September 2004 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor

Chasm between God and Allah is wide and incontrovertible September 20, 2004 The chasm between God and Allah is wide and incontrovertible. Consider these two contradictory views of Jesus' identity and nature: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." (John 1:1-2) "... a voice came from the cloud: 'This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!'" (Mark 9:7) "Jesus is like Adam in the sight of God. He created him from dust and then said to him: 'Be,' and he was" (Qur'an 3:59) Whoever spoke to Muhammad in his cave denied Christ. That message could hardly have come from God; that leaves only the Father of Lies as the ultimate source. Wanting to be a tolerant, open-minded American, I've struggled with Allah's true identity. But I can't find any other explanation for what the Qur'an says about Jesus. Steve Jones Kokomo, Ind. They push their own agenda instead of God's message September 20, 2004 It is my hope that Mr. Rigby, and others who share his same conviction, would follow their own paths for their own churches (outside our PCUSA system) with their own values instead of attempting to change our own confession of faith. Why don't they? Because they are only out to push their own agenda instead of God's message upon our large institution. Meanwhile, we will spend more and more of our time and money supporting our very confession of faith as more and more our PCUSA churches inturn battle Rigby's fight instead of the good fight. Many on staff, as I am, agree that we don't want to spend energy on something so clear and Scripturally evident. And it would be best for Rigby and others who share his point of view to respectfully move out to begin their own churches outside our PCUSA system instead of tying up our resources to grand stand their sinful point of view. I am deeply saddened by such a display of greed. It is my desire that strong evangelical churches will be able to focus on the local church and community in order to overcome these grandstanding attention seekers who only want their headlines to tear down our institution and water down our confession of faith. Shawn Reilly Has PCA contacted any other PCUSA churches? September 20, 2004 Members of the PCA are learning of the discontent of members in the PCUSA caused by a staff who rejects Scripture, promotes homosexual marriages, advocates late term abortions, condemns Israel and endorses the ordination of gay and lesbian pastors. Today I received a letter from an elder, unknown to me, in a PCA church requesting that my church consider transferring to the PCA. How many others have received a similar letter? Is any one listening? Jack Vanderbleek, elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St.Petersburg, Fla. A note of humor in a gray tone September 16, 2004 The last paragraph of trial brief of "Parker Williamson's complaint against the presbytery goes to synod court Sept. 27" provides a note of humor in a very gray tone. "Robert Riddle, the Rev. Eugene Witherspoon and the Rev. Mark Clark will represent the presbytery. In their brief, they describe themselves as the 'committee on council,' although the Book of Order uses the phrase 'committee of counsel.'" So, these three want to be a "ruling body" (a reasonable synonym according to my thesaurus) instead of advisers. That's probably consistent. "The presbytery's brief ended, 'Complainant has alleged dozens of irregularities, ...'". I guess that's short by at least one. This entire necessary action is lamentable. God will uphold His servant. Be in prayer, fellow "Layman;" perhaps He will use this appeal as the beginning of a Sonrise in the denomination. Greg Leaman Sheboygan County, Wisc. 'Unliked truth always seems like an attack' September 16, 2004 I am amazed at the prescience of David Walters and others who claim with such confidence to know what Parker Williamson really thought or intended in statements about Syngman Rhee or anyone else, if their source is reported to be in error. Knowing Parker's real thoughts and intents would indeed enable someone to report that he meant something other than what was actually said. If Syngman Rhee has supported some kind of moral equivalence between North Korea and South Korea's fledgling and admittedly imperfect attempt at democracy, then he could indeed be called a communist dupe. A dupe is someone who, out of ignorance and blindness to evil, supports an institution that has proved nothing but evil in all of its incarnations of the 20th century. The problem with people who attempt to cry McCarthyism is that they fail to deal with the fact that McCarthy was far more accurate about communists holding positions in the State Department and other positions within the government than it seemed at the time. McCarthy may well have used inappropriate tactics and been a bit of a bully and a bore, but he was right to question the motives of many who claimed to be loyal to the government but who also supported the Soviet Union as paid agents. Arthur Herman's well researched and balanced biography of McCarthy illustrates how his opponents were even more ingenuous and malicious in their attacks against McCarthy, while recently declassified transcripts of decoded Soviet communications revealed the guilt of many State Department employees. Mr. Walter's feels that Parker's complaints about inaccuracies are rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship. I think Mr. Walter's and friends continue to wish that The Layman will go away because it speaks the truth . . . a truth they fear to reveal even to themselves. If The Layman is the liar so many of them accuse it of being, then maybe the church hasn't fallen into error and heresy. Maybe disagreements are just minor ones, and the people who are leaving the church or crying for greater faithfulness are extremists and malcontents. Hard choices and a realistic examination of their faith is not necessary. Socialism is still a glorious possibility, and human potential is not ultimately limited by sinfulness or real evil. Unliked truth always seems like an attack. When the protests are over the style of the "attack" rather than the truth of the charge, one suspects it is because the truth has struck home. Rev. Scott Mackey Fort Worth, Texas You can be both orthodox and liberal September 16, 2004 Ms. Larson's piece is interesting. Traditionally the Roman Catholic Church in South America has sided with the rich who own most of the land in South America, forcing the poor to be sharecroppers who have no opportunity to better themselves. The poor wind up either eking out a living on the land with lots of children (the church's anti-birth control policy contributes to this) or in the slums of the cities. Ovum and fetuses are cared about, but poor children must wait for the pie in the sky when they die. Finally, priests and bishops started siding with the poor and demanding that the rich baptize their children in ceremonies along with the poor, not private rituals. Romero's assassination showed how much the rich feared having the church side with the poor. The church has never been neutral in idealistic piety of evangelistic work. Except for a few advocates (ex., Bartholomew de las Casas and others) it took the money the rich provided and looked the other way at slavery and oppression. The current pope has pretty much ended liberation theology in South America, with its home Bible groups and other Protestant accoutrements. That's one of the reasons Pentecostalists have done well – teaching peasants to read so they can read the bible, and finding ways around the military systems to provide health care and education. As a member of a house church Bible study group in America I can say it's a great experience. This polarization that to be theologically orthodox (which I am) you must be politically conservative (I am liberal) is one of the reasons I am no longer a Presbyterian. I've joined the only theologically orthodox Anglican church in New York City. I find today's Presbyterian Church more theologically left than the Unitarianism in which I was raised, and the political conservatives in it unwilling to look into the struggle of so many Americans and others in the world for their daily bread in today's economy where CEOs earn about 400 times what the average worker earns. The truth for which I searched as a Unitarian, I found out as a Christian, is that God loves me. And he surprises and table turns all of our philosophies and constructs. Kate Burford Remain and reform from within September 16, 2004 I am an evangelical Confessing pastor from Western Pennsylvania. I have seen in my church and in other neighboring Presbyterian churches a resignation that our denomination has gone to hell and they should bail out now. This has us Confessing Church pastors in a quandary. At the very time we need strong Christians to support our efforts to reform from within, many strong members are bowing out. This makes us more vulnerable all the time to attacks from the left. Many of those who are bowing out cite Layman articles as proof our denomination is too far gone to remain.I would ask the Layman to publish more articles on why we should stay and use the passion Christ has put inside us to reform "from within" instead of bailing out! Don Michael Hurray Mountville Presbyterian Church Portersville, Pa. Comic relief and a serious response September 16, 2004 I would like to respond to a couple of letters in response to mine. John Ramsey notes my giving comic relief. I'm glad for I do believe humor is healthy and those that know me well know I like a good laugh. In that spirit I have learned to see life itself as a comedy. Really when you think about it, God creating us humans and letting us have control of the earth; what could be more comical? And while I'm not an active deacon in service at this moment, I do remember our duty to serve the members in their need. And I think at times that includes bringing about some humor. On a more serious note, Mr. Ramsey notes: "Clearly, Deacon Apel does not believe in Jesus Christ as either Lord or Savior. If he did, he would come to understand that his warped theology is based solely upon Deacon Apel replacing God as the arbiter of human behavior and quoting Jesus to support the lifestyle that is far more important to him than anything to do with being a disciple of Christ." Certainly in my 47 years on this earth I've learned that it is easy to make judgments on others and this is indeed a human trait good or bad. But the one thing I've never been able to do is question a person's statement of faith in accepting Christ as Lord and Savior -- even if I have strong disagreements with certain aspects of theology. The bottom line is that if I did, then I and everyone else who is a Christian would be our own church since the truth is that we are not all alike or think alike. Mr. Ramsey is free to continue questioning my faith in Jesus, but I don't question his. If he professes his faith in Christ publicly that's good enough for me. That is what is important, our own knowledge of our relationship with Christ, the joy of serving Christ, and making that good news known to others. Marc Karasek shares some excellent verses from the Bible in John 15:18-19 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." I know quite well the hate of the world as I expect any other Christian does. In fact I will add that the truth is the world does not love and respect homosexuals either. It's quite obvious unless one has his/her head in the sand. Yes it is one thing in the U.S. culture, but even there one cannot say it is overly friendly with the recent fuss about same-sex marriage and that becoming a political hot potato. And don't forget that in many parts of the world homosexuals are hated or killed without a second thought whether they be Christian or not. Yes, the world does hate us when we dare express the truth of Christ that we discover in our walk of faith! Christ never promised us that life would be a party, but rather that through our faith in Him. we experience the joy and abundance of a spiritual life. That is what I find wonderful and no need to apologize for. Mr. Karasek's closing statement is interesting and important: "for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." I could not agree more. That does sum up the difference between those of the light and those of darkness. Earl C. Apel Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Will readers comment on 'A Year to Live'? September 16, 2004 Does anyone at the PLC office or "out there" in the Layman on-line readership have experience with or insight about the book, A Year to Live by Stephen Levine? (Particularly, experience based on using it for sermon illustrations, adult CE, counseling, etc.) I see that Levine is described as "Buddhist" in some reviews, and that the book smacks of "New Age," according to other reviews; it gets praise from some reviewers for being helpful but is also panned by others for being too fluffy and impractical. Does the book agree with Reformed thinking? If not, can you name some authors / books who have a Reformed perspective about having "a year to live?" Eric Wallace Dayton, Ohio Readers are invited to submit responses to Mr. Wallace through The Layman Online letters. The Editors Actions that cause membership drain September 16, 2004 I was appalled to read the July issue of The Layman and learn of the 216th General Assembly's resolution declaring the military action against Iraq as unwise, immoral and illegal. The church has no more business trying to run our government's military operations than the government has in trying to run our church. The good commissioners of the 216th General Assembly could much better utilize their time and talent in reversing the constant membership loss of the Presbyterian Church. It is actions like the above-mentioned resolution that are causing such a membership drain. I will direct my local church that none of my contributions be allowed to pass beyond my local church's programs. I shall deny any more of my personal monetary support to Presbytery and to the national bureaucracy of the Presbyterian Church. Phil Cordes Seymour, Ind. Logical Scriptural arguments vs. human relativism September 13, 2004 I just could not help but begin to laugh out loud as I read the Sept. 7 tome of Deacon Apel. To think that he is trying to match logical Scriptural arguments presented by Dr. Gagnon and Pastor Anderson with his brand of human relativism says a lot about what he believes to be true. I gather Deacon Apel thinks that any behavior is justified as long as it falls within Apel's definition of what Christ would approve. Clearly, Deacon Apel does not believe in Jesus Christ as either Lord or Savior. If he did, he would come to understand that his warped theology is based solely upon Deacon Apel replacing God as the arbiter of human behavior and quoting Jesus to support the lifestyle that is far more important to him than anything to do with being a disciple of Christ. Please keep the comic (but sad) relief coming, Deacon. John Ramsey Medina, Ohio Church has no business trying to run our government's military operations September 13, 2004 I was appalled to read the July issue of The Layman and learn of the 216th General Assembly's resolution declaring the military action against Iraq as unwise, immoral and illegal. The Church has no more business trying to run our government's military operations than the government has in trying to run our Church. The good commissioners of the 216th General Assembly could much better utilize their time and talent in reversing the constant membership loss of the Presbyterian Church. It is actions like the above mentioned resolution that are causing such a membership drain. I will direct my local church that none of my contributions be allowed to pass beyond my local church's programs. I shall deny any more of my personal monetary support to presbytery and to the national bureaucracy of the Presbyterian Church. Phil Cordes Seymour, Ind. Praise God for the Anglicans September 13, 2004 Praise be to God for the Anglicans for standing up for the Word, taking appropriate action, and not bending to society! Marvin Lynne Maxwell Kirkpatrick's lack of introspection 'rather profound' September 13, 2004 In reading Reverend Kirkpatrick's reflections of the 2003 statistics of PCUSA membership, one obvious omission in his analysis was attributing loss of membership to PCUSA policies. In that, apparently Rev. Kirkpatrick feels PCUSA is blameless. I find this lack of introspection rather profound. PCUSA is not experiencing a just trickling away of its membership base, but also departures of whole congregations which feel that PCUSA is drifting (or rather cruising) away from the Scripture's teachings and moral standards. Rev. Kirkpatrick ignores that fact that PCUSA's political activism, promotion of abortion, socialist economic policies, and persistent shift toward moral ambiguity is what is causing people and congregations to depart. If PCUSA is to be an inclusive denomination, then it should abstain from activism which disenfranchises its conservative members. He feels that the changing racial demographics of the U.S. mean that PCUSA needs to do more to create multi-cultural churches. That's a nice idea, but impractical in the fact that most African-Americans do not condone homosexual marriage, much less homosexual ordination, as a large number of leaders in PCUSA promote. It also ignores the fact that Hispanics who mostly come from Catholic backgrounds, do not typically support abortion as legitimate or moral birth control. How does he expect to have PCUSA members wholeheartedly evangelize their friends and family when many of them question the direction PCUSA is going? Do the new forms of worship he espouses return PCUSA to the Scriptural base of the Protestant Reformation? I doubt it. When you start to pick and choose which of God's laws you choose to obey, and rationalize and humanize them away, you make a distinct departure from a spiritual, Christian foundation. I would offer that this departure is the core of membership loss within PCUSA and will continue unabated until PCUSA reforms itself according to God's Scriptures. Tom Apple Suffolk, Va. 'Editorial speech is protected' should not let group publish erroneous information September 13, 2004 I see. The essence of the 9/8 article, A statement regarding errors in The Presbyterian Outlook, probably answers my question in my August 16 letter to the editor entitled by The Layman "Will CCM let someone organize the event?" "Editorial speech is protected" should not, in my opinion, let one renewal group publish at least "tough-to-decipher" (a.k.a., erroneous) information about another's efforts. And to invoke the dusty phrase, "McCarthy hearings in the 1950s," shoots my idea about letting one group step up and organize "Why not a 'Next Year in Jerusalem' for the Confessing Churches?" (Philip Pettus, 8/11), somewhere near the upper part of the bridge of the renewal nose. I asked, in my letter, if the organizing could be done without "friendly-fire" being sent the way of the group trying to do it. "Friendly" no longer seems to be appropriate for that two-word phrase and the "WN'NYiJ'CC" idea. I am truly disappointed and I trust others are, too. Greg Leaman Sheboygan County, Wisc. 'Their sheep's clothing doesn't cover up their sharp teeth' September 13, 2004 It is a shame that you are still having to defend yourself and your paper to these hypocrites. I don't think you should put wrong and error on the level of right and truth by trying to reason with such charlatans. Nor should you consider such men your equals in Christ Jesus. We have been forewarned of those who will come into the church and appear as angels of light (however, they are not doing a very good impersonation). Their sheep's clothing doesn't cover up their sharp teeth or furry tales (sic) either! They will answer for their skull duggery on that great day. If they are indeed Christians, they will have to explain to God why they did not make peace with you at your respectful request. Be done with them!! The Lord God is your shield and defender! Beware of the Pharisees and Sadducees, for they will deliver you up again to the councils! Glenda Smith, inactive deacon Reems Creek Beech Presbyterian Church PCUSA has stealthily changed its own identity September 13, 2004 I am a new visitor to The Layman. Bill Crawford's letter is remarkably well written, thoughtful, and thought-provoking. My home church is going through some painful times and like Mr. Crawford, I have only recently learned that the PCUSA is not at all that I, for many years, thought it was. Perhaps it's not so much that the PCUSA has stolen our identities, but that it has stealthily, even surreptitiously, changed its own. Denice Brown Friday Harbor, Wash. Liberals seek the affirmation and respect of the world September 13, 2004 It never ceases to amaze me how often people will condemn themselves or the cause they are arguing for with their own mouths. Mr. Apel wrote in his latest letter, "This is the affirmation of God and acceptance of Christ as Savior and the respect and affirmation of our fellow human beings. ... And then it is easy to figure out whether the relationships we have with fellow human beings are right or wrong. It's what Christ taught and shouldn't really be that much of a fuss." This is what is one of the strongest points against what the latest liberal cause de jour. They seek the affirmation and respect of the world. I would respectfully ask Mr. Apel to turn to the part of Christ's teachings that tell us that the world will hate us. John 15:18-19 "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you." It is sad that we can not look to our Father in Heaven for our affirmation but must look to those around us. John 12:40-43 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they should see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and turn for me to heal them." Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him. Nevertheless many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Marc Karasek Parker's attack on Outlook appears to be an attempt to lash out at others September 13, 2004 Now we have Parker T. Williamson, with his exalted double titles of Editor and Chief Executive Officer, with an article attacking an editorial by the good Rev. O. Benjamin Sparks, Interim Editor of The Presbyterian Outlook. He was responding to Parker's pitiful polemic concerning statements in The Outlook that had asserted that The Layman in 1989 alleged that Syngman Rhee of being a communist. Well it seems that Parker is all upset because The Layman article did not use the word "communist." Here is the deal. Those of us who lived through the '50s know that Senator McCarthy spawned legions of followers who could spot a commie behind every tree. They also developed all kinds of ways of calling some one a communist without using the word communist. This is exactly what The Layman did in 1989. So maybe The Outlook was technically wrong about what The Layman "said," but it was precisely correct about what The Layman "implied." The fact is that The Outlook correctly reported what was said during a January meeting of Western North Carolina Presbytery to validate or not validate Parker Williamson's ministry. The Outlook editorial noted, "The most visible and egregious instance (mentioned in the reasons for disqualifying Williamson's ministry) was the 1989 attack on Syngman Rhee, calling him a communist dupe." Parker should know the accuracy of this statement because he was there and heard all of the debate. Syngman Rhee is not the only object of attack. The campaign to impugn the Rev. Fahed Abu-Akel during his moderator year was conceived and orchestrated out of Parker's office in North Carolina. More recently we have seen his attacks on the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick. The vote during the stated clerk's election at the General Assembly in Richmond clearly demonstrates Parser's abject failure to remold the PCUSA in his own image or imagination. Parker's attack on The Outlook appears to be just another attempt to lash out at others to boost The Layman's circulation. He can't get any more out of the actions of his presbytery's decision not to validate his ministry. Parker's endless attacks on the stated clerk, moderators like Syngman Rhee and Fahed Abu-Akel and others are only indicative of Parker's rather twisted conceptualization of the mission of the church. I suppose that since John Sniffen has moved on to Presbyterians Today so that we can all look forward to his mounting a smear campaign against them. Who is next.Presbyweb.com? Parker must surely know that he is on a sinking ship. By attacking others he is doing no more that rearranging the deck chairs on his on Titanic. One thing is for sure. his brand of attack dog yellow journalism is not going to advance to Kingdom. David Walters First Presbyterian Church Andalusia, Ala. Walking in someone else's shoes sometimes hurts September 13, 2004 Ho-Ho-Ho! Now that The Layman has taken the high road of accusing The Outlook of inaccuracies in editorial reporting, where will it end? I know of at least three occasions in the past years when I personally have written The Layman calling it to accuracy in reporting facts that I knew were false, incidents depicted which were not as I saw them and heard them, as well as impugned motives of people which I knew were not true. I don't remember any retraction, correction or apology from The Layman. Sorry, Layman, but feigning righteousness of accurate reporting while accusing others of opinionating the news just won't wash. Walking in someone else's shoes sometimes hurts. M. Anderson Sale Lynchburg, Va. Pettiness and name calling never encouraged anyone to repent September 13, 2004 In seeking to reach out the right hand of fellowship to Parker Williamson, O. Benjamin Sparks aptly reminds us that we are to become "visible fruits of God's reconciliation in Christ." Yes, amen! His editorial leaves with me the impression that our priority should always be the following of the good example he seeks to set. Our goal, in this view, is to be reconciled to one another. This is true. However, it is true only to the point at which this goal contradicts the ultimate aim of our faith: to "be reconciled to God" (2 Corinthians 5:20). When some of those who would be my brothers and sisters in faith make the validation of their continuing refusal to be reconciled with God the price of my reconciliation with them, I must refuse to "be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14). They and I and all of us together are charged to "cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God" (2 Corinthians 7:1). I cannot be reconciled to "persons who refuse to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the" Scriptures and "the historic confessional standards of our church" name as sin (G-6.0106b). I cannot remain a partner with them in ministry. If I did so, I would be joining them in sticking my tongue out at God's good grace toward me in Christ. It is impossible "to tell the old, old story of Jesus and his love" while sticking out the tongue (Katherine Hankey). Granted, this means that I cannot be sticking my tongue out at them either. Pettiness and name calling never encouraged anyone to repent. Still, I am called to solemnly warn my unrepentant neighbors saying, "Don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Until and unless they come to repentance, I must minister to them and not with them. Jim Henkel Confessing Church Pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery Unelected judges make a mockery of what has been passed down September 13, 2004 For the church of Jesus Christ not to support a ban on partial abortions is not only apostate, but a synagogue of Satan. The body politic of the PCUSA is just as responsible and the leadership for allowing this sin to be demonstrated as murder. Romans, chapters 1 to 3 along with 1Cor. 6 come to mind, when sin of this nature continues to exit, without an outrage of the body politic. Now, three unelected judges have sided with the pro-abortion forces stating it is unconstitutional to ban partial abortions. Unconstitutional? What do they (unelected judges) know about the Constitution of the United States, which in fact, supports life, and in my opinion, life of the unborn. Our founding fathers of this nation pre-supposed this in the writing of the constitution, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How can ignorant judges circumvent the Constitution that they are supposed to uphold and make judicial judgments which is only reserved to the legislatures of not only of these United States, but Congress. The executive branch of government makes the laws; the judicial branch interprets the same, based on the Constitution of the United States and the Holy Bible. When unelected judges make the laws, they have committed treason to the Constitution of the United States, which they have given oath to defend, not make up a new constitution. Our founding fathers gave of their lives, their fortunes, and sacred honor so we could have the liberty and freedom to live our lives in accordance to those creedal statements in our constitution, and have the freedom to worship Almighty God in Jesus Christ. Unelected judges make a mockery of what has been passed down as a heritage to future generations, and unelected judges should be tried for treason. Officers of the PCUSA, who concur with decisions of unelected judges are guilty of the same charge, treason. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Open letter to Clifton Kirkpatrick: G.A. applied double standards to Israel September 7, 2004 In reading about the various proposals and resolutions brought before the 216th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in Richmond, Va., I was appalled to see how far the leadership of that body has departed from understanding and defending plain Biblical truth. John Knox and Francis Schaeffer must be turning in their graves! I am particularly incensed by the General Assembly's adoption of a resolution that calls for a divestment campaign from corporations doing business with Israel. While reporting extensively on Israel's human right abuses, it remained silent on Palestinian abuses. And while criticizing Israel, the church does not call for divesting its $7 billion portfolio from China, despite China's denial of the most basic political and human rights. Neither does it raise any objection in regard to Russia's atrocious human rights policies in Chechnya. More important, it does not condemn Syria and Iran, where human rights for their own people are consistently violated and where Jewish citizens are denied basic civil rights and liberties. Quite the opposite is true of Israel, which affords all of its citizens equal liberties and rights, including its Arab citizens, some of whom even serve in the Knesset. The General Assembly ignores the fact that Israel continues to be the chosen target for attacks by Islamic terrorist groups, the most murderous being Palestinian. The 431 members of the General Assembly who supported this resolution should be ashamed of their biased attack on Israel, for applying double standards to Israel, for denying Israel's right to self-defense, and for blatant anti-Zionism which is, in fact, anti-Semitism. Romans 1:2-32 describes what is happening in America today, and it is a tragedy that this is no longer rejected by leaders of the so-called Christian church: "And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind to do those things which are not proper, being filled with unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, greed, evil, full of envy, murder, strive, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful. And although they know the ordinance of God, those who practice these things are worthy of death. They do not only do the same, but give hearty approval to those who practice them." Psalm 2:1-3 describes leaders seeking to break what they call bonds and fetters, and throw off the cords of the Lord and his Messiah. What are these bonds? The Law of God, the Word of God, the revealed truths. In other words, divine light as revealed in the Bible is considered unhealthy bondage, fetters, and restrictive. The reports I have read about the General Assembly in Richmond clearly describe a leadership that "gave hearty approval" to sin, and sinful behavior, which God abhors. It is high time to pull out of the PCUSA. It no longer represents God-fearing Presbyterians. Bettina King Signal Mountain, Tenn. We are defined by Christ – not our sexuality September 7, 2004 Thank God for theologically and intellectually honest correspondents such as Pastor Noel Anderson and Professor Robert Gagnon. These fine men have consistently and clearly held Scripture as authoritative in their letters and articles defending the faith. It is a shame that the misled and deluded, such as Deacon Apel, cannot see beyond their own human desires and needs to the larger truths of the gospel. This is the crux of the problem for the progressive/liberal church deconstructionists who seek to re-image God in their own image and to create a social organization that will openly validate sinful choices. Every time Mr. Apel (or a fellow traveler) protests, I seem to hear echoes of the crowd in Pilate's courtyard "We have no king but Caesar!" Pastor Anderson's latest letter lays out four brilliant questions Mr. Apel needs to answer – not for The Layman or me, but for himself. Noel's last line really said it all. We are defined by Christ – not our sexuality. Amen Noel. Thanks. Rev. James C. Yearsley Pittsburgh, Pa. You have to look at the spirit of what Scripture is telling us September 7, 2004 I appreciate Professor Gagnon's response to my letter and he does raise some very good questions that I hadn't even thought of. And, as such, I will offer more questions, too. While I understand his conservative stance on the issue, it just seems to me that his comments are contradictory if one wants to take such a literal view. He notes that most relationships by nature involve one having more power than another. I guess that is true in the human sense. But I have to ask, isn't what we are taught is that, in the Christ sense, God loves us all the same and Christ even demonstrated an equality while on earth in treating all as children of God? Should I just throw this concept in the garbage can? I think not. For despite our own weakness, it is through Christ that we all are equal and affirm that. Regarding [Gagnon's] examples of a man and his stepmother and the three-person relationship that was not in his original letter. Without knowing the specifics of the actual relationship, it is difficult to say one way or another if it is affirming. Is it the man or the stepmother that controls? Or is it mutually affirming? But then, isn't the stepmother committing adultery if her husband is alive? This being an act that I noted was wrong? In the three-person relationship, just who are those three persons? I suppose it might be possible for all three to be equal in their love and respect for each other. We as Christians claim we are all equal and love each other just as Christ does. Well, who knows? But then if this is wrong, shouldn't it be wrong for us as brothers and sisters in Christ to marry? Isn't that incest in a spiritual sense? How is that any different from the physical? He notes that with the Greeks the younger partner had more power in many cases. Well, did I say that such a scenario is affirming in God's eyes? Does he and anyone else honestly believe that in a marriage where either the husband or wife has a destructive controlling influence over the other person that it is affirming and this is good? Seems to go against a lot of the marriage counseling our Presbyterian pastors do these days. Regarding the Creation story and the implication that man and woman are compliments, I do think the fact needs to be pointed out that God created Adam first. That first relationship was between God that we often view as male and even a Father and another male. So if we take this account quite literally, how can we dismiss that fact? This was even an act of incest if one wants to take it to an extreme. Then Eve shows up after God took out the rib of Adam and created Eve. Then the question, too, is if Adam and Eve were the only two first humans, then incest abounded for many years. I expect it was consensual of course and on equal terms. And I guess for some reason God decided that incest wasn't right at a later point in time, though it was blessed for so long? It just seems to me it's quite simple that you have to look at the spirit of what Scripture is telling us and is important. This is the affirmation of God and acceptance of Christ as Savior and the respect and affirmation of our fellow human beings. Sounds too simple, I know, but that is it in a nutshell. And then it is easy to figure out whether the relationships we have with fellow human beings are right or wrong. It's what Christ taught and shouldn't really be that much of a fuss. Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Scouting Canada will cease to exist slight before PCUSA September 7, 2004 Regarding the article on Scouting Canada, I conclude that at their present rate of losses, Scouting Canada will cease to exist in 4.6 years – slightly ahead of the extinction of the PCUSA, which is experiencing losses of about 50,000 per year. All in the name of "diversity" – read homosexuality. Pray for our own Scouts and for the Presbyterian Church (USA). They both need all the help they can get. Jack Kime Maryville, Ill. Relationship may be 'mutual, affirming, equal' but not legitimate in God's eyes September 7, 2004 In his letter of August 30, Earl Apel questions the "relevance or similarity" of equating homosexual relationships with the evils of "incest, bigamy, adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, racism, Nazi ideology, etc.". He states "love between two persons of the same sex may be mutual and affirming and equal" (note he said "may be"), whereas those other activities do not reflect the love of Christ and others but "involve power or disrespect over the other person or entity that is weaker." I would have to agree with Mr. Apel in cases of racism or Nazism, perhaps even adultery, but incest, bigamy, pedophilia, bestiality may all have elements of mutual love and affirmation. The practice of bigamy or multiple marriage partners is acceptable to many individuals and in several cultures, and is found by many to be mutually satisfying and equitable. Incest, especially between siblings, can also be based on mutual attraction and affection; pedophilia and bestiality often involve a degree of "love" and tenderness that goes above and beyond that of adult/human relationships. Even adultery can be made into something "good," as illustrated by an episode of Friends in which Joey's parents have an arrangement in which the father keeps a mistress with the full knowledge of the mother. The mother tells Joey that his father is more loving and attentive to her because of his relationship with the other woman; the father claims to love both women equally. Joey doesn't fully understand but feels that as long as everyone is happy, why change the way things are? Any relationship may be "mutual and affirming and equal," but that does not make every relationship legitimate or lawful in the eyes of God. All of the evils which Mr. Apel condemns, as well as same-sex relations, are condemned by the Word of God. Michael Warner Presbyterian Church of Islip, N.Y. It's the nature of hierarchies to control in the absence of a compelling vision September 7, 2004 No doubt Heartland Presbytery is overstepping its bounds. But we should not be surprised – it is the nature of hierarchies to control in the absence of a compelling vision. However, we shouldn't need presbytery for such things as loan guarantees or mission funds. Aren't there enough people in the congregation who are willing to co-sign? Do we believe in our mission strongly enough or do we wish for presbytery to assume all the risk? If we, as a congregation, are not willing to put our money where our mouths are, then why bother? And if our giving were above the average 2 percent of our annual income, we would not need mission dollars (with few exceptions) for our churches from the presbytery. If we are not any more committed than that, then maybe we are not all that necessary for the advancement of the Kingdom of God. Tom Litteer First Presbyterian Church Sparta, N.J. Sermon should be submitted to incoming freshman logic courses for response September 7, 2004 Many thanks to Rev. VanDyke for making the logic of the Covenant Network crystal clear to us all. It goes something like this: 1. Sometimes things need to change. 2. Those that lead appear a bit unconventional, but follow deeply held beliefs. Whether or not these beliefs are true or false is irrelevant; what matters is that individuals hold them strongly. 3. This bold character is attractive and great, as in the case of Rosa Parks. 4. Therefore, in order for us to appear great, we must abandon 2,000 years of worldwide consensus on sexual ethics, together with all Biblically-defined boundaries. 5. Furthermore, since Jesus had compassion on sinners, we should approve, empower and bless those who love and serve sin, or else we are not very compassionate and Christ-like. Can we submit the sermon to incoming freshman logic courses around the country and see what kind of responses we get? How about submitting it to high school students scoring under 1000 on their SATs? The time has come for the PCUSA to institute a logic requirement prior to ordination -- one to be taken every four years (like a drivers' license) so we may know when pastors have veered somewhat off the rails or gone completely gaga. Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. All together: White supremacy, anti-Semitic, anti-government, anti-abortion September 7, 2004 Readers of The Layman living in California who are pro-life – as well as pro-lifers everywhere – would be shocked to find themselves included in the same category as white supremacists and anti-Semites – and in an official state document, no less. But that's exactly what the introduction to the above-mentioned interim report of the California Senate Office of Research does. In recounting two highly-publicized crime sprees, the report notes the perpetrators as holding "white supremacy, anti-Semitic, anti-government, and anti-abortion views." This is flawed on several counts, but I'll confine myself to just two of them. First, one's views on abortion have nothing whatsoever to do with one's views on race and ethnicity. Second, while two of the perpetrators profiled (who were brothers) did hold anti-abortion views (with synagogues and abortion clinics being among the targets of their violent acts), the other criminal portrayed didn't even target any abortion clinics or their personnel during his 1999 shooting spree. So I fail to see why his views on abortion were even mentioned. But as alluded to earlier, the worst aspect is lumping those who oppose abortion in the same category as anti-Semitic white supremacists. No doubt, readers of The Layman and members of Presbyterians Pro-Life should be shocked to find themselves so labeled. I can only hope that pro-life Presbyterians everywhere – especially those living in the Golden State – express their objection of being lumped with white supremacists and anti-Semites to Gregory de Giere e-mail: Greg.deGiere@SEN.CA.GOV), the author of the interim report, as well as to California newspapers, so that the final report does not contain this misleading reference. Stephen V. Gilmore Charlotte, N.C. No consistent application for policy September 7, 2004 The PCUSA controller has been fired for errors in judgment. There doesn't seem to be a consistent application of this policy. Jack Vanderbleek, elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. G.A. actions concerning Israel is motivated by anti-Israel, anti-U.S. political bias September 7, 2004 I read over the statements from John Huffman (I had seen before) and Steve Yamaguchi. I had earlier seen the statement of Dennis Prager. I have met and heard John Huffman before and I have known Steve Yamaguchi for many years (first as associate pastor of El Montecito Presbyterian and as a fellow trustee on Westmont Board). My sense is that John is generally to be found on the evangelical (conservative) side of church issues; Steve, while a solid evangelical, may let his role as reconciler sometimes cloud issues. In the statements by both John and Steve, it seems to me that they avoid the more fundamental issue of the General Assembly's action relative to companies doing business with Israel by "jostling with windmills," countering the intemperate statement of Dennis Prager and others who also mostly missed the more important point. Both Steve, and especially John, took pains to recognize that the Israel/Palestine conflicts are vastly complicated and suffering and injustices are to be seen on both sides, and then seem to ignore this obvious conclusion by supporting the taking of one side in the face of such complexity. This is the real offense of the G.A. action – they singled out Israel (and with John, the "wall") for their investigation of companies doing business with Israel while being silent about companies doing business with the Palestinians and many other countries siding with the Palestinians, or any, I suppose, of literally hundreds of other countries who by their policies and actions are directly or indirectly "causing harm and suffering to innocent people." Like it or not, and no matter how much protestation to the contrary even by friends and evangelicals such as John and Steve, this action by the Presbyterian Church (USA) is seen as taking sides, siding with the Palestinians and against Israel. This is clearly seen by the jubilation and headline stories in the Palestinian press citing the G.A. action as evidencing "enlightenment" by Presbyterians against the pro-Israel policies of the U.S. government. Knowing the conventional thinking of the far left, including the majority of Presbyterian Church leadership, in respect to concessiveness toward the Palestinian "cause" and antipathy toward Israel, the action by the G.A. is not unexpected. Also not unexpected is that this same far-left leadership is looking for ways in which to cast aspersions against the only democracy in the Middle East and the only staunch supporter of the U.S. in that critical part of the world. The disappointing aspect of this is the number of evangelicals who are willing to overlook the absurdity of singling out evident injustices being done by Israel (and, certainly, there are many) while being silent on the myriad of monumental suffering of innocent peoples being perpetrated throughout the world and, in so doing, being seen by many as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" – including a vast Jewish population in this country (I have one in my office who is now totally anti-Presbyterian). The fact that Israel is not Christian is hardly an appropriate excuse, as John Huffman seems to imply, for this singling out of companies doing business in Israel. What about a resolution condemning the genocide of Christians being perpetrated by Islamists in the Sudan? Just one of probably thousands of injustices being perpetrated by governments and, yes, businesses doing business with oppressive governments throughout the world. Unfortunately, it seems clear that the kind of action by this year's G.A. in respect to Israel is more motivated by an anti-Israel, anti-U.S. political bias than by real mission responsibility concern. And it is doubly unfortunate that a few evangelicals in this case are to be found supporting such an unconscionably biased and self-defeating G.A. action. John Jenks Menlo Park, Calif. How can the PCUSA value Palestinian property more than Israeli lives? September 2, 2004 I find incomprehensible, both morally and logically, your church's decision to divest from companies that help Israel build its security fence against Palestinian terrorists. Terror attacks have fallen 90 percent in the north of Israel, where the fence has already been built. The fence disrupts some Palestinian lives and takes some land, but it clearly saves Israeli lives. The Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to give greater weight to Palestinian needs in routing the fence, and the Israeli government is complying. Apparently that's not good enough for your church, which opposes the existence of the life-saving fence. How can the Presbyterian Church value Palestinian property more than Israeli lives? Your action raises other questions, which I wish your leadership would try to answer. Why did you single out Israel for divestment? Did you review the actions of every country and decide that Israel's counter-terrorism policies were the most deserving of your condemnation and divestment? Does your church own stock in Eni or Statoil, the Italian and Norwegian oil companies whose royalty payments go to the nuclear-arming, terror-supporting, American-enemy government of Iran? I am obviously against your divestment campaign, but I want you to sell your stocks as soon as possible. On Tuesday, August 24, 2004, Goldman Sachs upgraded Caterpillar, a prime target of your divestment campaign. A Goldman analyst wrote that the stock could appreciate 39 percent or more from its current price. In fact, Caterpillar is one of their top picks: "We have looked at the upside potential for each of the stocks in our coverage universe and see the leverage for Caterpillar as being one of the best." Since you currently own $2.7 million of Caterpillar stock, you could be foregoing $1 million if you sell now. That would be a just punishment for singling out Israel for divestment, and especially for citing the life-saving security fence as one of the reasons. Your divestment campaign won't hurt Caterpillar and it won't hurt Israel. Perhaps your church will be taught a $1 million lesson that will leave you poorer, but hopefully wiser. So please, sell now. Oren L. Adler, CPA Goldin Associates, L.L.C. New York, N.Y. Latest suicide bombing in Israel is repudiation of GA action September 2, 2004 The front-page headline of the St. Petersburg Times, Sept. 1, 2004: "Double Attack Ends Suicide Bombing Lull In Israel." "Two suicide bombers blew up two buses 100 yards apart in this southern desert town, killing at least 16 people, including a 4-year-old child, and wounding more than 100 others, many of them seriously. It was the worst bombing in nearly a year. The terrorist group Hamas claimed credit." This is another repudiation of the Presbyterian staff in Louisville who persuaded the G.A. to approve an anti-Semitic resolution condemning Israel. Countless Presbyterians are outraged by a leadership that is out of control and doing untold damage to this denomination. When will it ever end? I challenge the PCUSA staff to atone for this terrible mistake. You can do it by making a public apology and requesting all commissioners to the General Assembly to rescind the resolution. A very angry Presbyterian! Jack Vanderbleek, elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. Does Willimon have a Presbyterian twin? September 2, 2004 Congratulations to Will Willimon on getting kicked upstairs as a bishop – in Alabama, no less – where he can do much needed Gospel-oriented damage to the United Methodist Church. I wish he had a Presbyterian twin brother or sister. Tell him to broaden his leadership curriculum and to also study The Contrarian's Guide to Leadership by USC (that's Southern Cal.) President Steven Sample, also a committed Christ-follower. Thanks, too, Layman, for a humorous, honest and very readable article about a Calvinistic Methodist who writes for nearly everybody on the theological spectrum. Maybe we need to learn from WW. Tom Tyndall Member at large of Middle Tennessee Presbytery Cross Point Community Church Nashville, Tenn. Scouts Canada show hypocrisy of progressive movements September 2, 2004 Hmmm. Let's see. Scouts Canada approved the establishment of "the world's first all-homosexual troop," but they no longer permit exclusive heterosexual boy troops by requiring the admission of "females, atheists, agnostics, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals into troops." This is precisely the hypocrisy that pervades all the progressive movements. It is also an indication of the insidious nature of such advocates. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. PCUSA needs more pastors who are loyal first to Jesus September 2, 2004 I like this guy because nobody owns him. We need more pastors and administrators who refuse to sell their souls to the highest bidder and who are loyal first to Jesus and the mission of making disciples of all nations and all age groups regardless of the cost. Go get 'em Will. Rev. Tom Litteer First Presbyterian Church Sparta, N.J. Answer to problem of the PCUSA September 2, 2004 The problems with the PCUSA is: Too many Girlie Men on the staff of the PCUSA. William M. Reeves Birmingham, Ala. A larger audience doesn't improve the quality of the show September 2, 2004 That was a tough trip for Pastor Bill. Crawford's recommendation of sending large numbers of observers to Birmingham didn't sound quite right at first, and now I know why. Particularly through the Internet, non-delegates had unprecedented access to the activities of GA. One could actually watch the plenary sessions live through streaming video! Committee meetings were attended by representatives of various groups who regularly posted updates and first-hand accounts on web-blogs or email news. Lots of people were able to observe, directly or indirectly, lots of what happened at GA. Having a larger audience doesn't improve the quality of a show, and in many cases does just the opposite. More outrage has only led to more membership losses. The illnesses of our decision-making system need more than observation and anger if we are to be healed. The seriousness of our problem, which Bill so graphically allegorized, calls for very serious solutions. I for one am encouraging those who are thinking more creatively about what changes might help us move beyond our current impasse. Carl Grosse, pastor First Presbyterian Church Farmington, Minn. Did PCUSA news release include 'spin?' September 2, 2004 In the article about the divestiture overture being a violation of the rules for the Board of Pension (BOP), I found a very interesting comment. The author was speaking of the number of shares in Caterpillar that are held by the BOP and the foundation respectively. He included this statement; "The PCUSA news release on the Caterpillar holdings said Caterpillar sells Israel 'armored' construction equipment, but the armor to protect Caterpillar operators is added by a subcontractor." (emphasis mine) Here is a shocking possibility. Would our own in house news organ spin the news to meet and serve their own leftist ideological perspective? Heavens! No wonder that out of touch General Assembly commissioners are so easily manipulated if our own news service lies to us. But what the hey ... it would be just one more nail in the coffin of a dying franchise. Rev. James C. Yearsley Pittsburgh, Pa. Homosexuality dishonors God who created human beings 'male and female' September 2, 2004 In responding to my Aug. 28 letter, Earl Apel (Aug. 30) at least recognizes this much: the Interim Report of the Peace, Unity, and Purity Task is wrong when it insists that "unity cannot be attained if the voices of some members of the body are ignored" and that "all voices [must] be heard and respected." As I noted, for that statement to be true, we would have to "hear and respect" even voices that advocate for "incest, bigamy, adultery, pedophilia, bestiality, racism, Nazi ideology, etc." Unfortunately, for Mr. Apel things go downhill rapidly from there. He insists that all the sinful offenses that I tick off "involve power or disrespect over the other person or entity that is weaker" but that "love between two persons of the same sex may be mutual and affirming and equal," and thus cannot be sinful. I fail to see why a relationship between a man and his adult sister, or between three persons, cannot be "mutual and affirming and equal." Does Mr. Apel think that St. Paul objected to a Christian man having sex with his stepmother because the relationship involved "power or disrespect over the other person or entity that is weaker?" The issue of power was irrelevant; it was about bodily, structural discordance of attempting an integration of two persons who, on a familial level, are already too much alike (cf. Leviticus 18:6: a person should not have sex with "the flesh of one's flesh," a principle taken so seriously that it was extended even to some in-law relationships). Obviously, too, since Paul could speak favorably of a loving authority-submission relationship in marriage, it was not the presence of a power imbalance that troubled Paul about same-sex intercourse. Few relationships are completely equal. In most relationships one partner is more intelligent, attractive, rhetorically skilled, older and wiser, commanding, demanding, aggressive, outgoing, outspoken, or strong-willed than the other. Authority can be asserted in a thousand implicit and explicit ways. The idea of equality in every relationship is a myth. When we talk about equality between the sexes in relationships what is really meant is that greater power in the relationship is not determined simply on the basis of the sex of the partner. Moreover, power is not an inherent source of evil. That is why our society validates a host of power relationships. Nearly everyone who is employed is in a power relationship: either exercising power over another or being under someone else's power, or (as is usually the case) both. And God exercises absolute power over all. By the way, the ancient Greeks often noted the fact that, even in pederasty, the younger partner often held the primary power in the relationship. In the understanding of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, same-sex intercourse necessarily disrespects each of the participants. Even when it is done as well as it can be done, it "dishonors/degrades the bodies" of the participants (Rom. 1:24) by trampling over the distinctive, complementary character of male-female sexuality. And it dishonors the God who created human beings "male and female," two halves of an integrated sexual whole. In effect, homoeroticism is a declaration, against creation, that one is a mere half male or half female, requiring sexual integration with someone of the same sex to complete the sexual self. A "committed," long-term homoerotic union merely regularizes the act of mutually dishonoring the gendered bodies of consenting participants. The reality is that one cannot be more male, if male, or more female, if female. One is already essentially male or essentially female and brings to the table of sexual relationships what one already is as a distinctive sexual being. If sexual merger is to be had, one ought to seek integration with what one is not as a sexual being. A husband does not look to his wife for more maleness to complete his maleness; nor does a wife look to her husband to fill in what she is lacking in essential femaleness. Rather they see in each other a sexual other, someone whose sexuality complements their own intact gender. Homoeroticism, however, is, by definition, sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. There is either a conscious recognition that one erotically desires in another what one already possesses as a sexual being (anatomy, physiology, sex-based traits) or a self-delusion of sorts in which the sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other. Either way dishonoring of self, other, and God takes place. Ironically, Mr. Apel ends by stating: "I think the Genesis account says it well where Adam and Eve decide to know better than God." That is precisely what Mr. Apel is doing in affirming a form of behavior that every writer of Scripture-and Jesus-would have viewed as an appalling act of suppressing the truth about God's design in nature. The gospel offers love and hope to Mr. Apel but at the same time recognizes that validating self-, other-, and God-dishonoring acts bestows neither. Robert A. J. Gagnon Associate Professor of New Testament Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Pittsburgh, Pa. Where do you find salaries of Louisville staff? September 2, 2004 Where do I turn to obtain information, which I assume is public, on the salaries of our Louisville staff? Gina Yaeger is one who comes to mind. Thank you. Jerry Voss Salary information is published in Part III of the annual report of the General Assembly. The Editors. All sin finds relative virtue within its own self-serving context September 2, 2004 Mr. Earl Apel clearly echoes the sentiments of many evangelicals in saying that it is easy for people to "decide to know better than God" and in doing so veer dangerously into sin's darker extremisms. He is right to condemn sexual perversions such as pedophilia and incest, and right to stand against those who would say that such things are fine and dandy. But the attempt to remove homosexuality from that list of perversions, supported only with an ill-defined notion of "mutual, affirming, equal ... love" has not been made. Pedophiles think themselves gentle, tender, sensitive and loving. Bigamists (who have plenty of Scriptural support) may find themselves kind and fair in the midst of their bigamy, and adulterers certainly rationalize their behaviors as somehow good or helpful in the midst of adultery – all sin finds relative virtue within its own self-serving context. Honor among thieves, loyalty or devotion among Nazis, affection or eros between two people of the same sex – all reveal the appalling blindness spread wide by one's own needs and desires. So a few questions for Mr. Apel or those of his camp: 1. At what point do you allow the larger community of faith to "see for you" in the midst of you homosexuality? Gays and gay advocates are famous for straining out gnats and swallowing camels when it comes to the texts addressing homosexuality. Why is our point of view invalidated? 2. Why have brotherhood or friendship – appropriate loves between same sexes – been abandoned for eros? 3. Why is it such a stunning offense for the Church to suggest (as it always has) that eros take a lesser role or be sacrificed altogether? Priests of all orientations have always done this. 4. Why is it even a problem for a Christian of homosexual orientation (COHO) to say: "My sexuality is far less important than my service to Christ and his Church – I willingly set homosexual behavior aside as a love offering to God and my brother and sisters in the Body of Christ?" In following Christ, we all set aside things we like – we deny ourselves materialism, adultery (even of the heart), violence, revenge, self-pity, etc. – and the Church's timeless position has been that COHOs seeking ordination should exercise the spiritual gift of self-control. All who do are welcome indeed. Those who refuse are the very ones trying to "decide to know better than God" whom Mr. Apel excoriates. We are defined by Christ, not our sexual preferences. So are our "loves." Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. There is always a faithful remenant September 2, 2004 Regarding the letter from Jackie Miller (August 30). This reminder to Jackie, the Lord has reminded the Prophet that "there are still 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal." I suspect that there are multiples of that number in this denomination who fall into that category. There is always a faithful remnant. Paul McKay Fullerton, Calif. Why such a fuss over when the title is used? September 2, 2004 Brian Ahier notes in response to Ray Bagnuolo that "If a particular church has an office of 'elder deacon' I would challenge these ordinations as improper." I cannot speak for Mr. Bagnuolo regarding his status but will note that Mr. Ahier may refer to the Book of Order section G-6.0407 which states: "A congregation by a majority vote may elect not to use the office of deacon. In such a case, or in the case where deacons cannot be secured, the function of the office shall always be preserved and shall devolve upon the elders and the session." So in such cases the elders are also deacons. I guess my basic question is aren't both elders and deacons called to be followers of Christ and reaching out to those in their congregation who are in need? Why such a fuss over when the title is used? I remember quite well in my own deacon training being told that we shouldn't see ourselves as junior elders. Likewise the elders shouldn't think they are above everyone else and should be able to minister to others just like a deacon. And this holds true for the minister. Just like the example of Christ who is truly and minister/elder/deacon in how he serves humanity. Earl C. Apel, deacon Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Homosexuality has complete disregard and disrespect toward our Creator September 2, 2004 In response to Mr. Apel's question, "How can two adults who are of the same sex who mutually love one another be compared to sins of pedophilia, bestiality, Nazism, etc.?" He answered his own question. He said that when Adam and Eve fell it was because they sought to know better than God and to have power over God himself. That is the answer to how the comparison can be made. There is no arguing within a soul who is surrendered to the Holy Spirit of our Holy Father when he says no to us. It is God himself who tells us through those who are anointed by his own Holy Spirit what right and wrong is. From the beginning, God showed us what is right through his own ordained purpose, plan and design. "Male and female created he them" and anyone who walks in the light, looks at the birds, bees and creation as God has so ordered and ordained, can "see" how the mind of our Creator has given us that plan for the "good" of all mankind. He looked at his creation before Adam and Eve fell into the snare of his enemy who came only to steal, kill and destroy the closest thing to God's heart. The man he made in his own image (as male and female). They were to love one another and reproduce humans after their own according to his own perfect plan, purpose and design. In essence, homosexuality is a complete disregard, disrespect and the highest dishonor toward our Creator that mankind has flaunted as they have the free will to choose what God has commanded they not "eat from" as knowledge of good and evil. God never intended us to know anything apart from him, his Word, his way and life forever. Adam and Eve could have eaten instead from the Tree of Life, they were willing to risk everything, life itself, on a lie that was told them by one who claimed to "know better" than their own Creator who had walked with them every day from the time he had made them and shown them such a better way. I believe that is your own answer, Mr. Apel, the reason homosexuality is so strongly condemned as "perversion" throughout the whole written Word of God by those who have taught us his Way from the beginning is because it is just that. To teach otherwise is to exalt your own human opinion over that of God's own Holy Word. That is called "heresy" in my book, and I believe in any other whose definition lines up with the Word as it has been given to us by the Creator, our Father in Heaven, for the good of us all who seek life and not the death and sin we have been set free from if we really know him. Karen Kolbinsky Hillsborough, N.C. Maybe GA commissioners don't know their history September 2, 2004 Your effort to be fair to both parties in the life and death struggle by one party attempting to oust the other off land that each people claim, is greatly appreciated. This refers to your piece in the July 2004 issue of your Layman newspaper, page 10, "G.A. approves human rights report hard on Israel, easy on the Palestinians." Perhaps the commissioners of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) are not fully knowledgeable of the historical evolution of the Arabs who call themselves "Palestinians." Of course, most if not all of your church's membership know the history of the Jewish people and their homeland, and by extension, the homeland of the world's Christians – including the Presbyterian Church (USA) members. However, neither they nor their leadership may be fully aware of the history of those Arabs who now call themselves "Palestinians" under Yassir Arafat. In 1920-21 the British, in accordance with the League of Nations Mandate, established the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan on the east bank of the Jordan River, as the Palestinian State, but under Arab pressure, the Brits refused to do the same for the Jews – establish the Jewish State, Israel on the land west of the Jordan River. This is the reason we are having the deadly struggle today between Arafat's "Palestinians" on one side and the Jewish and Christian Israelis on the other side. At this point the Arab Christians and non-Arab Christians are blaming the Jewish Israelis for their plight. The Christians don't want antagonize the Arabs for fear of expulsion from Arab "Palestinian" occupied territory. It is Arafat's illegal "Palestinians" who are illegally occupying Israeli and Christian Holy Land. If Arafat and his terrorists were eliminated, the Arabs now occupying Israeli Judaeo/Christian Land illegally and against the League of Nations Mandate – the present "United Nations" are controlled by the Muslim majority, could and would ask the Kingdom of Jordan for forgiveness and would probably be forgiven and allowed to return to their homeland – Jordan. I hope that you will be concerned enough to respond and perhaps help save many lives: Christians, Jewish and Muslim. Leo Cooper Canada leads in destroying Boy Scouts September 2, 2004 Canada has seemingly taken the lead in destroying the Boy Scouts with the inception of diversity, and repudiating Holy Scripture's teaching on human behavior as found in the 10 commandments; Romans 1 -3, along with those verses in Leviticus on homosexual, lesbian lifestyle. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del.

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links