August 2005 letters Archives of letters to the editor

PUP's report is nothing less than local option August 31, 2005 Imagine that. The PUP proposal causing controversy! The More Lights find the task force's recommendation "deeply insulting" and those on the other side of issue see it similarly. Isn't it interesting that opposing sides are, in one sense, of one accord; that is, in their strenuous objections? What I'd like to know is how any PUP member could conceive, even remotely, that their work (or the lack thereof) would result in anything else? The idea behind their existence and work was to help our struggling denomination to some kind of resolution, not endless debate. That's what we had before. How could they see their proposal as nothing less than local option? The implication is congregationalism. They surely must know local option is not an option. Have several years and countless miles, hours, trees, ink and monies been wasted? Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. PCUSA should not sacrifice purity on the altar of unity August 31, 2005 The Coalition is shouting the Word of the Lord to us. We should listen carefully. There is no way that we should sacrifice purity on the altar of unity. The New Testament scriptures clearly warn us about bonding ourselves with unbelievers and apostates. Way to go Coalition! Rabun B. Harper, elder Saint Stephen Presbyterian Church Chatsworth, Calif. It isn't worth reading theological affirmations since they only bind its authors August 31, 2005 A brilliant political move. Lacking the votes to change the constitution, the advocates of radical individualism in the church have discovered that any General Assembly can in effect nullify that constitution. A theology professor may not see local option in this; a lawyer or political scientist would see nothing else. It's not worth even reading the report's theological affirmations, since they don't bind anybody but its authors – and it binds them only for the time being. They are the smokescreen out of which looms the enemy dreadnaught. Dan Reuter Nashville, Ind. Why our insistence upon unity remains an ugly hypocrisy August 31, 2005 Those driving a wedge between the PCUSA and the worldwide Body of Christ and those who break bread with them will soon enough be celebrated as champions of peace, unity and purity. GA 2006 will certainly see to that. But it will be a sham, an ugly hypocrisy of self-congratulations over having done little more than reiterate the Presbyterian status quo. The quest for unity is not about holding the dissenting ideologies of the PCUSA into a single party; it is about keeping the PCUSA in sync with the rest of the Body of Christ. It speaks far more to our ecumenical agenda than our inner, political ones. Unless you believe the PUCSA is the whole expression of Christ's body, and nothing of the Church exists beyond it, the vow to uphold and protect the peace, unity and purity of the Church applies to the whole Body of Christ, not just the PCUSA. There is a great difference between the task of forging theological consensus within our own house, under our own constitution, and seeking the oneness of the whole Body of Christ. Yes, we are right to seek theological consensus – the PUP task force represents one expression of that hope – but let's call it what it is: just trying to get our own house in order. Until we do, it is difficult to talk about seeking consensus with Christians of other denominations. The task force's first recommendation is that we "stay together." What they call the "unity of the body of Christ" remains a rather fierce loyalty to a worldly institution which is itself a departure from other Body of Christ institutions. Presbyterians, like all Protestants, are schismatic in origin and character, but that should only be in terms of our institutional organization and government. We should all agree that the PCUSA is not the whole Body of Christ, nor should we claim that we are the only true expression of the Church. We once broke away from the Roman Catholic Church, and have historically distinguished ourselves up and against other denominations via our polity, our definition of mission, and our interpretation of Scripture. We remain "in schism" from Catholics, Orthodoxes, Baptists, Methodists and all the rest due to our defining standards: our Confessions and Book of Order. When did we last reaffirm our shunning of Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, or even Mormons in print? We haven't drafted or documented our distaste for their interpretations. We may groan with embarrassment at other pastors with enormous air time, but have we made a denominational position of telling the world that we think they are idiots? No, nor should we, for these are still our brothers and sisters in Christ with whom we share a narrow path and an eternal destiny. But even this hope of ultimate unity is not well-expressed in our confessions. If the task force were serious about unity and oneness, they would have recommended that churches and individuals which persist – by action and expressed intention – to violate the word and spirit of Scripture and our constitution (esp. G6.0106b) be reprimanded for constantly threatening the unity of the Church. The progressives, more than any other factor, continue to force an unbiblical program into the GA and presbytery agenda at every opportunity. Those who push for gay marriage and/or ordination remain the true threat to Unity, for it is they who are attempting to steer the PCUSA out of fellowship with the whole Body of Christ. Why in God's name should we seek to be one with them? Why should we pat ourselves on the back for ignoring their truly divisive agenda? Better to seek oneness with the whole world of Christianity – the overwhelming majority of which stands alongside us in receiving our sexuality as informed and guided by Scripture, and not one that is self-defined, self-authenticating, self-legitimizing, and ultimately, self-destructive. Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. Theory of evolution is not a science theory but a history theory August 31, 2005 The theory of evolution is not a science theory; it is a history theory. The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to explain science, but history – supposedly what happened in history millions and billions of years ago. As such, it doesn't belong in a science class at all. Robert E Forman Lakewood, Colo. Sin is sin no matter who it involves August 31, 2005 I have read many letters debating the ordination of homosexuals. I'm still waiting for a letter dealing with men and women living together without the benefit of marriage. Sin is sin whether it is a man and a woman, two men or two women. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. 'I am not pro-abortion, but I am both Christian and pro-choice' August 31, 2005 I am both Christian and pro-choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. My generation was raised before Roe v. Wade. Women who were mothers, spouses, daughters and sisters died because of illegal, "back-alley" abortions. Their loss of life is as significant as that of a fetus. I am not pro-abortion, but I am both Christian and pro-choice. I deplore the characterization that one cannot be both. Sally W. Kaplan Bethesda, Md. PCUSA must talk about a peaceful, negotiated separation with honor August 31, 2005 We must stop talking about who is right and who is wrong. We must stop talking about anything that resembles compromise; and each side must stop talking about the other in pejorative terms and talk, instead, about a peaceful, negotiated separation with honor. There need not be a splitting off or walking out by either faction. Rather, there can be the creation of two new denominations where there had been one, with expressions of respect and fellowship to one another. Under such a separation or "re-organization," each congregation would choose which new denomination it would join; ownership of church property would remain with each congregation; and provision would be made to protect and preserve the pension rights of the clergy. There would be neither winners nor losers. Mediators know this drill by heart, and it is not only workable but just and proper. Someone must step forward and transform the present impasse from a contest over who is right and who is wrong into a loving and honorable discussion about how we brothers and sisters in Christ can work out a way to set up new, separate tents for our journeys into the Kingdom. Reagan Burch Memorial Drive Presbyterian Church Houston Task Force's authoritative interpretation sanctions, strengthens status quo August 31, 2005 Hooray for me! I have waded through all 1,551 lines of the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (TTF). I wish I could say, "Hooray for the TTF!" Unfortunately, the best TTF has to offer our denomination – after almost four years of concentrated, concerted discernment – is an invitation to continue in that very mode ad infinitum: "This entire report has as its premise that a season of discernment is due in the church" (Line 1503). What do TTF members suppose we have been doing over these last four, more like 40, years? How long, O Lord! How long must your people be held in Babylonian captivity? How long must we languish in accommodation and service to the prevailing culture? When will we be freed to claim our heritage as those who are in but "are not of the world?" (John 17:14). When will we find faith both to believe and to keep your word? (John 17:6). O God, "your word is truth!" How long before you answer your Son our Savior to sanctify us in that truth? (John 17:17). How long until you compel us to be sent into the world in answer to his petition as consecrated, humble, holy, truth driven, witnesses to the gospel that this and this alone "is eternal life, that they know you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent?" (John 17:18, 3). "In the longest prayer recorded in the Gospels" (Line 1525), Jesus does not plead to his Father for us to become "one" just for unity's sake. A choice to walk hand-in-hand, "even as we differ and contend with one another" (Lines 1539-1540), is no answer to his prayer. Coming to the Lord's table to symbolically "embrace the reconciliation that is ours in the death of Christ," when we are in fact at enmity with one another is just play-acting at "our unity in Christ's body" (Lines 127-128). It is a sham, by which we eat and drink judgment upon ourselves (1 Corinthians 11:29). Jesus' prayer for us is both larger and more specific than TTF acknowledges. Christ Jesus asks God to sanctify us in the truth that flows from abiding in and adhering to the very word of the Lord embodied in his own life and recorded in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Believing the proclamation of the Bible that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16), we endeavor to trust and obey the written word of God with one mind and one heart. We cannot agree to disagree on issues of Biblical morality and still claim to be living answers to his prayer. We cannot continue in contention and conflict and still hope to serve as the fulfillment of his plea. The authoritative interpretation of G-6.0108 recommended by TTF sanctions, sustains, and strengthens the status quo. Under its aegis, presbyteries and local church sessions will continue to exercise the authority to ordain those individuals whose "departure" from denominational standards does not rise – in the well-considered judgment of the ordaining/installing judicatory – to the level of "a failure to adhere to the essentials of Reformed faith and polity" (Lines 1197-1198, 1287, 1359). There is no doubt that, in some locales, this will include the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians. In reviewing the actions of local congregations and presbyteries, higher governing bodies are to consider only this: "Whether the ordaining/installing body has conducted its examination reasonably, responsibly, prayerfully, and deliberately in deciding to ordain a candidate ..." (Lines 1201-1203). The determination of higher governing bodies is limited to "whether examinations were lawfully and fairly conducted and whether the matter of essentials was adequately grappled with" (Lines 1296-1297). It is not the essentials settled upon by the ordaining/installing judicatory that are under scrutiny, but only the procedure and exactitude by which the task of discerning and applying them was undertaken. The recommended authoritative interpretation concludes: "All parties should endeavor to outdo one another in honoring one another's decisions, according to the presumption of wisdom to ordaining/installing bodies in examining candidates and to the General Assembly, with presbyteries' approval, in setting standards." Or, in brief: when push comes to shove, local essentials trump national standards. This is not local option per se because the local governing bodies are charged to give due deliberation to the standards set by the General Assembly; but the final decision as to whether a candidate's departure from these standards violates "the essentials of faith and polity" – and therefore serves as a bar to ordination – is firmly in the grasp of particular congregations and presbyteries. In the wake of adopting this proposed authoritative interpretation, we will remain both double-minded and double-practiced on the issue of ordaining sexually active lesbians and gays. This continuation of the status quo cannot contribute to the peace, unity and purity of the church. Uniting in the pledge to stay the course together through a never-ending "season of discernment" will not serve to answer the prayer of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Demonstrating to the world our split devotion regarding Biblical morality does not offer up a "compelling testimony to the truth and power of the gospel we" profess to "proclaim" (Lines 1550-1551). Jim Henkel, NWI endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery Peace, unity trump purity by allowing purity's definition to be discerned locally August 29, 2005 One must be a little suspicious of a document that discerns 56 times and affirms 20 times. John Adams rightly points out the slippery slope. The report lets peace and unity trump purity by allowing what defines purity to be discerned locally. Empowered by this document, each session after having their desires affirmed by relationships can discern a course of action that makes them happy. Affirmation in this context means the process of dancing around a proposition until it takes on a justification of its own and becomes believable. It is particularly useful in those cases where the Bible is too restrictive. Discernment is the process of creating an affirmation. Using discernment, this report suggests that we ignore the clear prohibitions of Scripture for the purpose of discussion and then builds its case freed from that restriction. It never reckons with its false start because discernment is a creative process and requires no foundation. It allows one to temporarily set aside clear facts in order to promote discussion and then dispense with them altogether as the process takes on a life of its own. Mohammed and Joseph Smith, when no longer willing to follow Biblical limitations, each wrote a book of their own. They will be judged for their efforts, but at least they showed some manner of intellectual integrity, a quality so lacking in this document. John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. Proposed A.I. is a 'disingenuous loophole' allowing ordination of homosexuals August 29, 2005 It is nonsense to suggest that the Purity Report does not create a local option to ordain practicing homosexuals. In context, it is inescapably clear that the proposed "authoritative interpretation," a disingenuous loophole, was created for the purpose of permitting individual presbyteries to ordain practicing homosexuals in defiance of G-6.0106b. It does not, of course, require such ordinations, but it takes extraordinary and unprecedented pains to make it difficult for the decisions of "ordaining/installing bodies" to be reversed on appeal (Section 5), thus insulating in advance ordinations that fly in the face of G-6.0106b. Reagan Burch Memorial Drive Presbyterian Houston Is baptism the next battle frontier? August 29, 2005 There is almost a full year for reactions to simmer over the PUP task force report. I have not yet read the full report, though I am looking forward to doing so. The hints are not promising. I cannot help but wonder if the areas of conflict that the task force was formed to address aren't being slightly side-stepped and a new focal point for delay and debate being set up. If the question is not so much about ordination standards but what to do about baptized gay and lesbians living in faithful, committed relationships, then the question becomes, "What does it mean to be baptized?" The form of the question makes it sound as though persons engaged in homosexual behavior, if baptized and not engaged in promiscuous homosexual behaviors, are somehow entitled to better treatment than they've been getting. As a church which practices infant baptism, it is only natural that gay and lesbian persons will have been baptized before any knowledge of sexual orientation or willingness to engage in homosexual behaviors will have ever been evidenced. The grace of God implicit in baptism reminds us that such persons are entrusted to God's grace and as such should never be withheld from church membership because of their sexual orientation. A church should counsel such persons and, if their behaviors become so obvious and destructive of the church's witness, a church can and should remove them from membership, though with an open-ended invitation to repent and return. That describes what I feel to be the current situation of baptized gay and lesbian persons. The aspect of living in a committed, exclusive relationship might or might not make it easier not to dismiss them from membership due to their behavior. We are all baptized sinners. In baptism, we are trusting in Christ to be freed from sin. If we then choose to fall back into sin, we are not falling away from grace, but we are for certain falling away from the teachings of the church and the possibility of being an ordained leader in the church! In other words, it seems to me the church has already dealt with the question of what to do about baptized sinners who continue without repentance in their sins! What difference should living in an exclusive same-sex relationship make? The sin of homosexuality is not in the rampant promiscuity. Lust compels both homosexuals and heterosexuals to be promiscuous. Homosexual behavior, however, is condemned outright in Scripture. There seems to be some slight of hand going on which redirects the question to promiscuity and not the sinful nature of homosexual behavior itself. This returns us to the questions of the authority of Scripture and legitimate and illegitimate methods of interpretation. I believe Dr. Robert Gagnon has made a compelling case for the nature of human sexuality and marriage, and has correctly interpreted God's condemnation of homosexual behaviors as rebellion against God's design. Introducing baptism and exclusive relationships diverts the discussion. We can argue the nature of baptism and whether it imparts a grace which voids all other judgments, or we can argue that promiscuity is the real foe of the church in this culture besotted by sexual excesses. Those may be interesting arguments. They are not, however, relevant to the threat to the peace, unity and purity of the church posed by the question of ordination of homosexuals and progressive theology in general. Let there be a true knock-down, drag-out over specific essentials of Reformed doctrine and over Scriptural authority vs. science-sociology-cultural sources. No doubt there would be winners and losers, and schism becomes a more realistic possibility. But we won't go limping along with two opinions! Rev. Scott R. Mackey Highland Presbyterian Church Tyler, Texas A practicing gay person can't be reconciled with what the Bible teaches us August 29, 2005 I have been receiving The Layman by mail for many years. I was signed up by a fellow elder without my knowing when I was on session. I don't think I even knew your publication existed before that time. Sometimes your stances on issues are way too conservative for me. I have on a number of occasions considered asking you to take me off your mailing list. I have not done so because I am hopeful that Presbyterians can come together and find common ground. I seek to understand the concerns of all my fellow Presbyterians. I wrote to you today as I do want to tell you one thing I strongly agree with. I agree that the ordination of gay people should not be allowed under any circumstance in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I am dead set against gay marriage and I am against ordaining elders and ministers that are practicing gays. I do not hate gay and lesbian people, I must state. I do not wish to see them persecuted or singled out as "super sinners," but I do not think being a practicing gay person can be reconciled with what the Bible teaches us. I must add I am also disturbed by the number of divorces and extramarital affairs by church officers and pastors, and feel this is a serious departure from the Bible's teachings as well. My husband and I just celebrated our silver wedding anniversary this week. We hold marriage as a sacred covenant. Marriage is truly a sacred institution and I am deeply disturbed that any denomination might ordain an openly practicing gay person. I was most distressed when the Episcopal Church ordained a gay bishop. I feel that this issue is so pivotal that should we yield on this point, it will not only destroy the institution of marriage but also the whole church in the U.S.A. and Canada. I applaud the recent vote by the Lutherans to reject the ordination of gay people. We must hold our ground or see the rapid decline and death of the church in the western world. Beth Maxwell Boyle 'Come home to orthodoxy. We're waiting to welcome you.' August 29, 2005 I was reading with interest the letter you posted from Mr. Ed DeJean [August 26, 2005] taking you to task for having the temerity to describe the Bible-denying, Christ-disgracing, heresy-spewing, sodomy-embracing, baby-killing, new-age-spouting, synchronistic liberal faction in the PCUSA as "apostate." He seemed to be reveling in his self-identification as part of this category. How sad. But I have cause for hope that Mr. DeJean may yet respond with repentance. The last sentence of Mr. DeJean's letter tells us of the warning he believes the God of the Bible whispered into his ear. For indeed, when you are apostate, "you have a lot more to worry about than how The Layman describes you." May Mr. DeJean and all the heretics, apostates and unregenerate pagans who are part the PCUSA corner of the visible church turn to Christ and find not only salvation for their souls but renewal of their minds, that they may demonstrate what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God through the life-transforming power of the Holy Spirit. Mr. DeJean, God has graciously given you a warning. Don't waste the opportunity. Come home to orthodoxy. We're waiting to welcome you. Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church Canton, Ohio Writer applauds churches advocating for same-sex marriage approval August 29, 2005 Re: 6 churches back lesbian couple seeking same-sex marriage approval Being a Canadian lesbian with the full rights of every other woman in this country, I applaud what you are doing for gays and lesbians in your area. Being able to legally commit to your partner is without a doubt dignifying and fulfilling to us as human beings. This right should be without question. Please know that there are so many of us here in Canada in support of marriage rights for everyone in the United States. I hope that someday you have leaders in your country that show the same compassion, heart and forethought that our leaders have shown on this issue. Jaclyn Bush Hamilton, Ontario What principles influenced Theological Task Force report? August 26, 2005 "Hypocrisy is bad when we fail to practice what we preach. It is worse when we preach what we practice." Members might be deceived when they read this report. They might think that the task force was actually guided by Scripture. No place in God's Word is any passage found which, by any model of interpretation, condones homosexual behavior. The fact that in five years this group could not (or would not) recognize this truth makes the entire report suspect. The history reviewed in this report is very creative, rather like the modern histories which teach that there was no Holocaust, nor any need to drop the atomic bomb because Japan was trying to surrender. The schism of the early 19th century occurred when the General Assembly stood firm for theological purity and resisted the temptation to compromise for the sake of unity. The schism of the early 20th century occurred when the General Assembly chose unity over purity. The first schism was healed; we are still reaping the fruits of the latter decision. "Some of my friends are for this proposal, and some of my friends are against it. I want to go on record as saying that I am 100% for my friends!" Senator Leghorn "Can't we all just get along?" Rodney King "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God" (I Cor. 6: 9-11). Which of these principles do you think influenced the task force? James E. Tuckett 'We stand with Israel now and forever' August 26, 2005 At Colonial Presbyterian, here in Kansas City where I attend church, we have been reading through the Bible in The Daily Walk. As we read through the Old Testament, I have seen what happens to those nations who come against Israel. Now it is interesting to see not only other nations coming against her, but the church of all things. Even my very own denomination! Scary. We stand with Israel now and forever! "They shall prosper that love thee" (Psalm 122:6). Bonnie Criswell Caterpillar tractors and Jewish settlements August 26, 2005 While watching the news recently, I saw a Caterpillar bulldozer demolishing a Jewish settlement in Gaza. Wow! Does that mean the PCUSA will also divest itself from this stock to protest the use of Caterpillar products against Jewish settlements? I don't think I'll hold my breath waiting for the announcement from PCUSA headquarters. As for leaving the PCUSA, I took the leap back in the '90s after many years of pain over the denomination's support of abortion. It now seems that there is a real smorgasbord of issues that would lead to people finding the exit. From abortion to homosexuality issues, from the authority of Scripture to Christology, ad infinitum the list seems to go on and on. I now find myself in a community of believers that are more Reformed in nature than the PCUSA churches I grew up in and was an elder in. So, for those going out the door, there are plenty of churches that still hold strong in the Reformed faith and would love to have you come pray with them for those you left behind. Jay Weemhoff Badin, N.C. The preacher and the diner August 26, 2005 Ever since my wife got diagnosed with terminal cancer, we've been living in St. Petersburg, Fla. She's from here, and she wanted to spend her last days near loved ones. During this time, I've established a routine in which on Thursday mornings I eat breakfast with a Presbyterian Church in America pastor named Peter. We eat at a diner in the heart of historic old St. Petersburg. It's an L-shaped diner that surrounds a barber shop and on the sides in big, bold, orange letters it proclaims "GOOD EATS." This morning, Pastor Pete and I were eating and talking in a booth. Across the aisle at the counter, a young man asked us if we could tell him where to find the nearest Home Depot. Pastor Pete yelled over at the proprietor, Dennis, and smilingly said, "Help this man, he's lost. I don't mean spiritually lost." Now, Dennis is a member of Pastor Pete's PCA church. Both Dennis and Pastor Pete are no-nonsense, cut-to-the-chase type guys. Dennis folded his arms, looked squarely into the eyes of the young man, and said, "Are you lost? Do you know what it is to be a born-again Christian?" The young man, obviously educated, responded with a blend of Zoroaster, Greek philosophy, Hinduism, New Age, and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Dennis, bemused, answered, "Man, you really are lost!" Then Pastor Pete got into the confrontation. After a few minutes of demonstrating the futility of humanistic thinking with the young man, Pastor Pete went into a modified evangelism explosion presentation. "God is love, but God is holy," Pete said. "Right on!" the young man said. "Man is separated from God by his sin and rebellion," Pete said. "Absolutely," the young man said. "Christ died as our substitute and was raised for our sins," Pete said. "That's beautiful," the young man said. Just as Pete was starting to ask the young man if he knew how to receive the free gift of eternal life, an older man down the counter chimed in. "Hey, I returned from Vietnam, and I don't wanna hear no religious talk!" He didn't explain what was the connection between Vietnam and religious dialogue. Pete was undaunted. "Sir, you can move down the counter if you like, but I have a right to talk to this man." Dennis intervened at this point. "Hey, he (referring to Pete) can say anything he wants here, see? This ain't no communist country, see?" I'm sure that Dennis would never grant the same freedom of speech to a vocal atheist in his diner. At this point, the young man got up and excused himself, but not without Dennis putting an evangelistic tract in his hand. As he left, he pumped the hand of Pastor Pete and thanked him for his presentation. I think that Presbyterianism is worth preserving. I like the way that an entire presbytery is praying for my wife, not just a single "autonomous" church. I think that the way to preserve it is through precisely this kind of confrontational one-on-one evangelism. I hope that other Presbyterians will follow Pastor Pete's and Dennis' example. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Malawi 'Can Two Faiths Embrace One Future?' August 26, 2005 Could the fact that I have been a Presbyterian layman longer than The Layman has been a publication give me a grandfather status and permit me the temerity to ask a question in response to the Lay Committee's question: "Can two faiths embrace one future?" Has God franchised the Lay Committee and The Layman to define, delimit and disown my faith, which falls in the second category, the one they define as apostate? Does God depend upon briefings on the future from The Layman's editorial board? At first, I was quite upset when The Layman told me I was apostate.Then God whispered in my ear, "Be calm, little man. You have a lot more to worry about than how The Layman describes you." Ed DeJean Salem, Ind. Should we expect new stone tablets from the task force? August 25, 2005 It appears that some members of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church now meeting in Chicago want special theological exceptions to excuse fornication by gay and lesbian couples "if they are in exclusive, covenanted relationships." Meanwhile one member, Frances Taylor Gench, identified as a professor of New Testament at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va., who advocates ordaining practicing homosexuals, is quoted as saying "we're making it clear that no one is making the case for single people in homosexual lifestyles." The question is whether committed, long-term fornication is preferred over casual or short-term fornication. Special privileges would be granted and conferred to homosexuals while denying the same to ordinary, lustful straight people. Adultery loses much of its meaning in this context. Now the PUPsters will correct God's omissions and errors in closed sessions described as "theological discussions." Should we expect new stone tablets? Or, should we tape a copy of their final report inside our Bibles? Philip Pettus San Gabriel, Calif. Task force on 'peace and purity' August 25, 2005 What's it going to take to restate our church's Reformed tenets? To have such a spokesperson as the one cited from UTS makes me wonder on what basis she (Frances Taylor Gench) was employed at the seminary from which I am an alumnus. Presbyterian seminaries and institutions have a Reformed right to require a commitment to the Reformed understanding of the church, its Scriptural basis and its book of guidance (Book of Confessions and Book of Order). Our church needs to have a reclaiming of our theological stance, unabashedly! Our church cannot allow or permit "political correct" (in many regards, another way of saying "anything goes") to have the predominate prophetic voice. Maybe when a schism occurs will the church in retrospect feel the angst of guilt of being lukewarm in the faith. David R. Fitzsimmon Task Force members' questions regarding gays August 25, 2005 Please inform the members of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity, and Purity of the Church that Christians are more interested in following the Cross. Christians put the Cross first in their lives. Do they have a problem with this? William Reeves Birmingham, Ala. Dirk Ficca made declaration five years ago August 25, 2005 If leaving the church were not such a serious matter, Diane Knudson's announcement to The Layman Online that she has "finally" had enough with the PCUSA would be quite humorous indeed. She writes: "What was the final straw? The person who asked, "What's the big deal about Jesus?" I'd been considering this action for years, but this statement clinched the decision." Dirk Ficca's infamous declaration has been the most talked-about sentence in the PCUSA since it was uttered five years ago. In the meantime, two different General Assemblies have addressed the question of Jesus Christ as Savior. Michael Kruse helpfully cites both the 2001 and 2002 General Assemblies in his blog entry on this question: Resolution of the 213th General Assembly (2001) As a witness to what we believe, we affirm the following statement: We confess the unique authority of Jesus Christ as Lord. Every other authority is finally subject to Christ. Jesus Christ is the also uniquely Savior. It is "his life, death, resurrection, ascension and final return that restores creation, providing salvation for all those whom God has chosen to redeem." Although we do not know the limits of God's grace and pray for the salvation of those who may never come to know Christ, for us the assurance of salvation is found only in confessing Christ and trusting in him alone. (Minutes of the 213th General Assembly (2001) of the Presbyterian Church (USA). p. 37. Quote comes from: "The Crucified One is Lord," p. 4, from the Reformed Church in America, published as Theology and Worship Issues Paper No. 4 Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ (2002) It pleased God to come to us in Jesus Christ, God with us. God did not simply show us a path to follow, but lived among us as the Way, the Truth, and the life. (p. 525) Jesus Christ is the only Savior and Lord, and all people everywhere are called to place their faith, hope, and love in him. No one is saved by virtue of inherent goodness of admirable living. "for by grace you have been saved through faith, and this in not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8) No one is saved apart from God's gracious redemption in Jesus Christ. Yet we do not presume to limit the sovereign freedom of "God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4). Thus, we neither restrict the grace of God to those who profess explicit faith in Christ nor assume that all people are saved regardless of faith, Grace, love, and communion belong to God, and are not ours to determine. (p. 526) ("Hope in the Lord Jesus Christ." Affirmed and commended by the 214th General Assembly (2002) of the Presbyterian Church (USA). General Assembly Minutes, p. 525-526, published by the Office of Theology and Worship in English and Spanish. While Ms. Knudson is free to leave the PCUSA for whatever reasons she chooses, I am a bit perplexed why a five-year-old statement made by one person would cause her to leave when the General Assembly has so strongly responded to the question of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. Nonetheless, I could not agree more with Ms. Knudson that the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) must boldly proclaim its faith in Jesus Christ in word and deed. Charles Wiley Office of Theology and Worship General Assembly Council Louisville, Ky. 'Salted' General Assembly commissioners August 25, 2005 The term "salted" may be unfamiliar to some of you, but it's been around for many years. Sometimes called stacking a committee, it is simply using subterfuge to get like-minded people on a committee. It's happening this very moment somewhere and it will affect the future if this denomination. There are "liberal" presbyteries that will, over the next several months, arrange to send their commissioners to General Assembly. The purpose? It is to alter/change or eliminate G-6.0106b in the Book of Order. Bear in mind that these quasi-Christians are forcing their interpretation of Scripture on a denomination that already has decided four times not to make a change. This overture has been defeated by 2 to 1 margins and greater, so how many times must we go though this farce? I'm sure the Sophia worshippers and those who do not believe Jesus was the Son of God will hope to wear us down. First, we must challenge any candidates for General Assembly as to their true Christianity and, secondly, we must present our own overture that will close down this incessant re-submission and re-affirm G-6.1060b. Let's propose a five-year moratorium on any effort that would involve this passage. William J. Shields Mount Laurel, N.J. General Assembly Council's discussion book challenges the Truth August 24, 2005 These are challenging times for all churches, and particularly so for churches in the PCUSA tradition. As we enter a new millennium, what kind of churches will remain true to their Christian heritage and how will they stand among their peers? There is an apparent axiom that states, given enough time, any institution will sooner or later slip away from its moorings. If so, how far can an institution drift and still turn around? Will PCUSA churches become numbered among the vast array of today's liberal churches that were once true to their doctrinal and orthodox heritages? Or will they become the paragon among all evangelical churches that remain in the Christian tradition? PCUSA churches do not exist to advocate religion or for a plurality of religious viewpoints. They exist to speak for the truth; and I would posit that truth, by its very nature, advocates exclusivity. PCUSA churches exist to seek for the truth, to train others to pursue the truth - not only during their hours in church, but throughout their lives as well. It is for the sake of the One who said that He Himself is the truth that all that they do is motivated by, illumined by, and formed by the truth revealed in His written Word, so that they can discern the truth of His Word by which He holds and unfolds all that He has made. Apparently, the only ones considered heretics in our postmodern age are those who insist that there is a truth of God's law that underlies all of creation, that our duty as creatures of our God and as servants of our Savior is to discern that truth and then, in the light of that truth, to reform not only our personal lives, but also the very structure of the world of human knowledge and experience. Even at the peril of being cut out of popular fashion and intellectual responsibility, it is clear which road we must follow and which peril we must brave if PCUSA churches are to continue faithfully following the One who not only shows us the way, but actually is Himself the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). If folk like Mike Kruse do not do so, who will? If we do not tell the truth, who shall? PCUSA churches must continue to stand in the firm belief that the foundation of God's Word (Deus dixit) is the source of all true faith and understanding and remains the only way to honor the God who alone is the source of all that really is the Truth. Let us go forth to see and serve the Truth, and may all praise be to God alone. Soli Deo Gloria. Paul A. Tambrino Director, Adult and Theological Education First Presbyterian Church of Maitland Maitland, Fla. Many thanks to Mike Kruse August 24, 2005 Many thanks to Mike Kruse in bringing our attention to A Wide, Wide Circle ... by W. Eugene March as required reading for the General Assembly Council. There is no doubt that many in our denomination hold the position that Jesus is no more than one of many ways to God. Those of us who have been around awhile do not find this surprising at all for it is all too familiar. It may not be the "official" statement of any particular segment of the denomination, but it is certainly the "unofficial" statement for many. I know this: either the book is wrong or the whole New Testament is. I know the one I am going to follow. Pluralism is powerless to offer a transformed life: a new heart and a new mind recreated in the image of Jesus. It has no power to heal, to open the eyes of the blind, to set free the oppressed, to bind up the wounds of the broken-hearted, or to raise the dead. It has no compelling message for a world hungry for the living God – the Bible does. Tom Litteer, Pastor First Presbyterian Church Sparta, N.J. Many in the PCUSA leadership 'are spiritually impotent' August 24, 2005 Michael Kruse did well to point out to us another example of why so many in the PCUSA leadership are spiritually impotent. While March, et. al., presumably secure in their tenured positions, pontificate and teach assertions that are contrary to Scripture, the exodus continues. I can see how some perceive the PCUSA as "Egypt" and celebrate the "parting of the waters." As the GAC (Sanhedrin?) meets, one wonders how many shekels this encounter with "enlightenment" will cost. Where is Martin Luther when you need him! Mr Kruse notes, "He was 'astounded' by March's reasoning that because Judaism, Christianity and Islam are "meeting the needs and desires of those who participate," they are valid religions." I am not "astounded" at all; in fact, what else could one expect from such pillars of the "Reformed faith?" Prostitutes "meet needs and desires as well." May one conclude, therefore, that, too, is a legitimate expression of belief and behavior? Jesus was surprised (not really!) when he said to Nicodemus, "Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things?" At this point in his career, Nicodemus was not (yet) blessed. That is, he had not (yet) become a recipient of divine favor. Those who are blessed can say with Peter, "Lord to whom shall we go, You have the words of eternal life." Jerry Voss, pastor Millbrook Church Fresno, Calif. The exodus of Presbyterians continues August 24, 2005 Add my name to the list of former Presbyterians who have left neither the faith nor the Church (note the capital C). I stuck it out for 46 years, 43 as an ordained elder, before I found it necessary to vote with my feet. It was the only effective vote left to me. I left sadly, not angrily. Fenton G. Cates Ashland, Ore. Property for peace in the PCUSA August 24, 2005 As the evacuation of Israeli settlements in contested territories unfolds, a question occurred to me. Our PCUSA leadership has consistently advocated for Middle East policies that favor Jewish divestment of certain lands seized during the 1967 Yom Kippur war in the hope that such measures would relieve tensions between Palestinians and Israelis and thus promote greater peace. Now that such a gesture has been made, I wonder if the General Assembly Council and the Office of the Stated Clerk would consider a similar proposition regarding congregational property. If the prospect of peace in the Middle East trumps one nation's territorial claims, would the prospect of peace in the PCUSA trump the tenuous interpretations of the Book of Order property trust clause? Would the denominational leadership be willing to relinquish their claim to church property ownership if such a gesture might promote greater peace in the PCUSA? To devote the resources we have so far given for pressuring a sovereign nation to do something that this ecclesiastical body itself is unwilling to do seems disingenuous at best. Carl Grosse, pastor First Presbyterian Church Farmington, Minn. Letter contained 'collage of fairy tales' August 24, 2005 I am saddened by Mr. Paik's collage of fairy tales he wrote in the 8/22/2005 letter to The Layman Online, titled "Dissident Torrance Group disseminates False Information." I have submitted to The Layman Online part of all the legal and relevant papers to support my claims. The same claim Mr. Paik is making can also be made against him – that Mr. Paik and the opposition minority is disseminating false information, but that would only be so childish. Instead of trifling the "Letters" forum with tit-for-tat bickering concerning our church, Torrance First Presbyterian Church, I will simply state that we have left the PC (USA) for its theological waywardness and serious flaws and maliciousness in leadership at all levels, especially at Hanmi. However, if anyone is interested, I will be more than happy to discuss all the details and facts about our situation with supporting documents. I am sorry that Mr. Paik holds such a negative view on Rev. Pak and myself. In defense of Rev. Pak, all I will point to is the fruit of his ministry. Presently, TFPC continues to grow at a rate of 5-10 new members each week. Last week, we ran out of printed bulletins, and we had to open an overflow chapel to accommodate everyone. I would think that, if there was something amiss with the pastor, most of the 2,700 registered adult members, including myself, would protest. It hurts me to see such a fine man of God so viciously maligned at the whims of a discontented few simply because his evangelical style of ministry does not sit well with their taste. All the major Korean churches in Southern California, whose memberships are in the thousands, and their pastors fully support TFPC and Rev. Pak. In defense of myself, I will simply say that I love and have cared for the body of PC (USA) since 1987. Since my ordination in 1991, I participated in and supported the various "renewal" movements and organizations within the denomination to fight for its soul. This is why I remained, notwithstanding much heartache. However, now it seems like my fighting days are over. Over the span of 6 weeks to date and only one letter of ultimatum, Hanmi hurriedly and illegally declared on 8/18/2005 that I have renounced jurisdiction – without a due process (as usual) and without my knowing. How wonderful! Lastly, I want to proclaim that God is good and just. If TFPC with its now 12 pastors and 3,300 members, including children, are wrong with their decision, our faithful God will have mercy and humble us toward the right direction. Otherwise, God will continue to bless the path we have chosen. No doubt God's justice will triumph. I continue to pray for Mr. Paik and the opposing minority that they do well as a separate church. May God continue to bless them and the PC (USA). Rev. Peter B Min Associate Pastor Torrance First Presbyterian Church

August 2005 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links