 |
|
| February
2005 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Church
has no business taking sides on various political issues February 15, 2005 I am not happy with the leadership of the Presbyterian Church because first of all I do not think that it represents the majority of Presbyterian people; second, that I am not aware that they ever ask us how we feel on particular issues, especially those that seem to hit the media; and, third, I do not think that it is the business of church organizations to take sides on various political issues that seem to change from time to time when information comes forward or is suppressed. Church organizations should stick to the eternal truths and leave to the individual congregants decide how to apply those eternal truths to political situations. That said, I personally am totally against our unwavering support of Israel. I would say, for starters, that God's covenant was made with Abraham and his descendants. Why do we figure that only Isaac was his descendant? What about Ishmael, his first born? We also believe that we as Christians have become part of that covenant. God says that anyone who believes in the one true God is a Jew. Muslims also believe in the one true God, and this is just a wild guess, but I would dare say that a much bigger percentage of Muslims worship the one true God than do either Jews or Christians. On the moral, but non-religious side of the argument, we find that for centuries the land was administered by Muslim/Arabs for people who were themselves Muslim/Arabs. It is true that Jews and others lived there too, but they were a decided minority. Then the Zionist movement began and so did immigration. Promises were made by people and governments who had political interests in the region. But essentially when those "final" papers were signed it was assumed – I believe, by both sides – that the Jews would have a home within Palestine and that democracy (for both sides) and economic parity would reign. What has happened instead is that with the huge influx of Jewish immigrants, the Palestinians became relegated to the "reservation." They were and are being told where they can live, where they can work, where their children can go to school. The military can come into any house and make a shambles of it at will. They take prisoners dead or alive. Is this what we call democracy? Is this what we would expect from those who are beloved by God? Yes, the Palestinians have given them grief. What would we Americans do in a similar situation? Isn't one of the biggest reasons why we are armed to the teeth today because we have no intention of letting any outsider – or any government – get into our face, much less our homes and our land? The Palestinians have watched nearly helplessly while their lives have been stolen from them – often in the name of religion. This is an outrage. Well over 1,000 American men have died in Iraq so that we can provide a democracy for the Iraqis, while we actively allow and support what is happening in Israel – a people who are being disenfranchised and left as insecure in their land as the blacks were in the South before the Civil Rights Movement. When God sees fit to give the land back to the Jews, he will accomplish that. We do not know his timetable. It may not be for another 10,000 years. We do not know who he has decided are his people, because we do not know the hearts of the people. All we can go by is what we hope is an adequate sense of justice. God is described as just more than by any other term, so it must be hugely important. And I for one do not see justice happening in Israel. Conservative Christians in the U.S. have this knee-jerk reaction to the situation. Israel is the Holy Land, the Jews are God's chosen people. So whatever the Jews are doing in the Holy Land must be right because they are the chosen people and who are we to work against them. This is far too simplistic, and I think a mockery of what God expects of us. A.C. Straayer Many feel torn about the Christian view regarding homosexual unions February 15, 2005 The controversy about a professor stating in a classroom that his view regarding homosexual unions is not "Biblical" points to more than poor judgment (if it is true), a gossipy spirit on the part of the students, and our hunger for the prurient and morally repugnant. It really is a parable about where we are as a church. We don't know with certainty what was said by the professor. Students do mishear, and people do misspeak. There was no tape recorder or TV crew capturing the lecture. But that doesn't matter. The crowd is arguing about the person who is at the center of the controversy. He is a good man. He is an evangelical. He is a person of integrity. Or some say, he should resign, he has renounced his evangelical foundations, he is wrong. The commentators line up on the person. But there is more here. If he said what is reported, would that be a position that would exclude him from teaching at Dubuque? Probably not. If he is quoted correctly, he is representative of perhaps 30 or 40 percent of the pastors in our church, and his position would be squarely in the center of those working in our denominational headquarters. His statements, if true, are a true reflection of our theological confusion, our moral relativism, and our departure from our historic roots. But that should surprise no one. If he was quoted incorrectly, then his students have been gossiping and slandering a man without cause. Gossip is a terrible sin. If the students heard him correctly, did they speak with him directly about his statement? Did they go to him in private? Did they ask him to reconsider his position? You see, in these battles the conservatives are often just as guilty as liberals in destroying reputations and casting aspersions unfairly. Gossip, even in the name of winning, is still repugnant. If he is accurately quoted, the students should have dealt with this in the classroom, in the professor's office, and with the board of Dubuque, or even before the presbytery, before it was ever spread upon the pages of any journal. Evangelicals who truly hold to Biblical faith, are not only concerned about defending right morals in sexual matters, but also in matters of gossip and the law of love. Our church acts like a political party, with conservatives and liberals hurling invectives toward one another, rather than seeking to influence each other with grace and truth. But what about those who are willing to listen, wanting to learn, eager to follow Christ – should we not engage them in conversation, or confront them (with love and patience) with the great compendium of confessional history on this matter? This matter was not handled well. There are perhaps thousands of pastors and elders, members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) who are confused, have doubts, and feel torn about the Christian view regarding homosexual unions. But when Biblical truth and the historic record are expressed with venom or with outward assault toward individuals – individuals who are often very kind and well-intentioned people, great harm is done in the war to win hearts to our Biblical faith. So it is not only what we say, but how we say it. It is not only what we hear from others, but how we respond to what we have heard. It is not only Biblical truth but living Biblically in word and in deed that matters. I believe the evangelicals are right in what we say and wrong in how we say it. Thomas Warren, pastor Deltona Presbyterian Church Deltona, Fla. Bring together EPC, PCA and CCM for fellowship February 15, 2005 There should be an organization that brings together the EPC, the PCA and the Confession Churches of the PCUSA, to fellowship and share resources. It would be a common, central place to meet, share resources and fellowship as evangelical Biblically-based Presbyterians. It could be a place to pray for one another and have common support for the battles down the road. John Almquist More information needed on Presbyterian Panel's poll on divestment February 14, 2005 This is an open letter to Jerry Van Marter of PCUSA News Services and Jack Marcum of PCUSA Research Services. Gentlemen: On February 10, Jerry Van Marter posted a report on PNS "Poll: Most PCUSA members unaware of GA divestment action" regarding the Presbyterian Panel Survey of members, elders, and clergy views on the Israel Divestment Resolution. Mr. Van Marter wrote: "Those identifying themselves as "liberal" favor the divestment process (77 percent of ministers, 50 percent of members), while those calling themselves "conservative" oppose it (75 percent of ministers, 55 percent of members)." Would you please provide the following information so the report of your findings are complete. 1. What percent of "liberal ministers" oppose the divestment process? 2. What percent of "liberal members" oppose the divestment process? 3. What percent of "conservative ministers" support the divestment process? 4. What percent of "conservative members" support the divestment process? 5. What were the complete survey results for liberal, conservative or moderate elders and specialized clergy? 6. What was the basis for identifying the respondents as liberal, conservative or moderate? Was it their political or was it their theological orientation? 7. When was this survey on Israel divestment sent to the Presbyterian Panel? 8. When were the last responses received from the Presbyterian Panel? 9. How many people were surveyed in each category (member, elder, minister and specialized minister)? 10. What were the responses by each category surveyed (member, elder, minister and specialized minister)? I appreciate the work of Presbyterian Panel to provide an insight into the views of Presbyterians and look forward to reading the answers to the above questions in a forthcoming PNS report. Larry Rued Don't question Achtemeier's honor February 14, 2005 Look. Nobody could ever, ever, ever accuse me of being liberal or leftist. Rush Limbaugh might be a bit too liberal for me. However, I studied under both Paul and Elizabeth Achtemeier at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va. I knew young Mark well enough to know this: If Mark says something is so, then it is so. Period. End of conversation. I may not have always agreed with what he had to say in those few times I spoke with him, but I never dreamed of questioning his honor. In fact, if anyone wishes to question Mark's character; please come see me first. And bring friends. Before I became sensitive, I was part of Special Operations Command. Honor is very important to me, and Dr. Achtemeier has a boat load of it. Now, having said that, I know, maybe as much as anybody, how far our wonderful Presbyterian Church has fallen away from the one who is the truth. But there is no need, in our pursuit of purity, to persecute a truly good man. Let's avoid witch hunts, shall we? Rev. Garet Aldridge Chaplain, USA (Ret) 'We have met the enemy, and some of them may be us' February 14, 2005 Those of us who are Christians need to worry less about what other people believe and start worrying more about how some people behave, including some Christians. Religious intolerance is regrettable but manageable. It is those who want to discard social mores and engage in unrestricted behavioral options under the pretense of religious freedom that must be held in low esteem. Just as there is a rule of law for everyone, there should be code of moral conduct for everyone. When someone says, "Don't show me your Ten Commandments because I do not believe that the Bible is the word of God," the response should be "show us your own moral standards." I wonder why the great religions of the world don't get together and create a universal set of commandments appropriate for everyone on the planet. What if "Thou shall not kill" was a universally accepted commandment? Christians could observe both Biblical standards and planetary standards. I also wonder why many U.S. mainline Protestant denominations are creating a behavior anomaly for lay people by pursuing social and political agendas at the national level that most of their members do not support locally. A ground roots backlash against inappropriate behavior should start by resolving this dilemma. Christians, we have met the enemy, and some of them may be us. Elbert Menees Anderson, S.C. Covering for our friends' inefficiencies and misspoken words must end February 14, 2005 There are far too many people who assume leadership roles in the mainline denominations who make controversial statements and then are upset when someone dares to quote them.
But try to find one word of confirmation of this goal in any of their publications. The day of covering for our friends' inefficiencies and misspoken words must end. It is long past time for a clear, unequivocal stand for Reformed truth. It is into this vacuum that the Westminster Fellowship now stands. We will state what we believe, and you can hold us to it. No vague cliches. No apologies. No protests of being misquoted. James E. Tuckett Don't give up court fight February 14, 2005 Don't give up! Never! It will do more to unify and purify the PCUSA than anyone imagines. I pray for a happy and successful outcome of the proceedings and the restoration of peace, unity and purity in the church. Dick Sharrett, elder Fanwood Presbyterian Church Presbytery of Elizabeth Leader doesn't speak for all in his presbytery February 14, 2005 I have been informed that the "leader" of my presbytery has sent a letter to President George W. Bush in favor of same-sex unions in behalf of his constituents. I would remind him he does not speak for us all. I am a member of a Confessing Covenant Church an he does not speak in our behalf. He owes us an apology. Dr. Linda L. Edmiston If students are telling the truth, shouldn't someone be concerned? February 14, 2005 Just today I am catching up on past articles and letters to The Layman. The issue dealing with Dr. Achtemeier and the responses of so many who write in to defend his position is not at all unusual for the PCUSA's way of handling the subject of homosexuals in the church. Somehow, with all the finger pointing going on, I have missed the point of the accusers. Sorry, but it is so confusing as I am reading the letters from what seems like a mob ready for a lynching of The Layman. I have to honestly ask myself? Who is in charge? Is there a fair trial going on and does anyone even care about truth and common sense governing us as all hell breaks loose around us? For one so concerned about unity and the spirit of Christ, I'd have never guessed by the tone of the good doctor's letter it was his bottom line. What The Layman reported, right or wrong, is true to who they are as watchman doing a role God has given them over this Church. The jury's not in yet, to be real, but I am not so sure The Layman should be quick to apologize for reporting a story as it was reported to them before further investigation into the truth of the matter? In reality, the situation is serious and requires accountability on the part of one who is professing to be a teacher and authority as ordained by God to teach others his Word who are there preparing for ministry. They, in turn, will be teaching others. Is anyone even interested in what it is they said and why they said it? Should there be an apology on the part of a teacher who confused his own students as to what he believes is right and wrong according to the word of the very God he says he is studying? If the students who have reported what they heard are telling the truth, shouldn't someone care enough to listen to their concerns? Who owes who an apology? Does The Layman owe Dr. Achtemeier an apology for misquoting him before seeking out the source of the words according to young reporters who were on the scene at the time as witnesses? Or, in truth, does Dr. Achtemeier own Jesus Christ an apology for not taking the word of those who have testified of what they heard him say in truth as witnesses but got it right in their reporting? Maybe that is another whole ball of wax nobody wants to even mention. Karen Kolbinsky Hillsborough, N.C. Achtemeier didn't refute statements on monogamous same-sex relationships/homosexuality February 11, 2005 You have been taking a lot of criticism from some of your readers lately. There seems to be some concern about the reliability of using Dr. Achtemeier's students as sources for your recent article. As a minister of the Word and sacrament, I can understand that problem. If I had actually said some of the things that some of my parishioners and Sunday school students attributed to me, I would deserve to be in a great deal of trouble. I appreciate Dr. Achtemeier's attempt to set the record straight. But I still have a little problem. It has to do with two statements that I think are the heart of your article. They are "He (Dr. Achtemeier) said he has come to the conclusion that the church needs to support homosexuals who commit themselves to monogamous relationships." And, "He said that he was unwilling to say that homosexual behavior is either a sin or not a sin." I have read Dr. Achtemeier's response several times and although he has proclaimed that he has followed the authority of the Scriptures and seems to be setting forth his orthodoxy, I noticed that he did not refute these two statements. If he really wants to set the record straight, then he should tell us or you what his beliefs really are in this matter. This is of the utmost importance because Dr. Achtemeier is on the PUP task force. We know that this task force was supposed to consist of people of all viewpoints on the theological issues that are dividing us. We know that there are several "progressives" on the task force. We know that there are some "moderates." There were also supposed to be some "conservatives" or "evangelicals." But some of the "conservatives" have been sounding a lot like "moderates" lately. If Dr Achtemeier has moved over to join the moderates on this issue, then (in my humble opinion) there may be only one true "conservative" remaining on the PUP task force As a "conservative," I need to know this as I prepare to review the report of this task force. So does the rest of the PCUSA. And I thank you for sounding the alarm if your allegations are correct. Dave Horner, pastor Mendenhall, Pa. Accurate reporting of hearsay is not accurate reporting February 11, 2005 You have been ably and justly taken to task by several writers, not least by student Christopher English. I would simply add that accurate reporting of hearsay is not accurate reporting. While I appreciate your vigilance and sincerity, you owe him and your readers an apology. On the other hand, I don't know what to make of David Hankins' letter complaining of too much "me" in Dr. Achtemeier's teaching style. Huh? Steve Jones Kokomo, Ind. Achtemeier avoids the issue February 11, 2005 Dr. A still avoids the issue that was brought up by Mr. Williamson. Be a man and answer it. I want the true Presbyterian church back. Pray for us all. John McDonald Posting negative letters indicates that a cover-up is not taking place February 11, 2005 I hope that cooler heads will prevail in the Dr. Achtemeier story. Those who accuse The Layman of rushing to judgment concerning the professor appear to be rushing to judgment themselves. I think we should allow some time for the facts to come out before we start calling for the demise of The Layman. From what I have read, the editors truly believe in the account given by the students. These students were obviously concerned or disturbed by something they heard, or else they concocted a hoax. Remember, the students, whoever they are, took a huge risk by coming forward. If they are to be discovered, they risk all sorts of repercussions. One writer stated that the students broke some kind of honor code by talking about the class. Is a lecture made by a college professor considered protected speech? I never recall taking any oaths of loyalty back in my college days. It is too early to start comparing The Layman to CBS. If The Layman has made a mistake, I am faithfully certain that a retraction will be forthcoming. I base this on the fact that The Layman has consistently printed letters critical of their positions. In fact, almost 100 percent of the letters in the previous two days have been negative. These actions do not indicate to me that a cover-up is taking place. If in fact The Layman makes a retraction, it will exceed the journalism standards of CBS. The question is, will that be enough satisfaction for some of you? It appears from the content of some of the letters that some of you were just waiting for The Layman to make a mistake. I smell a tinge of blood in the water. I know that I am walking out on a limb for The Layman. If they have falsely damaged the reputation of Dr. Achtemeier in any way, they must do everything in their power to repair it. That is the Christian way. However, I for one am not going to abandon a proven friend in our cause over one mistake. That is not the Christian way. David Hankins In zeal to confront legitimate issues, Layman compromised Biblical principle February 11, 2005 I wish to join those who have expressed concern about The Layman's coverage of Dr. Achtemeier's purported comments and his request for an apology/retraction from The Layman, and I urge you to reconsider your response. I am an elder in a Confessing Church and I share The Layman's concerns regarding the theological crisis in the PCUSA. Nonetheless, I find it troubling that The Layman chose to publish its report without first securing Dr. Achtemeier's account of the events in question. The Layman need not be concerned with "scooping" the competition. So you waited seven days before publishing the story. Would there have been harm in waiting until Dr. Achtemeier returned from his travels? Does his failure to respond to your timetable warrant characterizing him as departing from orthodox teaching regarding sexuality and the authority of Scripture? It appears that in your zeal to confront these legitimate issues (which zeal I share), you compromised the Biblical principle of going to one's brother or sister first before exposing the matter to the whole body. Your credibility is indeed compromised. We cannot expect others to repent of their sin when we refuse to repent of our own. Daniel R. Henderson, elder Eastminster Presbyterian Church Grand Rapids, Mich. Parker and The Layman do not 'fabricate stories to advocate ideology' February 11, 2005 Maybe the PCUSA is auditioning for one of those reality shows. Or maybe our thanatos libido is just catching up with us. All I know is Salvador Dali is a lot clearer than what's been going on for too long now. Well, I guess the whole Dr. A thing has emboldened those on the left to call for Parker's head in a liberal Christian kind of way and the accommodating right to show the left that they aren't really lemmings for The Layman. So take that! It reminds me of the faint hearts preparing for the CCM Atlanta gig a few years ago who didn't want Parker to speak because they didn't want to alienate the middle to left. Yeah, right. If that's what new wineskins are all about, then ... Anyway, here are a few quick and unsolicited insights or indigestions. First, while the left and right use Parker and The Layman as whipping boys (sorry about that non-inclusive stuff) whenever it's convenient for either, I have never known Parker and The Layman to fabricate stories to advocate ideology. Hate 'em for what they believe, but don't accuse 'em of reporting what was never said or happened. Ain't a part of their hermeneutic! Second, why does it surprise anyone that a Psalm 55-like evangelical friend would change his position? I've changed lots of positions over the years; except, of course, my Biblically based and constitutionally nurtured Christology. Gee, didn't one of the great confessional scholars of our franchise who became a moderator change his positions on lots of things? Besides, I know lots of so-called evangelicals who show up at judicatory meetings and agree with the last person in conversation while hoping the next person in line didn't hear the last person and on and on and on. Third, I like Parker and The Layman. They have stood for the truth as personified in Jesus and prescribed in the Bible with more courage and consistency than the rest of us who have put personal and vocational securities ahead of Jesus on too many occasions. O.K., pick on Parker and The Layman. And while we're at it, let's censure and silence them. Let's defrock 'em. Isn't that the most liberal thing to do from a conservative perspective? Because I was taught at Princeton to avoid ending a homily with an interrogative, let me add two more words. Chill out. Dr. Robert R. Kopp Isolated remarks in a classroom setting should not be publicized February 11, 2005 I have frequently defended The Layman as a source of information that the liberal hegemony of the PCUSA would prefer unpublished. However, it is simply not possible for me to defend your publishing of Dr. Actemeier's private comments to a seminary class. As the student who had the courage to write to you openly ably points out, isolated remarks in a classroom setting should not find their way into a widely disseminated publication. I might have a different view had Dr. Actemeier systematically tried to influence his students toward the liberal view of Scripture, but there is no evidence of that. A seminary professor should be able to challenge students to think deeply about what they believe without having to respond to inquiries from The Layman about private class discussions. It would be far preferable to wait for the final commission report (which I am very concerned about) and comment on any substantive issues raised by that report rather than expending difficult to recover credibility by publishing articles on isolated classroom comments. Mike Madden Talking Rock, Ga. It's time to lock up the PCUSA February 11, 2005 I think that it is time to apologize to God, lock up the Presbyterian Church and all go home. Then, on Sunday, attend the Southern Baptist Church. William M. Reeves Birmingham, Ala. Williamson and Rather February 11, 2005 Just wondering . . . is The Layman in any way associated with CBS News and is Parker Williamson kin to Dan Rather? Robert Montgomery Tuscaloosa, Ala. Accentuate the positive by reporting on gains being made by evangelicals February 11, 2005 A minister within the EPC, I've been reading your online site for the past three-and-a-half years, ever since I found out about the existence of the Confessing Church Movement. Now, you seem to have shot yourselves in the foot over this Achtemeier business. Apart from having a name that's impossible to spell, he doesn't seem to deserve the treatment that he got from you. Apparently you repeated Dan Rather's mistake; you published a story without doing sufficient verification. May I make a suggestion? Instead of