 |
|
| July
2007 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Do
not blame trial lawyers for being trial lawyers July 23, 2007 Right after "The Louisville Papers" were revealed last summer, I wrote to The Layman Online, commenting that if the pastors let this go to the trial lawyers, "It will get real ugly, real soon." The allegation that Olivet has "engaged in wrongful conduct, including criminal conversion, criminal theft, criminal deception, criminal fraud, self-dealing, breach of trust and/or breach of fiduciary duty" is exactly what I would expect from the plaintiff's bar. [In the interest of full disclosure, I am the attorney for three churches that have filed suits to quiet title. We have not asserted any misconduct on the part of the presbytery. In fact, we have taken the same position as Ohio Valley Presbytery's Rev. Allen: We are asking for the assistance of the court with respect to purely civil legal issues and will be guided in how best to proceed once the court answers the basic questions about the efficacy of the so-called property trust. Certainly, we have not impugned the motives of our brothers and sisters in the presbytery.] But, as was the case with the scorpion in the old fable, you ought not blame trial lawyers for being trial lawyers. In that same letter, I admonished the pastors that, "Letting trial lawyers take charge of this is going to be like wrestling with a pig. Everyone will get muddy, and the pig will love it!" Look at all that mud! As ye sow. … Michael R. "Mac" McCarty Presbyters should not be surprised when churches take steps to secure their property July 20, 2007 I am not a lawyer, but have served in the old Northern Church as a congregation trustee and chairman of that board. The temporary restraining order issued by the court to the Presbytery of Western North Carolina illustrates the need to have a trustee board that vigorously and tenaciously protects the congregation's property. Trustees of congregational property have a solemn legal duty to protect that property from any and all who would threaten it. A congregation is blessed when it has a bicameral form of government, freeing the session to attend to spiritual matters. Whether or not the session agrees with the current direction of the Presbyterian Church (USA), the congregation's property must be protected. Every congregation should formally and pro-actively legally reject any call on its property by the presbytery and any others who would attempt to claim title. The trustees should vigorously oppose and resist the attempts, advocated by Louisville, to place the PCUSA (or any other umbrella institution) on its property title or deed. The Rev. Barbara (Bobbi) White, general presbyter of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina, should not be shocked that the First Presbyterian Church in Marion took steps to secure their property. The trustees should assure that the church's title is not clouded in any case, but, with the track record of that presbytery and the marching orders from Louisville, she should not be surprised that trust is gone. She should be saddened that the expectation of fairness and brotherly treatment has disappeared and should be further saddened that presbytery executives all over the country are justifiably eyed with suspicion. Congregations are dealing with an institution that seeks to claim congregational property that it did not purchase nor maintain, which has generally and regularly collected more money from the congregation than benefits it delivered and which has in place draconian property procedures that would embarrass a secular organization. A congregation is wise to keep their plans and discussions private and secret. Then, when ready, to "Without any discussion or notice ..." cause the presbytery to be "… served with the TRO and complaint and a couple inches of paper" supporting those legal documents. James H. Logan Sr. McHenry, Md. Disposition of the property of a church is primarily in the power of the church July 20, 2007 If the congregation in question did, in fact, duly vote to give notice to their presbytery within the allotted time, then they should indeed be able "to buy, sell or mortgage the property of that particular church in the conduct of its affairs as a church of the" denomination. However, most of the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Presbyterian Church (USA) Book of Order are wholesale copies of the corresponding provisions of Chapter VI of the PCUS Book of Church Order. In particular, 6-4 of the BCO says: "If a particular church is dissolved by the presbytery, attempts by either majority or unanimous vote to withdraw from the Presbyterian Church in the United States or otherwise ceases to exist or function as a member of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, any property that it may have shall be within the control of the presbytery and may be held for designated purposes or sold or disposed of in such manner as the presbytery, in its discretion, may direct." The differences in the two constitutions regarding the property of a particular church is primarily in the power of the church as it continues to operate within the denomination, and not what happens if it does not. Sterrett Collins Glendale, Calif. A response to the Omaha Festival July 20, 2007 To find a well-attended event where Scripture is clearly and uncompromisingly taught and where Christ alone is the center of attention is a rare thing indeed. Sadly, the event in Omaha doesn't seem to qualify as one of those events. To quote from the Omaha World-Herald: "The free festival, which continues today, was a rock 'n' roll show, extreme sports extravaganza, family-friendly playground, health fair and Christian religious revival all wrapped into one. "Palau went on to preach that salvation is a gift and that people can claim it through faith. He asked people in the crowd to signal their commitment to Christ by raising a hand on his count of three and then say, 'I believe.' Hundreds did so." Gimmicks such as this syncretistic event have few long-lasting results. Imagine Calvin or Luther preaching between rounds of a jousting tournament hosted by the local Reformed and Roman Catholic Church Coalition for Unity. I'm not opposed to sharing information about health concerns or playing sports. But our pastors and Sunday school teachers must preach the pure Word and unpopular topics of the day: propitiation, atonement, virgin birth, authority of Scripture, the Incarnation and more. The truth is what people need. The truth is, in reality, what many long for. Cindy Coleman Glen Alpine, N.C. Valentine and Kirkpatrick 'know nothing about Seattle schools' July 19, 2007 Well, I was born and raised in Seattle. I graduated from the Seattle schools in '54. Our two children also graduated. During their time (the '60s and '70s) the social engineering experimenting began. The school population went down from something like 90,000 to around 45,000 now. But, of course, housing was cheaper outside the city. The social engineering forced on the citizens destroyed an outstanding school district. Ms. Valentine and Mr. Kirkpatrick demonstrate that they know nothing about Seattle schools and the effects of ill-conceived plans. I don't live there, and would not return. I can't support either fraud(s). Pun intended. Roger Dennie elder Mt. Pisgah Presbyterian Church Roslyn, Wash. New mission field – Louisville – has opened up July 19, 2007 While I agree with [Rev. Bob] Pitman's view on evangelism, and his practical applications, a new mission field has opened up – Louisville, Ky., headquarters of the Presbyterian Church (USA). If anyone needs evangelism, it's the Louisville crowd of liberal lefties, many of whom need to repent of their sin of unbelief and come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and His shed blood. Lou S. Nowasielski Response to Jim Henkel July 19, 2007 The efforts of Jim Henkel's [Letters, July 18, 2007] congregation to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) serve as a great example to all of us who are uncomfortable with the denomination crumbling around us. They have embarked on a journey with great risk and I wish them all success. However, I think I may not have made my point as well as I should have in my prior letter [Letters, July 10, 2007]. The leadership I long for is not the leadership that would inspire us to gather the courage to leave. We have many examples of that sort all around us. I wish for the leadership that would inspire a mass of similar efforts all at one time. If my local congregation wished to leave, we would engage the local presbytery all by ourselves. Our presbytery has 180 congregations. If 50 or 60 of those congregations presented themselves to the presbytery at the same time, the outcome might be very different. That is the kind of leadership I wish for us. Pete Allen Mesquite, Texas 'Schizo-friendia' abounds in my beloved PCUSA July 18, 2007 I continue to be amazed by the duplicity of our fearless leader as he contends with those who are not of the true church (darned pesky evangelicals!) and with Pope Benedict, who recently claimed that he (as a non-Catholic) is not of the true church. There's nothing worse than watching two popes duke it out! I call such duplicity "schizo-friendia," a state of denial in which one condemns the insanity of others while exhibiting the same insane behaviors. Perhaps "hypocrisy" comes closer to the mark. On the one hand, apostolic succession and self-perpetuating papal edicts are used to justify the exclusivity of God's governance and grace in the Roman church while, on the other hand, those not in step with His Eminence Pope Clifford I and his "progressive" council condemn our own separatist churches as being schismatic. I think it's interesting that he pooh-poohs Pope Benedict for making the very same statement he himself has been levying against our own congregations who seek to affiliate with other church bodies. More to the point, he corrects the pope with what seems Protestant papal authority, while our Protestant belief system began within the historical context of opposing "popery" in any form. Our beloved Presbyterian Church seems to have changed greatly since the Holy See moved to Louisville. Our system of being ruled by elders is now being challenged by those who seek rule by a single elder. Even Jesus had the good sense to refuse when the crowd tried to forcibly make Him king of Israel. Our stated clerk emanates a desire for ecclesial power and authority that are antithetical to our foundational theological tenets. Sadly, he doesn't see this – nor the horrific pain he is causing in the hearts of us who seek a different direction for our beloved denomination – by proposing and endorsing such actions as "The Louisville Papers" and other high-profile punitive behaviors. Since Clerk Cliffpatrick seems to propound edicts and speak opinions for the whole denomination, I wonder if he might desire our reunification with the Holy See? Then we could give them all our property - in trust, of course – and once again become members of the true "one true church." He might even get to be a pope there, too. Randy Hardy Washington, Ga. A response to Jean, Allen, O'Brien July 18, 2007 I wish to compliment Patrick Jean for his fair reporting of the action by the North Benton Presbyterian Church to seek dismissal from the Presbyterian Church (USA), Eastminster Presbytery, to the care and oversight of the New Wineskins Presbytery of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I would raise a very minor point-of-order, however. In a vote by simple majority, abstentions are to be excluded when it comes to announcing the margin of success or failure for a motion (Robert's Rules of Order, 10th Edition, chapter 13, paragraph 44, page 387, lines 5-13). When this is done, the margin here in North Benton was over 73 percent on both the decision to seek dismissal from the PCUSA and the choice to realign with the NW/EPC. Taken case-by-case, none of the 17 congregations that (by my count) have reported the results of a vote to leave the PCUSA, since the passage of the authoritative interpretation of 2006, have posted less than this 73 percent margin in favor. Thirteen have voted by a margin of 91 percent or better. This a-congregation-here-and-a-congregation-there leave taking from the PCUSA makes Pete Allen [Letters, July 10, 2007], Jack O'Brien [Letters, July 12, 2007] (and many others) long for someone to lead a well-organized, coordinated, mass exodus from our current denomination. They feel that these one-local-church-at-a-time departures just play right into the hand that Louisville is holding. Although it is true that General Assembly-level advice and counsel has been offered to presbyteries and synods regarding their responsibility to uphold the Form of Government, Chapter 8, property trust provisions, a presbytery may choose to dismiss a congregation with property (G-11.0103i). Most recently, Muskingum Valley Presbytery did exactly that in the case of the Middle Sandy Presbyterian Church, which was dismissed with all property, both real and personal, into the Midwest Presbytery of the EPC. Unfortunately, Muskingum Valley seems to be the exception rather than the rule among presbyteries at the present time. This is a hard reality. I am confident that several of the 29 who stood with the minority here in North Benton did not vote in favor of staying in the PCUSA. No, they voted against putting our local church property in danger; and still, they were outvoted by more than a two-to one-margin. Our situation is not unique; in general, the folks in the pews understand the risk involved. Yet, the combined vote of the 17 churches noted above is 5,570 in favor of leaving our present denomination against 439 who voted to remain. Consider this: Fully aware of the risk of losing buildings, grounds and assets to higher governing bodies that are widely divergent in their response to departing local churches, an aggregate 93 percent majority of your brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus have found the courage to stand up and be counted by casting their vote to join a congregation-by-congregation exodus from the PCUSA. In light of the bold, damn "The Louisville Papers," full-speed-ahead, cutting-edge charge by this vanguard of more than 5,500 grassroots lay men and women, my question back to Pete Allen, Jack O'Brien (and all who share their longing for leadership) is this: How much leadership do you need? The congregants of 17 local churches have decided that the day appointed for an expression of greater faithfulness to Christ Jesus is none other than today: "Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts'" (Hebrews 3:7-8a). There is only one day in which to honor the Lord by following the lead that your brothers and sisters in faith have blazoned bravely – "today." The longed-for tomorrow, when a "march on Louisville" will result in agreement on an across-the-board, denomination-wide exit policy for conservative/evangelical/confessing church congregations to take their leave of the PCUSA with property, is not even on the horizon and the probability is that its dawning will never come. Meanwhile, the Lord Jesus Christ awaits an answer: "Today." Jim Henkel North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Beginnings of revival? July 18, 2007 I am very pleased with the level of discourse I am seeing in the "Letters" section of The Layman Online. I left ("was told to leave" would be more accurate) the Presbyterian Church (USA) for the Presbyterian Church in America in 2002. I am now a PCA pastor in Sturgis, S.D. One of my great concerns was that there seemed to be very little theological acuity among the conservatives in the PCUSA, and certainly very little awareness of the historic Reformed orthodoxy as expressed by the PCUSA's Book of Confessions. A broad evangelicalism was certainly professed and held to, but robust Reformed theology is much more than just the puddle we call contemporary evangelicalism. I remember being called a "hyper-Calvinist" by another pastor at a PCUSA conference in Indianapolis because I believed in limited atonement. I can assure you that the dear man never met a real hyper-Calvinist in his life, and seemed not to know the true definition of the term. It was obvious that he had never read the Canons of Dordt. It particularly bothered me that we were so up in arms about the gay marriage and gay ordination issues when hardly a peep has been heard concerning the century of apostasy from the Scriptures that led directly to the gay ordination issue. But the one surely led to the other. Nor was there much of a desire to address the sin issues that the conservatives seemed to make an easy peace with – namely: inappropriate divorce, adultery, fornication, lack of church discipline, materialism and a love of money, and a lackadaisical approach to the sacraments and the Lord's worship. My reluctant conclusion was that many of the conservatives were simply culturally conservative, and not really Biblically conservative. I suspected what many on the theological left must suspect – that, given enough time and enough pro-gay propaganda from the culture around us, the conservatives would settle down on the gay issue as well. How well I remember "Rev." Steven Van Kuiken of Mt. Auburn Presbyterian Church standing on the floor of Cincinnati Presbytery during the debates on Amendment O saying, "The conservatives are just being hypocrites. They capitulated to us on women's ordination and they capitulated to us on divorce and now they're fighting us on gay marriage?" That man is an apostate, but he understood his hermeneutics and he understood his opponents better than his opponents understood themselves. Today, however, when I read the letters to the editor, I find links to an article by Al Mohler. I find a letter from a gentleman articulating the marks of the true visible church and saying that neither Rome nor the PCUSA fulfill the requirements. I find in another letter a very adequate defense of the Reformed understanding of the interplay between saving faith and the good works which must proceed from saving faith. I find R.C. Sproul's Tabletalk magazine quoted to good effect, and a clear understanding that deviating from the revealed names of the three persons of the Trinity is the sin of idolatry, not simply an issue of semantics. I even find a tolerable (though roundabout) explanation of the difference between the visible and the invisible church. This is a very good thing! My brothers and sisters, I want to encourage you. In our congregational prayers here at Foothills PCA, we frequently pray for you. You need to know that you have been cut off from a glorious theological heritage, not only by theological liberalism, but also by many well-meaning evangelical leaders who are more familiar with Bill Hybels and Chuck Swindoll than they are with the Westminster Divines and Calvin. I think it would be a very good idea if every reader of The Layman would purchase a copy of the PCUSA's Book of Confessions and read it from cover to cover. If you don't want to give money to those who are responsible for the new Babylonian captivity of the church, you can find them all online. But read the Scots Confession. Read the Second Helvetic and the Belgic Confessions. Read the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Even the Barmen Declaration and the Confession of 1967 have some value. Read the Scripture references contained in them and carefully compare all these things with the Scriptures. It is the Scripture, after all, that is the only infallible rule of faith and life. But these guys were really, really good at exegeting the Scriptures! Think carefully for yourselves, and trust the Spirit of God to do what He promises He will do when God's people get serious about God's Word. A.W. Tozer once said that when the Church behaves badly, it's on account of the fact that the Church believes wrongly. True revival in the Church must begin with recovery of the truth. Historic Reformed theology is, in my opinion, the most thorough and careful exposition of the truths of the Scriptures that ever existed in the Church Militant. It is my fervent prayer that these developments portend a new Great Awakening among God's elect in the PCUSA, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, or whatever visible organizations result from the gyrations of the next few years. Tolle lege! Take up and read! Rev. Brian Carpenter Foothills Community Church (PCA) Sturgis, S.D. Two blind mice arguing about 'church' July 17, 2007 Presbyterian Church (USA) Stated Clerk Kirkpatrick has criticized the Vatican's recent pronouncements that Protestant churches "are not churches in the proper sense" as Catholic leadership "mischaracteriz[ing]' faith." This is hilarious: two apostate "churches" arguing which one is a true "church." The Westminster Confession of Faith 25:4 defines the marks of a true church: "This universal church has been sometimes more and sometimes less visible. Particular churches, which are members of this universal church, are more or less pure to the extent to which the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, the ordinances are administered, and public worship is performed more or less purely in them." And the Belgic Confession Article 29 further defines the three marks of a true church: "The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin." Does the RCC manifest any of these three marks? Not in any sense. It has a false gospel of justification by faith and works. It has a false doctrine of the sacraments in transubstantiation and baptismal regeneration. And, obviously, there is no discipline among its clergy and membership. Does the PCUSA manifest any of these three marks? Not in any sense. It has a false gospel of liberation theology and does "not know the limits of God's grace and pray for the salvation of those who may never come to know Christ." It administers the sacraments to everyone in the pews. And, like the RCC, there is no church discipline whatsoever. Two blind mice arguing who saw the cheese first. Nollie Malabuyo A response to Dean Waldt July 17, 2007 The Rev. Dean Waldt [Letters, July 13, 2007] notes some problems he has with how the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s leadership responds to public schools in the area of racism. OK, here goes. I grew up in Kentucky in the '60s and '70s. To be perfectly blunt I heard the use of [a slur on African Americans] more than I would have liked. My parents taught me that wasn't right. The debate about schools is most unfortunate in the area of race. I did attend an integrated school by the time I was in junior high in the early '70s. Thank heaven for that. The interaction was not perfect, but did make a difference in my life for the positive. Here is what I find interesting in the 21st century. A year ago, I found that some people still like to refer to certain persons [using a slur]. It was a shock, but it did happen in the workplace here in Cincinnati in the good old Midwest where we even have a museum about slavery. While I understand some differences in the PCUSA on certain theological issues, I find it hard to believe that we differ on the issues of race. I urge Mr. Waldt to give more thought on racism and why raise such a fuss on what others in the PCUSA have to say? The fact is it is an ugly subject that most won't talk about in the church openly, but really we should be more open about it. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio Liberals will always find safe harbor in the PCUSA July 16, 2007 Dr. Brown [Letters, July 10, 2007] is correct. Liberals will always find safe harbor in the Presbyterian Church (USA). One reason is that liberal theologians seem satisfied with works. A person who seeks justice, social equality and an end to oppression is a soulmate whatever their theological persuasion. Good intentions mean a good person and a good person must logically be right with God. Who are we to judge matters of personal faith? They have a point. All the various faiths must work together for the common good – but there is an important difference. The evangelical Christian will always look for ways to introduce Christ into the discussion, while the liberal Christian tends to accept some degree of theological equivalence. It is a huge difference in application. Although liberals and conservatives agree that "faith without works is dead," we don't necessarily agree that "works without faith in Christ are also dead." To the evangelical, the solution to the world's ills is not in the work of large committees, but in Christ and Him crucified. It works at the individual level. Progress is made when one person, who, being brought to Christ, then responds with good works. Collectively, great things are accomplished. But this plan may be too simple for the PCUSA – not enough committees, not enough employees and the budget is just too small. In reality, from the evangelical point of view, Louisville is mostly an obstacle. The PCUSA numerically is a dying denomination, but have you considered that it already may be dead? Its death well hidden by the perfume of a far left and mostly secular social agenda. If so, be advised that, although dead, it is not yet buried and it is very infectious. The unwary would do well to flee. Flee with your property if you can, but if not, then flee with just the clothes on your back. If necessary, give them that as well. The PCUSA has inclined its tent toward Sodom. It has and will continue to reap that reward. John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. '1956 article' is right on July 16, 2007 Right on! All of us evangelicals need to read this article carefully. I will share it with our elders and staff. Rev. Bill Solomon executive pastor Montreat EPC Montreat, N.C. The pope is a Catholic July 16, 2007 Didn't think it would ever happen, but I have to agree with Cliff Kirkpatrick this once. His criticism of the pope for endorsing the Catholic slam at us Protestants is a first. The Catholic comments are unfortunate and possibly a rare slip; however, we must remember that the pope is a Catholic. This is nothing near as problematic as the ordination rift in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Good going, Cliff. It would be great if we evangelicals found more things in common with liberal Louisville. Keep up the good work! Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C. Our religious toleration today July 16, 2007 Recently, The Layman Online had a Dr. Albert Mohler story about a woman Episcopal priest. She was at that time acting as both a priest and a practicing Muslim. I was amazed at the response that I got when I shared that story with a new friend. The response I got was filled with words of peace and mankind. God was being honored in many special ways in various houses of religion. We should all look for the common good and the common truths. The world is getting smaller today. The whole idea seemed to be just fine with him! I think he may have been raised an Episcopalian. His mother died this year at 99 years of age. She had written me that her son was unusually good at attending church until about the time he went off to college. Many, many years ago I went through the material in British historian Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. If memory serves, there was a story about Mohammed the prophet watching as many hundreds of his helpless Jewish enemies were killed at one time. There was also mention of his watching torture to try to get a treasure! The fall of Constantinople (now Istanbul) to Mohammed II much later in time was covered more thoroughly by Gibbon. The great Christian cathedral there was then converted to a mosque. More recently, I heard a knowledgeable person who grew up a Muslim in the Middle East say that, "There are many passages in both the Koran and the traditions of prophet Mohammed that condone violence." The June Tabletalk magazine had an excellent short article by Dr. Gene Edward Veith on our religious toleration today. Dr. Veith wrote in part: "Even in some Christian churches ... people are now cringing at invoking 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' ... as recommended by a liberal Presbyterian task force, 'Rock, Redeemer and Friend," 'Mother, Child and Womb,' 'Rainbow, Ark and Dove,' or 'Sun, Light and Burning Ray. …" Christianity is a revealed religion and the deity that we name "Burning Ray," being our own creation, is an idol. As if that were not bad enough, we are repudiating not just the first, but the second petition of The Lord's Prayer: "hallowed be thy name. …" So, Christians should be tolerant, but religious toleration has morphed into religious relativism, the notion that all religions are equally valid. Now, diversity is morphing into what can only be described as polytheism, the cultural need to affirm many gods. Chuck Nicolaus Davis, Calif. Valentine/Kirkpatrick response to Supreme Court decision 'inane' July 13, 2007 If one wonders why another 40,000 members vacated the pews of the Presbyterian Church (USA) last year and scores of churches are leaving the denomination, one need only read the inane press release issued on July 3, 2007, by the stated clerk and the General Assembly Council executive director on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v Seattle School District. In this recent decision, the Supreme Court ruled that solely race-based classification could not be used as a stand-alone criterion to assign students to particular schools in school districts in Seattle and Jefferson County, Kentucky (which includes Louisville – surprise!) when not designed to eliminate the impact of prior mandated segregation, or as part of a broader program to create diverse student populations consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. All in all, a fairly narrow ruling by the court. The decision did not disturb the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the 1954 decision that found required school segregation to be unconstitutional; nor did the Court disturb Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 decision holding that race could be used as a factor in higher education admissions as part of a broader policy to obtain the educational benefits of a diverse student body. The decision does not negate alternative plans to create racially or economically diverse schools by using socio-economic demographics, magnet schools, charter schools, or assignment based on student performance and educational needs – all of which can result in a racially diverse school environment. Rather, the decision stands for the principle that a school district cannot assign a student to a school based on the color of their skin, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause. You would never know all this from reading the press release issued by the leaders of our denomination. That press release states that, "The U.S. Supreme Court majority opinion has eliminated reasonable race-based solutions that may be necessary to insure (sic) desegregated schools and equal educational opportunities for all children. This is contrary to the long held policies of the Presbyterian Church (USA)." To justify this flat-out incorrect statement of the holding in the Seattle School District decision and justify the invalid response, the stated clerk and GAC executive director reached back into the denomination archives to pull out: 1. A policy statement affirming the principles of Brown v Board of Education. The Seattle School District case did not disturb the Brown decision. 2. A 1957 G.A. minutes reference urging adequate public schools and decrying racial discrimination. Nothing in the recent Court decision deals with adequate schools and the entire basis of the decision is to enforce the 14th Amendment ban on racial discrimination. 3. Two 1999 G.A. policy statements speaking about the evils of racism. As already noted, the Court held that the 14th Amendment prohibited assigning students to particular schools based solely on their race. That's about as anti-racism as you can get. Based on a complete misstatement of the holding in the Seattle School District case and irrelevant citations to G.A. records dealing with racism, the press release includes a preachy condemnation for the majority of the Supreme Court, stating that "ignoring the disparities that racism has created is not a remedy." The press release then ends with some very bad theology applying a passage from Galatians addressed to the Church of Jesus Christ to public school systems in the United States. Reading all this I must draw one of two conclusions. The first option is to conclude that our denominational leaders are intellectually challenged and could not digest the 90-odd pages of the Seattle School District decision. Since this was just too much information to take in, they heard a sound bite on CNN about a ruling invalidating the efforts of a school district to create diversity, figured it was all about those racist conservatives on the Court attacking the Gospel mandate of affirmative action and fired off a preachy but wholly inaccurate press release. The second option is to assume that Rev. Kirkpatrick and Ms. Valentine are really sharp cookies who understand all this perfectly well. In that case, I must conclude that they decided to take advantage of the fact that most folks will get their understanding of the Supreme Court's decision from a 30-second TV news sound bite and use this as an opportunity to take a cheap shot at some conservative justices and indirectly accuse them of being both racist and un-Christian. This may be completely dishonest but, when dealing with conservative justices appointed by the evil Republican administration, God will overlook the white lies. While this may be a good working ethic if you are employed by a political action committee or an election campaign, it gets a little shaky when per-capita dollars are in your paycheck. I'm torn between these two options. Are the leading administrators of my denomination fools or charlatans? I'm not sure I have enough information to decide. I want to think these are smart people but, if they are smart, then they are dishonest. I want to think they are honest but, if they are honest, then they are inept and uninformed. Either way, what was that good reason for sticking with the PCUSA until the last person out the door turns off the lights? If I think about it, perhaps I will remember. Oh yes, to throw the rascals out and get folks running the ship who are both smart and honest and are primarily concerned about the ends of the Church before the ends of a political and social agenda. So who is going to pull Rev. Kirkpatrick's hands from his death grip on the wheel of the Titanic? Can it be done? Time will tell. But how much time is left? Oops, there goes another congregation. Rev. Dean C. Waldt member-at large West Jersey Presbytery Ocean City, N.J. Bumper sticker for progressives July 13, 2007 Regarding an item in Nick Smith's letter [Letters, July 10, 2007] – I believe he may have coined a battle cry for our "progressive" colleagues: If it's not BOO-able, PUP-it! I smell a bumper sticker. Rev. Cameron Smith Appomattox, Va. About the 'true church' July 13, 2007 Good news from Louisville, at last. The stated clerk has acknowledged that churches that are called by God to move from a former denomination are not schismatic and that: "Each church is the Church catholic and not simply a part of it. Each church is the Church catholic, but not the whole of it. Each church fulfils its catholicity when it is in communion with the other churches." In other words, all of the faithful constitute the Church, no matter around whose campfire they sit from time to time. Of course, he is responding to the Holy Father's declaration that the Presbyterian Church (USA) and all other Christian denominations other than the Roman Catholic Church "are not churches in the proper sense." But how can Kirkpatrick assert that the PCUSA is part of the be "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" while, at the same time, countenancing language emanating from Louisville and elsewhere in the PCUSA that some faithful believers are "schismatics" and are thus excluded from the Church? This latest paper must surely evidence a change in heart. Thus, far from being schismatic, those current and former PCUSA congregations that faithfully follow God's call to, e.g., the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, nonetheless continue to be the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church, called into being, sent into mission, and governed by Jesus Christ alone, " along with the PCUSA, and all other believers. He says, "The Presbyterian Church (USA), affirming its historical continuity with the whole Church of Jesus Christ, is committed to the reduction of that obscurity and is willing to seek and to maintain communion and community with all other branches of the one, catholic Church (G-4.0203)." Hallelujah! This must also mean that, even as the stated clerk denies the unilateral assertion by the Holy See that the Roman Catholic Church is the "true church," neither can be the PCUSA. We can only pray that the "… commitment … to continue to live as faithful witnesses to the unity given to us in Jesus Christ" and the promise that "[w]e will neither abandon our relationships with the Roman Catholic Church, nor deny our own confessional understanding of what it means to be the church universal," will also be extended to fellow faithful Presbyterians. At least he has a new understanding of what emotions rise at the unilateral declaration that a particular body is the "true church." Michael R. 'Mac' McCarty Valentine, Kirkpatrick letter 'nothing more than political posturing' July 12, 2007 In response to the latest article concerning the decision by the Supreme Court, this is not the response of the entire Presbyterian Church (USA) but two of its officers acting in behalf of the entire denomination. Their response is nothing more than political posturing. The decision of the Supreme Court is truly color blind – in other words, there will be no consideration of race, it will be based on merit and other factors. Cliff and Linda, please speak only for yourselves! Todd Bensel Commissioned Lay Pastor Pilot Rock, Ore. A response to Drew Ludwig July 12, 2007 I thank Drew Ludwig [Letters, July 10, 2007] for his response to my letters regarding the need for a team of allies to march on Louisville with the authority to settle the property issue on behalf of all departing congregations. Ludwig raises some good issues. He suggests it would be better for him not to refer to "us" as schismatic. Frankly, I don't care how he refers to "us." But I am concerned that imputing to us the definition "schismatic" is an official recommendation from the highest authorities in Louisville (see "The Louisville Papers"). Spreading falsehood is just one of the tactics promoted by those formerly secret documents. The falsehood in this case is that orthodoxy can be schismatic. They don't use the word for its meaning, they use it for its power. That's a rhetorical trick, typically employed when an argument has little or no merit. In his last paragraph, he recommends that I should stop referring to those who wish to stay in the Presbyterian Church (USA) as covetous or "muggers." I never did. I save that charge for Louisville. Louisville is covetous of the property of others that does not belong to them. One need have only a keen grasp of the obvious to see that their own actions convict them of that accusation. Are they thieves? Well, sir, personally I don't care whether you use a knife or a lawyer, but if you take property or cash that doesn't belong to you, you're a thief. If that makes you uncomfortable about Louisville, then your conscience is good for another 10,000 miles. Jack O'Brien elder Beverly Heights Church Pittsburgh, Pa. PCUSA can't cite Scripture in regard to government pronouncements July 10, 2007 I would like the Rev. Kirkpatrick and Mrs. Valentine to point to one place in Scripture where Paul or Jesus, for that matter, commands the Church to redress grievances with the sitting government or its properly appointed judiciary. I would honestly like to hear the General Assembly Council speak to the other parts of The Book of Confessions and Scripture that do not fit their self-given power or narrow and close-minded understanding of this ruling. Where does the GAC find its mandate to speak for all Presbyterians? I see no disclaimer from the Rev. Kirkpatrick and Linda Valentine saying they speak only for themselves and not for the whole denomination. I am tired of defending our denomination and its increasing ties to organized political activities. I wonder how long until the Presbyterian Church (USA) loses its status as an nontaxable entity because of its increasing political action? Benjamin P. Glaser Pittsburgh, Pa. A response regarding the property trust issue July 10, 2007 This is a great example of the corruption in the Presbyterian Church (USA). If you oppose the minority leadership, they beat you over the head with the Book Of Order. When their position is not supported by the BOO, they PUP it. Maybe a presbytery should scruple the trust clause. Nick Smith elder First Presbyterian Church Wausau The denial of cluster bombs to protect U.S. troops is 'crazy' July 10, 2007 I was happy to see several address and try to explain the errors in the promotion of anti-cluster bomb issues. I was actually in the explosive ordnance disposal business during my military service 1961 to 1965, which may seem like a long time ago, but things have not changed that much in the arena of common ordnance. Cluster bombs are effective anti-personnel weapons that can save countless U.S. soldiers' lives, particularly in situations like Korea where we had hordes of the enemy sacrificing themselves to overrun our troops. They had similar usage, but not as effective, in Vietnam. In any type of munitions, the bomb disposal people know full well that a significant portion, usually no more than five percent, fail to work as needed. Also, it is common practice among most countries to have a certain percentage of delayed fuse bombs. These were commonly used by Germany against England and had the effect of denying entrance into damaged areas for days or even weeks. These weapons are common in our own stockpile and add greatly to the challenges of warfare. While time-delay fuses are commonly used for specific purposes – i.e., keeping people out of an area – they are only used for that. Since the intent with cluster bombs is immediate strategic personnel destruction, the use of delay fuses is not the issue. The issue is that a certain percentage will fail to go off and will remain a hazard for the future, but such is the case of war. The denial of the use of any ordnance which saves the lives of U.S. ground troops is crazy, for want of a better word. Many have chastised President Truman for the use of atomic weapons against Japan, yet it is estimated a half-million allied troop lives were saved by avoiding an actual invasion of Japan. Was it worth it? Seems likely to me. John West Hillsdale, Kansas Someone to lead July 10, 2007 I have read with interest the letters from Jack O'Brien [Letters, July 9, 2007] and the responses from Jim Henkel [Letters, July 6, 2007], and I have great respect for the writings of both of them. The situation seems to be that relatively few churches will have the will to try to leave the denomination, and Louisville (through the local presbyteries and synods) can deal with those churches on a one-at-a-time basis … and win most of the time. Each time they win, fewer other churches will be willing to attempt to leave. Louisville would have a much more difficult time if they had to deal with a large group of churches at one time. But who would lead such a group? Jack O'Brien suggested the New Wineskins group, and they would seem to be an obvious choice. As Jim Henkel points out, this does not seem to be a part of their agenda. Large churches or influential churches in local presbyteries might be candidates, but in our local presbytery the largest church has property of immense value, and I don't see them risking it. So, who will lead? If no leader arises, then Louisville maintains the status quo using their one-at-a -time strategy. Perhaps this is, in fact, their strategy. So, the individual church member is left with only the option of quietly leaving and doing his own search for a more suitable environment. I suppose this is what has been happening for the last few decades. Pete Allen Mesquite, Texas A response to Jack O'Brien July 10, 2007 You [Letters, July 9, 2007] are wise to realize that there will be a time to sit down with us, your brothers and sisters that remain in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Because that time will come, we would be wise to stop referring to you as "schismatics" or implying that you will no longer be a part of the Church. I would also like to humbly suggest that negotiations might go better if you refrained from referring to us as "covetous" or comparing us to muggers. Drew Ludwig Lafayette Ave Presbyterian Church Buffalo, N.Y. Discipline of liberals? July 10, 2007 I just got through reading "Shuck and Jive," the blog of John Shuck, pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Elizabethton, Tenn. I wish all evangelicals would log on and read this stuff. It stops just short of being blasphemy. He has links to similar sites. I remember how Parker Williamson experienced serious harassment, and the pastors of Hollywood Presbyterian Church got dismissed, for being too evangelical. Yet, Shuck remains a minister of Word and Sacrament in good standing. My question now is: When was the last time a minister in the PCUS, UPCUSA or PCUSA received any kind of censure or discipline for being too liberal or heterodox? Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Synod of Living Waters report serves as 'a warning' July 9, 2007 "Either we have a Constitution we will all live by, or agree to change where and when necessary, or we will have no Constitution and thereby no connectional polity and thereby no PCUSA." Administrative Review Committee Final Report (Synod of Living Waters, Draft Copy, May 24, 2007) at 5 (hereinafter, "ARC Report"). Oh, my. There they go again. In a vain attempt to save the immoral and devastating so-called property trust provision of the current Book of Order, a governing body that places polity before pastoral persuasion does exactly what it condemns in another. Ignoring (or conceding) the fact that the Presbyterian Church (USA) is no longer a connectional church when it comes to doctrine, discipline, worship, mission and discipline, it falls back on the coercive property trust provision in its Book of Order. Mirroring the gist of a report from the Synod of the Sun earlier this year, it suggests that the only effective connection remaining in the PCUSA of 2007 is the in terrorem effect of such a provision. Moreover, in recommending that the Synod of Living Waters look out for its own illegitimate business interests rather than the best interests of the holy catholic and apostolic Church, it "'cherry pick[s]'" the Book of Order.
The ARC Report condemns the civil corporations that have exercised their right to seek redress in the courts of the states and commonwealths that created them. It condemns the corporations for failing to "consult with their brothers and sisters in the Presbytery, and [for] fil[ing] suit against the Presbytery (their brothers and sisters) in the civil courts, when there is ample recourse through the church courts as set out in the Book of Order. …" ARC at 6-7. Suggesting that church courts that have no civil jurisdiction should decide matters of civil property law ignores the fact that, under most state ethics laws, any "court" that stood to profit from its decision would be required to recuse itself. In this particular case, the ARC has placed the interests of its synod (and by implication, the PCUSA) ahead of the presbytery, the only entity actually given any constitutional authority to make property decisions. See §§ G-11-0103i; G 8-0601. Why? Because if the policy is allowed to stand, other churches, in response to a call placed on them by God, may decide to "[take]. . . all their possessions that they had gathered, and the people that they had acquired in Haran, and . . . set out to go to the land of Canaan" (Genesis 12:5a). So, the ARC report is constitutionally flawed. The ARC then raises the age old question of: "When may a Christian properly resort to the civil courts for relief?" In response, it says
As discussed above, this argument is invalid as a matter of church law. Book of Order §G-9.0102a. It is also erroneous as a matter of Scripture and our confessions. Questions of state property law are precisely the sort of question that Paul, Peter, Calvin and the authors of the Westminster Confessions deemed appropriate for resolution by the civil authority. First Corinthians 6:1-8 really speaks to the ability of the church to exercise discipline within its own fellowship (1 Corinthians 5:12-13). In Romans 13, however, Paul conducts a brief discourse on when it is appropriate and even required that Christians submit to the lawful, God-ordained authority of the civil courts. In those areas of human life that promote the public good, resort to civil authority is actually an appropriate response by faithful Christians. See, Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-17. See, also, Westminster Confessions at 23.1,3. Paul's objections to the use of the courts by the faithful were based on concerns about vindicating personal grievances, improper motives and the Church's witness to the world. It was not a blanket prohibition against use of the civil courts; in fact, Paul himself appealed to the civil magistrate to protect his rights as a citizen of Rome. In his Commentaries on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, John Calvin, himself a lawyer by training, concluded that Scripture does not bar Christians from the civil courts in every case. He observes that:
As noted above, the PCUSA actually acknowledges that property-related issues are properly within the authority of the civil courts. "Remember: Almost all property matters are governed by state law." Presbyterian Church (USA) Legal Resource Manual – Property (bold-face in original). The ARC report is Scripturally flawed. Next, the ARC assumes facts that are contradicted by the record. In addressing itself to the propriety of the suits, it says:
In point of fact, it was the trustees of three Mississippi corporations who "took such action," and it is doubtful whether those un-ordained trustees answered the quoted questions. (Let us leave for another the day the greater question of the primacy of conscience and the call of the Holy Spirit over a man-made demand that officers place polity over Scripture.) Local church corporation trustees have a legal and fiduciary obligation to the church corporation to defend title to its property. Failure to seek legal recourse may not only jeopardize the property rights of the corporation (the local church), but also expose the trustees to personal liability. The ARC report is factually flawed. Next, the ARC describes the proper legal actions of the trustees as "vice." In its policy and accompanying notes, Mississippi Presbytery states that the church is not about property. John Calvin is quoted as to the Marks of the Church being "the preaching of the gospel and the right administration of the Sacraments." Perhaps a better quote is found in our Book of Confessions, the Scots Confession: "The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the Word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us ... ; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus ... ; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly administered, as God's Word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished." ARC Report at 7 (emphasis in original). As already shown, the action of the respective boards of trustees was proper under the only applicable law and in the only appropriate jurisdiction. Moreover, this quotation speaks to "ecclesiastical discipline." It is fascinating that the PCUSA refuses to exert any ecclesiastical discipline in matters ecclesiastical, claiming the right to do so only in matters civil and temporal. The ARC report is philosophically and theologically flawed. Next, in taking the leadership of the presbytery to task for attempting to act pastorally, the ARC ignores the log in its own eye – "The Louisville Papers" [Church Property Disputes: A Resource For Those Representing Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Presbyteries And True Churches In The Civil Courts ("Disputes") and "Processes for use by presbyteries in responding to congregations seeking to withdraw." ("Processes")]. The Presbytery of Mississippi rejected "The Louisville Papers" sub silentio. One must recall that those papers, secretly issued to each synod and presbytery, counseled presbyteries that if a particular church appeared to be considering leaving the denomination, the presbytery should:
By implication, the ARC report endorses "The Louisville Papers" and is morally flawed. Finally, the ARC assumes that any church which might institute a suit to quiet title is getting ready to leave the denomination. In fact, every congregation ought to clear the title to its property. If a church wants to finance a building campaign, or to begin a capital campaign, it may very well encounter difficulties. Lenders will be less willing (or unwilling) to lend money secured by property in which the borrower (the congregation) does not have clear title. Contributors may be less willing to give money to a church if the funds can be taken by a third party – the PCUSA. Thus, there are many valid reasons short of disaffiliation for quieting title. But the PCUSA, relying on a dictatorial model rather than a "connectional" model, assumes the worst in its affiliated congregations. Th e ARC report is flawed as a matter of faith. Read as a whole, the ARC report serves as a warning to any congregation that is considering its options. Get out and get out now! The PCUSA Bank & Trust Company cares more about property and perks than it does about spreading the Gospel. It persists in its view that it alone is the "true church" and that it must preserve its power at any cost. Now is the time. Michael R. "Mac" McCarty A response to Jim Henkel July 9, 2007 I understand Jim Henkel's position [Letters, July 6, 2007] with regard to New Wineskins and its relationship with departing Presbyterian Church (USA) congregations. I enjoy reading his letters to The Layman Online, too. Let me say, in case there's any doubt or misunderstanding – I despise the covetousness of the PCUSA and even of congregations that will not act against the apostasy and heresy of the PCUSA because they fear the loss of property. Nevertheless, there is a lot to be said for being good stewards of our (ours and the Lord's) property, stewards who are willing to fight for the property against threats such as those embodied in "The Louisville Papers." But I am really concerned that there should be some leadership exhibited by New Wineskins on the property issue so that it doesn't twist us into knots and wring us dry of enthusiasm. Jim Henkel seems to say that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, therefore Wineskins, doesn't have an interest in the property of its incoming members. Well, I remember a time when New Wineskins simply met, composed and affirmed confessions, prayed for a brighter day and agreed to meet again. But, eventually, the reality of the situation took over and hearts filled with a passion for our Lord could no longer stand the insults being hurled at Him. It was time to act. In those days, we were given to such prophetic acts. My own congregation severed communion with several presbyteries that continued to assault the peace, unity and purity of the body with overtures seeking to change ordination standards even after successive votes in successive years showed mounting resistance. We spoke against, wrote against and preached against the unseemly acts of the church at Louisville. However, something has changed and Jim Henkel's letter gives a sense of it. We have moved from prophetic acts to process. And there is no passion in process. With respect, I really don't see it the way Jim Henkel sees it. His letter says that they (New Wineskins) "continue to be clear on the fact ... they hold no interest in the property of member churches." My understanding is that they will have no property interest – that is, no property trust clause. But, "no interest?" How can they not be interested in the well-being of these congregations? Even Christ who promises us eternal life is still concerned with our health, and the pain and disease that might inflict parts of our human bodies. Even Christ would want us to act to preserve and protect those parts, to act to keep them healthy and functional as long as we are alive. Christ did care about the health of our corporal real estate and He proved it by healing people with disfiguring disease. Of course the EPC and Wineskins have an interest – and it's a mutual interest. What's more, they have an obligation. In many presbyteries, currently there are negotiations between congregations and presbytery executives for separation. The compromises, whether amicable or enforced by court order, are not uniform. Some will damage either or both parties. In my opinion, the pain and loss that these brothers and sisters will endure is perhaps not necessary. There should be a team charged with taking our case to Louisville, doing the math for them (what a story we have to tell!) and showing them how they could benefit from an omnibus departure agreement. Louisville really does not yet see how their strength lies in being gracious, not contentious. They really don't yet see how their aggression causes them to become even more enmeshed. This is a sound argument that I think they would hear. Nevertheless, if we did have a unified team, we could say, "This is how it will be done." That's a prophetic act. Mark my words, something will happen eventually to require the EPC and the PCUSA to sit at the same table and hash this out. It will. So, I'm just suggesting we take a first step. We are obligated because the PCUSA is covetous of the property of affiliated congregations. As congregations seek to depart, it is attempting in various way to appropriate that property it does not own itself. Those are objectively sinful and immoral positions. I believe we must admonish them and try to prevent them from doing so. Now, I believe that obligation is beginning to fall upon the EPC and New Wineskins. What about the property trust clause? What about compromise? Look, if I would have the temerity to walk in the toughest part of town at midnight because I thought I had a right to do so, and someone who disagreed with my self-avowed right decided to hold me up with a knife to my back, I would give up my wallet in the blink of an eye. That does not mean I am complicit, nor does it mean I endorse the thief's beliefs. It just means that, at the time, I thought it was the right thing to do. Now, what is the right thing to do? Jack O'Brien elder Beverly Heights Church Pittsburgh, Pa. Churches face a lack of spiritual maturity July 9, 2007 Enjoyed the article "Non-evangelicals 'waiting for 1956,' speaker says." Yes, the pastor is important, but even a church without a dedicated pastor can do great at evangelism if, as you say, the congregation is full of spiritually mature people. Remember, Jesus sent out 72 people to do the work of evangelism. I bet all of them were faithful disciples. The problem so many mainline churches face today is a lack of spiritual maturity brought about exactly because of the pluralistic beliefs you mention are held by churches (and many "progressive" pastors). Without a firm foundation in Christ, churches will go by the wayside and this, unfortunately, will be the fate of many, many mainline churches. And I think God will allow it to happen. Yet, He will raise up faith elsewhere because He is faithful. John Silliman PCUSA has no 'uniform policy' on New Wineskins churches July 6, 2007 As an elder in the Beverly Heights Presbyterian Church, Pittsburgh Presbytery, Jack O'Brien [Letters, July 5, 2007] should be conversant with the recommendations of the New Wineskins Association of Churches strategy Team. The strategy team report lifts up two faithful options: 1) remain in the Presbyterian Church (USA) as a prophetic voice for reform and renewal; and 2) realign with another Reformed body. As a point of information, the other Reformed body that is most receptive to the possibility of providing safe haven for congregations transferring from the PCUSA is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. The New Wineskins EPC Presbytery that Mr. O'Brien references was formed at the 27th General Assembly of the EPC. It began receiving applications for membership on June 25, 2007. Said application is straightforward and simple; it is available at newwineconvo.com right on the homepage of the Web site. Just click the word "application" in the article "EPC Creates NW Presbytery." This application requires only the local church's contact information and the following additional information: the date of the congregational meeting; the result of the vote to seek membership in the New Wineskins EPC Presbytery, which must be at least a simple majority; the number of members on the congregation's active role; and the average worship attendance. In addition, each elder in active service, and each resting elder who desires his or her ordination to be recognized by the EPC, is required to sign-on-the-line that he or she: 1) affirms the "essentials" of the EPC; and 2) acknowledges the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as the only subordinate standard of doctrine in the EPC. Applications are being processed as they are received. Mailing information is clearly indicated on the application. Of course, Elder O'Brien's primary concern has to do with the other side of the equation: How will PCUSA presbyteries respond to the filing of such an application with the EPC and with a request for dismissal to this sister Reformed body. As he indicates, "a mishmash of decisions are being made, ranging from graceful separation to punishing lawsuits." Mr. O'Brien desires the New Wineskins Presbytery of the EPC to "step in and assert yourselves … with EPC representatives at your side" in order to – in some way – mitigate against the "mishmash" in favor of a more uniform policy on the part of the PCUSA. However, the EPC and New Wineskins have been, and continue to be, clear on the fact that they hold no interest in the property of member churches. Therefore, as the Application for Transitional Membership in the EPC clearly states: "The EPC bears no responsibility or liability in property disputes involving transitional member churches." The cavalry is not coming Elder O'Brien. Take heart, Calvary covers it all! Jim Henkel North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio Ms. Foote, give it a rest July 6, 2007 Screaming hyperbole is certainly all the rage today but, please, Ms Foote [Letters, July 5, 2007], give it a rest. Everyone knows that the statements by the Washington Office do not cause tooth decay. I agree that Mr. Kettlewell could have done a better job of explaining his position – but I fail to see how your sarcasm is any different. I believe the point that he probably wanted to make was that – once again – Ms. Giddings Ivory and the D.C. office have jumped on the latest PC band wagon with little or no real knowledge of the facts. Specifically, which bomb unit is the office attacking? Is it a BDU or a SOW or a JSOW or something else? Or, is this just a case of: "America is doing it, so it must be wrong. …" Well, the truth is that cluster munitions are not even remotely indiscriminate at the time of the initial attack. They have a specific legitimate military application and are always used within that application on the basis of well-thought out and professional military judgment. For some church bureaucrat to sit in his or her ivory tower and bemoan something from ignorance is the height of arrogance. Furthermore, the rest of that statement "... as well as for the tendency for a portion of the bomb to remain unexploded in the ground as a hidden 'landmine'" is, again, pure hyperbole. As long as there has been bombardment in any of its many guises, there have been some level of unexploded or 'dud' munitions potential. To intimate that these are being deliberately used as landmines is reprehensible. When the Washington Office starts to operate in accordance with the directives of the General Assembly and the General Assembly Council, I may care what they have to say. In the meantime, I will continue to let my elected representatives know that when said office offers an opinion such as this, they need to see it as the politically and ideologically motivated ravings of an individual with too bully a pulpit. The Washington Office does not speak for me as a Presbyterian. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. 'New Wineskins needs to act' July 5, 2007 The list of congregations that would rather not be in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is growing in anticipation of the creation of the New Wineskins Presbytery by the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. It is a wonderful feeling to have been close enough to the events leading to this moment to have experienced God's hand at work. Along the way, I complained about the Wineskins. Over the course of almost a year, I criticized them in this space for meeting without taking action to act on their convictions. Eventually, all that changed and New Wineskins took a tremendous leap of faith that is already being rewarded. Now, it's coming time to take another step. This one is way out of the comfort zone, but, I believe, an absolute necessity. It is nearly time for New Wineskins to negotiate an omnibus agreement of departure for its member congregations who are on their way to the EPC. As soon as the new EPC presbytery is created, New Wineskins needs to act. Don't leave these congregations to their own devices – a completely unplanned, uncharted and unpredictable course. You Wineskins could step in and assert yourselves and you ought to do it with EPC representatives at your side. Don't underestimate your impact or your importance in this area. Only a presbytery is permitted by the Book of Order to dismiss a congregation. And New Wineskins will need to remind the PCUSA that this isn't about a congregation – it's about a movement, and that's not covered in the Book of Order. There are, I'm certain, many people who wonder, as do I, how Wineskins can allow the PCUSA to pick off these congregations and, through whatever means, convert the congregation's property to their own. A mishmash of decisions are being made, ranging from graceful separation to punishing lawsuits. Help these brothers and sisters to work this out. Jack O'Brien Elder Beverly Heights Church Pittsburgh, Pa. Jack Rogers' views on the Bible and homosexuality July 5, 2007 Why was this man the moderator for the General Assembly for the Presbyterian Church (USA)? What is wrong with this denomination that we would give rise to someone who twists Holy Scripture for their own purpose and mocks God, as Jack Rogers has done by giving a speech such as this? I believe I have just answered my own question. Woe to us! We truly are becoming the blind leading the blind. Collie Parsons Walla Walla, Wash. America needs Africa July 5, 2007 Well, it's summer again (actually, it's winter in Malawi). This means it's mission trip season once again. Here at African Bible College, we get two kinds of mission trips. One kind is where a busload of American college kids drives past my house with cameras around their necks, singing Kumbaya. I say to myself, "Hey look, Ma, I'm a missionary, yuck yuck!" The other kind is typified by the Louisiana church that sends us Charles, an auto mechanic. He'll come and spend two weeks repairing vehicles. We don't allow Charles to leave unless he promises to come back. Oh yes, there's a third kind. In church last week, they recognized some Americans on a mission trip, and it was announced that they had just collected 8,000 "decisions for Christ." Didja ever wonder why, when all the mission trips come home and they report the number of decisions for Christ, it exceeds the population of the Earth? It's because all of this year's decision-ees made decisions for all the mission trips. They did the same thing last year, and they'll do it again next year. They do it because they get a free Bible, which can then be turned into cigarette paper or sold for cash. We here on the field can't locate the decision-ees for follow-up, and we don't notice any increased attendance in the churches. The justification for mission trips that I hear most frequently is that all who go on them are "changed." That's it, then – mission trips aren't about the people who receive them, they're about the people who go on them. Which means you're not ministering to us, we're ministering to you. Which means we've reached a point in the history of the Church in which American Christianity needs African Christianity as much as the Africans need the Americans. It's a symbiotic relationship. Africans need the material aid that Americans can give, mission trips promote that, and Americans need to send mission trips so laypeople can be changed. I see it now. Here's Fred, who never in his life had the nerve to share his faith with anybody. Then he goes on a mission trip. After seeing Africans make decisions for Christ, Fred is vastly more inclined to share his faith with a friend, relative or co-worker. Over time, this has a cumulative effect. Church pews get filled with people who got invited to church by people who once upon a time went on a mission trip. And if I were to become a stateside pastor, I believe that I would encourage mission trips – in the long run, it resuscitates the home church. Only I would also try to send people like Charles – people with specific skills who can come and do specific jobs within a specific time-frame. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi A response to Jim Kettlewell's letter July 5, 2007 I realize that it is an a priori truth around here that anything the Washington Office says is wrong, sacrilegious, apostate and causes tooth decay, but is it too much to ask that you [Letters, July 3, 2007] actually make an argument against what they said? All you have done is to say that the Washington Office said something and that every Presbyterian should protest it, but you never actually give a reason. What I take from your letter is that because terrorists use weapons that kill indiscriminately, then America should, too. You must be basing that on the time-honored principle of "if it's good enough for the terrorists, it's good enough for America." I guess that means we've given up on the whole "city upon a hill" thing and, instead, are going with the seven-year-old's lament of, "They did it first." Higher standard? We don't need no stinking higher standard! Also, apparently, you believe that the church should be speaking in favor of the indiscriminate killing of civilians. What exactly is your Biblical justification for that? Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo. Left congregation to join 'truly Christ-centered and Bible-believing church' July 5, 2007 I am disappointed, and it is with a heavy heart that I left Calvary Presbyterian Church of San Francisco, as others I know also have. I have joined a truly Christ-centered and Bible-believing church that is nearly 4,600 members strong and growing. I drive over an hour to hear, worship and participate in the confessing church in Menlo Park. It seems that the church (Calvary) is more focused on promoting issues and justifying people's behaviors (homosexual) that completely disregard what Jesus came and died and rose for. Christ came for us to be remorseful, repent from the lives we had been leading, get on our knees, bow down, ask for forgiveness and leave the life we had been leading. It seems that Calvary is promoting a different message under the guise of being "loving." There is a difference. Christ did not teach those who truly follow Him to go and promote lifestyles (homosexual) that are self-pleasing, full of arrogance and pride. Yes, we are to reach out to those who seek that behavior and homosexual lifestyle, reach out to them in Christ, love them, but not to support and encourage their behavior. Rather, we are to minister and gently guide them to Christ, letting the Holy Spirit transform their hearts and minds. No one can stand before God as we are because of God's complete purity. It is only through Jesus that we dare to approach God. I pray that those in the church (Calvary) will open their eyes and fall on their knees before Jesus confessing Him. May God have mercy on those that walk away from Him. T.J. Tellier Former member Calvary Presbyterian Church San Francisco, Calif. Washington Office should stop pushing unreliable and inaccurate information July 3, 2007 So, now the Washington Office wants to ban cluster bombs. (Maybe they should direct their efforts toward the terrorist who spent much of last week trying to detonate home-made cluster bombs in London.) Interesting to me is how the Washington Office ends its suggested sample letter that we Presbyterians are supposed to send to our congressmen: "Please support efforts to ban these unreliable, inaccurate, and unhumane weapons." Personally, I am urging all Presbyterians to write our Washington Office asking them to refrain from pushing "unreliable and inaccurate" information that they know nothing about. Jim Kettlewell elder Christ Presbyterian Church Canton, Ohio Comments by Quincy church's pastor 'quite interesting' July 3, 2007 I found some of the comments by Rod Bakker quite interesting. My wife and I have been very involved in the Quincy church for about eight years now. She is currently chair of the deacons. I am not a member because I am an ordained minister of Word and sacrament; I am a member of Great Rivers Presbytery. My theology is very similar to that of the members who are leaving the denomination, but my wife and I have chosen to stay in the Presbyterian Church (USA) for two basic reasons: We do not believe it is yet time to give up on the PCUSA, and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church has some policies that we find intrusive in ways that are not mandated or even recommended by Scripture. These policies have been glossed over by the people who have filtered the information given to the congregation. Our congregation was also told that the presbytery was threatening to remove the pastor and his assistant, as well as the session, if the congregation did not vote to leave. This was a misinterpretation of a message from Jim Bell. Mr. Bell told the pastor he expected the session and pastors to resign if the congregation did not vote to leave. Given the extremely harsh (bordering on hateful) things some of the leaders had said during discussions, anyone with any sense would have expected them to resign and leave. Instead, this was construed as a threat by the presbytery. That was then used, in the words of one elder, as a "trump card," playing on people's emotional attachment to the pastor and his assistant to sway votes. Even so, one-fourth of the voting members voted not to leave the PCUSA. Nearly half the congregation did not even vote. Bottom line: only 40 percent of the members of First Presbyterian Church have voiced a desire to leave the PCUSA, and we have e-mail evidence that some of them are already doubting their decision to do so. But what I find most telling is Rod's description of "the telling sign of whether we [are Christ's] disciples." Rod said it's how we conduct ourselves in times of disagreement. For the past eight years, I have faithfully attended this church, taught Sunday school, given children's sermons, and preached when asked. I preached for Rod and conducted a wedding so he could finish his vacation with his family. I preached gratis once so he and his assistant could attend a marriage seminar with their wives and not have to worry about writing a sermon. (My wife and I had benefited greatly from the same seminar.) Jesus said people would know we are His disciples because we have love for one another. I tried to show that in my relationships with the pastor and the elders. But in the week leading up to the vote, they took action that prevented me from speaking before the vote, even though I had agreed (at Rod's request) to moderate the meeting if Rod became tired. At the meeting, someone moved that voice be given to members of the presbytery married to church members. It was defeated, and some who are still my friends saw elders and their families shouting to help defeat the motion that would have allowed me to speak. What really bothers me, much more than any personal offense, is that so many people were denied hearing the truth about so much that has gone on in this church. While it is not on the level of truth as Jesus is the Truth, nevertheless it is truth that could have set them free to vote their conscience rather than their fears. I appreciate how The Layman reports occasions when liberals try to silence evangelical voices. I hope you will also let people know that sometimes it is evangelicals who try to silence their fellow evangelicals. Darwin Smith Quincy, Ill. With departing congregations, PCUSA could act 'gracious and, well, Christian' July 2, 2007 I've just read where three Presbyterian Church (USA) churches in southeastern Pennsylvania have voted to leave and join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Now begins the litigation over ownership of church property. What was interesting to me was the strategy they were using: hiring the same lawyer to represent them. I've been wondering for some time why other churches didn't pursue the same strategy. At least, that way, smaller churches wishing to leave and keep their property can split the legal fees. While losing your church property and having to worship in a school cafeteria must surely be traumatic, consider the dilemma that the Episcopalians and the PCUSA are now in. So they go to court and win their case. Then what? They have a building that must be maintained, and a handful of denominational loyalists who can't begin to support a church. So, they sell the property. Who do they sell to? Evangelicals, maybe even the very congregations that broke away. What do they do with the small group of loyalists? They use the proceeds from the sales to build them new little church buildings. So they, too, must make a move, which is what they went to court over to avoid. Meanwhile, the denominational home office and the presbytery will have lost the opportunity to gain the moral high ground by simply dismissing the dissident congregations, which will appear before the public as David standing up to Goliath. Had the denominational and presbytery potentates simply dismissed congregations to the EPC with their property, they would have appeared gracious and, well, Christian. Hey, if a novelist tried to get what's going on published as fiction, no publisher would accept it. It would be considered too unbelievable. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Yes, someone is counting the departures! July 2, 2007 Neal Humphrey [Letters, June 29, 2007] asked: "Is anyone tabulating this data and comparing it to pre-PUP vote numbers?" I asked the same thing. The answer was The Layman had the articles on recent events, so I put it together into one Web site. The site has a table of churches leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA), and some further back into the Presbyterian Church in America and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church founding days. It also has a several pages dedicated to my neighbor church Kirk of the Hills. New info has come from PCA historians and the all-seeing and powerful Google! The Web site was recently approved to move to the prestigious ibiblio.org for hosting. This will be a much richer, easier to manage, full Web site, instead of shoehorning it into a blog site. Jim Welch It is getting curiouser and curiouser in the PCUSA July 2, 2007 Please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Stated Clerk Kirkpatrick once file a friend-of-the court brief in which it was declared that Native Americans should have the right to use hallucinogens in their ceremonies? If so, we are a denomination that is on record as allowing a person the right (based on his religious beliefs) to use illegal drugs. We are now also on record as being opposed to any pharmacist who, based on his or her religious beliefs, will not provide a "night after" early abortion-causing drug. So, we are in favor of allowing non-Christians to use illegal drugs based on their beliefs, but we are not in favor of allowing Christians not to provide drugs to others based on their beliefs. Yep, that's us. The next thing we might do is go on record saying that a presbytery cannot treat a "standard" in the Book of Order as an "essential." Oh, wait a minute, I think we already did that, too. It is getting curiouser and curiouser in the Presbyterian Church (USA). Dave Horner Pastor Bethany Presbyterian Church Mendenhall, Pa. Is dual-standing possible? July 2, 2007 I just talked with the United Church of Christ pension board and they informed me that I can no longer pay into my pension that I had established with them while an ordained UCC minister. I transferred my ordained standing into the PCUSA four years ago. They said the only way I could pay into it was if I had been granted dual-standing. I wonder if this would be the same case with the Presbyterian Church (USA) pension board? If I transfer my standing from the PCUSA to another Reformed body, then I would not be able to pay into the pension plan and receive its benefits. Do you know if this is true? Is it possible to have dual standing with the Presbyterian Church in America or the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and the PCUSA? Does anyone else have that dual standing? If so, then I could maintain my current pension and health care status with my current employer. Chaplain Rev. Dr. Gene Sipprell Editor's Note: We refer those with questions about pension benefits in the PCUSA to the booklet, "Answers To Questions You've Pondered, But Didn't Know Whom To Ask ," published by the Presbyterian Lay Committee. My letter seems to have been misinterpreted July 2, 2007 My letter [Letters, June 28, 2007] seems to have been misinterpreted. Its point was about editorial sloppiness. The article headline suggested that 75 percent of the congregation voted to seek dismissal, when in fact it was 75 percent of those present at the congregational meeting who voted to seek dismissal, which according to the membership numbers reported in the article is 40.5 percent of the congregation (which, by any definition, is not the same thing as the number of people who attend a congregational meeting). My letter was only about the way your journal headlined the meeting, not the meeting itself. Christine Kooi Baton Rouge, La. |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |