts, not replacing what we have already declared as our "priorities" as a denomination. As a church, we should be concerned about "the least of these," but concern should begin with helping them hear the Good News and finding eternal security for their souls. It's time, following the Denver Assembly, for the agenda and effort of the national church to change direction, to reorder our priorities, and embody Paul's focus on ministry in Acts 20:20-21 – "I never shrank from telling you the truth, either publicly or in your homes. I have had one message for Jews and Gentiles alike – the necessity of turning from sin and turning to God, and of faith in our Lord Jesus." Kerry Carson Conrad, Iowa Van Kuiken helping both sides of issue May 22, 2003 One certainly has to admire Rev. Van Kuiken for his intestinal fortitude. He is true to his convictions and evidently intends to test the system to determine if the denomination has the guts to hold him to the constitutional mandates. Actually, he is doing a great favor to those on both sides of the issue. His abject defiance and repeat violation of the very thing for which he was censured has placed the Cincinnati PJC in a real bind if Mr Rolf refiles his suit for another violation. They will finally have to say that Van Kuiken is out of order and render a suitable penalty, or they must exonerate him and rule that the constitution is not binding on any minister or officer in the church, even if that person defies a censure and repeats the offense. As I have stated to The Layman before, we are joined in the last great battle to determine whether this denomination will survive as we have known it these many years. Rev. Van Kuiken, by his studied intransigence, may have forced the battle to an earlier conclusion than might have been under different circumstances. He has upped the ante and bet his entire stack of chips on one roll of the dice. It is now up to the denomination to see if we have the intestinal fortitude to call his bet. It will be interesting to see how this comes out. Hang on folks, " it ain't over till its over." Jim Harper, clerk of session First Presbyterian Church New Smyrna Beach, Fla. Inclusive Jesus said sin no more May 22, 2003 Katie Bergen's letter (The Layman, April 2003) states that she's confused by The Layman's criticism of liberals and homosexuals while, at the same time, claiming to be strong followers of Jesus and the New Testament. Seems to me she has fallen into the same trap that has ensnared so many who attend PCUSA churches – churches which have become so liberal that they espouse the "anything goes" philosophy, the "I'm OK, you're OK" mindset where there is no sin, no right or wrong. She also says that Jesus was a liberal, even a radical because he was inclusive and tolerant. I think the Pharisees were the liberals of that day, most certainly not Jesus. They ignored God's commandments, preferring to do as they pleased and attempting to justify their actions. They were more concerned with outward appearances than with turning away from their sins and being obedient to God. In stark contrast, Jesus refused to go along with what the Jewish leaders were permitting. He lost His temper in the temple and overturned the tables of the moneychangers, drove out the merchants and their customers and said, "My temple will be called a place of prayer, but you have turned it into a den of thieves." Tolerant? Hardly. That's just one of the many examples of His refusing to go along with the crowd and His determination to always be obedient to God. He was inclusive only in the sense that He knew people's weaknesses and sinfulness and He didn't reject them because of those things to which we all are vulnerable. But He also told the woman caught in adultery, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more" (John 8:11). This is what He is saying to all of us. He loves us in spite of our sinfulness, but we must confess our sins and repent, no matter what our sins are. Indeed, Jesus was the most compassionate man who ever lived, but He didn't rationalize away the wrongdoing of the people of the time, which is what many of today's mainline churches are doing, nor did He distance Himself from them. Sin is still sin and we need to turn from it – daily. Doris M. Roepke Bend, Ore. Being a nice guy is not a sign of faith May 22, 2003 We have seen a number of people plead the case of Rob Martin by saying that, in short, he is a really nice guy. I am glad that he is a nice guy. I know a great number of people who are very nice, who work hard for social causes, who are good counselors and friends, who would give you the shirt off their very backs, who are kind and loving, and who have a good sense of morality about them. The people I am thinking of are not Christian and do not claim the label of Christian. By their actions and words, they often put Christians to shame. Having said that, however, I do not think that such people, no matter how wonderful they may be, should be preaching from the pulpit or teaching in the church. Neither do I think that people who claim the label of Christian (now matter how wonderful they might be) but who believe nothing of the orthodox faith should be preaching or teaching that faith to others. It is one thing to struggle with aspects of the faith, but it is another altogether to reject whole parts of that faith outright. Those who reject whole parts of the faith have no business preaching or teaching that faith to others. To do so is, in fact, a lie. I would assume that such folks would have to, at least on occasion, speak the Apostles Creed. Such folks are lying through their teeth to stand and say those words while not meaning any of it as it is plainly written. To do so is a great disservice to those in the congregation, a great disservice to the church, and an even greater disservice to the faith. The statement from the church at Palo Alto said that people shouldn't be held to 19th century understandings of the faith. I would say that the faith they reject is, rather, the faith of over 19 centuries and not just the faith of the 19th century. It is the orthodox and apostolic faith handed down to us and renewed in us by the power of the Holy Spirit. Struggle with it. Study it. Question it, even. If you reject it, however, you should at least be honest and honorable enough to step down from any position that requires you to uphold and teach it. To do anything else is a lie that will bear ill fruit for years down the road … no matter how good your intentions may be. Rev. JP Thornton Bland, Va. Clarification: committee's job mandated May 22, 2003 The article about the investigating committee seeking leniency for Van Kuiken needs to have some clarification. An investigating committee is required, by the Rules of Discipline (D-10.0302), to do exactly what they did – indicate the censure they will recommend to the PJC. Mary Ellen Lawson Cults, gays quick to change meaning of words May 22, 2003 That is the problem – the meaning of words. That is what all cults do first, change the meaning of words. Do that first, then anything is possible, permissible and in the end they are doing "what is right in their own eyes." For then "there is no King in Israel." That is why "words mean things." Without an agreement on the meaning of words, there cannot be communication or debate among all parties. The homosexual rights groups can be classified as cults. Most of their numbers will disagree with this statement. However: if one would take the time and examine the writings and other communications of the leadership level, one will find that their words have different definitions. That is how hate speech became a crime and code words became into being. That is how the Word of God became a stumbling stone to their vocabulary of "you must accept what I do in my house in private [darkness] as the equivalent of a Christian marriage." It's about time someone stands up and says no more. John Fenton Seattle, Wash. There's no need for inflammatory speech May 22, 2003 In his most recent diatribe, the Rev. Bill Pawson continues to fill his role as The Layman's letter writing firebrand, a literary Torquemada of the right. His claim to hate the sin but love the sinner would be laughable were it not so transparently false. If you love someone, while you may very well disagree most vehemently with him/her (Oops! I suspect that gender neutral language may be evidence of those "thought-fascists and speech-Nazis" who seem to give the good reverend such a fit), you do not revert to using inflammatory speech to frame your argument. Calling someone names may be customary on the playground, but it has no place in genuine Christian (whether orthodox, liberal, fundamentalist, or whatever) dialogue. To quote a far higher authority: "But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister (i.e.. Ray Sendejas), you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister (ditto), you will be liable to the council." I sincerely hope that Mr. Jensen, that self-appointed crusader against all that is wrong with the PCUSA, namely anyone who fails to subscribe to his particular ideology, does not set his sights on the Rev. Pawson for this egregious violation of Scriptural guidance. Sadly, the language of so many of the letters to the editor of The Layman is in the same vein of the Rev. Pawson's missive. Any attempt at understanding is swept away by angry vitriol that has little to do with the One who said that "By this everyone will know you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Those words of our Lord do not mean that we sweep all our differences under the ecclesiastical rug and join in a rousing chorus of "They'll know we are Christians by our love;" it does mean that we talk to one another with civility and mutual respect rather than talking past one another with a "take-no-prisoners" attitude. While some may bemoan the witness our great church is giving the world because of its failure to uphold their version of the faith (forgetting, in the process, that orthodoxy does not mean immutability), I believe that the spirit of bitterness and downright meanness that has often been present in the ongoing conflict over "who does what with whom" is equally an affront to the gospel. Perhaps the greatest gift any of us can give the PCUSA right now is to tone down the rhetoric and heed these words from the Letter to James, "You must understand this, my beloved, let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger, for your anger does not produce the righteousness of God." Or to quote a more secular source (I can't remember exactly where), "Sometimes nothing is the right thing to do, and silence is always the right thing to say." Rev. W. Patterson Lyles In defense of moderator's accuser May 22, 2003 As moderator of the session of Westminster Church in Canton, Ohio, which filed the complaint against Stated Clerk Kirkpatrick and GA Moderator Abu Akel in the remedial case concerning the undermining of Dr. Metherell's constitutionally valid petition to recall the 214th General Assembly, I must throw my support to Mr. Paul Rolf Jensen in his recently filed civil lawsuit against Abu Akel alleging slander. When I first read Abu-Akel's comments to the GAC last April, as reported in the press, I was deeply offended that this self-proclaimed "pastor to the whole church" would defame the character of the Westminster Session collectively and each of its elders individually by claiming that we lied. The GAPJC never ruled this to be the case in their deliberations. Indeed, as I understood the process imposed upon us for the trial, rules were set up to avoid at all costs the opportunity to investigate the issues of conspiracy. We were denied the evidence-gathering opportunities common in legal proceedings such as taking depositions from the principals (other than the oddly rambling statement of Abu-Akel, who seemingly could not even define the word "neutral," despite being offered several opportunities to do so) and other kinds of discovery. Now Abu Akel wants vindication. Incredible! I am curious just how it is that a civil lawsuit qualifies as "rumor" or "gossip." It is obviously neither. But, given the recent shenanigans of investigative committees and PJCs at all levels of hierarchy for the sake of advancing the liberal agenda, I suspect we'll be in for some creative parsing of these words such that Mr. Jensen will be exposed to the wrath of our disciplinary process that was deflected from so many others who have actually hurt the peace, unity, and purity of the church. Paul Rolf Jensen is a great Presbyterian. May his tribe increase. And may many more Presbyterians find the righteous indignation and moral backbone to take as courageous a stand on these issues that try our souls. If enough of us actually stand up to be counted we might actually salvage our church before she sinks completely into the depths of depravity. When will God's faithful people say, "Enough is enough?" Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Church Canton, Ohio Duck, the towel includes a brick May 21, 2003 Double-speak is the hallmark of the Left. "Wars of liberation" meant Communist insurgencies. "Pro-Choice" means legalized killing of a pre-born baby. "Family" is redefined as a "committed relationship" meaning any polygot household combination tending to kids with or without legal marriage. Now comes the Covenant Network's supposed "towel throwing" on 6(b)? Joanna M. Adams, co-moderator of the Covenant Network, says, "The recent defeat of the attempt to delete G-6.0106b leads us to conclude that at the moment the church would be most helped by time: time well spent to inform, to build bridges, to organize and plan, to open our hearts and minds to one another, to await God's movement among us – time to create a climate in which change can and will occur. We therefore, reluctantly, will not work for the passage of overtures to delete G-6.0106b this year." The "recent defeat" was in 2001. In the intervening two years, they have tested what I had predicted their next steps would be: judicial nullification and outright defiance. Both have succeeded. The PJC cases at various venues have resulted in an abject failure to exercise discipline in the church. In one case, a self-proclaimed lesbian was ordained. The legal challenge failed to remove her and failed to make the session, presbytery or synod pay any price. The high profile defiance instances have also succeeded for the left. The Van Kuiken case arrogantly invited the church to take action and essentially none was taken. His apostasy has now been repeated, setting an example for the outlaws in the PCUSA to rise up. Joanna Adams' statement is classic disinformation and deception. While protesting that the CN cannot move forward, they continue to move forward! Just because traditional standards of ordination and holy living is Biblical, and in codified in the church constitution, is no reason to hold back! Just break God's word and the church's rules for your social agenda. Thanks to corruption in the PJC structure and the higher leadership, it's a risk-free endeavor! Be careful when leftists throw in the towel. Usually, the towel is wrapped around a brick. Dan Greenblat San Diego A statement without a 'towel' May 21, 2003 Is it any wonder that we have disagreements over constitutional interpretation when The Layman can't even read the simple, direct intent of the Covenant Network statement. There is no mention of "towel" in their statement. I believe the word is "time" and the intent is what is best for the denomination. I am thankful that there are some in the denomination who honor their vows of peace and unity. Jack M. Terry St. Andrews Presbyterian Church Portland, Ore. Covenant Network is just biding its time May 21, 2003 The way I read statements of the Covenant Network, they aren't throwing in any towel, just biding their time. These people are not going away and the sooner Presbyterians realize this and engage in a serious effort to rid the church of them the better. Jack Kime Maryville, Ill. Disinformation from the faceless May 21, 2003 Who is on this commission [the Advocacy Committee for Racial Ethnic Concerns]? These nameless and faceless persons deserve to be exposed to sunlight and scrutiny of persons in the pew. They make noise like an empty wagon with a few rocks in the bed going over a rutted road. Not since communist disinformation coming from Eastern Europe have I heard such nonsense. Truly, these are imperialist aggressors stirring up the peace-loving peoples of this denomination. Karl Everett Where PCUSA failed, mega-churches prevailed May 21, 2003 There is quite a story behind the Denver PCUSA. They went into a PCUSA church in south Denver, changed the locks and ran the people off. They were in the process of doing the same thing to Faith Presbyterian Church (USA) but Faith bought their church from PCUSA (that the members had paid for in the first place) and joined the EPC organization. Many EPC churches were then formed taking PCUSA leadership with them. The mega-church in the Denver area now was one of those spinoffs. John Dempsey Covenant Network claims 17 former moderators May 21, 2003 There are 17 former moderators floundering around in the morass [of the Covenant Network]. You didn't count the two co-founding moderators! Rev. Bruce W.H. Urich, Ph.D. Tomatoes over missionaries May 21, 2003 Clerk Kirkpatrick seems to have it all together: Tomatoes over missionaries. His picture with someone who wears a chicken suit is laughable. Is it possibly the wrong person has the suit on? Ken Tazelaar First Presbyterian Church Waukegan, Ill. You can't isolate the gospel from Scripture May 21, 2003 As a church's beloved pastor was seeking to transfer his presbytery membership in order to accept a new call to pastor another church, a lone voice stood and loudly denounced, "Heretic!" The congregation gasped with one breath, utterly astonished that in this day and age of tolerance and inclusivity someone would dare make an accusation like that. After all, we no longer persecute heretics any more than we burn witches. We're much too enlightened, civilized, and sophisticated for that sort of thing. And to be accused, of all things, of denying "that he believed in the bodily resurrection and ascension into Heaven of our Lord Jesus Christ as taught by Scripture and our Confessions." Why, haven't our seminary professors, Shelby Spong, and the Jesus Seminar folks told us that the Scriptures aren't reliable accounts of the "historical" Jesus? And the Presbyterian Panel tells us that 15 percent of the respondents to its opinion poll believe either that portions of the Bible aren't the Word of God or that the Bible is nothing more than "a record of the moral and religious experiences of Hebrews and Christians." (Biblical Authority and Interpretation, p. 21) So then, what's the big deal about Jesus? If a pastor personally believes that Jesus' resurrection was a metaphor for the awakening that happens in every human life, and that Jesus never rose from the dead, then preaches on that conviction, what harm is there? After all, it's not like he abused any children or killed anyone. Really, he's a caring, compassionate guy who really exemplifies the love of Jesus. But there is tremendous damage wreaked upon the people of God by a pastor who denies the physicality and historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, just as there is great harm caused by a physician who disbelieves his learned colleagues who tell him that his cancer patient can be cured by a painful procedure and who does nothing more than try to make his patient more comfortable. If Mr. Jensen's accusation against Rev. Martin is true, then Rev. Martin is not qualified to hold the office of minister of Word and Sacrament, for worse than failing to teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20.27), he has promulgated a gospel different than the Gospel of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1.6-12). If Rev. Martin does not believe that Jesus Christ rose physically and historically from the grave, as the Church has confessed for two thousand years, then he is not a Christian, for he doesn't know the first thing about Jesus Christ. An elder in the church that Rev. Martin currently pastors related in a recent letter to the editor touching stories of Rev. Martin exercising pastoral care, giving comfort and offering prayer and support for those in distress. He concluded by saying Martin "is the embodiment of a man living the Christian life as fully as he can. To even think of driving this minister out of the church is wrong and woefully misguided." The picture this elder and others from Rev. Martin's church paint is of a genuine, warm and kindhearted individual, always ready and willing to lend a hand, and who is deeply intellectual and spiritual, challenging his parishioners to think more deeply about their faith – the kind of guy you'd want as your best friend. He just doesn't believe in the physical and historical resurrection and ascension of Jesus. Christianity and the Christian faith are about knowing Jesus Christ, the Son of God. To be able to articulate Biblical teaching without that teaching having an impact on your personal life is to know Him objectively without knowing Him subjectively. To claim to know Jesus Christ, doing the things you believe He would have you do, but believing Him to be no more than a good teacher whose sacrifice on the Cross was nothing more than a good moral influence, is to pretend to know Him subjectively without knowing Him objectively. The one is dead and stunted, and the other is the illusion of life where there is no ground for the seed to germinate in. In other words, whereas you cannot become thoroughly versed in the Truth and have nothing to say more than, "Oh, that's nice," and expect to know Jesus, neither can you take only Jesus' teachings about living in this world while believing whatsoever you will about the hereafter and claim to be His disciple." And the Gospel is this: We Christians, who by nature were spiritually dead and doomed to an eternity of suffering for all the wrongs committed against God and His perfect Law, have been redeemed by the atoning blood of Jesus Christ in that all our sins – past, present, and future – were laid on Him in His suffering, crucifixion, and death. In His resurrection, all His works done in righteous obedience to the Father have been accounted to us as our righteousness, for we have none of our own, for even our best works are tainted by our sin and are therefore unacceptable before God. And in His ascension, we have the sure promise that His Holy Spirit will come and abide upon us, both this day, even unto the end of our lives. And more, in His physical and historical resurrection and ascension, we have the sure promise that at His physical and historical return, we shall likewise rise from the dead and live – physically and historically – forevermore. "Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up – if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable" (I Cor. 15.12-19). I have never met Rev. Martin. I wish him all the best, and have no ill intent toward him. However, if Mr. Jensen's charge of heresy against him, that Rev. Martin has publicly denied the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, is true, then Rev. Martin is not only unfit to serve as minister of Word and sacrament, but he is also not even a Christian. Loren J. Golden Overland Park, Kan. An excellent book about heresy May 21, 2003 God, in his excellent book, The Bible, says: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables" (2 Tim. 4:3). And so it is! Rev. J.P. Thornton Bland, Va. So who hates whom? May 21, 2003 In a time of constitutional crisis in the PCUSA I can do no other than exercise my right to express my strongly held convictions on issues facing our church. As someone said, "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." That Ray Sendejas of Chicago, Ill., believes my opinions indicate I am guilty of showing "hatred" seems to be demonstrating his own hatred of those who disagree with him. But then, this is the typical "lost perspective" of liberal witch-hunting – the kind that eventually leads to genocide in the name of diversity and tolerance (except for those who hold politically incorrect views) by thought-fascists and speech-Nazis. But what do I know. I've "lost perspective." And I am curious if anyone besides me wonders why Mr. Sendejas did not take me to task for calling abortion an atrocity? I can come to only two possible conclusions for this: (1) he agrees with me that abortion is a form of genocide; or, (2) he sees nothing atrocious about dismembering babies in the womb or nearly delivering them alive only to murder them at the last possible legal (but immoral) moment, since, after all, the fetus is little more than an annoyance. Now, let's see…is the right – I mean politically correct – answer #1 or #2? What Mr. Sendejas fails to understand is that, indeed, I do hate. And I hate openly and unashamedly. I hate sin (which I think puts me in really good Company). I hate the sin within me that is a daily struggle. I hate the sin that dooms non-Christians to eternal hell should they die apart from the gospel of Jesus Christ. I hate the sin in the lives of the people in my congregation that hinders them from following Jesus Christ with full devotion. I hate the institutionalized sin that has crept in to corrupt what was once a godly denomination with an orthodox theology that actually had a positive influence for good and the gospel in our society. I hate the sin of genocide promoted by our church in its support of the American holocaust rooted in Roe vs. Wade. I hate the sin perpetrated by the synagogue of Satan that has taken root in our church and denies the fundamental Biblical doctrines that are the very basis of our eternal hope in the one and only true savior Jesus Christ. I hate the sin of bigotry wrapped in the veneer of so-called tolerance that is actually a call syncretism and indifference to truth – offering a gospel of hell to those who embrace it. I hate the sin of deception perpetrated by elders and pastors (who should know better) as they lie about the "goodness" of sin and the "malignancy" of Biblical virtue to those trapped in a variety of death-styles who are so in need of a word of life-transforming hope from God. I hate the sin of extorting funding from God's people and the misappropriation of that mission money to support such wickedness as the worship of Sophia and unrelenting leftist political attacks on the U.S. government. I hate the sin of malfeasance of office by leaders who vowed before God to uphold the peace, unity and purity of the church, but have made a laughingstock of our process to advance a neo-pagan agenda. I think you could say I have not lost perspective, I have gained it: I just plain hate sin. Now this may sound like a lot of hatred with no upside. But this is not so. For while I hate all this sin – confessing that I am caught up in sin myself – the gospel gives me hope and causes me to love the sinner. Oh, no! I just committed a politically incorrect faux pas. We're not supposed to hate the sin but love the sinner. That's so condescending, so disingenuous … so … so … 19th-century. But, then, what else can you expect from a self-affirming, unrepentant, practicing fundamentalist in a time of constitutional crisis in the PCUSA? When will God's faithful people say, "Enough is enough?" Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Presbyterian Church Canton, Ohio Liberalism: a weak, water poison in an orthodox tree May 21, 2003 Walter Bruinsma's haughty expression of liberal hubris would be quaint if it wasn't so misleading. With apologies to Eric Hoffer, whose book I have not read, I suspect that he would not approve of this particular metaphor being lifted from a hopefully more informed context. But as long as Walter has chosen to play, I will play along too. Yes, some forms of orthodoxy or traditionalism can be a hardening and narrowing of the life-giving substance of the faith. At least, however, they contain much of the same substance in hardened form and may become an amber jewel frozen in time. Amber is not very adaptive, but it can still witness to the vital qualities and precious nature of the living substance. The health of the "tree" would be endangered if all of the sap became amber, but a little amber on the surface of each generation can lead outsiders to wonder what the living stuff in the tree is like. Despite the implication of Bruinsma's letter, liberal or progressive theology is not the sap. The rule of faith, the apostolic teaching as codified in the Scriptures and faithfully interpreted and re-described (not re-imagined or re-interpreted) throughout church history is the sap. It is orthodox. The church has defined heterodox streams as belonging to another tree, not the tree of Christianity. Now, liberals may choose to believe that the Church was in error and that many different trees with altogether different saps all will live in the garden of the unknown God who made them all. If so, let them be cut away from the branches of the church which is self-consciously Christian in the historic and orthodox sense. Let them build their own institutions and carry out work which may transform the world if they are so right about God and about the solutions to the world's problems. No, they want to "save" the tree of the church that they might wear its prestige and drain the sustenance from its great historic roots of stewardship. They do not wish to be saplings. Could it be they lack faith that they may grow to the stature of the historic orthodox church? So they convince themselves that they are somehow still a part of the "living sap" that must necessarily flow to keep the tree alive. An example is Bishop John Shelby Spong's constant writings about what the church must do to "survive," all of which require adopting progressive theology positions. Yet the part of the church that is most in danger of dying are the very branches which have adopted progressive theology. Progressive theology is only linguistically tied to the living sap of the church, but it lacks the life-giving substance. It moves and flows, but it poisons the tree by its own nature. The progression of progressive theology is toward Pelagianism and a vague spiritual mysticism that recognizes an unknown and unknowable higher being. It is hard to inspire devotion to an unknowable and finally impersonal God. And Pelagianism, depending as it does upon human effort and therefore on human ideas and ideologies, is better practiced with secular political groups. The ultimate progression of progressive theology, for those strong enough of mind and heart, is to atheism and radical political activism. Progressive theology depends upon the weakness and spiritual uneasiness of its practitioners to stay alive. It is the sap that cries out to be spilt upon the ground and freed from a single tree that it might flow out and water and sustain the world as faith once trusted in God to do. Liberalism is a weak, watery poison in an orthodox tree – wishing and believing that it could save the world outside the tree, but afraid to the leave the tree's solidity and deep rootedness. Mr. Bruinsma, I acknowledge that I may tend toward coagulation and risk becoming amber. But I know poison from sap. I see more genuine "movement" and liveliness in evangelical circles and orthodox movements that preserve the life-sustaining substance of the sap. Progressive theology has begun to become coagulated in out-dated devotion to principles and philosophies of the rationalistic Enlightenment and by attaching itself to the particular culture of the present appears to be moving as the present always seems lively and "cutting-edge," only to find the edges cut away are the fads of the present! Today's common knowledge is tomorrow's folly. There is a wisdom that lasts from generation to generation, but it tends to be laughed at by the present as "coagulum." Rev. Scott R. Mackey Fort Worth, Texas It's time to retrace steps to the gospel May 20, 2003 In a recent communication with a top Presbyterian renewal leader, I recommended to him the most recent work of Donald Bloesch, The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission. This book has an excellent chapter entitled "A Confessing Church." As an evangelical theologian, Bloesch does a remarkable job of explaining why a confessing church movement is so important. While discussing confessions, Bloesch explains why the PCUSA Confession of 1967 is in reality not a genuine confession of the church. Bloesch notes that the Confession of 1967 "appeared more concerned with cultural relevance and the updating of language than with the integrity of the church's message and mission in the face of heresy that had penetrated into the inner life of the church." Bloesch goes on to explain the difference of between a Confessing Church versus a Cultural Church, the meaning of a Confessing Church and the hallmarks of a true confession. To all of this the top Presbyterian renewal leader replied that he didn't have time for Bloesch because Bloesch is "elderly." This was not the response that I had expected. To be blunt, I was shocked. Why would a top renewal leader disregard a leading evangelical theologian simply because that theologian happened to be "elderly?" I believe the answer lies in the fact that many in the Presbyterian renewal movement believe that if something is new, it is therefore better. These individuals believe that change equals progress. Learning and listening to Christians who have combated theological liberalism in the past can help us in our current struggle. We can learn from past mistakes and thus better improve our attempt to reclaim the church from the stranglehold of liberalism. In addition, it is vital to understand what evangelicals in other parts of the world think of theological liberalism. As Scottish Presbyterian church historian Carl Trueman has said, "Christianity and liberalism are not two forms of one religion but actually two different religions, opposed to each other at every significant point." What does the renewal movement in the PCUSA say about theological liberalism? As evangelicals, we need to be more concrete in defining what theological liberalism is and how we are to respond to it. I agree with Carl Trueman's point that "we must continually fight liberalism in our own souls and within our own churches with all our heart, mind, soul for this battle is nothing less than one particular outworking of our love for God in Christ." Eighty years ago J. Gresham Machen said, "The slightest avoidance of the defense of the gospel is just sheer unfaithfulness to the Lord." Machen also noted that "we are not dealing with delicate personal questions; we are not presuming to say whether such and such an individual is a Christian or not. God can only decide such questions; no one can say with assurance whether the attitude of certain individual 'liberals' toward Christ is saving faith or not. But one thing is perfectly plain – whether or not liberals are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity." History can be instructive, and it is now time that we evangelicals examine the lives and thought of those defenders of the faith who have gone before. Some will say that I am wrong. They will argue that we are already doing this, but I ask how often do we look at the history of our denomination. Do we really understand the Presbyterian controversies of the 1920s and '30s? Do we really comprehend the historical development of theological liberalism in the PCUSA? Are we aware of the intellectual and personal struggles of those Presbyterians who have combated liberalism in the past? Sometimes in order to move forward it is necessary to look back. Maybe the best way to capture the church for Christ is to retrace our steps. This was precisely what was done in C.S. Lewis' The Pilgrims Regress. A good memory can only help us in our current struggle. Jeff McDonald Omaha, Neb. Accused minister is an outstanding pastor May 20, 2003 The Rev. Rob Martin has been labeled a heretic and now has his life on hold because the accusation was so timed to occur after his separation from one church and prior to his resumption of duties in his new ministry. I hope this is not the presbytery's way of weeding out the brightest and best within the church. Rob Martin is a lot of things. He is a counselor who listens and helps. He is compassionate, empathetic and a safe harbor. He is the first person I would call in a crisis or to share joyful news. Let me mention just a few of the endearing Christian moments Rob has been involved in here at Warren Wilson Presbyterian. My wife recalls her first experience with Rob when she moved to Swannanoa three years ago from Florida. She had been taking care of her dad and came here to find a nursing home for him in close proximity to the home we had purchased. Two days after her arrival, her father passed away. She felt disoriented and alone. She was dealing with overwhelming grief and guilt for having not been with her father at his passing. I suggested she call Rob Martin, the minister of the church that I had attended for the three weeks while she was in Florida. Rob responded by arriving at the house 20 minutes later. He comforted my wife and through prayer and other assurances, helped her deal with her grief. Support was continuous until the need subsided. We entered the church during a difficult time for the congregation. There was a young father of two trying to handle a very bad cancer diagnosis. Two weeks after I arrived at Warren Wilson Presbyterian, I witnessed a call to the front of the church and a "laying on hands" for a congregation eager to do something to relieve this man's plight. Rob asked for and got leave so that he could accompany Jeff to Cleveland, Ohio for treatment. The treatment was not successful and over the following weeks we watched as this father and husband slipped nearer to death's door. The outflowing of goodness in the form of meals and visitations was something I had never experienced in my life. When death came, it was a celebration that a difficult journey was over. Through it all the voice and actions of Rob Martin guided his flock. This incident made a big impression on me and I am grateful that his guiding hand showed the way. A year or so later, my close friend's wife, a long time diabetic, was hospitalized in Greenville, S.C., where the amputation of one leg occurred. We shared the details with Rob and Jan was added to our congregation's prayer list. I got word a week or so later that if I wanted to see Jan again in this life, I'd best get to the hospital in Greenville as soon as I could. I called Rob first, I really don't know why. He said he would be right over. He came and insisted he drive me to the hospital. Thanks be to God, he was with me. We entered Jan's critical care unit to find an attendant washing down the bed. Jan was gone and I was too late. I think I probably would have lost it without Rob's help. Rob can be described in many ways. He is inclusive. He is tolerant. He is willing to help. He is the embodiment of a man living the Christian life as fully as he can. To even think of driving this minister out of the church is wrong and woefully misguided. Tom Moore, elder Warren Wilson Presbyterian Church Commissioners should heed letter May 20, 2003 The 2,500-signature letter calling on the General Assembly to defend the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and Scriptural authority is right on target. We pray that the commissioners will heed it and act on it accordingly. Ben and Fran Hall The difference between atrocity and annoyance May 20, 2003 Rev. Bill Pawson's latest letter to the editor shows he has lost perspective. Equating ordaining gays and lesbians and gay marriage with the "atrocities of our time" strains credibility. Genocide, Nazism and poverty are atrocities. Even to its opponents, I would think ordaining gays and lesbians would be an annoyance, not an atrocity. Rev. Pawson's hatred is showing through. Ray Sendejas Chicago, Ill. PCUSA has abandoned Scriptural authority May 20, 2003 I would not hold my breath for the 215th GA to promote Biblical authority. If that happened, abortion would be disapproved, the "fidelity/chastity" law would be obeyed, the thought of ordaining gays and lesbians would be unthinkable. Approving any kind of just war would promote heart attacks. Scriptural/Biblical authority? The PCUSA threw Scriptural/Biblical authority out the window by approving the Confession of 1967, which has triggered a huge exodus of Presbyterians, who should have stayed to fight, to find other denominations and independent ministries. Until the pattern is broken, the PCUSA will decline, no matter what is done at the 215th General Assembly. Where are the overtures for the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and increasing funds for Gospel Missions worldwide? Whatever happened to Matthew 28:18-20? Lou S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Discipline: love with accountability May 20, 2003 Our minister said during Bible study that without justice there can be no love. This is just like loving parents who must discipline their children. Parents who don't discipline their children, don't care for them. Jeff Brunson, a management consultant, tells his clients that when they don't hold their employees accountable, they really don't care about them. Keeping people accountable is an act of caring love. Bringing charges against ministers that need discipline is an act of love to that person and the Church. Those that refuse to discipline really don't care about that person or love the Church. Let's pray for people within our denomination that are in the positions of authority, that they can act in a loving and caring way by holding each other accountable. Paul Schmidt Johnson City, Tenn. Defend constitution, Scriptural authority May 20, 2003 We call on the commissioners of the 215th General Assembly to defend the constitution and Scriptural authority. We call on them to defend the Scriptural truth that Jesus alone is the way, the truth and the life, the only way to salvation, and that the godhead Trinity is the only God. It is time to stand up for Jesus and to obey God's holy word. Those who are not believers should go their own way. Those who believe must take a stand. Thomas C. Armstrong Nancy E. Armstrong Redington Shores, Fla. Thanks for responses on gambling May 20, 2003 My thanks to Rev. Ernest Williams and Mr. Brian Ahier, who, on May 9, wrote responses to my request for the Biblical case against gambling. Although I was firm in my convictions opposing gambling for a myriad of reasons, I had never come across a Scriptural exposition. Rev. Williams and Mr. Ahier each addressed exactly what I was looking for. Thanks also to The Layman for providing this forum. Mike Montgomery Atlanta, Ga.

May 2003 letters, page 3 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links