 |
|
| July
2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| If
people learn what's going on, PCUSA's coffers might be emptier than they
are July 31, 2007 Common sense would tell one that Presbyterian Church (USA) officials should thank their lucky stars for lousy communications. If the 87 percent who are uninformed learned what really goes on, the coffers might well be even emptier than they are now. That could be disastrous for many valuable PCUSA efforts, as well as the fluff to which we have become accustomed. Pat Riggins elder First Presbyterian Church Bloomington, Ind. I like to hear from Malawi July 31, 2007 I do hope the Rev. Dr. Larry Brown [Letters, July 30, 2007] will continue to write to The Layman Online from Malawi. I took particular delight in his "baboon" dog letter back on Aug. 23, 2006! Chuck Nicolaus Davis, Calif. Rebuttals miss Rev. Brown's basic contention July 31, 2007 The rebuttals to Larry Brown's letter [Letters, July 30, 2007] concerning what I call "drive-by missionaries" have been numerous and often eloquent. However, none of them effectively refute his basic contention – namely that, in the majority of cases, people in the developing countries would benefit more if the American groups stayed home and sent what they would have spent on travel directly to permanent, on-site missionaries for use in meeting pressing local needs. Fenton G. Cates Ashland, Ore. Further thoughts on festivals July 31, 2007 Thank you, Ms. Coleman [Letters, July 27, 2007], for your response. However, I feel I need to better explain my position. I am not disagreeing with your points, only with the criticism of festivals. Festivals are not designed to be deep in theology, only to present the Gospel to those who are seeking. The 250-plus churches in the area that participated in our festival are the ones responsible for furthering the education of the new believers. Two weeks after the festival is not nearly enough time to tell if the festival sparked a revival. However, as long as the churches continue to work together, the city and surrounding areas should see gradual improvement for everyone over the next several years and beyond. What The Omaha World Herald article did not clearly explain was that the "hundreds" (5,500-plus out of 105,000) of people raising their hands to signal their commitment to Christ did so only after being led in prayer by Luis Palau that their sins be forgiven and asking Jesus into their hearts. After raising their hands, they met briefly with counselors who presented them with the Gospel of John, answered any questions they might have, and offered another prayer with the new believer. The artists and athletes involved in the festival had the exact opposite of the "It's All About Me" mentality. Every single person that spoke during the festival directed all praise to God … repeatedly. Saturday's top-billed artist, TobyMac sings it best with, "I don't want to gain the whole world and lose my soul." All I am asking is that our recently completed festival is given a little time before passing judgment on its success. I am well aware of mission work being done overseas, as my sister-in-law recently returned from a year in Afghanistan. But just as different generations require different methods to be reached, so do different societies. It is extremely rare for someone to die in America simply because they are a Christian, but that does not make those of us who are not called to serve as a missionary abroad any less serious about our faith. Our fellow Americans need to hear the Gospel, too. On a side note, I will not disagree that there are churches in this country distributing diet Gospel, but that is not the case with all churches that offer a "contemporary" service. For example, someone attending my church would hear the same message delivered whether they attended one of our "traditional" services or our "contemporary" service. Different songs, different styles, but the same substance, as required by our session and members. Rob Fouraker Omaha, Neb. Another comment about the Washington Office July 31, 2007 At least two pastors have agreed with my comment [Letters, July 24, 2007] that the Washington Office is like a loose cannon – out of control. This office, in the name of the Presbyterian Church (USA), has advocated partial-birth abortion. The Word of God says, "Thou shalt not kill." This office, in the name of the PCUSA, has advocated same-sex marriages. The Word of God says, "Thou shalt not commit adultery." The PCUSA is in crisis because the leadership has forsaken the Word of God in favor of the liberal values of the culture. Jack Vanderbleek elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. Indigenous people are not 'animals in a zoo' for mission trips July 30, 2007 Just as I expected, some people wrote in and objected to my views on youth group mission trips. The difference between them and me is that, following a mission trip, I get feedback from the Malawians. One said, "These people come to our village, look at us as if we were animals in a zoo, then leave." Others have noted that mission trippers tend to stay bunched up and make little effort to talk to Malawians. Mission trippers often offend local culture, such as when boys and girls hold hands in public – a big no-no here. A ministry closely allied with us is Children Of The Nations. It's an outreach to orphans. They tell me that mission trippers have come here and become sponsors of orphans – a commitment of something like $500 per year. So far, so good. But one, nine-day mission tripper told me that she had to raise $2,500 for her trip here. This means that for the cost of sending one, nine-day mission tripper, you can support a Malawian orphan for five years. Call me crazy, but something tells me there's just gotta be a better way. Here's what I've experienced: "Hi! My name is Cindy, I've taken a semester off from college, and I'll be here for six weeks!" "And what are you going to do while you're here, Cindy?" "I have no idea! I'm just here to bless you! Feed me!" Over the years, I've run across a number of Cindys. If I go home on furlough and attempt to raise additional support (because insurance premiums, etc., increase), I find myself competing with the Cindys. If stateside pastors had to raise support the way missionaries must, the people in the pews would have to listen to a lot more sermons preached by ruling elder Bob. While she was here, Cindy learned to say, "Muli bwanji (how are you?)." Career missionaries go to language school so they can preach the Gospel to indigenous peoples in their native tongue. And so, my question continues to be, in a world of finite resources, are nine-day trippers and six-week Cindys really the best option? The October 2006 issue of Missiology cites long-term studies of those who went on mission trips. People were interviewed five and 10 years following their trip. The studies found that, while there were exceptions, in general there was little evidence that those mission trippers behaved or exhibited lifestyles or held values different from the general population. So, when Cindy gushes with enthusiasm about her trip three weeks after her return home, her pastor may want to take that with just a grain of salt. The Rev. Nathan Lamb [Letters, July 26, 2007] accuses me of being anti-American. This is like accusing Al Gore of being anti-environment or Dolly Parton of being anti-country music (we're all Tennesseans, you see). I've adopted a Malawian child. I named him Carey after William Carey, the pioneer British missionary. Carey became an American citizen a couple of years ago. How many foreign-born children are now Americans because of Rev. Lamb? Let's be real, people. Arriving at a foreign destination doesn't make you a missionary any more than visiting Mt. Vernon makes you George Washington. While it may be true that our Father in heaven owns the cattle on a thousand hills, He only gives us a finite amount of cash to work with down here. So, I repeat my basic question: In a world of limited resources, and with a host of options before us, are we absolutely positive that sending Cindy is absolutely the best way to go? Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi A reply to the letter by Walter B. Funk July 30, 2007 First, I would like to point out that although I would affirm the right of all Presbyterian Church (USA) officers to hold their own personal beliefs, I believe it would be inappropriate for an officer to use their office as a stage (or pulpit) from which they proclaim their personal beliefs, when those beliefs are in disagreement with official PCUSA positions. That being said; I take strong exception to the Rev. Dr. Walter B. Funk's statement [Letters, July 26, 2007] that "[Ms. Giddings Ivory] suggested on national television that the PCUSA supported gay marriage." His assertion is wholly false, and a careful reading of the transcript of her statement would bare that out. It's true that, "[s]ome would say she lied about a position of the church," but I'm not one of them. It is no wonder to me why she never replied to his letter where he asked "if she's finally gotten it right regarding the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s position on marriage." She clearly had it right to begin with. His letter undoubtedly found its way into the bit bucket along with many others so deserving. Arthur Woodling Big Cove, Ala. Short-term mission trips produce fruit for the Kingdom July 27, 2007 I always appreciate reading Larry Brown's letters [Letters, July 25, 2007]. His experience on the mission field creates credibility for me. Still, I want to respond to his statements about sending church members on mission trips. I know that what he says about poor stewardship in this is often true. There is, though, another side to the subject. Our church has been sending people out on mission trips for more than 15 years. The trips have produced fruit for the Kingdom. Two of our members are now on the mission field (in Africa and Afghanistan) as career missionaries because of such trips. Others have come back and become deeply involved in local prison ministries, tutoring and care for the poor, as well as evangelical outreach. We have a couple who retired early to lead relief missions and are even now with a group doing cleanup after the floods in nearby Kansas. We have sent people with specific building and mechanical skills to do work the missionaries cannot do alone. The amount of giving to missions (apart from the money spent on supporting trips) has increased ten-fold. The church now has a heart for missions. I think that part of this success is that we establish long-term relationships with a limited number of ministries. We do not send people out for tours of missions – there has to be some focus of service. Most of our people pay their way, some of them traveling back to a particular mission year after year. And we make sure that people know there is a mission just hundreds of feet outside our church's doors. Are we guilty of missing our mark? I'm sure that this is occasionally the case. Are we a burden to the missionaries, rather than a support? Possibly, at some times, but from the response of missionaries who have become friends over the years, the burden has been worthwhile. I am concerned that people don't just sightsee the problems of the world, but some people will never be enthused about missions until they experience some of it first-hand. Larry, thanks for your words and your work. I hope that none of us underestimate the difficulty of your work or the burdens that we can impose, regardless of our good intentions. Tom Gray Kirk of the Hills Tulsa, Okla. About short-term missions July 27, 2007 I must agree with Larry Brown [Letters, July 25, 2007]. I have had mixed emotions about short-term missions, whether they are cost-effective or not. I have supported Radio 4VEH in Haiti for several years. Thirty-five dollars will pay for one hour of broadcasting. Thirty dollars a month will support an indigenous pastor in India. I had considered a mission trip to Haiti, which would probably have given me warm fuzzies for a while. When I balanced the minimal effect I would have, costing thousands of dollars, against the work of an indigenous pastor who lives on-site, I concluded I would be a better steward of the Lord's money by increasing my direct ministry support. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. A response to 'What is the best possible stewardship of the Lord's resources?' July 27, 2007 My church has just sent 12 high school students on an international short-term mission project, to Vida Joven in Nicaragua, in fact. We only do international mission trips with high school students, and alternate every second or third year (in rotation with a domestic urban/rural mission). They are going to do high school youth ministry in Nicaragua with Vida Joven (Young Life). They will certainly learn and be impacted in equal or greater measure to what they give. But is it a waste of money? Is it the "best possible stewardship?" Maybe not but, then again, neither are church buildings. House churches would be far more economical and arguably more effective a form of housing God's people gathered for worship. I have seen the same missiological statistics Mr. Brown [Letters, July 25, 2007] references. I won't and can't argue against them. I can share my own experience, my call to ministry crystallized through multiple summers of short-term youth mission trips in and out of country. The opening of my eyes to Western waste and materialism came as a result of those summer trips to Haiti and the Dominican Republic. My ongoing heart for the people of the world, and not just Americans, was planted and cultivated during those formative years. At my present church, where I have been pastor for five years, our 100-family church has helped send eight-to-10 high school youths on short-term missions for the past 10 years. Out of that 10-year span, there is one ordained pastor, two in full-time ministry, one in full-time missions (in Nicaragua!), and four-to-five who are now serving as elders or deacons in our church. Each of them would be quick to credit the Holy Spirit and a solid church and youth ministry for their spiritual development, but I know each also point to those short-term mission experiences as significantly formative. I recognize that for some, particularly in affluent settings, international short-term missions can be one more summer camp experience taken for granted but, to many, it is a glimpse at what God is doing in the world and can do through a life of obedience and service. Robert Austell pastor Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church Charlotte, N.C. A response to Rob Fouraker's letter July 27, 2007 I thank Mr. Fouraker [Letters, July 24, 2007] for his response to my letter. But I must be insistent in my doubts about using an entertainment/ecumenical venue for the preaching of the Gospel. The church in the West has already been widely infected with that sort of thing. The seeker-sensitive church with its casual Friday, user-friendly, entertainment filled, mini-Gospel worship services may draw crowds, but their spiritual (not to be confused with monetary) impact on America has yet to be felt. The emerging church offers up a cafeteria-style theology. Read Scripture, take what you like, leave what you don't. This is not unlike many of our withering mainline churches – don't mention substitutionary atonement (too messy), or the virgin birth (couldn't happen), or the need to repent of sin (how dare you insinuate that I sin!). Our North American churches downplay the Gospel and make becoming a "Christian" as easy as raising your hand or just joining a church. Become a part of our fellowship and help us in our community service projects. We'll teach you how to have a great life. Dietrich Bonhoeffer called this cheap grace and defined it as: "the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, communion without confession ...grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate." In his Institutes, John Calvin wrote that we can never come to understand ourselves (corrupt, stupid, unjust, devious, etc.) until we have looked into the face of God (holy, full of His glory, awesome, omnipotent). Mr. Fouraker, you ask what is the problem with using musical acts and extreme sports' athletes in order to draw others to present the Gospel? I would say that the problem is giving this generation more of what they already have too much of – an "It's All About Me" mentality with a side of cheap grace – and too little of what they need – a realistic view of themselves and of God and what it takes to truly become a disciple of Christ. If you want to know how best to spread the Gospel, look to the places where the Gospel is actively at work – Iran, North Korea, China, Turkey, Vietnam, Uzbekistan and more. Places where a Christian takes his/her faith seriously, even unto death. And so it has been since the early Church. And so, Mr. Fouraker, what impact did the Heartland Festival have on Omaha or Nebraska? Is there true revival? A year from now or five years from now, do you think you can say that this festival had such depth that people will still be repenting of their wicked, evil ways and turning their hearts to God? Or will your thoughts lean more toward, "A good time was had by all?" I hope and pray there is repenting and turning of hearts. And yes, you may think I sound pessimistic, but I look at it as being honest. I just believe there is so much at stake. Cindy Coleman Glen Alpine, N.C. 'Sad truth is that the Washington Office … is destined always to be with us' July 26, 2007 I've received a similar "generic" response from Ms. Ivory [Letters, July 24, 2007]; however, I have never gotten a response from her when I write to ask if she's finally gotten it right regarding the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s position on marriage. A few years ago, she suggested on national television that the PCUSA supported gay marriage, which is, of course – no matter what your position – patently untrue. Some would say she lied about a position of the church. I've never gotten her response that she understands the church's position on marriage. The sad truth is that the Washington Office and Ms. Ivory are, like the poor, destined always to be with us. More's the pity. Rev. Dr. Walter B. Funk Charleston, W.V. A response to Larry Brown July 26, 2007 I have to respectfully disagree with Dr. Larry Brown [Letters, July 25, 2007] about the wisdom and expense involved with sending people on short-term mission trips. Recently, the church where I serve as pastor sent 12 people on a one-week mission to Montana de Luz, an orphanage in Honduras for children with HIV. While there, we worked to build a school in the little village, while making friends and (for me) renewing old acquaintances. I suppose we could have sent the approximately $20,000 it cost to fund the trip directly to Montana de Luz (although a large portion of those funds do go to directly support the mission). But, from my perspective as a pastor, that $20,000 not only aided the mission, but was an investment in the people who went on the mission! Those who came back from the mission trip were (and still are) on fire for this project and for missions in general. In fact, the whole theme of our church year is becoming more "mission-minded," and we are learning to view everything through a "missional" lens. Since our return, numerous people in the congregation have taken up financial support of the mission, while others have joined the board of directors and continually work for the betterment of Montana de Luz. In short, it has benefited everyone – Honduran and American alike! All this is to say that while I understand Dr. Brown's point, I do believe there is another side to consider. Done right, short-term missions can impact those involved, just as our experience at Montana de Luz and the beautiful children there have impacted us in the way we do all ministry and missions. Rev. Dr. John C. Minihan First Presbyterian Church Newark, Ohio Another response regarding teen missions July 26, 2007 I have to wholeheartedly disagree with Dr. Larry Brown's analysis [Letters, July 25, 2007] of the youth missions movement. In my brief tenure of ministry, I have seen numerous youths have life-changing experiences as a result of their experience on mission trips. In my last church, three teens have proclaimed a desire to become missionaries after their mission trip experience, one of whom is spending the next year in a mission training school. This summer alone, that same church is supporting two individual teenagers for their summer mission trips, a youth group mission trip to North Carolina, an adult mission trip to Nicaragua, and the training of the aforementioned teen would-be missionary. This is in addition to regular budgeted support for two local farm workers' ministries, a hospital in India, several university students in Nicaragua, and the work of two full-time missionary families in the field. Dr. Brown's cynicism is not appreciated. I sense a tad bit of anti-Americanism in his assumption that all American teenagers are shallow, whiny, ungrateful and materialistic. This is simply not the case. In fact, many teens work long hours to raise money for their mission trips in addition to spending time with various fundraisers. (At our church, that included mandatory volunteering for work with the Heifer project, as well). He has obviously never seen what happens to youths as a result of their mission experiences. Many come home changed, more aware of issues concerning poverty and social justice. They become more active in their churches and communities. They have a new understanding of what it means to be the Church with a capital C, to be the Body of Christ. They see the world through a lens their parents would never have imagined. Would Dr. Brown prefer checkbook evangelism? I agree with Dr. Brown on the dangers of "mission trip vacations" when they place a hardship on the people who are hosting these groups. However, when my last church's mission team went to Nicaragua, they left behind most of things they took with them and tried to cover all of their own expenses. Members were even encouraged to leave behind their extra clothes if they could. They were taught about cultural norms and mores. They were reminded that they were guests, not benefactors. There is little back-patting going on when these groups return. In sharing about the mission projects, it is a fact that most mission team members feel like they received much more than they gave. They testified to hardships of the people they met and pleaded for additional financial support for the churches they served there. That is not to say that all teams are so concerned about the cultures they are visiting. Yet, making sweeping generalizations about "ugly Americans" is not helpful either. Extremely offensive is Dr. Brown's assertion that teens should go to Disney World for their cultural exposure. Don't we have a connectional church? How much of Jesus will these teenagers see with Mickey Mouse at Epcot? Many of these same teenagers have been on Caribbean cruises. Is that an adequate exposure to other cultures? What about the growing churches of the Southern Hemisphere? Do they have their church services on the Carnival ship observation deck? Or should they just buy the DVD of lively Latin American/African celebratory worship? Many pastors lament that the same people who so willingly pull out their checkbooks to support missions want nothing to do with serving the poor or helping minorities in their own community. Are we to teach our children to do the same? It is already a struggle for American teenagers to break the bonds of the narrow-minded material view that our culture promotes. If teenagers are sent into the world as tourists, they will never transcend the self-centeredness of their upbringing in the United States. Will $2,000 go farther in a missionary's hands? Probably. But youth mission trips are never about the bottom line. They are about Christian education. I am sorry if the only experiences Dr. Brown has had with mission teams are negative. However, I wonder how he expects American pastors and Christian educators to teach their children about the worldwide body of Christ. Sorting through the hyperbole, it seems that Dr. Brown remains unconvinced of the value of these mission projects. If just one teenager from Deland, Fla., comes forth with a new commitment to Christ and His work in the world, to helping the oppressed and becoming an advocate for the poor, I say that is $3,000 well spent. Rev. Nathan Lamb Hartford, Iowa What is 'the best possible stewardship of the Lord's resources?' July 25, 2007 I've just read the article about a group of teenagers from the First Presbyterian Church of Deland, Fla., doing a one-week mission trip to Nicaragua. They did construction work and Bible studies with street children. The teenagers talked about how happy the people were in spite of their poverty. A splendid time was had by all, according to the article. A career missionary, I try to stay current with missiological literature. They've done studies of the long-term effects of mission trips. Conventional wisdom has it that mission trips inspire those who went to give more and to volunteer for long-term missionary service. Studies find little evidence that this is in fact the case. Those teenagers will go on to college; following college, they will have large student loans to pay off. Their home church will be lucky to get anything from them, much less global missions. There are serious, long-term missionaries who will struggle all the days of their lives to raise enough support in order to have things like health insurance and retirement. When they return to the U.S. to raise that support, they find that they are competing with teenagers going to Nicaragua for a week. Current missiological literature suggests that more is now spent on mission trips than on the support of long-term missions. I calculate that what U.S. churches spend annually on mission trips equals the gross domestic product (GDP) of the Republic of Malawi for one year. Is this really the best possible stewardship of the Lord's resources? Let's do a quick benefit/cost analysis. You can spend $30,000 sending Americans to Nicaragua to build somebody a house. Or, you can give $30,000 to the Nicaraguan church, so they can build 15 houses at $2,000 apiece. Which creates more benefit to more people? By the way, career missionaries had to suspend their work in order to be tour guides and nannies for the Florida teenagers. As for developing world people being more happy, when U.S. young people stay with a host family for several months instead of one week, they discover that developing world people really aren't so darn "happy." This may explain why the Hispanic immigrant community has become the U.S.A.'s largest minority group. After several seasons of hosting DeLand, Fla., teenagers, one may find that, privately, the Nicaraguans are saying, "Help, Lord, the gringos are returning!" Which leads me to ask: Why not send those Florida teenagers to Busch Gardens and EPCOT for their cross-cultural experience, then have them work with the large Hispanic immigrant community living right there in Florida? Then, send the money that was saved to the Nicaraguan church? As Joan Rivers used to say, "Can we talk?" What most mission trips with teenagers and college kids are all about is American Christianity spending money on itself, then patting itself on the back for being so noble. Finally, if you want to send somebody, for heaven's sake, send doctors, dentists, nurses, auto mechanics, computer programmers – people with skills that are in short supply in the developing world. Send ministers who can baptize converts in a place where there are no ministers. Then your mission trip could actually do somebody on the mission field some good. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi A response to Pete Allen July 25, 2007 There is little impetus toward the organized, coordinated, mass exodus from the denomination for which Pete Allen [Letters, July 19, 2007] is wishing. He dreams of a day when 50-to-60 churches of his Texas presbytery may seek joint dismissal. In the waking world beyond dreams, such a number, all at once, nationwide (let alone within a particular presbytery), would be nothing short of a sovereign act of God. We're up to only 17 or so, and that by dribs and drabs; and there's the rub. If God is in this thing, why does it not have the proportions of the Almighty? Why such a puny exodus from the Presbyterian Church (USA), if it can even be named such (because, at present, it looks more like a handful of congregations just sneaking away, one-at-a-time)? This question ranks right up there with every similar query one might ask: Why were only two, of that great number who joined the exodus from Egypt, found worthy to cross over Jordan? Why did Joshua siege Jericho with a parade of trumpets and the shout of the people? Why, among those mighty men of Israel who marched at Barak's heels, were Deborah the prophetess and Jael the wife of Heber the instruments of God to bring rest to the land for 40 years? Why did God whittle Gideon's army down to 300? Why Hannah, the barren? Why Samuel, her son? Why send the shepherd boy Samuel anointed as heir to the throne into battle, with just a sling and some stones, against the great sword and mighty armor of the Philistine giant? Why was Elijah set apart to take a stand on Carmel against 850 pagan prophets? Why were only 7,000 preserved, in all of Israel, who had not bowed the knee to Baal? Why were Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego alone, from out of the thousands in exile, strong to refuse obeisance to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image? Why did Daniel face the lion's den by himself? Why Ezra, the priest? Why Nehemiah, the builder? Why Esther, the queen who answered the call to step forward "for such time as this?" (Esther 4:14d). Why a solitary girl from a sleepy village in Galilee? Why a cow stall? Why a common carpenter's foster son? Why Jesus only? Why just five loaves and two fish? Why name but 12 Apostles? Why gather just 120 out of the thronging thousands that had followed Him everywhere? Why launch the invasion of the Kingdom of God into the world from a backwater Roman province? Why begin in subjugated Jerusalem? Why fashion the singular scourge of the fledgling Church into its finest champion? Why send that one-time persecutor across the water from Asia into Macedonia to proclaim the good news to the first Asian convert? Why was that convert not the man Paul expected to encounter, but a single businesswoman? Why Lydia? Why Priscilla? Why Magdalene? Why Peter, Andrew, James and John – simple fisher folk? Why Stephen? Why Philip? Why a lone eunuch from Ethiopia? Why just one Roman centurion and his household? Why Barnabas? Why Timothy? Why Titus? Why always a mustard seed and never an acorn? Why does God choose to grow oaks of righteousness from mustard seeds? Why is the impossible always possible with God? Why, when it is God, can it be but God alone? Hear the Word of God as spoken from the lips of an honored teacher, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, when 12 men who insisted that, "We must obey God," confronted an assembly of the elders of their people. Look at how these 12 responded to the aftermath of his advice: "'So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You may even be found opposing God!' So they took his advice, and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ" (Acts 5:29, 38-42). Turn an ear and an eye to this latter day, present case, Pete Allen and all who share the dream of witnessing a sovereign act of the Almighty. Is this congregation-by-congregation search for New Wineskins an undertaking of human origin or is it a plan of God? What are you hearing? What are you seeing? What is your judgment? Where is prayer constant? Where is God's face sought? Where is obedience to the Holy Spirit cherished? Where are the mustard seeds? Where is holiness treasured? Where is the written Word of the Lord trusted with certainty and finality? Where does suffering "dishonor for the name" bring rejoicing and resolve? Where are they who do "not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the" very Christ of God and the only way to salvation? "Jesus turned and saw [the two disciples of John the Baptist] following and said to them, 'What are you seeking?' And they said to him, 'Rabbi … where are you staying?' He said to them, "Come, and you will see'" (John 2:38-39a). Come! See where Jesus is staying in the midst of the present crisis in our denomination and the entire mainline church in America. Then, having seen, know that it will be your turn to answer this same question that the disciples put to Jesus: Where are you staying? Jim Henkel North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio The Washington Office is simply Orwellian July 25, 2007 Thank you for sharing the exchange of letters [Letters, July 24, 2007] between Mr. VanderBleek and Ms. Giddings Ivory. It has served as well as anything could to illuminate the arrogance and detachment of the Washington Office form the will of the larger church. I simply cannot decide if Ms. Giddings Ivory is being dishonest or simply disingenuous in her reply. She attempts to slough off a reply by claiming that Mr. VanderBleek's complaints are with Louisville, not her. I can understand that as often as she has demonstrated a complete disregard for the policies of the denomination in her single-minded pursuit of her own ideological agenda. Having looked at the letters several times, I cannot find where Mr. VanderBleek makes reference to either of the departed staff members cited by Ms. Ivory. Furthermore, if I may be so bold as to chime in with Mr. VanderBleek, allow me to be specific. Ms. Giddings Ivory should be called to account for her and her office's activities in sponsoring, financially and administratively, pro-abortion activities and demonstrations, lobbying for same-sex marriages, and unconscionable meddling in affairs of which they are wholly unqualified – not to mention not empowered – to comment and rabble rouse. Specifically, I am speaking of such issues as war fighting materials and tactics. Quite frankly, I do not know why the office even exists, as it certainly does not speak for me or for the overwhelming number of Presbyterians who I know. It seems little more than a waste of precious resources that could be used to recapture some of our missionary effort in the world. Rev. James C. Yearsley Tampa, Fla. 'The Washington Office is like a loose cannon – out of control' July 24, 2007 Editor's Note: The following e-mail was sent to the Rev. Elenora Giddings Ivory, director of the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church (USA), and copied to The Layman Online. Rev. Giddings Ivory's response, also copied to The Layman Online, is included below.
A follow-up letter regarding Olivet Evangelical Presbyterian Church July 24, 2007 A trusted friend, colleague and brother in Christ has reminded me that I sometimes tend to paint with a broad brush. In a recent letter to The Layman Online [Letters, July 23, 2007] regarding Ohio Valley Presbytery's complaint against Olivet Evangelical Presbyterian Church, I inadvertently suggested that all trial lawyers were predisposed to use the gratuitous and mean-spirited language directed towards Olivet. In that regard, I was guilty of the very thing that I criticized and I apologize. The intemperate language used by Ohio Valley in its complaint is not an inevitable or necessary aspect of civil litigation, as some readers may reasonably interpret my letter to state. Not all lawsuits are inevitably rancorous and vitriolic. Most members of the bar are professional, decent and honorable professionals and they deserved better at my hand. I ask their forgiveness. To those presbyteries that have done the right thing so far, including my own, and to those that intend to do so, I thank them for their witness, example and encouragement. To the sessions, presbyteries and congregations that are still on the sidelines, please understand that most attorneys aim to serve their clients by working collegially to solve problems. The Rev. Allen of Ohio Valley Presbytery described just that when he said, "The presbytery has asked for … assistance from the court … as the most appropriate, civil way for resolving the impasse of the parties." That is the goal of the legal profession and the courts – to resolve disputes fairly and without rancor. While the occasional intemperate remark, pleading or response may slip through, it is the exception, not the rule. Michael R. "Mac" McCarty In defense of the Heartland Festival July 24, 2007 No, Calvin and Luther would not preach between jousting tournaments, but that is hardly the point. Instead of the pessimistic approach taken by Ms. Coleman [Letters, July 20, 2007], please remember that different generations require different methods to be reached. If musical acts and extreme sports athletes help draw youth to a place where they can hear the Gospel presented, what is the problem with that? What is untruthful? Rob Fouraker Omaha, Neb. Presbytery suing church demonstrates 'crabbed, materialistic and mean-spirited stance' July 23, 2007 As a former practicing attorney, I understand that the litigation process is inherently adversarial, and that harsh and even violent language often is used by each party. However, is the church not called to a different standard? I don't think that referring to brothers and sisters in Christ with such bullying language (accusing them of criminal actions) in front of a secular court is going to encourage reconciliation. It may be up to the Olivet church to model Christ-like behavior to their former presbytery and our national office in Louisville (the presbytery's complaint bears many marks of the strategies outlined in "The Louisville Papers") by indeed walking away from their property, although I can understand their hesitation to do so. Still, they have the opportunity to show a contrast to the crabbed, materialistic and mean-spirited stance of their former presbytery and the national denomination. Let's pray for all concerned to seek the will of Christ in this sad matter. Rev. John B. Erthein Elderton Presbyterian Church Elderton, Pa. A loving lawsuit, hooray! July 23, 2007 What we see here may be the first instance in human history of a civil lawsuit being filed by Christians against fellow Christians out of love! I stand amazed at their novel approach to showing the love of Christ to an unbelieving world. Congratulations must go out to Ohio Valley Presbytery and those who claim to speak for them. You have just publicly proven all of our worst fears about the institution that is the Presbyterian Church (USA): There is no limit to the level of absurdity to which its officials will stoop to make a buck. Bravo! Toby Brown Cuero, Texas |
|
| July
2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |