 |
|
| March
2006 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| If
the Bible is authoritative and true then that is truth that you can
stand on March 14, 2006 In Earl Apel's letter to the editor on March 13, he mentions that the real issue related to some of our denomination's recent debate (Spahr decision, etc.) revolves around Biblical interpretation. He then uses Ephesians 4:14-16 that I referenced in an earlier letter to affirm that Christ is head of the church. Amen to that! I think he may have missed my point, however, when I referenced Ephesians 4:14-16 in my letter. My point was – if you believe that the Bible is authoritative and true, and if the Bible is clear on an issue, then that is truth that you can stand on. If the Bible explicitly condones something or explicitly rejects something (Romans 1:24-27 and Leviticus 18:22 for example in the Spahr case), then it is the church's responsibility to speak that truth. Blessing what is condemned would contradict the Word of God. And of course, those verses also focus on love – so we must speak this truth in love – and humility, knowing that we are all sinners and that it is only through God's grace that we are saved. Certainly, I do believe that Biblical interpretation is sometimes the issue – but I also believe that in many cases, the Bible is ignored – or disregarded. And I believe the Spahr case is one of those situations. Kevin T. Smith New Hanover Presbyterian Church Mechanicsville, Va. PUP report places power in the presbyteries and sessions March 14, 2006 I am a layman in a small Presbyterian Church in Utah. I have been doing a lot of reading on the PUP report and the various aspects of the controversial recommendation 5. I am disgusted that a minority within our church are trying to legislate and invalidate the Constitution of our church specifically G-6.0106b of the Book of Order by usurping power from our church constitution, and the historical confession of the church by placing power in the presbyteries and sessions that is not rightfully theirs. Diversity and tolerance are generally applied outwardly, i.e. we the Christian polity must tolerate those who refuse to follow the confessions of the church but we who want to hold them to those confessions are not be tolerated. This amendment requires that we accept diversity and tolerate sin in anyone the presbytery or session decides to ordain in a position of power and control in the church. This makes no sense to me. Betsey McCarley Brigham City, Utah Read the whole fourth chapter of Ephesians March 14, 2006 Mr Apel's letter reminds me of a saying by John Jess on the Chapel of the Air. He said: "A verse taken out of context becomes a pretext for a proof text." May I suggest to Mr. Apel that he read the whole fourth chapter of Ephesians? Maybe even the whole book? Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. While SBC grew by more than 52%, PCUSA decreased by more than 43% March 14, 2006 I am referring to the letter of March 13 written by Rev. Thomas Warren of Deltona, Fla. In it, he said
Finally, there's this thought: The growth of evangelical-controlled denominations (the SBC is not the only one) undermines the contention of the PCUSA hierarchy that they're losing members simply because the society at large is becoming secularized. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Keep quoting Scripture, keep praying March 14, 2006 Many letters recently, concerning the PUP and other liberal "wisdom" issues, all add up to the following: Even Satan flees when Scripture is quoted ... as Jesus gave example in the wilderness. So, what makes liberals so bold? Satan indeed left Jesus alone after three attempts to get him to agree with him, however, he did keep coming back through his followers and his enemies. This is the way it still works! Keep quoting Scripture, keep praying ... the strongholds of evil within our denomination will crumble. Remember the walls of Jericho! March on ... shout ... until we see the dust! Glenda Smith, elder Reems Creek Beech Weaverville, N.C. Questions to ponder before next denominational crisis March 13, 2006 Some questions to consider as we move into our next denominational crisis over the next few months: 1.) Let the main thing be the main thing – How is your local church impacted by the determinations of the General Assembly? In what ways does the GA speak for you? We so soon forget that the GA speaks to the church, not for the church. The church is resilient, powerful, the "gates of hell" shall not prevail against it. There are faithful servants hard at work within our church, and they will continue to labor no matter what the GA does or doesn't do. Let us be sure to focus on the "main thing." 2.) Decide SOMETHING about Presbyterians who are not acting as Christians – The seldom-spoken question that evangelicals are raising is: Can a person be a Presbyterian Christian (a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA)) and hold to the ordination of homosexuals and work for their inclusion in our denomination and be a member, elder, pastor in our church? If not, what then, do we do with those who are Presbyterians and who are disobedient to our standards? The church has repeatedly stated our position that homosexual practice in contrary to our church's understanding of the Christian life. Even if PUP is adopted, how does it change the Constitution of our Church or our Book of Order at G-6.0106b. The PUP report says, "Don't worry about it." Some presbyteries already allow it with impunity. Some churches have an active "don't ask, don't tell policy." It seems obvious that the church has spoken, but is unwilling to institute discipline on those who disagree. That is the issue. How can we continue as a denomination where we say one thing, tolerate another, and then call (via the PUP) everyone to "just get along." Our options are few: (a) Ostrich – Ignore those who disregard or defy our ordination standards; (b) Pit Bull – Disciple and remove all who defy the standards; (c) Titanic – Reorder our fellowship allowing new groupings of Presbyterians based on a variety of standards (many umbrellas, one big Presbyterian sky); (d) Puzzle – Break our church up into little pieces with the Covenant Network people over there, the New Wineskins over here, The Layman over there, the Witherspooners over there, Presbyterians for Renewal over there, etc etc.; (e) Confederates – Focus on "local-local" mission and ministry – meaning that the connection with other Presbyterians at presbytery and GA would be minimized and marginalized (withholding funds, attending meetings only when necessary, not participate in governing bodies etc) and becoming de facto independent churches which have little to do with the national life of other Presbyterians (like the UCC), aligning ourselves in mission and ministry with other churches and groups that share our commitments to the Scriptures and to the Reformed faith (already seen in Purpose Driven Conferences, and other national ministry alliances). 3.) Count the Cost of Changing the Church – Is there enough unity within the traditionalists (evangelicals, orthodox, historic Presbyterians) to overcome the changes that have occurred in the Presbyterian Church (USA) since reunion took place in 1984? Our church today is very different. Our numbers are down, our mission is very different, our identity as Presbyterians is unclear, our leadership is focused on survival by reflecting the world's culture via a liberal politic that is more Democratic National Committee than The Book of Confessions. Evangelicals have always been too engaged in ministry, missions, building the spiritual life of God's people, and guarding their personal life with God to be very engaged in the life of the church at large. Who has the time to give a day a week, or a week a year to the denomination to try and create a new shift back to the "right"? 4.) Reclaim the Seminaries – Do we understand that the chief problem we face in our church today is a direct result of the disconnection between what we hold in our Confessions and what theology is taught within our own theological seminaries? The only recent recovery of a Biblical value system in a liberal denomination in recent memory was in the taking over of Concordia Theological Seminary (1974) and returning it to a confessional institution within the Missouri Synod Lutherans. The Lutherans knew that without the seminary under the control of the denominational values, their church would spiral out of orthodoxy (as ours is doing now). Are we willing to restore our seminaries to reflect our doctrinal commitments stated in our Book of Confessions? Without the seminaries reflecting who we are and what we believe, there is no chance of ever recovering historic, Reformed and Presbyterian theology within our church. Would it be reasonable for us to require that every professor and administrator of our theological seminaries stipulate that they will be guided by and will be instructed from the Confessional Documents of our church? We have adopted the university model for our seminaries where academic freedom is the highest good. But does not the church have a defined set of doctrines? Do we not believe certain things that define us as Presbyterian Christians? If professors want to teach something contrary to our beliefs, let them do so at another institution. 5.) Spill your blood carefully – What is worth dying for in the Presbyterian Church war? It is dramatic to speak with impassioned urgency against the evils in our church. But does the church nor reflect the congregations, elders and ministers in it? We are appalled at the approach of PUP especially because that very flawed solution comes from some of our best and brightest church leaders. Is it not interesting that the relationships that were formed within the PUP team provided the context and power for a policy that essentially overturns our Constitution regarding sexual purity and is a departure from every Christian tradition since the day of the apostles. The relationships were strong, and the theology was wrong. What is going on here? Does this not speak to the weakness of relationships among those of us who are orthodox? Does this not indict us that we have not shared our traditional values with winsome and irenic words that will win others to the authority of Christ as we demonstrate in flesh and blood the Christian life in all its beauty? The PUP participants found real love for one another, but landed on the wrong planet in their conclusions. Could it have been different if we who love God's word and who are desperate to see the Gospel spread to those who are lost, could have lived with such beauty and power that those who are living in disobedience would take note of our purity, our love, our humility, and would long to follow us as we follow our Christ? If you want to die for something, would it not be well to die, rather to live the crucified life in Christ, to mirror Christ's life in us to others? Would it not be well to build a new set of relationships with those who claim to be Christians and who simply could not be according to Scripture and our Confessions – "the wrath of God has been revealed from heaven against the wickedness of sinful men" Romans says – and share the Gospel of Christ with those who are good, even the best sort of Presbyterians, but who certainly are not living as Christians men and women? The relationships that they so celebrated in the building of the PUP consensus bears witness to the loss of relationships within our church. Would you die to self, to the need to bear that impassioned testimony and that stringent condemnation to those in our church who are so misdirected and mistaken, so that you might help to bring his word back inside our churches and inside our own lives? Thomas Warren, pastor Deltona Presbyterian Church Deltona, Fla. All classes at Union Seminary, N.Y., are approached from liberation theology March 13, 2006 In response to Ben Vernon's letter [posted March 9, 2006] that he can't believe liberation theology is still believed, he needs a wake up call. Liberation theology is alive and well and growing. At Union Theological Seminary in New York City all of our classes are approached from liberation theology. There is a strong desire of many for this theology. This year we had more PhD applications than ever and we have had a 60 percent increase in MDiv and MA applications. PCUSA students make up the largest amount of students here. We are not the only seminary that has students with a strong desire for Liberation theology. My friends at San Francisco, Columbia, McCormick, Harvard, Yale, Emory and Pacific School of religion are all also studying liberation theology. We even have PCA students here! Brian Cave Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York Master of Arts in Theology '06 Pre-GA meetings are 'monologue propaganda' March 13, 2006 These are not "presentations," they are monologue propaganda. The correct word is "orientation," by which they mean to shape all assumptions prior to GA proper. The absence of allowance for critical feedback is worse than unfair; it is rather cowardly. The format reveals an M.O. that is most heavy-handed and authoritarian (o the irony). We can remember the words of a former president of Princeton Theological Seminary who said in private: "The biggest problem with the liberals is that they're not." And that was twenty years ago. As a commissioner to the 217th GA, I'll be equipped with a mental shovel, if not earplugs. Noel K. Anderson, executive pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. Different sorts of pre-assembly seminars March 13, 2006 Here is a partial list of pre-assembly seminars of one of the Presbyterian denominations. 1. Art and Culture 2. Church Planting and Church Life 3. Conflict Resolution 4. Disabilities and Grief 5. Discipleship and the Local Church 6. Financial Issues 7. Muslims and Islam 8. Postmodernism and the Local Church 9. Reaching Other Cultures 10. The Christian School and Campus Ministry 11. The Pastoral Ministry 12. Women in the Church 13. Worship Can you guess which Presbyterian denomination would have such pre-assembly seminars? Thus says the Lord: "Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not give heed.'" (Jeremiah 6:16 RSV) Even the New English Bible with Apocrypha reads: "These are the words of the Lord: Stop at the crossroads; look for the ancient paths; ask, 'Where is the way that leads to what is good?' Then take that way, and you will find rest for yourselves. But they said, 'We will not.'" (Jeremiah 6:16) Tends to make one wonder about the Presbyterian Church (USA). R.C.Oates Brookhaven, Miss. Saracco is a recognized theologian and an excellent pastor March 13, 2006 Thank you for writing about Rev. Norberto Saracco's message to the WCC in Porto Alegre, Brazil. I know Norberto well personally and preached in his church in Buenos Aires when I visited there some years ago. He has a great theological program for church leaders, is a recognized theologian (he received his doctorate in England) and an excellent pastor. I have admired him and his ministry for many years. I can imagine the reaction of those who heard his message in Brazil. Eddie Soto Spahr and Redwoods Presbytery should be charged with heresy March 13, 2006 Janie Spahr might not have been charged with heresy but it's probably about time! And the rest of the Redwoods presbytery. too! S. Norman Hudson, Ohio Public attack on Parker Williamson calls for a public rebuke March 13, 2006 Re: Nick Lincoln's letter to the editor, posted March 6, 2006 I agonized over whether to send this note to you privately, and thus perhaps positively influence you, or publicly; but you mounted a public attack on God's man and your rebuke needs to be in public where the same people who read your scathing attack on Parker can see an answer to it. I know Parker Williamson to be too professional, too much of a Christian gentleman and too focused on the Gospel to answer the rubbish that you wrote about him, but your attack on him must be answered and you do need to be rebuked! Parker has had an agenda of helping the PCUSA return to the love that its founders had, the love for and devotion to Jesus Christ! You don't know Parker; he loves all people. Parker hates the violence that communists still use and he rightly objects to "justice" efforts that place guns in the hands of communists who then use them on Christians. You don't know Parker! You appear to be offended that The Layman opposes the agenda of the contemporary churchmen who abandon the soul saving gospel of Jesus Christ for the wisdom of this world. And as to your attack of Parker's journalistic skills, what about you? Would anyone pay you to write or edit or report for a widely distributed paper and be responsible for the results? Professor, do you know of any paper that does not have a position on the issues on which they report? As for your attack on "the Pulitzer Prize hopeful," you ask a number of questions that you probably failed to answer before you wrote this harangue. Professor, to be so free of civil constraints, you must be tenured! By the way, what do you ask your students to do, report on events with no background given to help the reader understand the present piece? Professor; that kind of writing makes for frustrating reading! Your letter calling another reporter "bozo" shows a lack of professionalism, human compassion and it demonstrates profound arrogance! Parker did not resort to name calling; too bad if the facts that he reported drew, for the reader, an ugly but true picture. Where, professor, do you stand now that it is time to take sides? Parker and his friends do and will stand with Moses, Elijah, the Old Testament prophets and the apostles. Do you, like Parker, stand with those who, for three years, sat at the feet of Jesus? Will you stand with those who were the immediate objects of Jesus agonized prayer on the night He was arrested? Will you stand with those despised few? Do you stand with those, through whose words we have believed, just as Jesus prayed, while dripping sweat as blood? Do you stand with that number whom no man can number having their robes washed white in the blood of the Lamb? Or do you stand with the men and women, who with their pitiful little education gained at the feet of mere men believe themselves so educated that they dare question the witness of the prophets and apostles and even Jesus? These folks, in effect, call those men, set apart by God for his purpose, deluded, ignorant or worse, liars. They call men and women, such as those in East Africa, adolescent Christians. Standing with this group is standing against God! Teaching others to also stand against God is dangerous beyond comprehension. At the root of a tree called PCUSA is laid an axe. Sides have been and are being chosen. The denomination has had 40 years of wondering around in the wilderness of confusion. Thirteen hundred PCUSA congregations have confessed, with their mouths, the belief in their hearts that God has raised Jesus bodily from the grave making him the only way to peace with God and unity with God's people. They have affirmed that the record in the Scriptures is the authentic Word of God. They proclaim the eternal truth that God calls us to lives set apart from sin, holy unto him in all our ways including marriage between a man and a woman and celibacy in singleness (the burning issue before the church today). Others agree with these premises but see no need to affirm them again. Another PCUSA group has refuted Jesus as the way, the truth and the life, the only way to God. They declare the Bible to be merely the words, the imaginings of men. And they preach that human "justice" trumps God's commands, revealed down through the ages. They are ignorant that God's justice demands our death; his marvelous, extravagantly expensive mercy enables our salvation to eternal life through Jesus. The PCUSA will not survive choosing the gods of Egypt; as in the days of Joshua, nor will individuals survive who choose this world over God's Christ. So, not only is it time for the PCUSA to choose life or death, it is time for you, professor, to choose. James Logan McHenry, Md. PCUSA seeking to embrace harlotry of Babylon March 13, 2006 Say "no" to Babylon the Great Sadly, some within the PCUSA are eagerly seeking to embrace the harlotry of Babylon the Great. Except for the "dissenting" remnant, these folks are hell bent for the rest of the PCUSA to jump into bed with the harlot, too. Thanks be to God for the faithful confessing remnant, a steadily decreasing number as thousands exit the PCUSA for other denominations that are still madly in love with Jesus Christ, the way, the truth and the life. Art Montgomery El Montecito Presbyterian Church Santa Barbara, Calif. Pastors should choose the 'harder right' March 13, 2006 Last Monday, I read with great sadness the opinion of the majority of the Redwoods Presbytery Permanent Judicial Commission (PJC), which placed considerable creative energy and legal weight on a "it's only a definition of marriage" argument, and also said that by virtue of having done something which was classified only as "improper," that the Rev. Spahr was not guilty of the charges against her. The point of this letter is to suggest that where our polity-based and Bible-based arguments have not succeeded, perhaps a fresh look from a framework of ethical organizational leadership may make a contribution. Later that day, over dinner, my family (my wife and teen-aged son and daughter) and I discussed the differences between illegal acts and improper acts. Both of my teens play high school interscholastic sports, and none of us could recall any penalty or foul in their sports for an "improper" act. There are illegal formations, illegal uses of the hands, illegal procedures, etc., but no penalties for "improper" actions. We found that interesting; maybe even relevant. So how do "improper" acts come in to a legal system? They evidently do, because teachers, for example, can be fired for "improper" conduct with (or contact with) a student. However, after our dinnertime discussion, I concluded that while "improper" acts were certainly not "illegal," they left something wanting in the way an act was performed, or, they failed to serve the higher good. For example, at some age, it became "improper" for me to be in the bathroom and give my daughter a bath. She would have been just as clean if I had bathed her, but, some aspect of the fabric that holds society and families is broken when daddies bathe little girls after they reach a certain age. I will come back to this idea several times in the paragraphs below. Back in 1994, I read The West Point Way of Leadership by retired Col. Larry R. Donnithorne, about leadership training at the U.S. Military Academy. According to Donnithorne, one concept instilled there is called "choosing the harder right." When it is possible for a leader to choose a right, but "easy," way, there is often another right, but "harder," way, which sacrifices the leader's comfort or convenience but accomplishes more good or a higher good for more people. I would suggest that a pastor, as a graduate of a sort of "service academy" (seminary) and the equivalent to a "commissioned officer" (ordained minister of the word) of the church, often must choose a "harder right" in the line of duty (sitting with a hospitalized parishioner one evening and missing a son's little league game, for example). To me, another sad point of the Spahr situation is that both Spahr, and the PJC did not choose the "harder right." Setting aside Biblical arguments supporting or against such marriages for a moment, Spahr could have said to the "brides" asking to be married, "Hey, I'm with you, and I would love to see the system changed. I am working for, and am going to go on working for, change, but within the system. But in the meantime, I am an ordained officer in this church, and, even though these 'definition' and 'impropriety' angles may give me some wiggle room, and even though there is a lot of long-standing confusion and dissent about same sex marriage, and even though the TTFPUP report, if adopted, may eventually allow me to 'marry' you, for right now, I am going to call this one against myself and against you: the right answer, and my answer, is 'no.' If I err, it will be on the side of the status quo and the conventional wisdom. I will raise my sights - I will treat this 'definition' in the Book of Order as if it was a directive, and I will treat this matter of propriety as if it were a matter of law. Now if you want, I can call the pastor at the nice little UCC down the street or the Unitarian Church across town and I'll see what they can do for you." Likewise the PJC could have said almost the same thing. But instead they all chose an "easier" right, a right to pursue personal agendas and to look for, invent and codify painfully contorted loopholes and to do much damage to the state of marriage (as defined!) and to the institution they are sworn to lead and protect. It would have flashed a clear signal that the church's judicial system holds "proper" acts in high esteem and "improper" acts in low esteem, had they chosen the harder right. Another aspect of the "improper act" dinner discussion was that – and here is something that may not square with the "Biblical" argument (which I would like to appropriate also, please) is that it still may have been effective – maybe, the marriage actually "took." As in the example above, it might be improper for a daddy to bathe a 7-year-old daughter but she still gets clean. So in this case, where Spahr did something inappropriate – are the brides now actually married? Now there is an interesting question. Also, who was inappropriate? In the case of the daughter-bathing daddy, the daddy's behavior clearly is inappropriate, but the daughter's clearly is not. Was Spahr inappropriate? (The PJC says no.) The brides? Maybe the brides should be tried, too. I think they did not have standing in the PCUSA. Does getting married in a PCUSA church bring them into jurisdiction for matters pertaining to the wedding? Is the session liable? Should they be tried? So what "higher good" was not achieved here? I say that the couple and the minister conspired to perform a marriage that fell short of the Biblical and ecclesiastical definition and standard of what a marriage is. All the good that comes of a church and Christian marriage - becoming one flesh, procreation, property rights, societal stability, emulation of the relationship between Christ and the church - were lost in this "improper" marriage. If not a crime, that should be troubling to all within the institution and organization of the church. Another issue about this marriage is: Does doing marriages like this create "stumbling blocks" for others? I say that it IS a pretty big stumbling block – so who else will use the logic of the majority decision to declare other portions of the Book of Order to be definitions only, and what mischief or violence will that wreak in the church? Back to the comparison with the "improper" bath, the only remedy I can think of is for those of us who agree with this wedding's impropriety (at the very least) to reach for the harder right and react with what I am going to call a scolding. I am sure the wife/ mother of the little girl getting the bath, the father's own mother, Dr. Phil, and anyone else, would not hesitate to tell our hapless daughter-bathing daddy that giving a bath that way was not a good thing to do. So, not that I expect Spahr to listen to me, but, let me say, "Rev. Spahr, shame on you, for performing this marriage, and moreover, shame on you for taking such a small, low view of the constitution, rules, and norms of your church, of her history and confessions, and of the feelings of a large majority of its members, and pursuing in such a cavalier manner your own personal agenda. And shame on you, brides, for presuming to come in to my church and ask that this improper thing be done. And shame on the sessions of the churches involved for failing to oversee and supervise these situations." There! I had never stopped to think that the ethics of organizational leadership as taught to West Point cadets might help our pastors, members, and sessions, but, "in such a time as this," I urge its careful and prayerful consideration. Eric Wallace Dayton, Ohio Presbyterians are liberal and flexible March 13, 2006 The fuss over the Spahr decision in your forum is interesting. Many note how the Constitution is being violated. Quite frankly, I don't understand that. The fact is the PC (USA) has the reputation of being a liberal denomination that your forum frequently reminds us all of. It seems clear to me that the Constitution does indeed allow flexibility and our own democratic system enables that as well. It seems to me that people claiming violation of the Constitution really haven't taken the time to see what it really says or understand the implications. The real issue is Biblical interpretation. People like to claim liberals just ignore the Bible. Well no, we don't. An example I will use is the quote by Kevin T. Smith in your letters section. He shares this verse from Ephesians 4:14-16: "Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming. Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ. From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work."Actually this verse affirms the PCUSA Constitution that makes clear that Christ is the head of the church, not the Bible. Yet we do interpret the Bible in light of Christ as our Savior. And as this verse so wonderfully states love is the standard in speaking the truth of Christ. That is what we are all seeking to do including Janie Spahr. This is Biblical as well as Constitutional. The bottom line is the arguments over what is constitutional really in the end aren't getting anywhere. Why don't people just realize this nonsense and move on? It seems to me the answer is very simple. For those having an opinion in contrast to Janie Sphar, you do have the power to seek modification of the constitution to be most explicit as to beliefs about same-sex persons and our so-called behaviors rather than rely on the current wishy-washy language. I expect however this won't go anywhere as most would think it would never be adopted by the PCUSA. So if this would not be adopted by the PCUSA so easily, how can anyone claim the Constitution is being violated in this instance? The truth is that the verse shared by Mr. Smith is wonderful and I think no one in the PCUSA would argue against. Why can't we simply acknowledge and celebrate this as followers of Christ? This on-going division just really makes no sense at all. Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Since when has the PCUSA required pastors to honor ordination vows? March 9, 2006 What a joke. I guess it is on us. If this wasn't affecting the lives of the two ministers, it would be laughable. Since when has the PCUSA required pastors to honor ordination vows? Pastors performing unions/marriages of same gender people have violated the vows for years with few reprimands from their presbyteries, synods, General Assembly or from our stated clerk. It will be good to get this sorry mess out in the open IF the trial is conducted in a legitimate manner. That is a big IF since this presbytery has not shown an inclination for fair dealings with other than liberal pastors. Obviously, the Presbytery of the Pacific does not understand the meaning of peace, unity and especially purity. The filing of charges against the two pastors simply reinforces reasons for not approving the PUP report. Approval would further remove the PCUSA from adherence of Biblical standards. Let's call it what it is becoming, an "anything goes" social club. Taking God's will out of the church leaves an empty shell. Forget the loss of members, we are an apostate denomination that will one day answer for our actions. Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C. 'Lesbian evangelist' acquitted of marrying same-sex couples March 9, 2006 This, of course, violates the decision of the GA PJC, which said that ministers could preside at same-sex unions only if they were not considered to be marriages. If Recommendation 5 [of the PUP report] is adopted, the whole thing will be moot, of course. Tell me it's not local option. We had Gary Demarest claiming that at our presbytery meeting last Saturday. I want to think that these people are merely misguided. My gut sense is that they are simply lying. Dan Reuter Redwoods' PJC decision is either laughably ludicrous or a crying shame March 9, 2006 It is difficult to decide whether to laugh or cry over the ridiculous ruling handed down by the Permanent Judicial Committee of Redwoods Presbytery in the case of Dr. Spahr's continuing defiance of the Book of Order's and our denomination's stance on Christian marriage. "Section W-4.9001 is a definition, not a directive," declares the majority. Well duh, it is the definition that undergirds the directives that follow in the remainder of the paragraph. Dr. Spahr cannot possibly have met the obligation that she "shall provide for a discussion with the man and the woman concerning ... the privileges and responsibilities of Christian marriage" (W-4.90001a, 3; emphasis added) prior to performing a Christian marriage ceremony for a gay or lesbian couple. Such a discussion would require that the couple under her counsel be comprised of one man and one woman. It would further demand that the prior definition ("For Christians marriage is a covenant through which a man and a woman are called to live out together before God their lives of discipleship" – W-4.9001, emphasis added) provide the parameters for the mandated pastoral consult. The decision rendered by the Redwoods PJC is either laughably ludicrous or a crying shame. Whichever the case, I shudder to think that a body of self-affirming Presbyterians has been able to conclude that, "The subject of same-sex marriage has not been shown to be outside of or contrary to the essentials of the Reformed faith as understood by Presbytery of the Redwoods." I suspect that neither can they see the forest for the trees. Hats-off to Janet Moor for her brave dissent from the majority. I am curious to know if she has experienced being walled off, shunned and excluded by the champions of inclusiveness, reconciliation and barrier demolition who concurred with the majority. If so, I trust she takes comfort in the word of Christ the Lord at Matthew 5:11. This ruling by the majority of the Redwoods PJC is just a preview of the travesty that will overtake our denomination in Birmingham. Champions of the cause of total inclusiveness are about to win the battle at the 217th General Assembly. I suggest they celebrate quickly, because such a victory will be but the beginning of the property wars. Jim Henkel, NWI endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery 'I would rather be UnPresbyterian than UnChristian' March 9, 2006 As a young man, I was appointed to the position of deacon in a PCUSA church. We were given our Book of Order. I made a remark that was "unPresbyterian" to which I remember responding that "I would rather be UnPresbyterian than UnChristian." The Book of Order is not divinely inspired, it will pass away before heaven and earth do and is merely the backseat driver of publications. When compared to God's Word it is irrelevant. In Canada last year, portions of the Bible were declared "hatespeech" by the Canadian government and anyone preaching on these passages could be fined or put in prison. All of this because of offense taken by one Sven Robinson, a Canadian homosexual. So what does Canada do but throw out God and keep Sven. I suppose that this will fit nicely with the (PCUSA supported) WCC ecumenism as they hand Satan his "one world church." I have read the book and I know who wins. The last acts are a little difficult to watch. You just have to keep reminding yourself: God is in control. Pete Fleming Disbelief that liberation theology is still believed March 9, 2006 Thank you for attending the WCC meeting in Brazil. You have given a well written review of the conference. I can't believe liberation theology is still believed by some. Ben Vernon Two pastors will be rewarded later despite heretical actions of a few individuals March 9, 2006 Unbelievable! The continuing saga of a vengeful, bloodthirsty, godless presbytery hell-bent on destroying the careers of these two gentlemen never ceases to amaze me. Those pompous, clueless dimwits can have their "polity" kangaroo courts (probably opening/closing with a prayer to Allah).These two saints will be rewarded later despite the heretical actions of a few misguided, deceived individuals, here and now, who think their power and prestige make them right. Wrong! This should not surprise us at all, but it still reads like a bad movie … and in this case, it is right out of Hollywood. Noel-Paul Laur Amarillo, Texas Contrast of God moving in Latin American and WCC's efforts of 'salvation' March 9, 2006 Thank you, Parker! Your article on the WCC was informative and articulate. You did a great job of exposing the stark contrast between the life of God moving in Latin America and the deadness of the WCC's efforts to apply the world's system and call it "justice" and "salvation." I'm grateful for your contribution to the broader church. You inform us all and we are thankful for your gifts of expression and your boldness in declaring truth. Thank you and God bless you! Marie Bowen, executive director Presbyterians Pro-Life How can Christ's words 'submit (give way) to' anything? March 9, 2006 From the last paragraph of the Layman Online article, "California commission acquits minister who performed same-gender weddings" (Mar. 6): "'Ordination vows start with Christ,' said [Sara] Taylor, Spahr's attorney, 'that gives way to Scripture, that gives way to constitution.'" This seems to be a telling snapshot statement revealing much of what I perceive to be behind the differences between the groups tussling in the PCUSA – and you know who you are. Why telling? Here are some synonyms for the phrase "gives way to:"
So, Ms. Spahr technically did not violate the PCUSA's BOO (Book of Order, a.k.a. "constitution"). Good catch if your goal is to remain an ordained validated special ministries Presbyterian reverend. However, for the other group who do not agree with the concluding sentence from Ms. Spahr's attorney, "Janie has not departed from the essentials of the Presbyterian church," here is another view of the issue. Starting from the idea that ordination vows to Christ are paramount, this Scripture might lead you to a different conclusion:
"Let me be sure I understand. Are you talking about the covenant relationship my Father set in the first book of the infallible Scriptures or the 'marriage' arrangement humanity is now accepting between couples of the same gender - the ones who physically cannot obey the Triune God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply in that same book?" [And, no, I am not disparaging husbands and wives who are not able to conceive.] Infallible Scriptures? Seem to be, at least from Christ's view:
Greg Leaman Sheboygan County, Wisc. Spahr ruling illustrates life in PCUSA after PUP report is adopted March 7, 2006 It is interesting that the commission that acquitted Jane Spahr says that "PCUSA's constitution does not 'prohibit the performance' of same-sex marriages 'by ministers of the Word and Sacrament,' and that 'the subject of same-sex marriage has not been shown to be outside of, or contrary to, the essentials of the Reformed faith as understood by Presbytery of the Redwoods.'" This statement is very telling, and gives us a good glimpse at life after the adoption of "Recommendation 5" in the PUP Report. It is quite interesting that the commission would reference PCUSA's constitution (even if they ignored it), and the unwritten "essentials of the Reformed Faith" that ministers of the Word and Sacrament must vow to adhere to (G.14.0405.b.(3)), but I heard no mention of the Bible in the quoted statements. This is another demonstration of the continuing trend in PCUSA and other mainline denominations – a slow but widespread rejection of the Bible as a means to embrace diversity and popular culture under the guise of "unity." Wait until the General Assembly accepts recommendation 5 of the PUP report. We will hear more phrases like "as understood by the Presbytery of the Redwoods" quite a bit. Maybe Spahr's attorney was correct when stating that she "has not departed the essentials of the Presbyterian Church." There are seemingly no "essentials of the Reformed Faith" because anyone can interpret what that means, and there will soon be no standards because any ordaining body will be at liberty to disagree with anything that is a standard in the name of "unity." I would say that "No essentials + No Standards = No Church." But the most important issue is that ignoring Scripture is ultimately the complete rejection of Christ and his gospel. We are called to do everything in love – but we must also be able to lovingly tell the truth given to us by God in the Holy Bible. True unity founded on truth can be shown in Ephesians 4:14-16:
Kevin T. Smith New Hanover Presbyterian Church Mechanicsville, Va. Redwoods theology: 'Whatever is not expressly forbidden, is allowed' March 7, 2006 There is a new theological/prophetic era emerging! And it is the newly formed "Redwoods Theology." I have been the first to dub it thus, in honor of the recent Presbytery of the Redwoods decision to declare Jane Spahr not guilty of violating our church's constitution when she "marries" two women. Curious about what this new theology says? Here is the foundational and defining thought, from the text of the Spahr decision itself:
For example: If I am an adherent to this Redwoods theology and I decided to say, baptize dogs in church, I would search the Bible and the PCUSA Book of Order and Book of Confessions. Animals are all God's creatures, created good, right? And the Bible talks a lot about love, right? And we all love God's creatures, right? Therefore, since the Bible, BOO and BOC never mention the topic of baptism in regards to dogs (or cats, birds and fish for that matter!) and since these documents never forbid me doing this, then it is permissible for me to decide that my conscience calls for me to have our members' dogs baptized in church! After all, the Bible is silent on the matter, so it's allowed! One afterthought: Any advice on how we could baptize fish, or are they already baptized by virtue of living in water? Just wondering on the logistics. Toby L. Brown, pastor First Presbyterian Church Cuero, Texas Edwards openly and deliberately violated her ordination vows March 7, 2006 What a crock. Jonathon Edwards would be appalled by the low view of Scripture, apostate behavior and self-aggrandizing actions of his distant relative, Janet Edwards. Anyone who was awake in seminary and actually studied the work of Jonathon Edwards knows this. This article is just more of her shameless pandering through the press to her minority view constituency. Ms Edwards appears to be nothing more than a cultural gadfly who spends all of her time and energy of trying to deconstruct the existing PCUSA. As for her being "under church scrutiny;" well, the charges against her have been pending since last fall, with very little (if any) action on the part of the presbytery. Why is that? Is there some hope that it will just "go away?" Perhaps someone is hoping to drag it out long enough for the GA and its pet "PUPpy" to make the issue moot. Ms Edwards openly and deliberately defied the church constitution and violated her ordination vows, then crowed about it in both the Pittsburgh Post Gazette and the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. One has to wonder when the church will again stand for something. Rev. James C. Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Without definition, our distinctives blur into a useless blur March 7, 2006 There is an interesting consistency in the liberal view of authoritative documents. We Presbyterians hold the Bible to be our authority, but the progressive left has removed and re-imagined parts of the Bible they find to be problematic. Now we come to a clear violation of the constitution of the PCUSA. While Jane Spahr admittedly violated its clear proscriptions on same-sex marriages, the court sitting in "judgment" over her chose to re-imagine compulsory portions as permissive while, at the same time, throwing out any governing sense of the constitution by raising her "conscience" above it. No wonder we are in such trouble as we are in the PCUSA. Without definition, our distinctives blur into a useless blur. Unless we return to our senses by returning to the clarity of our Scriptures and constitution, this denomination will soon cease to be. Tom Gray, pastor Kirk of the Hills, Presbyterian Tulsa, Okla. Lesbian's acquittal points to the pending schism of the PCUSA March 7, 2006 The announcement that one of the PCUSA "lesbian" ministers has been found not guilty of what is an obvious breach of the Book of Order's prohibition of conducting same-sex marriages simply points to the pending schism that will occur in June following the GA meeting. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls PCUSA – it tolls for thee." Carl Smith, deacon First Presbyterian Church Spokane, Wash. Purity must come first, or all you have is PU March 7, 2006 In order to have peace and unity. We MUST have purity first. If not its all a bunch of PU. Rowland Zimmerman North Sewickley Pres. Ellwood City, Pa. God's chosen disciples included men with a variety of educational backgrounds March 7, 2006 In response to Pastor Leak's [letter to the editor, posted March 6, 2006] comments regarding the "slack preparation" of ministers as proposed by the New Wineskins Initiative, I would respectfully disagree. We, as Presbyterians ,believe that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and life. It mentions specific criteria for both elders and deacons, yet I find no mention of seminary training. How do you defend your position on Scriptural grounds? The eclectic choice of "ministers" (disciples and apostles) made by God in the New Testament includes men with a variety of educational backgrounds, including "seminary/synagogical" training, medicine, tax accountancy and myriad uneducated laymen. These men grew in wisdom and knowledge in direct proportion to their love for and desire to know God. In reality, the dependence on an exorbitantly expensive M.Div. or doctorate, has produced a pastorate with large debt burdens, and has served as a disincentive for many potential Peters, Matthews and Lukes. And the PCUSA seminaries are hardly "Reformed" any more. Having said this, I am in no way anti-intellectual or against seminary education. I am in the process of applying for a master's degree from RTS as we speak. I just think that treating the ministry as a "profession" in the same way that lawyers, doctors, accountants , etc. are treated is not supportable by Scripture. Give me a man with a heart for God, a gift for teaching, preaching, evangelism, etc., and a good knowledge of essential Reformed doctrine and the Bible, and I will take him over a liberal, heretical-leaning seminary product any day. As for the knowledge of Hebrew and Greek as prerequisites, in the information age in which we live, good exegesis can be done using linguistic tools that are readily available, and inexpensive to boot. Most pastors that I know who have been out of seminary over five years would have difficulty passing basic or intermediate Hebrew or Greek exams, and rely on the same research tools that are available to any interested layman. I think that the NWI proposal is right on the money, but would favor some type of practical examination of potential pastoral candidates to ensure that their gifting, knowledge, skills and character are satisfactory. Although not Reformed, and not a model of polity that I would choose, the Calvary Chapels of the world certainly have shown that seminary training is not a requirement for evangelical ministry. I know I will catch fire for that comment, but I have gotten more gospel preaching from several CC's that I have attended than from some of the "frozen chosen" services I have attended. I look forward to your responses, and respect Pastor Leak's opinion and education. S.P. Hunter Fountain Hills, Ariz. In China, pastors' goal is to reach out to lost souls March 7, 2006 I agree that well trained pastors are desirable but may I make a suggestion to Pastor Sid Leak? [letter to the editor, posted March 6, 2006] Do some research on church growth in China, Africa and other third world countries. It is a given that third world churches have already overtaken us. China has Video Bible Schools to train church leaders. I imagine you would have to look long and hard for a pastor conversant in Greek and Hebrew in China. The reason for their growth is not difficult to determine. Their main goal is to reach out to lost souls with the good news about Jesus Christ. Everything else takes a back seat to that primary goal. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. 'Slack preparation' and seminary education are quite possibly the same thing March 7, 2006 In response to the letter by Sid Leak, [letter to the editor, posted March 6, 2006] I would venture the comment that today, "slack preparation" and seminary education are quite possibly the same thing! Please take a hard, discerning look at the theology and ethics of current Presbyterian seminary graduates. You might notice that it is not a positive picture (syncretism, idolatry, particularism). In fact, seminary is absolutely no guarantee of a qualified minister or ministry – only calling, preparation, and committed follow-up are what determines a prepared and qualified officer in the church! For too long we have condescended to having seminaries become official gatekeepers, a function that personally I'm no longer prepared to give. Todd Bensel CLP Pilot Rock, Ore. How can a Presbyterians endorse a slack preparation for the gospel ministry? March 6, 2006 As disturbing as some developments within our denomination have been, I was not prepared for what I read in the recent NWI paper on pastors. This document clearly states that a seminary education is not required. This flies in the face of the essential tenet of the Reformed Faith, "the life of the mind in the service of God," (which, by the way I do not find among the NWI essential tenets.) Even more shocking is the lack of any mention of courses required in the original languages (Hebrew and Greek.) How can any group that styles itself Biblical or calls itself Presbyterian endorse such slack preparation for the gospel ministry? Today, more than any day, pastors need every tool available to "rightly divide" the Word written and help people follow it. After careful study, I would not endorse this movement for anyone who calls himself/herself Reformed or Presbyterian and I would discourage The Presbyterian Layman from giving these developments any further coverage. Sid Leak, pastor First Presbyterian Church Manchester, Tenn. PCUSA has flagrant disregard for Scriptural teaching March 6, 2006 Re: California commission acquits minister who performed same-gender weddings Apparently it won't matter whether PUP Recommendation 5 passes or not – we already (again) have flagrant disregard for Scriptural teaching and Book of Order/Confessions standards. Ken Swanson Barnegat, N.J. It's no longer the Bible that counts, it's how a person feels March 6, 2006 This is what happens when you ordain gay people as pastors. It's no longer the Bible that counts, it's how a person feels. Seems like the PCUSA will follow through with more gay weddings all over the place; it also seems that the PCUSA has joined the cesspool of the world, just like so many others. I was going to join this church, but after this, I can not in good conscious do that. I don't believe in gay marriage. Don Whitbeck Why vote on issues if decisions can be flagrantly violated and justified? March 6, 2006 If one can violate the constitution of the PCUSA which is against same sex unions or marriages what is the use of voting on this issue if the church's decision can be flagrantly violated and justified? This is one good example of the lack of integrity and discipline presently practiced within our church. If the Peace, Unity and Purity (PUP) report is adopted at this coming General Assembly in June in Birmingham, Ala., then violation of our church's constitution will be justified and rampant. I also believe that there will be an exodus from our beloved Presbyterian Church (USA). I lament and regret all that is occurring within our church and the fact that no one at the General Assembly level is defending what the majority of the church has reaffirmed over and over again: Not to bless or sanction same-sex unions or marriages. Only the grace and mercy of God will save us from tragedy as a Christian church. Let us pray for a revival wherein biblical standards and not the standards of the culture are upheld. Rev. Eriberto (Eddie) Soto 'What would we give up for the Kingdom of God' March 6, 2006 I am writing in response to a letter written by Brian Cave [letter to the editor, posted March 3, 2006] of Union Seminary of New York. He said that he thinks that conservatives ought to sell their cars to prove that they take the Bible literally. While I suspect that there is little in the way of theology upon which we would agree, in this particular instance Mr. Cave may have a valid point. We live in an era in which "mission trips" are very popular. A career missionary in Africa, I return every few years to the States. Inevitably someone will corner me and ask the question, "How can I fly to Africa and spend a week there and make a contribution that is meaningful and permanent?" I may ask some questions. "Are you a doctor or dentist?" "No." "Do you speak an African language?" "No!" At this point, I get the idea that they are waiting to hear me say, "Oh, just come on over to Africa anyway. You can serve punch and cookies to orphans. Africans don't know how to do that." And of course, one can imagine how cost-effective it is to fly people from the U.S. to Africa to serve those snacks. There is one question, however, that I would really like to ask. "What if, in order to help Africans, you had to give up air conditioning, eat meat only twice a week, and use public transportation for the rest of your life? Would you be willing to do that?" But I've never had the nerve to ask anybody that question. I should point out that living in the capital of Malawi, I have all the conveniences of home – microwave, washer, dryer, Internet, etc. – plus a cook, a gardener and a nanny. One of the reasons I stay here is because life is easier here than in the U.S. So perhaps we who call ourselves conservative evangelicals should ask ourselves, just what would we give up for the Kingdom of God? Thank you, Brian Cave. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi I prefer to take cover and let PUP's R-5 bomb blow now March 6, 2006 My thanks to Dr. Mark R. Patterson [letter to the editor, posted March 3, 2006] for offering insight on the motives that led to the Santa Barbara Presbytery overture on Recommendation 5 (R-5) of the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (TTF report). I am heartened to learn it "was simply an effort ... of diffusing this bomb" based on the conviction that R-5 "will destroy" the Presbyterian Church (USA). First, I want to note that (contrary to the nomenclature employed by Dr. Patterson) neither our own denomination, nor any other, is "the church." Biblically speaking, "the church" designates either the local body of believers in a specific place or the entire body of Christ in all places. Denominations are neither. Denominations are human constructs organized by some of the members of "the church" to assist in maximizing ministry and mission. There is nothing sacred about these human institutions and it is not the end of "the church" when a particular denomination falters, fractures, or fails. The "wineskins analogy" is a very apt picture. A denomination may cradle, contain, complement and convey a certain quantity of "the church" for a season; but, like a wineskin, it is subject to wear and tear and sometimes reaches the point at which it is no longer serviceable. It is especially inept at encompassing that which is new or innovative. Second, I want to speak directly to the Santa Barbara overture. The ten questions posed by Dr. Patterson, his local congregation, and his presbytery are excellent. Again, let me state that I hope the 217th General Assembly gives these queries due deliberation. However, the overture itself is a recommendation to refer R-5 for "careful, precise, and intentional scrutiny" to a "Task force comprised of members drawn from across the theological spectrum of the church charged with specifically answering the above questions and any others that may be raised through the careful study of Recommendation Five ... reporting their findings to the General Assembly in two years" (emphasis added). Despite Dr. Patterson's intentions to the contrary, his overture is exactly an invitation to "extend dialogue on the issue of ordination standards." R-5 is the TTF report's solution to the ordination standards controversy in the PCUSA. Therefore, any action to refer R-5 is a move to continue the conversation on ordination standards; this is especially true of the Santa Barbara overture, in which 5 of Dr. Patterson's 10 questions directly entertain the subject (a, d, f, g, j). The Santa Barbara overture does not succeed in diffusing the bomb; it only substitutes a delayed fuse for the one this explosive device came equipped with. Personally (since, like Dr. Patterson, I do not think it is likely that the 217th General Assembly will dismiss the entire TTF report), I prefer to take cover and let the R-5 bomb blow now. Yes, it will destroy our denomination. Yet, would it really be so terrible if Presbyterians found themselves in need of new wineskins? "The church" will march on under the leadership of Christ Jesus our head with or without the denominational manifestation now known as the PCUSA. Jim Henkel, NWI endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery 'If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything' March 6, 2006 God love Jim Henkel, I know long before I get to the end that I'm reading one of his letters. I empathize with Jim's plea to GA commissioners in his letter of March 2 to "Stand for something!" The current state of the PCUSA could well be used as proof of the saying, "If you don't stand for something you will fall for anything." Too many previous General Assemblies have failed to stand, with the result that this denomination has been falling for all kinds of nonsense for years now (To say nothing of the freefall of its membership). Jim Wilken Marion, N.C. To him who has been given much, much will be required March 6, 2006 RE : Brian Cave [letter to the editor, posted March 3, 2006] Let me first just pray you. The three passages you sited are the three places in the Gospels where the rich young ruler comes to Jesus looking for the answer to salvation. Let's look at these passages a little. Jesus knows that the rich man has a problem with trust, he says as much in Mark 10:24 "Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!" This was not a matter of how much things the man had but what had control over his life. In whom or what did he trust? In all three passages, Jesus answers the disciples question about "Who then can be saved?" with "With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible" (Both quotes from Mark). In other parts of the Gospels, Jesus tells us that to him who has been given much, much will be required. This speaks to the heart of stewardship, when we view all that we have been given not as ours but as God's. We are the faithful stewards, awaiting the arrival of our King. This is best exemplified in the parable of the talents. I would not say that the three passages you sited are only a metaphor for not being attached to things, but go much deeper than that. They talk about trust and stewardship also. It is not a good idea to take any part of scripture and isolate it. Remember when we look at Scripture, we need to look at all of Scripture to see if other parts of Scripture can help us to interpret what we are studying. Marc Karasek, elder Norcross Presbyterian Norcross, Ga. There's still time to learn more about exegesis and hermeneutics March 6, 2006 I was heartened to see that Brian Cave [letter to the editor, posted March 3, 2006] has (apparently) not yet received his M.A. in theology. There is still time for him to learn a bit more about exegesis and hermeneutics. What is disheartening is that he seems to think he has mastered a "conservative" (orthodox? evangelical? traditional reformed?) reading of these passages. Maybe he wasn't really exposed to such views in seminary. That's rather disheartening, too. Steve Jones, elder Kokomo Ind. 'A fully unqualified journalism professor,' gives Layman an 'F' March 6, 2006 If there is any doubt that The Layman represents the worst in yellow journalism, one need not look any further than the recent slew of reports from the WCC assembly in Brazil. I almost wanted to laugh when I saw the special correspondent was none other than Parker Williamson. I hesitate to use the word "journalist" to describe Rev. Williamson as he could have saved the plane fare and written a bunch of scathing editorials from the comfort of his office. His reports were neither helpful nor informative. Instead, they served the purpose of furthering his political agenda of destroying the PCUSA by attacking an organization which it supports. I learned nothing about the conference itself, accept for the fact that in 2006 Rev. Williamson still hates communists. One should not surprised that The Layman's reporting always comes second to its agenda. In a recent online article entitled "Peacemaking conference canceled because of funds," the anonymous reporter begins rejoicing over the cancellation of the 2006 conference, suggesting that this problem due to the Ficca affair (an incident from six years ago). This, in turn, is used to change the subject to the creation of the Confessing Church Movement so that the reporter can bring up the fidelity/chastity controversy. Essentially, the Pulitizer Prize hopeful that wrote this piece of drivel devotes two sentences to the canceled Peacemaking conference and the rest of the article to some nonsense about past events. You have to be kidding me! What kind of Mickey Mouse college did this "journalist" attend? Did he/she ever bother to think about the who/what/when/where/why? Did he/she contact anyone involved in the planning of the conference for more information? Did he/she provide analysis of the facts of the current situation? As a fully unqualified journalism professor with zero experience in journalism, I nonetheless feel confident in giving this bozo an 'F' The only good thing I have to say is that The Layman is that it is no longer called The Presbyterian Layman. I want no connection to this online tabloid. The low quality of its content, the vehemence with which the C.E.O. and his employees write about Presbyterian Church (USA), and the constant lack of journalist integrity exhibited in this periodical makes a mockery of all those who read it. If the staff writers and editors of The Layman believe they are serving the gospel in working for this publication, perhaps I have been mistaken in my understanding of what true gospel ministry is all about. Nick Lincoln Richmond, Va. PCUSA is on course for severe disturbance March 6, 2006 It is not easy to send this to you. I have been in prayer and thought for several months now, but feel I must write. I am distressed about several things. It seems our denomination is on course for severe disturbance, especially with the PUP proposal (which will bring none of the things that "PUP" stands for) and the defection/support of evangelicals serving on the group. The selective acceptance of Biblical concepts and teachings (what I like to call "cafeteria religion") bodes ill for the future of the denomination. I am consoled by the knowledge that no denomination is divine and that the Word will prevail. Nevertheless, all this energy fighting takes away from the mission to proclaim the Gospel to a dying world. One other thing bothers me. In an issue last fall, The Layman reported on a meeting of religious leaders with Democrats as if that were a terrible thing to do (meet with "unbelievers"). It implied that anyone who votes Democratic is not a true believer. My wife and I voted Democratic (opposing G.W. Bush) mostly in opposition to Republican policies favoring the wealthy, war and anti-environment, etc. We are against abortion and evangelical (you can test my credentials as evangelical with one of your board members: Mrs. Rebecca McElroy). I do not believe Democrats are always right but they do seem to be more caring of this beautiful world in which God has placed us (with the command to"care for it"). (Rev.) Robert E. Bailey, Ph.D. Letter writer needs to go back to Bible school March 6, 2006 It is interesting today. Just following the letters to the editor is the article by Albert Mohler about Scripture distortion. In the letters we have the letter from Brian Cave which is a classic example of distortion. Jesus was making a specific comment about wealth. It says of the young man: "He loved him." I take that to mean he saw great promise in him so he said: "Go sell all that you have and come follow me." Then he said how difficult it will be for a rich man to get into heaven. He said nothing about everyone having to sell everything to get into heaven. I believe Brian needs to go back to Bible school before he pursues his Masters. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. How long will PCUSA keep disobeying God? March 6, 2006 Jane Spahr the openly homosexual woman who got "Woman of Faith" award in 1999 from PCUSA is found not guilty of misconduct of getting two married lesbian couples in year 2004 and 2005. I objected to the conduct of Jane Spahr on her conduct as a Christian woman who is deeply involved in the sin of homosexuality. She was then declared the "Woman of Faith" by the PCUSA. I stopped commenting on ungodly behavior of PCUSA in year 2004 but I could not resist commenting this time. One side the PCUSA is worried on the loss of membership in PCUSA and on the other hand it supports the people who are determined to live with their sins. Today the whole Christiandom, (if any) is facing the greatest threat from outside Christianity, yet the church is ignoring the warning of God by allowing women like Jane Spahr in his ministry. God loves every one even the sinners like me, yet he hates unrepented sinners and sends his wrath on those who disobey him. How long will PCUSA keep disobeying God? People like Jane Spahr must be defrocked and declared followers of an ancient religion that loved the lust. Bishop Timotheus Nasir The Siloam Biblical Christian Churches of Pakistan Gujranwala Pakistan If the PCUSA is indeed in its last moments, that is not so bad March 6, 2006 Your article about membership loss in the PCUSA is most interesting. It asks: "How long can the PCUSA last at a departure average of 49,815 Presbyterians per year since 1965? Someone would have to turn off the lights in 2047." I appreciate the note of humor here. I will be 90 in 2047 so will stand forward as a volunteer to turn off the lights. However I don't think that will be necessary in our more automated society where this can be easily programmed even today. I suspect that is the real problem in the end where the blame seems so simple and no one wants to really tackle the real issues. After all we would have to work much harder wouldn't we to be a true witness for Christ? But we slack off and just fall back into our own camps whether we are liberal, conservative or in the middle or just don't care. Yet we are human as well and fall short of the glory of God. Personally, I think the idea of focusing on figures can be meaningful to some extent but also need to be put into context. If the PCUSA is indeed in its last moments, as some would claim, that is not so bad. Institutions do come and go and for good reason. Our own faith places value on the death and resurrection that comes afterward. But we also have many fine accounts of where people are changed for the better before death. Those people in fact have a focus on being in somewhat like the living dead. But Jesus raises them from that. As long as we believe in Jesus why focus on who is going to turn out the lights? It seems contradictory to me. Isn't the point of Christianity that we focus on the positive (Christ) rather than the negative? Earl C. Apel, member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio G-6.0106b places the PCUSA in a bind it cannot escape March 6, 2006 What exactly is the session of Community Presbyterian Church of Ventura and their pastor Dr. Mark Patterson trying to tell us? It seems their chief concern is that buried in recommendation 5 of the PUP report is the likelihood that some number of local presbyteries and congregations will be able to ordain homosexual pastors. Per item 1.e of their overture, they worry about local interpretations and enforcement of G6.0106b. Patterson believes such interpretations would tear the church apart and I believe him, if only because he would lead the tearing. The thing is, G6.0106b applies to elders and deacons as well as pastors. If "local option" were not allowed, then hypothetically if my church ordained an elder or deacon who failed its standards, any member from Community Presbyterian Church would be able to challenge that ordination. Is that what they want to do? What for? Not just homosexuals are bared from service per G-6.0106b. Single heterosexuals who are not celibate cannot be ordained as elders or deacons either. What about divorced members? The Scriptures are clear that people who divorce and remarry are living in adultery. I am willing to bet there is at least one member of Community Presbyterian's session who is divorced and re-married. There are other sins also covered by G-6.0106b. For example, no one who eats too much can be ordained because they are gluttons. The U.S. government standard for obesity is a BMI rating of 30. Do all Community Presbyterian's elders and deacons have BMIs bellow 30? Do none of them drink a little too much from time to time? Then there are those who engage in verbal abuse. The list goes on. The Larger Catechism dedicates 10 full pages to the list of sins covered just by the Ten Commandments, each one deserving "wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come." Frankly, I am surprised they are so self-righteous and naive. They would not graciously accept outside scrutiny and a public audit of the sins they have chosen at their own discretion to ignore. No, this overture is not really about preventing a "local option", or Scriptures, or sin, or saving the sanctity and purity of the church. All this pious talk is just smoke. All they really care about is preventing the ordination of gay pastors. They would rather "tear the church apart." G-6.0106b is the real Trojan Horse. Any attempt to enforce it leads instantly to pietism, judgmentalism and hypocrisy. Not enforcing it, on the other hand, makes a mockery of the rest of the Book of Order. It places the denomination in a bind it cannot escape. It will continue to eat away at the church, bogging down our rules of order, progressively paralyzing us until we finally get the dreaded blue screen of death. Not until Community Presbyterian threw in their two cents was I finally convinced it is time to delete it after all. If we cannot delete it, then at least we should put it in permanent quarantine. So here is my question to Community Presbyterian. Why not simply state what you really want in your overture? Something like "Practicing homosexuals shall not be ordained to the office of pastor" would do nicely. Forget the PUP report and G-6.0106b. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Let us put it to an orderly vote and move on. "Vox populi, vox Dei." Ritchie Jones Los Angeles, Calif. Recommendation 5 of the PUP report will destroy PCUSA March 3, 2006 As the author of the overture sent to GA from Santa Barbara Presbytery, I want to briefly respond to the letter sent by Jim Henkel. [letter to the editor, posted March 2, 2006] I have little doubt that we share near identical theological perspectives and frustrations with the denomination. But I fear my brother does not understand the intent of the overture and in the interest of clarifying potential confusion held by Jim and others let me explain our intent. The overture is not and never was intended to extend dialogue on the issue of ordination standards. Indeed, such a discussion is nowhere a part of the overture. The concern of the overture is recommendation five of the PUP report. The entire Peace, Unity and Purity report is flawed, from its anemic theological statements to its silence on the most pressing issues tearing at the church. It is my personal hope and prayer that the entire report will be dismissed and removed from consideration. But, right or wrong, I do not think this is likely. I am deeply concerned that the report will be lauded and received and am particularly concerned that its recommendations will be put into practice. Most of these are relatively benign and will have little effect upon the church. Recommendation five will destroy it. Using language that sounds safe and affirming of national standards, this recommendation is in fact a Trojan Horse that will radically change the church as we know it and likely lead to schism and/or the fragmentation of the church. Every effort must be made to keep this recommendation from becoming a part of the life and polity of the church. My purpose in writing this overture and the purpose of our session and presbytery in sending it to the appropriate judicatories was not to extend conversation ad nauseum. It was simply an effort, of the most politically expedient manner we know, of diffusing this bomb. Jim misses the point in thinking the goal is conversation; the single aim of the overture was to limit or halt the damage the PUP report – particularly recommendation five – will have upon the church. My personal hope is that our overture will be rendered moot by the assembly's decision to drop the entire PUP report. But if this does not happen, then I pray our overture will lead the assembly to remove this most destructive element, study it carefully, and realize that it must never be implemented. With Jim, I long for the day when the church will turn from the idols and immorality it so loves. I dream and pray for the day when we will acknowledge our errors and turn to Jesus Christ with an uncommon passion, faithfulness, and love. It is this alone for which we must make a stand. Mark R. Patterson, PhD Senior pastor Community Presbyterian Church Ventura, Calif. Saddened at the low state to which Presbyterianism has declined in so many areas March 3, 2006 Having read the article about Jane Spahr recently, I followed the link to Downtown UPC's Web site. As I perused that site, I happened upon a link to their most recent newsletter. On that Web site and in that newsletter, I read a lot about all of the very progressive, liberal and liberationist activities that they are pursuing in their attempt to live out their very liberal view of what Christianity is all about. Having read all of that I was saddened at the low state to which Presbyterianism has declined in so many areas. I was also frankly saddened to think that so many people are so deluded into thinking that this is what Christianity is all about. But then I noticed two things. First, their newsletter freely admits that they are yearly losing members. Their history section notes that their church is the fruit of three UPC churches that united in 1974 because of membership losses. Then their newsletter notes that their current attendance is only around 116, with a membership that is declining to around 300. But (and this is the second thing) though their attendance is so low (for a congregation that once made up three vibrant congregations), their annual budget is almost a million dollars – $978,671! This isn't because their few attenders contribute heavily. Rather, it is because they spend $797,514 annually out of their investments and endowments. I was incredulous. But the saddest thing about this budget is the thought that hundreds, perhaps thousands, of faithful Christians gave money to the three churches that united to form DUPC in the hopes that that money would be spent to build the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. Now all of that money that could be used to send who knows how many missionaries overseas or into our own communities to plant new evangelical churches and to shine the light of Christ into the world is poured down a black hole of promoting homosexuality, of espousing a religion that is at best a modern-day version of Samaritanism, and of endorsing all manner of ungodly liberal nonsense. (They even mention Sophia as being discussed at their women's function.) I just had to share this with you all. May the Lord deliver the PCUSA from this kind of apostasy. Austin Olive Commissioners: To find out where our Lord stands, read his written Word March 3, 2006 Thank you, Rev. Henkel (Mar. 2), for demanding the 217th General Assembly commissioners "Please, stand for something. Anything!" Rather reminiscent of Revelation 3 where Christ admonishes another body of believers:
Commissioners, listen to Rev. Henkel. You may find standing for the Lord will the best "something" for which to stand! And to find out where our Lord stands, feel free to read his written Word. The God-head's Holy Spirit will confirm the best "somethings." Greg Leaman Sheboygan County, Wisc. Beware the angel of light March 3, 2006 When the hierarchy of the PCUSA shows signs of conforming to conservative Biblical concepts, beware the angel of light. Ken Leinbach Middletown, Pa. Anyone who owns a car and/or a house will never get into heaven March 3, 2006 In response to the several letters stating that liberal use Scripture when it benefits their arguments, conservatives do same thing. Why then don't conservatives take these passages literally?
Brian Cave Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York Master of Arts in Theology '06 Clarification may be in order March 3, 2006 Unless I am misreading this article, it appears that the author misstates the appellate history of the United Methodist v. St. Luke's case. As far as I am aware, a writ of certiorari to the California Supreme Court was not obtained by any party in that case, let alone did the California Supreme Court rule upon or affirm any aspect of the St. Luke's decision. Clarification may be in order. William Littlewood The California Supreme Court allowed the decision of the appellate court in the St. Luke's case to stand without review. The Editors Begging each GA commissioner: 'Please, stand for something. Anything!' March 2, 2006 The Presbytery of Santa Barbara does ask reasoned and reasonable questions regarding Recommendation 5 (R-5) of the report of the Theological Task Force on Peace, Unity and Purity of the Church (TTF report). I trust the 217th General Assembly will give these issues due deliberation. I also pray that they will not pass on the responsibility for taking action on the TTF report, R-5 included, to a subsequent assembly. It is time and past time for this issue to be settled once and for all: Either we reaffirm our commitment to the "fidelity and chastity" standard for ordination and command compliance, or we legalize the right to make exceptions to G-6.0106b, as the TTF report suggests. The thought that the 217th GA might hand off the final say on ordination standards for study by yet another "blue-ribbon" task force leaves me gasping for air! Will this 30-year marathon never end? How long, O Lord? Must it stretch to 40 years? Another task force? How grossly, self-absorbedly, sinfully Presbyterian. Let's all sanction picking at the scab that scars our purity in Christ Jesus for at least another two years. O, what a bloody business! We already bleed membership like a stuck pig and here we sit pick, pick, picking our way into oblivion. Ah well, perhaps it is just easier to bleed out than to at last stand for something. If I could I surely would get down on my knees before every duly elected commissioner to the 217th General Assembly and beg them each one: "Please, stand for something. Anything!" Mandating yet another task force consigns our denomination to keep treading out laps in limbo. We prefer to walk in endless, meaningless circles through a wilderness of our own design rather than taking the fork in the road and finally marching out in a singular, purposeful direction; either to the left or to the right. It is little wonder that we are too dizzy to discern our Christian identity for the 21st century. That identity is exactly the same today as it was in the first century: Humbly serve Jesus Christ in loving all people as we have been loved by him, proclaim the gospel of salvation in his name alone, keep the words of the Book, worship God only (John 13:34; Mark 13:10 and Acts 4:12; Matthew 4:10, 7:24-27; Revelation 22:9). Perhaps our real problem is that, though we have the witness of Jesus Christ and the apostles, Moses and the prophets, we refuse to hear. Being unpersuaded, we also remain unfaithful to the end (Luke 16:29, 31). Jim Henkel, NWI endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Eastminster Presbytery Former Moderator Bohl's prayer is being answered March 2, 2006 A few years back a former GA moderator, Rev. Bohl, said of the orthodox/evangelicals in the PCUSA, "Damn them! I wish they'd go away!" It looks like his prayer is being answered. Fenton G. Cates Ashland, Ore. Many excuses through the years for PCUSA's membership loss March 2, 2006 The membership loss in the PCUSA continues unabated and all we hear from Louisville is excuses. I remember the heady days when reunion was going to reverse the trend. Well, that didn't happen. So the next story was that when the "escape clause" in the plan of reunion for former PCUS congregations expired, and those "Bible-believing" congregations that voted to leave with their property did so, (and good riddance), then the membership loss would cease. Well, the membership loss has continued. So what's the latest excuse as the PCUSA sails full steam ahead toward the shoals of the PUP report? It's hard to keep up with all the excuses. R.C. Oates Brookhaven, Miss. Property issue is not a dispute between people who are both believers in Jesus March 2, 2006 1 Corinthians 6:1-8: The operative issue in this passage is the taking of a believer to secular court against another believer as opposed to having the dispute arbitrated by the saints. First it is obvious to the casual observer that the property issue is not a dispute between people who are both believers in the same Jesus. On one side we have folks who believe in the Jesus of whom the apostles and others testified. On the other side are those who bow at the alter of accommodation with this secular world at the expense of and in defiance of witnesses of the resurrection. These two groups are not both believers, certainly not belie |