 |
|
| September
2006 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| 'One
wonders' if we need a denomination September 29, 2006 One wonders. I recently had an elder on session close to the same age as me who had been a Presbyterian elder longer than I had been a Christian. And he was received into membership by certificate of transfer from a Methodist church! Less than 10 percent of the folks in my congregation come from a Presbyterian background. Speaking of 10 percent, we routinely lose about a tenth of our active roster every year as those families leave Utah. As we hear news about their new church affiliations and provide certificates of transfer, we also hear that very few of them have stuck with the PC(USA). Denominational allegiance is pretty much zero these days. People are looking for healthy churches, not a church from a particular denomination. We don't even us the "P-word" when we answer the phone. Rev. Neal Humphrey Westminster Church Fruit Heights, Utah Disputing the idea of a two-synod model September 29, 2006 In response to the idea within a couple of contributions of another Layman Online contributor, I feel compelled to dispute the idea of a two-synod system. One of the most highly-held concepts in the debate over ordination issues and the issue of churches leaving or staying is that of unity. How is it that two synods, which have such diametrically opposed presuppositions and beliefs regarding the issues in question, can co-exist within one denomination? Those from the outside will surely see this as utterly absurd. "Does your denomination allow ordination of those living outside the bonds of marriage?" One person answers the question with a firm "yes." Another person, just as truthfully, answers a firm "no." Well, which is it? We're not talking about benign choices such as whether we should eat vanilla or chocolate ice cream. The issues at stake are soul impacting. Point one is that there is no unity in such a preposterous position, theologically or situationally. Point two is that this is precisely, but only in part, why churches and individuals are beginning to abandon ship. If acceptance of the PUP report is having the opposite effect as hoped for by the task force and most G.A. officials and entities, creating a two-synod system will further the disillusionment and numbers of those separating. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.V. About the two-synod model September 29, 2006 In response to a call for a two-synod model, I call attention to the eLink amendments that went to G.A. this past summer. G.A. called them "flexible membership in presbyteries and synods." Those of us in Beaver-Butler Presbytery who wrote these amendments did so with the anticipation that our denomination would pass recommendation 5 of PUP. We had observed past assemblies and knew that PUP had enough votes to pass. The problem that our amendment had was that the old guard could not get over the fact that geography really does matter as much in the 21st century. Unfortunately, we will have to learn this the hard way just as GM, Ford and Chrysler are now learning. The Japanese and Chinese certainly are not tied down by geography. I would suggest that the old guard read Thomas L. Friedman's The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century. Getting back to two synods, our amendment recognizes that there may be more than just two synods possible in our denomination. Our amendment or a variation of it would be much easier to pull off then simply a two-synod model. Our amendment garnered 100 + votes or about 20 percent. This is very good for a first try. There is an "eLink" blog for those who wish to read more. Might I suggest that someone out there who is earnest about this concept reintroduce it for 2008. Greg Wiest Glade Run UP Church Valencia, Pa. Two heads better than one? September 29, 2006 I respectfully disagree with the opinion of Mr. John Almquist in The Layman Online's Letters (Sept. 28). I have steadily maintained that we are called to be the body of Christ, but accommodating divergent positions by establishing two official "camps" is not the answer. I posit that in so doing, we, the Body of Christ who are told to have the mind of Christ, would turn Jesus into a schizophrenic! Accommodating the masses in spite of their unwillingness to be conformed to the commands and image of Christ (who actually did preach on sexual impurity and immorality) and pursuing a fashionable and falsely mandated "inclusiveness" that challenges the reality of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7:13-14: "Enter by the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." These are hard words to accept, but accept them we must – even as I must, who was once "chief of sinners!" Tough love is never easy. The mind of Christ is contained in the Word of God. And while many may challenge God's Word – or reinterpret or reconceptualize or re-imagine or re-gender or denominationalize or neutralize or sanitize it – no one can void God's Word (according to Isaiah 40:8, 55:11 for example). Thanks be to Almighty God for His sovereignty! The church has only one head, Jesus Christ our Lord. Shouldn't we also have only His mind? Rev. Randy Hardy Washington, Ga. The leadership of the UPUSA is mad September 29, 2006 These quotations come to mind in regard to the property issue: "Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad." (Euripides, Greek tragedy, 484 BC - 406 BC). "Circle the wagons and fire on each other." "Order of firing: Fire, Ready, Aim." These quotations summarize my impression of the national PCUSA leadership. Their proposed legal actions and the action against the marvelous Korean church in California suggest that the "lamp stand" described in Revelation 2-3, and includes letters to the seven churches, is already pronounced on our beloved denomination. The game is over for the PCUSA and other mainline denominations. Once I thought the larger congregations might prevail, but I no longer believe that. Rather, if the PCUSA continues this legal madness, the aging congregation will die naturally over time, and no one wants to unite with a congregation that has forgotten its historic Christian witness. If, however, the national leadership would instruct presbyteries to conduct votes in congregations to determine "in" or "out" of the denomination, that would be encouraging and less combative. If a congregation voted withdrawal to any denomination, the presbytery then ought to decommission the congregation as a functioning congregation of the PCUSA, and hold a service of thanksgiving and reconciliation and bid the congregation God's speed with the presbytery's blessing. As matters stand, the theological claims of the PCUSA about reconciliation are hollow and evil. Failure to recognize the empty and evil nature of the proposed legal action against congregations is madness, as Euripides reminds us. James A. Glasscock Fallsington, Pa. Moderator fiddles while others burn September 29, 2006 How interesting the juxtaposition of two articles on The Layman's site – the moderator, to her credit, asks, "Do we need a denomination any more?" while the self-described "More Light" Presbyterians announce their plans for the denomination to endorse gay marriage and repeal the fidelity and chastity clause. The sole reason that denominations like the PCUSA might reasonably justify their existence would be to protect the faith once delivered to the saints, administer godly discipline, and prophetically speak the Word of God to society. Seeing that it does none of these things at this point except in some few orthodox presbyteries and, instead, does the exact opposite by speaking for the world instead of for the Word, it might as well be replaced by a good Web site. At least Web sites don't try to seize your church's property, and the bad ones can be blocked by the proper software. There is a reason, though, that the "More Light" Presbyterians "need" a denomination. They need to keep this dying denomination alive on life support long enough so that in its weakened, dying, comatose state it will appear to "endorse" them even if it is the institutional equivalent of having someone out of their mind and near the throes of death sign a new will leaving everything to a very contestable "heir." In this case, that "heir," if they have their way, will be the apostates who want to continue pretending themselves to be "Christians" and "Presbyterians" when they are neither. Let's dissolve the PCUSA right now and stop the pretense. Call it a denomination abortion and a "pro-choice" act. The left is comfortable with that thinking and won't want to appear "pro-life" by stopping it. Let's leave the "More Light Presbyterians" dressed up with nowhere to go. Martin Thompson About More Light Presbyterians September 29, 2006 So, More Light says having one of their members as moderator would be "representational equality." How does that square with 2 percent or so total homosexuals in the U.S. population? Fred Edwards About Gray and 'Why do we need a denomination?' September 29, 2006 Based on her comments, I think the moderator has discovered the New Wineskins. Maybe that's where God is doing His new thing. Steve Jones, elder Kokomo, Ind. The beginning of the end September 29, 2006 The beginning of the end has begun. PCUSA churches are seeking to disassociate with the PCUSA, and the fallout will be disastrous for everyone who calls themselves Presbyterians. Is this necessary? This writer believes yes because of the PCUSA's liberal, apostate stand on the fundamentals of the faith, and rejecting Biblical and ethical morality. The stated clerk and the leadership of Louisville have turned a blind eye to the holy Bible, and the will of the people of the PCUSA. Thus, leaving the PCUSA is the only recourse, and the consequences will affect generations of Presbyterians. The blame is three-fold: one, the leadership of Louisville; two, liberal seminaries; and third, the inaction of the majority of PCUSA members turning a blind eye to the liberal, apostate stand of the PCUSA over the decades and ignoring signs of decay and apostasy. It has been the vocal minority of Biblical PCUSA members calling the PCUSA back to the holy Bible and holy Living. The PCUSA denomination is destroying itself, and it is time now to bail out of a sinking ship. Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. 'Why do we need a denomination?' September 29, 2006 In her recent address before the General Assembly Council, Moderator Joan Gray asked, "Why do we need a denomination?" Before I give my answer to that question, I must say that we most certainly do not need a denomination like the one we have – one that is radically conformed to the ways of this world, where obedience to Christ and to His holy, inerrant Word takes a backseat to obedience to the frivolous, fleeting, and fatal fancies of this doomed and passing world. A denomination whose only concern about the character of God is that He is not male and that He will not judge us for how we behave sexually. A denomination that believes that sin really isn't all that bad, and that God really isn't all that concerned with it. A denomination that believes that belief in Christ's resurrection is optional, but cannot have the meaning ascribed to it in Scripture that Jesus Christ alone is Lord and Savior for all humankind, since that would violate the belief that we must regard non-Christians' faith as valid as our own. A denomination whose idea of unity is limited to affiliation with (if not primary allegiance to) the bureaucracy in Louisville. In His high priestly prayer in John 17.20-21, the Lord Jesus prayed, "I do not pray for (the disciples) alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us." Why? "That the world may believe that You sent Me." The unity of the Church needs to reflect to the world the unity of God. God is not divided, but His Church is, and for the most part is horribly complacent about this egregious disobedience. In I Cor. 1.10-13, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, 'I am of Paul,' or 'I am of Apollos,' or 'I am of Cephas,' or 'I am of Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" And in Eph. 4.1-6, he reiterated this theme in a more positive way: "I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, with all lowliness and gentleness, with long suffering, bearing with one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." First, it must be said that we who are evangelical and Reformed think too little of organizational unity, that it is not worth pursuing reunion with brothers and sisters in other denominations. We claim a spiritual unity with all who call on the name of the Lord in faith (and I do not call that faith which passes for it in the anthropocentric worldview of theological liberalism), yet make little or no effort to work out our differences with those who have disagreements with us on less important doctrines (I will not call them non-essential, because they're not), that the Church of Jesus Christ on earth may once again achieve visible unity before He returns. And it is an absolute scandal that those who own the name Presbyterian, yet who separate themselves from the PCUSA because of its rampant apostasy, have not settled their differences to unite into one ecclesiastical body. If we cannot work out our differences with those who are of like mind on covenant theology and the doctrines of grace, how can we hope to persuade the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Methodists, et. al., to prayerfully sit down with us to seek the mind of Christ on the doctrines that divide, that we might, as Paul enjoined us, "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment?" On the other hand, the religious anthropocentrists think too little of the importance of the propositional truth of Scripture and place a premium on unity at any cost. My friends, I cannot stress vigorously enough that unity purchased at the expense of the truth of Scripture is by no means worth the cost. And it is just this sort of unity that our denomination made another payment for in the last General Assembly when they effectively rendered the PCUSA's ordination requirements optional and when they defamed the name of the Lord God Almighty by equating the names of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost with the likes of "Mother, Child, and Womb." It is this sort of unity that our denomination made a payment for in 1967 when our forebears jettisoned our Confession of Faith, which is the system of doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures, for a Book of Confessions, by which we are to be ambiguously instructed, led and guided. And it is this sort of unity that our denomination made a payment for in the 1920s when our forebears rescinded the Deliverance of 1910, opening the ministry to those who doubted, if not outright denied, the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Christ, the reality of miracles, the substitutionary character of Christ's atonement, and the historicity of His resurrection. So then, we need a denomination for unity, seeing that we who are called by Christ's name are to cleave to one another, that we may have mutual accountability, assisting one another in love both for our brothers and sisters in Christ as well as for our Lord Jesus, who prayed for our unity. Nevertheless, these denominations are less than God's ideal – even in this present sinful age. For as Christ is not divided, neither should be His Church. But by no means does this mean that we should work merely to bring down denominational barriers, seeing how organizational unity without major doctrinal agreement will only foster disunity within the outer unity of the Church, belying the false unity as even the ever-present conflicts in the so-called mainline denominations belies their outward show of unity. And the solution is not to agree that a diversity of theological opinion is a good and healthy thing for the Church, as religious anthropocentrists often insist, saying, "The unity we seek cannot be reduced to either uniformity or unanimity." To repeat the words of Paul, "Now I plead with you … that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." Unity is not to be found in bringing any and all ideas that the world has to offer to the table and considering them all equally valid. It is to be found in a common confession (which our denomination had once upon a time, but decided to discard because it was believed not to be inclusive enough), a common commitment to the Lord (subject to the first condition, which means that we are agreed on who He is and what He wants), and a common mission, namely to "make disciples of every nation, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." And, furthermore, this does not mean that we should jettison all that has been accomplished by the Church of Jesus Christ since the Reformation and go back to Rome. Despite the reforms made in the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II, Rome's doctrines of penance and purgatory still deny the sole sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross to atone for all the sins for all who come to faith in Him. And yet Rome's gospel still more closely resembles Christ's than does the gospel of religious anthropocentrism. Why, then, do I advocate remaining in the Presbyterian Church (USA) when it has so radically strayed from "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" in accommodating an anthropocentric worldview clothed in the trappings of the Christian religion? Partly because it reminds me that as much as I deplore the way in which religious anthropocentrism twists and distorts the doctrines of Scripture while attempting to fit them into an anthropocentric worldview, its offense against me is paltry compared to my offense against God by my own sinfulness. If, then, I should not want God to abandon me for my faithlessness, why then should I abandon the Presbyterian Church (USA) for its faithlessness? But, more importantly, it is not my place to abandon the church to which the Lord has called me. And think not that I can wriggle out of this situation by declaring, "I am not abandoning the Presbyterian Church (USA) - it has abandoned me in its apostasy." But, then again, I am not now referring to a denomination gone apostate in its accommodation to the world, but rather to the faithful remnant within her pale. I am a current member of one PCUSA congregation, and a former member of another, that has remained steadfast in its faithful proclamation of the Gospel and in its making of disciples. I agree with the Presbyterian Lay Committee's assessment "that current renewal efforts within the Presbyterian Church (USA) are not capable of reversing the denomination's plunge into apostasy," that the Presbyterian Church (USA) "begs not for improvement, but for Reformation and transformation." And let us not forget the words of our Lord Jesus, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19.26). Or the words of Almighty God, "Is My hand shortened at all that it cannot redeem? Or have I no power to deliver?" (Is. 50.2). If the Lord would have spared wicked Sodom for the sake of 10 righteous men, will He not spare the Presbyterian Church (USA) for the sake of thousands more? If the Lord preserved seven thousand in Israel who had not bowed the knee to Baal, should Elijah seek to desert his calling? If the Lord seeks for a man in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who would make a wall and stand in the gap before Him on behalf of the denomination, that He should not destroy it, should He find no one for lack of my presence? The battlefield in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is not a political battlefield. The votes on the floor of the General Assembly avail nothing in this war. The battlefield in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is a spiritual battlefield. We battle not against political foes, but against the unseen spiritual forces of darkness that array themselves against the Lord and against His anointed, who have insinuated themselves into His Presbyterian Church (USA) to turn the hearts of its children away from their Lord. They have succeeded in large measure, but their success is by no means complete, nor is it by any means guaranteed. This battle will not be won by those who wash their hands of the Presbyterian Church (USA), but by those who remain and who drop to their knees daily and cry out, "How long, O Lord? How long must your Presbyterian Church (USA) languish in darkness? We pray that you would raise up men with the heart of David and women with the wisdom of Abigail, who will submit themselves wholly and unreservedly unto you and who will stand in the gap and fight the battles of the Lord of Hosts in Your power and strength! That the Gospel of Jesus Christ alone should once again be proclaimed boldly and effectively from every pulpit in this denomination!" Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan. Survey results a surprise? September 29, 2006 Once again, some polite middle-level executive assumes that the national staff "doesn't know" how much trouble their activism causes the troops in the pew. Dude or Dudette! Pick up the Clue Phone: they know! They do not care! Donald D. Denton, Jr. Richmond, Va. Stop smelling the roses September 29, 2006 This diatribe is mostly a "copy and paste job" from the article in The Layman Online describing the ongoing meeting of the General Assembly Council: "There were no harsh words, no bickering over such turmoil as the General Assembly's authoritative interpretation that allows the ordination of practicing homosexuals, and no pleas for legal advice or for explaining what the denomination's lawyers counseled in their privileged and confidential documents that ordered presbyteries to crack down on congregations that want to leave the denomination with their property." How can this be when the walls are caving in around them? Am I missing something or is there an 800-pound gorilla in the middle of the General Assembly Council room and nobody notices it? This denomination is on the brink of total collapse and these people don't seem to be aware of it. Also from that same article was the following" "During three sessions, the middle governing body leaders compared their "faith journeys," interviewed each other, and envisioned a future focused on the positive" Hey, positive is good, but how about some positive action to save the denomination? "We're excited about affirmative accountability," declared another participant at the meeting. "But an occasional barb slipped through the genteel chat. Explaining what was discussed at her table, one presbytery executive said participants considered "what would happen if. …" Her favorite, she added, was, "What would happen if no one spent their energy reading The Layman." Thank you, Layman, for communicating the real facts. People! Please start doing something positive to save this denomination before it is too late. Stop smelling the roses and start doing some serious praying for Gods guidance. Phil Smith San Leandro, Calif. PCUSA cash cow is the local congregation September 28, 2006 How inept can a denomination become? It is really easy. If the G.A. office and others believe a presbytery holds title to a property, obviously that view may prevail in a court of law. Perhaps not, and I hope it does not prevail. But even if a presbytery wins a court fight, how does the presbytery propose to pay for the insurance and maintenance and utilities of a small church plant or a large church? Hollywood Presbyterian Church illustrates the point, if the membership information is accurate. The "confessing Christ" church has 3,000 members; the fellowship hall "faithful" number between 300-400. Guess who gets the money in a Sunday offering? The "confessing Christ" congregation. The "faithful "can lament that "their" dollars have moved elsewhere. Some consolation! In that situation, who pays for the AC/Heat and maintenance? If the "faithful" few believe in a miracle, they surely ought to hope one comes. For my money, my guess is the faithful few will depend on the "confessing" church to foot the bills and they, like the presbytery and synod and GA offices, expect to be supported in a style to which they have grown accustomed. It really is bad news when and if the faithful few inherit a property through court action. How will they maintain and support the property? Insurance? Utilities? Maintenance? Preventive maintenance? The larger the plant, the greater the financial obligation. Further complicating matters is the fact that, since 1983, the long-standing decline in membership in the PCUSA is unacceptable if one wants to build a denomination. Yet, as membership numbers decline, fewer and fewer members are expected to support a superstructure that cannot bear the financial burden. Solution? Presbyteries will sell all the property at cents on the dollar to Pentecostal store-front groups so the latter can move uptown. Not a bad deal for the Pentecostal and Evangelicals. I doubt the lawyers of the G.A. have told them, "Folks, the downside is this. . . . " Since the G.A. attorneys are so concerned to put a "Christian face" on their court pleadings, and paint the "confessing Christians" as the bad guys in this drama, I hope some "wise" confessing" Christian attorney will ask a presbytery to submit invoices and bills and statements regarding the financial support the presbytery has given a congregation since its inception. Let's see how a presbytery staff or synod staff or G.A. staff handles that question. Ought to be interesting. James A. Glasscock PCUSA Minister, HR Fallsington, PA Two synods? Do it! September 28, 2006 For some time, I've been reading advocacy about a two-synod scheme within the PCUSA. I really wish you guys would try it. Common wisdom among the evangelicals has it that evangelicalism will always grow because of the strength of evangelical theology, while liberalism will always shrink because of the weakness of liberal theology. Going to a two-synod configuration – one liberal, one evangelical – would certainly test that hypothesis. My guess is both synods would decline at about the same rate and for the same reason: failure to do outreach. I've seen conservative Presbyterian churches decline because, while they were good at laying hands on one another and healing each other, the mere mention of doing evangelism in the neighborhood would send them into a panic attack. Then they organize a mission trip to the Republic of Bulemia. If I were a stateside pastor, I would tell my people, "No overseas mission trips until you start doing something at home!" Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi About the acceptance of the PUP report September 28, 2006 From the moment I first learned it was in the Book of Order, I was grateful for the "fidelity/chastity" clause. Here, I thought, there is no room for confusion. I have since found, of course, that confusion can be created very easily. More than once, when someone has tried to explain the General Assembly's acceptance of recommendation 5 in the PUP report, I have heard this phrase: "We have entered a foggier era, but the key word here is trust." I have no idea how other people feel about this, but I have trouble trusting people in foggy situations. I have trouble even trusting myself in foggy situations. The thing about fog is that it has that awful ability to mask our mistakes. At least when there are defined standards, a person can see how far he or she has fallen short. We are now beginning to see the effects of the G.A. having accepted controversial recommendation 5 of the PUP report. I love our Church, but I am getting the uncomfortable feeling that this is truly like watching a dense fog roll in. The "fidelity/chastity" clause is still in the Book of Order, but how long will it be before that, too, becomes obscured? I long for clarity. The world around us seems intent upon undermining one moral value after another. I long for our church to say that we will remain true to what the Bible says about faithfulness and purity in relationships. God, I believe, is calling us to learn this. He wouldn't be so passionate and jealous in His love for us if He didn't want us to learn how that love played out in human relationships. Phyllis Woods, elder Winter Park Presbyterian Church Winter Park, Fla. Response to letter by John Almquist September 28, 2006 John Almquist has identified at least part of the problem, and I salute him for thinking about possible remedies to the turmoil in the PCUSA, but his proposed solution, another version of the "two-synod" model" is not the answer. It is too late. The PCUSA is no longer a place that evangelicals can call home, even if the "progressives" (as he calls them) re-model the house to convert it to a duplex. The current "leadership" in Louisville has too much at stake – keeping the PCUSA Bank & Trust Co. afloat, staying in the good graces of their friends in the NCC and WCC, and receiving glowing praise from the worldly liberals they love so much. For them, it is all about power and property and keeping the restive peasants sitting passively in the pews. Just read the "Louisville Papers." All that we hear from them is polity and per capita and property. "Make more of those per-capita bricks and the straw allowance be damned!" Nary a word about Scripture and the Great Commandment and the Great Commission. Mr. Almquist is wrong when he says ". . . they [the bureaucrats in Louisville] have creat[ed] a 'zero sum' situation where the progressives have to win and the evangelicals have to be pushed out." It is not about pushing the evangelicals out – it is about keeping them in captivity, powerless, and then getting the "progressives" to enact more unconstitutional remedies to finance the bureaucracy's goals. Can anyone spell "mandatory per capita?" We are in a situation now where many evangelicals are calling for striking the word "Presbyterian" from the names of their churches. Not abandoning the time-honored and proven Presbyterian form of governance, mind you, just the word – because we are no longer a true Presbyterian denomination. G.A. 217 put a bullet into the neck of that victim. We are, at best, a Presbyterian dictatorship, one in which a hand-picked group of presbyters execute the will of the bureaucracy. The idea that a two-synod denomination is still a viable remedy is simply wrong. The "progressives" do not want parity, they want domination. All they expect from the evangelicals is silence and continued payment of per capita. The infeasibility of Mr. Almquist's suggestion is best demonstrated by his suggestion that "overlapping presbyteries" from the two synods "could use the same office, and should have numerous overlapping committees to maintain the unity of the Auburn and Westminster synod churches at the presbytery level." If the divide is so great that we need separate synods to house the evangelical and worldly branches of the PCUSA, then why would we expect these diverse bodies to be unified enough to share so many functions? Let's get to the real aim of the suggestion: "Ten percent of mission giving should stay in the overlapping presbyteries to be used by one of their joint committees for outreach and church growth. . .." The worldly branch wants the money and control over the money. How many of those new churches will be evangelical, Scripturally-sound and Biblically-based churches if the worldly branch has any control over the funding? As for common dinners and common gatherings, there is no need for contractual connections for that to happen. My home church has frequent blood drives with our neighboring Roman Catholic parish and our community occasionally has a rotating service with churches of various Protestant denominations without the benefit of a contractual alliance. We are, after all, part of the one Church, albeit one made up of many differing man-made denominations. There are, indeed, two theological groups in our denomination. While there may be some commonality between us, what really matters, our understanding of theology and Christology and the authority of Scripture, is miles apart. The frayed connections are nearing the breaking point. Mr. Almquist closes by observing: "The clouds are gathering and it sure is getting dark." It most definitely is; it always gets darkest just before dawn. But there is a new day coming. Day breaks over Orlando in February. The forecast is for a day full of sunshine, perhaps by as early as Pentecost Sunday. When that day comes, let us rejoice and be glad in it. Michael R. McCarty Synods, presbyteries asking the right questions September 27, 2006 It appears that the synods and presbyteries are asking the right questions. The current leadership in Louisville has adopted a "bunker mentality" and, instead of getting out to all the regions and meeting the folks and asking their opinions, as any good CEO would do, they have withdrawn and circled the wagons. Unfortunately, they have creating a "zero sum" situation where the progressives have to win and the evangelicals have to be pushed out. I think, if they ever discussed this with the progressive groups within the denomination, that this is not the result that the majority of progressives would want. In fact, from what I have seen in my national travels and worshipping at many different Presbyterian churches, the evangelicals and the progressives do not want to push the others out and each share some respect for the other. This is something that is completely lost on Louisville. I maintain that the answer is a two-synod denomination, where the General Assembly has authority to elect the moderator and stated clerk and the GAC has authority over the Mission Board, the Pension Board, and other administrative matters. There are two synods that make up the church, one Auburn (progressive) and one Westminster (theologically traditional). The member churches of each synod elect their own Synod Committee (like the GAC) on which the stated clerk and moderator are voting members. Each synod sets their own ordination and theological standards, create their own publications for church use, and each have a permanent judicial council that ends at the synod level. Sub-synods would replace the current synod system and the geographical boundaries of the overlapping Westminster and Auburn presbyteries would be equivalent. The overlapping presbyteries could use the same office, and should have numerous overlapping committees to maintain the unity of the Auburn and Westminster synod churches at the presbytery level. Ten percent of mission giving should stay in the overlapping presbyteries to be used by one of their joint committees for outreach and church growth; every fourth month they should have a common dinner and common gathering; and once a year have a retreat for the overlapping presbytery members to maintain the bond and unity of the two synods. We all recognize that there are two theological groups in our denomination. There is much commonality between us. The majorities in both camps do not want this "zero sum" situation that Louisville is pursuing. We need to restructure our beloved denomination and rewrite the church constitution to reflect this. We need to recall the 2006 G.A. delegates for an up or down vote on this. That would be a lot cheaper than the hurricane that is coming. This needs to be done, and it needs to be done now. The clouds are gathering and it sure is getting dark. John Almquist An overture may address per-capita issue September 27, 2006 Thank you for your article about the two presbyteries and synod asking "for a national consultation to consider the 'viability and stability' of presbyteries and synods." One of the major concerns mentioned is "a requirement that presbyteries remit the full per-capita apportion to support the work of the General Assembly - even if local congregations withhold their apportionment as a means of making known their opposition to General Assembly actions." Perhaps this is the proper time to think about an overture to address the issue, but one quite different from the one that failed at G.A. 2006. The G.A. was overtured to make congregational per capita mandatory. Fortunately, the overture failed (I say fortunately for, if it would have passed, it arguably would have raised as much ire, if not more so, than did the PUP rReport). But this is seen as part of the dilemma of presbyteries. At the close of G.A., it occurred to me that the solution to this whole issue is simply done – overture G.A. 2008 to allow presbyteries the option of remitting, or not, the amounts withheld by individual congregations. In fact, it will kill two birds with one stone. First, it will relieve the burden placed on presbyteries. Second, it will more forcefully deliver the message to where/whom it is intended. More than one presbytery stated clerk has counseled withholding congregations that one of the best reasons for not withholding is that the G.A. feels little, if any, impact. And if they don't feel it, why do it? Some individuals who strongly support withholding the G.A. portion of the per capita are more than a little miffed when they learn that the G.A. gets its amount anyway. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.V. Book of Order reaffirmation September 27, 2006 Last night within the Utah Presbytery, the Japanese Church of Christ session unanimously joined the Westminster Presbyterian Church in rebuffing the 217th General Assembly concerning local ordination standards – a thinly-veiled attempt to scuttle existing qualifications. Praise the Lord! Wayne Pendergrass, elder Japanese Church of Christ Salt Lake City It's not about property September 27, 2006 Glenda Smith's letter (Sept. 25) is very critical of Montreat Church for waiting a long time before deciding to consider leaving the PCUSA. She bases her criticism on the fact that we meet in a facility owned by someone else. In fact, we own a very nice building, which we use for church offices, nurseries, day school, etc. We may keep it or we may lose it. Our property does not influence our decision one way or the other. Our reasons for possibly leaving the PCUSA are listed in great detail by Adam Boyd in a letter to The Layman Online (Sept. 1, 2006). None of those reasons had anything to do with property. His letter is well worth reading. A friend told me the other day that the devil stands outside the church and throws rocks in the window. The church members then pick up the rocks and throw them at each other. I thought that was funny. It's not. Bob Vaughan Montreat, N.C. Churches and legal actions September 27, 2006 Churches should be free from legal actions based on differences in doctrines, teachings, ordination standards, and so on. The church is the bride of Christ and we should all reflect that. Jesus did not sue Thomas when he did not initially believe it was Jesus standing before him. No, Jesus told him to place his hands into the wounds. I believe that we are in the end times. Some would argue with me as to the timing of the tribulation, the rapture, Christ's second coming. Should we take court action, threaten them with taking their Bible from them? No, we sit and discuss the thoughts and possibilities. I feel that you are right in asking for the holding back on threats and so on. We are a Presbyterian denomination, not the world church. God bless all involved with this endeavor. Remember – our fight is not in vain. Bill McBride Mt. Vernon Presbyterian Church Consequences to publishing Griffin's book September 27, 2006 There are consequences to the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation's decision to publish David Ray Griffin's 9/11 conspiracy book. The book falsely feeds the imagination of people with a predilection to conspiracy theories. Recently, our local newspaper (The Bradenton Herald) published a letter from a local resident giving kudos to the PPC. In response to that letter, the men's prayer group at First Presbyterian Church of Bradenton sent the following letter that was published Saturday: "You recently published a letter from a Bradenton resident who gave kudos to the Presbyterian Church USA for publishing the book Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11 by David Ray Griffin. "The Men's Prayer Group at First Presbyterian Church of Bradenton sharply disagrees with our church's national leadership for publishing a book implying a governmental conspiracy was behind the destruction of the World Trade Center and the other acts of terrorism occurring on 9/11. "We want Manatee County residents to know First Presbyterian Church of Bradenton, in alliance with many other Presbyterian churches, is taking action to reform our denomination and put a stop to such outlandish actions. We cannot and will not condone the callousness of our church's national leadership who would denigrate the thousands of innocent civilians who lost their lives on 9/11 by implying their lives were lost as a result of a vast governmental conspiracy. "R. Earle Lucas Jr.Besides our letter in The Bradenton Herald, there is a letter from John Rehill lauding Griffin's book. Here are excerpts: "Robert Phillipoff's recent letter, "9/11 Theory," that refers to David Ray Griffin's The Truth Behind 9/11 has merit. In Griffin's book, he examines the "9/11 Commission Report" (585 pages). With clarity, he exposes the inaccuracies and myths put in the report. I read "The 9/11 Report" and his book, and agree with Griffin's claims." Earlier this year, Rehill sent a letter to The Bradenton Herald implying the Bush administration was like the Third Reich. Here are excerpts: "When feeling hopeful, I often wish that the makers and shakers of this administration would read Inside The Third Reich by Albert Speer. My biggest fear is that they already have. Albert Speer was one of only two high-level Nazis who escaped the noose when tried at the post-World War II Nuremberg trials, in exchange for a 20-year sentence, for his participation in war crimes. "Inside The Third Reich is a collection of memoirs written during his 20 years in prison. Many feel, as revealing as it is, it is an attempt to humanize his efforts and distant himself even further from the carnage of the Nazi Party. He claims he 'didn't know' of the torture, murders and mayhem." PPC ought to be ashamed for bearing false witness by publishing a conspiracy book that falsely inflames the minds of those predisposed to such ideas. Larry Rued Bradenton, Fla. What's Next? September 27, 2006 First, the policy – the General Assembly's approval of PUP and its resulting authoritative interpretation. Then, the practice – "Church Property Disputes ...." and "Processes for use by presbyteries in responding to congregations seeking to withdraw," the game plan and script authored by Gnostic "counselors" in the apostate office of the PCUSA tribal warlords in Louisville. Brothers and sisters, put on the full armor of God and prepare for battle! Art Montgomery Santa Barbara, Calif. What about the cost to presbyteries and churches seeking to leave? September 25, 2006 I wonder if Mr. Kirkpatrick and company in Louisville have considered the dollars and cents it will cost the presbyteries and the churches seeking to leave. The expenses and legal fees for both the presbyteries and the churches involved in fighting to keep the property will soar out of sight. Who is going to pay these costs? Many presbyteries are already stretched to the limits. Many are cutting staff because of the lost of income, both per capita and mission. While I would personally not like leaving a church building, it seems to me that a congregation would be better off to find another facility to meeting in until a new building could be built or purchased. This would be especially true if the congregation had debts (big) to be paid. Then, I would ask the presbyteries how they are going to pay off a $2, $3 or $4 million dollar debt in addition to the costs that will inevitably occur. When the property issue was in the forefront in the late '70s, the presbytery that I was in at that time incurred $150,000 in legal fees to fight three congregations seeking to leave and keep their property. The three court cases were combined into one and, in the end, all three churches retained their property. This took place before the "in trust" clause was put into the Book of Order. In order for the presbytery to pay the legal fees, a surcharge was imposed on each church in the presbytery. I believe it was more than 10 years before the surcharge was removed. Steven Bomely Crocker, Mo. Property rights in the U.M.C. September 25, 2006 One of the articles on your Web site referred to the "trust" clause in other denominations such as the United Methodist Church. There might be a special case for the U.M.s in certain states. Several years ago, someone on the board of Good News, the evangelical underground inside the U.M.C., told me he believed that several Southern annual conferences (i.e., those that came from the Methodist Episcopal Church, South) never got around to rewriting the property ownership clauses in their charters. He may be right. Some years later, I read the 25th anniversary book of the Association of Independent Methodists, whose congregations are all in the South and are of an M.E.C.S. heritage, and no write-up on a congregation mentioned a challenge to their property when they seceded (late 1950s and early 1960s). In the North, as far as I know, it's always been a case of "you leave, you lose." In the late 1970s a U.M. congregation in Red Lion, Del., learned that their anticipated new sanctuary would be the denomination's property, so they opted to withdraw before building their new property. W.J. Aardsma Kansas City, Mo. What can they do? September 25, 2006 Concerning Montreat Church pulling out of PC(U.S.A.), what have they got to lose? From the article, it appears that the congregation "uses" a facility owned by someone else, so what is the big deal about them pulling out of PC(U.S.A.)? If they had property, it would be a show of courage; otherwise, why have they waited so long? Glenda Smith Weaverville, N.C. About Stockton Presbytery September 25, 2006 As an elder commissioner to presbytery from Central Presbyterian Church in Merced, Calif., I can report that Stockton Presbytery will take up the question of ordination standards at its Nov. 4 meeting. It was tabled from the Sep. 9 meeting to give all sessions a chance to consider it. Several sessions have already endorsed the resolution, and others are considering it. The Presbytery Council has endorsed its adoption. The resolution affirms the use of Biblical standards for ordination – opposing not "scruplings," but actions arising from those expressed scruples that do not conform to the requirements of the Book of Order. Ken Robbins Merced, Calif. Courage is found in the PCUSA September 25, 2006 Two years ago, I wrote The Layman and asked the question, "Can we find no one in the PCUSA with the courage of a Rev. Githii?" The answer is a resounding "YES." God in His wisdom found that courage in a 17-year-old Chicago girl named Shannon Meador. Will any of the Presbyterian seminary presidents be there when Shannon receives from the King of Kings her commendation and Crown of Glory? Ken McClurkin Escondido, Calif. Hypocrites? September 25, 2006 Al Sandalow's letter (Sept 22) may sound logical, but he betrays a woeful ignorance of, or insensitivity to, the anguish that comes close to overwhelming many true Presbyterians. I love my church. I pray and work for the reform of my church. Yes, I am tempted to cut and run, to leave my beloved church because a cadre of error-ridden leaders are behaving in ways that may destroy it as a wholesome member of the body of Christ. I may yet give up the fight and leave what will then no longer be the church of my fathers and my youth, but still I strive for reformation, renewal and revival. I support those who believe it is too late and who are worn out from their struggle. They go with my blessing and my tears. They should not be deprived of the property and assets they have provided for service to our Lord. It is monstrous to think they should be required to turn those over to the very body they have tearfully found wanting. I would guess that Al, as well as I, have concerns with our local, state and national leaders and their actions and pronouncements. Does this make us hypocrites because we do not surrender our citizenship and flee to another land? I firmly reject the judgmental idea that this makes me a hypocrite. If Al cannot understand this, I feel great sorrow at his apparent lack of intelligence, discernment and love. Richard F. Underwood Urbana, Ill. About Eastminster Presbytery September 25, 2006 The overture to Eastminster Presbytery from seven Sessions is scheduled for vote Nov. 14. It was presented as a "first read" on Sept. 12. Seven sessions sent the overture and one more (Hubbard) has concurred with it. Our church, Stow, was one of the seven. David Weyrick, Pastor PPC's poor judgment makes it impossible to trust anything it publishes September 22, 2006 Open letter to Davis Perkins, president of the Presbyterian Publishing Corporation: Our elders and congregation are disgusted with your publication of Christian Faith and the Truth behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action. We have decided not to use any material now published by Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. Your poor judgment (and I hope that is what is behind this decision rather than some sort of perverted political agenda) makes it impossible to trust anything you publish. Unfortunately, this publication is symptomatic of why so many Presbyterians do not trust anything our denomination does or stands for at this point in time. PPC should be ashamed. Terry J. Tyler, pastor First Presbyterian Church Nappanee, Ind. |
|
| September
2006 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |