September 2004 letters Archives of letters to the editor

Assembly declares Iraq war 'unwise, immoral and illegal' September 29, 2004 I am greatly troubled to see the leaders of my church use their positions to spew out their geo-political views and attempt to label them as a Presbyterian view. I consider it not only improper, but also completely unacceptable. I am not certain if I belong to a church or a political party. After 59 years as a Presbyterian, I am finding myself questioning my desire to continue as part of this church. I call for a complete retraction of the resolution. Richard Farkas Stow, Ohio Courage to do the right thing, or foolhardiness based on false beliefs? September 29, 2004 There is courage to do the right thing and then there is foolhardiness based on false beliefs. Reading the Book of Acts, one finds the first kind of courage. To say that Jesus is the only way is the quickest way to receive persecution. Too bad the persecution starts in the PCUSA home office. What of the violence done to Christians in Moslem countries? No answer. John B. Stone Ellerbe, N.C. Does the PCUSA have investments with China or Saudi Arabia? September 29, 2004 I wonder if the PCUSA has any investments directly or indirectly with Communist China or Saudi Arabia. If the PCUSA does, well, what is good for the goose has to be good for the gander. The obscurantist individual(s) who brought up the subject of divesting from Israel should do the same not only with Communist China, if that is the case, but with any nation that supports terror. Does his/her portfolio support terror? Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Thank you, Dr. Gagnon, for articulating so well the Biblical position September 29, 2004 Thank you, Dr. Gagnon, for articulating so well the Biblical position. I do pray the response will be positive. I'm very grateful for men like yourself who are willing to take a stand for Biblical values. Carol Wagstaff About the 'pastoral communication' from the GAC September 29, 2004 Regarding the General Assembly Council's plan to absolve itself by fiat of its misguided decision to divest its stake in companies doing business with Israel, The Layman Online reports that a spokeswoman for the GAC said, "The divestment strategy has unnecessarily moved into a direction that alienates us from people we need to be in conversation with." Huh? First, it's not a strategy – it's a tactic. You don't have a strategy. The denomination doesn't have a strategy. The denomination is rudderless and foundering by any measure one might apply. Man, am I sick and tired of this arrogance. Did you read the newspeak in her statement or elsewhere within the quotes in this story? Can't anyone from the GAC put a sentence together that has even a whiff of real humility in it? Do you Presbyterians realize what whackos are running Louisville? We can't even say anymore that they're misguided, but well-intentioned. So, GAC, you want to issue a pastoral communication? If it doesn't start with the words, "We apologize and beg the forgiveness of all Jews and those who love the State of Israel...," I won't read it. Nor will I sit still and have it read to me. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. Robert Gagnon responds to Earl Apel September 29, 2004 There seems to be no point in responding at length to Mr. Apel's letter of Sept. 7. I suppose that what he attempts to do is to make either Scripture or my own arguments look silly so that one has to agree with Mr. Apel's extreme position that committed homosexual unions would have been, and are, acceptable to Jesus. However, the impression that Mr. Apel leaves is that his own position is grossly out of sync with the core values of Jesus and Scripture regarding sexual ethics and leads to absurd conclusions. A number of his arguments are based on wrong premises, show misunderstanding of the issues, and/or are unintelligible from a logical standpoint. Responding to them point by point would not be the best use of time. What it boils down to is this: Mr. Apel thinks that any sexual relationship is justifiable if it is "affirming" and equitable. New Testament scholar Walter Wink tried a similar argument when he attempted a critique of my work, arguing that Scripture offered no distinctive sex ethic, but merely sexual mores or customs subject to the love command. In other words, any sexual relationship that affirms is loving and since love is good any sexual relationship that affirms must be good. The fallacy here is that neither Jesus nor Scripture generally equates "love" with "any sexual relationship that affirms." If it were otherwise, then "love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18) would, according to Jesus' definition of neighbor, mean "have affirming sex with everyone you come into contact with, including your enemies." Clearly, Jesus, consistent with Scripture generally, did have a distinctive sexual ethic. While Jesus expanded the definition of love to embrace everyone he narrowed the definition of acceptable sexual intimacy to embrace only one person of the other sex for life. So the criteria for each, loving one's neighbor and valid sexual relationships, are far from identical. Mr. Apel's sole litmus test for acceptable sexual relationships, asking whether the relationship is affirming and equitable, leads to the conclusion that we can and should be having sex with hundreds of people, to say nothing of close blood relations. Mr. Apel unfortunately does not grasp the fact that sexual relationships are about more than affirmation. They are about merger and, as such, have firm structural prerequisites. One of the most basic of these structural prerequisites is that, if a person attempts a sexual "one-flesh" merger with another, it ought to be only with a sexual "other half." Nothing that Mr. Apel has said contravenes my observation, drawn from Scripture, that homoerotic desire represents an ill-conceived attempt to merge with what one already is as a sexual being. There is something developmentally problematic – narcissistic and delusional – about being sexually aroused by what one shares in common with another as a person of the same sex. Persons who experience such desires should be loved, not hated. But love does not translate into affirming self-dishonoring desires and behaviors that run so obviously counter to God's revealed will. Robert A. J. Gagnon Associate Professor of New Testament Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Does General Assembly believe in Bible or God? September 29, 2004 What is it that the General Assembly does not understand about the Bible? Do they not believe that God gave the holy land to the Jews to keep forever? Do they not believe in our God? Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth W. Bernhardt Versailles, Ky. PLC should not involve itself in the politics of Israel September 29, 2004 I was surprised, and very much disappointed, to find the Presbyterian Lay Committee involving itself in the purely political questions surrounding the existence and policies of the present state of Israel. I have been a supporter of the Presbyterian Lay Committee for many years because of my impression that its concerns were theological and moral, and that its goal was to keep our denomination in its historic patterns, as intellectually orthodox and accepting leadership only from persons of the highest ethical and moral stature. I regard the very establishment of the nation-state Israel as the most tragic single mistake of the 20th century, and I think our government's unwavering, and almost entirely politically motivated, support for the state of Israel animates most of the hostility to the United States which is so disruptive of the peace in the Middle East. But this is a matter which good Presbyterians may differ, and in which I feel very strongly that the Presbyterian Lay Committee should not involve itself. Arthur F. Stocker Professor of Classics, emeritus University of Virginia Charlottesville, Va. Washington Office, national level disconnected from majority September 27, 2004 A writer recently asked whether the Washington Office was autonomous. It is. And, even worse, it is part of a denomination that has become increasingly autonomous at the national level. It is disconnected from the majority in the pews and, worse, disconnected from Scripture. If it were not for the watchful eye of The Layman, there is no telling what mischief the folks in Louisville would be up to. At some point, thoughtful pastors and members must ask the question whether allegiance to such an organization is warranted. Tearing at the body of Christ is definitely sinful. But who is doing the tearing? When an individual member leaves a PCUSA congregation and joins another denomination in order to grow spiritually, is the body torn? For that matter, when an entire congregation moves from the PCUSA to the EPC or PCA in order to more clearly live out the Gospel, is the body torn? In this imperfect life, we have an obligation to work out our differences and even compromise on the non-essentials. When the PCUSA drifts, we are obliged to work for its redirection. But, when the denominational structure becomes the problem, when it resists all calls for repentance, and when it walls itself off from accountability and launches itself and us on the most foolish adventures imaginable, it is time to act. Schism has been made a four-letter word by bureaucrats. The reality is that the Church, like the proverbial vine, is made stronger by pruning. Cuttings, seeds and children leave their aging and staid parents and grow into new creations. The species is thereby strengthened. Loyalty is a fine attribute – until it becomes a cover for apathy and cowardice. John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. The PCUSA is abandoning Israel September 27, 2004 My heart sank as I realized that the PCUSA was abandoning Israel. There are so many promises – I will bless those who bless you and curse those that curse you – to Israel that we cannot treat them lightly. I'm tired of apologizing to my Jewish and Messianic friends about the un-Biblical stance of the PCUSA. A great part of my frustration is the difficulty in knowing how and to whom I should address my concerns, frustrations and down right outrage. How dare the PCUSA presume to speak for me. I love Israel. The United States should be the first to support the only democracy in the entire Mideast area. Christians should be the first to support the promised people from whom we received the Savior. We should be the first to step forward to offer assistance as they fight for the safety of their children. We should be the first to cry out against the persecution suffered by the Palestinian Christians. They have been almost completely driven out of Bethlehem, which had been their home for years. We should be the first to make sure the media and the world gets their facts straight. "Palestinian" referred to the Jews until 1964. All the Arabs living in that part of the world were, up until that date, carrying Syrian passports. Go back to the source documents, the United Nations documents, and see the dates involved. Once again, I ponder my membership in the PCUSA. Is this the time to finally resign and let them reap the consequences? Lack of Biblical leadership equals loss of membership and funding. If things aren't working the way you want them, look at the facts in front of your face and ask the tough questions. Put your personal agenda aside and look at reality. The G.A. does not lead the congregations, they should be an instrument of the congregations. When they cease to follow and seek to lead, then they are out of place. Elaine Bankey Member of a Confessing Church in Nebraska Will Kirkpatrick call for divestment of companies working for Palestinians? September 27, 2004 I am curious if [Stated Clerk Clifton] Kirkpatrick will call for divestment in organizations that supply or have any thing to do with the Palestinians in any way. Seems only fair to me. Fred Hopson An organized ultimatum to the G.A. from traditional Presbyterians September 27, 2004 I have been trained in dealing with those who are chemically addicted, and I must say that history of the PCUSA has proved an analogy to those in power at the G.A. As I see no heart from those Presbyterians that are disaffected (such as support The Layman) to create a deadline for an organized exodus from the PCUSA to reorganize under a new legal banner (perhaps TPCUSA, "T" for traditional) or just leave. Unless you create an ultimatum for those living in a delusion, you will have no hope of changing the situation. As for myself and my household, this last year's actions by the G.A. and my own pastor's apathy in confronting the organization within which he was ordained, has convinced me it was the right time to end our membership. At this stage you are only enabling, like a nagging family member, year after year begging the drunkard to change his ways. You are only mildly irritating to him. Even if you no longer give pocket money for his booze, your presence is a comfort to his debauchery. Give the G.A. an ultimatum or quit. Eric Foster North Pole, Alaska New blood ... old tactics! September 27, 2004 Ah, me. New Moderator Rick Ufford-Chase is off to a running start, "...he could not distinguish between the General Assembly Council or the Committee on the Office of the General Assembly or any of the other agencies of the PCUSA and their acronyms." Looks like somebody did something right wrong ... again. But, alas! He sure has learned the jargon of G.A. fast!! Wonder who his mentors are? This quote: "The most difficult part of the summer, he said, "has been the consternation across our church – a lot of anger and frustration." "It speaks actually to a deep sense of fear and loss among people in our church, when they speak with that level of intensity and anger," he said, "that somehow the church they have known all their life is slipping away." He sure has a handle on that ... could be a plus. But the very next statement diffused my early hopes, "He said most of the anger he was seeing came from the assembly's action of divestment from companies doing business in Israel." Another short-sighted moderator. Wouldn't it be wonderful if that was the biggest problem we had, and that it was indeed the cause of all our anger? Then, G.A. could just start backing off their political agenda for a while and we evangelicals would all come back in line and open our pocketbooks again. They could hear that jingle jangle again and all would be well in PCUSAland again. Who wants to be the messenger to this man and try to have dialogue with him concerning the complexities of our complaints? Glenda Smith Reems Creek Beech Church Weaverville, N.C. Is the Washington office autonomous? September 24, 2004 Please, those of you who know, enlighten me. Is the Washington office of the PCUSA meant to be completely autonomous? If not, are they effectively completely autonomous right now. How else can their actions as reported in the following two recent Layman Online articles be justified? A. June 8, 2004 – "Once again, Washington Office promoting opposition to proposed marriage amendment" B. June 4, 2004 – "PCUSA supporting legal efforts to remove 'under God' from Pledge of Allegiance C. September 23, 2004 – "Washington Office, 7 other agencies violate 216th G.A. lobbying ban on Marriage Amendment" I have not seen any evidence the Office is trying to find or represent the will of the majority of the remaining members of the denomination, much less the will of God as He has revealed it in His Word. Maybe we "need" a Washington Office, but if we do, we certainly need leadership in it which keeps God's Word and will before their eyes as they lead. We do not need Pharisaical leadership like that which Jesus rebuked when He said: "Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things and said to Him, 'We are not blind too, are we?' Jesus said to them, 'If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, 'We see,' your sin remains." (John 9:40, 41) Greg Leaman Sheboygan County, Wis. Insubordination sufficient reason for termination September 24, 2004 I am not surprised to see PCUSA agencies continued lobbying against a Federal Marriage Amendment even after being told in no uncertain terms to stop. Their actions only reflect they are part of a radical small fringe in American society. That being said, insubordination is sufficient reason for the termination of their employment. Reflecting the PCUSA agencies being a radical fringe element on the marriage issue, the Courier Journal in Louisville, Ky., had this headline "Most favor Kentucky ban on gay marriage, Poll: Voters strongly back measure barring civil unions." In the story the Courier Journal states that 72% of likely voters support the amendment, 22% oppose the amendment and 6% were undecided. In the same story, the Courier Journal interviewed a PCUSA minister, who was quoted: "But the Rev. Patricia Lloyd-Sidle, 52, a Presbyterian minister who also took part in the poll, opposes the amendment. "I support the right of gays and lesbians to form the loving relationships that they want to form," she said." Larry Rued, Elder First Presbyterian Church Bradenton, Fla. Seminary student: 'Am I really welcome' in PCUSA? September 24, 2004 It has taken me a while to process all that happened in this summer's General Assembly, the first GA that I carefully monitored since I joined the PCUSA in 2002. As a seminary student holding a full time job as a PCUSA "Director of Youth and Family Ministries" (who happens to be enrolled in our denomination's ordination process), one question that keeps coming to my mind – "am I on the right path?" As an evangelical, am I really welcome here? Given some of the decisions that have been handed down to us by the GA, I can't help but wonder if I am pursuing ordination in a denomination that has fundamentally given up on the ideals that I ardently desire to uphold as a future pastor. My calling is to preach the Bible as the true, perfect, and infallible Word of our loving God. I want to preach the full Lordship of Jesus Christ – by which I mean that He alone can save us from our sins and ultimately, from Hell. I want to preach righteousness and the path of holiness that His disciples are obligated to relentlessly pursue. Yet, ironically, I have found that these three principles that comprise the "burning passion in my bones" are the very tenets that have been compromised most radically by our liberal brothers and sisters, who having infiltrated the Presbyterian branch of the Body of Christ, have ascended to the highest ranks of our bureaucracy. And so I ask myself, "am I on the right path" by pursuing ordination in this denomination?" Do I have the desire to fellowship with other Christians who tolerate the violent act of abortion that routinely destroys infants in so callous and heartless of a manner? I know that I certainly would not vote for an elected official who advocated such atrocities, how then could I ally myself with a denomination that has essentially and repeatedly affirmed pro-abortion positions? Do I have the stomach to tolerate denominational activists who not only look the other way when homosexual marriages are performed by PCUSA pastors but also actively lobby in Washington on behalf of "alternative lifestyles" and declare it "missions?" Speaking of missions, can I trust that this denomination will support my family financially if and when we personally answer the call to the foreign mission field? Or will I too be cut from our denomination's support network because I will be preaching a Savior who alone is able to save humankind from our sin? Moreover, I can't help but wonder if I will soon be unwelcome in the midst of other clergy and our denominations highest ranking leaders because I refuse to budge from the Reformed theology that used to be the bedrock of this denomination. Perhaps it would behoove me to safely return to the non-denominational church that I used to belong to – at least there I can be sure that church discipline is upheld, doctrine is still highly regarded, and homosexuality and abortion are still spoken of unequivocally as sin. So far, though, I haven't budged. As far as I understand the Christian faith, perseverance is always better than quitting and Christians are called to defend our strongholds rather than to retreat. I do know that, as part of the Confessing Church, I stand in a straight line of heritage with a multitude of ardent warriors for the same faith that I am training to defend: men like John Calvin, John Knox and Charles Hodge. This is one reason that I am proud to be a Presbyterian today. Yet at the same time that I rejoice in my Reformed heritage, I can't help but wonder where my liberal brothers and sisters trace their ancestry? Certainly it does not proceed from the branch of Christianity known as Reformed theology. On this branch, we uphold creeds like the Westminster Confession of Faith. We hold to mottos such as sola fide and sola scriptura. And so it is for this reason that I suggest the following compromise. Since the Confessing Church movement in the PCUSA will never give up the fight to defend our true Reformed heritage, perhaps our brothers and sisters who find this heritage to be so distasteful ought to graciously part ways with us and join other denominations whose sole purpose seems to be to endorse political liberalism and moral relativism. Would not the UCC or the Unitarians be a better fit? If so, why don't PCUSA leaders who lean heavily toward liberalism agree to join such denominations whose stated purpose seems to be to decry traditional values and urge people into the fray of left-wing political activism? I am sure the UCC, whose numbers have plummeted every year since its inception, would love to take on board the vast portion of our discontent radical left side. Am I suggesting a church split? Certainly not. I do not feel that it ever honors the Lord Jesus Christ when His people divide hastily and bitterly. What I am suggesting is that the people who are uncomfortable with our Reformed theology, doctrine, and ethics select their denominational body with a bit more theological honesty, intellectual insight, and candor. Matthew Everhard Hudson Presbyterian Church Church should do more for the poor September 24, 2004 I think it is safe to say God is neither a Republican or a Democrat, though you can find groups in either party that would tend to disagree. It is probably true the government ought to be doing more for the poor. However, it has always bothered me when church groups (individual congregations, presbyteries, denominations, etc.) call on the government to do more, but are unwilling to do more for the poor themselves. Think what the church could do for the sake of the poor (education, job training, health care, support for those who are mentally challenged) if every follower of Jesus tithed. The budget in our own church would increase by about 700%. Before we ask the government to do more, we need to train up faithful disciples who have a clear understanding of what it means to be faithful financially to the work of God. Personally, I don't care if the money is given to the church or to some other organization carrying out God's purpose of making disciples and serving those in need. What is important is that more of us who claim Jesus as Lord need to put our money where our mouths are so that our money will no longer control us, but we will control it. This is a responsibility that we, who hold the Bible to be the infallable Word of God, dare not escape. Rev. Tom Litteer First Presbyterian Church Sparta, N.J. NCC protest shows double standard September 24, 2004 The NCC protest at the Republican National Convention is just another example of double standardism convieniently dovetailed in liberalism. The fictitious constitutional concept of "separation of church and state" is only a negative when applied to right thinking individuals. But bring in a Rent-a-Mob and they wrap themselves in the flag of inclusion with every abhorrent behavior special-interest group known to Washington, D.C. My, oh my, how this church has changed since I was a young man, not so many years ago. I almost forgot, which candidate is it that has a faith-based initiative? Yeah, that's right, the secular guy, right? Russell Henning Bend, Ore. Divestment decision is the last straw September 24, 2004 For years, I have been saying of the Presbyterian Church that "enough is enough, I'm leaving." I've been a Presbyterian as long as I can remember so it's hard to do. This action by the General Assembly [divestment of stock in companies doing business with Israel] really is the limit. Who do they think they are to punish God's chosen people? Dorothy O. Sunderland Burlington, Wash. Bashing the Republicans September 23, 2004 After reading the article "Church Groups Support Anti-Republican Rally," I am reminded that church denominations can lose their tax-exempt status by dabbling in politics. It also remains a concern that denominations speak with authority as if they speak for all their members. I am one of the many members who objects to the denomination having the gall to speak for me on political matters. The role of the church is to preach the Word of God and leave the liberal or conservative layman to make his/her own decisions. Had a conservative message been presented, the news media would have been all over it. Bill Arthur Greer, S.C. Politics and The Layman September 23, 2004 I regularly read The Layman and appreciate the views expressed therein. And I have no real problem with "bias" in issues of theology, Biblical interpretation, governance, etc. But the item on Church Groups Support Anti-Republican Party strikes me as irrelevant to The Layman's mission. Church groups, members and related groups support a variety of political party positions, rallies, platforms ... even protests. If The Layman is going to select news items that demonstrate the "church's" bias toward one political party, it strikes me as logical that you will need to redirect editorial, journalistic and discovery efforts regarding theological matters to digging out all the news stories about what groups/members are lobbying on behalf of the Democratic AND Republican parties. The Layman's credibility is critical to its messages; the organization's time would be better spent speaking forth on issues directly related to the mission, life and work of the church. Perhaps you could consider passing up the items that cannot possibly be representative of the "critical issues" before the church and its members. Quite frankly, I don't look to The Layman to keep me informed about who's supporting or not supporting the political parties. Joseph Black Spokane, Wash. National Council of Churches is 'apostate to the core' September 23, 2004 What else is new with the NCC? It has no message because it does not believe the Holy Bible is the Word of God, so they substitute social change based on themselves thinking they have something new to offer the Body of Christ. The NCC, like the World Council of Churches, is apostate to the core and, as Paul writing to the Corinthian church, "that God will give them a strong delusion, that they would believe a lie." Nothing's new with the NCC. They have been believing lies for so long, they could not recognize the truth if our Lord Jesus Christ came down in the flesh today telling what is true and truth. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Theological baggage and women's ordination September 23, 2004 I'm writing in response to Robert Demarest Cuminale's letter noting, as I also have noted, that some conservatives haven't come to grips with the historic and cultural contexts of the Scriptural discussion of the ordination of women, which help to reveal a sound theology for such ordination. Additionally, I often have noted that liberals act as though they've scored points when they charge conservatives with accepting the ordination of women – which is not Scriptural, they charge – while, at the same time, holding opposition to the ordination of homosexuals. They forget that living one's life as a woman is not described by Scripture as patently sinful. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. An open letter to Vernon Broyles September 23, 2004 The stormy weather surrounding the PCUSA has had to take a back seat to the hurricane weather damaging the state of Florida for the past month. Your letter of September 8 has been carefully studied. You state that "G.A.s have for decades condemned the violence perpetrated by both sides." The appearance of even-handedness was not reflected in the resolution passed by the G.A. calling for corporate divestment in Israel, thus creating a firestorm of negative publicity for this denomination. It is my strong belief that Presbyterian peacemakers still don't understand the problem. The Palestinian leadership does not want peace under any circumstance. They want the complete destruction and annihilation of Israel and will not stop at anything less. They came close in 1967 and again in 1973. Had it not been for the United States, Israel would have become another holocaust. Why is this so hard for peacemakers to understand? Perhaps the mantra "Unity Through Diversity" is to blame. When I became a Presbyterian in 1958, diversity meant that membership was open to anyone regardless of race, color, national origin or economic status. Diversity today means we should accept the morality, behavior and theology of anyone who calls themselves a church member in order to have unity in the PCUSA. It is absolutely and unequivocally clear that diversity is destroying this denomination. Advocates of homosexual behavior, same-sex marriages, partial-birth abortion, and the ordination of gay and lesbian church officers are demanding a place at the table in violation of Scripture and the long-standing Reformed traditions of the Christian faith. Unfortunately, they have been joined by a leadership that is unwilling or afraid to defend the church of Jesus Christ and follow his teaching. Jack Vanderbleek, Elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. Palestinians don't want peace September 21, 2004 What the peaceniks in Louisville don't understand is that there can never be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, because the Palestinians don't want peace and never will. What they want is the complete destruction and annihilation of Israel and will stop at nothing less. If it had not been for the United States, Israel would have been destroyed in the 1967 war and again in the 1973 war. I was in the Pentagon in 1967. The El Al Airline stripped the seats out of all their Boeing 707s and were flying back and forth to Norfolk, Va., hauling ammunition. No one else would give them help. To secure Israeli borders, they had to take some Palestinian land. Otherwise, the Palestininans could have fired short-range 105-mm howitzer shells into downtown Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I visited Israel in 1976 and talked to many of their officers. They told me there will never be peace because the Palestinians don't recognize the existence of Israel. So how can you be accused of killing something who doesn't exist. That is the rationale. Arafat was given a chance for peace but refused. He would have been dead meat like Anwar Sadat if he had agreed to any peace settlement. When Louisville treats Israel and the Palestinians as equals, it promotes terrorism against the Jews. When Louisville condemns the Jews, as it did in the GA resolution, it smacks of anti-Semitism. The latest letter from Vernon Broyles defends to high heaven the actions of the PCUSA staff regarding their views on Israel. They show no remorse for all the bad publicity they have brought down on our denomination. Jack Vanderbleek In response to readers' question September 21, 2004 I don't know about approaching whole churches but I am very active in one on one encounters with PCUSA folks in an effort to show them what they are missing by being in an unsound church. The response is not overwhelming. I have noticed that some who are calling themselves conservative are carrying around a lot of nonbiblical baggage they don't want to get rid of. The biggest objection seems to be our view that the ordination of women is not scriptural. Another is the high level of theological education that takes place not only in church but at home. Most of these people have never heard of the catechism much less studied it. Some of these people are officers and won't leave and give up the honors. Frankly, many would not qualify as officers in a PCA church. Anyway, I will continue to exhort these folks to come. There are some who have and they are very happy and have added to our joy. Robert Demarest Cuminale 912 Ingraham Place Charlotte, N.C. What is Church's understanding of marriage? September 21, 2004 While perusing the fall edition of the Covenant Network Newsletter, I happened to read in the General Assembly Highlights the comment that the 216th General Assembly "Reaffirmed our Presbyterian understanding of marriage, rather than the 'Christian Declaration on Marriage' or the proposed 'Federal Marriage Amendment.'" As a minister in the Presbyterian Church, this caught me a little off guard. What exactly is the Covenant Network's understanding of marriage, and for that matter? What do you say is the Church's understanding of marriage? As far as I can tell, and from what I understand in my study of Scripture and the Confessions, the Church's understanding on marriage is very similar to what the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Christian Declaration on Marriage Proposing. For example, Scripture: Genesis 2:22-24 – "Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, 'This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man.' For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." The Second Helvetic Confession, Chapter 29 (5.246) "For marriage was instituted by the Lord God himself, who blessed it most bountifully, and willed man and woman to cleave to one to the other inseparably, and to live together in complete love and concord" (Matt 19:4ff). "Whereupon we know that the apostle said: 'Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled' (Heb 13:4)." The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 26 (6.133) "Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, designed of God to last so long as they both shall live." Compare this to the Christian Declaration on Marriage: "We believe that marriage is a holy union of one man and one woman in which they commit, with God's help, to build a loving, life-giving, faithful relationship that will last for a lifetime. God has established the married state, in the order of creation and redemption, for spouses to grow in love of one another and for the procreation, nurture, formation and education of children." And to the Federal Marriage Amendment: [1] Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. [2] Neither this constitution or the constitution of any state, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups. It appears to me that the Federal Marriage Amendment and the Christian Declaration on Marriage say exactly what Scripture and the confessions of our faith have taught all along. I would appreciate hearing your understanding of marriage, and knowing how it differs from the teaching of God's Word and the Historic Confessions of the Reformed (and Presbyterian) faith. Rev. Ethan Sayler Why are terrorists Muslims? September 21, 2004 Praise God! Finally the truth (Jesus v. Mohammed). I am so tired of hearing "not all Muslims are terrorists." But one has to ask why it is that all terrorists happen to be Muslims. Their own writings advocate violence against infidels, and that it is fine to lie about their agenda as long as they are in the minority. Christ died for all mankind. We really need some dedicated outreach so the truth is brought into this dark 'religion.' All things will work toward God's sovereign plan and we must pray and be obedient to the leading of the Holy Spirit in matters such as these -- in these dangerous days for those who call Him Savior. Marcie Dobrowolski Staff of The Layman are the Patrick Henrys and Paul Reveres of the PCUSA September 20, 2004 I continue to be amazed at the encroachment of paganism (goddess worship, abortion, homosexuality, universalism, etc.) into the Presbyterian Church and the acceptance of it by whole congregations. I think some times the pastors realize the error, but are afraid to speak against it for fear they will lose financial support from some of their more wealthy congregants. So, they remain silent as their congregation quietly slides farther and farther away from the redemption that is in Jesus. Thanks be to God though, for raising up men of intestinal fortitude, like Parker Williamson and the staff at The Layman. They are the Patrick Henrys and Paul Reveres of the Presbyterian Church, warning those who will listen through whatever means they have available. As a former elder and deacon, I commend you, Parker, for your diligence in turning the spotlight on the problem areas in the church and at the same time highlighting the dynamic congregations that have remained faithful to Jesus. You are surely an example for the young (and older) men and women of the church who believe there is a cause worth paying the price for. Bill Whitfield P.S. The recent policy on divestiture of Israeli companies (cloaked anti-Semitism) has got to be a new height of folly.

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