ferreting out demons in the PCUSA, why not accentuate the positive by reporting on the gains being made by the evangelicals, such as the EPC and the PCA? You might spend more time talking about their missions programs, their church-planting, their evangelistic activities, their awakening social consciousness, their (belated) attempts at racial reconciliation, and their calling into account public officials for their immorality and corruption. In short, the evangelicals of America are waking up to their duty to transform society, after generations of simply withdrawing from it. If you don't like what your PCUSA seminaries are teaching, then perhaps you could report on what Reformed Theological Seminary, Gordon-Conwell and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School are doing. Your readers could gain from having a basis of comparison – evangelicals vs. mainstream PCUSA. So, perhaps you might try broadening your coverage to include these other groups; we already know that there are liberals doing objectionable things in the PCUSA. And, oh, by the way, those whom we evangelicals often identify as "liberals" are generally not evil people. They are simply trying to do what St. Thomas Aquinas and the medieval Scholastics attempted: reconcile Christianity with current developments in philosophy. Ultimately, those Scholastics failed, and so will today's "liberals." Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Student: Achtemeier's comments 'reflect a man whose positions are in dynamic process' February 10, 2005 As one of the students in this now infamous class at Dubuque Seminary, I write to respond to the article from February 7, 2005 titled "PCUSA task force member declares his 'departure from Biblical tradition'." I do not write to defend Dr. Achtemeier. That is not my place, and he has already done so quite strongly for himself. I write because I believe that the printing of this article does great damage to the respectability of those of us fighting from the more "conservative" side of the issues in question. The ethics of how we engage in the debate is surely as important as any victories we hope to win. The unethical journalism of this article has done irreparable damage to the credibility of The Layman (short of a full retraction and apology). The Layman and the students who broke confidence have violated a sacred trust that should exist within the family of God, and therefore have weakened the cause of conservatives by calling into question our integrity. Firstly, while there was no "covenant" in this class that legally bound us students not to discuss what was shared by Dr. Achtemeier that day, there was a value higher than any legal ethic. Namely, honor and trust between student and professor, and between brothers and sisters in Christ. Whichever students spoke to you violated such honor and trust. It is ironic and tragic that these students would violate ethics in the context of taking a class on ethics! Likewise, The Layman's pursuit and printing of such hearsay is a shameful and grievous violation of such bonds of honor and trust between Christians. "A kingdom divided against itself …" Secondly, the reason Dr. Achtemeier asked us to guard in trust what he shared in class is not that he was trying to conceal his positions. Rather, he knew that any isolated comments would be misunderstood out of the context of the much larger discussion in which they came, and because he reserved the right to express his views for himself. This reserved right is what was tragically violated by the students who broke confidence, and by The Layman which irresponsibly printed second-hand information. The comments shared that day seemed to me to reflect a man whose positions are in dynamic process (as I would hope is true for us all). Hence, any quoting of isolated statements as done in The Layman cannot possibly capture the nuance or integrity of such honest, commendable and critical wrestling. Lastly, what Dr. Achtemeier modeled for us students that day in class was not a man who has now betrayed our conservative cause, and therefore doomed the task force and hence the future of the denomination to heresy. Rather, he modeled a humble human who is honestly wrestling with integrity over the very difficult questions of grace, redemption, sanctification and unity. He modeled the importance of first fully understanding the heart, mind and experiences of the opposing side to avoid demonizing and caricature. He modeled what we all – liberals, conservatives and all points in between – need to emulate, not attack, if we are to go forward as the body of Christ engaged in the redemptive work of the kingdom in peace, unity and purity. Christopher English M.Div student UDTS Layman's credibility is coming under question February 10, 2005 You are wrong and your creditability is coming under question by conservative, evangelical Christians in the Presbyterian Church. Timothy A. Wilson Article sounds too much like a defensive excuse February 10, 2005 Sometimes it is more Christian to just go ahead and admit you blew it and that you were wrong. This article sounds too much like a defensive excuse. Nobody is perfect, not even The Layman. Again, I believe that this further weakens your position to set the standard for orthodox, evangelical, Presbyterian Christians. Daniel Hale Petersburg, Va. 'We don't need to alienate Dr. Achtemeier. We need him' February 10, 2005 As a former student of Dr. Achtemeier's, I somehow smelled something amiss regarding the article purporting Dr. Achtemeier's departure from Biblical tradition. As someone moderately conservative myself, I appreciated, in his lectures and in personal discussion, his quite traditional theological positions, yet also his presentation of other opinions. Dr. Achtemeier, while not afraid to put forth his own views, also was fair in presenting opinions with which he did not necessarily agree. And that precisely is what college and post-graduate work is supposed to include. As much as I am a supporter and regular reader of The Layman, I am saddened that it didn't check out "the rest of the story" before printing it. It would have saved no small embarrassment. Dr. Achtemeier was right in so forthrightly demanding a retraction and apology. As a side, but related note, those of us who seek a return to, or preservation of, traditional theology and doctrines (in our view the most Scripturally viable, and thus the ones rightly held), we don't need to alienate Dr. Achtemeier. We need him. And we need him badly. The Layman, I pray all involved will forgive you, that you will do better, and let's move forward together. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. Why no interest by scions of PCUSA in Davidson decision? February 10, 2005 I took my son to Davidson when he was selecting a college. He chose Wake Forest. But, because of that and a subsequent visit, I know something of Davidson. It was impressive in many ways. Now, not quite as much so. I am struck by the apparent lack of interest by the scions of the Presbyterian Church (USA) in this decision by Davidson. But I am not surprised. If our stated clerk had ever demonstrated that he cared about the secularization of the PCUSA, I might reasonably expect him to file an amicus with the Davidson trustees. Why not? He's implied the interest of Presbyterians any number of times in such pressing matters as the First Amendment right to get stoned in church. And remember his amicus helping make certain that no one had to endure the uncomfortable presence of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court rotunda in Alabama. But he took his two cents to a new high when he filed an amicus in 1999 – speaking for Presbyterians – against mountain climbing. You won't be shocked to read that he filed an amicus expressing our outrage at the use of electrocution to execute capital punishment in Florida. Cruel and unusual, he claimed. So, what to make of his disinterest in orthodoxy and tradition in the church and at Davidson? It seems almost anything can ordinarily get him to cough up a brief. Makes you wonder what he does for a living, doesn't it? This past summer, there was considerable discussion in the media about the distraction drivers were facing as they drove the causeway approaching the Davidson exit. It seems there were frequently nude boaters near the highway and several drivers had narrowly avoided very serious traffic accidents as a result. Welcome to the new Davidson. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. 'You still owe Achtemeier an apology and a retraction' February 10, 2005 Despite your protestations to the contrary, I believe you have breached the protocols of journalistic integrity with your report on Mark Achtemeier and your refusal to issue any retraction or apology. Your interpretation of his response is vastly different from mine to the extent that I'm wondering if we're reading the same document. You state that he does not deny what you allege in your report – that the church must make room for monogamous same-sex relationships. I believe his response denies this. Furthermore, his response categorically denies or places in context numerous material facts alleged in your article, such as the request for students not to make public statements on what he believes based on quotations taken out of context or misrepresentations of his actual viewpoints on the subject. In hindsight, it appears that Achtemeier had good reasons for making such a request, based on your treatment of this story. I am further dismayed over how you evaluated the quality and veracity of the sources for your story. How do you know that these sources do not have their own agendas? How do you know that they understood the context of Achtemeier's remarks? Also, why could you not wait for Achtemeier to return from an out-of-town trip and then respond, to ask him your specific and even pointed questions then? What was the need to run with the story so quickly that you could not wait a reasonable period of time? I cannot think of one such need, regardless of your deadlines. I appreciate much of what you have done and do in the life of the PCUSA. But now you have crossed the line into the sort of reporting that you, in other situations (especially those that involve you), rail against and decry. You have taken the words of unnamed seminary students, who could have an ax to grind or who could have missed the nuances of the class lecture, over the word of a respected evangelical leader and scholar without giving this leader and scholar an adequate opportunity to explain or to defend himself. I am not a friend or colleague of Achtemeier, so I have no agenda here other than what I currently perceive as unfair treatment by the media. If additional information about this situation comes to light, then perhaps my opinion will change. But as for now, as a former member of both the Evangelical Press Association and Associated Church Press from my previous service as a church magazine editor, I cannot and will not support you here. Despite your best spin on the subject, you still owe Achtemeier an apology and a retraction. Clay J. Brown Associate Pastor for Christian Formation and Discipleship Grace Presbyterian Church Houston, Texas Web site should not be a haven for anyone wanting to publicize their own agenda February 10, 2005 Whereas I am often sympathetic to The Layman's causes, I believe the letter concerning Mark Acthemeier demonstrates a flaw in its reporting. Such a letter should have never been put on your web site without checking its validity. This reminds me of the CBS debacle in which they aired a story about President Bush's National Guard record without verifying the facts or sources. The Layman web site should not be a haven for anyone who wants to publicize their own agenda. If I want to read this kind of journalism, I will go to the checkout line of my neighborhood grocery store. Bob Gant Layman could have waited until Acthemeier could be reached February 10, 2005 Without laying blame on anyone, my opinion is that The Layman could easily have held publication of the story until the good doctor could be reached. I have been a contributor to The Layman for some time, but The Layman's obvious bias concerns me, as does that of the church hierarchy which does a very poor job of keeping Presbyterians informed. C. Richard Nelson Summerville, S.C. Death worshippers are responsible for the genocide of some 45,000,000 children February 10, 2005 I could hardly believe what I was reading in the report of the RCRC meeting of January 21. But after reading it several times to make sure I understood the report properly, I could not stop laughing at this farce. The story actually did say: "The gathering drew about twenty people, nearly half of whom were speakers." Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Can you believe this non-event made the news? Yet, the organizers of this fraud claim to speak for 20 million pro-abortion proponents. But if they really are including in that number the membership of the PCUSA, I must correct the count to 19,999,999 – because I am a strong opponent of in-utero infanticide and I am a member of the PCUSA. They certainly do not speak for me. Oh, I just can't handle it. Yuk-yuk-yuk. Ha-ha-ha. "The gathering drew about twenty people"!!!! Hee-hee-heeeeeeeee. And "nearly half" – ha-ha-ha- half!!!! – "of whom were speakers." I can't stop laughing at this story – except ... except that I am sobered up by the realization that these death worshippers are responsible for the genocide of some 45,000,000 children who were denied the opportunity to choose life. Murder – bloody, cold, calculating, premeditated murder – on that scale is no laughing matter. And they have no shame. How will they ever answer to God? Oh, how I long for the day that God's faithful people will find the backbone to stand up to the apostates, blasphemers, heretics and pagans who have infiltrated the church and say, "Enough is enough," and cast them out from among us. Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church Canton, Ohio It's crucial that laity provide the leadership necessary to turn PCUSA around February 10, 2005 The Presbyterian Church (USA) is on the verge of a takeover by a small minority coalition comprising gays, lesbians, transgender individuals, feminists and politically correct liberal clergy who want to revoke the existing Scripture-based prohibition against ordaining practicing homosexuals. This small coalition (less than three percent of the lay membership) has been able to increase their voting strength far beyond that justified by their numbers. In the 2004 General Assembly, they came within one percent of passing their agenda. That narrow defeat only encouraged them to redouble their efforts. Their losing proposal was referred to a committee to study and report back to the General Assembly in 2006. The coalition will return in 2006 to try and impose their views on the whole Church. Many congregations have been lulled into complacency by joining the Confessing Church Movement. They incorrectly assumed it to be an effective instrument of opposition to the radical coalition. In fact, it is a grass roots movement with no constitution, no organization and no by laws. It has spiritual validity but, as an effective counter to the well-organized gay juggernaut, it is an impotent shell. As of Dec. 1, 2004, it had 1,306 congregations as members, a mere 11.7 percent of PCUSA. On average, it has been gaining one church per day. At that rate, it could reach 17 percent by the '06 General Assembly. Even if it were an organized action group, it would still carry little weight in '06. It's a case of too little, too late. This problem will not be solved by our clergy. They have fractured into two primary groups: First, the hostile liberal group who embraces the homosexual agenda, see themselves as enlightened and free to disregard Scripture with which they disagree; and second, the conservative group who sees the holy Scripture as the church's only infallible rule of faith and life. The position of the two groups has become set in concrete. Neither side will budge. If the liberals and gays achieve a majority in the General Assembly, the conservative clergy are prepared to lead their congregations out of the church. The Presbyterian church is unique. Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians and Catholics all have "top down" church governments; i.e., they are governed by the clergy. The laity in those churches has little or no power. Their clergy tells them what to do and what to believe. Those who disagree can hit the road. The Presbyterian Church (USA), however, is a representative democracy giving the laity the ability to influence the church. Our clergy leads, teaches and influences, but does not dictate. Our final authority in church government is the laity. Our laity has the final authority over hiring, finances, missions, etc. In the General Assembly, laity has a 50 percent vote and the clergy 50 percent. Given the stalemate within our clergy, it's now crucial that our laity provide the leadership necessary to turn our church around. We must insure that representatives to the General Assembly in fact represent us, and we must work to get more conservative congregations to send representatives. Each congregation must be pushed to vote on this subject. If any congregation is opposed to the gay agenda, its representatives must pledge to vote the will of the congregation in '06. If they decline, replacements must be chosen. This is the only way to avoid the destruction of the Presbyterian Church (USA). We must send our toughest S.O.B.'s (Sons of the Bible) to the '06 General Assembly. George Feaver Selma, Calif. Member of Fowler Presbyterian Church Fowler, Calif. Demand Kirkpatrick's resignation for continually denying truth of Scripture February 10, 2005 I cease to be surprised at Kirkpatrick's continued misuse of his position to promote a non-Biblical agenda. He puts forth a position as stated clerk of the PCUSA as if he is representing the whole denomination because of the office he holds. I guess I should be happy that he keeps bringing this up. When are we going to demand his resignation for continually denying the whole truth of Scripture? We have nothing to fear by taking a stand because we are standing up for Jesus and the truth of Scripture in its entirety. He only mentioned a minuscule section of Scripture in his letters to President Bush, Congress, etc. Gen. 1:27 is only pertaining to creation man and woman. Not to mention inclusive language. Here is the full text of the verse: "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." What about the rest of the story? Leviticus 18:22 " Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman" and vice versa. We are all sinners in many ways, but not all acknowledge all things that go against the Word of God as sin. We must take the whole of Scripture to live by as full and authoritative or accept the punishment from God for not doing so. We can't pick and choose or change in any way what Scripture says to suit our own agendas or to make people feel good about where they are. We must all be led to repentance through the truth of Scripture so we will not be condemned by God on the day of judgment. We cannot continue to be inclusive at the expense of changing the meaning of Scripture and excluding God's teaching, Jesus' teaching and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. Where will it end? Mister Kirkpatrick has to be accountable to the people he represents explicitly and inexplicitly. But, more importantly, we are all accountable to God for what we do and what we don't do by sitting back and letting things continue to go on unchallenged. Sharon Mathey Achtemeier's solidly Scripture-based theology is beyond dispute February 9, 2005 Mark Achtemeier has been wrongly accused and is fully justified in defending himself. We have never met. He does not know me from Adam's house cat. I greatly respect his work and have read and tried to understand much of it, particularly his joint efforts with Andrew Purves. That work has enriched the lives of PCUSA members in adult Sunday school classes and adult Bible study in our church and throughout the denomination. While he does not need me or other "in the pews" evangelicals to come to his defense, it must be pointed out that his long public track record in supporting the ordination vows, and his solidly Scripture-based theology are beyond dispute. The Layman plays a critical role in the church. I find myself in agreement with 90 percent or more of its positions. Occasionally, as with all human efforts, mistakes can be made. With respect, the investigator who supplied the information to Rev. Williamson for The Layman article really missed on this one. Someone forgot to exercise due diligence before accepting as fact a student's misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Dr. Achtemeier's views. A prompt and genuine apology is in order. Let us not judge too severely a fellow evangelical placed in the position of participating in the task force which operates by consensus. We make a mistake in attempting to attribute his personal views to the collaborative preliminary committee report on Christology. Indeed, the full Christology of Ephesians has been truncated in that report, as aptly observed by Bob Gagnon. However, it is unfair to level criticism against Dr. Achtemeier for the entire committee report. He is but one member of a much larger and more diverse group. I see no basis to conclude that his personal position has changed. For a quick and clear take on his theology as applied to the current state of the denomination and his view of sexuality, one need look no further than Union in Christ, a Declaration for the Church, which he co-authored. It may be found as a link on the front page of the Presbyterian Coalition's Web site. At a time when the voice of evangelicals needs to be clearly articulated within the task force, those of us who proudly proclaim that we are evangelical Presbyterians should feel confident in Dr. Achtemeier's position and applaud the work Jesus Christ is doing through him. Keep up the good work, Mark. George (Pete) Bloss, elder and clerk of session Westminster Presbyterian Church Gulfport, Miss. Seems to be too much 'me' in Achtemeier's teaching style February 9, 2005 The problem with Reverend Dr. Mark Achtemeier is that there appears to be too much of 'me' involved in his teaching style. We are supposed to remove ourselves from the equation when teaching the Word of God. I think he and many other seminary professors have forgotten this concept or abandoned it altogether. It is amazing to me that so many of our church "leaders" are not held accountable and are allowed to get away with this today. What right does anyone have to remove or distort the Word of God? We are merely vessels from which God uses to speak to others. Interjecting our own opinions and prejudices does nothing but get us into trouble and only serves to blur the message. Only God's words inspire. Our words are spiritually empty and useless. To think otherwise is complete arrogance and foolishness. No one has a right to "depart from Biblical tradition," especially those who are training others to teach. Where would we be if Paul had decided to stray from the teachings of Jesus? Can't these supposed learned individuals not see the danger of straying off the path? David Hankins Check the validity of your source's claims February 9, 2005 I believe that it behooves you to check the validity of your source's claims, especially when it involves a sister or brother in Jesus Christ. I believe Dr. Achtemeier when he unequivocally denies the claims in your article. Premature statements concerning such issues as people's positions on homosexuality do not further the cause of Christians who are trying to promote a responsible, evangelical position in our denomination. It only feeds those who desire to discount you further. Daniel E. Hale Petersburg, Va. Hoping Layman got it wrong about Achtemeier February 9, 2005 I don't know if you have seen Mark's response to The Layman's article, posted on Presbynet. My hope is you got it wrong about Mark( though I know it would be a bit awkward for The Layman). In any case I think his statement needs a prompt response. Harriss Ricks Has Layman prostituted itself? February 9, 2005 Based on his rebuttal, The Layman has prostituted itself re Achtemeier article. Though I have sometimes defended your publication, your Achtemeier article is clearly 'over the line.' Lawrence Wood, senior pastor The Church of the Hills, PCUSA Duluth, Ga. Lay Committee is divisive and hurtful to the evangelical cause February 9, 2005 Your refusal to apologize to Dr. Achtemeier for your slanderous comments only continues to foster the view that Lay Committee is divisive and hurtful to the evangelical cause. I openly identify with the evangelical wing of the Presbyterian Church but I find your refusal to accept any responsibility for the false accusations against a fine evangelical scholar to be unacceptable. Robert L. Simmons Phoenix, Ariz. Response to response was superb February 9, 2005 Way to go on the Dr. A thing! Your response to his response is superb. The Layman remains a gem amid the fiberglass. Dr. Robert R. Kopp Article seems like gossip as the Scriptures would define it February 9, 2005 You know the extent of my efforts to support you and Presbyterian Lay Committee as you do your work. I hope you will take that support into consideration when I say that I think you are wrong in the case of the story about Mark Achtemeier. I know how seriously you uphold the Scriptures. Aware of that seriousness, I would share, as a friend, that your article seems like gossip as the Scriptures would define it. You publicly shared information that was hearsay. It was damaging. It was not true. Dr. Achtemeier's reply thoroughly refutes what you reported about him. Dr. Achtemeier was not obligated to return your phone calls. He is right that, in order for education to occur, he must be free to teach without fear that his words will be taken out of context. His hesitation to respond is commendable. Dr. Achtemeier is right to expect an apology. He wrote, "This is a serious breach of journalistic trust, and I demand that the editors of the Layman retract the article and issue a printed public apology." I concur. Rich Zimmerman, pastor Tualatin Plains Presbyterian Church Hillsboro, Ore. Is there a recording of the class discussion? February 9, 2005 I hope that you have verified and substantiated all positions and quotes by Rev. Dr. Mark Achtemeier. Perhaps a student has a tape of the class discussion. It would be unfortunate to see The Layman operating like Dan Rather and CBS News and not checking information carefully before posting an article. I look forward to seeing this clarified. Rev. Tom Unkenholz Confessing Church pastor Harrison, N.Y. Print apology and correction now February 9, 2005 You had better print an apology and correction before losing all credibility. Check out your story next time and discipline the person who ran that without checking out the facts. Greg Wiest What was the rush to publish the article? February 9, 2005 I have to agree with Mark Achtemeier that the Layman Online owes him a retraction and an apology. Regardless of the issues in question, how can The Layman justify printing comments about a class based simply on the viewpoints of "several" students out of 20, and without having spoken to Achtemeier himself? Repeated attempts to contact someone does not justify printing allegations about them. The Layman could have waited until Achtemeier returned home (Achtemeier's desire not to respond seems legitimate to me – who wants to answer such allegations while away from home?) What was the rush to publish the article? Remember the problems CBS had with a story last year when they didn't take the time to properly investigate the charges they made. Parker Williamson and The Layman should admit their mistake, do their homework next time, and humbly apologize for rushing a story without adequate evidence to support it. Rev. Steve Elderbrock Ottawa Presbyterian Church Ottawa, Ohio Elder can't support conceit of man's feeble knowledge against the word of God February 7, 2005 Re: Letters concerning same-sex civil unions. Well, folks, that does it for me and my family. My wife and I have been faithful members of the PCUSA since 1973. We were married in the church, and I have been a deacon and an ordained elder, and have been at various times active in the life of the church both in California and in Virginia. No longer can I support this evil conceit of man's feeble knowledge against the word of God. It's as simple as that. I guess I'll take my wife and five children and join the Southern Baptists, because they at least heed the Word of God. When will the Louisville bunch learn that it is behavior that is at issue here, not a congenital defect? I pray that the PCUSA will discover what ails it, but I can no longer support them in any way, especially with my tithes and talents. Thank you, Layman, for all that you have done. Let me know when you have split and become your own church. Your adherence to Biblical mores and teachings is exactly what God calls us to do in this broken world. Ed Watson Is it worth doing if it takes three days to explain? February 7, 2005 The PCUSA is going to hold a three-day conference this month to explain its position on divestiture from companies doing business with Israel. I can save them a lot of time. Anything that takes three days to explain is probably not worth doing in the first place. David Hankins Kirkpatrick seems to have forgotten his primary allegiance February 7, 2005 In the earliest years of the church, Christians were slaughtered for refusing to bow to Caesar. Cliff Kirkpatrick seems to have forgotten his primary allegiance. Surely, it should be to the Word of God. Many of us still affirm that the Word prohibits gay relationships. Is Kirkpatrick bothered by the implications of such lifestyle choices? Does the state of the soul, and its eternal destiny not cause him to grieve for these confused/rebellious people? If not, then indeed his "ministry" is irrelevant. Pastor Jerry Voss Millbrook Church Fresno, Calif. Kirkpatrick's letter to Congress, President invalidates his authority February 7, 2005 Matthew 15:13-14, "But he answered and said, 'Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. Let them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.'" For the Congress of the United States to recognize gay unions as legal leads one day to accepting gay marriages as legal. Holy Scripture from the Holy Bible forbids gay behavior as being accepted let alone legal. For the stated clerk of the PCUSA to even suggest this to President Bush and Congress invalidates his authority as stated clerk. A blind leader of the blind? God is sovereign, and God will have the final say on this issue. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Seminary report on Hezbollah believed to be correct February 7, 2005 I believe this report to be correct. I, too, have been on tours in the areas where I ended up unexpectedly with groups I did not know were on the schedule. It is one of the consequences of exposing oneself to other people and their views. Gene Turner Fayetteville, N.Y. Evangelicals are not fooled by left's tactics February 3, 2005 What a clever tactic the pro-homosexual left has taken recently. I have to admit that their recent strategy is well conceived, if not morally coherent. I am referring of course to sliding one's political agenda into the apparently benign realm of children's entertainment. Example One: an Internet search for Sponge Bob's new music video leads to a "tolerance pledge" that validates the homosexual lifestyle. Example Two: a PBS TV show with Buster the rabbit, whose adventures in cultural awareness leads him to (surprise) a homosexual couple's residence – and this on the public's dime! First, their uncouth message is instilled into the minds of the innocent younger generation. Then the left can decry outraged dissenters like Focus on the Family. Now everyone in the media sounds like a broken record, "Dobson's attacking cartoons! C'mon, who would throw a punch at a sponge with glasses?" Fortunately for evangelicals, we are not fooled by left's tactics no matter who they get as their spokesmen. (I have a bad feeling Popeye is about to come out of the closet). The American public still strongly defends the integrity of traditional marriage, as evidenced by all 11 victories in state marriage amendments last November. For those of us who champion the cause of traditional marriage, the battle will always be fought and won on the field of rational moral discourse - not the cartoon network. Matthew Everhard, director of youth and family ministries Hudson Presbyterian Church Hudson, Ohio Thankful that letter-writer based arguments on God's Word February 3, 2005 Thank you, Pastor Jim Henkel, for your letter to The Layman editor published Feb 2. I especially thank you for using God's eternally true and unchanging Word, his Bible, as the basis for your arguments. We cannot successfully make a case on the issues you properly noted any other way. This is especially shown in your sentences: "While the argument from purity should never be employed as a mere 'pretext' for breaking fellowship with other believers, sound judgment grounded in the Scriptures can lead to the determination that severing ties is a necessary and needed course of action. When disciples of our Lord and Savior refuse to be disciplined, there may be no other choice except to abandon them to their own devices and to seek a fresh start (1 Corinthians 5)" and "When a member of our family of faith strays from the 'rule of faith and life' set forth in the Scriptures and refuses to return to that 'narrow way' (Matthew 7:13-14), the Bible instructs: 'Purge the evil person from among you' (1 Corinthians 5:13). No matter how dear a brother or sister or father or mother or son or daughter in Christ he or she may be, we are to divide that person from our church household." Neither of these sets of thoughts is designed to promote the "peace" so often described by the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity. But, as you say (with a twist), Pastor Henkel, I, too, "am convinced that appealing to the Scriptures as our final authority for authentic Christian living requires a depth of discernment" that must be demonstrated by anyone wanting to obey God and demonstrate his own holy purity in his or her own life and in his or her own church. Thank you, again! Greg Leaman Sheboygan County, Wisc. Pastor points out problems in wording of task force report February 3, 2005 I have been visiting The Layman Online site for over two years now. It continues to fascinate me as to how often this organization and its faithful letter writers are forced to correct and parse words from PCUSA reports, etc. Pastor Jim Henkel's recent letter [posted February 2, 2005] is a great example. He pointed out many problems in the wording of a recent TTF report. My question is this – if not for The Layman, how would the average Presbyterian member ever discern these inaccuracies and deceptions on their own? I am not a Bible scholar, and am not always aware of subtle changes in the presentation of Scripture or Biblical principals. I am especially vulnerable when words or phrases are left out completely. Is it too much to ask that our leaders not engage in this deceptive practice? The PCUSA has sunk to such a low standard that every single word or phrase has to be scrutinized and sanitized for hidden meanings and agendas. It often reminds me of the code busters we had to employ during WWII to decipher and break codes of the enemy. This is not paranoia. It occurs so often that one can only describe it as blatant abuse of power. The PCUSA has been caught doing it so often that trust is no longer possible. All that I want from my church is to be told the truth. How can I continue to grow spiritually or be in agreement with people who lie and distort the truth? Why should I have to go to The Layman to discern the true meaning behind every PCUSA pronouncement? David Hankins Contrary to task force, there are times when purity must drive us to division February 2, 2005 In his January 15, 2005, report to Eastminster Presbytery, General Presbyter and General Assembly Council member Dr. Dan Schomer, spoke to the preliminary report of the Theological Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (TTF). Encouraging the exercise of sound, mutual discernment in reflecting upon this report together, he commented: "Discernment acknowledges that God alone reveals the truth through our Lord Jesus Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit." An important phrase is missing from Dr. Schomer's comment. Its omission points to one of the issues that serves to polarize the Presbyterian Church (USA): the authority of the Scriptures. The missing phrase can be found in the Theological Declaration of Barmen: "Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death" (C-8.11, italics added). Discernment necessitates a knowledge of, an allegiance to, and faith in the one Word of God "as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture." We are to follow the Bible as our ultimate "rule of faith and life" (C-6.002). I am convinced that appealing to the Scriptures as our final authority for authentic Christian living requires a depth of discernment that is not demonstrated by the shallow Biblical exposition employed in the preliminary report of the TTF. Digging into the Scriptures yields the discovery that the Bible does not support the TTF published notion that "union with Christ means union with all the other members of Christ's body," including those who claim to belong to Jesus while refusing to abandon an unrepentant lifestyle (Ephesians 4:17-23, 5:3-21). Rather, the Scriptures strictly admonish: "Do not associate with them" (Ephesians 5:7). It is a complete lie against the Scriptures to imply that the "biblical teaching is clear: Christians cannot even entertain the notion of severing their ties with sisters and brothers in Christ without also placing themselves in severe jeopardy of being severed from Christ himself." The Christian faith is not a cult in which we are bound to remain loyal to one another regardless of any standard of righteousness, respect, and decency; except that born of our own imagining. We have the right and responsibility to hold one another up to the standard of the Scriptures. When we see that standard being eroded and excused away – even in the face of repeated warnings and admonitions to return to greater faithfulness – severing ties with sisters and brothers may be the only way to remain united with Christ Jesus. Jesus himself declares: "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life" (Mark 10:29). Contrary to the conclusion of the TTF, there are times when purity must drive us to division. While the argument from purity should never be employed as a mere "pretext" for breaking fellowship with other believers, sound judgement grounded in the Scriptures can lead to the determination that severing ties is a necessary and needed course of action. When disciples of our Lord and Savior refuse to be disciplined, there may be no other choice except to abandon them to their own devices and to seek a fresh start (1 Corinthians 5). Against this insight, the TTF preliminary report complains, "Those who break the body of Christ on the grounds that some members do not meet a particular conception of righteousness risk putting fallible human judgment in place of Christ." Have they never read the Scriptures? "Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?" (1 Corinthians 5:12b). "Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between brothers and sisters in Christ?" (1 Corinthians 6:5b). The Bible teaches that we are to take the risk of judging each other's Christian walk. We are called to grab hold of the cutting edge of the Scriptures and to wield it as a purging rod against the conduct of our individual and corporate walk of faith, "For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12). Jesus declares: "Do you think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a persons enemies will be those of his own household" (Matthew 10:34-35). When a member of our family of faith strays from the "rule of faith and life" set forth in the Scriptures and refuses to return to that "narrow way" (Matthew 7:13-14), the Bible instructs: "Purge the evil person from among you" (1 Corinthians 5:13). No matter how dear a brother or sister or father or mother or son or daughter in Christ he or she may be, we are to divide that person from our church household. Because the Presbyterian Church (USA) has failed to follow the instruction and admonition of the Scriptures by exercising sound judgment and discipline toward its members, "a little leaven [is leavening] the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6). Unless our denomination repents and makes a swift and dramatic return to living by the Word of God written, the day is fast approaching when anyone who desires to walk in unity with Christ Jesus must run for the nearest exit. Jim Henkel, Confessing Church Pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio EPC presbytery meeting may show why they aren't declining February 2, 2005 The other day you ran a lengthy article that discussed the PCA and the EPC. I just returned home from attending a meeting of the Central South Presbytery, EPC. I don't know what happens at other presbytery meetings, but I have never in my life experienced so much love and mutual encouragement and affirmation. I found myself regretting it when the moderator pronounced the meeting adjourned. If had to have a title, it might be, "The Care Bears go to presbytery." Perhaps this is why they are not experiencing the kind of decline that the PCUSA is. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi It's not the form of worship, but the substance of the message February 2, 2005 I would just like to find out what the forms of worship he [Tom Litteer in letter to the editor, posted January 28, 2005] is speaking of involves? I think Jesus taught us that some form does matter, but that definitely, the content can never change. The hearers still must have ears to hear and hearts to understand. The form won't make the difference, the old, old story still must be told in order for that to happen. After that happens, the form will shape itself. I think it is not "form" that is the question now, or has it ever been. The question has always been the "substance" of the message. So, perhaps the spokesmen and women for "formal," "the blended" and the "new" forms or worship need to all take a new look at the old, old story and see the dirty feet of our Lord and his disciples, the bloody garments he wore to the cross, and the hardships of every generation of believers before going off a deep end to argue of "forms" of worship. Glenda Smith, elder Reems Creek Beech Church North worked at Regent University, not Duke February 2, 2005 I enjoyed reading your Dec. 14, 2004 article entitled church "Church property laws face stiff challenges in civil courts." I did want to inform you of a misprint/misinformation. My father, Kenneth North, was not a professor at Duke University. (Although he surely would have loved to work there!) He received his law degree at Duke, but he never taught there. He was formerly a professor at Regent University, but at the time of the convention that you spoke of, he was actually the Director of International Relations at Regent University. I just wanted to let you know on the off chance that someone at Duke read this article. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Kari E. North Daughter of the deceased Dr. Kenneth E. North A successful petition is a grassroots collaborative effort February 2, 2005 As the manager of the petition calling for the 216th GA commissioners to return in special session to rescind the Israel Divestment Resolution, I want to thank The Layman for its commentary on the petition that was posted on January 18, 2005. Since the publication of your commentary an additional 200 Presbyterian members, elders and ministers have signed the petition. Two of the 216th GA Commissioners have also signed in the past two weeks. As of today there are signatories from 434 PCUSA churches on the petition. My request to the readers of The Layman Online is two fold: 1. If you have not already signed the petition, please consider doing so. 2. If you have already signed, please ask your church friends to sign. A successful petition is a grassroots collaborative effort. Larry Rued, elder First Presbyterian Church Bradenton, Fla. |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |