 |
|||
| November
2005 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|||
| Property
trust clause not essential to connectionalism November 30, 2005 Is the property trust clause in the Book of Order "essential" to Presbyterian connectionalism? A committee of the Presbytery of Donegal thinks so. I respectfully beg to differ. And history is on my side. A committee of the Presbytery of Donegal has reported its opposition to an overture proposed by the Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church. The proposed overture, if adopted, would remove the property trust clause in Chapter 8 of the Book of Order. The presbytery is expected to debate and vote on the proposed overture after the first of the year. You don't have to take a position on the proposed overture, though, to realize that the arguments offered in opposition by the presbytery committee ignore history and basic rules of grammatical interpretation. They also constitute a sad commentary on the low state to which our beloved denomination has fallen. The presbytery committee asserts that the denominational property trust clause is "essential to Presbyterian connectionalism," and cites as Biblical authority Acts.2:44, "All the believers were together and had everything in common, and sold their possessions and goods and divided them among all, as anyone had need." Missing from its analysis, however, is that this sharing in Acts of worldy goods was voluntary. It was by consent, a voluntary by-product of spiritual unity, not unilaterally asserted and enforced by coercive legal strictures. Also apparently missing from the committee's analysis was a knowledge of Presbyterian church property history. Despite assertions to the contrary by those who support the current property trust clause, there has never been any historical consensus on the question of whether denominational control over local church property is essential to Presbyterian connectionalism. As the 1983 Report of the Ad Interim Committee on the Study of the (PCUS) Book of Church Order noted "... congregational beginnings were diverse, ranging from worship in homes and church buildings owned by individuals to services and structures provided by colonial governments. With the arrival of American independence, Presbyterian church leaders discovered differences among themselves in many matters, including control of property ... Gradually Presbyterian patterns of ownership evolved, diverse and varied in various states. Confessionally, however, Presbyterians recognized the Church of Christ as 'one body.'" This confession, of course, referred to a house not built of bricks and mortar. Organic union and organizational structure are not the same thing. It may surprise readers to learn, for example, that until 1925 the PCUS Book of Church Order made no reference at all to property. It was not until the early 1980s that the northern denomination (the UPCUSA) and the southern denomination (the PCUS) first added express trust language to their constitutions. In fact, an attempt to add express trust language to the northern denomination's constitution was rejected by the member churches in 1929. A review of 19th and 20th century denominational archives discloses intermittent support for both sides of the trust issue, with no national or uniform resolution. In effect, a truce seems to have been tacitly declared on this potentially volatile issue and the matter was left to the civil laws of the several states. Prior to the early 1980s, it was periodically asserted by some that the denominational constitutions nevertheless contained implied trusts, giving the national denominations effective control over local church property. Yet on both occasions when this thesis was tested in court state Supreme Courts in both the north and the south rejected it. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that no trust, express or implied, existed in the UPCUSA or its predecessors prior to May 23, 1981, in Beaver-Butler v. Middlesex Presbyterian Church, 507 Pa.255, 489 A2nd 1317 (1985). The Georgia Supreme Court, in examining the PCUS constitution as it existed prior to 1982, reached the same result. After reviewing not only the local property deeds involved and the Georgia statutes of the time but also the text of the PCUS Book of Church Order, the Georgia Supreme Court found, "nothing that would give rise to a trust in any of these documents. …" Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 at 600, quoting the famous Hull case on remand, Presbyterian Church v. Eastern Heights Church, 225, Ga. 259, 167 SE 2nd 658 (1969) (Presbyterian Church II). If a binding trust asserted by the national church in favor of itself over local church property that the national church did not buy or build is somehow "essential to Presbyterian connectionalism," isn't it curious that nobody has ever cited any statement by John Knox or John Calvin, or language in the Book of Confessions, which demonstrates this? And isn't it curious that something now said to be "essential" to what it means to be Presbyterian was not expressly added to any Presbyterian constitution for more than 200 years of Presbyterian church history in America? The presbytery committee's defense of the property clause was also a telling statement on just how far we have all fallen. "It is difficult to see," the committee reported, "how discipline could be exercised without Chapter 8 at the current time." There you have it: A candid admission from those who are relying on the trust clause that the only thing that is holding us together is a stick. I hope that is not the case, but many fear that it is. And I thought the thing that is supposed to constrain us is the love of God. Perhaps if the stick was removed love would grow. I take no position on the merits of the overture being proposed by the Forks of the Brandywine Presbyterian Church. It is reasonable to suppose that one can be opposed to the proposed overture and still be deeply troubled about the direction of the denomination, and one can be in favor of the proposed overture without an intent to leave the denomination. For my part, I'm just working and praying for the renewal of the PCUSA. But neither am I going to accept uncritically whatever talking points might emanate from Witherspoon Street. I don't think denominational loyalty requires this. I do think that discussion on the pros and cons of this particular proposal or the property trust clause in general should proceed with due regard for the facts of history and elementary principles of interpretation. Proceeding in an informed fashion would evince genuine loyalty – in keeping with the best of our Presbyterian heritage. Lloyd J. Lunceford, elder First Presbyterian Church of Baton Rouge Activist and PUP task force shunned Biblical passages about homosexuality November 30, 2005 In your report "Advocate for homosexual behavior tells students not to use Scripture" it is not surprising to read: "… the speaker, the Rev. Paul G. Rodkey, shunned Biblical passages about homosexuality because, he said, those passages have already been discussed at length in the debate within the Presbyterian Church (USA)." Rodkey did nothing different than what the 20 PUP task force members did. Namely, PUP also shunned Biblical passages about homosexuality. Larry Rued First Presbyterian Church Bradenton, Fla. PCUSA might do well to stay with constitutional documents a little longer November 30, 2005 I have read a letter from Elder Jim Nedelka posted on your web site Nov. 23, 2005. While it is always encouraging to see that people are reading and quoting from the Book of Confessions, it has occurred to me that perhaps there are other passages more pertinent to the questions at hand: Heidelberg Catechism Q. 108. What does the seventh commandment teach us? A. That all unchastity is condemned by God, and that we should therefore detest it from the heart, and live chaste and disciplined lives, whether in holy wedlock or in single life. Q. 109. Does God forbid nothing more than adultery and such gross sins in this commandment? A. Since both our body and soul are a temple of the Holy Spirit, it is his will that we keep both pure and holy. Therefore he forbids all unchaste actions, gestures, words, thoughts, desires and whatever may excite another person to them. The Larger Catechism Q. 138. What are the duties required in the Seventh Commandment? A. The duties required in the Seventh Commandment are: chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior, and the reservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel, marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning of all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto. Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the Seventh Commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the Seventh Commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are: adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel, prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stageplays, and all other provocations to, or acts of, uncleanness either in ourselves or others. We might do well to stay with these constitutional documents a little longer before slipping over into the study catechisms which have no official standing. Dr. James C. Goodloe IV, Pastor Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church Richmond, Va. Fear neither schism nor man's frenzy. Desire God and his truths November 30, 2005 Praise God for Thanksgiving! And his marvelous timing … after 58 years and 10-plus months, I now know the difference between the Pilgrims (Plymouth Rock) and the Puritans (Salem). The Pilgrims came to America first, by the way. And I have a better understanding of that which has been called "schism." I shall simply quote from three sources on this subject. The first was Cotton Mather's biography of William Bradford (The Life of William Bradford, Esq., Governor of Plymouth Colony), who, following God's leading, made the Plymouth Colony work. I selected the following passages and all emphasis has been added by me. Section 1 "… John Leaf, an apprentice, who suffered for the doctrine of the Reformation at the same time and stake with the famous John Bradford. "But when the reign of Queen Elizabeth would not admit the Reformation of worship to proceed unto those degrees, which were proposed and pursued by no small number of the faithful in those days, Yorkshire was not the least of the shires in England that afforded suffering witnesses thereunto. The Churches there gathered were quickly molested with such a raging persecution, that if the spirit of separation in them did carry them unto a further extreme than it should have done, one blamable cause thereof will be found in the extremity of that persecution." Section 2 "Among those devout people was our William Bradford, who was born Anno 1588, in an obscure village called Ansterfield, where the people were as unacquainted with the Bible, as the Jews do seem to have been a part of it in the days of Josiah … "Nor could the wrath of his uncles, nor the scoff of his neighbors, now turned upon him, as one of the Puritans, divert him from his pious inclinations." Section 3 "At last, beholding how fearfully the evangelical and apostolical church-form into which the churches of the primitive times were cast by the good spirit of God, had been deformed by the apostasy of the succeeding times; and what little progress the Reformation had yet made in many parts of Christendom towards its recovery, he set himself by reading, by discourse, by prayer, to learn whether it was not his duty to withdraw from the communion of the parish-assemblies and engage with some society of the faithful, that should keep close unto the written word of God, as the rule of their worship. "And after many distresses of mind concerning it, he took up a very deliberate and understanding resolution, of doing so; which resolution he cheerfully prosecuted, although the provoked rage of his friends tried all the ways imaginable to reclaim him from it, unto all whom his answer was: "Were I like to endanger my life, … your counsels to me were very seasonable; but you know that I have been diligent and provident in my calling, … [and] also to enjoy it in your company; to part from which will be as great a cross as can befall me. Nevertheless, to keep a good conscience, and walk in such a way as God as prescribed in his Word, is a thing which I must prefer before you all, and above life itself. "… I am not only willing to part with everything that is dear to me in this world for this cause, but I am also thankful that God has given me an heart to do, and will accept me so to suffer for him." "Some lamented him, some derided him, all dissuaded him: nevertheless, the more they did it, the more fixed he was in his purpose to seek the ordinances of the gospel, …" In summary, William Bradford chose to become a separatist, that is, a Pilgrim, instead of a renewer (a Puritan) in the Church of England because of his preference above all to "walk in such a way as God as prescribed in his Word." The second source is from "History of Non-conformity" by Richard [?] Price (first name not recorded in source document; Christian History of the Constitution; compiled by Hall, Verna M., The American Christian Constitution Press, San Francisco (1961)) "The reasonings of the Independents were broad and more comprehensive than those of their predecessors … "Abandoning the partial and unsatisfactory ground which had been taken by the Puritans, they entrenched themselves behind the nature of man and the character of Christianity and would enter into no compromise which endangered the highest and best interests of the human family … to form and propagate their opinions, they honestly contended." So, in the early 1600s as in the latter 1900s and so far in the 2000s, there have been those who chose to attempt to renew the Church as well as those who separated from it to pursue "the highest and best interest of the human family." My wife and I have become separatists from the PCUSA. We have friends who have, thus far, chosen to be renewalists. While the PCUSA may renew, try as they might, the Puritans lost England, which, it can be successfully argued, has lost most if not nearly all of its Christian values. Fear not schism. Fear the Lord. Psalm 33:8; "Let all the earth fear the LORD; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him!" (ESV) Perhaps history tells us this is far better. And lastly, from The Beginners of a Nation; Edward Eggleston; 1896: "One salient fact in history of the Massachusetts Bay colony is the dominant influence of the example of Plymouth. The Puritans of the Massachusetts colony were not Separatists. No one had been more severe in controversy with the Separatists than some of the Puritans who remained in the Church of England. They were eagerly desirous not to be confounded with these schismatics … "There must have been a certain exhilarant reaction in the minds of the Puritans when at last they were clear of the … authority that had put so many constraints upon them. … The new religious freedom was delightful to intoxication. … Those who all their lives long had made outward and inward compromises between their ultimate convictions and their obligations to antagonistic authority found themselves at length utterly free. … Every man now indulged in the unwonted privilege of thinking his bottom thought. … To such enthusiasts the long-deferred opportunity to actualize ultimate ideals in an ecclesiastical vacuum would be accepted with joy. … There was no longer any necessity for professing loyalty to the church nor any further temptation to think ill of those at Plymouth, who, like themselves had suffered much to avoid what both Separatist and Puritans deemed unchristian practices. …" So, as one verse after the well-known Ecclesiastes 1:9, the Preacher confirms: "Is there anything of which one might say, 'See this, it is new?' Already it has existed for ages which were before us." (NASB) Yes, even the PCUSA's decades-long struggle has so existed. Fear neither schism nor man's frenzy. Desire God and his truths … always! Greg Leaman Oostburg, Wisc. Writer supports Layman except when it attempts to use sarcastic humor to attack November 30, 2005 I was disappointed in your article about our Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and his attempted to convince MacDonalds to pay more for their tomatoes. While I am not a support of the extreme activist role of the denomination, I do believe that we have a calling to work for social justice and I hope that Kirkpatrick is effective in raising the wages for workers. You did not provide any supportive evidence that Kirkpatrick has overstepped his authority with or has engaged in any publicly embarrassing behavior that would discredit our witness to the MacDonald corporation. The tone of the article was demeaning. This is the style of journalism that has given The Layman a bad reputation among moderates in the denomination. Theologically, I am very support of The Layman except when you attempt to use sarcastic humor to attack. Then I use the pages of The Layman to start a fire in family room fireplace. Pastor John H. Pavelko Crossroads Presbyterian Church Walled Lake, Mich. PUP report: Why no voice to cry Sola Sripturas? November 30, 2005
The PUP committee was chosen to find a means keep the PCUSA together. That their report was signed unanimously does not mean that all or even any of the signers agreed with all the proposals, rather what they all agreed upon was that this was the best they could come up with. We might imagine the situation as if they were asked to find a rope to tie two distant posts together. The rope was to be the line that keeps the poles together and give everyone in between a place to hold on. Failing to find such a rope they did they best they could. They tied a bit of rope to the first post and another bit to the second, and said: "hold on to the piece you prefer". The fact that this solution was signed unanimously is a public declaration that everyone in the PUP committee agreed there is no middle line to unite the poles. This I believe this is of no small importance for now both sides have accepted there is no way to join the divide. Rev. Don Wehmeyer Mérida, México Wehmeyer and his wife, Dr. Martha Wehmeyer, a physician, are Presbyterian Church (USA) mission co-workers in Mérida. Get our own house in order before we start throwing rotten tomatoes at others November 30, 2005 Let me see if I have this correct. Our stated clerk is going after McDonald's? Our church believes that the wax-tasting tomatoes in McDonalds is sufficient injustice? Admittedly something ought to be done about their tastelessness. But now I don't know. I am now considering buying more Big Macs. First of all, more tomatoes will be used and that means McDonalds will have to buy more tomatoes, and that means that the growers will have to provide more tomatoes and, who knows, supply and demand may cause an increase in the pickers' wage. I doubt seriously that it will cause either a deterioration or an improvement in the taste of the green tomatoes. But I can always add more ketchup (whoops, we might have to check that tomato source, too – watch out Theresa Heinz!) and salt (I wonder how the labor conditions are at the salt mines?) to improve the taste of my Big Mac. But now it's worth a try. The forty year old template of the 1960s protest strategy is too middle-aged; it has grown narrow of mind, broad at the waist (or is it waste?), bald on the head. Perhaps there is a better way to reach the tomato pickers. Or maybe we ought to allow the tomato pickers to reach us in our high, mighty and loftier religious pomposity! I am willing to wager that they know more about living by faith than most prosperous Presbyterians (including myself). Who do you believe has a better chance of getting into heaven? Let's get our own house in order before we start throwing rotten tomatoes at others. Daniel E. Hale Petersburg, Va. 109th and 119th GA statements refer to active practice, not orientation November 30, 2005 As a weary pastor in the clergy-heavy Presbytery of Southern New England (we've only 34 churches, only a few of which have associate pastors, and 154 clergy members in psne) who voted with the minority on this, just one little thing I thought worth mentioning -- if memory serves, the 109th and 119th GA's interpretive statements refer to the active practice, not the "orientation," of homosexuality. It would seem, then, that our overture's language sort of renders our overture useless. If it read "...ordained service of church members actively engaged in homosexual activity ...," it might be a different matter. (excerpt from the overture; emphasis mine) Interpretive statements concerning ordained service of homosexual church members by the 190th General Assembly (1978) of the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the 119th General Assembly (1979) of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, and all subsequent affirmations thereof, have no further force or effect. Stephen L. Clark Can we protect the faith/property of the local church against the larger church? November 29, 2005 It would seem that the property clause in the polity of the Presbyterian Church (USA) exists, at its best, to help protect the church, particularly in its local manifestation, against the vagaries of time and the potential caprice of any one session. For instance, as I tell the new church officers in our classes each year, the session could not meet one night and decide to sell the church building and divide the proceeds among themselves, because the church does not belong to them to sell. Thus the original intent of donors now long dead, to provide property and a building for the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ and the worship of God his Father, and to do so within a specifically Presbyterian context, is protected. I understand that. I appreciate that. However, other questions arise. Surely we know enough about church history and theology to realize that it is not only the local manifestation of the church which is afflicted by forgetfulness or subject to alien influences. We know that councils do err. Do we not now need some checks and balances in our polity? How can we protect the faith and property of the local church against the vagaries and caprice of the larger church? Dr. James C. Goodloe IV, Pastor Grace Covenant Presbyterian Church Richmond, Va. PCUSA's reformation must be done in accord with Scripture November 29, 2005 I marveled at Elder Jim Nedelka's November 23 letter to The Layman. Rarely have I seen such a prolix discussion of non-Biblical authority in a vain attempt to refute Scripture. Elder Nedelka's florid discussion of the First Catechism never once mentions the core issue: the clear language in the Old and New Testaments rejecting homosexuality. Catechisms and confessions are useful and important statements of faith. However, when Scripture is clear, as it is on this topic, Scripture controls. Elder Nedelka's "reformation" argument is not any more convincing than is his reliance on the First Catechism. Granted, as a Reformed church, we are "always reforming." But this reformation must be done in accord with Scripture. If we reject Scripture and reform according to contemporary political and social mores, we cease being a church and devolve into a political party. Finally, Elder Nedelka's caustic personal attack on John H. Adams was as stunning display of hypocrisy. While condemning Mr. Adams, accusing him of being a "bully" and accusing him of producing writings filled with "hate," Elder Nedelka displayed a healthy dose of hate and intolerance of his own. I am continually amazed that so many people who worship the contemporary deities of "tolerance," "diversity," and "acceptance" show little tolerance of opposing opinions. Jim Kaucher, elder Northminster Presbyterian Church Tucson, Ariz. Reformed ancestors did not believe that the truest church was also the biggest one November 29, 2005 Your chart of declining memberships in presbyteries making overtures to the GA is quite interesting. Evidently your organization, which has chosen purity above charity as the greater ecclesiastical virtue, nevertheless equates success with numbers. If purity is the highest virtue, then logic dictates that it would not matter how large or small a congregation is. Certainly our Reformed ancestors, who formed generally tiny minorities during the sixteenth-century Reformation, did not believe that the truest church was also the biggest one. Christine Kooi University Presbyterian Church Baton Rouge, Louisiana We have the opportunity to offer some flexibility in fellowship November 29, 2005 If the eLink overture were in place, Riverside Presbyterian Church would be able to leave their presbytery where they may feel alienated and move to an evangelical presbytery and synod where Biblical standards for ordination are upheld. Why should we lose one more church, when we have the opportunity to offer some flexibility in fellowship. This article underlines why eLink is important for the health of our denomination. Greg Wiest Glade Run United Presbyterian Church Suggested overture would be counter-productive November 29, 2005 As someone who has some experience litigating the validity of the property clause – Chapter VIII of the Book of Order – in the secular courts, I wish to take this opportunity to respond to the suggestion for an overture made on your Web site by Jim Berkeley to those of us dissatisfied with the status quo. Mr. Berkeley's suggestions are counter-productive because they create false hope that the addition of his proposed language would somehow be of help to a church seeking to leave with its property. Nothing could be further from the truth. In every single case known to me – and certainly in all of the current California cases – the presbytery and the PCUSA have ardently maintained that it is the PCUSA not the churches trying to leave that is working "for God's wider purposes." Indeed, such contentions are frequently found in declarations filed in the courts by the PCUSA. These haven't helped the PCUSA because no secular court is going to try to figure out what are "God's wider purposes," or anything similar. Moreover, the proposal to add in two places the requirement for "consideration to be given" is similarly meaningless. The PCUSA and the presbytery claim in every case that they have given such consideration. The phrase is meaningless and unenforceable in the first instance. More fundamentally, the addition of such vague and ambiguous language isn't going to change the hearts of those who are called upon in presbytery to vote whether to allow a congregation to leave with its property. Here is a proposed overture that is guaranteed to work, and short of which no similar guarantee can be made: On Amending the Book of Order to Preserve the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church: The Presbytery of _____________ overtures the 217th General Assembly (2006) of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to direct the Stated Clerk to send the following proposed amendment to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes: 1. Shall Chapter VIII of the Book of Order be deleted in its entirety? Paul Rolf Jensen, general counsel Westminster Fellowship, Inc. Does Tomeh's work conform to the definition of a Christian missionary? November 29, 2005 I read in your report of the latest Presbyterian visit with Hezbollah that Nuhad Tomeh, listed in PCUSA's Mission's Connections Web site, once again accompanied the group. By my count that makes four occasions that Nuhad Tomeh made the arrangements for a Presbyterian delegation to meet Hezbollah terrorists. It does not appear that Nuhad Tomeh's work conforms to the generally accepted definition of a Christian missionary: a missionary is a person who, in response to God's call and gifting, leaves his/her comfort zone and crosses cultural, geographic or other barriers to proclaim the Gospel and live out a Christian witness in obedience to the Great Commission." Larry Rued First Presbyterian Church Bradenton, Fla. Could membership losses be caused by those who cannot live with G-6.0106b? November 29, 2005 Your article on the 14 presbyteries seeking repeal of G-6.0106b places emphasis on the membership losses of those presbyteries since 1997. I assume you attribute the losses to the presbyteries' "progressive" viewpoint. Have you ever considered that there may be other interpretations of those presbyteries' losses? Perhaps people in their areas are leaving Presbyterian churches in greater numbers because they cannot live with G-6.0106b? Sue Williams San Jose, Calif. Taking phrases out of context does not make for sound theology November 29, 2005 Could there be anything sadder than Jim Nedelka's letter [posted November 23, 2005]? By what standard or proof other than his subjective feelings can he justify saying that John H. Adams article is one that hates, abuses, or injures? It is a common ploy in lieu of argument to accuse an opponent of malign motives and prejudices. If one presupposes that pointing out that churches or presbyteries that violate the clear written word of the Book of Order is hateful or abusive, then what is it when one takes selective choices from various catechisms or confessional statements and uses them to accuse others of being hateful? I subjectively can claim that Nedelka has just been hateful, abusive and injurious. Taking phrases out of context does not make for sound theology. As for asserting that only academic qualifications should determine whether someone is called to leadership as either a minister of Word and Sacrament, elder or deacon – why be so discriminatory to the less intellectually gifted? May not they also be "called by God?" If a person's call is a personal matter or subjectively decided by the individual, then Presbyterian polity has been wrong all along and congregationalism should prevail, with the local congregation's act of ordination being a practical matter of employment and not a judgment of a person's "call." Let those who feel "called," even if it is to preach that racism, sexism and any other "ism" is really OK with God and is in fact God's will for a community. Let the sectarian wars of spiritual and actual survival of the fittest begin! Doubtless this seems cruel and hateful speech to those predisposed to hear it as such. I do not mean it as such, though my say-so doubtless means little to opponents. I could write a letter as long as Mr. Nedelka's and offer Biblical and theological arguments that quote Scripture and the confessions as well, but I fear such arguments would remain opaque to those who are committed to their positions such as Mr. Nedelka. Jesus' love for all humanity has never been doubted, by John H. Adams or any other Christian. The question is about the authority of Scripture which declares some acts to be sinful and calls upon all who receive the grace of God to confess sins and seek to live a holy life with the sanctifying grace of the Holy Spirit and the means of grace which God has provided through the Church for two thousand years. Jesus himself called upon sinners to repent. You can argue that revelation is not complete and that Scripture is in error or that the canon is not closed – but you should use arguments and not assertions or feelings. The Church has made, and continues to make, allowances for grace in terms of simple membership to the Church. Arguments have been made, in some cases convincingly, that congregation level church discipline of active members should be greater. In the Reformed tradition, however, the responsibility and duty to lead is not merely a subjective call experienced by the individual, but is a call which is validated by local sessions and presbyteries with the cooperation of seminary training, psychological testing and various forms of examinations. The Reformed tradition has always held, as taught by Scripture, that leaders in the church be held to higher standards of behavior and ability. Mr. Nedelka and others may believe that such standards are now passe or were always wrong. The usual argument is to point to women's ordination and the change that some denominations have made to allow women's ordination. Scripture does not specifically forbid women's ordination, and it hints at women having been in leadership positions in the early church. That some periods of church history, including some parts of the early church, interpreted Scripture so as to forbid women's ordination or decided that their church's practice should exclude women as leaders does not make Scripture in error. The church is not infallible even if the church holds that Scripture is. Scripture is straight-forward in calling sexual immorality, including homosexual acts, sin. But enough. If Jim Nedelka is right about John H. Adams, then liberty is meaningless, for all Christians should be nothing but silent. For even the Gospel is offensive and therefore hateful, abusive and injurious to some. And in the silence of pluralism, the sound heard will be Jesus weeping. Rev. Scott R. Mackey Highland Presbyterian Church Tyler, Texas Pastor was instrumental in encouraging congregation November 29, 2005 Just a quick clarification of fact – Pastor Springer submitted his resignation weeks before the congregational vote to leave the presbytery and was instrumental in encouraging the congregation in the move. Your article makes it sound like he was upset that the congregation voted to leave PCUSA and quit because of the vote. Not true. His resignation effective date (May 31) came after the vote, but not the decision to leave. Jane Borron, secretary Riverside Presbyterian Church Sartell, Minn. Eliminate denominational control of property November 29, 2005 There is currently a great deal of fear within some congregations in the PCUSA regarding their presbyteries and their properties. This fear is because of the theological differences within the PCUSA, and that is the reason to strike down and eliminate the PCUSA's control of property. The day will come when Confessing Churches, against their wishes will be thrown out of their churches due to the liberalism of presbyteries, synods and the General Assembly. With Louisville controlled by those against the Holy Bible, it will be a matter of time. The best course of action is to eliminate denominational control of property. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Scripture has something to say about the character and actions of all Christians November 29, 2005 According to Jim Nedelka's letter [posted November 23, 2005], to deny anyone the opportunity to respond to what he/she believes to be God's call is wrong. Or to quote Nedelka, "What human has the right to challenge another person who hears God's call to service? Shouldn't the activities in the classrooms of our seminaries, not the activities in the dorm rooms, be the true qualifying criteria for all who hear God's call?" Of course the logical and common-sensical inconsistency of Nedelka's position is obvious to anyone with any degree of objectivity or rational thought. We human beings challenge other human beings who claim to hear God's call to service all the time. We even commission a group to do so on our behalf: the Committee on Preparation for Ministry. I have served on a CPM, and I've noticed that such committees have challenged and denied numerous individuals' alleged call to ministry because of their theological views, their psychological makeup, their educational background, and many other reasons too numerous and varied to name here. So let's not pretend, as Nedelka does, to believe that anyone who claims to have a call to ministry actually has a call. His statement is ludicrous, no matter how many times he selectively proof-texts the catechisms and confessions to make them say what they simply do not say. My hunch is Nedelka is not as tolerant or as open as he thinks he is. Would a sex offender, claiming a call from God, be accepted into ministry? A person with a substance abuse problem? A person with racist or misogynist beliefs? A person in the midst of a heterosexual affair? Undoubtedly not. Why? Because Scripture has something to say about the character and actions of all Christians, especially those who aspire to leadership roles. Scripture is just as plain regarding unrepentant homosexual practice as it is about any of the other sinful practices mentioned above. Nedelka's openness is a sham, a fraud motivated by his desire to justify the unjustifiable. In fact, it is a reasonable inference to think that if I were a candidate for the ministry in his presbytery and he were on the CPM, he would not consider my call to ministry valid. So much for inclusivity and tolerance. I'm not quite sure what faith Nedelka is advocating, but it is not the faith that was "once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3, NIV). To claim it is Reformed Christianity is self-deception on a massive level. It is heresy, pure and simple. The Rev. Dr. Clay J. Brown Associate Pastor for Christian Formation and Discipleship Grace Presbyterian Church Houston, Texas Writer quotes from the catechisms, while blindly not seeing what they say November 29, 2005 Mr. Nedelka, [letter to editor, posted November 23, 2005] While I agree with you that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was for all of mankind, both those who know him and those who do not – he makes no exceptions in this – all he asks is that we freely accept this gift. Forsaking our former lives, and taking up our own crosses to follow him. It is interesting that you quote so many of the questions from the Catechisms and so blindly do not see what they say. some examples: Question 83. How can you forgive those who have really hurt you? I cannot love my enemies, I cannot pray for those who persecute me, I cannot even be ready to forgive those who have really hurt me, without the grace that comes from above. I cannot be conformed to the image of God's Son, apart from the power of God's Word and Spirit. Yet I am promised that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. Here is one point where it clearly states that we must strive to conform to the image of Jesus and that we cannot get there but through God's grace and power. To make the presumption that I do not want to give something up and call my self a Christian, when I know that God calls me to do so is hypocritical. Question 49. Will all human beings be saved? No one will be lost who can be saved. The limits to salvation, whatever they may be, are known only to God. Three truths above all are certain. God is a holy God who is not to be trifled with. No one will be saved except by grace alone. And no judge could possibly be more gracious than our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Here we see that God is a Holy God and not to be messed with. With this in mind how can we as humans presume to question what God has plainly said. This is the one question I have never been able to get a straight answer on: In the Old Testament God clearly calls homosexuality an abomination. My question is what has changed to alter this? Has God made some further revelation? Or have we as humans made the decision that we know what God really meant, and have decided that we know what is best for us. This is very dangerous ground to be on. Also, in this question we see that Jesus is a compassionate judge, but a judge nonetheless. He will come to judge and if he judges there must be a set of criteria for him to judge against. Again, what makes us as humans think we can change these rules to suit our own desires and wants? You also talked about "people of faith freely exercising their faith at an ordination." When we ordain someone, we call that person to a place of responsibility and authority within the church. We also hold that person to a higher standard. Paul clearly outlines what an elder in the church should be. I know you probably do not "think" that homosexuality is a sin, but those of us who hold to God's Word view it as such. In this we do not see how someone who is an "unrepentant" (another thing I never understood, why does everyone call them unrepentant homosexuals, does not the very word unrepentant mean that, I know what I am doing is wrong/sin but I refuse to change) homosexual can be ordained according to the standards we find in the Bible – not our own touchy feely, let us all get along standards, but those based on what God has given us. While Jesus' sacrifice covers all, to be a follower comes at a price. The price of self-denial, self-sacrifice and sometimes even our lives. To compromise on any one of these, is a denial of the life changing power of the Grace of God. Marc Karasek Most of the 'mainline' denominations have been hijacked by non-Christians November 29, 2005 The article concerning the anti-Israel and anti-Bush meeting with Hezbollah should not evoke surprise for anyone. This is typical of the myriad of reasons that caused me and my family to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) several years ago. It appears to me that most, if not all, of the "mainline" denominations have been hijacked, at least at their leadership levels, by non-Christians, to their shame. We continue to pray, however. Phil Whittenberg Is PCUSA merely an association of 'fellow travelers' in bed with murderers? November 29, 2005 We already had a fanatical Islamist wing of the Muslim religion, and now we have your church in bed with terrorists, too, and you assure the terrorists that you are on their side and didn't vote for Bush! Is the Presbyterian Church merely an association of "fellow travelers" whose hatred for Jews leads them to get into bed with cold-blooded murderers of innocents? You should cease to pretend that you are a church. G.B. Hall Marietta, Ga. Read Genesis 12 to Presbyterians – it doesn't seem to be in their Bible November 29, 2005 Re: Another Presbyterian group meets with Hezbollah leader Someone needs to read Genesis 12 to the Presbyterians. Apparently, they don't read the Bible, or they left that chapter out of theirs. Does the acronym "PCUSA" stand for Politically Correct Utterly Stupid Anti-Americans? Leftists stink up anything they touch, even a once-great part of the Body of Christ. God Bless the USA and Israel! John J. Adams Port Orange, Fla. Research shows statements made by all PCUSA delegations meeting with Hezbollah November 29, 2005 Re: Another Presbyterian group meets with Hezbollah leader "Another Presbyterian delegation from San Francisco Theological Center also met in Lebanon with Hezbollah leaders. But the Arabic press reported no political statements similar to the remarks of Stone and Worley." I'm not sure the second sentence is accurate. This is what I found a while back while researching the PCUSA's decision to divest. Stone's visit with Hezbollah in October 2004 was not the first time members and staffers from the denomination met with Hezbollah. In June 2004, one month before the denomination approved Overture 12-01, a group of students from the San Francisco Theological Seminary - a PCUSA school - met with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The head of the delegation, SFTS Chaplain Charles Marks, was quoted as saying the terror group was a political party and an association helping the poor and needy. (Webhe, Samer, "American Students tour Khiam, Meet With Hizbullah," Lebanon Star, June 2, 2004. This article is available here.) "I am certain that my positive image of Hizbullah is different from that pictured in the West," he reportedly said. "I am happy to meet with Hizbullah officials and listen to what they have to say. The article continues: Student Alex Klaushofer said she came here to try to understand Hizbullah better and convey her impressions to people back home, providing them with a clearer image of the party. "When people in England hear about Hizbullah, they quickly remember the hostages taken by Hizbullah in the early eighties," she said. "I came … to prove them that their ideas are not true." A subsequent press release issued by the SFTS on January 25, 2005, almost eight months after the visit, profiled in the Presbyterian newspaper The Layman, (Adams, John H., "Seminary Group Led by Former, Current PCUSA Staff Members, Also Met with, Praised Hezbollah, The Layman Online, January 26, 2005.) offers some context to the comments as they appeared in the Lebanese press. Understanding the volatility of the region, safety of the SFTS traveling group of thirteen was of the utmost concern. The group found itself in a potentially difficult situation during a tour of a historic detention center in early June. While hearing a presentation on the background of the prison, it became clear to the group that they were unexpectedly in the presence of a Hizbullah representative and the media. The SFTS group sought to be courteous to all present in order to ensure their safety. These efforts were misrepresented in Middle Eastern news reports. (Anonymous, "San Francisco Theological Seminary Statement on June 2004 Student/Faculty Educational Trip to the Middle East," San Francisco Theological Seminary, January, 25, 2005.) The statement offers additional detail: On June 1, 2004, following an agenda set by the Middle East Council of Churches, the San Francisco Theological Seminary group knew only that it would be taking a bus trip to Southern Lebanon. While under way, they were told that they would stop for lunch and a tour at the former Israeli detention center in Khiam. Upon arriving, they were surprised to find news reporters and photographers, as well as a group of about 100 Muslim clerics having lunch. They were disconcerted to be addressed by, and accompanied with, a person a subsequent news article identified as a Hizbullah "commander." The SFTS group had no prior knowledge of this person, nor of the address. Comments quoted in a subsequent news article misrepresented the efforts by an SFTS student and a faculty member to be hospitable and gracious. Two other people quoted in the news article were not in any way affiliated with SFTS. This misrepresentation, and indeed the entire incident, appears to have been an attempt to exploit the SFTS group for propaganda purposes. The trip was entirely educational in nature, structured to give SFTS students broad and balanced exposure, primarily to Christian, but also to Muslim and Jewish perspectives, on the complicated situation in the Middle East. Dexter Van Zile Christian Outreach Director David Project Center for Jewish Leadership It is encouraging to see laymen taking interest in the direction of the PCUSA November 29, 2005 I was online researching "Liberty of Conscience" when I came across your essay "The myth of private conscience" By Robert P. Mills, The Presbyterian Layman, Volume 34, Number 4 Posted May 30, 2001. It was refreshing to see someone take a stand against the rampant license so often portrayed as charitable liberty. It is also encouraging to see laymen taking interest in the direction of their denomination. I have a Web site of my own: www.reformedlayman.com In it you will find a copy of Samuel Rutherford's "Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience" As you probably know, Mr. Rutherford was present when the Westminster Confession was drafted. It is interesting to compare the modern day libertines understanding of the Confession with that of those who actually wrote it! I pray God grants you success in the reform of your denomination. Jeff Rojan PCUSA is 'indeed reformed and always reforming' November 29, 2005 My hat is off to Jim Nedelka [letter to the editor, posted November 23, 2005] for his thoughtfully reasoned letter concerning the response of many in our church to those unlike themselves. His studied references to the catechisms of the church and his reminder that we are indeed reformed and always reforming are absolutely necessary in our discussion of the homosexuality issue. Thank you, Mr. Nedelka, for your reasoning; and thank you for calling Mr. Adams and his sort just what they are. David Duncan, elder Black Mountain Presbyterian Church Unite those in PCUSA who want to see it remain faithful to Biblical standards November 29, 2005 I find it very disturbing that the Presbyterians for Renewal have not taken a strong stand against the PUP report. It appears they are giving in to the unBiblical beliefs promoted by the Covenant Network. What can be done to unite all the "true" Presbyterians whose greatest desire is to see the PCUSA return and remain faithful to biblical standards? Carol McClellan Presbyterian Church (USA) is on the verge of dissenting itself out of existence November 29, 2005 Jim Nedelka, elder, West-Park Presbyterian Church, New York City writes [letter to the editor, posted November 23, 2005], among other things:
Robert Oates Brookhaven, MS Where in the creeds or Bible are Presbyterians urged to support terrorist groups? November 29, 2005 While others warn of an impending schism in the Presbyterian Church (USA), I remain astounded that this has not happened already. Moreover, I wonder what is it going to take for large numbers of Presbyterian churches to break away from the corrupted PCUSA leadership. Delegations representing the PCUSA have met with the terrorist group Hezbollah three times in the past year (that we know about), including last month as reported by MEMRI. PCUSA leadership took action in only one of those instances, and apparently others meeting with the terrorist group Hezbollah remain members in good standing within the PCUSA. Why? It was the Wooster College incident that woke me up when a Presbyterian Peacemaker-sponsored speaker flashed swastikas on the wall during his presentation on the apocryphal anti-semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion, resulting in a very muted apology by his Presbyterian sponsors many months after the fact. I knew at that moment something very serious was broken within the PCUSA organization and leadership. That was 2003. But in the past year, PCUSA delegations have met three times with a terrorist group, and there are not mass defections from the PCUSA. Why? What does it take to wake up other Presbyterians within PCUSA to this serious problem? Will it take an actual arrest of a PCUSA member assisting a terrorist? Is that what it has to come to? Could you imagine if it was an Islamic religious branch that sent delegations to meet with Hezbollah? What would the general public perspective be, that members of that Islamic religious branch were pro-terrorist? Of course, that is what most of the public would conclude (fairly or not). But PCUSA delegations do this and members of the PCUSA excuse those meeting with terror group Hezbollah as such delegations having a right to exercise "free speech?" I am sorry, where in the Presbyterian creeds or in the Bible are Presbyterians urged to support terrorist groups? And in this world, people are judged by the company they keep. It is way past time for those Presbyterians whose beliefs do not include support for terrorist groups to split away from the current PCUSA organization and leadership. Arguing that those PCUSA delegations meeting with terrorist groups are just a few isolated individuals who don't represent PCUSA is becoming a lame argument at best. How many of members of PCUSA delegations meeting with terrorist groups have been excommunicated from the PCUSA church? How do you think the public perceives this? Do you think the public excuses such behavior by Presbyterians vowing not to provide a per-capita fee? I think not. Presbyterians who object to this need to publicly and significantly break away from the PCUSA. Those of you who excuse or tolerate this behavior of PCUSA groups meeting with terrorist groups – ask yourself, would you also excuse or tolerate such meetings with terrorist groups if it were another faith such as an Islamic religious group? Do you think others in the public would be so open-minded? The Presbyterian Church cannot and should not be associated with apologists for or supporters of terrorist groups. But that is precisely what has been happening over the past year. And it is past time that Presbyterians do something about it. I remain astounded that more Presbyterians are not completely outraged by this. The firings of Peter Solyuk and Kathy Lueckert were absolutely not enough, as clearly such PCUSA delegations continue to meet with terrorist groups as they did in October 2005. Either the PCUSA leadership must rule that all those meeting with terrorist groups will be immediately removed as members of the PCUSA church, or it is time for law-abiding Presbyterians to find a new church organization – NOW. How can self-respecting Presbyterians stay with an organization which is allowing this to happen, by not mandating any consequences for such actions? Jeffrey Imm Olney, Md. Those rejoicing in invalid ordination ignore the confessions and Scripture November 29, 2005 I have read John Adams' report on the ordination of Mr. Bagnuolo three times and still fail to find the fear-mongering, hate promoting tone decried by Elder Jim Nedelka. [letter to the editor, posted November 23, 2005] Since, according to reports, Mr. Bagnuolo punctuated his ordination service by declaring that he refuses to abide by the "fidelity and chastity" standard explicitly stated in the Book of Order, I will not accord him the rank and title of reverend, no matter how loudly Hudson River Presbytery acclaims him a minister of the gospel. Although the Peace, Unity and Purity report (PUP report) is recommending that the General Assembly make provision for said standard to be ignored as non-essential to our Reformed faith, action on the report remains to be taken and Mr. Bagnuolo's elevation to the office of minister of Word and sacrament is unconstitutional under G-6.0106b. Elder Nedelka likes to quote the study catechism, but this document is just that: a study document. It is not a recognized confession of the PCUSA and carries no constitutional weight. Of course, in Hudson River Presbytery, neither does the Book of Order nor the Book of Confessions. Although it may be true in the above presbytery, that it is "built and governed by the congregants," this is not the Presbyterian norm. We are governed by the ministers and elders elected, examined and legitimately ordained and installed to serve as our sessions, presbyteries, synods and General Assembly. We are not congregationalist in our form of government. Neither do we ascribe to the false teaching "that Jesus' loving embrace encompasses all of us." In spite of his apparent acquaintance with the catechisms of the PCUSA, Elder Nedelka seems unfamiliar with the doctrine of limited atonement. The Larger Catechism – which does carry confessional and constitutional force – declares: "God, by an eternal and immutable decree, out of his mere love, for the praise of his glorious grace, to be manifested in due time, hath elected some angels to glory; and in Christ, hath chosen some men to eternal life, and the means thereof; and also, according to his sovereign power, and the unsearchable counsel of his own will (whereby he extendeth or withholdeth favor as he pleaseth) hath passed by, and foreordained, the rest to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted, to the praise of the glory of his justice." The Bible adds this warning: "Don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." Mr. Bagnuolo and all those who, with Elder Nedelka, rejoice in his invalid ordination ignore the clear counsel of our confessions and of the Scriptures at the peril of forfeiting their inheritance in the kingdom of our heavenly Father and of his Christ; the sole, singular Savior of humankind; the crucified, risen, ascended and coming again to judge the living and the dead, Lord Jesus. Jim Henkel, NWI endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery |
|||
| November
2005 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|||
