 |
|
| September
2005 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| How
much of our Reformed faith must we compromise to maintain 'unity?' September 30, 2005 I will do everything I know how to prevent congregations from leaving the Presbytery of Grand Canyon. But if any should decide by proper vote to depart from the PCUSA, let there be no secession without compensation! I pledge to work hard to protect the historic mission of this presbytery from the economic ravages of schism." – Ken Moe, executive presbyter, Presbytery of the Grand Canyon Mr. Moe, what is the "historic mission" which you pledge to protect? The task force, Moe pointed out, says the denomination "'should make every effort to prevent schism.'" Mr. Moe, how much of our Reformed faith must we compromise in order to maintain this "unity?" "Which of these different approaches seems more extreme?" he asks. "The Layman's call for strict doctrinal subscription to rein in what it paints as a 'culture of unbelief' or the PUP task force's call to respect the integrity of people with differing beliefs and appreciate the greater areas of mutual agreement?" Mr. Moe, people are not attracted to churches that don't know what they believe. Since abandoning our historic Confession in 1967 we have lost nearly as many members as we have today, including the merger with the PCUS. The liberal apostasy that has defined the PCUSA since 1967 is driving members away. If that isn't a schism, it is certainly death by attrition. Fighting for unity without fighting for purity is an exercise in futility. Woe to the Church which does not equip its members with the sound doctrines of TULIP! James E. Tuckett The Old Gray Dog When did the roles of church and society become reversed? September 30, 2005 In response to Winnebago Presbytery's opposition to same-sex marriage ban: One would think that the church would be at the forefront in proclaiming moral truths in a promiscuous society, yet in this case society desires moral truths in defiance of a promiscuous church. When did the roles become reversed? Steve Rollins San Diego To say that the circle is wide is deceitful and the world deserves better September 30, 2005 Shame on Prof. March. I wonder if he's feeling that millstone around his neck! It's not just verses like John 14:6 that beg us to follow only Jesus; it's Scripture in its entirety. If one were to study the whole of Scripture and contrast that with other faiths, you would have to, must conclude that Christianity is different. To follow Christ is simply not just another path to God. Following through Islam one is led to follow rules and perform good deeds (the law), which we know cannot be accomplished. Christ showed the world that it is only through him that we can receive mercy and grace to approach the Father in heaven. No one can attain perfection, sinlessness and therefore we need Jesus, who was and is sinlessness. The same can be said of Buddhism, Hinduism. With these, one's salvation is based on their acts of goodness. Well, we know man and he can never measure up. That's why we need Christ. To say that the circle is wide is deceitful and the world deserves better. To water down the gospel, as Prof. March has done with his thesis, is to slap non-believers in the face and deny them the blessing of knowing the entire Good News of Jesus – that salvation is free and there is nothing you need to do to receive it, no trips to Mecca, no pilgrimages in India, no self-flagellations. That's why it is so hard to grasped. Our self-centered, "I can do it on my own" mentality must be humbled. Christianity is different. It's not like anything else. Barbara Moody Sparta, Ill. 'We all make good and bad decisions' September 30, 2005 Elenora Giddings Ivory claims that "Women are good moral decision-makers." If that is so, one might surmise the same might be said of men (unless one is a sexist in reverse of the normal application). But if either or both are true, what does that say about the first tenet of TULIP? Human experience tells us that we all make good and bad decisions. As an undergraduate professor rightly commented, we are a mixed bag. And if that is so, that is why God set moral parameters rather than leave it to the individual. Similarly, the Reformed tradition has also maintained that right belief, doctrine and faith practice is more rightly discerned by the whole as opposed to the individual. If these parameters are set aside in terms of abortion (as opposed to other issues) or women's rights (as opposed to men's), I would like to see how the argument(s) would be made. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. The choice after pregnancy is between doing the right or the wrong thing September 30, 2005 The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice has made some statement in their press conference that are inaccurate and, well, outright heresy. Lobbyist Elenora Giddings Ivory declared, "God is only Lord of conscience, not the state or church." Excuse me, but God is Lord of all. Psalm 19 says The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. And all Christian denominations claim Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. And we also understand that all civil authorities come from God. Ivory also claims that it is uncertain when life begins. Life began when God breathed life into Adam and all subsequent life since then begins at conception. The most notable was when the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin Mary. RCRC President Carlton Veazey stated that, "To have a child is to have a sacred choice but to not have a child can be a sacred choice." This is true, but the choice to not have a child precedes pregnancy. Once conception occurs, we are talking about a life that has begun and the taking of that life is murder. The choice after pregnancy is a choice between doing the right thing or the wrong thing. An unplanned pregnancy can be a tragic thing, especially in the case of rape or incest, but there are more humane ways of resolving the undesirable: it's called adoption. In many areas of moral dilemma, it becomes necessary to set aside one good for the sake of a higher good. Right and rights are not synonymous. A woman has rights; the unborn have rights; but protecting the life of those who have no voice is the right thing to do. Contrary to what Veazey has said ("To be religious, as we see it, is to be pro-choice.") to be faithful to what God has ordained is to be pro-life. I wanted to rip my garments and sit in the dust when I read the excerpts from the CFC booklet, "Sex in the HIV/AIDS Era: a Guide for Catholics." Apparently the booklet denies adultery as sin. Again the tired and frustrating cry of "I have a right" ... (here, to have sex with anyone of my own choosing.) Herein lies the core of the matter in the whole moral dilemma of our culture: The individual choice, the "rights" of people to choose, that the ultimate good to be desired, expected, and pursued is that which satisfies the individual. How can we claim God to be supreme when his laws, his decrees, his ways are secondary to our laws, our decrees, our ways? Abortion is the number one blight on our human record. It grieves me deeply that the institutional church has/is buying into this treacherous sin of infantcide in the name of justice. We will become accountable when we are faced with the culmination of God's judgment. Rev. George F. Major Silex Presbyterian Church Silex, Missouri Moe follows in the footsteps of Kirkpatrick September 30, 2005 Ken Moe continues Kirkpatrick's insistence that the PCUSA's losses are mostly to the "secular culture" and not because the denomination is becoming more and more secular. Oh, he doesn't say it in quite those words but read him carefully! Fred Edwards Ex-elder, ex-PCUSA It is at God's directive that we adhere to Scripture September 30, 2005 Perhaps Mr. Moe should try reading his Bible to understand that it is at God's directive that we adhere to Scripture. It is God that I desire to please not secular contingents who might be offended that a Christian Church follows Christ's views and not the worlds. Judy Brann Which tenets of New Wineskins are not palatable to Moe and those like him? September 30, 2005 In Ken Moe's report to the Grand Canyon Presbytery, he states that not all of the New Wineskin tenets are considered essential to large portions of ordained officers in the PCUSA. However, he fails to specify what tenets are not palatable to those like him who "understand the world, the Scriptures and God with far more nuances and complexities" than those simple-minded people who subscribe to the New Wineskin documents. With what specific tenets doe he take issue? Perhaps its because he knows that his views are not supported by the Scripture. Samuel J. Orr III Beaver, Pa. Moe's report brings recollections of Marx's critique of the Church of England September 29, 2005 Thank you for bringing to our attention the "Executive Presbyter's Report to the Presbyter of Grand Canyon" by Ken Moe. After reading the full text of Moe's address, I was struck by what concerned him most. He stated that any specificity of theological beliefs is to be avoided for it leads to "heresy trials and purges." Yet he had strong words for anyone who cuts off the money flow to his presbytery saying, "If any should decide by proper vote to depart from the PCUSA, let there be no secession without compensation! I pledge to work hard to protect the historic mission of this presbytery from the economic ravages of schism." After reading his address, I was probably not the only one who recalled Karl Marx's critique of the Church of England: "The English established church will more readily pardon an attack on 38 of its 39 articles (of religion) than on 1/39th of its income." Elliott Scott, pastor Heritage Presbyterian Church Houston, Texas If God's plan included many paths, why did he send Jesus? September 29, 2005 Many comments of PCUSA personnel and seminary professors can be safely ignored but their flirtation with pluralism merits our attention. If God's plan includes many paths to salvation as some say, why did God send Jesus? Why was he not satisfied with Buddhism or Islam or Judaism or some other path that wouldn't require the crucifixion? How cruel to send your son to die a horrible death just to open up an unnecessary and redundant path to salvation. Yet, supposed scholars say that Christianity is right for them but proclaim the equality of other religious views. This implies that they have chosen from the many choices to accept a view of God that has him acting with unnecessary harshness against his own Son. If they truly believe there is another way and that salvation is possible without the cross then that other way would be a better way and they should rush to embrace it. Sound logic rejects this view and it rejects them. We can either believe Christ is who he says he is and his sacrifice for our salvation was the only possible way or we must hold that the New Testament is errant to the point of being useless. You are in Christ as Biblically revealed or you are not. And if you are not, fair enough. But intellectual honesty requires that to be a Christian you must accept that salvation is impossible apart from Christ. There is no middle ground. John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. Those who 'create space' for homosexual practice are the true schismatics September 29, 2005 Ken Moe, executive presbyter of Grand Canyon Presbytery, seems to have done what many institutionalists in the PCUSA have done. He has confused the "earthen vessel" for the "treasure." His address to his presbytery, in which he plays the race card (his "concern" for Native American congregations), makes it clear to me what he does not believe in anything resembling what he calls "strict" subscriptionism – a term, by the way, that means something else in the PCA. However, I cannot but wonder what he actually does believe in, aside from the institutions of the denomination. He certainly believes in his brand of "inclusivity" which will, if he has his way, exclude any conservatives from keeping the properties that they and their forebears established, long before the 22-year-old Presbyterian Church (USA) came into existence, if those congregations cannot tolerate sexual immorality. Moe states: "Religious doctrines are not facts. Ideally, they are edifying guides to the faith. They are important but not impervious to reform. Indeed, Christians have been proclaiming, disputing and changing doctrines for two millennia." So, then, is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ a "fact," an actuality? Is the bodily resurrection a "fact," or does Moe suggest to us that all of these doctrines are simply mere symbols of some ethereal, religious sensibility that is beyond naming? Yes, Mr. Moe, there has been doctrinal development over time. But to tolerate outright denials of the contents of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds is certainly not a Christian virtue, nor in keeping with the development of the Christian faith. Yes, there has been doctrinal development, but in the moral teachings of the Church (Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox) there has never been anything but the teaching that God created sex for marriage, which means one man and one woman. On this note, those who would change the teachings of the church, who would "create space" for the practices of homosexuality (or, for that matter, for heterosexuality outside the covenant of marriage) are the true schismatics. They have broken faith with the church of Jesus Christ, emptied the earthen vessels of their treasure, and now hold up these clay pots as the object of their devotion. One thing that Ken Moe said, however, that I can agree with: A storm will occur in Birmingham next year. May God raise up a faithful people in the PCUSA to stand for his Word. Rev. Walter L. Taylor Statesville, N.C. PCUSA must show commitment to 'Great Commission' instead of politics September 29, 2005 As the article "Mission funding declines prompt proposal for 173 PCUSA fundraisers" implies, trust is indeed the issue. Why should we give unrestricted missions money to this denomination? Why should we trust the upper levels of this denomination that are so out-of-touch with our congregations? Why should we trust the upper levels of this denomination that have made politically-fueled decisions that so obviously disregard Scripture? Why should we trust a General Assembly Council, which took 5 percent from designated missions giving this year to finance who-knows-what? Yes, in March or April of this year, the GAC notified churches that gave designated gifts to ECOs (Extra Commitment Opportunities) that they had been taking away 5 percent of those "designated" gifts since January 2005. Nice way to give that communication to us in advance – thanks. I have been told that they only notified churches who gave a certain amount or larger. So, we have to wonder, to what political agenda does that 5 percent go? Does it help pay the salaries of the Washington Office to lobby congress for gay rights and abortion rights? Will it fund a new "mission trip" to meet with Hezbollah terrorist leaders? Maybe it will fund another "Sophia" meeting at the next GA? And you wonder why missions giving is going down. All I know is that "designated gifts" should mean just that – designated gifts. Taking away from designated giving is taking food out of the mouths of the hungry, and taking the gospel away from a child who needs it. It is time to make missions a priority in this denomination. Actions speak louder than words. This denomination must show – by our actions – that we rely on the Bible as God's word. Until congregations see – by our actions – that we are more motivated by Jesus' mandate to fulfill the "Great Commission" than we are by politics, then we will continue to have that trust problem. Until then, I believe this denomination may itself be a mission field. Kevin T. Smith New Hanover Presbyterian Church Mechanicsville, Va. Small should look beyond the mainstream to the evangelical churches September 29, 2005 I would respectfully suggest that Joseph Small look "way beyond" the mainstream church in his research efforts. The only place today in the church where there's confusion is within the mainline denominations. Most evangelical churches show no such confusion about either their identity or their mission. I never hear the same conversations going on in outward-directed churches that I do inside the mainline group because navel-gazing has become an all-consuming passion. Todd Bensel Commissioned Lay Pastor Pilot Rock, Ore. Don't listen to windbags that pontificate their views as truth September 29, 2005 Who are these windbags that pontificate their views as truth – those who abandon faith (if they ever had any)? Don't listen to them. Their pathway leads to ruin and destruction. They have no power or position. Deluded, they dare to challenge the Lord God Almighty! Paul McKay PCUSA has said there are some jobs to big for the Body of Christ to undertake September 29, 2005 Lou. S. Nowasielski [letter to the editor, posted September 28, 2005] wrote that "the little 5 – Cliff, Griswold, Thomas, Hanson and Winkler – in their infinite wisdom, seem to think the new church is the federal government." As I discovered a few months ago, there are a lot more than five who think that way. I posted the following in my blog in July: Looking through a 2004 lobbying handbook published by the PCUSA Washington Office ("Christian and Citizen"), I found this astonishing statement on page 16: "... General Assembly policy has consistently and clearly stated that government has the primary responsibility for caring for the poor, along with the private sector: The 1997 General Assembly stated (and the 1999 General Assembly reaffirmed), 'that while the church, voluntary organizations, business and government must work cooperatively to address the needs of poor persons and communities, the government must assume the primary role for providing direct assistance for the poor'" (Minutes, 1997, p. 553). "The General Assembly has noted that the private sector is incapable of caring for the needy on its own. The 1996 General Assembly asserted that 'churches and charities, including many Presbyterian congregations and related organizations, have responded generously to growing hunger but do not have the capacity to replace public programs'" (Minutes, 1996, p.784). I have been unable to locate the General Assembly minutes for either 1996 or 1997 and so have not verified that this "policy" actually exists. The Washington Office has shown a willingness to ignore or distort policies of the General Assembly in order to promote its private political objectives; this could be another example. However, the citations of the relevant Minutes complete with page numbers lead me to believe that, in this instance, the Washington Office is telling the truth. What Bible are these folks reading? Perhaps there is a new translation that portrays Jesus himself as a lobbyist rather than a high priest. Here are some passages we might expect to see in such a Bible:
Throwing in the towel, giving up, turning it over to the government and demanding government programs are not acts of compassion, they are acts of surrender and convenience. The PCUSA has given up and said that there are some jobs to big for the Body of Christ to undertake, that God is unable or unwilling to equip his Church to do what he has clearly called it to do. Besides, getting the government to do the dirty work leaves more time and resources for lobbying, protesting, organizing boycotts, schmoozing with like-minded secular leaders and spouting pious excuses. It is difficult to imagine a policy more rooted in left-wing political ideology and less rooted in the teachings of the Bible than "the government has the primary responsibility for caring for the poor." Publicly stating such drivel is a measure of how far – and how willfully – the PCUSA has wandered from its calling. Steve Jones, elder Kokomo, Ind. 'Believe by faith and faith alone is a religious ideology, not scientific proof September 29, 2005 Apparently various anti-intelligent design commentators and letter writers conveniently "forget" that the very foundation of evolutionary belief has never been proven, replicated or explained by so-called intelligent evolutionary scientists who insist that we simply accept by belief and faith that what they say is true: That life came from nonlife by accident and random chance. Supposedly nonlife begot life simply by accident and random chance, but no one has yet been able to scientifically explain how it was done, prove it could be done, and/or replicate the "simple" feat on purpose. It's one thing to look at buried fossils and make up stories as to how one set of fossils relates to another set of fossils and/or to living species; it's quite another thing to insist that life began without an Intelligent Designer (God) simply by accident and random chance when the intelligent scientific community apparently isn't smart enough to figure out how it was done and replicate the feat in an attempt to show how "easy" it can be done and therefore "prove" that it could have been done accidentally millions or billions of years ago. Of course the reason the intelligent scientific community can't figure out how life began from nonlife is simply because it isn't "easy" at all; it is very complex; too complex, in fact, for evolutionary scientists to do it on purpose. The "simplest" known lifeform, a one-cell organism, is highly complex, having something like 3 million bits of genetic code in its DNA/genetic make-up. It is known that some bits of code must be in its exact and precise location on the DNA molecule, otherwise a harmful, extremely harmful or even a fatal "error" will occur and the lifeform will not function properly, reproduce itself, or even live. 3 million bits of genetic code. For the "simplest" of known lifeforms. A one-cell organism. Keep in mind what that means. Apparently there doesn't exist now, nor is there any proof that a "simpler" lifeform – say one of 1 million, 100,000, 1,000 or even 100 bits – has ever existed from which the "complex" 3 million-bit "simple" organism evolved from. That is, a 3 million-bit organism seems to be the "lowest common denominator" in life. Given that number, is there any wonder why our intelligent evolutionary scientists can't figure out an "easy" way for non-intelligence to accidentally and by random chance put 3 million (or 300,000) bits of genetic information together exactly and precisely as in a jigsaw puzzle to make nonliving particles come together and live? Heck, our scientists have yet to take 3 million bits of nonliving code and put them together on purpose and produce life from nonlife. As I said, it's one thing to find buried fossils and make up stories about buried fossils and how they relate to one another and/or to living species. It's something else entirely to insist we buy into their idea that life came from nonlife accidentally and by random chance when all they have done so far is to ask us to believe by faith what they say (that life came from nonlife by accident and random chance) and not by what they have scientifically proven could have happened. I'm sorry, but "believe by faith and faith alone" is a religious ideology, not scientific proof. And I have my own religious beliefs, thank you; I don't need to be indoctrinated into the evolutionists' religious beliefs. Robert E. Forman Lakewood, Colo. Christ's love isn't shown by teaching a 'universalistic' position on salvation September 28, 2005 With his comments about John 14:6, W. Eugene March has demonstrated that his views are outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. The growing acceptance of a more "universalistic" position concerning salvation is simply another demonstration of how far some within the Presbyterian Church (USA) have strayed from the truth. Only those who are in Christ are saved; that is not the teaching of man, but of the Word of God. It doesn't always feel good to have to say the hard things, but to deny the truth in order to spare another's feelings is to act in an unloving way. The loving, kind and compassionate thing to do is to plainly teach, present and live the plain truth that the only means of salvation is the atoning blood of Christ, and those who do not repent and believe will face the due penalty of their own sin. There is no demonstration of the love of Christ in teaching a "universalistic" position on salvation, or in leaving the door open to salvation to those who may sincerely believe in "god" via another religion. The only road to salvation is narrow and is traveled by hearing the Word and relying on the grace of God as given through Jesus Christ. All other roads are wide and lead to hell. Randy Jenkins Central Presbyterian Church Huntsville, Ala. Kirkpatrick should have continued reading the book of Acts September 28, 2005 Our Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick recently compared the work of the Task Force on the Peace, Purity and Unity of the Presbyterian Church (USA) with the work of the Jerusalem Conference in Acts 15. In his comparison, I do not see any reference to the letter (final report?) of the council which we find in Acts 15:24ff. There the circumcised were admitted. But among other things, they were admonished to keep from "fornication" ( Acts 15:29,NRSV) or "sexual immorality." (NIV) With all the emphasis in the current environment against "prooftexting" and taking things out of context, we all would do well, as those who have gone before us recommend, to keep on reading and, thereby, "avoid these things." Sidney L. Leak, III Manchester, Tenn. It must be nice to pick and chose what you 'refuse' to believe September 28, 2005 Rev. Becker, in his own words "refuses" to accept six-day creationism (an open minded statement if I ever heard one) and then goes on to base much of his argument on references to Genesis chapters 1, 2 and 3. I'm sure those who believe in homosexual ordination can take the same tack. "I simply "refuse" to believe those references!" In fact, that's a rather nice position to take .... just pick and chose what you "refuse" to believe. I didn't think that's the way it worked. Surely that was just a poor choice of words! If, however, that wording was deliberately chosen, then as far as I am concerned, the article has no credibility. David Biglands Fort Wayne, Ind. Those with new interpretations of Scripture are playing with unholy fire September 28, 2005 1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in it, and put incense on it, and offered strange and unholy fire before the Lord, as he had not commanded them. 2 And there came forth fire from before the Lord and killed them, and they died before the Lord. 3 Then Moses said to Aaron, This is what the Lord meant when he said, I [and my will, not their own] will be acknowledged as hallowed by those who come near me, and before all the people I will be honored. And Aaron said nothing. Leviticus 10:1-3, Amplified Some who claim to have "refreshing," new interpretations of Scripture are playing with unholy fire. God is love, but he is also very, very dangerous. Professor March and others who teach similar errors should be afraid. Cindy Coleman Glen Alpine, N.C. PCUSA: Save funds by not filing frivolous lawsuits against elders/congregations September 28, 2005 In light of the recent announcement concerning our future mission funding shortage, I have an idea that will save the PCUSA a ton of money. The PCUSA has filed cross-complaint lawsuits against several congregations in California (Serone and Torrance) over property disputes. Furthermore, the denomination filed separate individual lawsuits against each elder in these two churches (approximately 20 elders.) The denomination would be able to save a significant amount of money if it would quit filing frivolous lawsuits against elders and congregations, particularly in a matter that the Constitution regulates as the responsibility of local presbyteries. Before any Presbyterians send another nickel to Louisville, these questions need to be answered: 1. Who authorized the filing of these lawsuits against individual elders? I heard Cliff Kirkpatrick say it was not him and that he did not know who authorized these threatening lawsuits against individual elders. (Of course I find it rather odd that the highest elected official in the PCUSA who has the responsibility of "defending and upholding the constitution" does not know who authorized or filed these lawsuits.) 2. How much money has the denomination spent on legal fees in each of these two disputes? 3. How much money has the related presbyteries spent in each of these two suits? The wasteful use of our gifts is one reason the members of the church I serve are unwilling to send any money more to Louisville. I would encourage other congregations and sessions to stop the flow of money to Louisville. There are three other national and international Presbyterian mission funding agencies which have proven to be trustworthy stewards of your mission gifts: The Outreach Foundation, The Frontier Fellowship, and the Medical Benevolence Foundation. You can support Presbyterian mission without supporting the outrageous and unBiblical activities funded and supported by the Louisville infrastructure. L Rus Howard Venetia, Pa. The saints raise their hands in praise for your defense of the gospel September 28, 2005 Preach; Brother Rev. Bruce Becker, preach! Liberals and the hosts of darkness will hate you; but saints here and in heaven raise their hands in praise for your strong defense of the soul-saving, life-changing gospel that was once delivered to those early saints. Glory be to Jesus our prophet, priest and king. Amen!! James Logan McHenry, Md. Becker's essay: 'Well thought out – nay – brilliant' September 28, 2005 I have just finished reading Rev. Bruce Becker's well thought out – nay – brilliant, articulate, eloquent essay "I am a heterosexist and my other habits are good." My immediate response: Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap. Rise to feet for standing ovation Clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap-clap. Bravo! Well said! Well done. Hear, hear! Bravo! Hear, hear! Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church Canton, Ohio The little 5 seem to think the new church is the federal government September 28, 2005 Kirkpatrick, Griswold, Thomas, Hanson and Winkler – as usual – have it wrong when it comes to the blame game. It is the blame Bush crowd for everything, while they themselves do nothing to help the poor, only use the poor to achieve their ends. I thought the church was the body of Christ helping the poor. I thought the early church in Acts 2 created deacons to assist in the social work of society. I thought the church of Christ is supposed to preach the Gospel to the world as stated in Matthew 28:18-20. I never knew government was supposed to take care of us from the cradle to the grave, but the little 5 – Cliff, Griswold, Thomas, Hanson and Winkler – in their infinite wisdom, seem to think the new church is the federal government. Is this what the colonist's fought for so we would have independence from oppressive England under King George 3? Or where the colonists wrong? It is rather remarkable how the little 5 seem to think government is the church, and the PCUSA is a social/political organization. Where do we find this in Scripture? Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Scriptural standards shouldn't be abandoned for contemporary social mores September 26, 2005 The article about Bishop Robinson points out the hypocrisy, and apparent cluelessness, that afflicts some who seek to use the church as platform for their social and political ideology. Any thinking person – especially a priest and a Canon – must have known how divisive the elevation of a practicing homosexual to bishop in the Episcopal Church would be. If Bishop Robinson were truly concerned about the health and unity of his church, he would not have sought election as bishop. However, Bishop Robinson and his supporters arrogated their own agenda – the normalization of homosexuality – above all else. The resultant schism was as predictable as the next morning's sunrise. Bishop Robinson's complaints about a growing rift in the Episcopal Church, when his disregard of centuries of Christian orthodoxy is the cause of this rift, are unworthy of someone in a high church office. The same thing is happening in our denomination. The recent rhetoric from, among others, More Light Presbyterians makes clear that they will continue the fight to normalize homosexuality, no matter what damage it might do to the denomination. If they win, and the inevitable schism occurs, we will probably hear the same lamentations about the loss of church unity as have emanated from the so-called "progressive" wing of the Episcopal Church. In these circumstances, "unity" is possible only when one faction surrenders. Thankfully, many of my fellow orthodox Presbyterians, as well as my orthodox Episcopal brothers and sisters, will not go quietly into the night. While we reject persecution of and discrimination against homosexuals, we do not believe that Scriptural standards are subject to negotiation or that these standards should be abandoned to accommodate contemporary social mores. The clear weight of Scripture and respectable Biblical scholarship supports our position. We cannot, and should not, surrender. So long as the "progressives" keep proposing unorthodox and controversial changes in church doctrine, they should abandon the pretense of caring about unity. If they truly cared about denominational unity, they would stop trying to impose their minority agenda on the majority of the denomination. Jim Kaucher, elder Northminster Presbyterian Church Tucson, Ariz. No Scriptural ambiguity on abortion 'if the hairs of our head are numbered' September 26, 2005 Presbyterians "divided" over the issue of abortion? To those Presbyterians who aren't sure abortion is a grievous sin, honestly consider the following and then tell me you're still "conflicted" over the issue.
Does anyone really believe when the unborn are destroyed by abortion God doesn't see it, doesn't know what was just done? How will we answer God on this when each of us appears before his judgment seat? Will these unborn children be witnesses against their parents? Unfortunately for those who believe there is Scriptural ambiguity about abortion, the opposite is true. There is no ambiguity if our Creator truly inventoried our parts "when as yet there were none of them." There can be no ambiguity "if the hairs of our head are numbered." We all mourned when 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11. But some Presbyterians remain "divided" over the death of 3,000 unborn American babies each day, 40 million since Roe vs. Wade? Forty million American babies deliberately, intentionally destroyed and there is "division" about this? Finally, did you ever wonder why some people don't show up for church when a baby is being baptized, or why some friends never attend a baby shower? Could it be that they are no longer "divided" over the issue for some reason or other? Jon Spinnanger, member Williamsburg Presbyterian Church Liberals want to follow their beliefs and have everyone else endorse them September 26, 2005 Brian Cave [letter to the editor, posted September 23, 2005] rightly points out that more than just conservatives have been leaving the PCUSA. No doubt some liberals have left the church because of the ordination standards so recently codified into the Book of Order. Of course, the greater number of losses are to people who have lost their faith altogether. That is the true result of liberalism's never ending quest for cultural relevance. When grace becomes cheap – there is no need for personal transformation, only an "attitude adjustment" toward political positions named "just" or pursuing "shalom" or "loving" – then why should one worship a God who is either a distant mirror of myself or so close to me that he virtually is me. What matters is human efforts or at least human good intentions! I hope Brian Cave proves right. I also would love to see many liberals take their property and leave the denomination and go the U.C.C. or some other liberal denomination. My advice to Brian is not to bet the farm on it. He may be one of those liberals who just likes or is comfortable with his liberal position, but many of his colleagues have a much more forceful agenda. They don't want to be free to follow their own liberal beliefs, they want to have everyone else endorse and follow their liberal beliefs. Why else would they compare issues like ordaining homosexuals to the ordination of women or to civil rights? We know that the Presbyterian Church is almost vehement in its opposition to people who think differently about the ordination of women. Why shouldn't our "unity in diversity" embrace a genuine difference in Scriptural interpretation? They seem to argue for that about same-sex orientation, but one suspects that is mere posing until they can enforce their own chosen orthodoxy. The pseudo-bishop Gene Robinson gives a hint of that when he accuses conservatives in the Anglican communion of a power and control play. He argues that all he wants is loving co-existence, but who can doubt that he and his allies will fight for even more "progressive" bishops of same-sex orientation and practice by all of the Anglican communion. If the liberals leave, I will grieve for their loss more because I fear for their departure from God's grace. Paul feared some who had deserted him and the faith were in danger of God's wrath. He prayed the consequences of their rebellion would lead them to repentance, and I pray that for the liberals, too. But in the long run, I believe the denomination remnant, with a New Wineskins type of reform of the polity and a renewal of the Holy Spirit, would prosper from such a defection. A harmony of feelings will not prosper the church. A unity of faith and obedience might, but I do not feel that such a unity is offered by the task force report or the rosy predictions of the bureaucratic leadership. Rev. Scott R. Mackey Highland Presbyterian Church Tyler, Texas Instead of throwing good money after bad, how about three rules? September 26, 2005 Well, leave it to the clergy to aid and abet the obsession with widening the gap between the races instead of trying to eliminate it in a constructive way. Federal (taxpayers') money sure has helped the poor, hasn't it? Instead of continuing to throw good money after bad, how about three simple rules to avoid poverty: 1. Graduate from high school. 2. Don't have a baby until married. 3. Don't marry while a teenager. I wish these were original thoughts, but they were mentioned in a George Will article written on September 13, 2005. I might add that I seriously doubt that looting the local Home Depot of DVDs, television sets, etc., helped their cause. Dick Schultz PCUSA is bent on sidelining the Gospel for the sake of socialist/libertine agenda September 26, 2005 On September 20, 2005, the Presbytery of Charlotte met at First Presbyterian Church in Monroe, N.C. The powers that be demonstrated once again that they just don't get it. During the presbytery council report on the budget for 2006, it was stated that the presbytery had a net loss of over 900 members during 2004, that pledges from the churches for 2005 average $46.41 per member, that these pledges represent a decline of $150,000, and that undesignated giving from churches to presbytery had declined by about $211,000 from 2000 through 2004. It was further stated that pledges from churches to presbytery for 2005 represent less than 5 percent of the average church budget, while presbytery's goal is that 10 percent of each church's budget be given to presbytery in undesignated funds. These facts may be disturbing, but they are not mysterious. During the report of the mission and justice committee just a little later in the morning, the leadership of presbytery unwittingly demonstrated a part of why the presbytery, and indeed the denomination, have been suffering such losses. Part of the presentation by mission and justice included a staged "dialogue" about race relations by Rodney Sadler and Richard Boyce from Union-PSCE in Charlotte, on behalf of the One in Christ Committee. Early on, their presentation was nothing to be disputed. They were quite correct in their assertions that the Bible rightly understood does not support racism as it has often been misinterpreted to do. Indeed, the teaching of the theory of evolution, as opposed to creation of humans in God's image, has been more culpable for the development of racist ideology than liberals who hate the Bible would ever admit. Truly, there is only one race, the human race. Skin color is only a genetic trait, just like eye color and hair color. It should not make any difference in how we relate to one another. No one should be either mistreated or given unfair advantage on the basis of skin color. If Sadler and Boyce had stuck to this point, I would probably have had no problem with their presentation beyond the fact that I think such things are a waste of presbytery's time. However, what was offensive about their presentation was their parroting of inane liberal assumptions about race relations, and their thinly veiled attack on the Bush administration in regard to Hurricane Katrina. They insinuated that the loss of life and the failure to evacuate the city of New Orleans effectively were the fault of President Bush because most of the residents who didn't get out were not white. They did not name President Bush, but everyone knew what they were saying, and many liberal heads were nodding in approval of their accusing remarks. They totally ignored the facts that: (1) It is not the role of the federal government to be the first line of defense in dealing with natural disasters, but local and state officials are responsible for evacuation procedures. (2) An evacuation plan was in place, but was not administered properly by New Orleans and Louisiana officials, even though President Bush was diligently urging them to do so. (3) School buses that were supposed to be used in carrying out the evacuation plan were left sitting idle to be flooded and probably ruined, when they could have been used to save lives. This was the fault of local and state officials, not President Bush. In short, the problem was not some racist lack of concern by the Bush administration, but the typically irresponsible and incompetent Democratic local and state administrations in New Orleans and Louisiana. Sadler and Boyce raised the questions of why those not evacuated in New Orleans were predominantly poor and black and why the poor in America generally are predominantly black. While the total answer to that may not be simple, the most glaring reason is that decades of dependence on government welfare programs have robbed generations of black Americans of family stability and wholeness and personal initiative. The New Orleans disaster serves powerfully to demonstrate the danger of allowing ourselves to become dependent on any government. Dependence upon the government is slavery and a house built on sinking sand. If you build a society on dependence upon the government, it will ultimately fail and fall. Sadler and Boyce also talked about a difference being set between looters on the basis of race. They said a black person looting was treated unsympathetically as a criminal, while a white person looting was accepted as getting what he/she needed for survival. There may be some truth to this. However, I believe that the point of view of most Bible-believing Americans would be that a looter is a looter, regardless of color, and that if there is to be a difference in how we look at a looter, it should not be a matter of color. The difference, if any, is rather a matter of whether the person is getting food and water for himself/herself and his/her family to survive, or walking off with stolen stereos, televisions, etc., for the sake of doing what a thief always does. These are just a few examples of the foolish liberal assumptions made in the report by Sadler and Boyce. They also somehow managed to work into their comments support for [gays] and lesbians, which has nothing to do with the issue of race. The PCUSA keeps losing members and money and the ability to be taken seriously by the Biblically faithful Church in presenting the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. The leadership is bent on sidelining the Gospel for the sake of a socialist and libertine agenda. It never ceases to amaze me how they can keep missing the connection between their devotion to and promotion of that agenda and the continual decline of the PCUSA as God withdraws his blessings, and Christians faithful to the Word of God vote with their wallets and/or their feet not to support such distortion of the purpose of the Church. Larry G. Pittman, minister at large Concord, N.C. |
|
| September
2005 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |