 |
|
| August
2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
Book of Order should be called 'Book of Recommendations' August 31, 2007 Due to the results of our last General Assembly in June 2006, we might want to consider renaming our Presbyterian constitution. Because PUP was approved, in some ways our Book of Order now should be called our "Book of Recommendations." Sadly grieving, Christian Larsen elder Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church Fair Oaks, Calif. PCUSA statistics indicate other reasons than death for membership losses August 31, 2007 Several have recently commented that deaths are a major reason for the decline in the Presbyterian Church (USA) membership. Your readers may want to check out the statistics published by Louisville headquarters on the yearly losses from 1986 to 2005. These statistics indicate that deaths account for 20.5 percent of the total membership losses. During the past 20 years, deaths have averaged 40,500 per year. In the past five years, deaths have averaged 37,600 per year. While it might be comforting to believe that deaths are the cause for the declining membership in PCUSA churches, these statistics indicate there are other reasons. Larry Rued A response to the overture regarding mounting debt in the U.S. August 31, 2007 And now, from those wonderful folks who brought you the PUP report – federal budget reform. Michael R. "Mac" McCarty A response to the discussion regarding limited Atonement August 31, 2007 In reference to the recent letters regarding the debate over limited Atonement, I find the correspondence of Revs. Benton [Letters, August 28, 2007] and Yearsley [Letters, August 24, 2007] to be theologically tendentious, and both ignore Scripture and The Book of Confessions. See John 12:32, I Timothy 2:3-5 and Colossians 19-20, among others, that offer a Biblical response to the idea that Jesus died only for the "elect." Also, these words from The Book of Confessions in the Second Helvetic Confession and the Addendum to the Westminster Confession of Faith:
Does this mean universalism? Of course not; it does mean that God is God is God and we are not and that the final disposition of creation and all its parts, including sinners like us, is far beyond the comprehension of creatures bound by historical particularity and prone to error. To impose limits on the redeeming grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is, however, quite heretical. Rev. W. Patterson Lyles Evangelicals need to change the Book of Order to survive August 30, 2007 It has been quite some time since I have written in. For a year and some months, my letters encouraged churches to use the legal system to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA). The reality is that the vast majority of evangelical congregations do not want to leave. If that is the case, in order for the evangelicals to remain effective, they really need to amend the PCUSA constitution (Book of Order) to create a safe place for themselves within the denomination. We need to amend the constitution in such a way that we have our own identifiable place within the denomination where we maintain our own ordination standards, statements of faith, etc. We also need to form the denomination in such a way that it does not become "Balkanized" – we need to find common ground with the progressives. Keep in mind that many of the great evangelical Presbyterian churches are in presbyteries that are either "indifferent" or "progressive." On the whole, this may not be a bad thing. Our Lord has a time and purpose for all things, even though we do not see it presently. I know that this can be very frustrating and may even cause us to send some anger the Lord's way. But maybe the folks we are to reach are in the "progressive" camp. It has seemed like a very dry, tough season. But it is in the dry, tough seasons where genuine growth takes place and our temporary frustration with the Lord gives way to joy. Take a look at these proposed amendments to the Book or Order. One of the best ways to create a safe place is to create a two-synod system and change much of the denominational structure to accommodate it. Take a look at the proposed amendments. If you like them, propose them to your presbytery and submit them as an overture to the next General Assembly in San Jose, Calif. I will see you there. Congregations need to look at all of their options. The Constitutional Presbyterians movement is a vital part of that. But if we stay, we have to change this constitution to survive and thrive. As a postscript, I still need to add some miscellaneous conforming proposed amendments from the other parts of the Book of Order. So, it is not entirely complete, but take a look. Whatever you do, do not give up and know that the Lord is faithful and is God. John Almquist A reply to Larry Brown's letter August 30, 2007 Larry Brown [Letters, August 28, 2007] mentions that the Presbyterian Church in America's statistics end in 2005 and that probably means that the PCA doesn't like its 2006 statistics. Actually, it's just an indication of someone forgetting to update a link. Try this one. You will discover that the PCA had its best increase from 2005 to 2006 with the stats available. Gary L. Cole Jr. member Christ Presbyterian Church PCA Beaver Falls, Pa. Student/Pittsburgh Theological Seminary A response to Larry Brown's letter August 30, 2007 Larry Brown [Letters, August 28, 2007] is indeed correct. When one checks the statistics book, the vast majority of members are leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA) by way of death. The problem is they are not being replaced by a new generation of confirmation students, adult conversions or people reaffirming their faith after an absence from church life. He also is correct that it is not a liberal-conservative issue, nor strictly a PCUSA issue. Christianity is being challenged by many different types of faith, as well as by secularism (or just plain apathy) in general. While one easily can find individual congregations in many denominations that are growing, including in the PCUSA, even the rate of growth in the once fastest-growing denominations – such as the Assemblies of God and the Southern Baptists – seems to have leveled off, gone into decline or were overly inflated in the first place. It always is easy to "blame the other side" for all the problems but, perhaps, the reality is that everyone's animosity is part of the problem. John Pehrson Salina, Kan. 'My prayers go out' to Peters Creek church August 30, 2007 It now should be quite clear that this situation [Letters, August 29, 2007] is no longer a "spiritual discernment" between two equal parties but, instead, has become a hostage negotiation. They probably should treat the presbytery commission as they would any organized crime syndicate. My prayers go out to Dr. Howard and the congregation. Toby Brown Cuero, Texas Letter was 'somewhat incongruous' August 30, 2007 I found the letter [Letters, August 29, 2007] of the Rev. Hal Porter somewhat incongruous. Several years ago, I filed a disciplinary accusation against Rev. Porter for doing the exact same thing as Rev. Spahr has now been convicted and disciplined for doing: purporting to perform a marriage ceremony between persons of the same sex. Rev. Porter, as opposed to the Rev. Steve Van Kuiken from the same congregation and against whom I simultaneously made the same accusation, not only admitted the facts of my allegation, but agreed to never do so again, in a formal written settlement pursuant to D-10.0202(h). All three ministers, Porter, Van Kiuken and Spahr, engaged in precisely the same misconduct, but only Porter copped a plea. The others went to trial and lost. Porter has every right to praise Spahr but, in the interest of full disclosure, should have pointed out in his letter the facts concerning his plea to the same offense. Paul Rolf Jensen general counsel Westminster Fellowship, Inc. Costa Mesa, Calif. Misuse of authority in Washington Presbytery not a big surprise August 29, 2007 Washington Presbytery has set a new low in their handling of the Peters Creek issue. As many regular readers are aware, Peters Creek Presbyterian Church [Venetia, Pa.] in Washington Presbytery expressed its intention to call a vote of the congregation to determine the will of the congregation as to whether to remain in the Presbyterian Church (USA) or to seek dismissal to another Reformed body. Immediately upon learning of the desire to hold this vote, Washington Presbytery established an administrative commission to "handle" this problem. The course of this journey has been anything but smooth. Without the vote being held (as yet), the administrative commission has inserted itself into every facet of the discussion and has tried mightily to quell the effort. There have been injunctions, threats and rancor on both sides. I am appalled to find out the latest of several maneuvers by this commission. In the past two weeks, they have notified the session of the church that they may not receive a new members class – a class that has been preparing for membership for some time. These are people who have been worshiping and participating in the life of Peters Creek for at least six months to (in some cases) a year. Now, the administrative commission informs the session of the church that if they receive this class before any anticipated vote, the presbytery will consider that a "hostile act." How is that for a veiled threat? The administrative commission, seated by the presbytery and speaking for the presbytery, is directing a session to withhold membership from a class of people seeking to join the church. This in a denomination that loses an average of 45,000 members a year. What more evidence do you need of the evil and ill intent at the presbytery level? Furthermore, where are the conservative, faithful clergy of Washington Presbytery hiding? Are you indeed so fearful for your corporate security and your pensions that you can close your eyes to this type of behavior? Worse, are you permitting it? Perhaps, you are afraid that, if you speak up, they'll come for you next. Ever heard of Martin Niemoller? Last time I looked at the Book of Order, membership in the church was the purview and responsibility of the session of the particular church. It is no secret that the ideological chasm between clergy and members is wide, but there must be some men and women of courage and principle in that presbytery who can and should be questioning this sort of high-handed and dictatorial behavior. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Thank you for story about Spahr case, More Light Presbyterians August 29, 2007 I was pleased you put on your Web site Michael Adee's lament regarding the synod's permanent judicial commission decision against Janie Spahr. It was fair reporting. Michael is just such a fine, literate spokesperson for the More Light movement – openly gay, openly Christian. I love him. Thank you. Karl Landstrom [Letters, August 27, 2007] also wrote you a letter regarding that same decision. He is a fine, intelligent person, but he ought to know that our constitution is far more complex about homosexuals in the church than he acknowledges. Our constitution is a living document and we ought to challenge it by our faith convictions, which Janie did, openly and, as we used to say, "subjecting herself to her brethren." Bless her. I hope all Presbyterians are reading the excellent work done by two outstanding Presbyterians on the subject: A Time to Embrace by William Stacy Johnson and Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality by Jack Rogers. Yes, it is time to embrace, confess our wrong and move on with all the members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) regardless of their gender. Hal Porter honorably retired Cincinnati, Ohio Editor's Note: Robert A.J. Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and the author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, has refuted the arguments William Stacy Johnson makes in his book, as well as those Jack Rogers makes in his book. Regarding story about Jane Spahr case August 29, 2007 According to a recent article linked by The Layman Online, homosexual activist Jane Spahr was convicted for violating standards in the Presbyterian Church (USA) Book of Order by performing wedding services for two same-sex couples. The article included two quotes that are worth investigating. The first was the statement that Ms. Spahr's actions were at odds with the church's constitution despite the fact that she "acted with conscience and conviction." The second was a quote attributed to Ms. Spahr stating, "I want so much for the church to be a place of welcome, and to take our relationships seriously. … I want the church to be that place of hospitality and welcome. Not to tolerate us, but to accept us and love us for who we are." Regarding Ms. Spahr's acting "with conscience and conviction," the constitution of the PCUSA states: "2. God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in anything contrary to his Word, or beside it in matters of faith or worship. So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. "3. They who, upon pretense of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty; which is, that, being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life." (Book of Confessions, §6.109-§6.110, emphasis added) The import of Ms. Spahr's actions was not that she "acted with conscience and conviction" and thereby violated the constitution of the PCUSA, which are the results of synods and councils, which are susceptible to error (Book of Confessions, §6.175), but that she "acted with conscience and conviction" and thereby violated the law of God. Now, one might say that the Bible nowhere forbids a lawful minister of Word and sacrament from conducting a wedding worship service for a same-sex couple; therefore, this action is not a sin, and whoever forbids such a minister from conducting such a service is arbitrarily forcing his or her own opinion on others, and is therefore violating the minister's freedom of conscience. However, the Bible is inescapably clear when it condemns homosexual activity (Genesis 19:4-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17; Judges 19:22-24; Romans 1:24-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:9-10). Indeed, Scripture is entirely bereft of examples of Divine sanction on sexual activity between two people of the same gender. Moreover, the Bible is likewise unambiguous when it presents marriage as God's creation designed to join one man with one woman for as long as the both of them shall live (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:18-25; and Matthew 19:4-6); prescribes rules for the individual conduct of the husband and wife (Ephesians 5:21-33, I Peter 3:1-7); proscribes divorce (Malachi 2:13-16; Matthew 5:31-32, 19:1-12; I Corinthians 7:10-11); and commands that marriage be held in honor by all and that the marriage bed must be kept undefiled (Hebrews 13:4). Indeed, wherever Scripture speaks of marriage, it is spoken of between man and woman, between husband and wife, and never between two individuals of the same gender. Given that sexual activity between two individuals displeases God and is therefore condemned by Him as sin, and given that marriage is ordained by God from creation and that all are commanded by Him to hold it in honor and not to soil it with the world's ideas, it is unthinkable that the sanctioning of homosexual marriages (or any other union in which sexual activity between two individuals of the same gender is sanctioned) does not displease Him and is not held by Him to be sin. We can be sure, therefore, that on Judgment Day He will hold those to account who exhibit contempt for God's creation of marriage by lying to the world, saying that He sanctions homosexual marriages. Therefore, for one to claim freedom of conscience and conviction with respect to homosexual marriages is to hold a doctrine that is contrary to the Word of God and which thereby destroys the end of Christian liberty in that it mocks the law of God and falsely teaches that an action universally condemned by God as sin is somehow sanctioned by Him under certain circumstances, when no sanction can be found in the Scriptures. Secondly, I wish to respond to Ms. Spahr's statement, "I want so much for the church to be a place of welcome and to take our relationships seriously. … I want the church to be that place of hospitality and welcome. Not to tolerate us, but to accept us and love us for who we are." It may come as a surprise to some, given what I have just said, but I completely agree with this statement. However, I do not agree with Ms. Spahr's underlying premise that this means sanctioning homosexual activities or marriages. The Church was created by God on the day of Pentecost to be a covenant community of believers who own Jesus Christ as Lord and trust Him as Savior. It is designed by Him for mutual love, support and accountability for the purpose of making men and women fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ. The members of the Church, corporately and individually, are responsible to Christ for reaching out in love to the world around them, feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, loving the lonely. Likewise, the members of the Church, corporately and individually, are responsible to Jesus Christ for reaching out with Christian love and the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a world lost in sin. But this love must not be the enabling love of a co-dependent. It must be the tough love shown to the alcoholic, drug abuser or sex addict and is needed to break their enslavement to homosexual intercourse. Let us be clear: The sin of the homosexual does not lie in desiring to build a caring, loving relationship with someone of the same gender. The relationships of father-son, mother-daughter, brothers and sisters fall into this category, as do many other friendships. It is not the relationship itself that is sinful. Rather, it is the homosexual intercourse that displeases God and is therefore sinful. God does not give some people a "homosexual orientation" while He gives others a "heterosexual orientation." The so-called "homosexual orientation" is a result of Original Sin. Just as some people are prone to the sins of lust, gambling, coveting or gossip, there are those who are prone to the sin of homosexuality. One can be tempted to commit a particular sin, but not commit it, for it is not sin to be tempted. It is in the commission of the act, either mentally or physically, wherein the sin lies. "Homosexual orientation" cannot be predicated of God, for He forbids homosexual intercourse as sin and He does not give people a proclivity to sin – that is the fault of our first parents when they disobeyed Him in the Garden (Genesis 3 and Romans 5:12-14). "God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one" (James 1:13). Although we are required by the Lord to love the impenitent homosexual and to welcome him into the church as a visitor, we must not permit him to join the church as a member, much less ordain him into a leadership position, until he repents of his sin. Faulty thinking has crept into the church of late that teaches that although God would like us to turn from our sin, He understands that it is quite impossible. After all, the Bible acknowledges that there is none without sin (Romans 3:23; and I John 1:8,10) and Jesus Himself commands that we should not judge others (Matthew 7:1-5). However, this thinking fails to realize that those who come to Jesus Christ must come with an attitude of repentance. "From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, 'Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand'" (Matthew 4:17). And again: "(I) declared first to those in Damascus, then in Jerusalem and throughout all Judea, and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds in keeping with their repentanc." (Acts 26:20). In order to turn to Jesus Christ, one must turn from sin. Faith in Jesus Christ and repentance from sin go hand-in-hand; you cannot have faith without repentance. As the Church confesses, "Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God's free grace in Christ, yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it." (Book of Confessions, §6.083, emphasis added) An impenitent Christian is a contradiction in terms. "To live in Christ means to die to sin. We are to turn from darkness (sin) to light (Christ) and from the power of Satan to God, that (we) may receive forgiveness of sins" (Acts 26:18). "For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial?"(II Corinthians 6:14-15). "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" (Romans 6:12). Repentance from sin is an absolutely crucial element in our identity in Christ. If it is absent from our lives, the Church is obliged to ask us if we are truly in Christ. Repentance does not mean that we are no longer sinners or that we will never sin again. But it does mean that we will diligently watch for it in our lives and stamp it out whenever we find it, that the Lord might present us "holy and blameless and above reproach before Him" (Colossians 1:22). Thus, those who practice homosexuality must repent of it in order to be reconciled with God. And this is not manifestly impossible, as homosexual apologists contend, for Paul acknowledged that there were former homosexuals among the membership of the Corinthian Church (I Corinthians 6:9-11). Finally, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that repentance is impossible with men and only possible with God (Matthew 19:26). We cannot turn our hearts from sin – only God can do that. A practicing homosexual cannot change his desire for homosexual intercourse any more than a leopard can change his spots. What he can do is come humbly before God, as we all must do, for we are all sinners desperately in need of a Savior, and ask the Lord to take from us the desire for sinning. For "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (I John 1:9) "And whoever comes to Me, I will never cast out." (John 6:37). Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan. Is liberalism the only problem? August 28, 2007 I've been following The Layman Online for the past six years. A recurring theme has been that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is losing members – is, in fact, in a precipitous decline – and that it is entirely because of liberal theology. Lately, I've been questioning that. I know for a fact that my Evangelical Presbyterian Church presbytery has about the same number of members today that it had 15 years ago, in spite of the fact that one of our congregations went from zero to 6,000 members during that time (it's one of those rock n' roll "seeker sensitive" churches, where you wonder if it's converting society or if society is converting the church). The PCUSA Web site gives 10-year statistics for individual congregations. Comparing the stats of churches I knew to be conservative with ones I knew to be liberal, I concluded that there doesn't seem to be any connection between trends in membership and theological position. Looking at the Presbyterian Church in America Web site, membership growth seems to have stopped at 2005, the last year statistics are given. I suspect they stop there because more recent figures say something the PCA doesn't like. Recently, the president of the Southern Baptist Convention suggested that of the 16-million reported members, about five million couldn't be found by the FBI. I got some figures from the U.S. Bureau of the Census Web site. The median age for the U.S. population is 36.4 years. The death rate for white people is nine per thousand. If the membership of the PCUSA is 2,267,000 then, in the year 2007-08, 20,403 PCUSA members will die. But wait a minute, it gets worse. The median age for members of the PCUSA is much higher than the general population; in fact, it's 58. o you would expect more deaths per thousand. So, when The Layman reports a membership drop of 46,000, it's probably more due to aging and death than to unhappiness over liberal theology. There are a number of reasons why a conservative church may decline. Here are some that I've personally observed:
Most urban Presbyterian churches I've seen looked like the country club at prayer. In seminary, I was given a course called "Pastoral Ministry" in which we were taught how to fold a napkin in the country club dining hall. I remember that my mother stopped attending the local Presbyterian church in the sixties, when I was nine. She struggled to support a family of four on a schoolteacher's salary, and said she couldn't afford the clothes that the other Presbyterian ladies sported at church. The minister would preach about compassion for the poor and dispossessed of the world, and there was this family down the street who didn't feel comfortable in his upscale church. Perhaps openness to people of various socio-economic groups might be part of the answer to the 40-year decline. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi About Meghan Foote's response to Jim Yearsley August 28, 2007 Meghan Foote's query [Letters, August 27, 2007] about Jim Yearsley's statement [Letters, August 24, 2007] about a candidate's universalism statement during the period of questioning is certainly sincere, but reflects some ignorance about our basic doctrines as Presbyterians. Meghan, if you look up Calvinism on the web (there are many sites), the valid ones will list the five cornerstone doctrines of the (original) Presbyterian Church, as founded by John Calvin. One of those is the very hard to swallow, but absolutely logical result of the other four, and it states that Jesus died only for those people whom God ordained before the foundation of the world to belong to Him (there are, believe it or not, very good and solid Biblical citations for this doctrine, as funky as it may sound to most modern American Christians). So, anyone who says that Jesus died for everyone is not Calvinistic (i.e., Presbyterian) in their theology. They are in the vast majority of Christians in this country today, but they would have been thought more than a little odd for most of Christian history. Such a doctrine not only does not "shoot a big hole in the prevenient grace thing," but is indeed a totally logical offshoot to that doctrine – God does the choosing, we do not – and so it really is of grace that we are saved, and has nothing to do with ourselves in and of ourselves. Marc Benton retired pastor Thanks, Meghan, for your concern August 28, 2007 Thanks, Meghan, for your concern. However, there are so many places to start a response to you that I am almost a loss for what to say first. In your letter [Letters, August 27, 2007], you said, "... I am more than a little confused. …" I agree. You seem to think that any evangelical is, by definition, well-grounded in a systematic theology which makes sense and can, in fact, readily equip the saints with effective doctrine. That is the first error. Evangelical is a term which has become so watered down and diffuse as to be nearly meaningless. I try not to even use the term evangelical. There are plenty of progressive liberals in the church who will tell you – with a straight face – that they are evangelicals. You go on to say: "If it is apostate to say that Jesus died for everyone, both believers and non-believers. …" That statement is so far outside of Reformed theology as to be, yes, apostate. In point of fact, any evangelical teaching such a universalist (and un-Scriptural) position is apostate. Scripture is quite clear on the doctrine of election and, by the way, grace. Christ died for the elect. Further on you say: "... if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then Jesus will have died for you? And doesn't that shoot a big hole in the prevenient grace thing?" Prevenient grace is a Wesleyan/Methodist/Arminian construct frequently used to dispute the doctrine of limited Atonement. As Presbyterians and members of the Reformed church, we reject Arminianism in favor of the Calvinist doctrines codified at Dordt. So, I guess the answer to your question is, "I hope so." Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Spahr decision a setback for those who ignore PCUSA constitution August 27, 2007 This decision by the regional Presbyterian Church (USA) court is indeed a setback for the Rev. Spahr and other ministers and officers in the denomination who think that they can exercise freedom of conscience, beyond the constitutional standards of the church, without facing the possibility of correction or punishment. As provided in that constitution, and agreed to by those who are ordained, their "conscience is captive to the word of God as interpreted in the standards of the church." Karl Landstrom First Presbyterian Church Arlington Va. A response to John Stuart August 27, 2007 I say, "Thank you," to John Stuart for reporting [Letters, August 23, 2007] his presbytery's approval for ordination of a candidate who opined that declaring "Jesus to be the sole Redeemer of the world" "would be putting God in too small a box for me." Her statement is right in line with our General Assembly Moderator, the Rev. Joan Gray. Prior to her election to this high office by the 217th General Assembly, Moderator Gray responded to the concept that Christ is the only Way to salvation by stating, "I live with some tension – I know that Jesus is the way, truth and life, but I'm willing to give God a lot of leeway in matters I don't fully understand" (Presbyterian News Service, Jerry L. Van Marter, "Atlanta minister is elected moderator," June 15, 2006). From our highest officer down to this newly elected candidate for ordination, the Presbyterian Church (USA) continues incapable of a simple, straightforward, Biblical confession of faith in Jesus Christ: the one and only Lord and Savior of humankind and of all creation. Of course, our confessional documents remain in order, as Moderator Gray has also noted (June 5, 2007). Indeed, these historic papers still speak of such a Scriptural faith. However, the public discourse of the present moment, at every level of our denomination, refuses to box in God according to the doctrinal formularies articulated by former generations. Instead, we broadcast the trendy invitation for everyone to join in giving "God a lot of leeway in matters" not completely comprehended by Presbyterian leaders. Never mind that there is no place in all of the Old or New Testaments where our eternal Father asks us, mere mortals, for leeway regarding the supreme excellency of His only begotten Son and only chosen Messiah, Christ Jesus. We will take it upon ourselves to be gracious not to stuff the Lord inside that little box. We will craft a bigger, better, brighter crate to contain God. No doubt, our amazing magnanimity astounds the Almighty. The Bible says that God was astonished in much the same way at Korah's devotion to giving the Lord leeway in the appointment of the high priest (Numbers 16). Today, we Presbyterians of the PCUSA take up ancient Korah's chorus; chiming in to wonder whether God might elect another to that office besides Him who "offered for all time a single sacrifice for sin" to prove Himself the sole, singular "great priest over the house of God" (Hebrews 10:12, 21). Although all in our denomination should pray God to spare us from the judgment wrought against Korah (1 Corinthians 10:1-11; Hebrews 10:26-31, 12:25-29), it seems doubtful that the example set by the current leadership will encourage anyone in that endeavor. Once again, the Bible speaks: "Depart, please, from the tents of" such leaders, "and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away" (Numbers 16:26). My own congregation is working to effect departure from the PCUSA, having formally requested dismissal to the care and oversight of the New Wineskins Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Like my membership, I, too, cannot abide much longer under the authority of leaders who promote the diminution of Jesus Christ. The Savior of the world is too grand to be contained in any crate crafted by human hands or imagination. To paraphrase His own Word written: "No one lights a lamp to shove it in a box (even a very big one). They set it on a stand where it gives light to all in the house. Now, you are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hidden" (Matthew 5:15, 14). Unfortunately, our PCUSA has come down from the hill to become just as fogged in as the rest of humankind. Yes, I could stay in the tent our denominational leadership has pitched on that socked-in plain and train my little light against the encroaching vapor of worldliness. Perhaps my faithfulness to keep shining there would accomplish some good, as my tiny ray of hope glows and glimmers dim in dense darkness. My beggarly beacon could be a welcome sight to some tired traveler. Still, it seems to me, the better choice is to honor Holy Scripture and depart that tent. The upward trail toward regaining the hill beckons. I am not alone in answering the call to undertake this pilgrimage. I am in the good company of many who share my longing to labor in being built up – like living stones (1 Peter 2:5) – into a mighty, mountaintop metropolis that reflects the one true light of the world with such bold brightness that the fog, which has invaded the land below, is driven back in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Come, weary lamb. Come. Yes, the way is hard; but leave behind your troubled toil in that fog-imprisoned tent upon the broad plain. Keep face forward. Look ahead. Just on the other side of that narrow gate (Matthew 7:13-14, John 10:9), work awaits you on the hilltop under Him who is so "gentle and lowly of heart" that "you will find rest for your soul." His "yoke is [so] easy" and His "burden is [so] light" (Matthew 11:28-30) that, upon that hill, your labor will never be in vain (Philippians 2:12-18, 16) because it is in Christ and of Christ and for Christ and through Christ to the glory of God the Father. Come, go with me in His service. Come, join the pilgrim company. Come, climb, "keeping face forward up the hill of God" (Walter J. Mathams, Christ of the Upward Way, vs. 1). Come, dare to be built into that unshakable city that "cannot be hidden" (Hebrews 12:28). Come, claim the imperishable promise: "Now, you are the light of the world!" (1 Peter 1:3-5). Jim Henkel, pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Not all New Wineskins' churches are leaving the PCUSA August 27, 2007 Over and over, in "Letters to the editor" sections in places like The Layman Online, Presbyweb and The Outlook, writers are consistently making statements that would lead people to believe the churches that belong to the New Wineskins Association of Churches are leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA). While some churches in our denomination are leaving, and while many (not all) of them are churches that belong to New Wineskins, most of the churches in New Wineskins are not leaving. Let me repeat that last line to help people get this: Most of the churches in New Wineskins are not leaving. At the fall convocation for New Wineskins (October 28-30 at Fair Oaks Presbyterian Church in Sacramento, Calif.), a way to remain faithfully within the PCUSA will be put forward for those churches who are remaining. If your readers would like to read some of the report that will be made at the convocation on this topic, they may go to [the group's Web site] and, on the right hand side of the opening page, find the two documents, "Ministry Networks: A Missional Covenant Within the PCUSA" and "What Does It mean To Be A New Wineskins Congregation In The PCUSA?" If your church is seeking a faithful way forward that will include a committed covenant community, then I invite you to consider what is being offered up by the New Wineskins Association of Churches. Matt Ferguson Pastor Hillsboro, Ill. A response to Jim Yearsley August 27, 2007 I guess I'm stupid, but I have to say that I am more than a little confused by the example of apostasy in your letter [Letters, August 24, 2007]. If it is apostate to say that Jesus died for everyone, both believers and non-believers, then wouldn't that mean that every evangelical is apostate who has told a non-believer that they should accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior because Jesus died for them? Shouldn't they be saying, "if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, then Jesus will have died for you?" And doesn't that shoot a big hole in the prevenient grace thing? Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo. What ails our franchise August 27, 2007 Sadly, I've reached a conclusion about what ails our franchise. The very few who are defying Jesus as attested in Holy Scripture and upheld by our constitution are enabled by fainthearted clergy and elders who are in the overwhelming "silent" majority. A metaphor comes to mind. Frank Layden, former coach of the Utah Jazz, said to a player, "Son, I don't get it with you. Is it ignorance or apathy?" The player answered, "Coach, I don't know and I don't care." I think that describes clergy and elders in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who have enabled increasing apostasies. Another metaphor. The PCUSA reminds me of so many women and men on the beach down here in South Carolina. Do they ever look in the mirror before parading around? Bob Kopp Why the PCUSA appears to be dying August 24, 2007 This "missional church" business appears to answer the question as to why the Presbyterian Church (USA) appears to be dying." The answer lies in adherence to the maxim, "Doctrine divides, mission unites." Sidney L. Leak honorably retired Orange Beach, Ala. Approving pagans for ministry August 24, 2007 Mr. Stuart [Letters, August 23, 2007] does not identify the presbytery where this latest example of apostasy run amok was displayed. It really doesn't matter because I am certain (with the possible exception of San Diego) that this type of failure happens in all of them. I, and every other presbyter paying attention, has seen our presbyteries approve, ordain and install men and women who do not hold any essential beliefs in common with Reformed faith and practice. If you attend the oral parts of trial for a candidate and ask specific theological questions, you may well be castigated after the vote for being harsh or mean-spirited. I have experienced that for asking a candidate, "For who did Jesus die?" Her answer was entirely universalist: "Everyone who has ever lived." But what the heck, she was young and pleasant and friendly, so we passed her anyway. Mr. Stuart, the marks of the true church are where the Word is truly preached, the sacraments rightly administered and discipline is upheld; read your confessions. The apostasy you witnessed is possible because we do not exercise discipline. If you are really incensed about this, may I make a suggestion? As a witness to this, I urge you to bring an accusation against the candidate and to file a remedial action against the presbytery. Until we begin to hold apostate leadership accountable, they will continue to demean and destroy the denomination. Everything you need to know about how to do this is available to you in the Book of Order. You might also seek the counsel of others who are standing against apostasy by doing this, as well. Again, I want to make the point that, unless someone does something other than complain, nothing will change. Good luck. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Where God called me to serve Him more than 30 years ago August 24, 2007 As the "third minister" of Dave Ayers' comments, I am pleased that he still characterizes me as "evangelical through and through." Listening to some of the Quincy Evangelical Presbyterian Church folks, one would think there are no genuine Christians who want to stay in the Presbyterian Church (USA), so horribly apostate has it become. Contrary to what Dave thinks, however, I do understand fully why I find myself on my side of the "divide." Simply, put, it is where God called me to serve Him more than 30 years ago. I returned to college after becoming a Christian in the summer of 1973. A friend invited me to attend the Presbyterian church, and I was baptized there. I transferred to another college the following year and I found myself in one of the most liberal churches in the denomination. To my amazement, I came to realize that God did not want me to leave there and attend any of several churches where my Inter-Varsity and Campus Crusade friends attended. It was partly through my experience with the very liberal pastors there (and one's wife who later became a prominent liberal figure at the national level) that I sensed God's call to ordained ministry. I thought perhaps the Presbyterian Church (USA) needed pastors who believed in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Long story short, I now find myself watching some of those Bible-believing pastors desert our denomination at a time when we need them most. Not all the young evangelical ministers whom Dave finds exciting will leave with New Wineskins. And those who remain will be followed soon by the evangelical students who, I hear, are populating our seminaries in growing numbers. This gives me great hope for our denomination's future, for I know that many of them will work to help restore the PCUSA rather than leave for pastures on the other side of the fence. I left pastoral ministry in 1994, and I now teach high school science. In recent years, I have had opportunities to learn about God's creation in ways that stun the imagination. From the grandeur of the universe – with phenomena such as high-energy cosmic rays of unknown origins, black holes and quasars, billions of galaxies which are billions of light years away from us and each with millions and even billions of stars, down to the elegance of sub-atomic particles such as quarks and neutrinos and pions and muons – I have learned more of God's power and deity in creation than most people ever dream of. Even better, I have learned that all of these things comprise only five percent of the matter and energy in the universe; we haven't yet found the rest. But the God who loves us and gave His Son for us created all the universe, even the dark matter and dark energy we can't find, and He holds it all together with the Word of His power. This God is surely great enough to handle the problems of the PCUSA. I feel a bit sorry for those people whose understanding of God's sovereignty has shrunk to the point that they will not trust Him for the future of our denomination. If, as Dave says, "being connected with the EPC doesn't make much difference in our work for the Lord," then why bother with this leap of un-faith? God ordained me to serve him in the PCUSA even before I was ordained by the church; indeed, before I was formed in my mother's womb. And though I am no longer a pastor, I still serve Him there today, and probably will until I die. If that prevents reconciliation, it is not my doing. Darwin Smith Quincy, Ill. A response to the inquiry of First Presbyterian Church in Marion August 24, 2007 When I looked at the administrative commission to deal with this issue, I couldn't help but wonder if the representation should not have been different. I felt there should have been four lay members and three minister members instead of the reverse. Proper representation is one of the problems in the church today and many problems, including membership loss, results from the voice of the pew and pocketbook not being heard. We have many good legal minds among our elders, as well as knowledgeable church constitutional minds. I wonder just what the commission's expertise and backgrounds are? What qualifications do they have for this particular task that has been assigned to them? Who and on what basis were these people selected for what appears to be a no-win job? Joe Clark When will PCUSA elders reclaim the Biblical and Puritan insight? August 23, 2007 When will the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s elders reclaim the Biblical and Puritan insight to lead in the promotion of family worship? If teaching elders are to exposit the Scriptures and lead the congregation in prayer, doesn't that leave the other elders (ruling elders) to promote, teach and oversee the family worship? The 1647 (approximately) Westminster Directory of Family worship points to this need. Perhaps it should be reviewed. Chaplain Rev. Dr. Gene Sipprell Where was Great Rivers Presbytery? August 23, 2007 I must comment on several points made regarding First Presbyterian Church in Quincy, Ill., by the Rev. Jim Bell of Great Rivers Presbytery. (Forty-three years ago, when I was a student at Illinois State University, I attended what is now Rev. Bell's church, First Presbyterian Church in Normal, Ill. In 1964, from that pulpit, the Word was rightly proclaimed and the sacraments rightly administered. There was no doubt that Scripture was the holy and inerrant Word of God. Things have changed. Sadly, it appears that, today, the only book that counts is the Book of Order.) Point one. The presbytery complains that ". . . [after the June 24 vote to seek dismissal], we soon discovered that the New Wineskins Association of Churches, of which the Quincy congregation is an active member, had at its February 2007 meeting adopted a strategy plan entitled A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven. … One of two attorneys identified as authoring this report is Dennis Gorman, a member of session and leader in the move to realign with the EPC. … The existence of this strategic plan, and the fact that one of the QPC session members played a significant role in developing it, cast doubt that the session was acting entirely in good faith." About the recent discovery: If Great Rivers has a beef, it ought to be with its own situational awareness and with Louisville. They claim they were surprised to learn about A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven? Where were they? One wonders how much Great Rivers really cares about Quincy. How intimate was the presbytery's relationship with the church if it was only after the June 24 vote that they learned that Quincy was dissatisfied? While I would love to claim that I (with just a little help from my colleague and dear brother, Dennis) wrote and single-handedly sold A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven to the pastors and elders of the New Wineskins Association, it just isn't so! The suggestion that two lawyers (albeit pretty fair country lawyers) did this all on their own is ridiculous. Dennis Gorman and I were publicly identified with the New Wineskins strategy team as early as last Oct. 18, about two months after two watershed events occurred: "The Louisville Papers" were leaked to the media and the nine-member strategy team was staffed. The interim report (Exhibit B-3 to the final report), prepared by the entire team of six pastors and three elders, responded to "The Louisville Papers" and simply urged evangelical sessions and congregations to prepare themselves for sneak attacks by their presbyteries, such as that by Eastern Oklahoma Presbytery against Kirk of the Hills. Dennis and I agreed to be publicly identified in the report as points of contact, although the identity of the entire team was not, at that time, public knowledge out of a fear of reprisal by denominational leadership. The members of the team with whom I was privileged to serve are strong, faithful, loving, committed and God-fearing Christians. While we prepared our report, we prayed, studied Scripture, prayed, debated, prayed, exchanged drafts, prayed, argued over words and phrases, prayed, and finally presented a report that, after more prayer, debate and prayer, was unanimously adopted by an assemblage of pastors and elders who were, in their own right, scholars and faithful students of Scripture. (Did I mention that we prayed?) Moreover, those people in Louisville knew about the report last February. The Rev. Mark Tammen, author of one of "The Louisville Papers," attended the NWAC convocation and received a copy of A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven. He attended the workshops we presented. If Great Rivers was unaware that Dennis was one of the team members, if Great Rivers did not know what the report said, it ought to complain to Louisville for keeping yet another important document "secret." Of course, A Time for Every Purpose Under Heaven also was immediately available on The Layman Online and the NWAC Web site, and was referenced on Presbyweb and The Presbyterian Outlook, so Great Rivers also is remiss in failing to keep abreast on what was going on in the denomination. The claim of "surprise" is weak! Point two. Since when are "retired ministers of Word and Sacrament and another ordained PCUSA (sic) minister" members of a congregation? The Book of Order §G-10.0101 provides that they are members of the presbytery. How, then, can they be part of the "leadership" of the congregation if not called or elected by the congregation? Additionally, FPC Quincy remained in existence and clearly afforded them a means of "meeting their spiritual needs." That they chose not to accept the decision of the vast majority of the congregation is a matter of their personal choice. It is interesting that a denomination that has expressed no regret whatsoever that, due to the departures from Scripture and doctrine by the Presbyterian Church (USA) and its predecessors, 50,000 people a year in each of the past 40 years had to go elsewhere to "meet their spiritual needs" is now, suddenly, concerned that a few folks who are not even members of FPC Quincy nonetheless want to run the show. Point three. "But Bell said his administrative commission doesn't recognize or accept the Aug. 12 meeting and vote. He said it was illegal because an elder officiated rather than the pastor, and was out of order because it didn't follow Robert's Rules of Order." Let's look at these objections. An elder rather than the pastor moderated the congregational meeting. So what? The Book of Order §G-7.0306 provides: "The pastor shall be the moderator of all meetings of the congregation. . . . When this is not expedient, and when both the pastor or the moderator of the session and the session concur, a member of the session may be invited to preside." When expedience requires it, a member of the session may preside with the concurrence of the pastor and the session. Well, the pastor and session concurred. The arm of the presbytery that would be the first source of an alternate moderator had broken off communication with the session and congregation and had announced that it intended to propose that the congregation be dissolved so that the presbytery could confiscate the congregation's property. Who were they going to appoint as moderator? Someone who would consider the interests of the congregation or a puppet that would serve only the interests of the presbytery? Expedience clearly demanded the action approved by the pastor and session. He also objects, "[I]t didn't follow Robert's Rules of Order." Again, I say, "So what?" The congregation adopted a comparable procedure, as permitted by the Book of Order. The Book of Order §G-7.0302c provides: "All meetings of the congregation shall be conducted in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order, or a comparable parliamentary authority adopted by the congregation, except in those cases where this Constitution provides otherwise." In the end, this is all the fault of the presbytery. FPC Quincy actually tried to play by the denomination's rules. They asked to be dismissed, even though they could have constitutionally exercised the permissive powers of the congregation and simply disaffiliated. When the presbytery realized that it could not prevail – it changed the rules. Now that the congregation has responded in its own self-defense, the presbytery cries, "Foul." Shame on the presbytery. Michael R. "Mac" McCarty A response to Jay Weemhoff August 23, 2007 I thank Jay Weemhoff [Letters, August 14, 2007] for his comments about my recent letter. He was too kind in noting: "Yes, Earl Apel is a gift, may he live long and well, continuing to share his thoughts so that we might be aware of the path that leads to destruction and thereby know what path we should not take." Christ made all of us aware of noting what paths led to destruction. I'm glad to have this awareness and helping others such as Mr. Weemhoff realize this. Earl Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Presbytery approves candidate who doesn't affirm ordination questions August 23, 2007 Hebrews 3: 6: "But Christ is faithful as a son over God's house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast." I couldn't believe what happened at our presbytery meeting yesterday. A candidate for the ministry made, what I believe to be, two apostate statements and still had her call upheld! In front of everyone, she stated that she wouldn't be bound by the Scriptures, and that Christ was not the only redeemer of humankind. I asked her directly if she believed Jesus to be the sole Redeemer of the world, to which she answered, "I would hesitate to say that.That would be putting God in too small a box for me." So, it's okay to put Jesus in a small box? It's all right to diminish His Lordship and ministry of salvation? When did we start to become Deists and Universalists in the Presbyterian Church (USA)? What are they teaching our candidates for ministry at seminary? Why is it that no one sees the link between accepting Universalist pastors into our pulpits and the decline of church membership? The first Christians were surrounded by thousands of pagan gods and idols. Do we honestly think that if Jesus was just a localized, personalized redeemer that His earliest of followers would have allowed themselves to become martyrs? Do we really believe that first century Christians refused to say "Caesar is Lord" before Roman authorities and be led to savage deaths in the Coliseum if they thought that salvation could be found outside of Christianity? They knew that, to be in and of the house of Christ, they had to hold on to their courage in the face of cruelty and terrifying persecution. We have become so Biblically illiterate, so theologically ignorant and so arrogantly apostate that we don't see ourselves becoming blatantly heretical through wanting to be culturally sophisticated and religiously tolerant. Our need to be liked and courteous is leading us down a narcissistic path that takes us outside of God's Kingdom and Christ's household. Unless we put the brakes on this apostasy now, unless we draw lines of belief in the sand, the Presbyterian Church (USA) is going to continue to die. God will not bless or honor that which does not honor His Son. We need to seriously start reading the Bible again and stop using it as a pathetic panacea to ease our consciences. We need to understand that Christianity is not a leisure pursuit that we shape to fit our lives. We need to recognize that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation; the only way, truth and life; and that our work in the world, according to the first stated end of the Church in our current Book of Order, is to preach the Gospel in order to save humankind. I am fed up to the core with faithless statements and false ideas. I am a sinner saved by Christ alone, whose work of salvation saves the world alone. There is no other name given to humanity under heaven that can save the earth. There is no other Savior than Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus, please stop the church from wounding itself by giving up age-old beliefs about you. Grant us the courage to stand up to those who would diminish your ministry and devalue your Gospel. We are all sinners in need of saving. We are all imperfect in need of redemption. Help us to do what is right and not what we think to be right. John Stuart Agitation in the PCUSA August 21, 2007 Letter writer and Presbyterian Church in America member Mark Merrill [Letters, August 17, 2007] suggests to the Memorial Park Church member that Matthew 10 may supply the most appropriate response to the Presbyterian Church (USA). While it may be that Mr. Merrill believes he has "shaken the dust off his feet," he seems to still be hanging around the edges of town when he directs a letter to a PCUSA member in an online publication that claims as its primary mission the consideration of issues in the PCUSA. If Mr. Merrill truly and honestly believes that Matthew 10 is applicable, he should read on to see that things will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for the object of his dust shaking, and perhaps he should learn to stop turning around lest he risk becoming a sodium chloride Presbyterian. Much as I often find the message transmitted through The Layman Online unhelpful and objectionable, it appears that I also find it difficult to stop myself from responding on occasion to what seems to me to be a pattern of encouraging conflict in the PCUSA by and through individuals in other denominations. (And whatever complaints I have about The Layman, they do have the virtue that they seem to publish letters from anyone, even letters from someone such as me.) Recently, I felt compelled to respond to a letter from another PCA member who was harshly critical of the PCUSA and our stated clerk, Clifton Kirkpatrick, for what the letter writer called "silence" regarding the Korean hostage crisis. I cited the very public, visible and clear ways that Kirkpatrick and the PCUSA had responded while, in fact, it was the letter writer's own denomination that appeared to have been silent. Earlier this year, another letter writer said in reference to the Virginia Tech tragedy that, "These people were killed by a lapsed Presbyterian. These are precisely the type of Presbyterians produced by the activists in the PCUSA." A letter from me pointing out that the student gunman had, in fact, been a member of a PCA congregation elicited a response from the original writer (not a PCA member this time) saying I had not read his letter carefully and still somehow insisting that it was legitimate to associate the Va. Tech events with the so-called "warped morals" of PCUSA policies. For an example beyond the letter writers, consider that The Layman Online provides links to newspaper columnist Mike McManus whenever he writes something condemning the PCUSA, but one can find no evidence that Mr. McManus has ever written a column about the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, of which he is a member. The Layman Online has lately become one of the conduits through which the EPC is trolling for congregations. One hesitates to use that word and I certainly would not if the EPC were merely welcoming congregations through its presbyteries when those congregations feel compelled to seek a new home. But setting up a special administrative structure because the congregations being wooed may find attitudes in the existing presbyteries incompatible with their own belief and practice really seems like bad form. We in the PCUSA are attempting to have serious discussions about serious issues. Individuals from outside the PCUSA with something constructive to contribute should be welcome, but I would encourage those with other purposes to instead tend to their own issues. David Carothers Harrisonburg, Va. Editor's Note: As part of its news and informational ministry, The Layman Online publishes a wide range of material regarding the Presbyterian Church (USA) and, within the larger context, the Protestant mainline denominations. The Layman Online publishes the facts of these stories as an informational service to its readers and to provide a larger picture of what is taking place across the denomination. The Layman Online, as in the case of Mr. Carothers, welcomes letters from its readers commenting on those issues. Gathering continues to push unity at all costs August 21, 2007 The Gathering continues to push unity at all costs, as evidenced by your commentary, "Token or truth? Staff changes in Louisville invite questions of substance." Your story discusses the address of "evangelical" Tom Taylor, and uses it to illustrate the Coalition's position that, all of a sudden, the Louisville leopard has changed its spots and decided to welcome we evangelicals, so presumably we can all now stand down from confronting Louisville further. But recall that when elected as General Assembly moderator, Jack Rogers claimed the title of evangelical. So also does the head of the socialist Sojourners organization, Jim Wallis. Louisville has always known what we so often forget: words matter. Lest we become like the frog who believed the chef who told him it was just warm bathwater, consider what type of "evangelical" it is who the Presbyterian Church (USA) quotes thusly in its Office of Communications Press Release last December 8th (#06655) in announcing his appointment:
Paul Rolf Jensen general counsel Westminster Fellowship, Inc. 'We have been driven too widely apart' August 20, 2007 I read [Rev. Joan Gray's] article bemoaning the failure of Presbyteries to adopt the second recommendation of the PUP report. Allow me to offer one possible reason for this situation, Madame Moderator. We have been riven too widely apart. There are far too many people in our denomination worshiping their own ideology and their own images for us to be able to bridge the chasm. In absolute candor, I could not in good conscience sit down and discuss and worship with some of those in our denomination who proudly and loudly proclaim their apostasy and heresies – and, yet, are permitted free reign to run amok. Just as an example, I have zero interest in anything that John Shuck might have to say on any subject related to faith. He holds ordination as a minister of Word and sacrament and, yet, he publicly makes statements such as this:
In an ethical presbytery where our fellowship was truly honored, Mr. Shuck and others like him would be facing discipline. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. What's a conversation? August 20, 2007 I just finished reading Moderator Joan Gray's "Where's the conversation?" and, not to boast, I am happy to report that I was subsequently able to claim a fruit of the Spirit which oft eludes me – self-control. May I note, with pleasure, that I did not, upon finishing her missive, clench my teeth until they bled, utter any guttural primordial noises, scream, curse, injure a nearby living thing, nor did I grab my lapels and rip my jacket away without first removing it from my shoulders. I took a deep breath and clicked on the happy little red link on your navigation bar that says, invitingly, "E-Mail Us." So, here goes. What kind of Mary Poppins, The Brady Bunch, 60-beats-per-minute, Christian-light, if-you-were-only-more-like-me, bizzaro world is this woman living in? Hey, Joan. Joan! JOAN! Read "The Louisville Papers!" No, Joan, not the Louisville paper, not The Courier-Journal. Read "The Louisville Papers" that your loving, lawyerly brethren prepared like CentCom planning the mother of all "Shock and Awe." These documents are doing to your denomination what I wanted to do to my sport coat and, at last report, you haven't really … oh, I don't know … looked at them. Let them eat cake, right? After 13 months, I'm pleased to report your credibility is shot. Come on, you can buy Hillary's Listening Tour in a box at any CYA store. Cliff and Cronies did the same thing before the last General Assembly. They went from church to church and got beat up, then returned to the ivory tower and pronounced everything right with the world. The truth? Forgetaboutit. The truth was the people in the pews told him they have had it with Cliff, with agenda-burdened moderators – with people like Bishop Muskens and Edwin Andrade, pastor of Hispano-Latino Ministries; Riverside Presbyterian Church, Sterling, Va.; Phil Butin, pastor of Shepherd of the Valley Presbyterian Church, Albuquerque N.M., now president and professor of theology at San Francisco Theological Seminary; Daniel Migliore, professor of theology at Princeton Theological Seminary; Sung Wook Chung, assistant professor of theology at Denver Seminary; Amy Plantinga Pauw, professor of theology at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary; Rebecca Button Prichard, moderator/pastor of Tustin Presbyterian Church, Tustin, Calif.; Cynthia L. Rigby, professor of theology at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary; N'Yisrela Watts-Afriyie, contract staff, Synod of Southern California and Hawaii, and candidate for minister of Word and sacrament; Presbytery of the Pacific; Rebecca Harden Weaver, professor of church history at Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education in Richmond, Va.; and Charles Wiley, associate for theology, Office of Theology and Worship – who worked like busy little progressive Presbyterians for five years prior to our last General Assembly (from my keyboard to God's ears) on a way to make God seem more like mother nature, or us humans, or something beside who He really says He is. Not to mention that He also clearly said not to mess with the name. Amen. Don't you dare challenge any presbyteries with a passionless plot line like, "Let's all sit down and hold hands … and just talk." There is a consensus out there and you don't get it. There was conversation, plenty of it. I just don't think the moderator heard it. Jack O'Brien elder Beverly Heights Church Pittsburgh, Pa. More conversation? August 20, 2007 In regard to Joan Gray "wondering" where the conversation is taking place: To do what the PUP task force did, those with the time and willingness to do so, would have to: 1. Meet most of the time behind closed doors beyond public scrutiny. 2. Use materials poorly designed for obedience to historic Christian principles or Scripture. 3. Predominantly rely on our feelings and popular culture. 4. Represent a variety of theological worldviews, some of which are not historically Christian. 5. Believe that we are to direct the entire church via our work as professional "managers." All five of those options were and are highly touted. Basically, they are not helpful in either making disciples or obeying the plain commands of Jesus Christ. Dialogue prepared this way is highly overrated, and so is this type of "directed" conversation. Todd Bensel commissioned lay pastor Pilot Rock, Ore. 'Our movement suffers from lackluster leadership' August 20, 2007 The puny attendance at the latest Presbyterian Coalition conference to re-arrange the deck chairs on the Titanic – as reported by you in "You told us you wanted to see more unity in renewal work" – well illustrates the miserable failure of the Coalition's "We want to be liked" leadership. The undeniable fact remaining is that the Coalition is a paper tiger that has never accomplished anything of value.
Paul Rolf Jensen general counsel Westminster Fellowship, Inc. David Medeiros misses the point August 20, 2007 David Medeiros [Letters, August 15, 2007] excoriates Nancy Dean for leaving her Presbyterian Church (USA) church, saying she was only in it for what she could get; that she should have stayed and worked for change. I think he misses her point (which she may not have expanded on). I worked for change, tried to get my session to take a stand against the left-wing denomination – all to no avail. I am sure there were some who strongly disagreed with me, but most of the congregation seemed to know little or nothing about the denomination's actions – and really didn't want to know! It was as if they believed that none of it could affect them anyway. So, I resigned my membership to prevent any money from going to Louisville in my name (still attending, since my wife can't desert some elderly ladies in the UPW which she heads and she loves them dearly). Medeiros leaves no room for Nancy Dean's having tried. Besides, her decision is a very personal one. It's sort of arrogant to criticize her so strongly. Fred Edwards To go or to stay August 20, 2007 It seems to me that there is one essential consideration in the decision on whether to leave a church, and that is whether it is effective in teaching the Gospel to the next generation. If it is ineffective, then our children may be forever lost and, in addition, we will produce no new members of the church to witness to the true Gospel. When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, they were warned that they would lose their children if they failed to teach them properly. They ignored the warning and it took only one generation for them to fall away. Remember that we have only have one generation to get it right. Marge White A response to Patterson's talk on trifling with truth August 20, 2007 I thank you for Parker Williamson's article on Mark Patterson's talk. I found the illustration of the Einstein-Heisenberg conversation interesting, but dangerous. As physicists have long known, Heisenberg spoke the truth, not Einstein. Einstein was wrong about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but he was correct about the effect of his theory on traditionalists. Sometimes, those whom we oppose may have a part of the truth we also need to hear. Jay Wilkins pastor Trinity Presbyterian Church Berwyn, Pa. I can see Jesus smile as you reveal the 'PCUSA's dirty little secret' August 17, 2007 I can almost see the smile on the face of Jesus as you followed Proverbs 31:8 and spoke up for those who cannot speak for themselves. If, as you state, "… the official stance of the (Presbyterian) denomination permits, for almost any reason, infanticide…," then shame on us. There is much this old sinner doesn't know, but I do know Jesus is pro-life! Can you see the tear in His eye as He looks down upon this "catastrophic moral failure." You point out that, "The continued sanctioning of abortion by the Presbyterian Church (USA) separates us from the Christian community worldwide." I would go further and suggest it separates us from Jesus. The issue is not about choice, but about bloodshed – and the truth is abortion kills children. As Justice Kennedy pointed out in his recent majority opinion, we kill 1,300,000 of our, and God's, children every year in America. This is evil as affirmed by the applause from hell! Mother Teresa was right when she said, "Abortion is really a war against the child, murder by the mother herself." And the truth is that the real war America is fighting is not only in Iraq, but here in America – as the rivers of blood continue to run through our streets as we kill 3,500 children every day. How sad that the most dangerous place in the world for many unborn children is in their mothers' womb. Ecclesiastes 3:1 points out that there is a time for everything. It is way beyond time for Presbyterians, and all Protestants, to expose the American holocaust of abortion. Currently, the silence is deafening. But it is this issue that I believe God will use to start to unite American Catholics and Protestants. We need to quit talking about our differences and focus on what we have in common and the truth that we both love the same Jesus. And as Catholics are rightfully standing up for all unborn children, it is time for Protestants to understand the seriousness of God's warning to us in Ezekiel 3 and 33. We are to be watchmen on the wall and cry out against this ultimate child abuse. "Death Roe" needs to be overturned and we need to provide equal rights to all unborn children. If you want to know where Jesus is working and join Him there, stand outside an abortion clinic, a killing field, and you will have visited a modern-day Calvary where innocent lives are still being killed. And if you listen closely, as her mother walks by, you just might hear a little girl whisper, "I am endowed by my Creator with the inalienable right to life. Like you, I am an American, too." I pray, in the name above all names and because of His blood, that in all Christian hearts the Holy Spirit will fill us with a white-hot inner flame of holy discontent. Amen. Terry McDermott Sacramento, Calif. Thank you for raising awareness August 17, 2007 Thank you to The Layman for your work in awareness raising! I could not help but respond to my sister in Christ, Marie Bowen, of Memorial Park Church in Pittsburgh, Pa. [Letters, May 23, 2007]. She echoes the many voices that I have heard over the past several years regarding staying in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I do understand her conviction to stay and "fight the good fight." I also sympathize with her "feelings" of "profound abandonment" by those who have left. I would offer up, however, that "feelings" are not what should guide us but, rather, the Scriptures must be a "lamp unto our feet and light unto our paths." I am reminded in Scripture that our Lord Jesus sent out His disciples to proclaim the Gospel and instructed his disciples in this way: Matthew 10:14: "If anyone will not listen to your words shake the dust off your feet when you leave that town." Mark 6:11: "… shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them." In Acts 18, we find that the Apostle Paul, on every Sabbath, "reasoned in the synagogue" trying to persuade Jews and Greeks. When they rejected his message, Paul "shook out his clothes in protest" and said to them, "Your blood be on your own heads! I am clear of my responsibility." While I have many dear brothers and sisters in the Lord who are still in the PCUSA, I chose to "shake the dust off my feet" after years of "reasoning in the synagogue" have gone unheeded. R.E. Mark Merrill Back Creek Church (PCA) Mount Ulla, N.C. The Layman is a vital and trusted source of information August 17, 2007 I was fortunate to be introduced to your publication through my church, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) located in Somerset, Pa. The Layman is a vital and trusted source of information that I value greatly as a resource in these troubled times within our current denomination, particularly since I am relatively new to the Presbyterian church itself. I also value and look forward to reading the other faith-based articles you present as I deepen my faith walk. Rae Ann Weaver Listie, Pa. About electing a new stated clerk August 17, 2007 The Layman Online on August 8, 2007, in reference to electing the stated clerk at the 2008 General Assembly, reported the following:
However, with the liberal lefties controlling the denomination, the same is and will not be the case. The liberal lefties denying the Bible are neurotic, always fearing the truth because liberalism denies Biblical truth and the process to know truth. The liberal lefties will do anything to restrict the free process of electing a new stated clerk by manipulating the process of electing their own kind to further destroy what is left of the PCUSA. While the denomination is suffering a loss of membership and churches, nothing new will be proposed to stop the bleeding because liberalism is bankrupt of truth. Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. A response regarding the Plymouth Compact August 17, 2007 At the risk of being deemed a Presby-geek, I wanted to make a note regarding James Logan's letter [Letters, August 15, 2007] about the Plymouth Compact. He quoted Peter Marshall as saying that the Puritans' covenant was the first covenant between free men and God since the days of ancient Israel. This isn't actually the case. America was trumped by Scotland and her Presbyterian Church. Your readers might like to know that for those of us who are Reformed and Presbyterian, the more important covenant was that made in Scotland in 1557, when Scottish noblemen signed a covenant swearing allegiance to the Reformed, Presbyterian faith as opposed to that of Rome and the Roman Catholic tyrant Mary of Guise, who then ruled Scotland. This began a series of covenants that eventually led to the Solemn League and Covenant of 1638, in which the entire Kingdom of Scotland dedicated itself and the Kirk of Scotland to Christ's Crown and Covenant. The whole kingdom was thereby dedicated to the Reformed faith, for which a great many Scottish saints would die. Thus it was that the Presbyterians stood up to royal, papal and Episcopal tyranny and set the example that would later be imitated in the American colonies, when the Presbyterian Rev. John Witherspoon so influenced the course of the Revolution that The Times of London opined that, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson." It was the heritage of the Scottish Presbyterians, and not the English Puritans, that set the course for the American Republic. (Ever wonder why many states' legislatures are called by the name, "General Assembly?") I would heartily commend to all of your readers a study of the witness and suffering of our theological forebears, the Covenanters. A good book to begin with might be Dane Love's Scottish Covenanter Stories, a sort of Foxe's Book of Martyrs for Scotland's Reformation. Rev. Austin Olive Pastor Faith Evangelical Presbyterian Church Covington, La. |
|
| August
2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |