March 2005 letters Archives of letters to the editor

A prayer of confession and repentance for the PCUSA March 30, 2005 Lord God, You and You alone are good and true. You are constant and reliable in Your love for us, even as we tend to wander from our devotion to You and Your will. We praise You above all else; You are the pearl of great price for which we would give everything we have, want, or expect to become or be. You are The Lord, and we submit to Your glory. We confess that we have fallen short of what You want both from us and for us. We have taken pride in our own controls rather than trust and accept Your lordship. Forgive us. Forgive us for setting our perceived needs ahead of the good of Your glory. For setting up missions and causes to the place of Your throne. For regarding the good ends that we can imagine as Your own. Forgive us. For rallying others to action – even virtuous action – while neglecting Your praise and glory, we repent. For taking Your grace and ever-constant love for granted, we are ashamed. Even as we trust that in Jesus Christ You have overcome the division of sin, our actions and good intentions yet merit only judgment. Lord, we are thankful; may that gratitude so increase that we never take Your mercies for granted. In taking Your goodness for granted (You are the Lord; You did not have to be loving, gracious or merciful), we have re-imagined You as easy, soft and overindulgent of our sin. Forgive us for re-imagining You as anything other than You have already revealed through Your Word, our Lord Jesus Christ. Forgive us for re-imagining truth and goodness as to serve our own wants and preferences: for debasing Your delight in marriage through easy divorces, for stealing its significance or sanctity and attempting to apply it where it does not belong. For re-imagining a justice that only applies to our political opponents and not to ourselves, forgive us. For imagining that life is ours to define – to give and to take at will – Lord forgive us and lead us. For imagining that what is important to us is important toYou, Lord forgive us. For missed opportunities to proclaim Your good news in the name of Jesus, Lord forgive us. For ignoring the poor and the oppressed on our doorstep, or re-imagining their needs to fit our own conveniences, forgive us. For thinking of all You have given us as our own, forgive us. Forgive us for all our re-imaginings, which are our idolatries. Reform our hearts, minds, and actions into conformity with Your will, which is what we want more than anything else. You are Lord to us and Lord of all. Shape our lives and destinies that we may increase our participation in the praise and glorification of Your name, living in humble union with one another as we serve Your will. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Amen. Noel K. Anderson Executive Pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. Questions about the New Wineskins Convocation March 30, 2005 I was surprised to read that three sessions have endorsed the draft documents developed by New Wineskins. First, because I find nothing on their web site that suggests that such an endorsement is either desired or expected. Second, because the documents are, in my view, still in need of perfecting. Part of the task of the convocation, as I originally understood it, was to do further work toward finalizing the documents. I can affirm and support the general tenor and direction of New Wineskins' Essential Tenets and Ethical Imperatives, but I – for one – am not ready to sign off on them. Chief among my personal objections to the documents is the fact that they are two. I do not live a bifurcated life of faith. I strive more and more, in the power of the Holy Spirit, to make my behavior and my speech consistent with my belief that Jesus Christ is the sole, singular Lord and Savior of my life and all life. Jesus Christ calls me to prove my love. Refusing to answer that call is a declaration of unbelief. The Ethical Imperatives are as essential as any of the ten tenets of doctrine that New Wineskins has highlighted. I will strongly advocate that the two documents be integrated into a single statement of the Essential Tenets of our Christian Faith. I am trying to resist the temptation to nit-pick my way through the New Wineskins Essential Tenets as they now stand. My reservations begin with the first five words of the number one Essential Tenet and grow from there. I believe that the compassionate and majestic God – revealed in creation, in the Scriptures, and in Christ Jesus – is the one and only God regardless of whether I choose to worship or to ignore God. Thus says the Lord: "I am God, there is no other" (Isaiah 45:22, 46:9). This simple truth should not be qualified and compromised with the phrase: "The God whom we worship." Jim Henkel Confessing Church Pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Editor's Note: The New Wineskins Initiative has posted on its convocation Web site information regarding endorsements of the working draft documents. Wine at communion services March 30, 2005 As usual, the Biblically illiterate are at it again. The Bible does not denounce the use of wine or alcohol. The big issue in the Bible is drunkenness. Because of people's lack of knowledge, it has long been a tradition to use grape juice at communion services. Take the case of Hannah, who kept mumbling as she was walking around the house. Her husband said, "You had better stop drinking so much wine and beer, you are mumbling." She told her husband she wasn't mumbling (maybe speaking in tongues), that she was praying to the Lord what to do with her unborn child! Their decision was that when the baby was 18-months-old, they would give the child to a priest named Eli. Now, Eli raised him up to be an upright righteous man. Guess what his name was? Samuel, the great prophet! Also consider the communion service itself. One of the last things a pastor will say after issuing the order to drink the wine (paraphrase) is until we drink this (wine) anew in Heaven. So, if wine is allowed in heaven, what are all the people squabbling about? C.B. Lindvall Litchfield, Minn. Grape juice should be used at communion March 29, 2005 I disagree with this article strongly, if its message is that only wine should be used at communion. As our pastor once explained, we use grape juice in our church because of our concern for people with alcoholism; even a sip of wine can be a real concern for someone who is trying to recover from a drinking problem. We are all "recovering sinners" in church; different people just have different temptations. Using grape juice at communion is heeding the words of the Apostle Paul not to do anything that could cause your brother or sister to stumble: "All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall" (Romans 14:20-21). As a former Episcopalian, I knew of priests with drinking problems, and I suspect Catholics (I don't know about Lutherans) might tell you likewise. For priests, the potential problem is the worst. They themselves must consume any wine that remains at the end of the communion service in order to make sure that the consecrated element is not treated disrespectfully or used for improper purposes. James K. Mee Honolulu, Hawaii Silence from the PCUSA on Terri Schiavo case March 29, 2005 "Ours is a nation where a judge may not sentence Beltway sniper Lee Malvo to death because he is too young to die, but can sentence Terri Schiavo to death because she is too severely handicapped to live. Schiavo continues the process of dying by starvation and dehydration, a method of capital punishment most would consider criminal if done to a pet." The above quote from Pat Buchanan also mentions that Hitler's doctors may prove to have been the medical pioneers of the 21st century. I have not heard or seen in print the PCUSA's (leadership) – outrage of the murdering of Terri Schaivo, but consistently no outrage of the murdering of the innocent (babies). The leadership of the PCUSA is more interested in ordaining gays of all stripes, having a church of what's happening now, rather than being obedient to the Lordship of Christ. Holy Scripture is correct, as always, that in these last days we will witness what happened to the generation of Noah. 2 Tim. 3:1 reads, "In the last days, perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasting, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it; from such turn away." The Lord God in Christ will have the last say, the Body of Christ must oppose this genocide in the making, otherwise, the Body of Christ will be at the mercy of a Hitler. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Terri Schiavo still clings to life March 29, 2005 At the moment I write this, Theresa Maria Schindler Schiavo still clings to life – despite being deprived of food and water. I am saddened that the Roman Catholic Church issued an opinion on this, while the Presbyterian Church (USA) did not. I have avoided this issue because I know that nothing I might think or say hasn't already been considered and scrutinized by everyone. I also find the situation intensely troubling. I do not know what Terri would have wished to be done. I do not know her medical condition. I do not know the motivations of the parties involved, whether family, spouse, legislators, doctors, nurses, lawyers or judges. All of these have been scrutinized at length, most often with the observer willfully seeing whatever he or she wants to see. And we've all been told now, ad nauseum, to prepare our own advanced directives. That said, I do know a couple of things. The first is that this is a pitiable situation for all involved. The second is that we often are asking the wrong question – specifically, "Would I want to live like that?" And I know that question frames their whole view of the situation for many people. I would submit to you, however, that, aside from being intensely narcissistic, it also is not possible to answer with any degree of certainty. There is something here no one wants to talk about. When we are in tolerable health, we recoil from sickness and infirmity. We might intend to have sympathy; at the same time, we are filled with horror at the prospect that something of this kind could happen to us. You can deny this, but I have seen it in others and I have felt it in myself. I would not want to live like Terri has been living. But I would also not want to live the way Christopher Reeve lived for many years, nor would I want to live the way Stephen Hawking is living. I watched my father die of liver cancer, and I wouldn't want to live through that. However, I also know that I would not want to die of a combination of starvation and dehydration. I know I would not want a person making this decision to be someone who had moved on, had children with another partner, and who had everything to gain from my death. The weakness of this thinking is that what we want from a position of relative health is not what we want in illness. Until we're in the situation, we cannot know with certainty. People tend to cling to life; life is an absolute good. I noticed this while listening to my father's death rattle – breathing through fluid, he fought to breathe – to have just a few moments more. There are some who believe they are spiritual, who think that they would let go, that they would practice contentment. But I submit to you that these do not understand their attachment to life. As Christians, we observed the Last Supper and the Crucifixion in the past week. If we think life is so easily thrown away, how do we account for Jesus' prayer in Gethsemane? Or are we saying that his death on the cross was no great sacrifice? Many of us will take communion this week, and I cannot help but wonder if we will think of this woman who cannot eat the bread or drink the wine. I wonder if the elements will catch in our throat as we reflect that we have allowed execution by starvation and dehydration to occur, not as some gruesome Roman practice almost 2,000 years ago, but as a part of our "civilized" culture. I wonder if we will think as we eat and drink of the one who said, "I was an hungered and ye gave me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me nothing to drink . . . depart from me, ye cursed …?" As of this moment, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to involve itself, perhaps following the example we have set. Will Spotts North East, Md. Ghost Ranch facing a sad ending March 29, 2005 What a sad ending to a camp that had great potential. In 1955, I was attending a Presbyterian church in Tucson. A member of that church gave that parcel of land to the Presbyterian Church to be used as a camp for Christian purposes similar to the Young Life camps. Unfortunately, the camp fell into the hands of the wrong people. The pastor of that church was so proud of the influence he had on that gentleman. John Vosbigian Here's an idea March 29, 2005 Publish a list of the 50 largest Confessing Churches and compare it to the 50 largest non-Confessing Churches. I think you would find it very revealing. Richard Carlson Topsfield, Mass. Editor's Note: Such a story can be found here. Pastor advocates juice for communion after discussion with alcoholic March 24, 2005 Brought up and confirmed in the Lutheran Church, I was surprised at first when served juice in a Presbyterian Church communion. At seminary, communion in the chapel offered what seemed to me a reasonable alternative, wine in the outer ring, juice in the inner ring. That is, until a classmate of mine confided in me his struggle with alcoholism. "Just the smell of the wine," he told me, "as the tray is passed is a temptation and can trigger a relapse." That was enough for me. I think Jesus is not limited by our conformity to such a law as mandating real fermented wine for communion. In fact, I think Jesus is more concerned – and expects me to be also – about the weaknesses and struggles of our brothers and sisters. I've been an advocate for juice at communion ever since that conversation with my classmate. Ron Holmes, pastor Shepherd of the Hills Presbyterian Church Lakewood, Colo. Grape juice for communion: It's cheaper March 24, 2005 Having read the article, "No Juice Served At First Communion," I would agree that drinking wine is not prima facie sinful; there is no Biblical prohibition against moderate wine consumption (unless you're a Nazirite). However, there is one very practical reason for serving grape juice for communion: It's cheaper. One might also point out that when Paul said to Timothy, "Stop drinking only water, and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses (1 Tim. 5:23)," there were no water treatment plants around. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Wine rejected not because of 'sin tag' but safety reasons March 24, 2005 Thank you for the balanced article on wine. I have always rejected the sinful tag on wine while also rejecting wine for myself as a matter of safety and out of fear of dependency. James H. Logan Sr. McHenry, Md. Thanks for the scholarly and complete picture of the death of Jesus March 24, 2005 Thank you for providing me with the most scholarly and complete picture of the death of our Lord. How much he went through for us and how little credence we give to the "Suffering Servant." Thank God for the gift of his Son! John Linsley Sr. Colorado Springs, Colo. Interfaith Listening Project is not considered disaster assistance March 24, 2005 Many Presbyterians – individuals and congregations – withhold their per-capita gifts so that they will not be supporters of things that violate their consciences. Many of these same Presbyterians give freely to offerings that support humanitarian and compassionate causes. One popular example of this is the One Great Hour of Sharing campaign. In theory this is a good approach; one can support what is clearly Christian, while resisting some of the more creative political activism of the national denomination. However, for such a thing to work, there must be truth in labeling – there must be a level of trust between those who give, and those who administer these gifts. It was for this reason I was discouraged to read The Layman's article on Muslim-Christian presentations. OGHS gifts are divided between the Presbyterian Hunger Program (36 percent), the Self-Development of People (32 percent) and Presbyterian Disaster Assistance (32 percent). That's all well and good, except that PDA paid most of the expense for the Interfaith Listening Project. That project may be a great idea, it may be a good thing, but it is not, and no reasonable person would consider it to be disaster assistance. If someone gives money for disaster assistance, they're not giving money for the Interfaith Listening Project. Similarly, The Layman reported that PDA recommended that 20 percent of their funds be used for administrative purposes. Concurrently, the Presbyterian Hunger Program seeks to partner with the Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance. One who gives money to either of these expects less than 20 percent overhead, on the one hand, and to actually be working to feed the hungry, as opposed to political advocacy on the other. I'm less concerned whether any of these ideas make sense or are good projects as I am that they are presented, and even named as being one thing, while gifts given them are spent on others. Why does it seem that honesty is such a difficult thing these days? Will Spotts North East, Md. As we see the face of Terry Schiavo are we looking into the eyes of Jesus? March 24, 2005 Terry Schiavo – I feel like I am witnessing a present-day crucifixion, like I am one of those in the crowd that stood by and didn't do anything as Jesus was innocently killed. Father, please forgive me. Jesus reminds us in the Great Judgment in the book of Matthew that whatever we do or not do to the least of these, we do or not do to him. "I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink." As we see the face of Terry Schiavo plastered on every news story, aren't we, in fact, looking into the eyes of Jesus? It is not just a coincidence that we find ourselves in Holy Week, and the anticipated crucifixion of Jesus just three days away. Pray for her life and that God will send some resolution for life for her different than what his Son had to endure. "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do." Amen. Jennifer Kirkbride, elder Wellsburg, W.Va. Shouldn't Olson's apostate views disqualify him from GAC chair-vice chair? March 22, 2005 Open letter to Rev. Graham P. Hart, General Presbyter of Peace River Presbytery I read with concern that Manley Olson, an avowed advocate and leader of the Re-Imagining movement, as well as a strong supporter of repealing the fidelity/chastity clause (G-6.0106b), was one of four candidates nominated by the GAC's nominating committee for the position as chair and/or vice-chair of GAC. Is Manley Olson, in your opinion, an appropriate candidate for this position? Does his apostate views (i.e. his advocacy of Sophia worship) not disqualify him for consideration? What do you as General Presbyter of the Peace River Presbytery intend to do to voice your protest concerning Olson's nomination? Please regard this email as an official request by a member your presbytery that you formally protest the nomination of Manley Olson by the GAC nominating committee. Please also be aware that this email is also being sent to The Layman and will also be posted on www.pcusaelders.org Brad Robbins PCUSA Elder, TILN Members of the CCM should be proud that they are being attacked March 22, 2005 It is interesting to read two of the recent published criticisms of the Confessing Church Movement – specifically in Perkins' introduction to Ottati's essay, and in a recent letter from a PCUSA seminary student. One of the CCM essential doctrines that certainly receives the most attacks is the "sanctity of marriage" statement, but the crux of the matter is that to disagree with the 3 CCM essential doctrines is tantamount to believing that the Holy Bible is not God's Word. If this is the point of the critics, then they should admit it. Do they believe some of the Bible, but not all, choosing to conveniently disregard the "difficult passages" that they don't agree with? It just goes to show the eternal truth of Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." The members of the Confessing Church Movement should be proud that they are being attacked for recognizing the truth and the authority of the Bible. Kevin T. Smith New Hanover Presbyterian Church Mechanicsville, Va. How can starving a person to death be considered an act of mercy? March 22, 2005 I am absolutely baffled at the "logic" of some Layman readers! I don't understand how allowing a person starve to death can be considered an act of mercy. Let's take the Schaivo travesty one step further to its equally absurd yet logical conclusion. Wouldn't it be even more merciful simply to give Terri Schiavo a lethal injection? Stop her heart and end her suffering immediately! This way, whatever pain she feels as she starves and dehydrates to death is no longer an issue. Given this scenario of course, someone could be held accountable; by simply pulling a feeding tube, all the parties involved have "clean hands." Or better yet, show death row inmates the same mercy as we are showing Terri Schaivo and stop feeding them immediately. It's humane, after all. (The ACLU might not agree with me, but heck … we're setting precedent here!) I am sick that we are required by law to show more mercy to dogs than we do to people! Additionally, I wonder on which side of the line the PCUSA falls on this life and death issue. Don't bother looking at www.pcusa.org; both the denomination and the Washington Office are unusually silent on this one! David Morrison Pittsburgh, Pa. Merciful act on behalf of Schiavo can be a solution to America's homeless March 22, 2005 Thanks to the thoughtful suggestions published in The Layman Online from those compassionate Presbyterian pastors, elders and laity, who understand that withholding food and water from Terry Schiavo is a merciful act, I believe I have happened upon a solution to America's homeless problem. Everyone knows that there is no quality of life for the homeless. Drifting through a world of filth, vermin, pollution, drugs, disease and toxins is a living death that no human should endure. We should provide them with what I call the Wexler Exit, named for the Florida congressman who enunciated the argument for death as a compassionate act. The Wexler Exit would have to be applied equally to all homeless in order to be fair. Each of these tragic persons would be allowed a dignified death by depriving them of oxygen. Many of them don't eat anyway, so depriving them of food would be insulting. They would be put in a comfortable space and the oxygen in the space would be replaced with carbon monoxide. Those who survived, of course, would obviously have done so through the grace of God and would be allowed to live whatever days they have left. Since these people have no legal relationships, society must make this compassionate determination for them. This responsibility is similar to the societal responsibility to have one's pet spayed or neutered. They don't have the capacity to do this for themselves, so we must act on their behalf. How can we call ourselves Christians and allow these people to suffer so? Please support the Wexler Exit. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. Recognize God's mercy for Schiavo and allow nature to let her body die March 21, 2005 Why are Christians so insistent that "life" in any form is preferable to presence with God in heaven? Far from "killing" Terry, it seems to me we are currently thwarting nature (God) and her natural desire to be released from earthly bonds, trapped in a body with no mind. I experienced a short few minutes (after surgery) of awareness while unable to speak, open my eyes, or move a muscle of my body. I can not conceive of a hell worse than that feeling of panic and terror continuing for hours, days, months and years. Either Terry is conscious of this living hell – in which case by any Christian view the merciful thing is to stop thwarting God's plan to take her to himself, or she is indeed brain dead with no hope, in which case the sensible thing is to recognize God's mercy for her and allow nature (God) to let her mindless body die. I can see how "humanists" for whom human life is the supreme hope might strive to keep this earthly frame "alive" even when the mind is gone, but it seems to me that such a view is antithetical to those who trust and serve a God of love, mercy and justice. I am not speaking of "killing" Terry, but of allowing God (or "nature") to release her from either the nothingness or the hellishness of her current existence. Richard F. Underwood Urbana, Ill. Schiavo's husband is attempting to perform an act of mercy March 21, 2005 I would submit that Terry Schiavo's husband is attempting to perform an act of mercy for a woman who has, for many too many, years suffered the indignity of lying in a bed in a state that is not human. There is no spark of humanity in a person in a persistent vegetative state for year upon year. This unfortunate young lady was severely injured, and she had previously expressed her desire to not be maintained as she is being maintained to her husband and to three other persons. It is beyond my comprehension where Christians and Christian organizations could get the idea that her parents and not her husband has the right to make such decisions. Whatever happened to "leave your father and your mother and cleave unto your husband?" Let's give this poor man his life back and let's allow this poor woman to have whatever thread of "life" she clings to mercifully disintegrate. The courts, the legislative bodies, the governor, the president and the "Right to Life" groups should take a few moments and think through not some abstract life versus death issue but the reality, the mercy, and the grace that should manifest itself in this matter. David Duncan Swannanoa, N.C. Elder at Black Mountain Presbyterian Church C'67 was one of many factors contributing to PCUSA's membership decline March 21, 2005 Just to be clear, I have no use for progressive theology, was highly offended by Davis Perkins' comments about the Confessing Church movement, am myself the pastor of a Confessing Church, and have never been overly enthralled with C'67. Please consider what I write as cautionary remarks from an ally rather than an attack by an opponent. I take exception with John Adams' line "The Confession of '67 also marked the beginning of the steep membership decline in mainline Presbyterianism." That is, in my opinion, an overly generalized statement of cause and effect. C'67 was only one of many factors contributing to our membership decline. Such statements in this and other Layman articles may be one reason people question the publication's editorial integrity. I know that it gives me pause. David H. Bower, pastor Grace Presbyterian Church Lanham, Md. 'Inadvertent use of C.E. has nothing to do with my orthodoxy' March 21, 2005 May I offer, counter to the normal allowance for direct responses, a brief, but positive response to the contributor [Reed Siebenthal in letter to the editor, posted March 18, 2005] who found a bit of fault with my using C.E. designation as opposed to A.D.? It is my full intent, and attempt, to not simply be "typically supportive," but be "fully" supportive of orthodox Christianity. On the one hand I indeed used C.E., but it was without any conscious consideration of using one over the other. While this might be seen as an indication of how liberalism has been indoctrinated into me, I reject such a notion. In the course of my church work I routinely and intentionally use A.D. as I disagree with all the political correctness that dogs our world. But my, however inadvertent, use of C.E. has nothing to do with my orthodoxy, or any suggested departure from it. I would further suggest that we continue working together in our common efforts toward orthodoxy in matters of greater importance. I look forward to further submissions of Mr. Siebenthal. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. Society and the PCUSA have decided that life is a throw-away commodity March 21, 2005 It grieves me to ask why you are surprised that the church has not responded to the plight of Terri Schiavo. This church long ago gave up telling the world the truth of God. It is more interested in telling God the "truth" of the world. Society and the PCUSA, in their adoration of the good "choice," have decided that life is a throw-away commodity. It does not matter if we are talking about an infant in the womb, an elderly parent, or a physically or mentally incapacitated brother or sister. If you are no longer "useful" in the eyes of the world, you are dispensable. Sadly, even those who know this is wrong, do and say nothing for fear of being divisive. I was told recently that this church has never been an "issue-driven" church. Maybe that explains the meteoric drop in membership over the last three decades. While my prayers are with Terri and her family, I know that regardless of today's outcome, God will keep them in his loving arms. What he will do with this church and this nation I do not know. Barbara Allen, elder First Presbyterian Church of San Mateo San Mateo, Calif. American Christians can learn from their African brethen March 21, 2005 I have now been a faithful reader of Layman Online for four years. I have reached the conclusion that it is futile trying to "renew" denominations that steadfastly resist renewal. But we must not throw in the towel. There is a means by which Christians can win (well, okay, the battle belongs to the Lord). My wife and I are missionaries in Africa, currently on furlough, and there we see the church growing by leaps and bounds. Nowhere on earth is the church growing faster than it is in Africa. How do they do it? The Christian mothers of Africa continue to have 8 or 10 children apiece, and they see to it that those children go to church. In the U.S., white folks have stopped having babies, so churches engage in cut-throat competition for bodies. African churches have no need to offer rock bands, comedy skits and interpretive dancers in order to entice people into coming to church; people come anyway. Perhaps American Christians can learn from their African brethen. Think about it – if Christians continued to have children while non-Christians continued to have abortions, eventually the Christians will win. This is precisely how Christianity became the official religion of the late Roman Empire, and it can happen again. If you can't have children, adopt one. My wife and I adopted an African infant, and he is the joy of our lives. Having a child may mean driving a Ford instead of a BMW, and it could mean telling time with a Timex instead of a Rolex, but God's program has always revolved around families, around training the next generation (which requires a next generation to train). How many "seeker-sensitive" churches do you find in the Book of Acts? Admittedly, this focus on the next generation is a long-term formula, not one for instant success. But when you're dealing with an eternal God and with eternal matters, surely the long-term is the best route. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Worshiping at the altar of self March 21, 2005 Don't you just love the self-made theologians who worship themselves at the altar of self. Art Montgomery Santa Barbara, Calif. PCUSA should adopt an unambiguous explication of what we believe March 21, 2005 I note with some dismay the contempt with which yet another official agency of the PCUSA regards conservative Christians. At least I will give credit: Davis Perkins is honest enough not to try to disguise his slight regard. That said, I believe, much to my horror, that Douglas Ottati's essay is correct. He has caught us – the inclusion of occasionally contradictory confessions in The Book of Confessions has, in fact, the meaning he asserted. Namely, they are therefore rendered invalid – at least insofar as to say that "people who commit themselves to a collection of confessional documents do not commit themselves to a 'clearly defined body of truth' or a 'system of doctrine.'" I say I believe this – meaning I believe this was the intent and the effect of that decision. I do not believe this was the understanding by which presbyteries and churches accepted this decision. It amounts to something of a bait and switch. Ottati fails to point out the logical result of that for elders and ministers who are required to "sincerely receive and adopt the essential tenets of the Reformed faith as expressed in the confessions of our church as authentic and reliable expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, and [to] be instructed and led by those confessions as you lead the people of God?" To require a person to promise this is monstrous – given that it is, by this logic, an impossibility. If the confessions are contradictory, (and, in fact they are,) if they give conflicting expositions of what Scripture leads us to believe and do, (and, in fact, they do,) then the thing promised is not possible. Therefore everyone ordained in the Presbyterian Church since 1967 is, and logically must be, a liar before they start. Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is time we as a church either adopt an unambiguous explication of what we believe or are honest enough to simply jettison the creeds entirely. If we accept the premise of Ottati's article, then it is time we become solely a political affiliation with a taste for the politically correct, and a shrill, moralizing voice to the world (of dubious usefulness), and abandon any pretense to being related in any way to Christianity, the Bible, right and wrong, or Jesus Christ. In fact, that we abandon the pretense of being about anything other than our own preservation. Will Spotts North East, Md. Perkins' comments 'divisive' and 'prejudiced' March 18, 2005 Open letter addressed to Davis Perkins. At the time of the reunion, though I was an ordained elder, I was new to the PCUSA. I was curious as to why the Southern church had elected to hold to one confession while the Northern church had a whole book filled with them. I subsequently came to the conclusion, after my ordination as minister of Word and Sacrament, that the Book of Confessions was of very limited teaching value because of its length and the diversity of statements therein. However, I have continued to do something which apparently is uncommon, I use a section of one of the confessions during each Sunday worship as an affirmation of faith. I was therefore quite pleased to receive and anxious to begin reading the Confessional Standards for a Confessing Church by Douglas Ottati. Regretfully, I address you now with regard to your publisher's note conveying your comment "right-wing organizations seek to use confessional statements as theological sledgehammers to bludgeon Presbyterians into rigid orthodoxy that divisively excludes certain persons from ecclesiastical leadership." Your position seemed so divisive and so prejudiced that I immediately lost interest in reading the booklet. My concern goes further. I question whether I would ever request publications from someone who clearly lacks the objectivity and balance I would seek in a publisher. Perhaps Mr. Ottati is able to write more objectively and without obvious and intense bias; but I am not inclined to read further. Pastor Les Winters A more explicit declaration of the essentiality of belief in Jesus Christ needed March 18, 2005 I suggest a more explicit declaration of the essentiality of belief in Jesus Christ. It is there, but not so clearly as to confront those "Christians" who deny that he is the only way. Richard F. Underwood, elder Urbana, Ill. 'C.E.' a politically correct concession to the liberal Christians and atheists March 18, 2005 I just read a letter to The Layman from a pastor who is typically supportive of orthodox Christianity, but who refers to his seminary work taking place in "2000 C.E." Now, I know that this stands for "2000 Common Era," a nonsensical, politically correct concession to the liberal Christians and atheists around us who can't stand the abbreviation "A.D.," which stands for anno domini or "in the year of our Lord." I thought, mistakenly I guess, that only liberal Christians and atheists actually used that abbreviation. My guess is that liberal seminary faculties try to burn this abbreviation into the mind of every one of their students. My question to everyone who uses "C.E." instead of "A.D." is this: Just what do they think happened those 2000 years ago that was so important that we now use that date to keep track of our calendar? We still track our calendar from the most important year in the history of the world – the year God showed up right here among us, intent on bringing us back to him. Amen. Reed Siebenthal PCUSA avoids the most powerful name in all heaven and earth, Jesus March 18, 2005 Recently, I attended a meeting of presbytery. We heard the motivation of an inquirer to become a candidate for ordination to Minister of Word and Sacrament. He talked boldly about his service to God and the church. He mentioned Reformed theology and tradition. He never mentioned that he has a personal abiding relationship with the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ. It does not matter what Presbyterian Church (USA) event one attends. There is little or no focus on or acknowledgement of Jesus Christ. We pontificate on Reformed tradition and Presbyterian witness and avoid like the plague the most powerful name in all heaven and earth, Jesus. This language keeps us safe with our critics and our culture, but it puts us at risk with the One who truly matters. We are people who believe and rely upon the whole Bible. The Bible provides a progressive revelation of God culminating in Jesus Christ. The New Testament begins by introducing Jesus Christ with all his ancestry. It continues with a detailed outline of his earthly ministry and teaching. It moves to his atoning sacrificial death, resurrection and ascension. The New Testament goes on to record the history of the advance of the church of Jesus Christ in the first century. It then moves on to theological teaching, pastoral care and finally culminates in the ultimate revelation of the risen Jesus Christ. Christianity is unlike any other religion or philosophy. Jesus, by his own admission, brings a great divide in families and friendships. (Matthew 10.21-22) We are to expect that our identity with the name Jesus Christ will cause people to strike out against us. (Matthew 10.17) Jesus himself told us as much. (Matthew 10.35) We must note it, embrace it and even celebrate it. Our close identity with Jesus Christ is essential and unique. This identity defines who we are. We must be centered in Jesus Christ in our fellowship with one another, our governance and our witness. Tolerance is our new cultural byword. Culture demands that all people be tolerant and accepting of everyone and everything. It demands that such tolerance be extended to any and every people and human philosophy except Christianity. Christians are now the exception to the rule. Christian faith and a Christian worldview are no longer acceptable or to be tolerated. To emphasize the point, legal protection for Christians is eroding quickly. However the clearest and longest standing principles of this nation are Biblical and Christian. Typically, Christians respond with moaning and wringing of hands and all too quickly any witness to Jesus and those who would follow him are downplayed. Every effort is made to revise our "offensive" language. Shame is on us, on the church, on the clergy and on church leadership. We quake with fear because of public consternation. We eliminate the "J" word from our vocabulary in public and even in our church functions. Fear is the correct response, but what do we fear? We fear people that can criticize us, sue us and even kill our bodies. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10.28) Paul tells us in Romans 10.9-13 that if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile – the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. It is high time for true followers of Jesus Christ to stand up and be counted. I only care about what one person thinks of me and my language. His name is always on my lips and in my heart, Jesus! Won't you make the name, Jesus, the center of your vocabulary and thoughts too? Stephen P. "Gutty" Gutridge, pastor The Presbyterian Church of Kennett Square Kennett Square, Pa. Deafening silence from PCUSA concerning Terry Schiavo's right to life March 17, 2005 Why is the silence from the General Assembly and the Florida presbyteries so deafening concerning Terry Schiavo and her right to life? The pope has condemned her husband's attempt to kill her and he supports her parents' defense of her right to life. Have we become so bitter and immune to euthanisia through GA's blatant support of partial-birth abortion that we now support post-birth abortion? I am ashamed of my denomination's lack of Christian love and charity. Brad Robbins, PCUSA elder Peace River Presbytery PCUSA disingenuous by embracing Book of Order on property, but not G-6.0106 March 17, 2005 I have had some interesting thoughts and questions since reading the press release/OGA News about the judge's ruling for the Presbytery of Hanmi in regard to a break off attempt of the Serone Church in Artesia, Calif. (Also see The Layman Online story about the press release.) The OGA/PCUSA seems happy to point out that the Presbytery of Hanmi was upheld by the court on the property question. Again, I do not wish to see the courts involved with the church's business, but I am struck that maybe some of our churches, presbyteries, synods and/or PCUSA, itself, needs to be held responsible in some meaningful manner for their action/lack of action with the ordaining of non-celibate homosexuals and/or the performing of homosexual marriages. According to OGA/PCUSA, the court has upheld the Presbytery of Hanmi's position of holding title of the church and the OGA/PCUSA seems to trumpet that ruling. As reported, Judge Yaffe ruled that as a matter of law no local church may unilaterally take such action to renounce the trust relationship in favor of the Presbyterian Church (USA). If no local church may unilaterally take such action to renounce the trust relationship, then how can they unilaterally take such action in ordaining non-celibate homosexuals and/or performing homosexual marriages? While this could be considered apples and oranges, both are part of the same Book of Order. Are some of our churches, presbyteries, synods and/or the PCUSA being disingenuous for embracing our Book of Order in the case of church property but not in the case of G-6.0106? Would it not be fair and wise to point out this seeming hypocrisy by hold it up to the light of day? P. J. Sizemore Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church Richmond, Va. PCUSA engaged in economic warfare against the Jewish state March 17, 2005 I am a Jew who has been closely tracking Presbyterian affairs ever since the General Assembly voted to engage in (limited, selective) economic warfare against the Jewish State. The regular flow of your readers' letters reassure me that, to a great extent, it is primarily the "professional" Christians whose minds are so besotted with animus towards the Jews that they are unable to see how clouded their vision of the Mideast is. Yaakov Cohn Framingham, Mass. No 'smear' since Achtemeier hasn't 'denied the substance of the allegations' March 17, 2005 With all due respect, Rev. Steve Elderbrock (Mar. 7 letter) has not read carefully when he claims that I have missed the real issue in the Achtemeier-Layman controversy. According to Rev. Elderbrock, the real issue remains the journalistic "smear" done to Mark Achtemeier by The Layman through "false and misleading comments" and through failure to extend "the journalistic courtesy of an interview with [Mark] before publication." My main point, which Rev. Elderbrock has apparently not grasped, is that there can be no "smear" if the two main allegations are accurate; namely, that he was "unwilling" to say that homosexuality is a sin and had "come to the conclusion" that the church should support committed homosexual unions. Since, as of today, Mark Achtemeier has not denied the substance of the allegations, and since two past statements by Mark suggest their plausibility, where then is the "smear?" Please explain. Moreover, when Rev. Elderbrock complains that Mark was not given an adequate chance to respond to The Layman's story before publication – six phone calls in seven days with an acknowledgement on his spouse's part that he had received the messages – he ignores the fact that Mark himself has never registered such a complaint. Mark didn't return The Layman's calls because he did not want to feed into what he pejoratively perceives as The Layman's self-appointed role as Grand Inquisitor of the PCUSA. Period. And since he still hasn't answered the two key allegations there is no reason to believe that he would have responded to a phone call. Again I ask: where is the "smear?" Please explain. Although Rev. Elderbrock doesn't acknowledge it to himself, it is clear from his last paragraph that what he really means by "smear" is any negative reaction that might arise in the renewal movement from information that one of their influential representatives on the task force may now support the church's acceptance of committed homosexual unions. Sorry, Rev. Elderbrock. Such a reaction is firmly grounded in the witness of Scripture and Jesus and is in no way contradicted by current socio-scientific evidence. I wonder if Rev. Elderbrock would consider it a "smear" if people from the Covenant Network or "More Light" expressed concern over one of their leaders on the task force suggesting the church should withhold endorsement of homosexual unions. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Pittsburgh Theological Seminary

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