 |
|
| June
2005 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Too
many presbyteries care more about control than they do the spiritual
life June 30, 2005 It seems to me that the actions of the Presbytery of the Pacific and the stated clerk regarding the handling of Pastors Meenan and Manock reflect a culture of spiritual death. The administrative commission has taken over, attendance and giving are down (those leading the contemporary worship service and many who attended it have left completely) – is anyone surprised? It is likely giving and attendance will continue to decline and you can expect the presbytery will find a way to blame the disintegration of the church on the two pastors. At least you won't find anyone in the presbytery willing to take responsibility for it, that's for sure. Too many presbyteries care more about control than they do the spiritual life. If this doesn't change, I give our denomination about 20 years before it goes belly up. Why don't Rev. Meenan and Rev. Manock just start a new congregation down the street? Rev. Dr. Thomas Litteer First Presbyterian Church Sparta, N.J. PCUSA needs to reduce the number of confessions and abide by them June 30, 2005 Two matters recently raised in letters on The Layman Online are the stated clerk's seeming endorsement of the Belhar Confession from South Africa and the discussion generated by the review on the book about J. Gresham Machen. On the former, it seems to me that our Book of Confessions is bloated enough already. If anything, we need to reduce the number of confessions, and actually then abide by them, rather than expand them. For the record, I would recommend going back to the Westminster Standards, supplemented by adopting the "Three Forms of Unity" used by Dutch and other continental Reformed groups (these three documents are the Heidelberg Catechism, which we already have, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dort). On Machen, I would recommend two writings by him for anyone interested in him. The first is a collection of his sermons and lectures – God Transcendent. It is published by Banner of Truth, and can easily be found on the web. The second is his classic work, Christianity and Liberalism, still in print and published by Eerdmans. Rev. Walter L. Taylor Statesville, N.C. Amount money gained or lost from divestment is not a relevant factor June 30, 2005 In regards to the posting Targeted Caterpillar boosts PCUSA holdings by $737,548, I must once again call The Layman to task for arguing a case based upon financial gains. I am sure we can all agree, regardless of our position on the merits of discerning phased selective divestment from Israel, that the amount money gained or lost from such an action is not a relevant factor. The reasoning of this posting implies that moral and ethical issues take a back seat to financial gain. Matt Sauer Winfield, Ind. Hoping the things that unite us will be stronger than the things that divide us June 30, 2005 It pains me deeply to see such divisions in the Presbyterian Church; the rancor expressed is distressing to me. I can only pray for the intervention of the Spirit to bind up the wounds and make us whole again. Though I recognize that you and your followers may eventually choose a separate path, I hold out hope that the things that unite us will ultimately be stronger than the things that divide us. Roger Moore Lancaster, Pa. An answer to the question of women in Christian leadership: Henrietta Mears June 30, 2005 Just a respectful response to Rev. Roush [letter to the editor, posted June 29, 2005] about the role of women in Scripture. 1. Women spoke in the churches. I Cor. 14:27-33 allows for women ("anyone") to speak. I Cor. 11:5 explicitly refers to public worship decorum while a woman is speaking in public worship (See also Acts 21:9). Private decorum is irrelevant. 2. Therefore, I Cor. 14:33b-35 should be read: "As in all the congregations of the saints, women should hold their tongues (tigatwsan) in the churches. They are not allowed to chatter (lalew), but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to chatter in the church." The issue is not leadership nor women speaking, but disrespectful and disruptive sidebar conversations. The prohibition in I Tim. 2:11-12 is mistranslated and misinterpreted similarly. Worse still is the mistranslation of II Tim. 2:2 to exclude women when Paul pointedly included them: ...entrust to reliable persons (anthrwpois) who will be able to teach others. Once these egregious misinterpretations are swept from the Word, the plethora of examples of women in leadership become the normative Christian paradigm. Sorry, there is really only one interpretation. And this is the interpretation that the Holy Spirit validates. Which is why I am a PCUSA pastor. My mentor, Dick Halverson, used to answer the question of women in Christian leadership much more economically, with just two words: Henrietta Mears. Rev Bruce Becker First Presbyterian Church of Olney Philadelphia, Pa. Being on the right side of issues will not yield eternal life June 30, 2005 Robert Forman [letter to the editor, posted June 28, 2005] seems to be disappointed that Billy Graham has never publicly addressed his hot button issues. From this disappointment, he leaps to the absurd and mean-spirited conclusion that Graham is a "politician." How utterly foolish to suggest that a man who has personally preached the undiluted Gospel to more than 200-million people is anything but an evangelist – and, by all accounts, an amazingly effective one at that. The issues that concern Forman are terribly important, but being on the right side of them will not yield eternal life. Apparently he has missed the point of Graham's entire adult life – to lead unsaved persons to salvation in Jesus Christ. If a lifetime of faithful obedience to the Great Commission makes Graham a politician, then I can only pray that God will make me – and maybe even Mr. Forman himself – a better politician. Steve Jones, elder Kokomo, Ind. To discern God's will means to not use Scripture selectively June 30, 2005 Responding to the letter written by Rev. Bart Roush [letter to the editor, posted June 29, 2005] and his use of a comparison argument between the place of women in the church and the approval of the homosexual lifestyle – the two topics really have no similarities other than the on-going debates. Before emphatically using Paul's words to forbid women to speak in church, any church, he needs to remember rules of interpreting Scripture, among them being to take a passage in context of its book and chapter (remembering the who, what, when, where and reason it was written) and to take the passage within the context of the whole of God's Word. When doing the latter, it obvious that God did not forbid women to "speak" or to have authority over men – the prophetess/judge Deborah (Judges 4,5), being an example. We also need to recall Scriptures (i.e. Joel 2:28) where God specifically tells us that women will prophesy alongside men. In addition, a good point brought to my attention recently is who Jesus chose to first proclaim the gospel – the women running from the tomb to give the good news to the disciples – not an accident in God's providence. To be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ and to discern God's will means to not use Scripture selectively. It also means we have to be familiar with the whole of God's Word as a like rule of interpreting Scripture is that it can be counted on to interpret itself as God does not contradict himself. When taking 1 Corinthians 14:34 in context of the book and chapter, we have to remember that traditionally and culturally women were segregated from men and were often untaught, kept out of the public eye and regarded as inferior. The church was just learning what it was like for all to be considered equal in God's eyes, even as Paul himself taught, which was a huge break from all their religious rules and traditions. But, of more significance, the passage itself is specifically addressing speaking in tongues among other gifts and the chaotic confusion or disorder that was going on in the Corinthian church meetings. Paul was trying to shape them up so their worship was glorifying to God and edifying to themselves. Evidently, there was a lot of speaking out-of-turn causing such disorder that their meetings were far from peaceful or encouraging or edifying. And, although others were also told "let him keep silent in the church" (see verse 28), a great deal of the problem fell to women at the meeting who were most likely still sidelined, segregated from the men, and perhaps asking questions to understand what they did hear. There is also the consideration that it was undesirable to even look like they were emulating the pagan culture surrounding them where women were a focal part of the act of worship. The Law of Moses does not deal with this subject. Even so, we have been liberated from the Law. Perhaps the law that Paul refers to in the passage may have been rules specific to that particular congregation or the traditional/oral laws. To use this passage to forbid women positions of authority in the church is a mistake and is selective interpretation of Scripture. All that said, we can continue to debate the clarity of Scripture on the topic of women leading men, but it is a different thing to argue the morality of homosexual behavior. That lifestyle is described with strong words – detestable and vile in God's sight and worthy of his wrath – repeatedly and clearly in both Old and New Testaments (see Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26, 27). It is sin. Never does Scripture see it in any other way. To allow those continuing in any proclaimed lifestyle God names sin to lead others within our church is, by their example (and our acquiescence), teaching that it is not sin – as to a great extent we lead more by our actions than our words. And, that has the far-reaching repercussion to call in to question all of God's Word. Deborah Grenseman, elder First Presbyterian Church Walla Walla, Wash. Fees on ECO donations is the most under-publicized story of the year June 30, 2005 After reading the article entitled "Targeted Caterpillar boosts PCUSA holdings by $737,548" I just have to wonder: If they have more than 700K in Caterpillar, they must have quite an investment portfolio! I'm not in favor of their divestment decision at all, but I'm just thinking that if they have that kind of cash to throw around, it sure would be neat if they were spending their cash on missions projects – that would buy a lot of rice or a lot of Bibles. Oh, but that's right – my mistake! The General Assembly Council now actually takes money from designated missions giving! A recent five percent tax on Extra Commitment Opportunity (ECO) donations for "Administrative fees." That, I think, is the most under-publicized story of the year. Kevin T. Smith Belhar is primarily interested in applying the core doctrines of the church June 30, 2005 I have great respect for Will Spotts, but I believe he has egregiously misread the Belhar Confession and done its authors a tremendous disservice. I say this as a minister in the Reformed Church in America (on whose Web site Mr. Spotts found the text) who has friends in what is now the Uniting Reformed Church of Southern Africa, and thus as someone who has known about this confession for some time – and rather longer, I expect, than Mr. Spotts, whose reaction appears to be something of a snap judgment. There are four points which need to be made in response to his indictment. First, he implies that Belhar is almost devoid of core theological content; I can only say that this must be the result of a very quick skim indeed of the text. It is certainly correct that Belhar is primarily interested in applying the core doctrines of the church, but that doesn't mean they're not present. In the interest of avoiding a phrase-by-phrase commentary on the text, I'll simply say: Re-read it, more carefully this time. Second, Mr. Spotts addresses Belhar with no regard for its context – the end of apartheid in South Africa and the concomitant split in that country's churches of Dutch Reformed heritage – and thus interprets it as if it had been written in Louisville. As with Barmen, which must be understood against the background of German Nazism and its attempt to take over German Protestantism, so Belhar must be understood against the context of a desegregating church in a society dealing with the aftermath of apartheid. Any interpretation that doesn't take this into account will drastically misunderstand the document and its concerns, as Mr. Spotts has done. For instance, Belhar does not assert that "the church is supposed to demonstrate that separation between people is a sin;" what it clearly asserts is that acquiescing in the division of people on grounds of race (or, by implication, any other grounds extrinsic to Scripture) is a sin. Third, Mr. Spotts declares, "Belhar is purely a confession of unity – what we have in common is our unity ... and apparently upon that basis we should have unity?" Had he actually read the document before reacting to it, he would have noted the concluding assertion of the positive section of Belhar's second article, which clearly asserts that "true faith in Jesus Christ is the only condition for membership of this Church." The whole point of Belhar is to affirm that when the unity of the church is broken on any other basis, the church sins; but as the entire first section of the second article makes very clear – and as Mr. Spotts would have understood, had he made the effort – its drafters have no doubt whatsoever as to the ground of that unity, which in turn defines its limits. When Belhar talks about "the variety of ... convictions," it isn't talking about the range of convictions one might find in the PCUSA – there are in fact some very definite qualifications made clear by the rest of the document, as anyone who read the phrase in context should know. Fourth, before Mr. Spotts is going to insult the work of fellow Christians as "hair-brained" and "politically correct," it might behoove him in future to actually know what he's talking about. All of that said, to Mr. Spotts' actual point (to which his abuse of Belhar was directed), that the adoption of Belhar by the PCUSA would be a bad idea – I incline to agree with him, since I rather suspect that in that instance, he would be far from the only one taking it out of context and abusing its language and intent; the only difference is that in that event, it would mostly be folks on the CovNet/Witherspoon side of the aisle doing so. As much as I dislike Mr. Spotts' unjustified assault on the Belhar Confession, I would like that misuse of it even less. (The Rev.) Rob Harrison Trinity Church in the Pines Grand Lake, Colo. Stick to the issue at hand and avoid the stock analysis June 30, 2005 I'm not sure what you are trying to tell us with your regular reports about the returns on Caterpillar stock. Are you saying that the PCUSA's official position is wrong because the stock is going up? There are some casino stocks going up, too: is it God's will that I invest in those? Perhaps it is wiser to stick to the issue at hand – the question of divestiture – and avoid the stock analysis. Richard Rogers Bloomfield, N.J. Visit Web site for learn what 'Billy Graham thinks' June 30, 2005 Robert M. Forman [letter to the editor, posted June 28, 2005], and anyone else who desires to learn more about what "Billy Graham thinks" on a variety of current issues, should take the time to visit billygraham.org. Dr. Graham is not nearly so silent as Mr. Forman claims. Jim Henkel, NWI Endorsing Church Pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery The Belhar confession is devoted to unity, reconciliation and social justice June 29, 2005 I was interested to see that Reverend Clifton Kirkpatrick offered his own slate of proposals for constitutional revisions in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Of his suggestions, one in particular strikes me as a colossally bad idea: that we adopt the Belhar Confession. Previous confessions have been statements of common belief that Christians affirm. Some, like the Apostles or Nicene Creeds, have been universal; others, like the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, were specific to denominations or traditions. In all cases, however, these confessions were the basis upon which believers came together – they had unity because they had common belief. These confessions have served as our common doctrinal statements of what we were about. The Belhar Confession, on the other hand, briefly mentions the existence of a triune God who protects and cares for his church and no other doctrine. This affirmation is contained in one sentence without elaboration. The bulk of the Belhar confession, its second, third, fourth and fifth points, is devoted to unity, reconciliation and social justice. These points have many paragraphs of emphasis and explanation. Rather than being a confession of common belief upon which unity is based, Belhar is purely a confession of unity – what we have in common is our unity ... and apparently upon that basis we should have unity? Portions of the Belhar Confession flatly contradict Scripture. They don't just twist Scripture to support their desired meanings, they contradict it. For example, Belhar asserts that the church is supposed to demonstrate that separation between people is a sin. If that is the case, then Jesus, by saying, "I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household," is sinning. When James tells us that, "Friendship with the world is enmity with God," he is, according to Belhar, encouraging sin. As is John by saying, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." And let's not forget Paul who quotes the God as saying, "Come out from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord." If Paul is correct in attributing that quote to God, then if we accept the Belhar Confession we accuse God the Father of sinning. No Christian can credibly make such an assertion. The Belhar Confession informs us that the variety of convictions are "opportunities for mutual service and enrichment within the one visible people of God." It offers no qualifications as to what these convictions might be - whether or not they are Christian. I can see why someone in Kirkpatrick's position might want a creed that posits unity of our political structure as its highest virtue, but such a thing can only serve to increase the doctrinal chaos our church is already experiencing. Please reject this hair-brained, politically correct "confession" and do not further deplete what shreds remain to Presbyterians of the gospel we once proclaimed with one voice. Will Spotts North East, Md. Documents must be a part of our church life for God's glory and our edification June 29, 2005 One of the issues I would like to see the New Wineskins Initiative take up is uniting the Presbyterian Church around The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms. These three documents give the church a system to teach the Holy Scripture in a short amount of time and they are our Presbyterian heritage. The Book of Confessions has so many confessions in it that few people read it and even fewer study it. A couple of the confessions seem to me to teach a works righteousness and are alien to a Reformed church. The Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms tell us, that the best works of believers cannot endure God's judgment or merit eternal life; Jesus Christ himself has satisfied God's justice and purchased eternal life for us. We must make these three documents a part of our church life again for God's glory and our edification. It is time to reclaim our heritage as Presbyterians and fearlessly proclaim the Word of God. John Thomas Silverdale, Wash. Is commission afraid that real repentance and forgiveness could occur? June 29, 2005 I want to say, as a person who worked on the request for stay, that Frank Marshall is wrong and misleading in this letter. The stay was based on the May 10 meeting, not the May 3 meeting. Frank Marshall knows this. He personally signed and approved the request for stay which Dr. David Manock delivered to him on time. All the names are accurate and we completely followed the Book of Order section D-6.0000-0103. We also worked on the advice of four different lawyers who were all in agreement that what we were doing was right and correct. We also found there to be a tremendous amount of support for our church in the Presbytery of the Pacific. We found while contacting every church including pastors and elders that there was wide anger and disgust at the administrative leave imposed on Drs. Meenan and Manock. Now we hear from Catherine Hughes that the administrative commission is again forbidding Drs. Meenan and Manock from stepping foot on church property. Why is the AC so afraid of anyone speaking to or even seeing these men? Are they afraid that real repentance and forgiveness could occur? Can the AC ever admit that they were wrong to implement the administrative leave in the first place? Some members of the COM, AC and the Presbytery of the Pacific have a very strange obsession with trying to destroy the ministries and reputations of Drs. Meenan and Manock. Anyone so bent on trying to decimate the careers of good pastors at a thriving church should not be trusted. Will anyone on our session ever stand up to these people? Michelle Reynolds Lowe Liberals, conservatives and those in-between read and use Scripture selectively June 29, 2005 The article describing the first meeting of the National Network for the New Wineskins movement ends with these comments:
In the on-going debate over ordination of gays and lesbians and the blessing of same-sex weddings many references are made to Scripture (see the article concerning Dr. Gagnon' presentation given at New Wineskins as an example). Many conservative evangelicals quote these Scriptures and say that it is clear that homosexuality is a sin, and that the liberals in the denomination don't take Scripture seriously, or that liberals use Scripture selectively to suit there own agenda. In fact, one of the essential tenets proposed by New Wineskins calls Scripture the "infallible rule of faith and practice." This is in direct response to what some see as a lessening of the authority and role of Scripture. Obviously, Mr. Weaver recognizes and has experienced women who have gifts for ministry. He states that the PCA is not an option because they do not allow women to be ordained, and the EPC ordains very few. I agree heartily, and also have been privileged to serve and be served with women who have gifts for ministry. I could not imagine, as Mr. Weaver suggests, a denomination that did not allow both women and men to be called into ordained ministry. But here is the rub; Scripture is very clear on this matter. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 says, "Women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." Scripture seems pretty clear to me. There is no wiggle room in that statement. Women should not speak in church. But obviously we choose to ignore that part of Scripture, we don't recognize it as authoritative, or we see it within its historical context and believe that the Holy Spirit has called us to a different understanding of women's roles in the church. And it seems as if a majority of Presbyterians feel this way, and have for a long time, as we celebrate this year the 100th anniversary of women's ordination as deacons, the 75th year as elders and the 50th year as ministers of the Word and Sacrament. As we move forward in the denomination, let us stop vilifying one another and recognize that most of us are trying to be faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ and discern God's will for our lives and the world, and that we all, liberal, conservative and everything inbetween read and use Scripture selectively. Let's be honest about how we all read and use Scripture. And let us head the words of Ephesians 4:1-3, that we may all "lead a life worthy of the calling to which you were called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of Spirit in the bond of peace." Rev. Bart Roush Geneva, Ill. Those calling on change will be ignored June 29, 2005 Good for the folks who called on Louisville to be more honest. I hope they don't mind being completely ignored. Richard A. Aubrey Why give money to an organization that robbed us of our pastors? June 29, 2005 In case you haven't seen it, here is the letter Catherine Hughes directed be posted on the Hollywood Pres Web site. As from the beginning, the pastors play by the rules ... the AC and POP do as they please. The irony abounds. The administrative commission installed by the Presbytery of the Pacific is in charge of HPC now that it has been stolen from the hands of our capable pastors, Drs. Manock and Meenan, due to the false charges that they are not effective leaders. Effective leaders are evidenced in part by congregants and tithes, both of which are disappearing rapidly at HPC. The letter penned by Frank Marshall yesterday, along with every single action of the Presbytery of the Pacific since May 3, has served to ensure this tithing former HPC attendee will never support the untrustworthy PCUSA again. Only a fool would give money to an organization that has robbed us of our pastors, potentially our property, and without question the very peace unity and healing (how 1972) they claim to be promoting. The presbytery at least in this scenario, is a tangible and deliberate roadblock to the furtherance of the work of the Lord. What does it feel like, I wonder, to kidnap a living entity and find it dead in your hands. Delight Dinopoulos Hollywood, Calif. Liberal theologians will continue to defame our denomination June 29, 2005 From a quote in Toward A Sure Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Dilemma of Biblical Criticism: Machen absolutely hit the nail on the head as concerns our plight today with liberal theology. "Machen asserts that liberal theology that is based on naturalistic assumptions is completely incompatible with Christianity." All of us who are familiar at all with God's Word have known this from the beginning. Scripture tells us that, "The natural man cannot understand the things of God for they are spiritually discerned." This being the case, Walter Sundberg and Roy Harrisville who teach at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minn., are also absolutely correct in saying, "J. Gresham Machen was right. What we have in the Enlightenment tradition of criticism is nothing less than another religion that supplants Biblical faith." All of this being the case, those of our number who have been trying to reason with those among our number who are held tightly in the sway of this "other religion" are also blind to the pure Word of God. For God has said that we must not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. Those who hold to this other religion, today called liberal theologians, and their followers, will continue to defame our denomination, and continue to multiply their natural doctrines under the title of Presbyterian Church (USA). How can anyone who holds the truth of God's Word in their mind and heart continue to call these heretics "brother" or "sister?" How can we continue to try to reason with and dialogue with them? It is like, as my daddy used to say, trying to talk to a telephone pole! How can we get on with Christ's Great Commission and with teaching new converts to rightly discern the Word of God if we continue to be yoked together with unbelievers? I believe it is time for all of us to become as militant in our convictions and defense of the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ as J. Gresham Marchen! Until we do, we cannot expect those who come behind us to have found us faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ, or to them. Glenda Smith, elder Reems Creek Beech Presbyterian People in the pews are sadly uninformed about denomination June 29, 2005 Amen to Marc Karasek's letter of June 24. A great number of people in the pews are sadly uninformed or misinformed. I speak to many Presbyterians at meetings and conferences, and most do not have a clue what's going on with GA. Add that to the fact that my own congregation is in the dark, and I'm pretty convinced that David Walters (June 22) is deluding himself. He seems to be with the "whatever I say represents the whole body of Presbyterians" crowd. "The rest of us" is a pretty broad statement. Maybe his congregation is informed, but are they completely informed, or only getting fed what comes straight from GA? Is his pastor, like so many others, fearful of losing his or her pension? I think it's sad that no matter what staffers do, Walters intends to still keep them around. And just what has him so convinced that the ordination standards are never going to change? If we all adopt his attitude, the standards are sure to change for the worse. I'm really tired of people who beat their chests and say what good and loyal Presbyterians they are, but they don't have a clue as to what is going on in the church. They don't know what's in the Book Of Order, nor have they read the confessions. They don't really care, as long as nothing rocks their little boat. Sadly, most of them don't know or care what's in the Bible, either. Kay Brooks Irving, Texas When liberals want a particular outcome what constitution says doesn't matter June 29, 2005 Call me a cynic, but I've been too long in the PCUSA to expect anything different. Still it pains me to pop the bubble of all those involved in the petition drive to stay the "kangaroo court" action of the administrative commission at First Church, Hollywood, Calif.. But then, maybe they were not paying attention a few years ago when Dr. Alex Metherell presented a constitutionally valid (but politically incorrect) petition subscribed to by more than the minimum number of commissioners needed as stated in the Book of Order to recall the 214th General Assembly. The lesson these good people missed is that when liberals want a particular outcome it doesn't matter what the constitution means – or even what it says, for that matter (sort of like their approach to the Bible). And it won't matter that it will seem to sane minds that procedures for vetting the petition will be made up as they go along in order to nullify its effect. So watch the stated clerk sit down with a calendar and calculator to determine the exact count of days, hours, minutes and seconds that elapsed before he actually received the petition in hand. If, to his dismay, the cyphering yields less than 45, then perhaps we can expect a convoluted process designed to ask only the people who signed the petition if they really meant to (but not asking those who declined to sign if they, too, might now want to sign) while bringing high political pressure to bear upon them to recant. And while I suppose I could rehash all the other shameless shenanigans we saw play out in 2002-2003, why bother? We all know the drill: Before long, the Revs. Meenan and Manock will be back out of their office, while the powers that be chant the mantra, "All procedures were followed." Then they can celebrate their successful recreation of a safe and healing space that preserves the peace, unity and purity of the congregation at FPC Hollywood. You heard it here first. Still hoping God's faithful people will find the stomach to stand up to the blasphemers, heretics, apostates and pagans, who have insinuated themselves among us, and say, "Enough is enough." Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church Canton, Ohio A Confessing Church Church attendance historically drops during the summer months June 29, 2005 It may be true that attendance has declined following the removal of Meenan and Manock. However, church attendance historically drops during the summer months as pastors vacation and Christian education programs are suspended. Furthermore, I wonder how many people have left the church since Dr. Meenan took the helm. About 70 percent of my friends have left, leaving few in attendance that oppose his style of leadership. Christina Yew member FPCH for 8 years God is in control - not the presbytery or any commission June 29, 2005 Praise be to God! He reigns! Thank God he is still on his throne and he is still in control, not the presbytery or any commission! Thank God that he is still God! Beware, those who try to play God – beware of the wrath of God! Welcome back, our wonderful ministers of God! We love and appreciate you! Please forgive those who tried to hang you out to dry. They did it to our Lord, and they tried to do it to you. Blessed and honored are you, that you have identified with our Lord in his suffering, and his resurrection! Shanali Seneviratne Reader excited about New Wineskins' initiative June 28, 2005 I am excited about the groundbreaking work being done by those dedicated Presbyterians who are part of this initiative. At this time in the history of our denomination, it is time to reinvigorate our members by offering a vision that is worthy of the founders of the church and those who have gone before. Those leaders who have, in the recent past, led us astray from the tenets of the Reformed faith have contributed to a decline in both evangelicalism and membership. By taking bold, new steps to infuse our church with its historical mission and purpose, consistent with Scripture, we will see salvation both for the Presbyterian Church and for its congregations. Claude Lumpkin Westminster Presbyterian Church Burlington, N.C. Where to find book about Gresham June 28, 2005 I truly do appreciate your review of Toward A Sure Faith: J. Gresham Machen and the Dilemma of Biblical Criticism 1881-1915; By Terry Chrisope (Ross-Shire U.K.; Mentor/Christian Focus Publications; 2000; 240 pages). It was excellent! Where can I buy or order a copy for my personal library? Thank you or your help and God bless. Rev. Eddie Soto Faith Presbyterian Church Tallahassee, Fla. Amazon.com lists new paperback copies for $15.99 and used copies for $9.59 and up. The editors The battle line has been drawn June 28, 2005 The most recent letters on The Layman Online have "said it all" for us who are diligently watching and waiting to see which side the official "church" chooses to stand with in the end. I think it's clear for most of us who are not overtaken by the kind of delusion and deception the "More Light" crowd is imposing on us that the battle line has been drawn and there are more than a few of us not willing to "cross over." In the end, I'd rather be found standing with a minority who are refusing to bow our knees to Baal than with a majority who choose to back down or bow down to any other god, man or politically correct agenda. I hope and pray that any who are "real men" in this church realize that means a whole lot less with whether or not you eat "quiche" and a whole lot more to do with Whom it is you are choosing to serve in spirit and in truth as Lord of all Creation. We have, contrary to the most popular opinion, been created by God, not created Him in our own images according to our own human imagination. I do hope and pray that is what for any who really love Him comes down to "bottom line" for us all. Karen Kolbinsky Durham, N.C. Plan now for Faith & Life Conference June 28, 2005 I recently returned from my 3rd consecutive Faith & Life Conference at Grove City College. The Lay Committee is to be commended and thanked for the high quality of speakers and seminars it provides at these annual conferences. Each year seems to be better than the previous. I returned home thankful for this experience and anticipating the next one! The Rev. Dr. Mark Patterson presented a vibrant study of texts from Hebrews and the Rev. Dr. Jim Logan preached it as I've never heard anyone preach before – you cannot doze while Jim is preaching the Word! One of these two would have been impressive, but we were privileged to be blessed by both. It was also an honor and a privilege to hear the faith journey of the Rev. Dr. David Githii, moderator of the thriving Presbyterian Church of East Africa. Praise God for leadership like his! Seminars included the State of the Property Issue in the P.C. (U.S.A.) and "Heretics" in the world today. Spirited singing, lyrical evangelist Judah Israel Michael (you gotta hear this guy!) and a concert by music therapist, Judy Christ, provided a rest for our minds and a time for our hearts and souls to be uplifted. The three days of this conference provided much spiritual growth while allowing time for worship, fellowship and relaxation on this beautiful campus in western Pennsylvania. I urge you to mark your calendar now for June 2006 and plan to discover for yourself the gem that the Faith & Life Conference is!!! Hedy Howe Bellingham, Wash. |
|
| June
2005 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |