 |
|
| April
2006 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| PCUSA
will die stuck in the tar pits of infighting and unsound doctrine April 18, 2006 Having tried to get my local session to "define" what it is that the church believes regarding the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, Jesus as the only way to salvation, and the requirement for elders to meet Scriptural requirements regarding lifestyle (i.e. sexual immorality, homosexuality, etc.), I finally received a reply that basically stated that the church was in the process of defining itself and that if I had doctrinal questions, I was referred to the Book of Confessions. The only small problem is that the Westminster Confession is not in agreement with the Confession of 1967, and certainly not in synch with the moral and political direction that the leadership is taking in Louisville currently, in my humble opinion. All I can see is that this denomination with so much wonderful history, and potential, is basically arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. We started attending a newer PCA church plant that is growing by leaps and bounds and are joining it. There is no confusion about doctrinal orthodoxy; there is a strong emphasis on church planting and evangelism; and there is a strong emphasis on Biblical theology expounded from the pulpit. The church is attracting a plethora of younger families, and not because of "40 day" plans or programs, rather, sound teaching of Scripture, and a desire to reach the community with the gospel message. The PCUSA, I'm afraid, is a dinosaur that will die a slow death stuck in the tar pits of infighting and unsound doctrine. I invite you to consider visiting a PCA church. It is what the PCUSA used to stand for in the community: a beacon of orthodoxy and evangelism reaching out to a world of darkness. I am just a layman, and my prayers are with you all as you struggle for the right. S.P. Hunter Fountain Hills, Ariz. Agnostics are uncurious and can't be troubled with facing the ultimate realities April 18, 2006 Mr. Jason Mierek [letter to the editor, posted April 13, 2006] makes a semantic argument for the existence of "Christian agnostics," essentially based on the idea that belief is only belief, not knowledge. And yet, the writer of Hebrews tells us that faith is "the evidence of things not seen." In other words, faith isn't just "believing something you know isn't true." Faith is laying hold of tangible, yet unseen realities which, in the course of time and by witness of the Holy Spirit (a Person conspicuously absent in Mr. Mierek's post), are borne out in experience. Through answered prayer, for example, faith does increasingly become "knowing," though we still walk by faith, not by sight. It is true, we don't know everything about God and his plans, but the Scriptures tell us everything we must know to be re-established in relationship with our creator. The problem with many agnostics (and Mr. Mierek is correct in his classical definition of the term) is not that they don't know, or even that they think it's impossible to know. Their problem is that they're uncurious and can't be troubled with facing the ultimate realities. How much easier it is to abandon the search for truth and meaning when we convince ourselves that they cannot be found anyway! Finally, Mr. Mierek's question about what the early Christians knew is fatuous. Of course they didn't have the creeds. They had the Hebrew Scriptures and the apostolic witness to their fulfillment in Christ. They had the letters of the apostles, notably Paul's epistle to the church at Colossae, which addresses heresies that, even then, were a contaminant to the Gospel. The creeds were based on these extant resources, plus the gospels which followed. Paul always recognized that peripheral, disputable issues would come up in the church, but that they were not the main thing. We need to keep reminding ourselves of this. The pale of orthodoxy is narrow in the sense that it is pretty simple. We might begin by agreeing on the historic mystery of the faith: "Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again." Tom Johnson Lincoln, Neb. The idea of writing to individual GA commissioners is a good one April 18, 2006 This is in response to the article on Highland Park PC's intention to write letters to each of Grace Presbytery's commissioners to the GA concerning the PUP report. The idea of writing to individual commissioners is a good one and should be "rolled out" across the entire church. My idea is as follows. 1. PLC should publish at its Web site a request that clergy and laity who wish to do something in opposition to adoption of the homosexual agenda should learn who their commissioners are to the GA and forward these names to the PLC for publication online. 2. The published list should request as many individuals who are interested to write letters to their commissioners describing the reasons for their opposition and requesting the commissioner to inform them either how they intend to vote or how they actually voted (perhaps both!). These letters should note that failure to reply will be assumed to be an intention to support the imposition of the homosexual agenda. 3. Those who support imposition of the homosexual agenda should then be subject to appropriate opprobrium by their constituencies. Walter Lynn West Side Presbyterian Church Ridgewood, N.J. Drowning men (and denominations) will grasp at straws to save themselves April 13, 2006 Landlocked Oklahomans may not recognize the nature of the action of their presbytery, in filing affidavits that merely restate what is more-and-more becoming an untenable position. Here, near the Great Lakes, we are all too familiar with stories of how drowning men will grasp at straws to save themselves. I might add, to no avail. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. Even Louisville is not above the law in this nation governed by laws April 13, 2006 It is interesting, regarding the affidavits that were filed by the presbytery, that the members of the local corporation, (the session), have not consented to this action, nor have they joined in placing the presbytery on the title to their property. It sounds like the local congregations need to retain counsel and seek Declaratory Judgments as to Title in this situation. Louisville is very worried. Their panic will create court judgments and precedent that do not favor them. Even Louisville is not above the law in this nation governed by laws. Their priorities and goals are really out of sync. John Almquist With more facts, writer may come to a different conclusion April 13, 2006 Once again, I find it difficult to believe that we all have the same information and you have come to such a different conclusion. Please check the facts of this move thoroughly. If you do so, I believe you will come to a different conclusion than the one expressed in your article. Jane Huffstetler, pastor St. James Presbyterian Church Jenks, Okla. 'Fad' started by Eastern Oklahoma might become standard operating procedure April 13, 2006 The surprising part of this story is that it wasn't news two or three years ago, or longer. It was then when congregations that had once been for "Gracious Separation" finally started saying "A Dios," and breaking away. And oh boy, did the OCS jump to protect "their" assets. Indeed, the funniest lines in Adams' story were these: [Asked whether the Office of the General Assembly's constitutional services had recommended the strategy, Coulter said no. However, he added that trustees of the presbytery might have contacted constitutional services for advice.] Might? Might there be a Second Coming? Might the PCUSA continue to ordain practicing homosexuals? Might the leaders of the PCUSA continue to run around the world and to Washington DC spewing sound-bites that would make Carter-Administration officials blush. Might the weasels be chasing the monkeys around that mulberry bush? For years now, every congregation that has title of record to their property and no express mention of record of any claim of any nature to that property by the presbytery, should have been transferring title to a corporation or trust set up specifically for the purpose of holding the subject property for the use and benefit of that particular congregation and the community that congregation designates as its area to be served. After all, the "fad" started by Eastern Oklahoma "might" become standard operating procedure for the Office of Constitutional Services, and start spreading. Further, presbytery by presbytery – where the majority of congregations or the majority of members are "orthodox" and the presbytery leadership is not – all congregations who do not want their property controlled by a presbytery or a denomination that has left the way, should simultaneously file actions in the real courts – not the phony PCUSA courts – to quiet title in their respective congregation free of any contrary claim that exists only in the minds of the presbytery or the Book of Order. How deliciously ironic it would be to see a presbytery reach for the BOO to actually try and enforce one of the provisions when, for all other purposes, those BOO's only exist to keep an income stream coming into the Presbyterian publishing house on an annual – oops – biennial basis. Derek Simmons San Clemente, Calif. 'The response of the PDA is shameful' April 13, 2006 If your report is true and not exaggerated, the response of the PDA is shameful. It's the very reason we sent the $75,000-plus we raised in our congregation for Katrina relief directly to churches in the devastated areas and to those families and persons we found in need. And, it's the reason we will do the same in the future. Larry Wood, senior pastor The Church of the Hills, PCUSA Duluth, Ga. Why wait? We need action now April 13, 2006 Why would they wait until after the General Assembly meets? It's too late to do anything then. We need action now if we are going to have any chance at all to save this denomination. Ed McLean First Presbyterian Church of Maitland, Fla. Obedience to God is more important than political means and ends April 13, 2006 Recent writers have pointed out Jack Rodgers' inability to recognize his own subjugation to the very ideas he claims to oppose. Likewise, Ritchie Jones – blinded by his own political view of the world – can find only a political explanation for the attitudes of evangelical Christians: "The secular right wing of our society has used this issue to co-opt and pay for the conservatives of our faith to wage religious civil war against the liberals of our faith. We have been drafted to dismantle the PCUSA because the secular right perceives it as a dangerously progressive institution." But, of course, Mr. Jones is simply continuing the intrusion of liberal political ideology into the theological landscape of our denomination. His comments do nothing more than parrot a familiar mantra of the political left and promote the delusion that theologically conservative Christians are mere tools of the vast right-wing conspiracy. This silly analysis has been offered recently by such leftist luminaries as Michael Livingston, president of the highly politicized – and liberal – NCC: "Mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches have been pounded into irrelevancy by the media machine of a false religion, a political philosophy masquerading as gospel; an economic principle wrapped in religious rhetoric and painted red, white and blue." John H. Thomas, president of the very "progressive" United Church of Christ, recently criticized the renewal-minded Institute on Religion and Democracy: "IRD is using church members, and even outside groups, to disrupt and ultimately control the mainline to promote its own political agenda. The ultimate goal is to reshape the Protestant mainline into a powerful force advancing the neo-conservative political agenda." Livingston, Thomas, and Jones all present a very non-Biblical worldview, the fundamental belief that "everything is politics." This mental framework is unable to even entertain the notion that, to theological conservatives, obedience to God is more important than political means and ends. In this most worldly of world views, every public act – even within the body of Christ – is motivated by political ideals and objectives. Nearly every discussion of our differences is framed in political concepts and described in political language. Our denomination is infested with people of like mind, people who want to conform to the world, people who seem able to comprehend our differences only by assuming that conservatives differ from them primarily in wanting to conform to a different view of the world. Steve Jones, elder Kokomo, Ind. We need to be united in defense of our church April 13, 2006 I, too, share all these concerns but one thing I truly worry about is a lack of unity. So many of us Presbyterians share these concerns but from my point of view, all the "groups" need to unite instead of making 10 similar statements. You all know those who are trying to subvert our church are very united in their attacks. We need to be equally united in defense of our church. You learned it early in school: "United we stand, divided we fall." You who are leaders, get together, the rest of us get supportive, and don't dilly-dally. I am with each of you on this. Richard Conway, elder Morganton First Morganton, N.C. Most Christians are undoubtedly agnostic without even realizing it April 13, 2006 Several people have responded to my letter [posted April 3, 2006] in support of Rev. Jim Rigby with some criticisms. One cannot be a Christian and an agnostic, or a Christian and an atheist, they claim. Christianity has rules, they assert. The foundation for Christian faith is the Bible, the creeds and the sacraments, they argue. I wanted to respond to these claims. If this letter is not published, I understand. It is not my intention to turn Layman.org into my personal soapbox. However, as someone who spends the bulk of his time studying, exploring and teaching the world's religions, I feel it is necessary to provide the widest possible perspective from which to understand Christianity and its relevant practice in the world today. (That is my answer to Mr. O'Brien, who asks, where we get these ideas; we get them through study and reflection of the world's resources of wisdom.) One can easily be a Christian agnostic, and, in fact, most Christians (possibly excepting the mystics) are undoubtedly agnostics, though they do not realize it because of confusion surrounding the term. "Agnostic," a term coined in the late-19th century by biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, refers not to one who doubts the existence of God but to one who doubts whether one might have valid knowledge of the existence of God (with valid knowledge being typically defined as knowledge which is empirically derived). One who believes in God and who also recognizes that this is belief and not knowledge is by definition (to use Mr. Mark Johnston's phrase) an agnostic Christian (the alternative appellation for those allergic to postmodern hyphenated identities). I consider myself to be such a Christian, and I still exist, so it seems entirely possible for one to be both a Christian and an agnostic. (As for Christianity and other religions being mutually exclusive, explain that to the Japanese, tens of thousands of who have no problem being born with Shinto fanfare, attending Christian services faithfully during their lives, and departing with Buddhist funerals. Christianity's mutual exclusivity with other faiths is as much a function of Western philosophical "one way or the other" predilections as it is an inherent trait of Christianity.) I agree that it is more difficult to accept the case for Christian atheists. This is not because of the internal contradiction my respondents see, but rather because of the sorry lack of negative theology in the Western Christian (particularly Protestant) tradition. (Rev. Yearsley is right in his criticism, insofar as there is no "rational way" to reconcile atheism and belief in God. There is also, alas, no "rational way" to reconcile the divinity of Christ with his humanity or to reconcile the three persons of the Trinity with their single divine nature. Thankfully, the negative theologians of Christianity have shown that the nature of God is not rational and limited by human concept, but rather is infinite, unbounded, and completely beyond human understanding.) According to Wikipedia's article on negative theology: "neither existence nor nonexistence applies to God, i.e. God is beyond existing or not existing … one should not claim that god is one, or three, or any type of being." Again, when one recognizes the limitations of theological language and thinking, one can see that it is quite possible to experience and love an infinite God without clinging to (necessarily finite and flawed) creedal formulations, including the need to defend the "existence" of God. Thus we see the very real possibility of being consistently an atheist and a Christian (i.e. one who is a serious, sincere disciple of Jesus). This deeper issue, that of categorically defining, describing and delimiting God, borders on idolatry, i.e. confusing limited human artifice with unlimited divine reality. When Christianity has for recognized for centuries that the radical nature of God goes beyond even the concepts of existence and non-existence, why do we insist on clinging to doctrinal formulations, creeds and even Scriptures as if these were themselves the essential message of the absolute love of God as revealed in the person of Jesus? If someone is moved by something in Christianity that merits their further exploration, why should they be locked out because they cannot intellectually accept every tenet of the belief system as outlined by a particular council, creed, synod or episcopate (even if the tenet in question is the very existence of God)? Is faith the same thing as belief in ideas about God and Jesus? If every belief is in some sense false simply by virtue of it not accurately describing the totality of the Godhead, as negative theology would indicate, why then do we insist on ensuring that people subscribe to the "correct" set of tenets before accepting them as fellow Christians? My critics would say that it is because these tenets are correct and that refusal to accept them in their entirety is apostasy; I say that it is because we don't have the courage to follow Jesus without them, to listen within for the "still small voice" that indicates truth from falsehood and to admit to our fallibility and uncertainty when dealing with matters beyond the scope of our limited primate understanding. Mr. O'Brien is right when he says that Jesus had rules for the early Christians, but I assert that he is wrong if he considers these rules to be conceptual tenets to which one must swear an oath of fealty. Rather, the "rules" of the early Christians were defined by radically putting into practice the Reign of God – by lovingly challenging hypocritical orthodoxy about sin, cleanliness, purity, etc., by feeding the hungry, by clothing the naked, by visiting the imprisoned, and by regarding every human being as a fellow (there is that word!) beloved child of our Heavenly Abba. (And I must admit to being completely lost by the concluding example on the "rules" for admission to Christian fellowship. In what way do the thieves on the cross demonstrate anything having to do with these rules? One recognizes that Jesus innocent, the other cynically cares little for his guilt or innocence. The thief who recognizes Jesus' innocence is promised paradise, the other ignored. How did either of these thieves embody the Christian "rules" as either you or I understand them?) Finally, I have a question to the person who claims that the only valid sources of Christian understanding are the creeds, the Scriptures and the sacraments: What did early Christians believe before they had these third- and fourth-century resources to delineate the "orthodox" from the "heretical?" Were they not really Christians (or, more to the point, were those who believed differently from you not really Christians)? Or did they somehow receive a special dispensation, allowing them to use what evidence they did have, along with their own experience and "still small voices," to come to their saving faith in Jesus? The former conclusion goes beyond presumptuousness, while the latter opens up Pandora's box for those who claim that their doctrine or their belief is definitive and categorically correct. After all, if there was ambiguity and uncertainty then, so close to the source of revelation (and all the historical evidence indicates that this is the case), then how much more uncertain and ambiguous are religious matters for us, two millennia later? How can we dare to claim certain knowledge based on what we merely believe to be true? If asking these questions and acting on my uncertain understanding of God and Jesus makes me, and others like me, apostate and heretics, then so be it. (In the words of Huckleberry Finn, "alright, I'll go to hell!") We are in good company. Jason B.P. Mierek Instructor of World Religions Parkland College, Champaign, Ill. Saddened by Rogers' captivity to this cultural, anti-Biblical position April 10, 2006 Thank you, Pastor Noel K. Anderson, for your excellent letter [posted April 3, 2006] which is right on target. What Jack Rogers accuses Thornwell of, he himself is doing by justifying homosexual relationships. The church was wrong then in going along with the culture justifying slavery and will be wrong now if it sanctions the cultures push towards the homosex agenda. I continue to be surprised and saddened with Rogers' change of mind and captivity to this cultural, anti-Biblical position. The pressure to change one's mind is presently strong and many false emotional arguments are presented by the opposition for acceptance, but we continue to believe that no matter what there will be a faithful remnant within the PCUSA which will not bow to this modern-day "Baal" which is causing havoc in our midst. Rev. Eddie Soto, associate pastor Faith Presbyterian Church Tallahassee, Fla. Where will interest go from hurricane fund? April 10, 2006 Thank you for the update on the PDA funds. One question comes to my mind: Where will the interest that is earned on the $14.4 million over seven years go? That is a huge chunk of money that only rightly should go into the hurricane fund, not some other line item in the PCUSA's budget. Just wondering ... Jennifer Kirkbride, elder Wellsburg, W.Va. Presbyterian Disaster Assistance says any interest earned off the $14.4 million will be used to help victims of the hurricanes. The Editors One cannot be a Christian and be either atheist or agnostic April 10, 2006 I fail to understand Mr. Mierek's [letter to the editor posted April 3, 2006] argument. The crux of the matter is actually quite simple, in that one cannot be a Christian and be either atheist (denying the existence of God) or agnostic (doubting the existence of God). Christianity is NOT about "political and fellowship aspects." Rather, it is the acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior; the only begotten son of the triune God as expressed Biblically and in the creeds, repenting of our sins and following all that Jesus taught us. As long as these criteria are met, Christianity is inclusive. Christians must believe in the God that Jesus believed in, taught of, prayed to and worshipped, or they are not Christians. To be either an atheist or agnostic and a Christian, or, frankly, belong to any other religion is, by definition, mutually exclusive. Period. To argue otherwise fallacious at best and delusional at worst. Mark Johnston Pastoral Intern Knox Presbyterian Church We have replaced the authority of Scripture with other guides and references April 10, 2006 Alan Meenan tells the truth when he says about the current polemic in the PCUSA that "The problem is not homosexuality and ordination, but the authority of Scripture. If the devil can't get you converted, he will get you diverted." Remaining under the authority of Scripture has proven to be a much bigger challenge than anyone seems prepared to admit. Liberals try not to think in those terms and conservatives say they do, but our actions say otherwise. If conservatives really wanted to live under the authority of Scripture, we would hold the totality of the Scriptures in balance rather than preach one part and ignore the others. We would not ignore, for example, the teachings of Jesus against divorce, legalism and oppression of the poor and foreigners. If liberals on the other hand really wanted to rise above the law, we would live our lives focused on Jesus who alone completes the law and is himself the only one above it. Instead, we focus on "issues." Either way, we have replaced the authority of Scripture with other guides and references. The current polemic about homosexuality is a case in point. Really a Trojan horse, it comes from outside the church. Our secular culture is polarized between conservatives and liberals. These factions are tugging at the church to join their side and deliver God to their camp. But God is not to be found in either ideology (Acts 10:34). In the secular world, our tolerance of homosexuality is the litmus test of our ideological inclination. Secular conservatives despise homosexuality as an aberration. Secular liberals on the other hand, allow homosexuality and encourage gay marriage and gay families. We have been sucked in by what appears on the surface to be a legitimate question of whether homosexuals can marry and be ordained. However, our minds are made up long before we study the Scriptures, and we read into them what we expect and want them to say. To answer the question is to choose sides, not between God and Baal as some have cynically suggested, but between Baal and Asherah, two faces of the same evil. What has happened here and in other "mainline" churches is that the secular right wing of our society has used this issue to co-opt and pay for the conservatives of our faith to wage religious civil war against the liberals of our faith. We have been drafted to dismantle the PCUSA because the secular right perceives it as a dangerously progressive institution. Maybe it is, but if secular conservatives view the church as subversive, maybe that is not such a bad thing. It might have helped Germany in the '30s. The point is that it has caused disciple to fight against disciple in a battle to erase the influence of the PCUSA from our society. If the secular right succeeds, the Gospel of Jesus Christ will suffer. There is no creature the secular world despises more than a turncoat. The word of God coming from the mouths of those who turned against their own brothers and sisters in the faith will have no more credibility than foolish Judas. Letting our secular ideology become our guide and choosing to join the fray, whether conservative or liberal, is to give up the authority of Scripture. We can tell we have done it because in a world torn apart by strife, the message of the Gospel is a message of reconciliation, not dissention. Once chosen by God to be mediators of peace through Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures, shall we now choose to mediate strife? We will reap what we sow. As Meenan says, the Trickster is indeed trying to divert us. The evil is not in which side we choose, but in the choosing of a side. Ritchie Jones Los Angeles, Calif. FOG is an appropriate acronym April 10, 2006 What an appropriate acronym! And just what we need today: A way to cloud those pesky issues which, unfortunately, are so clearly stated in the Book of Order. James E. Tuckett, Ph.D. Church is not inclined to engage in a debate over what is past April 10, 2006 An article titled "Meenan Doesn't Close Door to Another Church Body," which appeared on your website on April 4, 2006, contained erroneous information regarding First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood. You reported that "the congregation announced plans to shut down its 11 a.m. Sunday service because attendance dipped to about 100." On the contrary: 1. There are no plans to terminate the 11 a.m. service, nor for that matter, any of the four Sunday services offered at our church – at which attendance is rising. 2. The attendance figure reported in your article is grossly understated. We are not inclined to engage in a debate over what is past – a debate which might distract us from our century-long commitment to raising the cross over Hollywood. However, in the future, we would be inclined to respond to any requests from The Layman regarding the accuracy of information about the church, prior to its publication. Lorynne Young Director of Communications First Presbyterian Church of Hollywood The Layman revised its April 4 article. The editors Mischief is afoot April 10, 2006 Mischief is afoot. I wonder if the GA will refer this "revision" to the presbyteries or will it be on the order of an "AI?" Dawson Watkins Why can't Christians just see each other as Christians without qualification? April 10, 2006 I read with interest the letters regarding the fuss over a so-called Christian-Atheist. David Buck's letter [posted April 6, 2006] brought some important points to mind I think. Mr. Buck notes: "The fact that the words Christian-atheist are separated by a hyphen and used to describe a person's belief is amazing." I couldn't agree more. Then he notes about Jesus: "Faith in him describes a Christian, not Christian followed by a hyphen and then something else." I also agree. In fact I think what is unfortunate in our world today is how we all think we have to qualify the word Christian at all whether it is an adjective before the word or the word followed by a hyphen. Let's face it. There are many guilty of this. For isn't it amazing we can't simply see a person as a Christian in faith without having to know if that person is a liberal Christian, conservative Christian, and evangelical Christian, a fundamentalist Christian, a More-Light Christian, a Confessing Church Christian, and the list goes on. Why can't we Christians just see each other as Christians without qualification? I expect that makes it too simple. And that in-effect removes the "fog" as well. I somehow think people feel more comfortable remaining in the "fog" rather than taking action to remove it even if they think they are not in the "fog." There is hope however. One simply has to keep trying to get through that opening that the "fog" may seem to hide despite what obstacles others bring before us. We can all find it and do. That is the "Great News." We should all hope everyone finds the "Great News" rather than focus on bringing each other down in what is really a petty debate in the end. Well it's nice to know that Easter comes in the next week. Maybe that is a good time for all to focus on what Christ really did for us rather than focusing on what we think we at times do for Christ. The simple truth is we all fall short of that and I don't think anyone can claim to have reached that point. If someone does, then we should really watch out. That is what is more relevant in the debate if there should be a debate. But I can't help but wonder why are we fussing? It really doesn't make sense! I saw a most wonderful movie the other night called Joyeux Noel where soldiers in World War I put aside their arms and had fellowship with each other on Christmas Eve. This included Scots, French, and the Germans. I would encourage all in this forum to see this movie no matter what side of the spectrum you are on. It is amazing how the simple message of Christ can change people and did in that circumstance. Regardless of where anyone stands, I think these final words are appropriate to all in the spirit of Easter. Christ has risen. He has indeed! Earl C. Apel Cincinnati, Ohio Member, Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church PCUSA's inclusiveness should demonstrate the divine nature of our Lord April 6, 2006 I read with interest the letter written by Jason B.P. Mierek [posted April 3, 2006] titled: "To remain relevant Christians must demonstrate Jesus-like inclusiveness." I was drawn to the last line: "Opening the door to Christian-atheists and Christian-agnositc may seem like heresy. So did socializing with prostitutes and lepers." According to the American Heritage College Dictionary:
The fact that the words Christian-atheist are separated by a hyphen and used to describe a person's belief is amazing. Mr. Mierek wrote, "Jesus hung out with tax collectors, harlots and other 'sinners' because, as he noted, the sick need the medicine more than the healthy." The "medicine" was not a social encounter and the privilege of hanging out with Jesus – the "medicine" was Jesus. Our churches should be open and accepting. In that "inclusiveness" should be goals to demonstrate the love, compassion, holiness and divine nature of our Lord and Savior – Jesus Christ. Faith in him describes a Christian, not Christian followed by a hyphen and then something else. David Buck Springdale, Ark. PCUSA is asked to journey from one degree of FOG to another April 6, 2006 To learn that the Office of the General Assembly is recommending a FOG Task Force is almost too rich for words. We who are to avail ourselves of the Holy Spirit working in our lives in such a measure that, "we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord [Jesus Christ], are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another;" are instead asked to journey from one degree of FOG to another (2 Corinthians 3:18). Already unable to see the hand-in-front-of-our-face, it will take more guidance than the report of a seeing-eye-PUP to navigate this thick pea-soup. It would really stir-the-pot if an astute, evangelical commissioner to the 217th GA offered an amendment to the FOG proposal that would instruct the task force to gain clarity by giving serious consideration to the model of governance provided by the draft constitution of the New Wineskins Initiative. Jim Henkel, NWI endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery Allow readers to see the irony of acronyms on their own April 6, 2006 That article [GA will be asked to name FOG group to abridge, overhaul Book of Order] was informative, but could be improved if the pejorative comments about the acronyms PUP and FOG were omitted. Allow your readers to draw their own conclusions to see the irony of those acronyms on their own. Drop the poorly veiled sarcasm. It is unbecoming. It is my wish The Layman would do a special edit before printing any article, an edit focused especially to cull out sarcasm and snide remarks. Such comments diminish the effect of the story and cause me to question your accuracy and sincerity. Trust me, I think The Layman is especially useful and keeps me abreast of events. I usually enjoy it. I also suspect that your readership is above average in their ability to comprehend matters, and is probably annoyed by veiled sarcasm and negativity as well. Please thoughtfully consider my critique. It is meant to be positive. Carl Seelhoff PCUSA's clergy and leaders are having difficulty holding to the rules April 6, 2006 In response to Jason B.P.Mierek, Instructor of World Religion, Parkland College, Champaign, Ill [letter to the editor posted April 3, 2006] You write that if Christianity is to remain relevant we must reach out to sinners. Then, in the next paragraph you write that we must welcome them into fellowship. If that's your argument, I believe you have missed the point. Reaching out and offering fellowship are commands of Christ. Admitting those persons into membership in a body of believers is another matter – the matter under debate. And on that matter there are rules about membership we have all agreed to follow up until now. Curiously, it seems that our learned clergy and denominational leaders are the ones having the greatest difficulty holding to the rules. Where do you suppose they get these ideas? Christ, as our role model, had rules about joining, too. Why do you suppose that on the cross, he told one condemned thief he would be joining him, and failed to offer the other the same reward. Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. GA must be aware of the implications of accepting the task force's report April 6, 2006 The Spring edition of "The Covenant Connection" just arrived and I was surprised (not really) at the second paragraph which states: "The 217th General Assembly holds the promise for significant progress in the PCUSA. The Report of the Task Force on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, if adopted in its entirety, would return authority to discern essential qualifications for ordained leadership to presbyteries and sessions." (my emphasis added) There are two things rightly drawn from this. First, it is clear that their assessment of the impact of the report's acceptance would take the discernment of qualifications out of the realm of the Book of Order, our denominational standard, and place its locus in the hands of presbyteries and sessions. Second, it would be difficult to deny that this is an underhanded way of moving us back to what might be called pre- "b" days. It would be a de facto removal of "b" and a de facto bypassing of denominational process in doing so. I hope and pray that everyone going to GA will go with no small awareness of the implications an acceptance of the report would carry. It would be tragic in my view if the report is accepted. But I'm not sure if it would be more tragic if it was accepted with or without a fuller knowledge of the report and any subsequent consequences. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, WV 'Christian-Atheist' is a complete oxymoron April 6, 2006 Jason B.P. Mierek, in his letter [posted April 3, 2006] defending Jim Rigby, gives great proof as to what is wrong with the state of religious education today. This "instructor of World religions" doesn't even recognize that "Christian-Atheist" is a complete oxymoron. A Christian worships the Christ, God incarnate. The atheist denies the very existence of any god. There is no rational way to reconcile those two positions. Those, "... who have come to appreciate Christianity for its political and fellowship aspects ..." miss the point entirely. Christianity is neither a political system nor a social club – nor has it ever been. It is a way of life and a world view. And, the one way which equips the saints with the truth. Mr. Rigby and Mr. Mierek are far too prepared to accommodate the world at the expense of truth and faithfulness. Rev. James C. Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Let's add some 'fog' to PCUSA's issues April 6, 2006 Re: GA will be asked to name FOG group to abridge, overhaul Book of Order "Unwittingly chosen name" indeed! Jesus said (Matthew 7:13-15): "Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." The Office of the General Assembly seems to think it would be profitable to revise this to: "Enter by the narrow gate. ... For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few, so, let's add some FOG to let some who stand on their own (un)righteousness find a way around it." Not so, please Lord! Greg Leaman Sheboygan, Wisc. May God convict the hearts of Christians to examine Scripture for his truth April 6, 2006 Wow! What an important article you've published. Kristin Johnson really speaks from the perspective of a sinner who has been saved! How I long for the same depth of conviction in regard to my own sins. I truly embrace her core point: "It is not the need to be loved that is a sin; it is the running from God's love to find his love and provision in a counterfeit that is a sin." Cannot this same point be made for any couple outside the bounds of a marriage as defined by Scripture? Let only those whom God (not mankind) has joined together not be separated. It is brave to be so transparent. May God continue to shore up Kristin's courage using her pain and struggle to meet others in their struggle but always encouraging them to seek God. And may he convict the hearts of all Christians to examine the Scripture for his truth. The church does have a responsibility to speak his truth and stand behind the principles whether or not they may be secularly or politically correct. That which is Biblical must be upheld. Lynn Wong Morgan Hill Presbyterian Church Morgan Hill, Calif. For more information, check out National Institute for Health Research April 6, 2006 For those who may be misled by the recent "million dollar study" that found that some people are actually harmed by prayer for healing, may I suggest you check the web site of the National Institute for Health Research? The web site is: www nihr.org or e mail at: nihr@nihr.org. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. Rogers fails to see himself in mirror he holds up for the rest of PCUSA April 3, 2006 Dr. Jack Rogers, in Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality, provides a wealth of research into Presbyterian Scriptural use and abuse through the ages, but unfortunately pours his good research into a string of flawed analogies. While we respectfully honor his painstaking research and helpful citations, we also stand in utter amazement at how he fails to see himself and his own arguments in the very mirror he holds up to the rest of the denomination. In Chapter 2, "A Pattern of Misusing the Bible to Justify Oppression," Rogers recalls one James Henley Thornwell – a name to be remembered by all Presbyterians concerned with homosexual rights – and the arguments he used to justify the immoral practice of slavery. Thornwell (as Rogers teaches us) sought to justify slavery through at least four principles (all quotes from pp. 21-22): 1. Ask: Does Scripture directly [literally] condemn slavery? No. 2. Remember: Slavery is no new thing, it has existed for ages in the world and church. 3. Ask: Do Scriptures indirectly condemn slavery? (No, argues Thornwell, and for which Rogers comments: "An evil practice of ancient Near Eastern culture, recorded in the Bible, was thus allowed to overrule the central teachings of Jesus). 4. The particulars of Scripture take precedence over the general principles. "Unless something is expressly prohibited, it can be done." 5. Natural law argument: Whatever the majority of people accept as true is natural. Thornwell's arguments to justify immorality bear a point-for-point correlation with the pro-homosexual enthusiasm! Rogers is correct about Christians misusing Scripture to justify sinful behavior, but how on earth can he miss the perfect reflection with his own – and others' – attempts to justify homosexual behavior? The chapter needs to be rethought and rewritten with the title: "A Pattern of Misusing the Bible to Justify Immoral Sexual Practices." The progressives argue exactly as did Thornwell. In the above examples, try replacing the word "slavery" with "homosexuality" and see where we stand! Evangelicals stand with the Abolitionists – those who appeal to the word and spirit of the text to denounce a culturally-accepted practice. Western culture's embrace of homosexuality is identical to the old South's embrace of slavery. Their justifications are exactly the same. Rogers further reminds us (p.33): "Abolitionists within larger denominations, following the principle 'no fellowship with slavery,' often withdrew to form new antislavery churches." and "Yet other abolitionists grew tired of the mainstream churches' failure to condemn slavery. For example, a leading New England abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, was deeply disappointed when his own pastor, Lyman Beecher, refused to endorse the immediate emancipation of slaves, calling the idea 'commendable, but misguided.'" Pro-homosexuality Presbyterians like Rogers sincerely believe they merely practice compassion and mercy by the promotion of homosexual behaviors. To love the people you must love the sin, is the effect of their logic. This too is commendable, but misguided. Rogers et. al. are seeking to justify a practice that has clearly been denounced as sinful by the whole Church – worldwide, spread throughout history – in a unanimity that is nearly perfect. All Presbyterians should hope to be remembered in these present conflicts as having learned from our Abolitionist heritage. In the matter of justifying homosexual behavior, we must stand with the Abolitionists, not Thornwell. Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. I watched a strong, cohesive church being torn apart by the actions of a few April 3, 2006 You have invited comments on the events leading to the renunciation of jurisdiction by Dr. Alan Meenan as a result of the arbitrary disciplinary actions directed at Dr. Meenan and Dr. David Manock over the past year. I am one of the members of the congregation who left Hollywood Presbyterian Church one year ago after 19 years of committed membership because of the unwarranted actions of the presbytery towards these men. I would like to speak for myself and many others who are still experiencing grief and outrage over the injustice of what happened to these two dedicated men of God and to our beloved church. What has become obvious over the past year is that there was a well-orchestrated campaign to discredit these two men without any search for the truth. Neither Dr. Meenan nor Dr. Manock was given a fair opportunity to know the names of their accusers or the opportunity to defend themselves against their scurrilous charges. Nor were those whose lives were lovingly touched and transformed by the teaching and preaching of the saving grace of Christ Jesus by these men given an opportunity to have their voices heard. Were they to have had an opportunity to speak, their voices would far outnumber the few who spoke against these men. Presbytery committees responsible for the decision to remove these two pastors from their duties at Hollywood Presbyterian church were either seduced and manipulated by individuals who had their own agendas, or they were complicit in the removal of these two dedicated and principled men of God whose integrity, character and intentions were impugned by the unfounded accusations of those who would do them harm. I watched a strong, cohesive church being torn apart by the actions of a few who were unwilling to work in Christian harmony to surface and work out issues that they may have had with the leadership of the church. On May 3, 2005, at the specially called meeting of the presbytery, Drs. Meenan and Manock were vilified by some and praised by others. Speakers and letters by unidentified writers made accusations with no facts presented to support them, and the leaders of the presbytery moved forward with their agenda with little regard for fairness, making it appear that there were equal numbers of people supporting and condemning their pastors, when the supporters far outnumbered the complainants. With the intervention of the Committee on Ministry and the Administrative Commission, the unity of the church was fractured. Up until the actions of those two bodies, a large majority of Hollywood Presbyterian Church was firmly in support of their pastors and their leadership and ministry. The law of unintended consequences was in full play with the eventual resignations of Dr. Meenan and Dr. Manock. Those who sought their removal on the basis of "healing the body" now deal with a severely wounded body that is reduced in numbers and resources. The actions of the presbytery not only damaged these pastors, but also programs that served the helpless and homeless, missionaries in the field supported financially by this church, and members of the community served by the Hollywood Urban Project and various other outreach programs. One of the worst outcomes has been the damage to the faith of new or young Christians who were brought to Christ or back to their Christian faith by the Biblical preaching and teaching of these outstanding pastors. These unseasoned members did not understand the actions of the presbytery. Many have expressed unwillingness to ever be a part of a church again. They saw no due process and no adherence to Biblical principles in dealing with disputes between Christians within the church. Both Dr. Meenan and Dr. Manock are decent men of integrity and honesty. They want nothing more than to serve the Lord and his church by preaching the Word in purity and truth, bringing hurting souls to a knowledge of and relationship with a loving God who transforms lives by his saving Grace in Jesus Christ. These men have hearts for Christ and were faithful to their call to God and to Hollywood Presbyterian Church and its parishioners. They live lives of exemplary Christian love and behavior in their personal lives and in their ministries. They are loving, compassionate, forgiving and humble. What has been done to Dr. Meenan and Dr. Manock over the past year may have made some men angry and bitter. These two men have shown grace under pressure and they have been wonderful examples of trust in the faithfulness of God to care for and protect them in this situation and to deliver them from the evil that surrounded them. There is no way that the presbytery nor the small group of people at Hollywood Presbyterian Church who created this injustice can ever make up for the damage, the hurt, the humiliation and the embarrassment that their unproven allegations and unjust actions have caused these men and especially their families, who are innocent in this matter and have not caused nor deserved such indecent treatment, which is neither Christian nor loving. The manner in which the presbytery committees acted leads one to believe that it was a calculated decision to preclude a fair and just process that might influence the outcome of their decision. If that is true, may God grant each of them mercy and forgiveness when they are called by him to account for their unjust actions in the way they have dealt with the unfounded allegations against Dr. Meenan and Dr. Manock. Betty Zaun Former member of Hollywood Presbyterian Church To remain relevant Christians must demonstrate Jesus-like inclusiveness April 3, 2006 Jesus hung out with tax collectors, harlots and other "sinners" because, as he noted, the sick need the medicine more than the healthy. If we are to accept Jesus as the paradigm for being-in-the-world and for relating to others, it follows that the best way to put the Great Commission into action is to reach out to those who are perceived as today's "sinners," including tattoo artists, chain smokers, leftists, agnostics and atheists. After all, nothing (except maybe a larger membership roster) comes from making members of people who already believe what you believe. (They are obviously also to be welcomed with open arms, just as Jesus loved the self-proclaimed righteous, but why belabor the obvious?) If Christianity is to remain relevant in the postmodern, pluralistic American society of the 21st century, we Christians must demonstrate Jesus-like inclusiveness by our example, by welcoming into fellowship those who share some but not all of the same convictions. Instead of condemning Reverend Jim Rigby, perhaps we need to recognize the wisdom of his decision to accept an avowed Christian-atheist. People like Professor Jensen (and millions of others) who have come to appreciate Christianity for its political and fellowship aspects might even accept the salvific efficacy of grace as experienced through the healing love of Jesus. First, however, they need to see that grace in practice, which, alas, in this time of Sanhedrin-esque self-righteousness on the part of Christians throughout the nation, is all too rare. In order for him to experience that grace, just like Zaccheus and other sinners, he needs loving fellowship, not ideological (or theological, whatever the difference in those terms may be) ostracism. Closing the door to those who openly disagree with core tenets of the faith, or who are merely ambivalent, questioning, or otherwise "apostate" (a concept fit for the rubbish bin) only helps those whom, like the Sanhedrin, base their fragile senses of religious identity on excluding others rather than on loving them and welcoming them into fellowship. (Which, again, is not to say that these fragile-egoed Christians are not also to be loved and embraced wholeheartedly. They should be. But again, why belabor the obvious?) Opening the door to Christian-atheists and Christian-agnositc may seem like heresy. So did socializing with prostitutes and lepers. Jason B.P. Mierek Instructor of World Religion Parkland College, Champaign, Ill. Renouncing PCUSA for a place of peace, joy and commitment to God's Word April 3, 2006 Dear Dr. Meenan, We are deeply saddened to know of your bittersweet renouncement of the PCUSA. We, too, have renounced -- to happily join Redeemer Lutheran Church, Fort Collins, Colorado, where some 450 new members joined last year (2005). It is a place of peace, joy and commitment to God's Holy Word. What more can one say? We wish you and all those who follow this same peace, joy and commitment to God's Holy Word. Joan and John Yee Marveling at the contrast between Meenan and Rigby April 3, 2006 It is fascinating to see "our" denomination continuing its slide into irrelevance and oblivian. One marvels at the contrast between Alan Meenan and Jim Rigby. I wish brother Alan a joyful shalom as he discovers new vistas of God's grace. One wonders, who among us, is next? As for men like Rigby. Do they need our "connectionalism" to subsidize their existence? Regarding those who brought the charges against Alan Meenan; you do not attack God's anointed without consequences! What a tragedy! Jerry J. Voss Millbrook Pres. Fresno, Calif. God is not a laboratory mouse that scientists can put in a maze or manipulate April 3, 2006 A recent $2.4 million study, the largest "scientific test of its kind," determined that surgery patients showed no benefit when strangers prayed for their recovery. That was a complete waste of time, money and effort from the start. God answers prayers in response to the faith, belief and reverence of him shown by those who truly have real and actual faith, belief and reverence of him. And oftentimes his answers are "no." God is not a laboratory mouse that scientists can put in a maze, manipulate, poke, prod, and see which way he turns and what he does based on rewards or punishment – to "scientifically" verify if he really exists, has any intelligence, and/or can be manipulated to do perform tricks like a circus animal. The idea that mankind can "train" God to jump through man's hoops at man's command like a circus lion is trained and manipulated is the height of scientific arrogance towards God. "Do not put God to a test" is an Old Testament command that Jesus quoted to the devil with when the devil tested Christ. The "scientific" community that really doesn't believe in God or have reverence for him put God to a test in violation of God's Word. And they expected to prove "what?" by treating God as a laboratory mouse or circus animal? Some things they did show was their arrogance, their stupidity, their lack of understanding, their lack of knowledge, and their attitude of superiority over God. Robert E. Forman Lakewood, Colo. You don't read the newspapers and didn't really read the overture April 3, 2006 In the third paragraph of your article you state: Without offering any proof, the overture provides a litany of accusations charging that the actively (sic) was involved "in the mistreatment of persons detained by the Government of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib Prison, or elsewhere or in transporting persons into detention in nations with known records of brutality." This leads me to believe that you don't read the newspapers, didn't really read the overture and didn't even proof-read your own copy! Tom McAfee WCC is well worth the small fraction of my 5-dollar per capita that it receives April 3, 2006 It is with deep respect and humility that I acknowledge the sentiments of retired Vice Commander and former POW Jim Hickerson [letter to the editor, posted March 30, 2006]. He is a true leader of men and an American hero. His sacrifice, courage and those of his fellow officers will always be landmarks in the history of our Nation. It is an honor for the Presbyterian Church to have him in its ranks as an ordained member. It seems odd that he lays one of his beatings at the feet of the WCC. I can think of many reasons why his captors beat him, but can an anti war editorial by the WCC really be one of them? His sense of betrayal is real enough however, and for me it is holy ground. It is not the only element of his experience in common with the Passion Story. The Presbyterian Church is part of the WCC in the same way the United States is part of the United Nations. The purpose of the UN, like Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations before it, is to prevent world war and address humanitarian needs around the globe. Many special interest groups have targeted it to carry out their own agendas, and some of America's greatest adversaries are members of the UN. Yet, the largest part of the UN budget still comes from the US. The failure of the League of Nations is why we keep the UN alive. The alternative is the world of Auschwitz and Hiroshima and Hoa Lo. During the 20th Century, the greatest threats to freedom and world peace were right wing fascism and left wing communism, but during the last quarter of a century, things have changed. The next world war looks more and more like it will be a religious one. If we are to survive the 21st century, it is essential that we engage in dialog with other faiths. It is a much greater challenge than the UN has had in the past. The nature of religious folks is that we like to preach much more than we like to listen. Still, the WCC is a forum for inter-faith dialogue and well worth the small fraction of my 5-dollar per capita that it receives. We need to lead by example. Vice Commander Hickerson has the credentials to endorse any other more focused forums and if he does I would be proud to stand with him. Jim Hickerson's story reminds us also that we American Christians are part stewards of a free democracy. When US military actions turn out to be a sin, they are not the sins of our warriors but ours. The price they pay is in our name. The blood they spill is on every one of us. It is therefore entirely appropriate and necessary for us to question always the pretenses and morality of any military action we take on as a nation. Not to lay blame, but to accept the responsibility that comes with our heritage. It may appear to some as a weakness, but in that weakness is the real strength and purpose of our freedom. Ritchie Jones Los Angeles, Calif. As it was in Nineveh, it is time for the people lead the way, to turn to God April 3, 2006 According to historians, there was once a brutally evil city. It was so brutal that God took note and sent a reluctant prophet to warn the city of its impending doom. God chose what must have been a powerfully persuasive preacher. God first had to persuade the prophet to go as commanded, regardless of his personal feelings. The prophet got on a ship and ran away from his assigned task. So God sent a storm so great that the ship's captain feared for his and the ship's life, so the prophet was thrown overboard where God had prepared a great fish which swallowed the disobedient prophet. Three days later the alive prophet was spit out and went on to his task. He preached to that city and they earnestly and passionately repented! The people, from the "greatest to the least," believed God, declared a fast and put on sackcloth. Even the king took off his royal robes and put on the garment of repentance, sackcloth and sat down in the dust. Further, the king issued a proclamation that the whole city – man or beast – herd or flock – shall not eat or drink. He called for each man and beast to be covered with the garment of repentance, sackcloth, calling urgently on God, giving up their evil ways and their violence with the hope that God might relent and compassionately turn from his fierce anger so that Nineveh would not perish. It is doubtful that the king knew the marvelous promise of Isaiah 55:7. "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: let him return to the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon." But just as Isaiah prophesied, the God of heaven did; he pardoned! Now the prophet had expected Nineveh to disregard his message and he had gone up on the mountain to watch the fireworks, the destruction of that great city. Jonah was angry with God, lamenting about God's graciousness, compassion, slowness to anger, abounding love and relenting from sending calamity. But God showed Jonah that he loved the man that he had made, even those now-repented Ninevites. This Layman Online forum has been full of impassioned pleas for this fellowship, naming the name of Christ and known as Presbyterians, to repent. Time is short; calamity is coming! Individual Christians in this PCUSA fellowship need to each put on our garment of repentance, fast and pray and turn from all our sin. Perhaps the rulers in the sessions, presbyteries, synods, General Assembly and, yes, even in Louisville, will notice, as the king of Nineveh did, and also repent and perhaps they will call for a denomination-wide revival that re-establishes Jesus, alone, as King of our fellowship. He is still gracious, still full of compassion, still slow to anger, still abounding in great love and still relenting from sending calamity. As it was in Nineveh, it is time for the people lead the way, to turn to God; it is assured on authority of Scripture that he will have mercy. He will have mercy and abundantly pardon. James H. Logan McHenry, Md. |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |