 |
||
| July
2004 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
||
| Stated
clerk candidate may run again July 29, 2004 Numerous questions have been raised regarding my motives for supplying documents to the press regarding the orchestration of the Stated Clerk election. Since I was receiving daily requests for this information, I decided it would be easiest to provide the information I had been given and to make it available to anyone who desired to receive the information. Two news organizations requested the information, the Presbyterian News Service and The Presbyterian Lay Committee. Furthermore, I have offered the same information to the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly (COGA), which will review the whole process related to the nomination and election of the Stated Clerk. In a recent letter, published by The Presbyterian Outlook on-line (still posted), I responded to a numerous questions about the election of the stated clerk. You can find the full text of my letter at the Web site of The Presbyterian Outlook. As reported by the Presbyterian News Service, prior to the election, I never expected to win the election. I ran for a simple reason. I ran to lift up the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to call us back to being faithful to the Bible as God's inspired, authoritative and infallible Word. Both friends and enemies tell me that in my presentation at GA this call was clearly proclaimed. For months, I told the congregation which I serve that I would receive two votes. I know I have enemies because I have been an outspoken critic of the current leadership of the PCUSA. I will continue to speak out against leadership which demeans the Lordship of Jesus Christ and rejects the authority of scripture. In other words, don't expect me to go away just because I did not win the election. In fact, I may run again for stated clerk in 2008. Clifton Kirkpatrick is our current stated clerk. He won the election. As one of our key leaders, he bears the responsibility of turning around the PCUSA. However, I predict that because of his continuing failed leadership our rapid decline during the past eight years will only accelerate. If we "stay the course," as many commissioners voted to do, I believe that not only will we continue to lose members, but we will continue to lose status and influence within the Christian Church worldwide. The PCUSA is seen by many as a fringe denomination because we no longer clearly proclaim the Lordship of Jesus Christ and live obedient to Scripture. Finally, I have never claimed that the election was rigged. However, I do believe that "the process" was worked to ensure Clifton Kirkpatrick's re-election. I have asked the moderator of the COGA to invite me to participate in the committee's evaluation of the election process. Furthermore, I believe that Bob Davis and Alex Metherell deserve the same opportunity. Will we be invited to meet with COGA face-to-face? I hope so. I believe that by giving us this opportunity, COGA will reveal their commitment to improve the process of the election of the Stated Clerk. I continue to pray for the PCUSA and I will continue to proclaim the Lordship of Jesus Christ and to be obedient to God's inspired, authoritative and infallible Word. I love the PCUSA too much to turn my back and walk away. L Rus Howard Venetia, Pa. Candidate for stated clerk in 2008 (maybe) Clerk's race: no foul, no harm July 29, 2004 Maybe I missed something, but the questions posed by the Clifton Kirkpatrick supporters looked very "predictable." The incumbent and all three opponents should have been able to address them. These questions should have been on everybody's mind. If all four candidates had an opportunity to answer, I see no foul and no harm. Can we see a transcript of the answers? What strikes me as sad, though, is that someone felt obliged to write out questions, rather than let Kirkpatrick supporters, ask what was on their minds and hearts and what they might have said themselves. Reminds me of a day, back in the military, when a 3-star general was going to meet with a group of "us" lieutenants and captains. He was scheduled to talk for a few minutes then take some questions. The majors and colonels in between us and the general didn't want to "risk it" that a young officer would ask a stupid or embarrassing question, so (unknown to the general, I assume) they wrote out some "safe" questions on little strips of paper and handed them out to the attendees before the general arrived. When the general finished his remarks and took the first question, the questioner (a friend of mine) asked his carefully scripted question (without looking or reading, by the way), but the general didn't hear it right and went off on a long digression about something else. At that point he had to leave, the rest of the questions unasked. I was embarrassed for everyone involved. So maybe the pre-election questions were meant to protect the supporters (probably from faults they didn't really have), and calm down the "handlers" (from things they didn't need to worry about) not protect the candidate. Eric Wallace Dayton, Ohio Mainline Coalition a.k.a. 'thought police July 29, 2004 The so-called "Mainstream Coalition" sounds like it should be renamed the "Thought Police" to me. Sadly enough, this kind of maniacal intimidation of other people's thoughts and words were made famous by people like Stalin, Hitler and Mao. The best of political liberals and conservatives should condemn this approach as an attempt to ban freedom of speech. Rather than promoting an environment of harassment and manipulation, we should be promoting an environment of openness, trust and honesty. The "Mainstream Coalition" is a tragic legacy for Rev. Meneilly, who has a positive reputation amongst liberals and conservatives for his ability to bring robust growth to the church. Reverend Clifford D. Mansley Jr., senior pastor Brookdale Presbyterian Church St Joseph, Mo. How to rein in the PCUSA on Israel July 29, 2004 Many faithful Christians and Jews were outraged at the decision of the General Assembly to begin divesting of companies contracted to construct Israel's security fences and walls. Understandably, proponents of this decision are outraged at the outrage. The bottom line is that it is wrong for the GA to assume political positions on behalf of Presbyterians. They may have the power to do so, but it is still wrong. What can be done to repair the damage done by the GA? Certainly, letters and sermons won't do it. After stewing and praying, a plan that is balanced and constructive came to mind. Please ask your session to send the following letter to the stated clerk of the GA: "So that the Jewish community understands that Presbyterians are truly interested in the welfare of Israeli citizens, the Session of __________________________ Presbyterian Church will withhold per capita funds from the PCUSA and invest these funds in dividend yielding securities of companies from which the GA shall choose to divest itself. Dividends from these investments will be donated to charities that provide care and rehabilitation for Israeli children who have lost parents or who have been disabled as a result of terrorist attacks, keeping in mind that many of these attacks could have been prevented had the security fences and walls been in place. When the GA rescinds its divestiture policy, securities purchased with withheld per capita funds will be transferred to the PCUSA."Opportunities for IRS approved tax-deductible charities that cater to orphaned and disabled Israeli children can be found at http://info.jpost.com/C002/Supplements/CharitableFunds/ Please feel free to edit this letter prior to publishing. Thank you for your consideration. Evan B. Janovitz Cranbury, NJ NCC does include Biblical voting principles July 29, 2004 A Layman article regarding the recently published NCC voting principles says that no Scripture is cited. While I am no apologist for the NCC, it should be noted that the NCC publication has two pages, the second of which is a study containing an examination of Biblical texts. One can agree or disagree with the voting principles, but we can take from them a challenge to take seriously our civic obligation as Christians. Geoff Ketcham Wenham, Mass. Presbyterian view of Christian Zionism July 29, 2004 While others in the General Assembly structure are charged with interpreting the whole of the Assembly's actions regarding Israel, I need to make one clarifying remark concerning you article posted July 28, "Statement on Israel-Palestine spawns backlash v. backlash." In the article you write, "Kirkpatrick's statement also condemned Jewish and Christian Zionism . . ." Nowhere does Kirkpatrick refer to "Jewish" Zionism. In fact, Kirkpatrick's letter includes, " These actions are rooted in a longstanding commitment to the secure existence of Israel and the Israeli people . . ." The Assembly did take an action that declared that Christian Zionism is not consistent with the basic values of Reformed theology. It is important to note that "Christian Zionism" refers to a particular movement and does not simply mean "Christians who support the state of Israel." Instead, it is the wedding of a particular interpretation of the Bible, dispensationalism, with unquestioned support for the modern state of Israel – whose secure existence will trigger the second coming of Christ. The issues raised in Christian Zionism go to the heart of the way we understand the Scriptures, the nature of salvation and the identity of Jesus Christ, in addition to the concerns over how it interfaces with contemporary politics. I would encourage all your readers to read the Assembly's actions regarding Christian Zionism. There are a number of helpful resources listed in the action. In addition, if readers are interested in what we do believe about the coming of Christ, they will be interested in "Between Millennia: What Presbyterians Believe About the Coming of Christ." Charles Wiley Office of Theology and Worship Presbyterian Church (USA) Was Calvin ever that popular? July 29, 2004 Uwe Siemon-Netto asks the question "Is Calvinism on the wane in the United States?" My answer is when was Calvinism ever that popular? Or it might be more appropriate to ask when was it popular to be Calvinist and follow the Presbyterian form of government? For our good friends the Baptists are Calvinist but follow the Congregational model. In 1967 according to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 198,712,056 persons in the United States. And, according the your article, there were 4.2 million Presbyterians. That equates to 2% of the population. In 2004 the figure is 293,856,735 persons in the United States. And using the combined figures of your article with the PC (USA), the PCA, and the EPC this amounts to 2.8 million Presbyterians. This equates to 1% of the population. So the bottom line is in 1967 and 2004 neither figure is something to boast about if one finds numbers of value. The real question I think needs to be answered is why didn't 98% of the population in 1967 want to be Presbyterian and why doesn't 99% want to be Presbyterian today? I speculate that perhaps most people don't find the representative form of church government that useful. And that is a shame I think. It either amounts to a loose federation of churches where each do as they please or a more authoritative model where the higher ups tell everyone else what to do. Maybe I'm strange, but these more popular forms don't seem that effective at least from my view point. But then again I might need to be more open to a better system of government and maybe we just need to scrap our connectional nature that is perhaps out dated. Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio What's the option for Confessing Churches? July 29, 2004 It now seems that the conservative side of PCUSA is not going to get a person in any of the high offices at General Assembly. We are losing members at 40K a year and no one seems to care. I am a member of a Confessing Church and a number of our members have been upset by the actions of this last General Assembly. Some say they will leave the church before the next General Assembly in 2006 if our church does not leave the PCUSA. Some of us had hoped the Confessing Churches would look at withdrawing from PCUSA if changes did not take place. Our last hope was that changes would take place at this General Assembly. The same people or kind of people got elected so no changes will take place. We cannot wait until 2006 for another vote or we will have another 80k members leave the denomination and some will be from Confessing Churches. Do you know of any activity that is ongoing to establish another denomination of the Confessing Churches? We have made some unofficial contacts with EPC and there are two churches from the PCUSA that joined them in 2003. Larry Pulliam Observing manipulation first hand July 28, 2004 I read the report of the attempted manipulation of the election with great interest. My interest comes from having been present and watching this happen first hand. Up until the events in Richmond (and by that I mean a wide variety of suspect behavior), I was able to partially convince myself that the actions of the GAC/OGA and stated clerk's minions were probably nothing more than cupidity or disingenuousness. I can no longer do that. This was blatantly Machiavellian and, I believe, malevolent striving for power. The telling point for me was when, in my sight and hearing, a woman commissioner from up around the Great Lakes confronted Dr. Howard after the election. What was she upset about? Not that the election was managed to Cliffs advantage. Not that people were so ideologically driven that they would participate in this sort of behavior. Not that it was so blatantly an abuse of our 'sacred' process. No, she was furious that Dr. Howard had the nerve to disclose it. How dare he! I would say, "How dare you, Madam. How dare you allow your name to be used in such a shabby trick." And how dare the progressive/liberal church deconstructionists to continue to talk about process and about peace, unity and about purity. The operative term you are looking for is "chutzpah." Rev. James C. Yearsley Pittsburgh, Pa. Manipulation story much ado about nothing July 28, 2004 It seems to me that the article "Documents released on efforts to manipulate stated clerk vote" is much ado about little or nothing. Neither Rus Howard nor The Layman apparently can stop their sour grapes attitude at losing the election overwhelmingly. First, the vote was secret and by electronic ballot, so how would one "manipulate" it? Second, so supporters hurried to the microphones to ask "friendly" questions. What is to stop a candidate from rising to a point of order and request of the Assembly that questions be asked alternately of all the candidates. You also imply something sinister in the following, prodded by Mr. Howard: "Kirkpatrick denied that he gave any instructions to his supporters and Ufford-Chase said he was unaware of an orchestrated effort to control the microphones and ask questions that gave Kirkpatrick the edge. Yet, during the questions and answers, Howard noted that the first four questions were taken from the script and posed by commissioners and delegates who were on the list." Do you and Mr. Howard mean to suggest by the "yet" that both the stated clerk and the Moderator were lying? If so, have the courage to make an open accusation against both through the disciplinary processes of the church, not by sniveling innuendo. Mr. Kirkpatrick was re-elected in an open process in which he garnered in the neighborhood of two-thirds of the vote. If there is manipulation -- and I do not believe there was, instead there were supporters who foolishly running scared, operated with the wisdom of serpents to get to the microphones -- it is going on right now in this absurd attempt to manipulate the truth. Submit genuine evidence to any investigative body you wish, but please refrain from cooperating with Mr. Howard's ill-concealed attempt at character assassination. He should get a life! Neil D. Cowling Kirk of Our Savior Westland, Mich. Some should hang their heads in shame July 28, 2004 The most recent article concerning the egregious election process followed by those in support of our current stated clerk only shows how far the opposition is willing to go to remake the Church in theirown image. I guess the question left to answer is this: How far are we willing to go to see that she is transformed into God's image? The answer can only be: as far as necessary without becoming what we have held in contempt. Anyone who is willing to rig a discussion in an election of this nature to the degree that it is clear they have is not serving God but themselves. The commissioners listed on these documents should bow their heads in shame and repentance and beg forgiveness from the three other candidates for clerk and the rest of the denomination they vowed to serve. May God have mercy on us if this is how far we have sunk. Rev. Pat McElroy Park United Presbyterian Church Zelienople, Pa. Listen to the voice of the people July 28, 2004 I think the Rev. Linn Rus Howard and The Layman should learn to listen to the voice of the people. All the stated clerk candidates responded to the same questions in rotation. There can be no favoritism is that process. All the commissioners listened to the responses given and made an overwhelming choice for Clifton Kirkpatrick. Accept the reality of who we are -- a denomination that embraces diversity. Dr. Jack M. Terry (retired) General Assembly is all about power July 28, 2004 I would have been surprised if there wasn't any manipulation of the voting process at the GA by the liberals. This is all about power. You have to ask yourself why any supposed public servant such as Clifton Kirkpatrick would want to continue leading such a miserably flawed administration. If you are truly a man of God, wouldn't it be obvious to you to step down and let someone else take over? If you really cared about your church losing so many members, wouldn't you wake up one day and think just maybe someone else would be better for the job? I think this is the core sentiment of most of the letters to The Layman. A logical and spiritual person just cannot grasp the audacity and insanity of this situation. The position we find ourselves in defies all logic, and is made worse by the fact that we are a church denomination. This should not be happening to good Christians. Cheating and manipulation are not behaviors associated with Christians. Yet, that is where we are. Our church is completely dominated by liberal politics, and to think otherwise is just plain denial. If you do not see it, please wake up! Clifton Kirkpatrick had to run for stated clerk, because giving up the position would have meant turning the fortunes of the church leadership over to Conservatives. Liberals are rendered useless without power. They have no true conviction or values and they know it. If you want evidence of that, you only need to look at their stance on abortion and gay ordination. Liberals want their agenda to succeed at all cost, even at the expense of losing members. There is no compromise, and there is no such thing as giving up power, even for the health of the denomination. One has to be very desperate in order to try and manipulate the voting process. And people accuse The Layman of paranoia! We must look at this event positively. Evil cannot sustain itself forever. The reason for the decline of the Soviet Union was not due to any special effort on our part. It fell due to its evil nature. The liberals of our church are going to bring themselves down some day due to their evil nature. It is sad that it has to come to this. David Hankins The end of a hierchial denomination? July 28, 2004 I'm not surprised that those at the head of the denomination may have cheated and lied to affect the outcome of the election. But keep in mind, if the election process was fixed in any way, it is illegitimate. If it is illegitimate we are no longer a hierarchical denomination. If we are no longer a hierarchical denomination then the argument that has often been used to enforce the denomination's lien on congregational property is patently invalid. Let's hope they're given enough rope to hang themselves. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. PCUSA a front for anti-semitism July 28, 2004 It is official. PCUSA is a front organization for the anti-semitic left. If you have any doubts, consider the actions of the General Assembly by overwhelming majority. If you don't know what to do, you need to get morally clear. Ray Sandborgh Separating the faithful from the deceitful July 28, 2004 The left is using the word "unite" as a ploy for keeping their foot in God's door to divide the church. Let us not be taken in by that. They will never, never unite to obey God's Word. They do not respect or adhere to God's Word, which is the essence of our faith. Our Lord told his disciples to "get out of the town or city" that would not receive His laws. It's time to pray about severing completely the faithful from the deceitful. Ida M. Lee Wearing Soulforce shirt was his 'witness' July 28, 2004 In response to a letter by David Hankins: I have never been accused of lacking courage. I do not hide behind anything. I think I stated very clearly that wearing a Soulforce shirt is done as a witness, just as I witness to other things in other ways. What is interesting is that The Layman did not mention the t-shirt in their original story. It only became an issue to them when I challenged the article. And by the way, The Layman took the picture of Lisa and I from the TAMFS web site, without attributing the source; once again falling below standard journalistic practices. It was no great scoop by The Layman. In the future, I invite you, Mr. Hankins, and others to contact me directly instead of attacking me and others through the letters column. My email address is: paulpeterson@tamfs-michigan.org. I will gladly correct the many serious misunderstandings of Scripture that constantly appear in the letters to The Layman. I have full confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to break through the hardest heart and help people discover More Light. Paul Peterson Stand firm on Biblical understanding of marriage July 28, 2004 We as Presbyterians need to stand firm on the Biblical definition of marriage so that our children and grandchildren will have the best foundation for their emotional and spiritual development. The judges and courts are frequently controled by 'progresive' ideas that are contrary to what the majority of Americans believe. Therefore, we need to have a chance to defeat the minority who are striving to be in charge of our culture. Please pursue all avenues that you have access to and guide us in the right direction. Elaine Wahrenberger, member Westminster Presbyterian Church Erie, Pa. Reasons to leave the PCUSA July 28, 2004 This is in response to a letter written by Rev. Daniel E. Hale, who wrote, "... is there an orthodox majority in our denomination? If so, then we need to take responsibility for what has taken place and seek to prayerfully change it." For crying out loud, Clifton Kirkpatrick was re-elected Stated Clerk by a two-thirds majority! The majority of the PCUSA love this man! Of course, there will be those who actually enjoy being a minority, a church within a church. Look, here are some reasons to leave the PCUSA: 1. What Scripture says, "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord (2 Cor. 6:17; see also Rev. 18:4). 2. People will always assume that if you're Presbyterian, you stand behind everything that comes out of Louisville. I'm EPC, and people assume that's true of me! 3. Maybe you can stay in the PCUSA and hold on to your orthodox convictions, but what about your children? 4. Instead of fretting over what the home office is doing, you could be spending all of your time and energy doing the Lord's work. 5. If you're not where the Holy Spirit is moving, who knows what blessings you could be missing! Fifty years from now, there won't be a PCUSA, a WCC or an NCC. The EPC, PCA, OPC, etc. will still be there. I'm 53 now, so I'll be dead then. However, one could "speed its coming" to use the language of 2 Peter 3:12, by getting out now! Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College A challenge to 'fed up' PCUSA members July 28, 2004 Mr. Alan Cole of McLean, Va. asks the very appropriate question in his July 27 letter: "So why don't the people in the pews who are fed up make it a point to elect elders, presbyters, and commissioners who will do what it takes to oust all those leftist church bureaucrats?" All of the PCUSA surveys show that the theological conservatives represent the majority of the membership. My challenge to each "fed up" church member is this. Begin immediately to elect elders, presbyters, and commissioners who will do what it takes to oust those leftist church bureaucrats. Do not wait for your minister or renewal group to do it for you. They have been trying for years with little success. It is the responsibility of each member to rise up and take action. We have 15 months before the slate of commissioners begin to be elected to GA 2006. You must start now. Upon reading this letter, forward a copy to your church friends and encourage them to meet with you to start action now. Contact a member of another church in your presbytery and ask them to meet with you to start action now. All it takes is one person in each church to make a major change in the denomination. Are you that person? Or are you waiting for some other unnamed person to take action for you? Larry Rued First Presbyterian Church Bradenton, Fla. Reader has her own divestment policy July 27, 2004 Since the General Assembly has chosen to divest itself of its holdings in corporations that do business with Israel, I am divesting myself from making further contributions to any PCUSA affiliate. Boycotts can work both ways. Perhaps when the General Assembly has no money with which to operate they will get the message. Since the General Assembly has no respect for Scripture, maybe money (or lack thereof) will get their attention. I am ashamed of my affiliation. Lynne Cox Dallas, Tex. An Open Letter to Delegates to the 216th General Assembly July 27, 2004 Thanks a lot! Do any of you remember Angela Davis? Your vote on the Israeli/Palestinian issue may very likely complete the job of tanking us that our predecessors began with Angela. Somehow you managed to conclude that a country that wishes to protect its people from suicide bombers is the moral equivalent of the suicide bombers and their organizations themselves. I am so glad that none of you are in Congress. You would have had us apologizing for 9/11 and gathering in groups convenient for extermination by terrorists. From whence came this truly marvelous competence to decide on matters of the policies of the survival of another nation? National Council of Churches? World Council of Churches? Maybe the UN? They've all shown themselves so concerned about human life lately. But it's not about saving lives, is it? It's about love. I can surely understand why we wouldn't want to dirty our money by investing it in Israel. Moral purity of your level demands financial purity as well. Of course, I'd have felt more secure about it if you had gotten some input from Yasser Arafat. He's got more money than we do and he knows the area better. Kofi Annan and those UN financial geniuses in the Oil for Food Program might have been able to help as well. Oh, and were your moral and financial sophistication not enough, you simply stupify with your theological brilliance. Thanks for the warning on Christian Zionism. Whew! We might have fallen into the trap of mixing politics with religion. We'd never want to do that, would we? In its infinite theological wisdom, the Presbyterian Church (USA) now officially informs us that "Christian Zionism," at least in the official straw man form it addresses, is a disallowed doctrine, inconsistent with Reformed thought. Oh really? Let's see, is this the Reformed thought that has raised "diversity" to the highest virtue, that gave us the word "inclusiveness" to mean abandonment of all Biblical standards, that is redefining "family" to the point where it includes people (or at least mainly mammals) doing business with the same bank, removed the sin from homosexual practice, sheds crocodile tears while permitting abortions, that has reduced the courts of the church to meaninglessness, that has tried to theologically enshrine every secular left-wing and socialist doctrine known to man. That Reformed thought? Oh, I feel so reassured. Here's a little unReformed thought for you. Think of the following: Pharoah's Egypt, Midians, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Nazis, Russian Communists ... the list goes on. All of these sought to eliminate the Jews. Take a look around. Any of these governments still exist? No. Take another look around. See any Jews? Does that tell you anything? God keeps His promises. The only folks left trying to exterminate the Jews are the Muslims. For the most part, they live in misery, poverty and grinding oppression inflicted by their own leaders. Do Presbyterians really want to join them? Here's a little Palestinian thought for you. Look at the Palestinians. You see PCUSA supporting them, the National and World Council of Churches supporting them, all of Europe supporting them, the Bush Administration supporting them. Do you see one Arab or Muslim country offering them a support, a future, a place, a hope a ticket out? No. They've let the Palestinians rot in the poverty, disease, ignorance and degradation so eagerly sought for them by their leaders. They've used the Palestinians as casually expendable pawns in their continuing campaign against Israel. Palestinians are subject to infinitely more terror and oppression from their corrupt leaders and their corrupt supporters that Israel could ever inflict. And the UN has helped. Now you know and I know that there is a sizeable minority in our denomination that would like to see it all come down. They would then be the heirs to the name, reputation and property of Presbyterian Church (USA). They would have jobs, money and – at least for a while, and some standing in the public square – less now after the 216th General Assembly. Maybe you share their goals. Okay, fair enough. By all means, ally yourselves and us with terrorists. You've done it with every other death group that's come along – Castro, the Sandinistas. ... Oh, why bother? But if you're going to do all that, why not stand up and do it. Put on one of those (always stylish) checkered scarves. Strap on your dynamite vest. Find a crowd of Jews or Christians or Americans or anyone else your mentors point you toward. Just think of all those virgins ... waiting. (Not much help to you ladies, I know, but I didn't design their religion.) Do something concrete. It's so much more dramatic than just killing us by degrees. Thanks for your service, thanks a lot. Rev. George E. Rittenhouse, pastor La Rambla Presbyterian Church San Pedro, Calif. An overdue apology from World Council of Churches July 27, 2004 During the decade of the 1970s and 1980s, before the fall of the Soviet bloc, some of us were very concerned and critical of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and its one-sided criticism of governments. While they rightly denounced brutal right-wing regimes, especially in Latin America (I spent 10 years ministering under brutal right-wing military rule in Guatemala), they seemed to close their eyes to the abuses of the left. I am glad to read of this admission of fault by the ex-general secretary of the WCC, Dr. Konrad Raiser. I still believe, however, that there is hindsight on behalf of some church leaders who fail to criticize the faults of the government of Cuba and continue to glory on its accomplishments as if it were a perfect or nearly perfect government system and society (I recently read an article in a historic mainline denomination magazine written by a church leader who just visited Cuba and all he did was rave of how great everything there was, with no, in my opinion, prophetic insight or proclamation). Mind you, I am not one to be blind to the positive in any system, left or right, but a true prophetic ministry will evaluate ALL political systems by the principles of the kingdom/reign of God, and eventually all will result wanting. As Christians we must never be captive to any one political system or society. We must ever be mindful of the wise words of theologian Reinhold Niehbur: "The Christian must be an ETETRNAL revolutionary;" that is, one who must always be critical in his/her evaluation of any political system (right-wing, left-wing, capitalist or socialist). He also stressed the reality of sin in all human endeavours. The Christian church should never be captive to any political ideology which in the end comes short of God's eternal principles (although a Christian may opt for one system over another, believing it best approximates God's good will for all people, yet it must always be done critically). This is one of the reasons we believe and await the eschathon; for only then will perfection in society be a complete reality even as we strive for it presently in the power of the Holy Spirit). Thank you for your sincere apology, Dr. Konrad Raiser, (though if my memory serves me right, Dr. Emilio Castro, also an ex-general secretary of the WCC at one time also admitted this great fault on the council's part)! Rev. Eriberto (Eddie) Soto It looks like left-wingers will get their way July 27, 2004 OK, the faithful Presbyterian Reformers, those traditional and non-leftist Presbyterians I mean, keep saying that all this trouble in the demonimation is caused by a Presbyterian bureaucracy that's overrun by liberal ministers who are way out of touch with the regular people in the pews. But how can that be? The Presbyterian form of goverment is representative, right? That is, the people in the congregations elect their own ruling elders. Local church sessions elect their own presbyters. Presbyteries elect the General Assembly commissioners. The General Assembly is supposed to control the denominational bureauracy, no? So why don't the people in the pews who are fed up make it a point to elect elders, presbyters, & commissioners who will do what it takes to oust all those leftist church bureaucrats? Are all the nominating committees at every denominational level stacked with left-wingers? If not, what else explains how the lefties hang on year in & year out? Anybody who's been paying attention knows that this left-wing stuff at denominational headquarters is not new. It's been going on for years. But instead of voting the left-wingers out, the regular walking-around church-goers have just been putting up with them, out of some misguided sense of toleration & inclusion, I suppose. Meanwhile, lots of folks who used to be in the pews are no longer in the pews. They're not even in the sanctuary. And don't bother looking for them out in the narthex or down in Fellowship Hall. They reached the point where they won't take it any longer & they're just gone. They switched to other churches or quit going to church at all. (These days there are lots more Mormons out there than Presbyterians. Maybe that's why.) So as it is now, all the left-wing Presbyterian bureaucrats need to do is keep on doing what they're doing. Before long, so many regular folks in the pews will leave that the left-wingers will easily take over whatever's left of the demonimation, rewrite the Book Of Order, overhaul the Confessions, & recast the Presbyterian Church as the People's GLBT Presbyterian Church Of More Light. Alan Cole McLean, Va. Turning the tables by helping Israel July 27, 2004 I am glad you posted a link to Dennis Prager's column on the PCUSA's boycott of Israel. While reading the column, I was struck at how ashamed I was of my denomination and I wrote a letter to Mr. Prager apologizing for what we had done. I told him that, far from boycotting Israel, this Presbyterian would go out of his way to buy Israeli products. I am hoping others will join me in boycotting the boycott and purchasing things from Israel to protest the General Assembly decision. The American Jewish Committee is running a campaign called "Made in Israel" and has links to online merchants that sell Israeli goods. My conscience is not at all bothered that I just used this week's tithe to order a watch emblazoned with the Israeli Defense Force logo. I will make a point to wear it to a future session meeting! Nathan Jones Los Angeles, Calif. Why purity trumps unity July 20, 2004 Professor Gagnon has clearly stated the obvious: Purity trumps unity. The inspired Word of God trumps calls for peace. Scripture and Jesus himself tell us that the gospel is an offense to the natural inclinations of unregenerate mankind which means that many will divide from unity in Christ, straying from his call. As a physician, I see the wide and deep destruction brought by sexually immoral behavior. Even in this modern day of contraceptives, antibiotics and prophylactics, the consequence of sexual immorality is plain to see. The Centers for Disease Control says that about one in three adult Americans is infected with an incurable sexually transmitted disease. [1] One in ten unmarried teenage girls gets pregnant every year. Same sex activity is characterized by the highest rates of STD, depression, and substance abuse. [2] At the root of many divorces is lack of purity. Television commercials attest to the frequency of STDs. An anti-herpes medication, Valtrex, advertises widely because the company knows that there are more than 40 million infected viewers. If the Church is to lead on this issue, it must place purity before unity. How can one have purity if unifying with those who think 1) sexual urges should be indulged, not resisted; 2) the rectum is a genital; 3) youth should experiment with sex; 4) serial marriage and divorce is godly? There is only one sexual ethic around which we can unify that defines purity as it protects the soul and body. It is stated in Matthew 19 and elaborated in Hebrews 13. "Have you not read that He who made[1] them at the beginning "made them male and female,'[2] 5and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?[3] 6So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 4Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge. John R. Diggs, Jr., MD South Hadley, Mass.
Abortion's violence mirrored in cover photo July 20, 2004
I fear that our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will someday be repelled at our willingness to torture and kill the unborn children of this land. They will not understand how we could profess to be followers of Christ and still turn aside while millions of children are being killed. Well over 40,000,000 children since 1973, according to the Allan Guttmacher Institute. Talk about mean-spirited! What is more mean-spirited than to take the life of a child? John Ziegler provides the skirts to hide behind for those people who are militant abortionists. He confuses standing for the right thing and challenging those who do the wrong thing with hate. I care about pro-abortionists and want them to change their ways. No good thing comes from taking the life of a child, especially for parents who come to know that they have chosen to end the life of another human being. Confrontation, as practiced by the young woman on the cover of The Layman, is apparently OK with John Ziegler, but he seems to think that to respond is ugly and mean. If Ziegler supports abortion, he should say so, instead of falling back on the worn-out accusation of hatefulness and meanness, that refuge of intellectual cowards. That sort of tripe avoids the argument and is designed to cloud the issue so that we don't discuss the problem – which is the unwarranted killing of children. David Kesterson Raleigh How do we ignore 'Thou shalt not kill?' July 20, 2004 Once again the General Assembly has failed to recognize abortion as what it is ... murder. How can we ignore the commandment "Thou shalt not kill?" Dean and Kay Wohlgemuth Building bridges can only happen when evangelicals give up the ship July 20, 2004 Rev. John D. Zeigler accuses The Layman of hated for showing us poor misguided evangelicals a picture worth a thousands words. Notice the victim, the "apparently agitated young woman." We evangelicals should be ashamed, why? Well if we didn't insist on truth, other folks could tolerate us much easier. As it stands now, we are the problem. That poor woman was driven to rage by our unwillingness to build bridges with unrighteousness. Shame on us. Zeigler writes we would "rather believe the worst about and demonize those with whom you disagree and lead thousands of others to do likewise than build bridges of dialogue, healing and forgiveness." Let's face it, John, building bridges and dialogue that you consider necessary for healing and forgiveness can only happen when evangelicals give up the ship. Your idea of building bridges means we must agree with the sinful and wicked behavior coming from the top. Evangelicals believe building bridges can only occur when the gap between sinful humanity and the Almighty God is bridged. We evangelicals can find forgiveness only in Christ. Thus, John, as long as your idea of building bridges means casting stones at faithful men and women who have not deviated from the historic faith, we have nothing in common. As a pastor who recently experienced the tolerance of progressive theology, I do not believe there is any human hope for bridging the gap between us. As long as I insist the Word guides the church, you and I will have no unity. Here I stand, God help me. I pastor Christ Community Church in Highland Lakes, N.J., an EPC congregation, formerly RCA. Andrew Meinen No mystery to 'agitated young woman' July 20, 2004 After reading Rev. John D. Zeigler's letter to the editor dated July 19, 2004, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Rev. Ziegler says "you had rather believe the worst and demonize those with whom you disagree and lead thousands of others to do likewise ..." Perhaps Rev. Ziegler cannot read the sign this "agitated young woman" is holding. It doesn't take any presumption, speculation or mystic powers to know that this "agitated young woman" is one of "tomorrow's abortion providers." This "agitated young woman" really makes no mystery of her position and leaves nothing for doubt or "dialogue" about her position. This "agitated young woman" apparently aspires to personally continue the killing in the future. Perhaps Rev. Ziegler believes there is someone just off camera who the "agitated young woman" is building a bridge with at just this moment? This is essentially the position those like Rev. Ziegler have put this denomination in, where there is apparently a straight-faced debate over the degree of "hatefulness" in those reveling in abortion at a public demonstration and a newspaper publishing a picture from the same public rally. A rally whose participants were not having some kind of private reflective moment, but were screaming their position, their support for continued killing, in a manner designed to attract just the type of attention they received. I suppose Rev. Ziegler would have us believe that her t-shirt that read "Non-agitated, woman of God who supports grinding up the unborn … but in a healing and forgiving manner" was simply dirty that day and she wasn't able to wear it. The Layman "demonizes" this woman? Hardly, she did a fine day's work in support of evil that day. I'm sure the demons are well-pleased. The Rev. Ziegler should take comfort in the fact that I'm certain there were plenty of PCUSA ministers and elders in the march with her to counsel her. Ray Keith, elder Trinity Presbyterian Church Texarkana, Texas Letter-writer's logic mystifies reader July 20, 2004 Some things must just be a puzzle. I was attracted to the letter from John Zeigler because he is from my part of the country, and his logic mystifies me. I saw that picture and thought it told "... volumes about the heart, spirit and soul …" of the woman pictured, not The Layman. Then he makes the huge jump that such pictures are about The Layman's deep and irrational hatred for folks with whom The Layman differs. He's talking about me, also, because I am a strong supporter of The Layman. We all try to love good and hate evil, and most of us most of the time manage to do that without hating the people involved. Of course, we wish for healing and forgiveness, but to accuse us of hating the people because we fight for good and oppose evil just means that he is not paying attention to what we are saying. Pete Allen Sunnyvale, Texas Is abortion consistent with love of Jesus? July 20, 2004 In response to Pastor John D. Ziegler, I would like to say: What a picture portrays is in the mind of the beholder. Is the heart, spirit and soul of The Layman hateful and mean or spiritual and righteously indignant? Surely you must agree that an organization has the right to speak out against the continual, violent, slaughter of unborn babies. Is the destruction of unborn babies consistent with the love and sacrifice exemplified by our Savior? Is this violent act, especially sucking out the brain of a partially born infant, consistent with the proclamations of a Church that says it is opposed to violence? Dale W. Parker Middle Smithfield Presbyterian Church 'Poster child' of the abortion movement July 20, 2004 Rev. John D. Zeigler was very critical of the "Poster Child '" portrayal on The Layman front page. If this lady had looked into a mirror as the photograph was taken it would not have been a dim reflection. No, it was what was coming from her heart and she showed little compassion for her supposed enemies. Pastor Zeigler, if Pro-Life people come across as did this lady, they too should accept full exposure. All must take responsibility for their actions and the truth really can hurt. Bob Campbell, elder Kingman, Ariz. Tilford's support of 'targeted killings' was illuminating July 20, 2004 I read with some interest Dr. Earl Tilford's recent commentary published on The Layman Online. His position supporting the Israeli policy of "targeted killings" – which I will presume is shared by The Layman's editorial staff – was most illuminating. Dr. Tilford clearly has deep roots in the Word and Christ's teachings. As the Great Commandment states, "If a man strikes you on the cheek, then take him down with a strategically placed Hellfire missile." If the early church had access to helicopter gunships, I'm sure they'd have done just the same. "Take that, Pilate!" "How'd you like them apples, Herod!" Sure, there might be collateral damage – a dead girl here, a legless shopkeeper there – but they'd just die eventually anyway. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't mind. How dare the PCUSA have the audacity to condemn this! I also enjoyed Dr. Tilford's take on the "alleged abuses" at Abu Ghraib, the alleged pictures of which we've all allegedly been seeing in the paper, and which were allegedly documented in thousands of even more allegedly horrific images in hearings before the U.S. Senate. I'm confused, though – if the PCUSA truly embraces postmodern "I'm OK, You're OK" amorality, why do they feel guilt over these actions? Just typical ultra-liberal confusion, I guess. I look forward to more articles by Dr. Tilford! David Williams Trinity Presbyterian Church of Bethesda Who's demonizing whom? July 20, 2004 I just read the letter from Rev. John D. Zeigler saying that everything that the June 2004 Layman tells us about the heart, spirit and soul of The Layman is true and good and right. It must be so for he has no rational arguments to refute anything that was published in that issue. I wonder if he ever read what he wrote? How else would he have described the picture of a woman screaming at a pro-life supporter? While it is fine for the left to scream and be uncompromising in their attitudes, it is another thing entirely when you point that out to them. Just look at the bridge-building words of healing and forgiveness this minister in the Presbyterian Church uses to describe someone he disagrees with: "your hateful and mean-spirited editorial bias," "you rather believe the worst about and demonize folks that differ with you," "deep and irrational hatred," "your hearts are hard and unforgiving as flint, your minds are sealed tightly as tombs," "your building of walls of division and hatred." Why did he write such words of "compassion", well, because The Layman was rightly pointing out that the name of our denomination and our money helped support the hate-fest that was the held in Washington April 25th. I did not hear or read of any words of compassion or words of compromise or even words of bridge building from any of the marchers that day. And just what kind of words or actions does Rev. Zeigler expect from the pro-life portion of our church to people who celebrate over 40 million babies being murdered (is that too strong a word?) in the womb? One of the great excuses for outsiders to stay away from the church is because "the church is full of hypocrites." When you demonize someone for pointing out the truth and you use words that you decry as horrible when uttered by another, well, just how would you define "hypocrite?" Congratulations to The Layman. You must be doing a good job when those who disagree with you have to resort to name calling. I was always told that that is the last refuge of someone who is losing an argument. I just expected better from a fellow minister. Rev. Herb Goetz Plain Grove Presbyterian Church Slippery Rock, Pa. There are no bridges on abortion issue July 20, 2004 Reverend John Zeigler accuses The Layman of not building bridges of dialogue, healing and forgiveness in his recent letter. What dialogue does he want to engage in? He accuses the right-to-life movement of hatred. How could someone who promotes the murder of innocent children ever accuse anyone else of hatred? For me personally, there is no dialogue to engage in. I will never, never back down on my belief that abortion is murder. I do not wish to rate sin by degree, but I cannot think of a worse crime, yes crime, than killing an unborn child. Reverend Zeigler, the dialogue you wish to engage in is all one-sided. You and your abortionist friends want the other side to back down and make concessions. I cannot do that under any circumstances. You ask for healing. The only healing to be done here is for you to unharden your heart and stop promoting abortion. I have nothing else to talk to you about. If that is hatred, so be it. There was a story over the weekend in The NY Times of an unmarried couple that became pregnant. It is very expensive where these two live, and it is difficult to afford a place to live. The woman found out that she was expecting triplets. The two did not consider moving an option, and decided to ask their doctor for a solution. The solution they came up with was to abort two of the three babies. Now, you tell me, Reverend Zeigler, if you are proud of that? I am certain those on the abortion rights side would not bat an eye. But you are a Presbyterian pastor. Does that not resonate with you in any way? Are you not as horrified as I am? If you are not, then I have no interest in engaging in dialogue with you. I have no problem with my position on abortion. The only hatred I have is for the sin of killing unborn children. David Hankins Why not stay and fight for PCUSA July 20, 2004 I have been reading The Layman Online regularly for several years. As an evangelical Christian minister I, too, have deep concerns about the state of our denomination (PCUSA). But I must say this: We have only ourselves to blame. Those of us who consider ourselves more evangelical and orthodox have allowed others into positions of ecclesiastical leadership who seem to not be interested in maintaining the essential tenets of our Christian faith. I have read many letters in The Layman of people railing at those "terrible leftist liberals" and how these writers have had it and are ready to leave the denomination. Or, similarly, some may write that they have already left our denomination. My question is: Why not stay and fight for the soul of our denomination? Over and over I hear it said that the majority of Presbyterians are more orthodox than the present leadership and the policies being espoused. If that is the case, then why hasn't something changed? I understand that electing commissioners to GA or synod is a process that is highly controlled, roughly comparable to the process of elections in the former Soviet Union, but there is still the honored right to offer nominations from the floor. All that is needed are some people willing to become leaders. One other concern I have. I have a deep distrust of extremism on both the left and the right. Both extremes are more concerned about their single, or double issued agenda than they are with living out the command to love one another, even our "enemies." If either extreme gains control, then the entire denominational body will suffer. Injustices will happen as the result of abuse of power and the weakening of honest accountability. We need people who are basically orthodox, evangelical, very loving at heart (e.g. the love of Christ in their lives), and who are willing to hold one another mutually accountable to come forth and demonstrate some leadership in our denomination. What we need is for all of us to hold our denomination in daily prayer, because the Church belongs to Christ, not us. What we need is for all of us to pray for those who differ from what we believe. Only God can transform lives and hearts and change how we believe. For example, I used to support the option of abortion, until I realized that it was incompatible with what I believed was the Christian/Reformed understanding of life. What made the difference was understanding and accepting that my body is NOT just my body. If I belong to God, then my body belongs to God. It belongs to God as part of the expression that my life belongs to God. Through prayer, Scripture, thoughtful study God can and does change even the most stubborn (mine) heart. In conclusion, is there an orthodox majority in our denomination? If so, then we need to take responsibility for what has taken place and seek to prayerfully change it. The Rev. Daniel E. Hale Petersburg, Va. Sign has disturbing message July 20, 2004 I find it disturbing that sign held by the demonstrator pictured on the front page of The Layman reads, "We are tomorrow's abortion providers" rather than "We are tomorrow's teachers," "We are tomorrow's scientists," "We are tomorrow's entrepreneurs," etc. Why would anyone place a higher value on pursuing an occupation whose sole objective is to kill human beings rather than one that improves the lot of mankind, as would be the case with the three alternatives I've listed, is a mystery to me. Stephen V. Gilmore Charlotte, N.C. Further evidence of self-indulgent lobbying July 20, 2004 Jim Berkley in his July 17, 2004 edition of the Berkley Blog gives further evidence of Elenora Giddings Ivory's self-indulgent lobbying. Jim also gives us the e-mail address of Curtis Kearns, Ms. Ivory's supervisor: ckearns@ctr.pcusa.org I have sent my comments to Curtis Kearns. Larry Rued First Presbyterian Church Bradenton, Fla. Why accept insubordinate behavior? July 20, 2004 How long must we as the PCUSA countenance and accept blatantly insubordinate behavior on the part of our paid staff members. Ms. Giddings-Ivory has been an embarrassment for quite a while, but this is beyond the pale. In spite of a clear prohibition on her partisan and inappropriate behavior while representing us in Washington, she has defiantly ignored a directive from her bosses. She does not even have the oft misused excuse of freedom of conscience. She has been told by the 216th General Assembly to cease and desist her lobbying efforts against the FMA. She has continued them in a typically arrogant and defiant manner. She should be disciplined for this insubordination – perhaps even dismissed for cause. Does anyone in Louisville have the fortitude to do so? I think not. Rev. Jim Yearsley Pittsburgh, Pa. Stop remitting your per-capita July 20, 2004 In light of recent events, many in the pews are seeking a responsible reaction. Some will leave, some will stay and fight and many will quietly maintain the status quo. There is clearly no one answer and everyone's situation will point to a different path. Here is one approach that may be workable. 1) Encourage your session to openly express its concern over the direction of the PCUSA and to stop its support of their political agenda. Seek to have your congregation stop funding per capita and other non-designated activities. 2) Pray for your session and pastor. Invite others in your congregation to pray that the PCUSA will turn itself around. Form a weekly prayer group to pray that the session of your church will act and not remain lukewarm. This will have a direct and an indirect effect. 3) If all else fails, personal action may be required. As an extreme measure, when influence as a full member proves ineffective, go to inactive status. This sends a powerful message to the session and also stops your support of their agenda through per capita. 4) At some point, seeking another denomination is the hard and painful choice. The church as the body of Christ is vital to God's plan. An individual denomination that has gone astray is not. I am sure the Lord is not pleased when the situation is such that members and entire churches leave the PCUSA. But that is not cause to stay at all costs. It might just be that leaving is the lesser of the evils. John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. Why has PCUSA become anti-Israel? July 20, 2004 Actions taken by the 216th General Assembly toward Israel, while praised by the Arab media and spokesmen for Egyptian terrorist Yasir Arafat's Palestinian Authority, have been condemned in quarters where reason and morality still rule. Editorials and articles posted online from Americanthinker.com to newspapers like the Jerusalem Post duly noted the way PCUSA commissioners compared Israel's war on terrorism to apartheid in South Africa and called for divesting funds in companies doing business with Israel. Facile thinking, a hallmark of the Peacemaking Program of the PCUSA, seems to have universally affected the recent 216th General Assembly. What does the PCUSA have against Israel that led a majority of commissioners to its 216th General Assembly to condemn Israel and encourage its economic ruin, while saying nary a word about the terrorist campaign launched by Arafat? In 2000, after Arafat rejected an agreement with Israel brokered by President Bill Clinton at Wye Plantation, an agreement that granted Palestinian independence in 97-percent of the West Bank and shared control over most religious areas in Jerusalem, the Egyptian terrorist leader of the Palestinian Authority launched the so-called "Second Intifada." This terror campaign has taken the lives of more than 1,000 innocent Israelis and horribly maimed thousands more. Proportional to Israel's tiny population, that figure is eight times the number of deaths the United States suffered in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Perhaps our commissioners cannot stand the fact that while the Palestinian-controlled areas of the West Bank and Gaza, (mirroring most Arab states) are dysfunctional, Israel thrives as a Jewish democracy. Perhaps our commissioners would prefer that Israel be more like its Arab neighbors. Do they want Israel to institute a religious government that forbids the practice of any faith other than its own, treats women as property, denies basic human rights, and restricts prosperity to a small number of the privileged elite while the vast majority languish in poverty? Maybe our commissioners want Israelis to behead homosexuals and demand that the parents and brothers slit the throats of daughters and female siblings accused of fornication. Do they want to see women accused of adultery condemned to stoning, as they are in the West Bank and Gaza? Did they ever stop to ask why two Palestinian women most recently "volunteered" to become suicide bombers? I'll tell you why. One was the wife of a Hamas terrorist accused of adultery and given the choice between becoming a suicide bomber-martyr and saving her soul, or face stoning and an eternity in hell. The other was a young, unmarried girl accused of fornication. Same deal. Murder in the name of Allah and go to heaven or, in her case, have her throat cut and burn in hell. Now that's liberal enlightenment! From matters of theology to morality, ignorance – Biblical and otherwise – had a lot to do with the facile pronouncements of the PCUSA's most recent General Assembly. References to the West Bank and Gaza being "occupied territories" is one example. Let's forget that the vast majority of people "occupying" those areas are Palestinians and focus on the political implications of the term "occupied." Granted, the Palestinians and the Arab media have effectively convinced the world that they are the underdogs in a struggle with a nation of 7,000,000 located in an area about the size of New Jersey. It's a kind of ironic reversal of the fight between David and Goliath found in First Samuel, Chapter 17. The Palestinians and Arabs have convinced supporters, like those in the PCUSA, that the land the Israeli Army wrested from the armies of Egypt (the Gaza strip), the Jordanian Army (East Jerusalem) and the Syrian Army (Golan) in the 1967 War was something other than disputed territory. This was land left in the hands of Israel's enemies following the ceasefire in the 1948 War of Independence. It was land from which Arab forces, between 1948 and 1967, constantly menaced Israel and from which terrorist groups (like Arafat's) operated freely. Israel has, in fact, offered to return Gaza to Egyptian control. Any idea why Cairo declined that offer? Support for abortion. Refusal to enforce its own proscriptions against homosexual ordination. Failure to discipline ministers who bless homosexual couplings. Allowing the worship of pagan gods in Presbyterian sanctuaries. Continuing to fund a radical political action committee, which supports liberal policies exclusively propounded by the left wing of the Democratic Party. And at its 216th General Assembly, most egregiously, condemning God's chosen people for protecting themselves. What else can we expect from a denomination that long ago pulled the pins from its theological rudder when it abandoned the Word of God as its governing authority? Earl H. Tilford, Jr., Ph.D. Professor of History Grove City College Elder, East Main Presbyterian Church Layman 'demonizes' abortionists July 19, 2004 Your cover page editorial picture in the June 2004 issue tells volumes about the heart, spirit and soul of The Layman. The full-color picture of an apparently agitated young woman presents a telling story of your hateful and mean-spirited editorial bias, to wit: You had rather believe the worst about and demonize those with whom you disagree and lead thousands of others to do likewise than build bridges of dialogue, healing and forgiveness. You use highly emotionally charged words and pictures to justify your deep and irrational hatred for folks who differ with you. Your hearts are truly as hard and unforgiving as flint; your minds are sealed tightly as tombs and I pray that God may have mercy on you all for building walls of division and hatred. Rev. John D. Zeigler First Presbyterian Church Canton, Texas Can these PCUSA bones live? July 19, 2004 Let me first offer a prelude. As an evangelical Christian and a minister of Word and Sacrament, I have watched our denomination issue pronouncement after pronouncement, self-contradict, waffle, deny Scripture's authority, condemn people, nations and other denominations for being unwilling to follow this same path, and generally move out of orthodoxy on a host of positions, only to move instead into increasing irrelevance. I have heard rumors of schism rise up periodically as each GA approaches, only to die down to a discontented rumble of distant thunder when the latest perceived threat is beaten back (in this latest case by four votes). Unbelievable losses persist in membership, most recently the loss of 46,000+ members is officially reported (or spun) as a cloud with a silver lining. I was appalled to see one former PCUSA moderator publicly insult the faith of a sister denomination recently, the Presbyterian Church in East Africa (PCEA), calling them "adolescent" in their faith (because they disagree with us on our stances on the ordination of gays and lesbians) – and disappointed that the 2004 GA refused this same PCEA's moderator credentials for an opportunity to address our GA or even bring official greetings. We can't find it within ourselves to vote to ban something as monstrous as partial-birth abortion, but we can condemn the United States for removing a monster like Saddam Hussein from Iraq's "throne" and the world stage. What's wrong with this picture? In my assessment, there could be no clearer or more irreconcilable theological divide in the PCUSA than if we had a visible dotted line drawn down the middle of our churches by the very hand of God. In my opinion, we are rapidly now becoming a faithless valley of dry bones. We all must agree that this is a problem; we have many people talking about finding solutions. But my question (really not original to me) is this: "Son of man, can these bones live?" (see Ezekiel 37). Let's stop talking about the problem, people. It's us. Let's start becoming part of the solution, bone by bone, sinew by sinew, person by person, forming a faithful body that is in passionate love with Jesus Christ, open to the Holy Spirit, expectant, and waiting -- until the breath of God comes to make us live. Rev. Glenn Buzbee Smyrna Presbyterian Church Conyers, Ga. Thanks for Tilford column July 19, 2004 Thank you, Dr. Earl Tilford, for your column. It expresses exactly my sentiments. I am disgusted with the path that PCUSA has taken. This denomination has become an abomination and I don't want to be a part of it any longer. On another matter: this is pathetic. Kirkpatrick acknowledges that he has overseen the loss of 20 percent of the members of the denomination and then has the temerity to say that he is encouraged by "our unity in the face of diversity." Excuse me! Come Lord Jesus, we need you now. Tom Bargeron, elder Weir was a hostage in Lebanon, not Iran July 19, 2004 Ben Weir was not held hostage in Iran but in Lebanon. He was seized in a separate incident apart from when the hostages were taken in the American Embassy in Tehran. Just thought you need to correct that minor point. Ben E. Sheldon Everson, Pa. Israel is not the problem July 19, 2004 Who are these knuckleheads who think that Israel is the problem here? Israel is defending itself from the Arabs, not the other way around. If this is an example of the so-called intelligentsia of the presbytery, then I think perhaps we need to clean house. Wake up you knuckleheads, the problem is not with Israel, it's with the Arabs! The Israelis occupy a sliver of land compared to the millions of square miles the Arabs occupy. And the last time I checked, the Israelis weren't teaching their children that it is desirable to kill Christians and Westerners in general. What are you smoking? Condemn the Arabs and leave the Israelis alone! They are only protecting themselves! Wes Royce Pekin, Ill. Ignored standards become useless July 19, 2004 In the end it may make no difference whether or not the ordination standards are upheld if there is denominationwide ignoring of the standards. It almost looks like no penalties will be assigned for those who ignore the standards. Carl Smith First Presbyterian Church Spokane, Wash. Rogers caused reader's flight from PCUSA July 19, 2004 Rev. Adrian Pratt asks if there is any evidence that people leaving the PCUSA were negatively affected by "the leadership and influence of Jack Rogers." Does Rev. Pratt believe that none of the over 88,000 leaving the PCUSA in 2002-03 were negatively influenced by the moderator's statements or actions? Count me as one who was so disheartened by his statements at the General Assembly where he was elected and in the weeks to follow. His stated positions on critical issues in the denomination were the last nails in the coffin, so to speak. My last worship service at our PCUSA congregation was in late August 2002, less than two months after the 2002 General Assembly and, though he wasn't the only reason, Moderator Jack Rogers was certainly one of them. Each of its moderators has the potential to get the PCUSA back on track or steer them further into oblivion as so many have done over the past 30 years. Though I could not stay, I continue to pray for the PCUSA. Reed Siebenthal Muncie, Ind. Someone needs a reading lesson July 19, 2004 Quoting The Layman Online: "The task force's interim report, which was adopted without dissent, says, 'Christians cannot even entertain the notion of severing their ties with sisters and brothers in Christ without also placing themselves in severe jeopardy of being severed from Christ himself.'" I can't find this statement anywhere in the Bible which makes the statement about as goofy as it gets. If we truly fear being severed from Christ himself, then we need to be united with him and the "invisible church" not the "visible church," especially one as namby-pamby about cleaving to Christ as the PCUSA. Obviously, it isn't just Johnny but a whole lot of homosexual Janes who can't read. It's time to learn how to read and to use that skill to read the Bible. Thank you. Karen and John Humeniuk |
||
| July
2004 letters, page2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
||
