 |
|
| April
2007 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Regarding
the 'apostate church' April 18, 2007 The Rev. Albert G. "Pete" Peery, Jr. of First Presbyterian Church of Asheville argues that the Montreat Church should not be dismissed because that would be an admission that the PCUSA is an apostate denomination. He writes: "Choosing those options would be a witness that we do not agree that our communion has abandoned faith in the triune God, the Holy One of Israel in whom alone we trust." The third person of that Triune God in whom alone we trust is the indwelling Holy Spirit, which apparently convicted 92 percent of the faithful at Montreat that the PCUSA is in an ongoing and unrepentant state of apostasy, also has convicted millions to leave the fold of the PCUSA for other denominations. The Holy Spirit apparently is convicting other faithful Presbyterians that the time to depart has come, as has been chronicled in the pages of The Layman. They seem to be testing the spirits in the PCUSA to see whether they are of God. (I John 4:1) The test is "every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God." The PCUSA, in its councils and assemblies, consistently has chosen to adopt positions that favor the world. The PCUSA's embrace of the world would seem to fulfill John's test (I John 4:4-6). Should there be any surprise that the faithful are choosing to depart? Millions have already declared the PCUSA apostate by their departure. Paul tells us that we put off falsehood and speak truthfully to our neighbor (Eph. 4:25). The church in Montreat has found it necessary to speak truthfully. Paul tells us that we must "have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them" (Eph 5:8). Sadly, Rev. Peery has chosen to defend the darkness. George Hill Member First Presbyterian Church Baton Rouge, La. About Rev. Peery's letter April 18, 2007 You have stated in your article "Minister claims allowing church to leave tantamount to declaring the PCUSA 'apostate'" that Pete Peery's letter was included in the presbytery packet. I did not find a copy of his letter in my packet, but received it in a separate mailing to my home with an address label on the envelope. I am assuming that since I received this letter and I am clerk of session for our church, and our senior pastor received one as well and the envelopes had a printed label, that those labels were generated from the presbytery's mailing list. However, I believe your article was in error to say that this letter was included in the packet. I just want to see to it that your article is perfectly factual. Mimi Jamieson Editor's Note: Due to a miscommunication, The Layman Online reported that the Rev. Peery's letter was included in the packets mailed to commissioners to the April 24 meeting in Montreat of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina. Rev. Peery's letter was mailed separately. The Layman Online regrets the error. About Pastor Peery's assumptions April 18, 2007 The Ashville pastor assumes the church belongs to the experts and the church hierarchy, not to the people of God – as though they do not have a right to decide the destiny of their congregation. A superb treatment of this mentality is seen in Eugene Peterson's latest book, The Jesus Way, on the purification of means, pp. 1-18. Rev. Peery assumes that only the experts can decide whether a denomination is apostate. The PCUSA is forcing its people to leave, not because they wish to, but because the denomination has by its actions left them and their faith behind. Hugh Brom retired PCA pastor UPCUSA for 29 years before Amen to the article about abortion April 18, 2007 Amen to the article, "Abortion is the issue that will not go away." But the thing that I don't understand is that, for example in Ohio, and I'm sure in other states, the pro-gambling lobby can easily get a vote for legalized gambling on the state ballot. Why can't we organize and get a pro-life, anti-death initiative on the ballots and make people think about this issue. It might not pass, but I am reminded of the story of Wilberforce who fought slavery in the British Empire for years and had many votes in which he lost. I would rather lose in a vote than do nothing about it. Let's get organized and get this on the ballots, federal included. Now, tell me all of the reasons that this can't be done. Bob Milheim Dayton, Ohio Statement on infant Baptism 'well done, though cumbersome' April 18, 2007 I believe the statement on infant Baptism is actually well done, though cumbersome. The statement, not to mention one reader's "epistle" [Letters, April 17, 2007] suggested as a better statement, suffers from attempts to "explain" many theological matters. Verbosity to produce clarity typically produces just the opposite. I refuse to believe God intended our relationship with him to be complex. Baptism is a rather simple concept to me. Just as the Israelites were circumcised as infants to set them apart as belonging to God and included in the Covenant of the Old Testament, so, too, is infant Baptism a sign that Christian parents and the church acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ and mark their child as a child of the New Covenant – surely a reason for those of us with Christian parents to rejoice, as well as an obligation of the parents and church to nurture the child in Christ. It is not salvation, which comes as a free gift from God established individually by believing in our heart and confessing with our mouth. Just an uneducated layman's suggestion. Richard Coker Jackson, Miss. 'Reformed distinctives are massively unpopular these days' April 17, 2007 You might have to wonder how many delegates to general assembly would vote against this PCUSA statement on the Reformed doctrine of predestination if it were put to a vote. Its rejection, I suspect, would be thunderous. Reformed distinctives are massively unpopular these days among those who claim the "Reformed tradition." Scott Kelly About the PCUSA's statement on Baptism April 17, 2007 Concerning the PCUSA's statement on baptism raised by Bryan Stamper of Crosspoint Presbyterian Church in Clermont, Fla. [Letters, April 13, 2007]. Here is the formulary used by the Christian Reformed Church. It is the best I have ever experienced.
Park Cities Presbyterian Church (PCA) Dallas, Texas A contemporary prophet? April 17, 2007 Many folks do not believe that there are any prophets around today. Perhaps not, but Alexander Solzhenitsyn must come close. The letter from Beth Vaughn [Letters, April 13, 2007] mentions going to her sister's church on Easter where Christ was not mentioned in the sermon. She concludes with the statement, "This really bothers me, but other people – while not liking it – accept it is just another bad sermon." It is unfortunate that, in today's society, people are unwilling to speak up about their concerns and let others know how they feel. This reminded me of a Solzhenitsyn essay from 1974 that was written the same day he was arrested by the secret police. The essay was a call for moral courage, serving as a light to all who value truth. While his message pertained specifically to the situation of people in the Soviet Union, as with most of his writings, the message has much broader application. In this essay, he asked citizens to stop being the pawns of lies and to have the courage to speak up and challenge those who would feed us lies. Solzhenitsyn points out that the blame for our situation does not lie with those who are presenting the lies, but within ourselves for not speaking up. As he says, "…when people renounce lies it simply cuts short their existence. Like an infection, they can exist only in a living organism." Solzhenitsyn makes numerous statements that are equally applicable to members of this denomination who sit back and do nothing in relation to the apostasy of the PCUSA. For example, he says, "And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul – don't let him be proud of his 'progressive' views, and don't let him boast that he is an academician or a people's artist, a merited figure, or a general – let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward." For the Pollyannas of the world: "Maybe something will happen by itself? It will never happen as long as we daily acknowledge, extol, and strengthen – and do not sever ourselves from - the most perceptible of its aspects: lies." "If we do not paste together the dead bones and scales of ideology, if we did not sew together the rotting rags, we would be astonished how quickly the lies would be rendered helpless and subside." Solzhenitsyn concludes with the challenge: "So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: whether consciously to remain a servant of falsehood … or to shrug off the lies and become honest men worthy of respect, both by one's children and contemporaries." Standing on the sidelines as an observer will not change anything. Let's offer our thanks to The Layman for being a voice willing to speak up. But what about the rest of us? If we all raised our voices in unison in every church, session, presbytery and committee, the falsehoods would crumble like the Berlin Wall. Col. Ronald Everett North Olmsted, Ohio A book by a Christian physicist April 17, 2007 In response to Rev. Dr. Larry Brown [Letters, April 12, 2007], who laments that he cannot find many Christian physicists on the Internet, let me recommend a marvelous book by Stephen Barr, a physicist at the University of Delaware. He is a Roman Catholic. His book is titled Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Jim McClurkin, elder Community Presbyterian Church Ventura, Calif. 'I winced' at 'Christ not mentioned in PCUSA's statement on Reformed theology' April 13, 2007 When I read the title [Letters, April 11, 2007] of Lawrence Sample's letter, "Jesus Christ not mentioned in PCUSA's statement on Reformed theology," I winced, fearing that those of us in Louisville had produced a theologically weak description of our tradition. Then I looked at the original story and realized that Mr. Sample may not have recognized the context of those words. The Layman Online excerpted G-2.0500 from the Book of Order. What immediately precedes G-2.0500 is included below: "In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (USA) gives witness to the faith of the Church catholic. The confessions express the faith of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church in the recognition of canonical Scriptures and the formulation and adoption of the ecumenical creeds, notably the Nicene and Apostles' creeds with their definitions of the mystery of the triune God and of the incarnation of the eternal Word of God in Jesus Christ. "In its confessions, the Presbyterian Church (USA) identifies with the affirmations of the Protestant Reformation. The focus of these affirmations is the rediscovery of God's grace in Jesus Christ as revealed in the Scriptures. The Protestant watchwords – grace alone, faith alone, Scripture alone v embody principles of understanding which continue to guide and motivate the people of God in the life of faith." Charles Wiley Office of Theology and Worship Presbyterian Church (USA) Louisville, Ky. Editor's Note: The Layman Online has been publishing an ongoing series of official denominational position papers, statements, pastoral letters, etc., from the Protestant mainline denominations as an informational service for its readers. As with all of the material published in this series, the material is not "excerpted" but, as stipulated in the news service agreements The Layman Online has with the respective source, the material is reprinted in its entirety, as it was in this case. The article in this case never identifies it as being taken from the Book of Order but, as was clearly indicated in the headline of the article, was a reprint of the article on "Reformed theology, form of government" published by the denomination on its official Web site. As is the case with all of the material published in this ongoing series, a tagline was included at the end of the article identifying where the material originally appeared and a link was provided to that official denomination's official Web site for the convenience of The Layman Online's readers. About the PCUSA's statement on baptism April 13, 2007 I would like to see a more thorough explanation of infant baptism to supplement the Book of Order. I appreciate your posting the articles on basic Reformed theology; I pass them along to elders as educational pieces. Infant baptism is one of the most common questions we receive. Bryan Stamper Crosspoint Presbyterian Church Clermont, Fla. A Christ-less Easter April 13, 2007 I visited my sister's church for sunrise service. She goes to a small United Methodist Church, but the preacher that day was a retired Presbyterian preacher. She said the word Easter a number of times, but she failed to talk about the meaning of it. She didn't mention Jesus, the Resurrection, the atonement or redemption. To me, she served as a living representation of the problems within the PCUSA and the visible church as a whole. This really bothers me, but other people – while not liking it – accept it as just another bad sermon. Beth Vaughn Denton, Texas In regard to the letter about Christian physicists April 13, 2007 I find the assumption [Letters, April 12, 2007] by the Rev. Dr. Larry Brown of Malawi about physicists strange. Rev. Brown states that since he can't find many "Christian physicists" on the Internet, they must be "scarcer than hen's teeth." He then goes on to assume that physicists must mostly be non-Christians who view all their science through a non-Christian bias. Why would Rev. Brown assume that physicists are advertising on the Internet as "Christians?" There are many fine scientists in every specialty who are committed Christians, faithful disciples and engaged church participants. Such physicists do their research as scientists, who are Christians. They practice their faith as Christians, who happen to be physicists – as opposed to Christians who happen to be bankers, teachers, electricians, or homemakers. Like any and all of us, they try to live out their faith in their personal life and in their work life. One does not have to hang out a sign as a "Christian physicist" to be one. I continue to puzzle about why The Layman Online publishes so many letters from Rev. Brown commenting on the internal matters of the PCUSA, but he is clearly off base on this one. Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop Davenport, Iowa Editor's Note: As part of its news and informational ministry, The Layman Online publishes a wide range of material regarding Presbyterian and Reformed denominations – focusing specifically on increased coverage of the Presbyterian Church (USA), but also providing reliable information on issues facing the PCUSA and, within the larger context, the Protestant mainline denominations. The issues confronting those denominations are not "internal matters" but, rather, are being played out in the public square. The Layman Online, as in the cases of Rev. Hislop and Rev. Brown, welcomes letters from its readers commenting on those issues. About 'scarcer than hens; teeth April 13, 2007 The Rev. Dr. Larry Brown's April 12th letter to The Layman Online mentions reading a book by physicist Paul Davies, apparently not a Christian. Dr. Brown wonders about the lack of Christian physicists on his Internet search ("they are scarcer than hens' teeth). I like the work done by Reasons To Believe. A search can be done on their Web site for Paul Davies, who shows up in a number of books written by Dr. Hugh Ross, the president of Reason To Believe. Ross holds a Ph.D. in astronomy. Reasons also has other Ph.D.s in astronomy, biochemistry and physics. So, you have found a hen's tooth! The Reasons To Believe "Journey Toward Creation" video is one of the very finest products for all audiences that are interested in both science and faith. Chuck Nicolaus Davis, Calif. The future renewal of the PCUSA April 12, 2007 Currently, I'm reading a book, God and the New Physics, by British physicist Paul Davies. He clearly is not Christian, and the universe he seems to describe appears to be an updated version of pantheism – the belief that the universe is God, God is the universe (which, of course, is an ancient idea). I believe that Christians from time to time ought to read such books; there is nothing so irrelevant as a walled-in Christian village or a walled-in mind. I searched the Internet for Christian physicists; apparently, they are scarcer than hens' teeth. It occurs to me that there is more than one possible explanation for this. One is that physicists really do know more than everyone else; that they, in fact, possess all possible knowledge; and they have discovered that there really is no God. A more plausible explanation, I think, is that the field of physics tends to attract people who already have non-Christian presuppositions; thus, everything they discover supports their presuppositions. Thomas Kuhn, in his celebrated work on the nature of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts, does an outstanding job of demonstrating that the idea of a purely objective science is a myth. All of this to say that it is important for churches and denominations to present a clear Biblical witness. Unfortunately, this is not where the PCUSA – on the whole – is at. I am aware that there remain many faithful brothers and sisters in that denomination. I also am aware that there are embarrassing aspects regarding evangelical culture. Pat Robertson … enough said. But I believe that I can see a way for the PCUSA to be reclaimed for Christ, albeit a long-term one. Currently, a large percentage of the PCUSA membership is made up of the World War Two generation. They're the ones who financially support churches. They don't have to save for children's college education, and their mortgages are paid off. They're the ones who establish church endowments. By the year 2015, however, that generation will have mostly died out. At that time, most PCUSA congregations will be unable to support a full-time pastor. Since a liberal clergy has been most of the problem all along, this will present an opportunity for a laity-driven renewal of the remaining denomination. Most revivals in history began as a grassroots movement. Religion professionals have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (and they sometimes status quo the organization to death). Perhaps a provision can start being made now for the training of lay leaders in preparation for that future day. But, for heaven's sake, don't send them to a PCUSA seminary. Rev. Dr. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi 'Everything we do or say should reflect' Jesus Christ April 12, 2007 I find it interesting that, because I invoke the idea of loving your enemies [Letters, April 5, 2007], it is assumed that I am a liberal. I am the pastor of a Confessing Church, I have been involved in Presbyterians Pro-Life, I fought the first challenge to G-6.0106b at the 1997 General Assembly. I wasn't even specifically addressing U.S. policy. When I said "our" bottom line shouldn't be the U.S. Constitution, I was addressing Christians, not the United States as a political entity. My comments were addressed to the spirit and tone of the letters to The Layman Online on the subject. First, I am a firm believer in the total depravity of man – lifting up "innocent until proven guilty" has nothing to do with our standing before God. It has to do with how we determine guilt or innocence in terms of secular law. I can't believe Mr. O'Brien [Letters, April 10, 2007] says "What's love got to do with it." I challenge him to find anywhere in the Bible that says we are to leave love out of anything that we do. Yes, sometimes love means holding someone accountable for what they have done. But, as I said, as Christians that accountability is to be determined in the context of the call to love. Second, my citing 2 Kings 6 is not meant to say we should simply send the detainees home. It was meant as an example of the words of Jesus and Paul, which I felt were missing from the discussion. If Rev. Yearsley [Letters, April 10, 2007] thinks he knows the mind of God more clearly than the prophet Elisha because the Arameans came back at a later time ... well, I really don't know what to say about that. Finally, again, the words of Jesus and Paul on loving our enemies were not addressed, except by a reference to that famous theologian, Tina Turner. Everything we do or say should reflect our primary allegiance, Jesus Christ. Rev. Jeff Carter Hobart Presbyterian Chruch Hobart, Ind. Jesus Christ not mentioned in PCUSA's statement on Reformed theology April 11, 2007 Interesting. Read through the entire statement and the name Jesus Christ was not mentioned once. Am reminded of Hodge's statement ... where Jesus Christ is not preached, He leaves the church. Lawrence F. Sample Blairsville, Ga. A response to 'Everyone on the sidelines' April 11, 2007 John Almquist [Letters, April 10, 2007] has suggested that the answer to our theological impasse be two theological synods, with some cross-over on presbyteries. I am glad that you brought this up, as Beaver-Butler Presbytery has once again passed an overture for G.A. for 2008 that requests changes to the Book of Order that would allow what you have suggested. The overture calls for flexible membership in presbyteries and synods. We do not ask for a change in the judiciary, but the changes remove the geography restriction on membership in presbyteries and synods. The amendment gives individual churches the choice as to which presbytery and synod they will be a member of. Last year, the amendment (which was dubbed "non-geographical presbyteries and synods") garnered a sizeable minority of the vote. This was very encouraging, considering that the concept has never before been offered as a change to the Book of Order at a meeting of the G.A. Now that "PUP" is a reality of our denomination, support has been growing across the denomination. (You may view the amendment in its 2006 form.) We invite anyone to join us in finding a way forward as a denomination. Greg Wiest Glade Run United Presbyterian Church Laughing out loud April 11, 2007 I had to laugh out loud when I read the final paragraph of your most recent story on our church: "Despite the fact that no one voted to retain the church's affiliation with the PCUSA, the presbytery insists 'there may be persons who prefer to remain part of the denomination.' Prospect Hill still recognizes Riverside as a member of the presbytery and denomination." The pompous ludicrousness of such a position is absurd, and I'm grateful to you for showing it to the light of day for what it is. As a member of the PCA's Iowa Presbytery, we are hosting a Presbytery-wide Women's Conference the week after next, and will be hosting the Iowa Presbytery's stated meeting in July. I'm really not sure how we could be any more involved in our new affiliation. The bizarre worldview of Prospect Hill is similar to a jilted prom suitor asking again if we might reconsider and attend with them, while the music of the last dance of the evening plays. Some folks just have no self-respect or dignity. Rev. Russ Westbrook Teaching Elder Riverside Presbyterian Church, PCA About the PCUSA April 11, 2007 The PCUSA should stand for "Politically Correct USA." Keep fighting! Mel Bloomfield About the quote from Kirkpatrick April 11, 2007 I believe the exact quote from that famous sermon in a black church preached over and over with different intonations and prefixes was, "It's Friday, but Sunday's a commin." I had a training videotape of this at one time that we used on the job, think we wore it out. John West What does Gray mean? April 11, 2007 "Nobody expected the Resurrection of Jesus?" I am not sure what she means by that. What was Jesus teaching in Matthew 22:23 ff, Mark 12:18, ff; Luke 20:27, ff. Also Matthew 16:21? Dick Walker Coronado, Calif. 'Longtime pastor leaves denomination' story right on the mark April 10, 2007 Your article about my long-time pastor and friend, Bill Martin, was right on the mark. My family and I worshipped under the leadership of Pastor Martin at Northeast Presbyterian Church for the past 10-plus years, transferring from another PCUSA church locally. We have witnessed the erosion of the PCUSA first-hand and agree 100 percent with Pastor Martin's decision to leave and form a new church under the banner of the EPC. When the time came for my family and I to make our decision, it was made immediately to follow Pastor Martin to Cornerstone Bible Church. We left many friends at NEPC and we wish them the very best in their endeavors, but we will honor and praise our Lord Jesus Christ in a church that respects the sovereignty of God 100 percent and hold all of the Scriptures to be true and the Word of God for all times. Lester K. Gehman Jr. St. Petersburg, Fla. 'What's love got to do with it?' April 10, 2007 Rev. Jeff Carter [Letters, April 5, 2007] writes, "The idea of innocent until proven guilty transcends the Constitution." Hardly. Actually, Rev. Carter, that principle is a secular one, probably Greek, that is meant only to be applied within a court of law and, by extension, in the media where libel may occur. The superior theological notion, I delight in reminding you, is "guilty until made innocent." The "idea" you promote, if it were a theological concept, would relegate Christ's salvation to only those who are accused and convicted. The true fact is that no one is innocent. Once that field is leveled, we are free, indeed compelled both Scripturally and ethically, to rebuke others for their wrong behaviors as well as their destructive teachings. No one has a right to a wrong behavior. So, in the words of Tina Turner, "What's love got to do with it?" By the way, the "freedom of religion" section of the First Amendment to the Constitution was established so that a denomination would not be permitted to dictate political policy to the government – not the other way around. Is this not yet another example of how liberals have turned the world on its head? Today, a senator can demand ethics in Congress, yet pick up the phone and her husband's company gets a lucrative contract. A Hollywood star can cry crocodile tears over the need for Kyoto-like carbon dioxide reduction, then fly his 747 around for the fun of it. A congressman can insist his patriotism not be challenged because he just wants "redeployment," while he speaks words no different from the imams who would butcher us just because we are Christian or American. I am tired of the liberals telling us how we should behave in the bizarre world they conjure that they, themselves, refuse to live in. Jack O'Brien Elder Beverly Heights Church Pittsburgh, Pa. Confusing the Constitution and Scripture April 10, 2007 I just read Jeff Carter's letter [Letters, April 5, 2007]. My reaction is: Huh? I'm sorry, but it is just so unfocused and confusing that I do not know what he was trying to say. Is he for detaining enemies of the nation or against it? In either case, if we are going to function as the U.S.A., what should the nation use as its guiding principle if not the Constitution? Did he really mean: "... I don't think that the Constitution – wonderful as it is – should be our bottom line." What should be? Perhaps Jeff really prefers Old Testament law to reign, or perhaps he would have us adopt the perverse, violent and vile shar'ia strictures of our avowed enemies. I was relieved to see that he believes there should be some accountability for these suspects but, if I read him correctly, he thinks we should give them a good meal and send them home. I would suggest he read his own citation from 2 Kings – only I suggest that he read the whole thing. Unfortunately, our enemies – and even some of our purported friends – do not, in fact, adhere to the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Take a look at the Napoleonic Codes some time. The facts are that the people detained at Guantanamo are avowed enemies of the Unites States of America. In spite of that, and in spite of ill-informed, untruthful and inaccurate sensationalism to the contrary, they are treated with humanity and justice and respect. They are sheltered, fed, have their persons protected and spiritual needs cared for. If Rev. Carter or anyone else can show solid evidence of anything else, they should do so. Oh yes, let me again make the point – they were captured engaging in efforts to damage or destroy the interests of our country. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. About the article on the Resurrection April 10, 2007 If a person does not believe in the bodily Resurrection, then certainly he does not believe the Scriptures. The fact that this should create a division in the PCUSA is a sign of the cancer that is evident and has already spread through its educational institutions, corrupting the pulpits and overthrowing the faith of many. This will produce a financial institution that will be dominated by social programs and will abandon the Gospel and the Great Commission. What a tragedy! Dana Booth 'Everyone on the sidelines these days' April 10, 2007 It seems like everyone is on the sidelines these days. Not a good sign of the followers of the one who died for our sins, voluntarily, and rose again. Section G-13.0105 [Book of Order] allows us to call for a special general assembly if one-fourth of the minister commissioners to the General Assembly of 2006 call for one. That would be only 60 percent of the minister commissioners who voted against the PUP report to call for a special general assembly. They must be spread out across 15 presbyteries in five synods, not a hard goal to reach. Louisville is not going to come up with answers. We are a denomination with two distinct theological schools of thought. We should restructure into two synods, one Westminster, one Auburn. Both theological schools of thought would be protected. This could be accomplished by creating two extraordinary synods, (Auburn and Westminster), restructuring the permanent judicial commission into two permanent judicial commissions whose jurisdiction ends at the top synod level of the Auburn or Westminster synods. Initially, every presbytery would be two presbyteries using the same offices, one presbytery being Westminster, one being Auburn. Congregations would join a synod based upon a 60-percent vote of the members of the congregation. Cross-over committees would involve all presbytery members, located in the same boundaries, of both the Westminster and Auburn presbyteries, involving social justice issues and outreach. The two theological schools of thought would have a legal structure protecting themselves from harassment by the other, yet the cross-over committees at the presbytery level would keep them in constant contact with each other so that division does not develop and a continual working together is encouraged. Each synod would elect its own board of nine on which the stated clerk and moderator are permanent members. Several sub-synods would replace the current synod system. The boundaries of the Auburn and Westminster sub-synods should be the same so that they could work together on projects. Eventually, the presbyteries would need to be restructured based upon membership, but the boundaries should be such that there is always an exact cross-over between several Auburn and Westminster presbyteries for the purposes of working together and cooperation. In this way, each congregation can place themselves in a synod that will maintain their theological integrity. Each synod will determine their own educational resources, have their own permanent judicial commission, their own ordination standards, their own theological statements. The jurisdiction of the general assembly would be limited to administrative, mission and pension matters. Presbyterian seminaries and schools should endeavor to maintain a board representing both theological schools of thought. If a seminary or school wishes to represent the theological views of one synod, they would need to associate with a seminary or school that desires to represent the theological views of the other synod by providing annual seminars to each other's students representing their position. I do not mean to discourage churches considering their options with other Reformed denominations. So, what are we waiting for? Let's seize the power and restructure. Whichever theological camp you are in, this can only work to your advantage. John Almquist Makes no sense April 10, 2007 The face you give to Presbyterian renewal doesn't make any sense. It's incoherent. The stories reported lack organic relation to one another – there's no plot, no thread, no intelligibility. It's the face of parody and chaos, which unfortunately reflects the disarray of renewal. "Renewal" is a misnomer when applied to this current state of affairs. Are there no real leaders? Gary Starkey Yakima, Wash. Editor's Note: The Presbyterian Lay Committee is a renewal organization and, in its statements on various issues facing the Presbyterian Church (USA), offers a consistent, sustained and Biblically-faithful witness in regard to the state of the denomination. The Layman Online is a news, information and resource ministry that serves to inform and equip Christians about the issues of the day by publishing a variety of materials on those issues. Washington Office and the Constitution April 5, 2007 It strikes me as quite ironic that the Washington Office is campaigning for the Congress and president to "Restore Our Constitution." Given the present constitutional crisis in the PCUSA, perhaps the Washington Office should petition the General Assembly and the stated clerk to restore our own denomination's constitution, and we're call it even! Rev. Walter L. Taylor Forest Park Presbyterian Church Statesville, N.C. Constitution should not be the bottom line April 5, 2007 To those who are fuming over the Washington Office and the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, I may not be a constitutional scholar, but I don't think that the Constitution – wonderful as it is – should be our bottom line. I find little – well, actually none – of the Biblical call to love, pray for, bless, feed and give drink to our enemies in the printed responses. Loving our enemies does not mean that we are not to hold them accountable for what they may have done, but we are to do so with the same love and compassion that Jesus showed us when we were his enemies. You might want to look at 2 Kings 6 and see what Elisha did with the enemy combatants he brought to Samaria. I'll bet they got better than milk and cookies and bon-bons. Finally, I believe the idea of innocent until proven guilty transcends the Constitution. Just because someone is imprisoned or detained doesn't mean they are guilty. Justice, like loving our enemies, is not an elective for a follower of Jesus Christ. It's a requirement. Rev. Jeff Carter Hobart Presbyterian Church Hobart, Ind. About the PCUSA-backed coalition targeting McDonald's April 5, 2007 I wish the PCUSA would not get into social issues like blocking McDonald's for tomato workers' wages and conditions. The church should preach the gospel, tend their own flock, and teach the right theological matters instead being the backer of a coalition fighting McDonald's. Charles Freeman Mississippi Lent is a season of admission of one's guilt April 5, 2007 Thank you Rev. McFarlin [Letters, April 4, 2007] for correctly pointing to my citation error and asking that I offer a correction. The inalienable rights we are endowed with most certainly is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution. As a lover of history and our way of life, I should not have made the error. I am tempted to make excuse by virtue of the busy-ness of Holy Week. But Lent is a season of admission of one's guilt, seeking repentance, and trusting in the goodness of God, not excuse making. There is no country I would rather be a practicing Christian in than the U.S.A. Faults and all. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.V. Be careful with headlines April 5, 2007 I read with interest the wonderful, self-reflective article about worship life at Calvin College. I was particularly impressed that it was printed in the school paper, and indicates a great willingness at Calvin to consider their identity as Reformed Christians. As New Wineskins churches consider partnership with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the article's consideration of the meaning of the phrase "evangelical" was especially helpful. Your headline, however, was very misleading. It did not reflect the article and, to me, it implied that there is some problem or controversy at Calvin. We don't need to be jabbing at our friends. It would have been just as eye-catching and much more accurate to write, "Students Pack Out Traditional Worship at Calvin." That seems like great news. Gerrit Dawson Baton Rouge, La. A response to Michael R. McCarty April 5, 2007 Michael R. McCarty [Letters, April 4, 2007] makes some interesting analogies between baseball and the PCUSA, but I'm not sure he really understands the concept in both cases. In baseball, it is a team effort meaning all members are connected and playing together. Even with the opposing team, there is the connection as all have love for the sport and participate in it. Regarding the PCUSA, the argument is quite simple. I can see it as a sport just like baseball that many have engaged in and participated. In fact, I doubt there is one congregation within the PCUSA that has not participated in one way or the other. To participate in the sport means that one has some sort of belief or feels it is a pursuit worth doing. I guess the question is, Have the rules changed? Well, get real. They haven't. The PCUSA has never had the reputation of being a conservative denomination since the early 20th century. In fact, the Confession of 1967 (40 years ago) made it quite clear that all things are not simply black and white. The Layman, in fact, formed as a result of the Confession of 1967. So, my question is, What is the problem? Has everyone been asleep? No, I think not. So, please, do not pretend that things are such a great surprise these days when it has been a fact for many years. I like to think of this scenario as an individual that happens to own property in the United States. I don't always like what the government does, yet the fact remains that I participate in the political process as a voter. I still have some belief in the system. If there should be a time I don't have that belief, I don't expect the U.S. to let me declare my little piece of property an independent nation or part of another. I would just simply move my soul and my belongings to another land. And, as such, I would have peace and freedom. So, if there are those that don't like the way the baseball game is going these days (or the PCUSA), the answer is quite simple. Pursue another sport like football (fill in the blank for the church or denomination). Just remember that the football team won't expect the baseball team to honor your season tickets. It's plain common sense and common decency. The bottom line is please don't pretend to have not participated in the problem that you now condemn. In fact, I think one could say you are just as guilty as anyone else in bringing about the downfall and destruction of the PCUSA, and adversely affect Christ's church if that should happen. I'm saying this from my own perception, which some may not fully appreciate. But then, if you are not willing to hear the words that may even seem to come from the devil, what is the point? My question continues to be, Why can't there be a more common ground? It doesn't make sense, nor does it seem to be consistent with what Jesus taught us. Earl C. Apel Member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio A church is in a covenant relationship with the denomination April 5, 2007 Michael McCarty [Letters, April 4, 2007] uses a clever, but "cavalier," method to respond to my previous letter regarding covenant agreements. Interesting, but he writes like a Congregationalist instead of a Presbyterian. Covenants exist outside of property issues, which is why I used the marriage illustration – unless he is assuming the position that wives are "chattel." A Presbyterian church is in a covenant relationship with the denomination and, thus, every other church in the denomination. Presbyteries, synods and the general assembly have a level of governing authority over local churches. That is our system of government. It is not a loose confederation, but a republic. As such, both parties must agree in the breaking of the covenant. There are decent and orderly ways to do this. That is all I really have to say about that. John Pehrson The DOD should replace the staff in Louisville April 4, 2007 After reading the Presbyterian Washington Office approach to national defense, I think that I would feel much more comfortable with the Department of Defense running our church rather than what we have. Maybe that is what the Louisville staff is trained for? Kermit Gay The Washington Office and restoring the Constitution April 4, 2007 In view of the Washington Office's recent e-mail alert for Presbyterians to "tell Congress to restore the Constitution," it would seem apropos for the federal government to establish a Louisville Office, funded by taxpayer dollars even as the Washington Office is funded by per capita, and for the Louisville Office to issue an e-mail alert to faithful Americans to tell the Kirkpatrick administration (I will resist the temptation to call the stated clerk's office the Kirkpatrick régime) to take the log out of its collective eye before asking the federal government to take the speck out of its collective eye. Rather than seek to overturn the current Form of Government by lobbying for a complete rewrite the Book of Order's Form of Government (think of a president from the political party you oppose, with a substantial congressional majority backing him, lobbying for a task force to completely rewrite the seven articles of the U.S. Constitution), the Kirkpatrick administration should instead enforce the entire Form of Government as it is currently written, and not just the property provisions of G-8.0000 (which, incidentally, are retained in the FOG Task Force's rewrite of the Form of Government in G-4.0200). Loren Golden Overland Park, Kansas PCUSA hanging, while Washington Office chases butterflies April 4, 2007 How long will it be until we, the PCUSA, go back to being a church again? We have our own issues within our denomination. Let's look into them instead of creating smoke screens. We have to make a decision, choose our path, like other denominations have done and opened themselves for debate in public. Please do not leave us hanging while the leadership is chasing butterflies. John Soares Newark, N.J. A response to John Pehrson's letter April 4, 2007 As opening day fast approaches, this not so young man's fancy turns to baseball. The perennial question always turns to pitching. So, too, in the PC(USA). John Pehrson [Letters, March 30, 2007] wrote, "Property issues aside, Presbyterian churches exist in a covenant relationship with each other and the denomination. … A covenant is a contractual relationship that takes negotiation to sever." Ooooooh, wild pitch, John. And the runner goes to first. Without the in terrorem effect of the "property issues" that Mr. Pehrson so cavalierly dismisses, there would be no other issues. The PCUSA would be a much smaller denomination. And what an overbroad statement. Each church has a separate contract with every other church. Yikes. So, while I do not agree that any such contract exists, let's take a look at how Mr. Pehrson's flawed hypothetical would work out. As every first-year law student knows, for an enforceable contract to exist there must be an offer, an acceptance and consideration. "In consideration of me giving you something of value, you agree to do certain things or to give up certain rights." I'm having a tough time figuring out the contract that Mr. Pehrson asserts exists. What was it that the PCUSA gave to the churches that bound them to remain in the PCUSA forever? More importantly, what consideration was given in return for the termination of fee-simple property ownership? Well, not to worry, I am certain that it is recited in the trust documents executed by the various churches in favor of the PCUSA. How many churches did that? I am betting not very many. And Pehrson walks another batter. There must also be a meeting of the minds between the parties. If one of the parties enters the relationship with the expectation that some particularized event or course of conduct is going to occur, and the other party does not, there may well be no contract at all. Certainly, if both parties agreed to certain conduct – e.g., faithfulness to Scripture or adherence to a constitutional procedure amendment process – and then one party unilaterally departs from that course of conduct, it is that party that has breached the contract. Once the PCUSA breached the contract in favor of political correctness and submission to the world and amended the constitution extra-constitutionally, the contract was breached and the other party was free of any obligation. The PCUSA breached the hypothetical contract. Pehrson loads the bases. Mr. Pehrson then says, "Church members, even the entire congregation and the pastor, can renounce the jurisdiction of the PCUSA, but an organized and incorporated body still exists that cannot be transferred, dismissed or dissolved without action agreed upon on by both parties. A church with zero members can still exist as an incorporated body of the presbytery." What an interesting admission. The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the presbytery was the entity that incorporated the church as a part of the presbytery. Once again, the articles of incorporation control, but in most cases of which I am aware it was individual congregations that incorporated and many charters are silent regarding the denomination. And, subject to the requirements of the law of the incorporating state, a corporation may transfer (e.g., sell out to another corporation) or even dissolve itself. Moreover, unless the presbytery's council is the lawful board of directors or board of trustees of the corporation, it may not have standing to object to a church's corporate decision, which will be controlled by state law. Och! Pehrson walks in the first run on 16-straight balls. Finally, the statement that "… an organized and incorporated body still exists that cannot be transferred, dismissed or dissolved without action agreed upon on by both parties" is flawed. It assumes that the presbytery or the PCUSA is a party to some contract with the corporation. Again, in most cases of which I am aware, that is not the case. And here goes the call to the bullpen. Pehrson just couldn't find the strike zone toady. He walks all five batters he faces and heads for the showers. Michael R. McCarty Elder-member NWAC Strategy Team About Rev. Seng's letter on 'rights' April 4, 2007 Rev. Seng's citation [Letters, March 30, 2007] was incorrect. It is the Declaration of Independence that has the phrase he refers to. Here's a web reference. You might want to prompt Rev. Seng to make this correction. Keep up the good work! Rev. Charles A. McFarlin Spring Hill Presbyterian Church Staunton, Va. Washington Office once again takes 'a bizarre position' April 3, 2007 The Washington Office once again has taken a bizarre position that many Presbyterians would find offensive. The persons detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are enemy combatants, not persons accused of crimes. The Washington Office improperly seeks to extend constitutional protections that have the purpose of protecting citizens accused of crime from government abuse of power. These detainees, however, are not citizens. They are enemy aliens who have the goal of killing Americans whenever possible. It would be inappropriate to extend the constitutional protections of American citizens to enemy combatants. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution defines citizens as "all persons born or naturalized in the United States." These enemy combatants simply do not qualify for these protections. No one can know what would happen if they got into the courts. The courts might release the dangerous terrorists into American society with grave danger to all of us. The actions advocated by the Washington Office, if carried out, would give aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. The U.S. Constitution, art. 3, section 3, defines treason as giving aid and comfort to the enemy. What a sad spectacle this is – the PCUSA apparently advocating treason against the United States. We are once again confronted with the Washington Office going into business for itself, taking extreme positions that few Presbyterians would be likely to support. Why does the PCUSA spend its increasingly scarce resources on this activity? Would it be better to permanently close the Washington Office and spare Presbyterians the embarrassment that its activities cause? This latest position of the Washington Office has much to do with advancement of a left-wing agenda, but nothing at all to do with the advancement of religion in America. Presbyterians should do the reverse of what the Washington Office recommends. George Hill Member First Presbyterian Church Baton Rouge, La. The Constitution of the U.S.A. and the Washington Office April 3, 2007 The Washington Office is suggesting that Congress "restore the Constitution of the United States" because the Washington Office does not like the following: "bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes." It was approved by the U.S. Senate by a vote of 65-34 on Sept. 28, 2006, and by the U.S. House by a vote of 250-170-12 the next day. Bush signed the bill into law Oct. 17, 2006." To the Washington Office, I ask this: What do we do with terrorists who seek to kill you? Give the terrorists cookies, bon bons and milk? Take known killers to Disneyworld? The Washington Office is so left leaning, they and the ALCU think the real terrorists reside in the U.S., not in Teheran, Damascus, Gaza and North Korea. What does the Washington Office know about the Constitution of the United States of America? Does the Washington Office know the establishment of America was as a Republic, not a democracy? Look who is calling the kettle black when the Washington Office seeks to tell Congress to restore the constitution. Tell us Washington Office, honestly, what do you know about the Constitution? Lou. S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Teaching our little ones April 3, 2007 Last Sunday, the children sang. Beaming innocence, their voices rang out: "The King is coming, He's the Lord of life! The King is coming, He is Jesus Christ!" Later in the service, I read the Gospel: "Jesus said to his disciples, 'Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to that one by whom they come! It would be better for that person if a millstone were hung around her or his neck and s/he were cast into the sea than that s/he should cause one of these little ones to sin. Pay attention to yourselves!'" (Luke 17:1-3a). During the course of sharing with my congregation about this passage, I recounted how, on the morning before, our session met with the consulting commission of our presbytery. The commission's moderator opined that it is her understanding that our denomination unequivocally affirms Jesus Christ as our Lord and our way of salvation, but also allows that others may find another way. Like General Assembly Moderator Joan Gray, our presbytery's consulting commission's moderator is "willing to give God a lot of leeway on matters" she does not "fully understand" (Moderator Joan Gray, as quoted in "Atlanta minister is elected moderator," by Jerry L. Van Marter, Presbyterian News Service, June 15, 2006). I went on to confess to my Sunday morning listeners that I am under the judgment of Jesus' teaching in the opening verses of Luke 17 and you, dear friends, are under the judgment of this teaching of Jesus. We are under the judgment of Jesus' teaching because we are part of a denomination that gives ordained leadership the license to allow that there are other paths to salvation besides Christ himself. Shall we teach our little ones to sing only that "Our King is coming, He's our Lord of life," then press on to teach them that other people find life in different lords and serve other kings? The Bible says there is one way to salvation through the one Lord Jesus Christ, who is King over all. Yet, we belong to a denomination that encourages us to tempt our children by teaching them that there are other valid and viable paths into the Kingdom of our heavenly Father. This is the broad, all inclusive, diversity, welcoming track taken by the Presbyterian Church (USA). Every disciple of Jesus Christ who walks in that way – or who turns a blind eye, a deaf ear and a tied tongue on those who do so walk – is under the judgment of his teaching: It would be better for us, each one, to have a millstone hung around our necks and to be thrown into the sea than that we should cause one of these little ones to sin by stepping away from the only Savior God provides. "Pay attention to yourselves!" Jesus admonishes. Watch what you teach, disciples! The little ones are listening! "Temptations to sin are sure to come, but woe to that one by whom they come!" How long will you live under the threat of a worse punishment than a millstone-weighted drowning? How long will you stand under the judgment of Jesus' teaching? Jim Henkel, NWAC-endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Riverside Church voted to leave the PCUSA April 3, 2007 The members of Riverside Church voted to leave the PCUSA, and then asked to be dismissed by their presbytery. John Pehrson [Letters, March 30, 2007] may not like how Riverside acted, but the fact that they asked to be dismissed remains clear. Prospect Hill Presbytery did not consider dismissal an option and moved to release the congregation's pastor and assert control over the church. It appears that the presbytery acted in an adversarial manner. This writer is aware that the Rev. Westbrook was ordained in the Reformed Church in America. Yet, we must remember that it was the members who voted to leave. Jeff McDonald Omaha, Neb. 'We must maintain some standards' April 3, 2007 Please notify Rev. Nathan Lamb [Letters, March 30, 2007] that his honorary membership in the Florida chapter of my fan club is receded immediately. One hates to take such drastic actions, but we must maintain some standards, mustn't we? Rev. Russ Westbrook Teaching Elder Riverside Presbyterian Church, PCA Presbytery and the PCUSA just don't get it April 3, 2007 The Presbytery of Western North Carolina and the PCUSA just don't get it, do they? Maybe they are in another world, out of touch with the rest of us. Richard Conway, elder Morganton, N.C. Thanks for article on Presbyterian chaplain April 3, 2007 Thank you so much for highlighting the deployment of Chaplain Col. Jim DeCamp. Before I attended seminary and spent the last decade as a Presbyterian pastor, I spent 20 years as an Air Force pilot and staff officer. The conversations I had with fellow seminary students have continued, with one of the primary questions being, "How can a Christian consciously serve in the military." My standard answer has been, "Can you imagine a military as strong and technologically advanced as ours at work in the world without the constraints of moral Christian belief and behavior?" This comment has often brought at least a few moments of contemplation of the prospect of an out-of-control military with incredible weapons of war. Praise God we still have a military that generally considers morality and personal responsibility to be important factors. Praise God we still have generals in the field who believe that truth and a "just war" concept are actually achievable. Praise the Lord that we have a president who prays for the troops he has sent into harm's way to defend our freedoms. None of these – soldiers, generals, presidents – are perfect or ever will be. However, we are in serious jeopardy of losing the freedoms for which we are sending our young men and women overseas to do battle. We are suffering from the rotting disease of prosperity that blinds us to true self-preservation, the kind of righteousness that is missing especially in our relationship with our own denomination. Praise God for ChaplainCol./Pastor/friend Jim DeCamp! I have had the pleasure of working with him at a number of general assemblies. He is a champion for the Lord, a hero for the renewal work in the PCUSA, and one of the nicest, most sincere and loving persons I have ever met. May the Lord protect Jim and his family, his church and his new congregation! Tom Sawyer Pastor Middle Sandy Presbyterian Church Homeworth, Ohio A NWAC congregation A clarification of examination policy April 3, 2007 I wish to commend staff writer Patrick Jean for taking the effort to understand the complex examination policy adopted by the Presbytery of Plains and Peaks. Jean's articles posted March 19 and March 28 are substantially accurate; however, because our policy is being considered by other presbyteries, I would like to clarify some of his statements: (1) The headline "No 'right of conscience' for governing bodies" (March 19) is incomplete. Citing the Londonderry decision as the most recent of many such rulings, the policy says only that governing bodies do not possess a right of conscience that would permit them to violate mandatory provisions of the Constitution, including the limitation on ordination powers contained in the third sentence of G-6.0106b. (2) Similarly, when Jean reported March 28 that our policy "lets ministerial membership and ordination candidates declare a 'scruple' in opposition to any standard...," he did not add (as he did in the March 19 article) that every scruple must be defended and its defense weighed in determining whether it violates an essential of Reformed faith (or polity); and finally, (3) I am pleased to remind the author that our presbytery is blessed to consist of congregations in both Colorado and Nebraska (March 28). It was not the purpose of our presbytery to advance any position regarding standards for ordination or in any way to correct, limit or nullify the actions of the 217th General Assembly but, rather, to represent accurately the process constitutionally required of us when examining candidates. I welcome those with questions concerning our policy to contact me. Daniel M. Saperstein executive presbyter Presbytery of Plains and Peaks |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |