 |
|
| December
2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Heartland
should be called 'Heartless Presbytery' December 31, 2007 Are you sure it's Heartland Presbytery? Perhaps, if you look closer, it's Heartless Presbytery. At least it sounds heartless to me. Howard Fogle Katonah, N.Y. A reply to the letter by Robert Smith December 31, 2007 I have a slightly different take on the building fund request discussed in Robert Smith's letter [Letters, December 28, 2007]. Is there, perhaps, a conflict of interest here? The session of a congregation that had properly withheld its per capita is summarily replaced by the presbytery and its administrative commission. That session had offered to assume the responsibility for a nearly $1,000,000 mortgage on its property, which offer was rejected by the presbytery. The pastor was fired. The vast majority of the membership departed. The presbytery, which had guaranteed a nearly $1,000,000 mortgage, is now faced with having to pay it off from a much diminished membership base. The administrative commission, acting as the session of the congregation, puts as its very first priority the protection of the presbytery's interests. Not the mission of the church, not worship, but collecting money to bail out the presbytery. And they have the temerity to accuse the old session of being unable to manage wisely the affairs of the congregation? If I were a member of the congregation, I would not have much confidence in my appointed "session." Michael R. McCarty Downingtown, Pa. Prayer for peace, unity and purity December 31, 2007 The subject of this transmittal is basically the inspiration for the detrimental division at Paola. While I certainly dislike the so-called PUP report of the denomination, the ideas behind these three words, separate from that report, need to be in the hearts of leaders on all sides. As it stands, we have about 90 or so remaining with an excellent facility, with a large loan and questionable leadership. On the other side, we have one of the most evangelistic pastors ever produced in modern times by the Presbyterian denomination, with about 300 supporters and no real suitable facility. The myriad of programs promulgated by this group will no doubt suffer. Paola is a community with serious drug problems, youth need direction and salvation, the elderly need help and fellowship. While it is a commuter town, it does have heart. Further complicating the fiasco caused by Heartland Presbytery is the fact that somewhere in this mess is the ownership of the old Paola High School, which the B.O.E. sold to the church on the basis of some sound community promises for future use. That showed the heart of the community. What will become of the promises made to the community in regard to this building? I cannot help but question whether the presbytery, beyond looking at their personal vendettas with Pastor Johnston, have thought of the community needs this church was beginning to fill. I would ask and pray that leaders in all three groups, Paola Presbyterian Church, Lighthouse Church and Heartland Presbytery consider the prohibitions against judgment, the need to pray for our enemies and the need to give our cloak to someone who wants our coat - the most important laws one and two laid out by Jesus Himself. I believe Kirk is trying his best in these areas. Leadership, let's make this work for the furtherance of the Gospel. John West Hillsdale, Kan. 'Shame on Heartland Presbytery!' December 28, 2007 Shame on Heartland Presbytery! They should change their name because there certainly is no heart demonstrated by this presbytery. Elizabeth Hickman A response regarding Heartland Presbytery's actions December 28, 2007 Can somebody tell me how God was glorified on Dec. 18 in Heartland Presbytery? Fred Hoaglin elder Providence Presbyterian Church Hilton Head Island, S.C. Case in Heartland Presbytery an illustration of 'the needy' December 28, 2007 In reference to "Presbytery defrocks suspended pastor of Kansas church that voted to leave PCUSA:" I note that the First Presbyterian Church of Paola's Web site contains a link to the December 12th "Messenger," which updates the happenings at the congregation. In that issue, the announcement is made – with great fanfare in a very public manner – that some named individuals have put forth a large amount of money to set up a matching gift to challenge others to raise the money to pay off the mortgage for the church building. Certainly enough funding to have paid off any "per capita" not paid by the church. The donors and the amounts are displayed for all to see. There is nothing wrong with "challenge giving" or in having a "matching funds campaign," but to announce the donors' names and amounts in public? ... especially such extraordinary amounts? What does the Gospel say about such public and prideful giving? Will the "big" donors get a special pew named after them? Will they earn a special place in heaven? Not according to our Lord. Matthew 6: 1-4: "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." [NIV] It does seem the First Presbyterian Church of Paola, its administrative commission and Heartland Presbytery are indeed needy ... perhaps not so much needy for money as they are needy for the humility, wisdom and discernment of the will of the Father as expressed through His only Son, Jesus Christ. Perhaps they have received their reward, but I will continue to pray for their repetance of such hubris and their ultimate understanding of how grievously they have offended Him. Robert Smith Pittsburgh, Pa. 'Thoughts and heartfelt prayers' for the Paola congregation December 27, 2007 My thoughts and heartfelt prayers are offered to the Paola congregation in Kansas. You are commended for your faithfulness. Pastor Johnston has obviously humbly followed the mandate of I Peter 5:2-3 – "shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock." The actions of Heartland Presbytery are not unique. I have seen these same sorts of tactics in my own presbytery (Western North Carolina) and I can say many times that I did not see God present in the actions of the leadership or many of the voting members. The meetings continue to be empty and often profane. The root of the problem in both our presbyteries and in this and other denominations is not politics or little differences of opinion, but rather the straying away from the solid foundation of God's authoritative Word. In his commentary on the Book of Daniel, John Calvin wrote: "… the devil so fascinates men's minds that they remain obstinately fixed in the errors which they have assimilated. … on the appearance of the signal, they directly fall down and adore the golden statue. Hence we may learn to reflect upon our own character, as in a mirror, with the view of submitting ourselves to God's Word, and of being immovable in the right faith, and of standing unconquered in our consistency, whatever kings may command. Although a hundred deaths may threaten us, they must not weaken our faith … especially … as we are far too prone to vicious and perverse modes of worship." Those who know God's Word – who stand, who preach and teach even when the message goes forth to an unfavorable audience – do not lose heart. Emmanuel is here; God is with us. Cindy Coleman 'A blessed Christmas season' December 27, 2007 To all those beleaguered souls who minister through – or are ministered to by – the Lay Committee: Come the new year, there will be struggles aplenty, as we strive to reform our beloved western Reformed church from the ravages wrought upon it by the disciples of naturalism (and, hiding behind them, our much more ancient enemies – the world, the flesh and the Devil). But for now, I'd like to take this opportunity to wish my fellow reformers a blessed Christmas season. May the ancient tradition of celebrating Christ's birth be used by Providence to work in you a refreshing of "the peace that passes all understanding" so that, as you take up the Spirit's sword again, you may do so in His joy. Grace to you and yours this Christmas season. Rev. Russ Westbrook teaching elder Riverside Presbyterian Church, PCA A commentary on the 'blame game' in Heartland Presbytery December 26, 2007 It completely amazes me that there are those who are convinced that Pastor A. Kirk Johnston deceived and convinced 300 people to leave the building they've loved and the denomination that they've served for many years. Cheryl Keimig [Letters, December 18, 2007] comments: "Why force someone to stay if he/she is so displeased with our denomination that they publicly do everything they can to sway an entire congregation to leave?" A currently active member of the FPC Paola congregation addresses the moderator (and the crowd) stating, "I'm very sorry that he (Kirk) chose to come and disrupt our congregation and take away very many of my dear friends." Let me give you a few obvious strikes against the Presbyterian Church (USA) – and I found these on my own, thanks: The PCUSA Web site posts its "What we believe" series about the Bible:
We've made this choice for ourselves, thanks. The "blame game" won't satisfy. Ryan DeBok youth pastor Lighthouse Presbyterian Church Paola, Kan. The archbishop of Canterbury December 26, 2007 Today's Drudge Report quotes from the archbishop, who questions the details of Jesus'birth. Hard to believe a high-level Christian leader would consider much of the Bible account of Jesus birth a "legend." Ben Vernon People have 'strong feelings about per-capita giving' December 21, 2007 I was concerned to read Parker Williamson's commentary attacking Brian Ellison for a number of reasons. My initial trouble comes with the notion that there is some kind of vendetta based solely on per-capita giving. I served for many years on my previous presbytery's Budget, Property and Finance Committee and I remember specifically when the Heartland Presbytery case came up. I believe it dealt more with churches requesting denominational loans with favorable rates while at the same time withholding per capita. I know many of the people who read this site have very strong feelings about per-capita giving. However, I believe there is a certain level of hypocrisy when a church asks the denomination for a loan and then fails to support it through per-capita giving. I was also troubled by the tone of Williamson's article. Do you really think it is appropriate to use phrases like "Yuletide lynching?" I wonder what crusaders like Ida B. Wells would say to your cavalier use of such an offensive comment. Williamson seems to fancy himself a wordsmith, but the only thing he is drumming up through this hateful rhetoric is the reader's anger. Perhaps that was the point of using volatile speech and leaving out important facts about the initial case. I have never met Parker Williamson, but I do know Brian Ellison and am blessed to call him my friend. He is a faithful servant of the Gospel and a generous soul. He is not the pope of Heartland Presbytery nor the bishop of the COM. I do not believe it is right, fair or even accurate to single him out in this commentary. I believe it speaks much more about the writer's heart than anything else. Rev. Dave Burgess pastor First Presbyterian Church Eufaula, Ala. Editor's Note: The Layman Online stands by the commentary. Heartland Presbytery 'nearly criminal in its spite and cruelty' December 20, 2007 Regarding Heartland's defense by Cheryl Keimig [Letters, December 18, 2007]: I am sure Rev. Johnston, his spouse and family are all greatly pleased that the folks in Heartland were able to expedite his departure from the denomination in the middle of the Advent season. I wonder how long it would take to find pastors who deny basic beliefs, as well as the essential tenets of the Reformed tradition, who have never been disciplined. I wonder that it has already taken and will take many, many years before any special presbytery meeting would be called to defrock one of them. I agree that we on the outside have a hard time knowing all the facts, but all of us know how hard it is generally to get a special meeting called to accomplish any task – but there seems no problem getting together the whole presbytery to hammer this man and his family during this Christmas season for the gross error of preaching without proper permission. Is two weeks really too long to have waited? I don't doubt that every jot and tittle of the law is being obeyed in Heartland and it is still nearly criminal in its spite and cruelty. Merry Christmas Heartland! Rev. Bill Crawford pastor First Presbyterian Church of Thibodaux Thibodaux, La. A reply to the letter by Cheryl Keimig December 20, 2007 I'm afraid that Cheryl Keimig [Letters, December 18, 2007] completely misunderstands the "voluntary" nature of per-capita giving and the relationship which exists between a particular church and a presbytery. A particular church is the actual organic body, while a presbytery is an artificial construct designed to foster common ministry and mission within a geographic boundary. Far too often we have taken a "top down" view of the presbytery – for example, treating executive presbyters like bishops and the pastors and people of the local churches as underlings whose sole reason for existence is to serve the presbytery. In many ways, it reminds me of colonial America where all the resources flowed out toward mother England and very little flowed in to support the actual people who settled the land. Perhaps it is time to realistically assess what benefits a particular church receives from its presbytery. Ms. Keimig is also incorrect in stating that there are "... other avenues to utilize as an expression of displeasure with our governing body." The fact is that evangelicals can protest until they are blue in the face and watch as overture after overture is shot down, never to see the light of day. Everyone knows "polity-wise" the deck is stacked against evangelicals. The one card they hold is per capita and the refusal to fund initiatives and, in some cases, an organization seen as godless and in complete variance with God's will revealed in Jesus Christ. So, when the "hopes of the mission of Heartland Presbytery are not realized" because per-capita revenue is insufficient, perhaps it is time for Heartland Presbytery to re-evaluate its hopes and the direction of its mission. If not, it will continue to see a decline in per-capita revenue and its ministry and mission become increasingly irrelevant. We should also note Ms. Keimig's gracious invitation for those in disagreement to leave the denomination. How kind of her and the members of Heartland Presbytery to essentially tell a faithful minister like Kirk Johnston, with over 15 years of service and who apparently followed the Book of Order in requesting dismissal to another Reformed body, that if he doesn't like it he can just leave. Perhaps while Ms. Keimig is enjoying Christmas with her friends and family she can reflect a little on the draconian tactics of a presbytery that has left Rev. Johnston and his family in a very vulnerable position this holy season. But that may be asking too much. My own experiences have led me to believe that folks like this are basically devoid of conscience and care very little about the suffering they themselves have caused because they can salve their consciences by putting up a display about some peace initiative in "Timbuktu" at the next presbytery meeting. I would be happy to send Ms. Keimig a copy of my 2003 GAPJC decision on per capita (Minihan and Richards vs. Scioto Valley Presbytery). Perhaps she could learn something about the nature of per capita and also about the concurrent responsibilities a presbytery owes the churches it serves. Rev. Dr. John C. Minihan First Presbyterian Church Newark, Ohio A reply regarding liberal theology December 20, 2007 I have read with growing interest your letters to the editor regarding both conservative and liberal theologians protesting that both hold to the "Authority of the Scriptures and the Lordship of Jesus Christ." Would one of your Layman theologians write an article on the word and concept of "deconstructionism" as it applies to affirmation of doctrines and commonly understood theological truth and time-honored definitions? Do we see today a subtle, but pronounced, shift in "definitions of theological terms" rather than an actual shift in theological doctrine? Does this result in the phenomenon of both camps using the same theological words, but not having the same definition or picture in both the minds? Same words, different definitions. Bill Solomon executive pastor Montreat EPC The root of the problem December 20, 2007 I see that Mr. Apel [Letters, December 17, 2007] responded to my letter [December 12, 2007], asking and stating: "What does Mr. Perry mean by the bodily Resurrection? I do believe in the spiritual Resurrection of Jesus. I always thought that was one of the points of Christianity was that our spirit will be resurrected in the end. Scripture doesn't even support the idea of the body being resurrected. It is the soul. We may have new bodies in the end, but it is not the same body we have on this earth." If Scripture doe not even support the idea of the body being resurrected, I would suggest that the Office of the General assembly recall all copies of The Book of Confessions. The Book of Confessions has an entire section on the resurrection of the body and references those creeds and confessions that state just that. In further error, The Shorter and Longer Catechism give Scriptural references to support the resurrection of the body. However, I don't think that will be necessary because I may have discovered the root of the problem! In reviewing Mr. Apel's letter [Letters, December 18, 2007] to Rev. Yearsley, he said: "Mr. Yearsley also comments on my words about communion and the decomposition of Jesus and His being like fertilizer to our faith. He notes: "Uh ... what? Where is the Scriptural support of this sophistry? Which confessional statement illuminates it? Where do you get this kind of nonsense? If this is the doctrine you are learning in your particular congregation, it is clearly not a Reformed body, either that, or perhaps it is guilty of malpractice." Well, all I can say is my thoughts on this are simply based on my own life experience as a human and Christian." Well, there's your problem! In Orthodox and Reformed Christianity, the theology starts with the sovereignty of God and the infallible Word of God. In the understanding of Orthodox and Reformed Christianity, humankind "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23) or, as understood in Reformed theology, the doctrine known as total depravity. To start one's theology from one's own life experience as a human, we would have to presume that humanity is basically good. When theology starts with life and human experiences, then all experiences are individual and therefore acceptable, equal and all is permissible as long as it does not offend or hurt anybody. I must agree with Rev. Yearsley – to engage in these discussions is pointless and a waste of time and energy. When you base your "theology" on life experiences as a human, you continue to prove my previous statement on liberal theology having much in common with gnosticism and little to do with Christianity. The True Church stands on the sovereignty of God and God's infallible Word without apology, and I shall stand firm with the True Church. Rev. David Perry Flat Branch Presbyterian Church Bunnlevel, N.C. The actions of Heartland Presbytery are 'wholly unpersuasive' December 19, 2007 I find the letter [Letters, December 18, 2007] by Cheryl Keimig, attempting to justify the behavior of the Heartland Presbytery Committee on Ministry (plus the Administrative Commission of the First Presbyterian Church of Paola) to be wholly unpersuasive. Indeed, I would say that her letter lends support to one of the contentions in Parker Williamson's commentary on this matter, that there is a degree of retaliation in the actions taken against the Rev. Kirk Johnston. Keimig is clearly upset about the refusal of First Presbyterian Church of Paola to remit per capita. Strangely, she confuses payment of per capita with paying taxes to the U.S. government. She seems to wish that the General Assembly's Permanent Judicial Commission had never affirmed ... over and over ... that per-capita payment is voluntary on the part of the session, and that it cannot be coerced. While she cannot change the GAPJC's decision, she can lash out against Kirk Johnston, and so can her like-minded colleagues in Heartland Presbytery. It is obvious, from reading the published documents of this whole unhappy affair that Rev. Johnston and the majority of First Presbyterian Church of Paola wanted to negotiate a mutually satisfactory agreement with Heartland Presbytery after voting to disaffiliate from the Presbyterian Church (USA). Other presbyteries, such as Pittsburgh, Sacramento and South Louisiana, have managed to come to agreement with congregations that wished to depart. But in the case of Heartland Presbytery, the signal to Rev. Johnston and the majority at FPC of Paola has been that there is nothing to discuss and, essentially, "drop dead." It is especially nasty that Johnston was informed of his suspension in an e-mail dated one day before the suspension was to take effect. And frankly, I think it is diabolical that the AC and COM have used the loss of Johnston's medical and pension benefits as a tool to stop him from preaching the Gospel anywhere in Heartland Presbytery. I am praying for Rev. Johnston during his confrontation with the presbytery on Dec. 18. And I also pray that God may enlighten the minds and soften the hearts of so many in Heartland Presbytery who have taken such egregious actions against him and the congregation he has served. Rev. John B. Erthein Westminster Presbyterian Church Erie, Pa. A reply to the commentary by Parker Williamson December 19, 2007 Your publication and Web site are providing a forum for some truly hateful speech. Surely Mr. Williamson knew, when he penned his commentary regarding Rev. Ellison, that he was painting a skewed portrait that would invite all manner of uninformed and graceless invective unworthy of the cause of Christ. If that is your publication's aim, then you the editors are to be congratulated. You have surely succeeded. Rocky Supinger affiliate member Heartland Presbytery A reply to the letter by Earl Apel December 19, 2007 Affirming belief in Christ's bodily Resurrection from the dead has always been the fundamental evidential apologetic for Christianity. Since the days of the old Fosdickian liberalism, the notion has gained currency that Jesus' Resurrection was really not bodily, but merely spiritual. A more sophisticated variation on this theme was Paul Tillich's. After noting that "the most primitive theory, and that the same time most beautifully expressed, is the physical one," and after regarding both it and the "spiritualistic" and "psychological interpretations as inadequate, Tillich sets forth his own restitution theory: "the ecstatic confirmation of the indestructible unity of the New Being and its bearer, Jesus of Nazareth." Although Earl C. Apel does not give us the benefit of his reasoning, he does state in his letter [Letters, December 17, 2007] "I do believe in the spiritual (emphasis mine) Resurrection of Jesus. I always thought that one of the points of Christianity was that our spirit will be resurrected in the end. Scripture doesn't even support the idea of the body being resurrected. It is the soul." The insuperable problem with all "theories" that downplay the physical fact of the Resurrection (be they Fosdick's, Tillich's or Apel's) is that, apart from the New Testament materials, no one can say anything significant about the Resurrection, and the New Testament documents insist on a physical Resurrection. The resurrected Jesus is expressly distinguished from a ghost and He eats fish with His disciples (Luke 24); Thomas is shown the nail prints in His hands and the wound in His side (John 20), etc. On the Areopagus, the Apostle Paul presents Christ's Resurrection as the capstone of his case for the truth of the Gospel (Acts 17:19-31). In I Corinthians 15, Paul centers its case squarely and decisively upon the fact of Christ's Resurrection and blends kerygma with apologia by offering a list of eyewitness testimonies to the evidential fact of the Resurrection. In his stand before Agrippa and Festus (Acts 26), he not only assumes that these sin-blinded sinners can evidentially arrive at the fact of the Resurrection ("Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?"), but he also appeals to a common ground of evidential knowledge ("The king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner"). To talk about the Resurrection, described only in the New Testament documents, in a way inconsistent with their clear description as Apel does is to talk nonsense. These primary documents force us to a miraculous understanding of the Resurrection, since any alternative explanation runs directly counter to all of the primary-source facts as our disposal. God's truth may be considered by others as irrelevant only when we refuse to defend it in the objective terms of the New Testament proclamation. Paul A. Tambrino Fern Park, Fla. Barth's influence still being felt today December 18, 2007 Mr. Louis Stephen Nowasielski [Letters, December 13, 2007] claims: "The Confessing Church Movement is no more a confessing church as it is a movement, thanks to the Barthians." This is news to me! I have never met anyone who has read three pages about the Confessing Church Movement in Germany who thinks it would have emerged apart from Karl Barth. And, as one among others who was involved in it from the very beginning, I find it remarkable that someone could suggest that the Confessing Church Movement in the Presbyterian Church (USA) would have emerged not only apart from Barth's influence, but in spite of it! If Mr. Nowasielski has any doubts about Barth's influence or about some of the deeper theological issues that gave rise to the CCM and our continuing crisis in the PCUSA, he should go back and read in his copies of The Layman: "Why A Confessing Church Movement?" (34/3/2001) and "The Barmen Declaration: It Is All About Revelation" (34/8/2001). Or, better yet, he should read A Cry of Need and of Joy: Confessing The Faith in a New Millennium (Reformation Press, 2002), ed. Richard E. Burnett. I am not quite sure what Mr. Nowasielski's means or to whom he is referring when he says, "You always have to ask a Barthian what a Barthian means by infallibility, otherwise you think a Barthian believes the same way you do about the Holy Bible," but I would suggest that if he is genuinely curious to know what Barth thinks and wants to base his understanding on something other than gossip, he should try reading Barth himself. Barth's theology is highly nuanced, but it can be understood and is being understood more and more every day, even here in America where, for generations, folk have tended to like their theology like their food, fast and easy, and where the rigorous science of dogmatics is hardly known and rarely pursued with seriousness. In fact, I invite Mr. Nowasielski or anyone else who is interested to register for a course on Karl Barth that I'll be teaching this spring semester on Saturdays here at Erskine Theological Seminary, where we will read Barth and critically examine his break from liberalism in the summer of 1915 (which most theologians recognize as the most important event that has occurred in theology since the Reformation); his doctrine of revelation, with particular reference to his role in the German church struggle in the mid-1930s; his doctrine of Holy Scripture; and his understanding of the task of preaching. If Mr. Nowasielski would like to see the course syllabus or simply find books by and about Barth that might be helpful to him, he can go to here. As far as Mr. Nowasielski's comment, "Ask a Barthian for definitions and they run away like scared jack rabbits," is concerned, I regret it if this has been his experience. But I wish he could get to know the pastors I know who, even though they may not call themselves "Barthians," are deeply indebted to Barth. They are deeply committed to Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture and are some of the finest, toughest-minded, most courageous, most articulate, most effective pastors in the PCUSA I know. I have not seen many of them "run away" from theological questions or commitments. On the contrary, I have seen them hold their ground. But I also hope Mr. Nowasielski does not confuse the refusal to do theology by sound bite with "running away," for I strongly suspect that it is the tendency to reduce serious theological beliefs to slogans that can fit on a bumper sticker that is partly to blame for the mess in which we now find ourselves. Richard E. Burnett, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Systematic Theology Erskine Theological Seminary Due West, S.C. A reply to the commentary 'Merry Christmas in Heartland Presbytery' December 18, 2007 I certainly have no intention of entering into a debate with you. Neither one of us is likely to alter our perspective on this situation. But since I actually reside in Heartland Presbytery, I feel I need to share some thoughts with you on your recent article. I find it very unfortunate that you chose to intertwine so many inaccurate points about this situation in your tirade. As you well know, in the Presbyterian Church (USA) we have something called the Book of Order, which the majority of churches in Heartland Presbytery take seriously as the roadmap to ensure our common life functions in a way beneficial to the body. Since everything that has transpired has unfolded under the guidance of the Book of Order, I am surprised at the level of individual power you ascribe to Brian Ellison. It is truly amazing that you would think one person would have so much influence or blinding power over an entire committee on ministry, the Presbytery Council and, in fact, the presbytery as a whole. There are those of us in the presbytery who see our per-capita responsibility as an outward sign of our connectedness to the larger church. We take per capita seriously and continue to support the work of the presbytery, the synod and the general assembly even when we do not completely agree with everything our denomination does. I serve on the Heartland Presbytery Council and am continually frustrated by churches that penalize all of us by not paying their fair share. We firmly believe there are other avenues to utilize as an expression of displeasure with our governing body. I strongly disagree with the United States government over many issues, but not paying my taxes is not an option. I am not allowed to thwart the common good. Often, the hopes of the mission of Heartland Presbytery are not realized as we have to cut proposed lines from our annual budget because we continue to pay the per-capita responsibilities for those churches that choose to punish the rest of the churches. You have offered up the notion that all the members of the committee on ministry and, indeed, many in the presbytery as being easy to manipulate and gullible enough to have the wool pulled over their eyes. I for one, as a member of the Council, find that assumption offensive. The administrative council functions independent of Brian Ellison's influence and, while he is widely respected by the majority of the members of Heartland Presbytery, he certainly does not attempt to speak for the body as a whole. I have been a member of Parkville Presbyterian Church since 1993, where we have been blessed to have Brian Ellison as our pastor since 1999. I have served as clerk of session and chair of our personnel committee for the past seven years. Unlike some in the presbytery, Brian Ellison has remained true to his ordination vows. Thanks be to God! Those who no longer wish to do so are free to leave the denomination. The presbytery has no desire to attempt to thwart the plans of those who obviously have chosen to no longer be a part of the community of believers in Heartland Presbytery. Why force someone to stay if he/she is so displeased with our denomination that they publicly do everything they can to sway an entire congregation to leave? I would urge you to get your facts straight and maybe then you and your readers will be able to see that Heartland Presbytery is not hosting a "Grinch-like gathering." Rather, we are gathering to be true to the constitution of the PCUSA and the rules of order that bind our denomination together through the love and example of our Lord Jesus Christ. Kirk Johnston wants to leave the PCUSA. He is being provided the means to do so. It's a win-win situation. We wish him well. Cheryl Keimig Parkville Presbyterian Church Parkville, Mo. A response to the letter by Jim Yearsley December 18, 2007 The Rev. Jim Yearsley, in response [Letters, December 14, 2007] to thoughts I have shared, notes that I simply embrace philosophy rather than theology. He notes: "The difference is fundamental. Theology is defined as the study of God. Philosophy is the love of wisdom (read knowledge)." He is correct in the difference, but incorrect in stating I choose one over the other. The fact is I find value in both, as I would expect most Christians to do. Otherwise, one would be blind to the realities of the world if just embracing theology or be blind to God if just focused on the world. Jesus, in fact, demonstrated the importance of understanding the world as well as understanding God. Mr. Yearsley also comments on my words about communion and the decomposition of Jesus and His being like fertilizer to our faith. He notes: "Uh ... what? Where is the Scriptural support of this sophistry? Which confessional statement illuminates it? Where do you get this kind of nonsense? If this is the doctrine you are learning in your particular congregation, it is clearly not a Reformed body – either that, or perhaps it is guilty of malpractice." Well, all I can say is my thoughts on this are simply based on my own life experience as a human and Christian. And, oddly enough, I never even thought of the analogy until Mr. Westbrook engaged me in this conversation. Just a caveat, I would be the last person to ever claim that what I share is to be considered some sort of doctrine and the sense that I can't be wrong. I welcome challenges to what I express. This is healthy and the way the church should be. No one should be afraid to challenge and no one should be afraid of expressing, knowing the words may be challenged. I do find these words from the Confession of 1967 of the PC (USA) to be helpful. The following is from 9.52: "God and with one another, in which they joyfully eat and drink together at the table of their Savior. Jesus Christ gave his church this remembrance of his dying for sinful men so that by participation in it they have communion with him and with all who shall be gathered to him. Partaking in him as they eat the bread and drink the wine in accordance with Christ's appointment, they receive from the risen and living Lord the benefits of his death and resurrection. They rejoice in the foretaste of the kingdom which he will bring to consummation at his promised coming, and go out from the Lord's Table with courage and hope for the service to which he has called them." Note that we get benefits from Christ in the taking of communion. This is just like plants with fertilizer. And it is important to note I like the idea of the symbolism with plants because I enjoy gardening. And even the confession, as well as the Bible, uses symbolism. We are eating Christ's Body and drinking Christ's blood. But we aren't really cannibals, are we? A question I would have to ask Mr. Yearsley is: Do you preach sermons that are only passages from the Bible? In other words, you don't rely on your own education (or wisdom) and life experience to talk about modern scenarios your congregation may be able to relate to? Is my sharing about communion being like gardening any different than what you and countless other preachers do every Sunday? I've yet to meet a preacher, conservative of liberal, that doesn't use real-life or even fantasy type of examples to try to get the Word across. The fact is that sermons do mix theology, wisdom, education, world experiences, etc. That only makes sense and is simply what I try to do as well in my sharing. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio A reply to the article about New Covenant Presbytery December 18, 2007 The article "Administrative commission considered for church that voted to request dismissal from PCUSA" by Patrick Jean was extremely one-sided. Rather than getting a view from both sides of the decision, it is obvious the author just took information directly from the review team, who were against the motion from day one because the church's session did not follow the presbytery's newly developed and untested procedures on church dismissals (they missed stage 1). One example of the presbytery's untested approach was in the area of voting. They conveniently left out of their literature (until the very last discussion meeting when they were challenged on it directly) that the voting had to be of the majority of the active members without proxy voting (because, they claimed, they did not know how to set up proxy voting properly). So, for the members not in attendance at the voting meeting, they would effectively be counted as "Not in favor of dismissal." The more accurate way would have been to either represent the numbers as "in attendance" or "of active members with proxy." The way the presbytery approached the process was in essence unethical and was stacked in their favor from the beginning. To quote The Layman Online's article: "Of those voting, 299 members – or 58 percent of the church's 512 members – voted in favor of seeking dismissal and 63 members – or 12 percent of the church membership – voted against the request, the review team's report states." This sentence is misleading. This implies that all 512 members were able to vote, which was not the case.
So, I ask, what doesn't constitute a schism? Based on this review team's report, you have to assume that every church that seeks dismissal is going to be in schism in the presbytery's eyes (given that, at any point in time, there will always be a percentage of a congregation that will not be able to be present at the meeting). How convenient for the presbytery since a schism is the one key element they are looking for when denying a church dismissal. It is easy to find a "thing" when you know that it will always be there. To give a congregational layman's perspective on some of the points listed by the review team in their report:
The PCUSA, in its infinite wisdom, have pushed the fight to the churches by simply not taking a stand … by moving in non-theological directions without making theological decisions and without having a theological foundation (i.e., essentials). Thus, they are able to say "Yes" and "No" at the same time to any debate – and be truthful and, at the same time, irrelevant to both sides. Anyway, this has been a very hard and exhausting process to all of us here at Heritage Presbyterian Church (on both sides of the decision) and to see an article like this, despite facts to the contrary, is disheartening. By basically regurgitating an already biased review team's decision without highlighting all sides tells a sad tale. Unfortunately, this sad tale is being repeated across the denomination with no end in sight and no easy way to break with grace. Mike Nabors member Heritage Presbyterian Church Editor's Note: The Layman Online stands by its story. Is Tony Soprano the boss of Heartland Presbytery? December 17, 2007 I try to be careful about what I say in public, given the tendency of too many to be shrill on the record. I certainly don't want to add my voice to the cognitive dissonance that so often passes for public discourse these days. But I must say, having followed the actions, memos and court cases involving Heartland Presbytery, it is quite hard for me to avoid the conclusion that mafia tactics have become their standard operating procedure. I do not suggest such a thing lightly, nor do I do it with any glee at all. To the contrary, it is with great sadness that I have reached this tentative conclusion. The shakedown tactics employed by Heartland Presbytery have no precedent in Scripture and have no point of contact with anything resembling Christian ethics. I read and observe with dismay the actions and printed attitudes of Heartland Presbytery, and it reminds me of The Sopranos rather than Jesus; of Bada Bing, rather than the Kingdom of God. Property, money and possible coddling of old grudges have replaced in their entirety authentic Christian polity and the Christian Savior as guiding principles for how to relate to others. It is a pattern that is well worn for those who know their Bible. Repeatedly, it is the leaders of God's people who are most castigated in Scripture for their infidelity to God and abuse of His people. The message to Heartland Presbytery is the same as it was to the kings and religious leaders of Israel before and during the exile, and to the Pharisees of the time of Jesus - repent. I have no reason to believe that they will do this out of their own strength because, like so many before them, they seem to revel in their intransigence far too much to give it up. But one can always hope and pray that God might be pleased to confront them with the seriousness of their backsliding, and break their hearts to evoke genuine repentance. Until this happens, I am forced to conclude that Heartland Presbytery is little more than a robed mafia. Of course, what I think doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. But that's not a valid reason to dismiss the impression that I, and increasing numbers of others, are getting. Maybe we're all wrong. But what if we're not? Jason Foster Springfield, Va. 'Heartless Presbytery has been Satan's instrument of evil' December 17, 2007 "Heartless Presbytery" has been Satan's instrument of evil for a long time, especially through "Reverend" Brian Ellison, who epitomizes darkness. I have witnessed a total lack of love within this presbytery and the Presbyterian Church (USA) during my three years on session and have followed Pastor Kirk's call for everyone to conduct themselves only in love as we have suffered the indignities showered on us simply because we constitutionally sought dismissal to a more Godly Presbyterian body. Parker Williamson has captured the nature of this "witch hunt" by Ellison and his minions. There is no love in their actions; perhaps none even in their souls. Only God knows and we leave it to His judgment. Thank you for exposing the nation to the injustices meted out during the past year by Heartless Presbytery onto a congregation that thrived despite the PCUSA's lack of Truth. That their tactics from the onset have been intended to frighten and to dissuade other churches within its grasp from even discussing dismissal is painfully clear, but I pray that it backfires on them as pastors of conscience join in support of Pastor Kirk in this final fray. Ellison may have underestimated the power of Truth once again and could well have earned yet another resounding humiliation under a national microscope. I, for one, hope so. It's time for him to limp off into a thicket and disappear from our landscape. Joel Ahlbrandt former ruling elder First Presbyterian Church Paola, Kan. Sharen Kay Ahlbrandt former deacon First Presbyterian Church Paola, Kan. 'Evil being done in Heartlessland Presbytery' December 17, 2007 God bless Parker Williamson for his powerful and spot-on analysis of the evil being done in Heartlessland Presbytery! It is amazing what fear, envy and greed can accomplish even in the Church of Jesus Christ. How pitiful that the watching world looks on and sees such sinful arrogance on the part of a presbytery of the Presbyterian Church (USA). With "grace" like this being shown in that presbytery, we have to wonder when they might appoint a Grand Inquisitor. Oh wait, they already have. … Toby Brown Cuero, Texas A reply to the letter by Russ Westbrook December 17, 2007 Rev. Westbrook [Letters, December 14, 2007] writes: "The complaints of the liberal religion against Christianity almost always have some rootage in the littleness of their god – he is simply too small to have created the world in six days, for instance, or to have caused a virgin to conceive. Their god is too small to speak timelessly about ethics or truth and, just so, he is too small to help a homosexual to overcome his addiction, or a spouse in a bad marriage make it work rather than run away." I would ask how many children with a parent dead from spousal abuse he has counseled after asking the now-deceased parent to stay in the relationship and make it work? Even Jesus walked through the crowd bent on doing Him harm before His time was right. Bill Bess Havana, Fla. A rush to judgment December 17, 2007 Far too often, I see a rush to judgment leading to inflammatory, insulting and outright false representation. As far as Mr. Tambrino's observation [Letters, December 12, 2007] that I did not affirm the bodily Resurrection of Jesus in my previous letter is concerned, my response to that is so what of it! One could just as easily point out that I didn't affirm the Virgin birth there either. It proves nothing concerning my beliefs nor does it add or detract from the validity of my argument, but if it will make Mr. Tambrino feel better, I affirm all that is written in the Apostle's Creed. Also, Mr. Tambrino seems to think I was confronting Rev. Westbrook for addressing abhorrent behavior. What abhorrent behavior was Rev. Westbrook addressing in his letter [Letters, December 7, 2007]? I confronted Rev. Westbrook for his apparent knee-jerk reaction to Mr. Apel's allegory. I wonder how many readers of The Layman Online's letters, in addition to Mr. Tambrino, wrongly concluded from my letter of Dec. 10 (or any of my other writings, for that matter) that I am a theological liberal or that I was defending Mr. Apel's position. The fact is I am not a theological liberal and my position on whether or not Mr. Apel believes in the bodily Resurrection of Jesus is completely neutral at this point. In none of the writings of Mr. Apel that I have ever seen do I see any compelling evidence that he holds either an orthodox view or an unorthodox view of the Resurrection. He simply doesn't say. I, for one, will not rush to judgment and assume his view is unorthodox. The judgment I referred to in my previous letter had nothing whatsoever to do with the "discerning kind of judgment" to which Mr. Tamborino refers. The judgment I referred to stemmed from Rev. Westbrook's possibly false assumption that Mr. Apel believes in a dead Jesus and the absolutely false statement that liberalism holds likewise (some liberals do, however). I certainly don't think that Jesus approves (present tense, since He is alive) of that kind of judgment. It seems to me that the kind of judgment Rev. Westbrook has employed here may be more motivated by bigotry, prejudice and recklessness than by discernment. In the end, Rev. Westbrook's conclusion that Mr. Apel believes in a dead Jesus may turn out to be correct, but to conclude that at this point would be hasty and unjustified. The ends do not justify the means. Arthur Woodling Big Cove, Ala. A reply to several recent letters December 17, 2007 I wish to share some thoughts about some recent responses to my letters. In doing so, I thank you for being so open to allowing me and others to share our thoughts. Paul Tambrino [Letters, December 12, 2007] shares: "Woodling, Apel and their fellow theological liberals have bought into society's new view on "truth," which is antithetical with what Scripture defines as Truth. They have taken false comfort in the words of Jesus found in Matthew 7:1. When men like the Rev. Russ Westbrook address abhorrent behavior, Woodling confronts with, 'Judge not, that you be not judged.' In doing so, Woodling takes this quote totally out of context." "The entire seventh chapter actually commands us to judge in the manner that Rev. Westbroook has done. While Jesus is prohibiting one kind of judging, He goes on to approve a different kind. What Jesus is saying is that it is wrong to only condemn others for their faults, but that we must instead render humble and gentle criticism that first recognizes our own faults. "Jesus goes on to approve of a discerning kind of judgment that does not condemn, but distinguishes, unbelief from belief, unholy from holy, evil from good, wide and narrow gates, wolves from sheep, etc. – all of which cannot be done without judging." I'm glad to hear that Mr. Tambrino notes that Jesus does approve of a more discerning judgment that does not condemn. So, I guess Jesus thinks it is OK to refer to certain people (liberals) as filth as the Rev. Westbrook did originally? This is humble and gentle criticism? The Rev. David Perry [Letters, December 12, 2007] notes: "And while it is indeed Good News that Christ is alive in each who accepts and follows Him, Mr. Apel never mentions the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, or the forgiveness of sin. "Last thing, as I remember, in orthodox Christianity is that the blood of Christ was shed for the forgiveness of sin and our hope of eternal life rests in the bodily Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. Leave those two items out, and one does not have Christianity, but something else entirely." What does Mr. Perry mean by the bodily Resurrection? I do believe in the spiritual Resurrection of Jesus. I always thought that was one of the points of Christianity was that our spirit will be resurrected in the end. Scripture doesn't even support the idea of the body being resurrected. It is the soul. We may have new bodies in the end, but it is not the same body we have on this earth. Regarding forgiveness of sin, I will gladly state that we all have forgiveness through Jesus Christ. Sorry to have left that out. The Rev. Bill Pawson [Letters, December 12, 2007] states: "I've often quipped that Earl Apel's theology is rotten to the core." No problem here. I would never claim that my theology is perfect. Theology is a learning process where all will make mistakes at one time or another. If one person claims to have perfect theology that will never have some rot, that person needs to take some inventory. The person is claiming to be the same as God, in my opinion. And Scripture clearly teaches us that we all fall short of the glory of God and, in effect, have some rot. Larry Brown [Letters, December 12, 2007] notes: "Earl C. Apel in his latest letter [Letters, December 10, 2007] has demonstrated the classic liberal dodge concerning the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ is alive, to those who have received Him. This makes the Resurrection an existential, rather than a historical, event. This works for liberals, but it doesn't work for conservatives, and so the possibility for dialogue and understanding gets cut off from the beginning." I don't understand Mr. Brown's point. The Resurrection was a historical event. It is not embraced by all of humanity in our time. But liberals are, in fact, stating a belief that something that happened 2,000 years ago has validity and meaning. We weren't present at the Resurrection, just as Mr. Brown and others weren't. But we all believe in the end that the Resurrection has a meaning and makes Christ alive for us. Maybe I'm confused. Is Mr. Brown implying that conservatives only see the Resurrection as something in history like we do with George Washington that gives some sort of inspiration as to what a great man did? And so, there is no real personal relationship, as in my analogy it wouldn't happen with George Washington. Of course, I could be wrong and there might be some church out there for George . It makes no sense to worship God, in my opinion, without seeing Christ as more than being a historical event. I don't buy the notion that conservatives believe this, nor does Mr. Brown. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio A reply to the letter by Jim Yearsley December 17, 2007 I agree with Jim Yearsley [Letters, December 14, 2007]. Trying to be rational with irrational apostates (and schismatics) is illogical. Or, as an old elder warned me so long ago, "Don't get into a tinkling contest with a skunk." Let me put it another way that confirms Jim's conclusion. I'll never forget sitting with Paul Roberts (the proverbial father of our franchise's Confessing Church Movement) and Rus Howard (unsuccessful candidate for stated clerk back in Richmond) at lunch with another pastor who practically defies Biblical Christianity as upheld by our constitution, yet always likes to agree with the last person that he's talked to in a perverse, "pastoral" kind of way. He said, "Paul, at least we have one thing in common. We're Presbyterians." Paul replied, "We have nothing in common because you don't believe Jesus is the only way, truth and life according to Biblical revelation. Your understanding of being a Presbyterian is all about polity, not faith. Our understanding of being a Presbyterian is all about Biblical faith enabled by polity. Therefore, we have nothing in common." Rus and I didn't even get to finish our appetizers. That lunch taught me there's no reconciliation except through Jesus as attested in Holy Scripture and upheld by our constitution. That's why folks are so irreconcilable in our franchise these days. Duh. Robert R. Kopp Chaos in the PCUSA December 14, 2007 It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is being destroyed from within. The PUP Report and the stated clerk have created schism, not the churches desiring to leave. I have served my local church for 40 years with time, talent and treasure and I am mad as hell to see what is happening to this denomination. First, the PUP Report violated Scripture, causing many churches to weigh anchor and leave. Next, "The Louisville Papers" were a very mean-spirited attempt to coerce churches from seeking dismissal. Now there are battles between presbyteries and churches over property rights, resulting in lawsuits. I believe God also would be mad as hell to see what so-called Christians are doing to His Church. Jack Vanderbleek Elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. The loss of real Presbyterian worship December 14, 2007 I've been to Presbyterian churches where service does not feel Presbyterian. I believe that worship needs to be reverent, preaching the Gospel, even daring to preach Reformed theology – even if it steps on someone's toes. Presbyterian worship to me is not like the "frozen chosen," but it also should not be a "seeker-friendly" church. If I am looking for a Presbyterian church, and see Presbyterian in their name, I am hoping that church preaches Reformed theology and presents a reverent worship. I see many churches today where people are not showing the kind of awesome reverence to God when entering into the sanctuary. I see people with children allowing their children to run around, and not sitting still or be placed in the children's church. I hope one day I'll find a church that is a real Presbyterian church. Charles Freeman Mississippi Wasting time and energy December 14, 2007 I continue to be amused by the ongoing argument between Mr. Apel and those who hold an orthodox Christian worldview. It seems pointless to me. Regardless of the clarity and confessionally-supported Scriptural perspectives voiced, Apel seems determined to maintain his ego-centric philosophy. Note I said philosophy, rather than theology. The difference is fundamental. Theology is defined as the study of God. Philosophy is the love of wisdom (read knowledge). I remember, just the other day, one of the letter writers commented on the similarity between liberal theology and gnosticism. Mr. Apel indignantly declaims judgmentalism. I quote: "As with any believer, the feelings or judgments of any human being, whether Christian or not, have no relevance. No human being can truly know my inner heart and soul, just as I can't know anyone else's. Only God knows this." Au contraire Mr. Apel. You expose your lack of understanding by your own words. Those who are drawing judgments about your faith are doing so on the strength of the statements you yourself are making. Again, a quote: "The Church throughout the centuries and even today (whether liberal, conservative or in the middle) remembers Christ's decomposition through communion. We remember His broken body and His shed blood. His body is decomposed and, in effect, becomes like fertilizer to us in helping us to grow in our faith." Uh ... what? Where is the Scriptural support of this sophistry? Which confessional statement illuminates it? Where do you get this kind of nonsense? If this is the doctrine you are learning in your particular congregation, it is clearly not a Reformed body – either that, or perhaps it is guilty of malpractice. Mr. Apel (along with fellow travelers such as Ms Foote, Jane Spahr, Marilyn McClure, Ms. Ivory Giddings, et al.) continue to validate Machen's contention that Liberalism and Christianity are, in fact, incompatible. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla Context, context, context December 14, 2007 As Paul A. Tambrino observed [Letters, December 12, 2007], the liberals' favorite passage seems to be Matthew 1:7 ("Do not judge, or you too will be judged"). Perhaps it is the only passage some liberals have committed to memory. True to form, the passage is nearly always taken out of context. When He spoke these words, Jesus was teaching a large and varied crowd of onlookers from "Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan" (Matthew 5:1). Among believers, a more relevant passage – especially concerning questions of Christian faith and practice – was written by Paul to the believers in Corinth: "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment" (1 Corinthians 2:14-15). Guided by the Holy Spirit, believers are called to judge many things, including the actions and words of men. Observing the context of Paul's letter might have saved Arthur Woodling [Letters, December 10, 2007] from leaping to the breathtaking conclusion that Paul might be "instructing us that the likes of Rev. Westbrook should be expelled from our midst." Unless, of course, Mr. Woodling would care to accuse Rev. Westbrook of being "sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler" (1 Corinthians 5:11 NIV). To judge a false teaching is not slander (nor "railing," as the KJV renders it). Rev. Westbrook's letters have given us no reason to believe that any of the other labels apply either. Steve Jones elder Kokomo, Ind. A reply to the letter by Earl Apel December 14, 2007 In reading Mr. Apel's recent response to me [Letters, December 13, 2007], I am both glad and heartened to hear that he publicly stands for a real Resurrection. He says as much, and I will take him at his word. That does bring up all sorts of follow up questions, however. The complaints of the liberal religion against Christianity almost always have some rootage in the littleness of their god - he is simply too small to have created the world in six days, for instance, or to have caused a virgin to conceive. Their god is too small to speak timelessly about ethics or truth and, just so, he is too small to help a homosexual to overcome his addiction, or a spouse in a bad marriage make it work rather than run away. Mr. Apel claims a God who has, however, raised the dead really back to life; so, why all the former attacks on the faith in times past? If his God has made a corpse to permanently walk again, can't He convert a sinner and sanctify a saint? And if He can, what is Mr. Apel's beef with those of us who say He does, and that we should be glad He does, and not discourage and stand in the way of those in need of His help? Rev. Russ Westbrook teaching elder Riverside Presbyterian Church, PCA A reply to Earl Apel on the meaning of being 'alive' December 14, 2007 In a recent reply [Letters, December 13, 2007] to Rev. Westbrook, Earl Apel stated that "maybe I can make things a little more clear," then goes on to equivocate on the meaning of being "alive." I have a simple question for Mr. Apel that I believe will "make things more clear," if he will answer it directly: After His death on the Cross and His Resurrection, did Jesus appear to His disciples as a living, physical person? I personally do not believe that Thomas placed his hand into a warm, fuzzy memory or that Mary clung to an apparition. But I also believe in the inspired Bible. I submit that you can believe that Jesus only lives on in His followers' memories or you can believe the Bible, but you can't believe both. Robert Burdge Lighthouse Presbyterian Church Paola, Kan. |
|
| December
2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |