December 2004 letters Archives of letters to the editor

Faith has lost its central place in the thoughts and hearts of those in Louisville December 29, 2004 David Hawkins [letter to the editor, posted December 28, 2004] has raised a question only each member can answer for him/herself. If (or is it when?) I determine to end my life-long relationship with the PCUSA, I will do so because it has left me, not because I want to leave it. I remember a time when Presbyterians truly believed the Apostles' Creed in all its statements. One PCUSA pastor told me she did not believe in the virgin birth. I asked her how she could then lead us in saying the Creed. Her answer was, "Oh, that's just something we say, but that does not mean we believe it." I sadly fear that this is symptomatic of the upper levels of the leadership of our denomination. They believe only what they think they understand. As for me, I stand with those who affirm that any "god" that we can understand is too small to be our God. I sadly conclude that faith has lost its central place in the thoughts and hearts of those in Louisville, and that they carefully weed out those who are "so blind to good common sense" as to take faith seriously while selecting those who agree with them. This is what happened to the pastor I quoted above. She is now an important part of the Louisville gang. It is very sad. Richard Underwood Urbana, Ill. 'Folks usually call speech propaganda when they don't like the content' December 29, 2004 I write with respect to "Give me an intelligent argument, not propaganda" from Pastor Brian Reeves [letter to the editor, posted December 28, 2004]. I have never read in The Layman that someone was "at the least a total idiot," nor have I read that anyone was "controlled by the devil." I think that Pastor Reeves is simply drawing some logical inferences from the news in The Layman. President Truman said, "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." If, after reading the news, Pastor Reeves thinks some people are at the least total idiots and/or controlled by the devil – he might be right. With regard to the tools of propaganda, they also are the tools of ordinary speech and communication. Folks usually call speech propaganda when they don't like the content. Calling out the list that Pastor Reeves used was a sort of propaganda in itself. He simply threw the entire set of tools for analyzing propaganda against the wall, hoping that some would have such a sticky and stinky effect that it would make a point that he did not. For example, name-calling is something that our mothers told us not to do. But it could include terms like leftist, right-wing, gay, ecumenical and specialized clergy. Different people react to these terms quite differently. Glittering generalities are generally important words to us such as love, righteousness, Christian, democracy and so on. Transfer, for example, is what most pastors strive to employ by living in such a way that we become more open to their words as they preach and teach. Bandwagon, of course, is one of the principal stewardship strategies, whether right or wrong. Fear – well, enough said about that. Logical fallacies and unwarranted extrapolation – let's not go that far. Pastor Reeves should be specific and not just play propaganda games. He might have a point, but I don't know what it is. David Kesterson Raleigh, N.C. Layman should be accurate in reporting, statements December 29, 2004 I appreciate getting The Layman so that I can have a balanced input to my reading on what people are thinking. I usually disagree with The Layman's point of view, primarily due to the narrow thinking driven by "our way or no way" state of mind; a certainty that cuts off dialogue and, in my view, growth of spirit and understanding. This is, in my view, The Layman's failure to recognize that people can be faithful Christians and be faithful to Scripture while sharing different views of Scriptural teaching. (I have yet to meet the person who has a certain and unfailing "hot line" to God.) Given this, I support your privilege to speak of your views, but I ask that you be accurate in your reporting and statements. I just received my December issue of The Layman and was very troubled when I read the enclosed flyer titled "Has God Broken His Covenant?" Your third paragraph where you state that the 216th General Assembly has declared to the world, on my behalf, that Israel is the aggressor and villain in the Middle East, and that the commissioners voted to divest funds from companies that do business with Israel, is false and misleading. It is the most flagrant type of false reporting that is a disservice to all of your readers. There is no hint of action on the part of the assembly that would state Israel to be the aggressor and that Israel is a villain. The PCUSA has long officially given support in statements and in concrete deeds to our Jewish brothers and sisters. The PCUSA has always upheld the right of the State of Israel to exist with recognized and secure borders. The decision to begin a careful process of selective divestment was focused on possible companies where company activity may be detrimental to the well-being of both Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Last, you fail to recognize Presbyterian polity and philosophy that asks commissioners to vote their conscience as they believe God guides them. Their rulings affect PCUSA staff actions, but do not necessarily profess to speak the minds of all parishioners or dictate how all members must think. Again, please be accurate in your statements. Make them objective and do not distort the precise facts when reporting news. Doing such to enforce your particular point of view is bad journalism and very un-Christian. W. D. Woodruff Editor's note: The General Assembly's vote (431-62) was to "Refer to Mission Responsibility Through Investment Committee (MRTI) with instructions to initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel, in accordance to General Assembly policy on social investing, and to make appropriate recommendations to the General Assembly Council for action." The resolution portraying Israel as the "aggressor and villain" for its construction of a defensive wall was approved by a vote of 471/34/6. GA resolutions are in line with even-handed love and concern for Middle East December 29, 2004 It appears from the flyer "Has God Broken His Covenant?" that Parker Williamson is unaware of the plight of Palestinian Christians. They have had their ancestral homeland taken away from them and are living either in exile or under deep oppression by Israel's military forces. It is this extreme injustice which Israel has failed to address for over 50 years which lies behind the actions vis-a-vis Israel taken by the 216th General Assembly (GA) earlier this year. It is important to point out that none of the GA actions, in any way, endangers the security of Israel within its pre-1967 borders. Rather, these GA resolutions aim at encouraging Israel to abide by international law and to stop taking more Palestinian land and otherwise persecuting Palestinians. Such steps by Israel would more surely lead to peace. These resolutions are completely in line with PCUSA traditional even-handed love and concern for the Middle East, going back over 150 years and more recently supporting the two-state concept with security for Israel and freedom and independence for a Palestinian state. If he has never done so, it would be well for Rev. Williamson to meet a Palestinian Protestant such as Bishara Awad, Alex Awad, Jonathan Kuttab, Mitri Raheb and dozens of others in order to understand better what is really going on in Israel/Palestine. Such an encounter would allow him to hear that Palestinian Christians can find no justification in Christ's teaching or in the New Testament for the theology of Christian Zionism. Donald A. Kruse, elder First Presbyterian Church of LaGrange LaGrange, Ill. Hankins' questions were essential when couple made decision to leave December 29, 2004 As I read the recent letter from David Hankins, [letter to the editor, posted December 28, 2004] a couple of sentences had a greater impact on me than the others. Questioning those who are critical of members who leave the PCUSA, he said, "Answer this question – would you tell a new member about what you know of the church leadership? If no, are you guilty of allowing another oblivious member to enter the ranks? And if the answer is no, is the reason because you are embarrassed to tell them? What do you think the reaction would be if you do decide to be upfront with a prospect? Would you expect them to have the strong resolve that many long-term members have?" Good questions, eh? These questions and others like them were essential to me and my wife when we made our decision to leave not long ago. We realized that we were reluctant to invite friends to attend church with us precisely for these reasons. Why invite people to join a worship community that you would not join yourself if you weren't already there? Why invite them to a service where the pastor preaches universal salvation, giving members no reason to reach out and share the Gospel? Better to recommend to them a theologically sound local church ... and follow them there. Reed Siebenthal Muncie, Ind. Love has disappeared from love-hate relationship December 29, 2004 I have read The Layman for years. It once was a valued source of information for what was going on behind the scenes in the UPCUSA/PCUSA. That was at the time when its love for the Presbyterian Church and its Reformed heritage was apparent in its pages. The "love" in the love-hate relationship has disappeared from The Layman's pages. There is no longer gospel in your paper. It is simply a polemic against the denomination to which you profess to belong. If I were to point to a single group which is contributing to the downfall of our denomination, it would be the Presbyterian Lay Committee. You invite – you celebrate – you capitalize on every mistake made by a member of the PCUSA. God have mercy upon your souls, for at times you appear to be anti-Christ and anti-Christian. It is ironic that I agree with some of your basic positions. It's sad that your vitriol discredits the reforms you claim to support. In The Naked Public Square, Richard John Neuhaus declares that to be a party to the great national debate one must be able to agree to the following proposition: "On balance and considering the alternatives, the influence of the United States is a force for good in the world." (p.72). His point is that those who do not agree with such a statement are revolutionaries or foreign enemies. The same proposition can be used for standing in the great debate over the future of our church. If you don't believe that "considering the alternatives and weighing the good against the bad, that the PCUSA is of value to the kingdom of God," then you stand outside the camp. To claim to be part of the "loyal opposition" is deceitful for there is neither loyalty or integrity in your position. And, if on balance, you believe that the PCUSA's influence is good, then you ought to say so in print. You have great circulation and if you sincerely are concerned with the losses in our denomination, then you need to help local churches, sessions and pastors give reasons to others to become a portion of Christ's body through the PCUSA. Until you begin to change, you will simply be one more of the shrill-voiced, special-interest groups yammering for attention at the edges of the PCUSA. In that, you and some of the groups that you criticize are firmly united. Jackals may nip and ham-string and finally bring down and kill their prey, but they still remain jackals. Walter Lee, pastor First Presbyterian Church La Grange, Texas PCUSA leadership would like to rid the denomination of all conservatives December 29, 2004 I am grateful for The Layman's continued concern and support for the lost members of the Presbyterian Church. It is important for the future of the church to keep in some form of contact with this huge group of people. I predict that one day many will want to come back, either to help clean up and sanitize the church, or after it is accomplished. The PCUSA continues to ignore the situation of mass exodus. It would like us to believe that people are searching for a new form of church experience. It is suggested that these folks would have left anyway. This rationalization makes it much easier for the PCUSA to deal with the consequences of their actions, and to insolate themselves from criticism and the pain and suffering they have caused to many good Christians. I believe it is time for all concerned to just be honest and face simple facts. To the fault of no one, it is time to stop dancing around the obvious – the current leadership of the PCUSA would like nothing more than to rid the denomination of all conservatives. And the only way for the conservatives to save the church as we know it is to take the church back from the liberals. All the public talk of cooperation and reconciliation is redundant at this point, and we all know it. For me, there is no chance of ever giving in to any liberal position. It is not that I am stubborn or unforgiving. I believe that my values and positions are firmly rooted in the Word. Call it self-righteous, intolerant, bigoted or whatever. I will never be a party to the support of what I truly believe the Bible teaches us about sinful behavior. For me and many others, to give in to homosexual ordination, Sophia worship, etc, is to sell my soul. I am angered and appalled by anyone that would ask me to do that. Unfortunately, I believe there is one Biblical principle that continues to make many conservatives take pause and to ultimately hold us back. We are supposed to help our Christian brothers and sisters when they stray from the path. Many of us believe it is our duty and God's commandment to show patience and to help our wayward friends back on course. I think many good conservatives believe this is still possible. But, when is it supposed to stop? The liberals in the Presbyterian Church appear to be as passionate and resolute in their positions. Look at the evidence. The current leadership in the PCUSA shows no sign of repentance. It is shocking to most conservatives that the liberals would want to stay in power due to the recent disasters. It is obvious that the church is headed for destruction. But, logic continues to get in our way of understanding the truth of what is really happening. Conservatives see the current situation as destruction, the liberals see it as reformation. Conservatives are going to continue to be baffled and mislead until we finally get it into our heads that the liberals want us out. For whatever reason, we allowed this to happen. It is ultimately our fault for letting this minority take control of the denomination. We can continue to whine and moan, act appalled and shocked, but what is that going to accomplish? The time for thinking that peaceful co-existence is possible is over. Protests have taken many forms, from withholding per capita, to getting fed up and leaving altogether. No one is to blame for taking these measures, but the fact is that nothing is working. The conservatives that have chosen to stay have nothing to look forward to but an enormous battle for the very soul of the Presbyterian Church. Because, if they are true to their own principles, the only way to continue is to ultimately rid the church of the pestilence. When something infests your house, do you peacefully co-exist with it? Or do you do something about it. It is time to realize that liberals are the enemy. If that sounds un-Christian, than so be it. It is the truth and the quicker we come to realizing it the better. Conservatives hold the majority of members in the church. It is time to turn that concept around to the way it should be. Liberals complain in the secular world that George Bush does not have a mandate. Their fuzzy and flawed way of doing math says that he won by only 3 million votes. The logic is that over 100 million voted the other way, and those voices should not be ignored. Well then, how does that apply to the Presbyterian Church? The conservatives have a true majority, but the liberals have taken control and advantage of the system utilized to elect the leadership. But should the conservative majority be ignored? Remember this one important fact. The majority continues to wither as we lose more members. These folks are not liberals. I believe it is of major importance to keep as many members as possible, and to try and rehabilitate some of the lost membership. The lost members can be a vital resource. I believe many are just on the sidelines watching for something to start moving. You can fault them for this, or forgive them and get them back in the game. The Layman is criticized for many things. But it is a true voice of those displaced members. Of all the problems this denomination faces, the situation of mass exodus is the most critical. Do not forget these folks, especially as we get motivated to take back the Presbyterian Church. David Hankins South Bend 'The fact is that the Presbyterian Church is a mess' December 28, 2004 I would like to thank the three letter writers of December 23 for their timely message of encouragement to remain in the Presbyterian Church (USA). As Christmas and a new year approaches, many of us use that time for self-evaluation, to reflect on the decisions we made and the things we accomplished during the year. For many like myself, this involves trying to assess our reactions and emotions toward the negative stuff coming out of the PCUSA. The decision to leave does not make one a wimp for Jesus Christ. One of the overriding dilemmas for me is the belief that the PCUSA is controlled by evil. While never one to back down from a fight, I also adhere to the Biblical principal of running away or not associating with evil. Making the statement that the PCUSA is controlled by evil takes courage and foresight. Try to say that to anyone not familiar with this Web site. They will look at you like you are insane. There are many in the church with no perception of the current conflict. For others, the decision to stay comes with the knowledge that a major battle is ahead if the church is going to be restored. To put it in perspective, no one joins a church with the intention of fighting. When I joined over a year ago, I had no clue as to what I would eventually discover. To be honest, I felt deceived and betrayed. That is one reason I believe we should not be too harsh or judgmental of those choosing to leave. This situation should have never happened in the first place. The fact is that the Presbyterian Church is a mess. Answer this question – would you tell a new member about what you know of the church leadership? If no, are you guilty of allowing another oblivious member to enter the ranks? And if the answer is no, is the reason because you are embarrassed to tell them? What do you think the reaction would be if you do decide to be upfront with a prospect? Would you expect them to have the strong resolve that many long-term members have? My point is that while it is not appropriate to blame long-term members for what has happened, it is also not appropriate to blame anyone else for the decisions they make. Be honest – how many of you go to the Layman Online Web site day after day and leave depressed? I am not suggesting that some of us become conditioned to bad news, nor am I really surprised to hear that a member cannot take it any more. It is important for us to encourage each other today as much as it ever has been. We have to make an honest assessment of the church we belong to, and try to reach out to those at different levels of commitment. We should not forget those who left and remember that many are out there in limbo, not knowing what to do. The recent letters have inspired me to re-evaluate my decision, along with some great friends that I have come to associate with due to The Layman. Let those with a strong resolve to stay be a light to others, and pray for those who are wavering. David Hankins Tracking the value of Caterpillar stock is ridiculous December 28, 2004 Okay, so many Presbyterians and other religious leaders are uncomfortable with the recommended process of phased selective divestment from some companies doing business with Israel. I think this a fine issue to debate, discuss, and broaden our opinions. However, this constant watching of the stock market to determine how much Caterpillar's stock value has increased and profited the PCUSA is ridiculous! Is Mr. Adams really suggesting that because a stock makes money it is worth having in our portfolio? Have we reached such a heretical point in our faith that we are more concerned with the money raised than how the money is generated? Are we really willing to say that the ends justify the means? To imply that divestment is wrong because we could lose money doesn't seem to be a faith-based answer at all. I am disappointed given that those who are watching the bank are those who have pledged to bring us back to orthodoxy. Let's keep the discussion at the theological, not the money, level. Matt Sauer Winfield, Ind. PCUSA is 'some kind of secular political action committee' December 28, 2004 Of course, Mr. Hines [letter to the editor posted December 22, 2004], a person cannot, in good conscience, remain a member of any organization that purports to speak in his name when that organization deliberately acts in ways that thoroughly contradict his ethics, morals or faith standards. To me, the astonishing advice to the contrary from Presbyterian pastors turns reason on its head. Would they recommend we belong to the KKK? What have the terrorists known as the Klan done that's so different from what terrorist Palestinian Islamists have done to Israelis? Yet, the PCUSA endorses Palestinian terrorists and sanctions our Jewish brothers and sisters. Would they belong to the Communist Party? Our Louisville leadership's fellow travelers in world church organizations rely heavily on the cultural Marxists' playbook. At the point of a gun, Janet Reno and Joan Brown Campbell reunited Elian and Fidel, you may recall. Yet, the PCUSA is a leading financial contributor to liberal world church organizations. Would they belong to NORML, the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws? Why not? Our stated clerk has advocated the use of hallucinogenic drugs. Are you pastors out there in a catatonic state? We're not even a denomination any more. We're some kind of secular political action committee. You should be outraged; you should declare all of this intolerable. You should be weeping. Not for Elian or Israel, but because leaders within our denomination have questioned the very deity of Christ – and today they are still preaching, card-carrying Presbyterians. Their robes and shawls are like the trappings of legitimacy that the mob exhibits by riding around in Cadillac limousines. Yet, they are preachers just like you – at least until you deny them that. Christ chose to put his church in the hands of sinners, so we cannot expect perfection. But we sure want for much more than we're getting, don't we? If you weren't in it already, could you really aspire to membership in such an organization as the PCUSA, Mr. Hines? Every 11 minutes, someone answers that question, and many of the rest of us are just looking for the light switch in case we're the last one out the door. Don't be fooled, Mr. Hines, the liberals neither win nor lose if you leave. Why? Because it isn't a battle between us and them. It's the battle between good and evil. Now, choose your side. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. 'Give me an intelligent argument,' not propaganda December 28, 2004 After just reading your Dec. 2004 issue, I gain a new appreciation of why it is I am so uncomfortable reading The Layman. I'm familiar with the various propagandistic strategies available to manipulate people into thinking and acting a certain way – the use of which strike me as exceptionally un-Christ-like in their application. Since you appear to use many such techniques, you would seem to be quite familiar with them: Name calling, glittering generalities, transfer, bandwagon, fear, logical fallacies, unwarranted extrapolation – you appear to use them all. Propaganda inherently distorts the truth. And when I read The Layman, I get the distinct feeling that you go out of your way to not fairly represent those with whom you disagree; for that matter, you don't seem much interested to simply understand them – you simply assert they're wrong because you're right. I find it unpersuasive that the people whom you criticize are simply apostate, controlled by the devil, or at the very least total idiots – just because you insist on painting them that way. Just give me an intelligent argument as to why I should think the way you do instead of throwing a bunch of propaganda at me. Then I might be willing to listen. Brian Reeves, pastor United Church of La Jara, Colo. God is not a 'Presbyterian,' or a 'Conservative Protestant' December 28, 2004 I am fascinated by Greg Leaman's response (Better Insight From Older Confessions) to my letter. As a progressive Presbyterian pastor, I have been accused by conservative Presbyterians of being selective in my use of The Book of Confessions. Yet, Mr. Leaman himself chooses to be selective and dismissive in his usage of the confessions by stating that "older, well-challenged-by-the-years confessions" should be the operative norm for true Presbyterians. However, to use Mr. Leaman's phrasing, "Our Church doesn't say 'except the Confession of 1967!'" when addressing the issue of non-Christians challenging the church to renewal or non-Christians serving on the boards of our colleges. Might I remind Mr. Leaman that God is not a "Presbyterian," nor is God a "Conservative Protestant." This is, in fact, why God can boldly challenge the church to renewal and offer new revelation through different kinds of folk – even non-Christians. And maybe I missed it, Mr. Leaman, but wasn't Jesus a dark-skinned, Near-Eastern Jew? W. Robert Martin, III Palo Alto, Calif. The denomination has lost a couple of really good people December 28, 2004 Regarding Kathy Leuckert and Peter Sulyok: John Detterick should have known better than to send people to the Middle East who actually spoke to non-Presbyterians. Everyone knows that Presbyterians only speak to Presbyterians, certainly not to Methodists and never to Anglicans, much less Jews and Arabs! I happen to be a friend of Peter Sulyok, and if anyone ought to be discharged it is certainly not him. I told him a long time ago that he ought to get himself called to a church. I guess now he will. I think the denomination has lost a couple of really good people and I question whether they can be replaced. I certainly would not work for this denomination under these conditions of employment. I'll speak with whomever I wish, even Peter Sulyok. I think Kathy and Peter should sue for unlawful discharge. Rev. John A. Baxter Mooresville, N.C. 'The body of Christ should not be forced to be a party to evil' December 28, 2004 I read with interest the letters imploring Mr. Norman Hines [letter to the editor posted December 22, 2004] to remain a member of the PCUSA ("Please explain to me why I should remain a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA)?") Which is right? Flee or stay and fight. Only he can finally answer that, but I think there are important questions he and everyone else who feels this dilemma should ask themselves. Here they are: Does your pastor and most of the congregation also feel offended at the GA's leadership decisions, such as their lobbying to end the ban on late-term abortions (partial-birth abortions)? Is the church to which you are a member willing to write letters, make phone calls and make appearances at the GA? Is your church willing to announce to the GA and the rest of the world that they are not only going to withhold the usual funds that are sent to support the Presbyterian GA superstructure, but will redirect those funds in support of activities and organizations that fight the GA's corruption? My former pastor believes that the GA's position on partial-birth abortion is wrong, but he does not feel "called" to take a stand, even so much as to write a letter to the GA. To remain a member of such a church that is led by such apathy and rationalizations is to enable the illness. No, I don't expect any church to be perfect, but the body of Christ should not be forced to be a party to evil. My own belief, as I have previously expressed, is that there is no light at the end of this tunnel; nothing will stir the national leadership to reassess their hearts except the thunder of a mass exodus. The salt thus removed will leave them to be handed over to their own fetid corruption for chastisement to choose life or, resisting correction, to continue on into their spiritual death. Eric Foster Continuing the one-sided perspectives does not promote justice or peace December 28, 2004 I was concerned with the lack of balance in The Layman's perspectives on the situation in Israel/Palestine, evident in the fund-raising insert "Israel and the PCUSA in the 21st Century" in the December 2004 issue and in the article dismissing Marc Ellis as a "Jewish liberationist" who is critical of Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people. I would have hoped for a more Christian view from The Layman. Just as our Lord came to "preach good news to the poor, ... to proclaim freedom to the prisoners and recovery of sight to the blind, to release the oppressed" (Luke 4:18), we too are called to seek justice and peace in situations in our world where there is injustice and conflict. Continuing the one-sided perspectives that portray the Palestinian people as the aggressors and Israel as simply defending itself (the same perspectives that have dominated the U.S. news media for decades) does not promote justice or peace. May I suggest that The Layman educate itself on the facts before it writes again on this subject? There is an enormous amount of good material, written by well-informed evangelicals, on the subject. For example, you might begin with the 2003 book, Whose Land? Whose Promise? by Gary Burge, professor of New Testament at Wheaton College. I have read The Layman for many years for "inside information" on what's going on in my denomination. However, uninformed writing on important subjects like Israel/Palestine will undermine broadly your credibility with your readership. Thanks for taking this constructive criticism seriously. Steve Olin Rockville, Md. Open letter to Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick December 28, 2004 Dear Mr. Kirkpatrick: I read your December 10, 2004 letter to President Bush regarding the looting and vandalizing of the Evangelical Church of Mosul, Iraq. I share your grief over this unfortunate event. I also share your concern about the safety and welfare of our Christian brothers and sisters in Iraq. I join in your plea to President Bush to take steps to enhance the safety of Christian churches in Iraq. However, I disagree with your call to the president to admit that our liberation of Iraq was "unwise." It was not unwise. To the contrary, the action was reasonable, necessary and fully in compliance with the Law of Nations and the law of the United States of America. What disturbed me most was your inexplicable suggestion that we "turn to" the United Nations for assistance in our efforts to restore order. Our forces, and the Iraqi people, are facing a merciless band of fanatics who are determined to prevent democracy from flourishing in Iraq. Much of their support comes from Syria and Iran, whose totalitarian regimes would be greatly imperiled by a stable, democratic Iraq on their borders. The recent history of the U.N. shows that it is ill-suited to deal with this threat. The U.N. did nothing while hundreds of thousands were slaughtered in Rwanda. It sat by while tens of thousands were murdered in the Balkans. It took no meaningful action while genocide, religious persecution and human slavery ran rampant in Sudan. In the nearly 60 years that the U.N. has been in existence, decisive action to stop genocide, to prevent tyranny, or to end oppression has been rare. The terrorists in Iraq have clearly learned this lesson. For example, when the U.N. headquarters was bombed, did the U.N. stiffen its resolve and increase security? No. It withdrew its personnel. Even more astounding, you advocate that the president turn over the incredibly important and monumentally complex task of creating a stable democracy to the same body that presided over the "oil for food" scandal, the largest public corruption scandal in history. It is ironic – incomprehensible, actually – that you now urge President Bush to turn over Iraq to the same body whose members were bribed and corrupted by Iraq's former dictator. Finally, I am totally baffled by your willingness to place so much confidence in an organization that placed Libya, Sudan and Zimbabwe on its Human Rights Commission. Your confidence in the U.N. ignores that many members of the U.N. are despotic and authoritarian regimes. These governments are not accountable to their own people, much less to the rest of the world. Their actions are directed by their self-interest rather than a sense of the collective good of all nations. Right now, a chaotic, violence-torn Iraq serves the interest of several members of the U.N. They have blocked meaningful assistance to Iraq and will continue to so. Strong, tough, and visionary leadership is the only hope for establishing a stable democracy in Iraq. Unfortunately, the U.N. is woefully lacking in all of these qualities. James W. Kaucher Tucson PCUSA needs the witness of vibrant elders who stand up for Biblical truth December 23, 2004 Norman Hines of Ridgecrest Church [letter to the editor, posted Dec. 22] asked us for reasons he should stay a member and elder in the PCUSA. My response would be: because God needs good evangelical elders – people who strongly believe that Jesus is the world's only Savior and are Biblically based – to continue his work in the world and in this denomination. We need the witness and voice of vibrant elders who will stand up and speak for Biblical truth. If such people bail and leave for the PCA or the Evangelical Presbyterian Church then our denomination will be infinitely poorer and without a voice we need to hear to stay on track. Another question: Norman, what does God want you to do? Not what do you want. Standing up for Jesus is not easy and often is costly and at times it is incredibly frustrating. Jesus told us it would be so. So my advice to Norman is to hang in there and stick it out. Get involved on the presbytery level and even synod and GA levels. Speak the words Jesus would have you speak. God will use you in mighty ways if you are in his will. Rev. Barry Sweet Chartiers Crossroads Presbyterian Church Washington, Pa. Some reasons to remain in the PCUSA December 23, 2004 In a letter dated Dec. 22 ["Tell me why"], Elder Norman Hines asks for an explanation as to why he should remain a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA). As irritating and frustrating as the current situation may be, I think that there are several reasons that he (and I) should remain in the Presbyterian Church. Let me share a couple with you. First, upon our ordination to church office, he and I both vowed before the face of God and his people (i.e. promised; gave our word; took an oath), to: a) "further the peace, unity, and purity of the church" – which at a minimum means that we have agreed to work for these objectives, not just to walk away when they are not easily attained, or when they are threatened; and to b) "serve the people …" – which implies taking care of those given into our care; not walking away from them and leaving them to the wolves when the going gets tough. Second, notwithstanding the fact that there are some who continue to try to change our core commitments, they have not as yet been successful in: a) changing our confessional standards; or in b) altering our commitment to the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. Third, even if you are able to find a genuinely pure church "out there" to join, you shouldn't do it – because you'll spoil it. At least that was what my Calvinist father told me 45 years ago when I was tempted to cut and run. Last, let me suggest that you carefully read an on-line article to which The Layman Online linked earlier this week. It's found on the Web page of Voices of Orthodox Women, and it's titled "The Church as Mother, Nurturer and Ground of the Truth." In it, Viola Larson makes some salutary observations that we would all do well to consider before walking out the door. Robert Dooling, moderator The Presbyterian Forum Don't abandon the sheep to the wolves December 23, 2004 No one can give the definitive reason for elder Norman Hines ["Tell me why," Dec. 22] to stay. I will, however, offer him this thought: Every 11 minutes another Presbyterian leaves this denomination. At that rate there will not be a denomination in 2039. I believe that the end is much closer than that. Every time a faithful, Scripture-believing, Christ-confessing member throws up his or her hands in disgust and walks away, the liberal progressive church deconstructionists are that much closer to their goal. When you leave, you empower and enable their apostasy and heresy. That is the first reason you should stay. The second is this: There is a faithful remnant of believers still in this church that is working as hard as it can to reestablish the essential tenets and foundations of the reformed faith in the PCUSA. I believe you should stay to become a part of that effort. How? You may well ask. Here are a couple things you can do: 1. Sign the petition calling for the GA to rescind its poorly conceived and executed call for divestment. Get the rest of your session and membership to sign as well. 2. Hold your elders and especially your pastor accountable for their theology and practice. Does your pastor keep your congregation informed of the behaviors and actions of the GA? If not, why not? Does your pastor teach and preach Reformed thought? If not, why not? Stop sending undesignated funds to higher level judicatories to be used for purposes that are antithetical to Christian belief and practice, such as funding a Washington Office which lobbies for same-sex marriage, supporting late-term abortion and sending teams to dialogue with known terrorist groups. Elder Hines, this is your denomination. Stay and fight for it. Rev. James C. Yearsley, pastor Pittsburgh, Pa. Letter writer is illogical December 23, 2004 Mr. Earl Apel ["All ceremonies at Mount Auburn are 'holy unions' regardless of couple's gender," Dec. 22] makes the statement, "The real issue is just making sure that all people are treated equally in the end, not what terms we use." How right he is – unfortunately, he neglects to remember that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and calling it a "holy union" (his term, not mine) does not change the inherent sinfulness of homosexual behaviour. Please, Mr. Apel, if you are going to try to make logical arguments for your particular issue, at least be consistent – otherwise your logic is faulty and doesn't hold up. Marriage is a holy institution only when it honors the God of our creation and is between a man and a woman – as our PCUSA Constitution supports. Any other relationship called "marriage" is not and therefore, by definition, cannot be "holy." Rev. Larry Yerger Wintergarden Presbyterian Church Port Charlotte, Fla.

December 2004 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links