 |
|
| January
2006 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Hollywood's
drama shows how real and deep the struggle is in the PCUSA January 31, 2006 God will not be silenced; his Holy Word will not be muffled! I have been following the sad, sad events of the Hollywood Presbyterian saga and now today have just read Rev. Meenan's letter to his flock. This seems like a closure to the event, but it is not ... it is a preview of what will continue until the schism in the PCUSA is resolved. The drama of the Hollywood Presbyterian Church is a vivid demonstration of how real and deep is the struggle in the PCUSA. The stakes must seem awfully high to the leaders in our denomination who would stoop so low to utilize such underhanded means to render an adversary, the thorn in their flesh, helpless in their arena of polity. It is sad that the coming General Assembly, instead of being a rallying point for the Church to take on the nation and the world for Christ, is taking on the drama of a gladiator ring for our internal schism. It is necessary for this battle to be fought and it will be; when the dust is settled, we can hopefully put nonsense like the skulduggery of the Hollywood Presbyterian tragedy behind us. Out of the ashes, God's Word will rise. It is highly commendable, that Rev. Meenan harbors no bitterness and that he continues to be a faithful and significant voice for the Gospel. Is there gloating in the adversary's camp or is there regret? Jesus wept and Jesus weeps. Rev. George F. Major Silex Presbyterian Church Silex, Missouri If there is a schism in PCUSA, it's because GA believes it's all powerful January 31, 2006 In the recent issue of The Layman, I was interested in the article on the Reverend Ernest D. Smart who was the well-respected and loved pastor at Second Presbyterian Church in Baltimore, Maryland for 18 years. For too many years the General Assembly's representative in the Baltimore area was Herbert Valentine, who wielded a club over the heads of those, like Ernest Smart, who incurred his wrath. As an elder in the Presbyterian Church since 1983, I witnessed Valentine's unreasonable actions on several occasions. I felt the General Assembly should be made aware of Valentine's abuses but my fellow session members feared he would strike out at us closing our church as he did another Baltimore church, throwing the ministers and congregation into the street. The Layman article reported: "In 2002 the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly, the high court in the denomination, held that Smart was denied the process and fairness..." If Valentine had any say in said "process," I can assure you this man has no compassion nor a sense of fairness if someone gets in his way! If there is a schism in our denomination today, I feel it is because the General Assembly came to believe it was all powerful, and as we know, power corrupts. Members of the assembly turned their backs on the teachings of Jesus Christ and even shocked many Presbyterians by suggesting Holy Scripture should be rewritten. Jesus did not concern himself with what was "politically correct," nor did he tolerate the self-serving leaders in the Synagogues. Now the assembly's misguided tolerance has backfired and left it dealing with Baltimore's Don Stroud, a self-serving homosexual who should never have been ordained. I suggest members of the General Assembly refresh their memories by reading: 1 Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:26-32, and Galatians 5:19-21. Since the assembly has chosen to ignore Holy Scripture, it should not surprise its members that they have lost the respect and trust of the majority of Presbyterian ministers and congregations throughout this land. Second Presbyterian Church in Baltimore was my grandfather's vision – Dr. Robert G. Leetch. As the church's minister, he moved it from a deteriorating downtown area to its present location. It appalls me to think of Herbert Valentine's efforts to destroy this beautiful tribute to God. Louise S. Murphy South Naples, Fla. By which rule will the church be governed – the PUP or the constitution? January 31, 2006 The PUP recommendation, if adopted, will change the use and meaning of the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church. 1.) It changes the doctrine of ordination from an action of the entire church to become something done in one manner by one presbytery or session in one place, and done perhaps very differently by another presbytery or session elsewhere. Ordination, according to the PUP, is locally decided, and with many possible standards for those who are to be ordained. This is a constitutional matter impacting many portions of the Book of Order and our Book of Confessions. By which rule will the church be governed – the PUP or the constitution? 2.) It changes the definition of the essential tenets of the Reformed faith by specifically excluding large segments of the constitution from consideration in the matter of the qualifications of those who should be ordained by the church. The PUP report does not address the purpose and content of The Book of Confessions. But have we removed the confessions from our constitution? Have we amended them by removing all portions in the confessions that refer to homosexual practice as sinful behavior? The PUP report has the effect of rendering all those portions of the constitution which address sexual purity and chastity in singleness as null and void. Is that not a constitutional issue which must come before our presbyteries? 3.) It changes the purpose of The Book of Confessions from being a guide for our faith and life into a bit of Presbyterian history with no weight whatsoever. The PUP report, neglects to address the purpose and use of the confessions of our church as constitutional documents. How does the PUP report, if adopted, impact the use of The Book of Confessions as a definition of what we will believe and do as Christian people who are living as Presbyterians? The adoption of the PUP report, as advertised by the information meetings being held everywhere, is to substitute the PUP for the constitution in the matters of sexual conduct for ordinands. Is not this is a matter that should be handled by constitutional amendment and sent to the presbyteries? Those attending the General Assembly as delegates ought to demand that the PUP report be brought to the floor of the General Assembly only as a constitutional change requiring the concurrence of the presbyteries. Otherwise, if adopted, the PUP will effect the most dramatic change in the constitution in our church's history, and that without one presbytery voting on it. Thomas Warren Deltona Presbyterian Church Let God remould your minds from within January 31, 2006 From Sunday's [1/29/06] bulletin from The Falls Church, Falls Church, Va. by Rev. Yates: "Those of us who believe in and follow Jesus have the ongoing joy and challenge of seeking to know and understand, as well as trust and obey our Lord. We have the Scripture and 2,000 years of Christian teaching and tradition to guide us. In matters of doctrine and discipleship, we start with prayer and then go to the Bible and then look to the wisdom of our Christian forebears and peers. When we believe that we have gained godly understanding of a doctrinal or moral question, then we commit to the teaching and seek to be faithful with all our heart. We must be stubbornly and courageously faithful. This is not always easy because we live in an age that elevates a modern view of 'tolerance' as the highest virtue. Tolerance used to mean that, though believing something strongly, one accepts another who disagrees and does not seek to deny his right to another view point. But today tolerance implies that no one should ever think that his own view is right except for himself - all truth is therefore subjective, all truth is personal, and to cling to one's own view as the truth is considered the highest of arrogance. "Chesterton foresaw this a century ago and offers a still relevant word: "'What we suffer from … is humility in the wrong place. Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty has settled upon the organ of conviction, where it was never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays, the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert - himself. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt - the Divine Reason. "Don't let the world around you squeeze you into its mould, but let God remould your minds from within, so that you may prove in practice that the plan of God for you is good, meets all his demands, and moves towards the goal of true maturity." (Romans 12:2)" Marlayn Stauffer OPC's answer is frightening and his words, coming from Scripture, are haunting January 31, 2006 DK's answer to the question, posed by a PCUSA member, posted on the Web site of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, "when must we leave the church?" is frightening; his words, coming faithfully from Scripture, are haunting. He assumes the operative word in the question is "must" as in "required;" he goes on to answer the question on a "must" basis. He cites a damning list of sins ascribed to the once great fellowship of Christians now known as the Presbyterian Church (USA). This partial list are sins that surely have reached heaven. (He may not be aware of institutional "stoning" of prophets in the PCUSA who dare to call these sins into account.) DK, humbly, does not presume to answer the "must" question; rather he turns to eternal authority, the thunder roaring, lighting flashing, earth quaking words of the Lord Almighty! 'Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,' says the Lord ..." (2 Cor. 6:14-17). A reading of the complete scripture is highly recommended for all who, personally, wish to have peace with the Almighty. DK's piece, printed in the Layman Online 1-30-06, is the authentic stuff of fear and trembling. It is a must read as one considers the issues before the 2006 PCUSA General Assembly, the actions that will be taken there and what the Almighty commands our response to be! As for Mike Urton [letter to the editor, posted January 30, 2006], who asks the rhetorical question: "Has the leadership of the General Assembly and the PUP found a way to circumvent the process of ratification by the presbyteries, and modify the Book of Order without approval of 'flyover' Presbyterians?" The simple direct answer is "Yes." That is the whole and complete point. James Logan McHenry, Md. Sometimes God uses Satan to push forward the Lord's own purpose January 31, 2006 As I read to the end of Pastor Meenan's letter within the article, Hollywood's former senior pastor holds 'no bitterness,' the thought that came to my mind was sometimes Satan thinks he has won, but the reality is that Satan has just been used by God to push forward the Lord's own purpose. We don't know what the future holds for Hollywood Presbyterian or for the PCUSA. But it appears that Pastor Meehan has been moved onward and upward to accomplish more for God's kingdom that the limitations at Hollywood Presbyterian allowed for. May our Sovereign God bless him and give him peace. Debi Grenseman, elder Walla Walla First Presbyterian Church Walla Walla, Wash. Please explain the rationale for ignoring/rewriting parts of the Bible January 31, 2006 Are we truly harming ourselves as believers in Jesus? [asked by Earl Apel's letter to the editor, posted January 30, 2006] A very interesting question, which I will try to answer. The short answer is yes, you are. And as a Christian brother, I feel that you are in danger of being deceived that you are "OK." God does not wish for one person to be lost but that all may be saved. So it is our calling to preach the good news, both to those in the Church and those outside. This also undermines our witness to the world, if he can know what he is doing is OK with God what about my behavior? Why do I need to repent and turn away when it is a lot easier to justify it? I also feel that this whole issue is just the tip of the iceberg. It is a distraction being used to grab our attention and resource. The greater danger comes in the form prayers to Allah, having open communion for whoever shows up, in saying that maybe Christ is not the only way of salvation. And here comes the some questions of my own that to date I have never got straight answers too: 1) Mr. Apel says in his letter, "Otherwise there would be numerous unrepentant homosexuals hanging ourselves just as Judas did." How can the word unrepentant be used and it not be a sin? By definition unrepentant means, you know what you are doing is wrong, but choose to do it anyway. 2) If the Bible is the Word of God, then the current argument for ordaining has these rationales behind it: a) We now know things that God did not when he originally inspired the Bible. b) We are now correcting his mistake(s). Is this the case? If not can anyone please explain the rationale for ignoring/rewriting parts of the Bible? Marc Karasek To embrace overture, PCUSA must give up the tenants of the Christian faith January 31, 2006 All one has to do to embrace this proposal is to give up all the tenants of the Christian faith: The incarnation, his teachings, his sufferings, his vicarious death, his resurrection, our hope, the Holy Spirit and the New Testament. John Buckingham While there may be good reasons to continue in this war, we were misled January 31, 2006 While I am sure that Marine Colonel Lammers meant well and is sincere in his comments, I cannot believe that he said that "... The United States is not at war with Iraq." According to President Bush, over 30,000 Iraq people have been killed during this "war." Also while there may be good reasons for us to continue in this war, it is true that at a minimum, we were misled by the Bush administration in getting us into the war. Finally as we pursue our ecumenical relationship with the Roman Catholic community, perhaps it would have helped our president if he had accepted the pope's comments against the war rather than relying on his "direct line" to the "father." Rev. Dr. David D. Mellon, HR Ormond Beach, Fla. Editor's note: Lammers comments were "The United States is not at war with Iraq." But the United States "is at war with Islamic fascists who want to kill you and destroy our way of life." PCUSA leadership is more accommodating toward Moslems than evangelicals January 31, 2006 Faith is only as valid as its object. In his letter of Jan. 30, Ritchie Jones wrote, "God who loves all, creates all, embraces all and most importantly owns all, does not ask us to separate the wheat from the chaff." Perhaps this reference to wheat and chaff needs to be balanced with other portions of Scripture. In the Old Testament, God doesn't appear especially fond of Egyptian charioteers or Canaanites. In both Malachi and Romans, we read that God loved Jacob and hated Esau. Then, in the book of Revelation, God seems to really have an attitude. Jones wants us to have a faith that is informed by neither science nor the supernatural. This leaves us with faith in faith. The problem with this is that one may go in any direction with it. One may become a Nobel prize-winning humanitarian, and perhaps Jones will. But a life of faith in faith may lead someone to become something quite different; I'm sure the minions of Osama Bin Laden are brimming over with faith. Which leads me to another point. Recently there's been much discussion about what ought to be the Christian response to Islam. Maybe somebody should ask about the response of Islam to Christianity. Allow me to quote the Qur'an:
I should also point out, however, that last week I walked into an "Islamic Reading Room" and asked for an English-language Qur'an. Although I was wearing a tee-shirt that plainly said, "I believe in Jesus Christ," I was treated with courtesy. Perhaps we Christians can do the same thing: we can treat our Moslem neighbors with courtesy and respect, without kidding ourselves that they're our brothers in the Lord. Above all, we should remember the words of Jesus found in Matthew 28:18-20. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Malawi, Africa Maybe per capita succumbs to the rising tide of non-essentialness January 30, 2006 Did you ever play the "What if?" game? Sports fans are very good at this game. You know – "What if Billy Buckner hadn't let that routine grounder roll through his legs?" "What if Ben Rothelsberger had missed that desperate swipe to prevent the Colts go ahead touchdown?" What if… After I was "privileged" at the meeting of presbytery to hear the report of members of the Theological Task For on the Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church, I haven't been able to stop playing the What If game. Here's one for you: What if the PUP Task Force had climbed Mt Sinai to meet with God instead of Moses? Would they have returned with the "Ten Standards?" And what if they presented the "Ten Standards" to Israel in the form of the recommendations contained in the Task Force's Report to the General Assembly? Would the Levites have decided that "Standard #2" was "non-essential?" After all, Aaron was a Levite, and he was pretty good at making carved images. We wouldn't want to have to disqualify anyone for the priesthood just because he was handy. Maybe the Reubenites would have declared "Standard #5" was not an essential. I mean, we don't want to exclude Reuben because he dishonored his father Jacob by sleeping with Bilhah, his father's concubine. And, oh my gosh, how could anyone really be expected to abide by "Standard #10?" Surely covetousness isn't that important a standard. Oh, it is a standard, and we can all feel good about that, but let's give everybody a break and make covetousness a "non-essential" standard. Hey, you know, this "What If?" game is pretty good! "What if" we determine that salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is a standard, but then make it a non-essential? Why then we could celebrate the salvation of those other great "Abrahamic" believers, the Moslems and Jews who reject Jesus. Not bad. "What if" we make the authority of Scripture as our rule for faith and practice a standard, and then cut all the people who find the Word of God a bit too convicting for comfort a break and make it a non-essential? I bet it would help solve the dilemma of Biblical illiteracy, once we make the Bible a non-essential who cares what John 3.16 says ... or Matthew 5.19. Once we change those troublesome commandments to standards, we can "non-essential" away just about anything! Now I think I understand what Cliff Kirkpatrick meant when he said the PUP Task Force Report was a gift to the church. But wait, maybe per capita succumbs to the rising tide of "non-essentialness"? And if per capita goes, why not Chapter 8 of the Form of Government?...You know, Cliff, two can play the "What If" non-essentials game. Jim Wilken Marion, N.C Compare the two and it becomes clear that Allah is a distortion of Yahweh January 30, 2006 I almost passed out when I read this article. I, as a born again Christian, have nothing in common with a Muslim, because Yahweh is not Allah, despite what their Koran, accepted Islamic theology and First Presbyterian Church of Rockaway, N.J. says. Let's look at the facts: 1. The God of the Old Testament is named Yahweh, according to his own words in Exodus 3:14, 15. Yahweh is our God's personal name and is used as such over 6,000 times in the Old Testament. But, according to Islamic teaching, God's name is Allah and nothing else. It is true that the Arabic "allah" and the Hebrew "elo" are from the same root because both languages are Semitic, and "Elo" is frequently used in the Hebrew Bible in reference to God, as in "Elohim." But, Elohim is not God's personal name, it is a title. No matter how you look at it, Allah cannot be our God because our God's name is Yahweh, not Allah. 2. Yahweh is personally knowable. In reference to the New Covenant, Jeremiah 31:34 declares that "all will know" Yahweh. This refers to a knowing in an intimate way, as a husband gets to know his wife over the course of their marriage. Our God can be known, if not comprehended. In Islamic teaching, Allah cannot be known personally. You can know about Allah but you cannot know him in a personal way. In fact, in the Koran, there is no indication that Allah seeks to know his followers on an intimate, personal level. Yet, is that not the whole story of the Bible: Yahweh seeking to restore fallen man to a place of fellowship that existed before the fall? Given this, Allah and Yahweh cannot be the same person. 3. Yahweh is love. Time and time again in John's writings, we read that "God is love." John 3:16 tells us that God loved the world – not just those who love him back. That is why the prophets and Jesus called God "Father," because that is the kind of relationship he wants to have with man. Yet, according to the Koran, Allah loves only those who obey him. The word "love" is used rarely in the Koran, and always in reference to Allah "loving the obedient" or "the righteous." Allah does not love the sinner, as Yahweh does. So, they cannot be the same God. 4. Yahweh has chosen Jerusalem. In 2 Chronicles 33:7, Yahweh says that he has chosen Jerusalem as the one city to place his house and his name forever. As you read both Testaments, it is obvious that Yahweh is keenly interested in Jerusalem. Allah, on the other hand, had no interest in Jerusalem in the Koran. In fact, for most of Islamic history, Jerusalem was seen as a backwater, dirty town, of little or no value to Muslims. It wasn't until the Jews returned there en mass that they took notice of it. In modern times, the Muslim interest in Jerusalem is political, not religious. The Koran bears this out. Only our God, Yahweh, is interested in Jerusalem; Allah is not. How can they be the same God? When you compare Allah of the Koran with Yahweh of the Bible, it becomes clear that Allah is a distortion of Yahweh, the one and true God of Israel. Any writing that distorts the character and nature of our God is in error and is therefore to be avoided. No matter how devout and sincere a Muslim might be, they are not worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Dr. Mike Porter, pastor Norton Presbyterian Church PUP's compromise is 'very unsettling to say the least' January 30, 2006 God bless you for sending me and other concerned Christians The Layman. Like so many others, I am greatly concerned about the direction of the PCUSA. The compromise upon which the Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity has settled is very unsettling to say the least. And the latest issue of The Layman is filled with discussion of further schism and various factions of Presbyterians splitting from the PCUSA if the recommendation of the committee is adopted in June by the General Assembly. But, aren't we jumping the gun? Previous attempts to change the ordination standard and therefore the Book of Order, have met with successively larger margins of defeat when taken to the presbyteries for ratification. Has the leadership of the General Assembly and the PUP found a way to circumvent the process of ratification by the presbyteries, and modify the Book of Order without approval of "flyover" Presbyterians? Mike Urton Thanks for words of colonel in Iraq January 30, 2006 Thank you for the article, "Marine colonel: PCUSA leaders' letter does 'more harm than good.'" [Jan./Feb. 2006 Layman, page 1] Col. Carl R. Lammers is certainly to be commended on his writing of standing up for what is actually going on with the Middle East partners and freedom for Iraq. Why would anyone ever criticize those defending and fighting for the right of freedom? Especially when they are not even in the area of conflict. People are so quick to judge, especially when they have no concept of the actual happenings. Col. Lammers sets a good example of keeping the facts at home from being misconstrued. Pat Prewett Kennesaw, Ga. There are homosexuals living and thriving in the faith January 30, 2006 Mr. Glaser [letter to the editor, posted January 24, 2006] writes in response to my letter: "If I remember correctly the greatest commandment which Jesus refers too is, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' It does not read, 'You shall not offend your neighbors and shall let them do whatever they want.' What love would you show your neighbor if you continued to allow them to harm themselves?" Perhaps Mr. Glaser forgets the Easter account where Judas betrays Jesus and Jesus simply allows that to take place. Jesus knew quite well that Judas was going to offend and let that slide by. Does this mean Jesus ignored his own commandment? Of course not! The cold truth is that Jesus allowed Judas to commit suicide in the end. Jesus did let Judas harm himself. But I expect Jesus still demonstrated love in the end and it was that love that Judas couldn't deal with. Going back to the homosexual debate what everyone likes to ignore is the fact there are homosexuals living and thriving in the faith. Are we truly harming ourselves as believers in Jesus? Of course not! Otherwise there would be numerous unrepentant homosexuals hanging ourselves just as Judas did. So do we as homosexuals truly offend our brothers and sisters in Christ? It just seems strange to me for anyone to make such a claim and to think we simply want chaos to rule. I continue to not understand why my own simple statement of accepting Christ is not enough in this silly debate? Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Flaw in conservative doctrine: Its reluctance or inability to live by faith January 30, 2006 All this talk about science, and faith and PUP and "local option" and ordination standards unveils a fundamental flaw in conservative doctrine. The flaw is its reluctance or inability to live by faith. It is not so much that faith cannot be informed, but that faith in the dark is rejected. Yet that is where faith shows its brightest luster. We do not need validation of our faith from science, nor do we need it from the supernatural. If we validate our faith, it is only by living it. When we choose to live by faith, we do not need to imagine or create doctrinal enemies. If real enemies present themselves we are asked to love them and if necessary to lay down our lives for them. God who loves all, creates all, embraces all and most importantly owns all, does not ask us to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jesus was very specific about that. He does not ask us to hold up others as bad examples of whom or what we give thanks we are not, real or imagined. He asks us only to focus on the word "good" when pairing it with the word "news." Less and we fall short, and churches fall away. More and we become paralyzed by strife, and churches break away. With humble compassion for Dr Larry Brown's loss and begging his forgiveness, the only reason I bring his up is because from that sacred place there is a fundamental doctrine of forgiveness, life and love just waiting to be born. A doctrine that relies only on faith. Ritchie Jones Los Angeles, Calif. Adopting PUP report is signing our own death warrant January 26, 2006 Schism already exists in the PCUSA. The problem is that the majority do not want to acknowledge this condition. We are divided and there will not be a solution where everyone is happy. I believe it is past time for us to talk about dividing the denomination. We either discuss this issue or we will watch chaos erupt when the PUP report is approved. Yes, I believe the PUP report will be approved. I have watched in horror as moderates support this travesty of a report. I will fight the adoption of this report as I think it is signing our own death warrant. May the love of Christ and the truth of Scripture open our minds to the chasm that is opening before us. Alan Wildsmith, pastor Murphy Presbyterian Church Murphy, N.C. What we've learned from PUP report: Doublespeak is valid January 26, 2006 What have we learned from the PUP debacle? We've relearned that doublespeak is valid. We've learned that the so-called evangelicals on PUP are simply liberal dupes. I do not know of or about or whatever concerning Jack Haberer. I know that he is labeled an "evangelical." In the course of the years of the PUP, I do not know why he is so labeled since he has not shown anything that would lead me to see him as such. Certainly the man does not believe as evangelicals do that God is consistent and means what he says and transforms lives. God says in creation, Leviticus, Romans and wherever marriage is mentioned that homosexual behavior is sin regardless of the feelings of "love" those engaging in such behavior say they have. Paul reminds us that when such behavior is seen or supported it means that God has withdrawn from such individuals and turned them over to their lusts. Hmmmm – pretty severe isn't it? Absolutely, and the Jack Haberers of this denomination need to take heed. Where we are today is the fruit of the liberalism that J. Gresham Machen fought, the liberalism that Edward Dowey espoused in the Confession of 1967 and in his Princeton classes. In theology, it is the liberalism of Karl Barth, the so-called great neo-orthodox champion who opposed liberalism. Yeah, right, so what about his adulterous relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum? It is the final result of several centuries of so-called Biblical higher criticism where supposedly intelligent people knew more about the Biblical texts than those who wrote or read them.. As C. S. Lewis put it in Elephants and Fern Seeds, "Bultmann never had to write a gospel." As Dowey said in a class about a theology he did not believe, "The oath has a history." So, does the liberalism he espoused and, unlike the theology he rejected, it is a tragic history and we are reaping its tragic fruit. The fruit has ripened and it is time to pick it or reject it. What will you do and why? David A. Medeiros, member Londonderry (NH) Presbyterian Church All three faiths must accept the Trinity January 26, 2006 Well I think it's a great idea as long as all three faiths accept the Trinity which includes accepting and affirming that Jesus as being truly God. C.L. Gary Faith in God's Word can be logical, consistent and reasonable January 26, 2006 Ritchie Jones [letter to the editor, posted January 25, 2006] takes Rev. Dr. Brown to task for not recognizing that faith is only faith when it is dark. That would have come as news for many of the great theological minds in the history of the Church. Faith preceeds understanding, but it seeks understanding. I believe in order to understand. Now full understanding may not be available in this life. However, the feelings which Mr. Jones addresses, such as the "hole" left in love at the death of a loved one, are understandable to faith. Faith tells me that the ones I loved are still in existence in his care, hidden in Christ. I do not need to fill a hole, for Christ is all in all and those in Christ are still a part of my life and all believers' lives. Whether he meant to or not, Mr. Jones implies that blind faith is the only true faith. I hope he does not believe that. Mr. Jones seems to have compartmentalized faith from what he seems to believe are equally reliable and important ways of knowing: various forms of science. Evolution is a macro-theory endorsing a naturalist philosophy, not science it its true form. Where are the reproducable experiments of spontaneous generation of single celled life or significant genetic mutation which creates a whole new species? Evolutionary processes have some limited scientific basis assuming observations over time and the hypostheses based on them are correctly interpreted. Why compartmentalize faith and science unless you adopt the materialist philosophy and epistemology that science must endorse and rely only on materially or physically observable data for knowledge? To insure said knowledge, the data should be experimentally reproducable. The "canon" of scientific knowing must always remain open, for observations and experiments can be in error or be mis-interpreted only to be corrected by additional observations or experimentation later. Such science relies on a "blind faith" in materialism as the only reliable grounds for knowledge, for it cannot prove such a hypothesis by its own methods. If you reject the necessity of materialism, you can be both a believer in God and his Word and in evolutionary processes (though not necessarily Evolution or Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism). Where Christian faith has historically sought a faith-informed understanding, wisdom has flourished and science had its beginning. It is not surprising that in a sinful world, some misused science to create a philosophical grounds for rejecting and rebelling against God. What is lamentable, and what I believe the Rev. Dr. Brown was satirizing, is the tendency of some believers to accommodate such rebellion in a desperate attempt to make Christian faith acceptable to its cultured despisers. Despite the claims of the so-called "sciences" of sociology, anthropology and others, the questions of human sexuality and the need for the limits which God reveals in his Word are not that complex. Faith in God's Word can be logical, consistent and reasonable despite what the cultured despisers of faith may say. Faith does not need to be just "one truth among many," and compartmentalized to make for unity with those who would oppose it. The great achievement of the American polity is that we can live together in mutual tolerance. No one I know objects to true tolerance being observed in our local, state, and national communities. Within the Church, however, it is a different story. When tolerance is replaced by an idea of accommodation and enforced compromise not just of behaviors but of beliefs, then problems arise. Truth cannot be yoked to falsehood. Inclusiveness is a high-sounding word, but at what cost inclusion? Only a truth that is not actual and deeply meaningful could exist side-by-side with its contradiction and claim to be one. Progressives in the church hope to reduce faith to politically correct minimums that they and their friends are comfortable with. Where a truth claim from the Bible or from historic Christian confessions conflicts with such comfort levels, such claims must be re-labeled or abandoned. Some fake unity might be possible under a denominational title with local option and continued constitutional defiance, but where will the funds for denominational activities come from? Where will be the common mission? Two incompatible beliefs will guarantee that each side shall only willingly support what fits their particular belief. Unity will only come by coercion, and that is not inclusive or enforcable. Rev. Scott Mackey Highland Presbyterian Church Tyler, Texas I know about the hole in the soul that death causes January 26, 2006 I am responding to Richie Jones [letter to the editor, posted January 25, 2006] who responded to my letter about evolution (Jan. 24). He mentioned something faith, love and loss. He should be aware that my wife died of cancer on October 2. I know about the hole in the soul that that causes. I'll never stop missing her. And by the way, she didn't believe in evolution, either, although she had a doctorate in theology from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown Money flushed down a toilet so PUP members can sing around the campfire January 25, 2006 One thing that may be lost on The Layman's readers is that fact that no one likes the task force report. Don't forget that having local option also means that many presbyteries will continue to prohibit those who cannot honor the fidelity/chastity clause from holding ordained offices. That does not serve to advance the liberal agenda. TAMFS is just as aggravated by the PUP debacle as anyone else. Look at all the presbyteries that, in defiance of the task force's recommendations, are submitting overture after overture to delete the standard immediately. It makes me sick to imagine all that time and money flushed down a toilet so the task force members can sing around the campfire oblivious to the issues with which the rest of us are struggling. It's time for someone to leave. If The Layman puts its money where its mouth is, they would be happy to let the small minority of More Light churches leave the denomination with their property and join the MCC or start a new denomination. In the long run, a move like that would save the thousands of dollars wasted on bureaucratic nonsense and send a message to those who continue to bring up dead issues that should have been put to a close by overwhelming presbytery votes. It is time to put up or shut up. What part of that doesn't the PUP task force understand? Nick Lincoln Richmond, Va. Does decline in numbers equal schism? January 25, 2006 I'm writing for a clarification on the essay, "Will there be schism in 2006?" The first point states the PCUSA is already in schism – and then comments on the numbers we've lost since 1967. Does decline in numbers equal schism? Is that what the reader is to infer? The question you're asking is salient and timely, and that if things go as it looks like they will go, we will be officially teaching something which is contrary to God's revelation – and therefore, we would be in schism with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. But I don't understand your first point to consider in the essay, that declining numbers equals schism. Any help would be appreciated... Rev. Dave Moody, pastor Trinity United Presbyterian Church Interfaith dialogue: We worship different gods January 25, 2006 Whenever I am involved in "interfaith" dialogue and this kind of thing comes up, I always mention that," The God I worship is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Is that the God you worship?" They always tell me that that is a different god than the one they worship. Ron Scates Highland Park Church Dallas Asking Christians to not only tolerate Islam, but accept its teachings is ridiculous January 25, 2006 All of those who promote the so-called "Abrahamic faith" have obviously never taken a history course. Jesus was a Jew and the movement he inspired began as a Jewish sect. That link can be established historically, independently of the Biblical record, I might add. There is not a historian secular or otherwise who doubts that fact. Is there a similar link between Islam and Judaism? No. There is absolutely no historical link that verifies Islam's claim to be an Abrahamic religion. Any serious historian will recognize that Islam is a religion that is an mishmash of Jewish and Christian teachings and new "revelations" by the prophet Mohammed. Islam was a deliberate attempt to manufacture a new religion for Arabs in Saudi Arabia. When universalists call Islam an Abrahamic religion, they do a great disservice to Islam. As a valid religion, Islam deserves acceptance and toleration just like Hinduism and Buddhism do. It should be recognized as a religion on its own terms, and even be celebrated as one of the world's great faiths. Muslims have every right to practice their religion. That is not under debate. However, asking other Christians to not only tolerate Islam, but accept its teachings is ridiculous. It offends Muslims and Christians. Only the most liberal Muslims would ever speak about the "Abrahamic religions." The relationship between Christianity and Judaism is historically established, yet I would never call myself a Jew. I was not born a Jew by blood, nor do I practice my religion using Jewish ceremonies. I am a Christian who wants to learn about Jewish religion to enhance my understanding of Christianity. Please tell me ... what can I possibly learn about historic Christianity from studying Islam? One cannot hold to both Islam and Christianity. Their fundamental claims are at odds, even if Islam tries to validate its claims through historical anachronisms. One might as well call Mormonism the fourth great Abrahamic religion and accept all of Joseph Smith's teachings using this logic. There is absolutely no connection between the religions theologically. Yes, I am interested in learning about world religions. That is where the study of Islam belongs. I am intrigued about Islamic scholarship and philosophy in the Middle Ages. I enjoy learning about other cultures. However, Islam is not my religion, nor would I want it to be. And I suspect most Muslims feel the same about Christianity. This religious dialogue belongs in the university, not in the church. Nolan Lightbody Sarasota, Fla. Waving the Presbyterian flag and crying 'unity' even as they divide the church January 25, 2006 Rev. Brandt's open letter brilliantly reveals the chief top-down tactic of the radical PCUSA left; namely, the old frog in the kettle syndrome. Invite participants to a "dialogue" in the name of "unity" only to steep them in several hours of self-congratulatory monologue. Synod forums tend to work the same way. One leftist pats another on the back (clergy stoles in resplendent array) before announcing, "Isn't it great to be Presbyterian?" Her questions deserve not only a hearing, but answers. In that she was given neither legitimate time nor space to pose them reveals that these "dialogues" are worthless, merely tools designed to build an impression – one that makes evangelicals look like part of an angry fringe to be dismissed as hostile and schismatic. Dr. Tankersley's brief words (which I'm sure were both brilliant and gentle) appear as but a drop in the bucket. The leftists win by creating and sustaining the impression that leftist ideas are what "most Presbyterians" really ought to believe, rather than the 2,000-year-old, worldwide unanimity of Christendom on sexual ethics. The event, like other dialogues, is nothing more than an attempt to round-up the centrist Presbyterian herd to their side. Not by reason, not with Scripture (though perhaps with great liturgical flourish), but with a paper-thin rhetoric no more substantial than a high-school pep rally, they wave the Presbyterian flag and cry "unity, unity!" even as they divide the church. Utter, damnable hypocrisy. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Russion Orthodox, Coptics, Methodists, Baptists, Assembly of God, and all the independent megachurches – they are the divisive ones! But we Presbyterians (except for EPC, PCA and OPs), together with (a miniscule minority of) Episcopalians, some Lutherans, the UCC, the RCA and Unitarians – believe in unity. Smart frogs will get out of the kettle as soon as the water gets warm. A word of advice to all GA delegates this year: bring your iPods. I recommend the Rolling Stones (whose lyrics are more wholesome than the ideas you'll hear), and Captain & Tennille, whose work is much deeper and less syrupy-sweet. If we're not listening to the Blues by the end of it, it will be an unusual year indeed. Noel K. Anderson Executive Pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. Calvin's words on Christians, Muslims and Jews worshiping the same God January 25, 2006 As for the whole issue on whether Christians, Muslims and Jews worship the same God (recently addressed in the affirmative by the Presbytery of Newton), John Calvin had a position as well. In his sermon on Micah 4:4-7, Calvin said this:
Something tells me that this is not the same message we are hearing from Newton Presbytery. Rev. Walter L. Taylor Statesville, N.C. Many have confused political correctness with their Christian walk January 25, 2006 We should not use the word "schism" but rather separation, and this separation does not have to be a negative event. Even Paul and Barnabas separated their ministries for time. It is important not to "demonize" the leaders of this denomination who have lost their way. For many of them, for periods of their ministries, I am sure that they faithfully fought the good fight, before they confused political correctness with being a faithful follower of Jesus Christ. I think that we need to look at ourselves as Christians and Presbyterians carefully and determine where do we go from here. In a new Presbyterian denomination we need to have a large tent. That is to say, for instance, that in accordance with the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah many faithful Presbyterians, who love the Lord and follow his limits on sexual behavior, have a politically liberal outlook on issues of social justice, such as third world debt relief, desiring tax structures that do not favor the wealthy, and share concerns about the environment, and war, and poverty. Yet, many of them are faithful to the Lord, and follow and agree with his Word in terms of sexual expression being limited to marriage and that marriage is limited to that between a man and a woman. On the other side of the spectrum you have politically conservative folks who love the Lord and follow his Word. Yet, all meet at the foot of the cross. A new Presbyterian denomination must encompass all followers of Christ who meet at the foot of the cross. A central organization needs to be created (e.g., the new Presbyterian denomination and support services), and it needs to seek tax exempt status. Cognizant of what happened at Hollywood Presbyterian Church, each church should seek, through their local county or borough bar association, an attorney who is a specialist in trust and property issues. Only a $50 initial consulting fee is usually charged in agreement with local bar association, and it is worth it to find the right attorney. It does not hurt to bring them the cites of the more current cases, e.g., California-Nevada Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church vs. St. Lukes United Methodist Church, (Supreme Court of California). The procedure for leaving would be a vote of the session, and a vote of the congregation, which would have to support this. After notice to the presbytery, filing in the local courthouse, right away, is essential, to prevent the presbytery from forming an administrative committee to take over the congregation. More realistically, if 1,000 congregations go to court for declaratory judgments at the same time, Louisville would have the resources for maybe 50 cases. They would be forced to settle. However, reviewing their tactics at Hollywood Presbyterian Church, it is important to vote to leave quickly and file for a declaratory judgment quickly. What of our relationship to the old denomination? We need to act with honor and character that is characteristic of Christ. It would not be out of line to settle with the old denomination by paying a 10 percent tithe based on the value of the property of the churches leaving. Some educational institutions will gravitate to the old denomination, and some to the new, and some may be jointly administered. It is important to maintain a good relationship to the old denomination. As I said before, many of them fought the good fight for periods of their lives, before confusing political correctness with their Christian walk. What if the old denomination accepts a further limitation on the PUP report, that the essentials of the faith, as they apply to ordination, must always include and satisfy the requirements G-6.0106b? Then we can rejoin our wavering brothers and sisters. God loves everyone, that is why Christ died for us, for our sins. However, no mortal has the right to say that what God once called sin is no longer a sin. John Almquist PUP's highly choreographed presentation January 25, 2006 The Rev. Dr. Larry Brown of African Bible College in Lilongwe, Malawi [letter to the editor, posted January 24, 2006] is correct: There are no Bible verses that prohibit the ordination of chimpanzees. Nor is there any prohibition in the Book of Order. In fact, there is ample proof that the ordination of simians has already taken place. Our problem is we're having trouble embracing the resultant diversity. The clear majority of Presbyterians in the pews is offended by the baboons in charge in Louisville. And the big apes who took over Hollywood Presbyterian and their ilk, who can't wait to back the moving van up to the parsonages of evangelical pastors, need to be caged and administered the appropriate Skinnerian re-education. Remember what Cornelius said in Planet of the Apes, "Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land*." He didn't mention the sanctuary, but that's probably a given. The ordained howlers, or "That All May Freely Swing," are really getting on our nerves with their incessant yapping. Day and night it's the same old song from the treetops, accomplishing nothing and adding only noise to the cacophony in the jungle. And what about the winged monkeys who are preaching the glories of the PUP report as they fly from city to city. From all accounts, the apparently highly choreographed presentation is second only to their performance in The Wizard of Oz – so who can take them seriously? *amctv.com Jack O'Brien Pittsburgh, Pa. Something to think about January 25, 2006 A wonder about ... If evolution is true, why do mothers still only have two hands!! Smile, all you debaters! Greg Leaman Sheboygan County, Wisc. Faith is only faith when it is dark January 25, 2006 The Rev Dr. Larry Brown [letter to the editor, posted January 24, 2006] does not seem to know much about linguistics or evolution; or else, he would know that his example actually illustrates the opposite of his intent. He does perhaps know that faith is only faith when it is dark. Some things are not meant to make sense, like the hole left in our soul when we lose someone we love. It is the measure of our love. The bigger the hole, the greater the love. God may not fill it again, but he will sanctify it. That is something science will never explain. Ritchie Jones Los Angeles, Calif. God cannot and will not bless any efforts to bring down our Biblical standards January 24, 2006 In the March 17th, 2003 issue of the Weekly Standard on page 14, it says: "The fastest shrinking denominations are still the Presbyterians and the United Church of Christ." If it was true then, it continues to be true today. This in comparison to other more evangelical denominations which are growing at an amazing rate. One can wonder why. I still believe that it is because the PCUSA and the UCC have permitted foreign, anti-Biblical elements to invade our churches which instead of up-building are slowly, but surely, corroding our Christian faith. God cannot and will not bless any efforts to bring down our Biblical standards and while we continue to believe more in political correctness, cultural conformity and to sway with the fad that is in fashion, I see us going downward instead of upward in faith and influence. I am thankful for the faithful remnant within these denominations but I fear that if things continue to go as they are presently, we will be more conformed to the culture around us than to Jesus Christ, who calls us not to conform to the system and norms of the world. I am especially concerned that we will be in broken fellowship with many faithful Presbyterians around the world who continue to be astonished at how far we have gotten away from the "faith of our fathers" as found in Holy Scripture. I believe in Reformed and being reformed but always according to the Word of God and not the standards of an unbelieving world. God have mercy on us! Rev. Eddie Soto Associate Pastor for Missions and Outreach Faith Presbyterian Church Tallahassee, Fla. Allah is not now, nor has Allah ever been, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob January 24, 2006 I am grieved beyond measure to read that my Palestinian brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus are persecuted daily for refusing to bend the knee to Allah while the Presbytery of Newton chastises them for their stubbornness. Silly zealots, risking the retribution of beatings and vandalism and torture and rape and imprisonment and murder when we all worship the very same god of our common Abrahamic heritage. What's the big deal about Jesus and the testimony of the prophets and apostles? Allah and his prophet Muhammad hold out the same promise of eternal life (hey, guys, for the faithful unto death it's even spiced with blissful sex parties) – who needs this crazy Christ? Every member of the Presbytery of Newton should be ashamed of their joint declaration of ignorance. Allah is not now, nor has Allah ever been, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Allah is utterly foreign to the Holy Trinity; Allah is not the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit. Islam expressly rejects the divinity of Jesus. Yes, it accepts Isa as a great prophet, but Muhammad is his better. It recoils at the prospect that Jesus Christ is given the name that is above every name: "King of kings and Lord of lords!" (Revelation 19:16). It denies the absolute truth proclaimed in the Bible: "And there is salvation in no one else [save Christ Jesus], for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The Presbytery of Newton's overture to the 217th General Assembly is an apostate affront to the "faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) and an abject insult to the Christian martyrs of this present age and every other. Jim Henkel, NWI endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery Christians, today's Jews, and Muslims do not worship the same God January 24, 2006 In response to "Newton overture declares Muslims, Jews, Christians worship same God," – here is an example of the essence of our problem in the PCUSA - the lack of knowledge and belief that Jesus Christ is Lord, the one and only Lord. He is the Great I AM. He is God. Christians, today's Jews and Muslims do not worship the same God. There can never be harmony, because, as their point three makes clear, these are three (different) faiths. The only common heritage some, not all and probably not most, Muslims share with Jews is a blood heritage. Muslims share no heritage with Christians as they live in unbelief in Christ as God's only Son and the Savior. Jews and Christians share a common origin, but today's Jews have gone their own way apart from Christ. In reality, that means they are living apart from their God, that they have become a cult unto themselves, deceived into holding onto a past that is no longer viable. All in Islam and Judaism are lost for eternity without Christ who is the way, the truth, the life, and only way to the Father because He is God himself in the flesh. All who reject Christ as Lord reject God, plain and simple, as he said so himself (Luke 10:16), and those who are not for him, work against him (Matthew 12:30). The true root found in Abraham is not blood or tradition but belief. Abraham was counted righteous because he believed God, he trusted God. That is the crux of the issue – belief and trust that God is who he says he is, that Jesus Christ is who he says he is. Even the Jews of Christ's days on earth recognized his claim to be "I AM." Peace will only come when we all are one in Christ Jesus, the one true God and only Savior. Any other "peace" will prove to be just rhetoric, in name only. Debi Grenseman, elder Walla Walla First Presbyterian Church Walla Walla, Wash. Where's the love? January 24, 2006 To Mr. Earl Apel of Mt. Auburn [letter to the editor, posted January 23, 2006]: If I remember correctly the greatest commandment which Jesus refers too is, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." It does not read, "You shall not offend your neighbors and shall let them do whatever they want." What love would you show your neighbor if you continued to allow them to harm themselves? Benjamin P. Glaser Pittsburgh, Pa. Showing where the pseudoscience of evolution eventually leads January 24, 2006 Get ready for the next liberation movement. While driving my SUV through the streets of Lilongwe (Malawi, Southeast Africa) this morning, I heard on the BBC that some scientists now believe that chimpanzees – because of the similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA – should be considered "part of the human family." Let us now consider some of the possible ramifications. Many chimps will now want to emigrate to the US, get green cards, and Social Security benefits. If they come in sufficient numbers, we may hear the cry, "Equal Rights for Simian-Americans!" We may see an aging Bob Dylan or Joan Baez write songs on their behalf ("How many trees must a chimp swing through, before you can call him a man? The answer is blowin' in the wind"). Imagine the Civil Rights Act being amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or amount of body hair. Imagine, too, how many remakes of "Planet of the Apes" will then be produced. And, of course, some presbytery within the PCUSA will introduce an overture to allow the ordination of chimps. While there are some Bible verses which some interpret as forbidding the ordination of women or homosexuals, I can't think of a single verse that prohibits ordaining a chimpanzee. If you think that there are those who "monkey" with the truth now, you haven't seen anything yet. It's enough to drive you bananas. While I personally reject the "Creation Science" of Drs. Morris and Gish, I present the above news item to show where the pseudoscience of evolution eventually leads. It takes us to a mighty ridiculous end. One compelling argument against evolution – at least to me – involves the development of language. Driving into remote Malawian villages, one might expect to hear people communicating in some sort of rudimentary language. The truth is, however, that the national language, Chichewa, is just as complex as English or any other Indo-European language. I would think that this is a problem for evolutionists. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi |
|
| January
2006 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |