 |
|
| March
2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| I'll
believe the Washington Office really means it when I see it March 30, 2007 Your article about the Washington Office urging us to "tell the Congress to restore the Constitution" brings a couple of things to mind. Perhaps the Washington Office is on to something. The Constitution, if I recollect correctly, seems to say something about being endowed by our Creator with certain "inalienable rights." Note it does not say inalienable "American" rights. The rights are granted, thereby, to all human beings – American, Iraqi or all others. Therefore, was it right to engage the battle to free such a tyrannical regime as Saddam Hussein? Factoring in the Biblical principles of "to whom more is given, more is expected" and "no greater love hath a person than to lay down his or her life for," how is such a conclusion wrong? Getting back to the Constitution, indeed, would be a good thing. In addition, the Constitution grants the president the power, as Commander in Chief, of oversight of the armed forces, not the Congress. Therefore, this nit-picking, micro-managing and time-table-establishing Congress, it seems, needs to back off and let the president do what he is empowered constitutionally to do. I think the Washington Office is on to something. Let's get back to something more constitutional. As an afterthought, how about getting back to the Constitution regarding education? Where does the Constitution grant this sphere of intrusion (note I did not say "influence," for intrusion is the correct word)? Things not specifically granted to the federal government is specifically granted to the states. Oh, to get back to the Constitution. But the truth is, I'll believe the Washington Office really means it when I see it. Lest this be seen mostly in sarcastic terms, the fuller truth is it is one of my deepest prayers that we would return, truly, to a more constitutional manner of civic and national life. But it won't happen unless people speak up publicly and to one another and work toward that goal. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.V. Restore the Constitution? March 30, 2007 Hmm ... the military tribunals were approved by the Senate, the House and the president. Sounds like the constitutional procedures were followed to me. But wait … the propaganda wing of the PCUSA doesn't like the tribunals. Well, then, scrap them. They cannot possibly be in the best interest of America, Americans and our society. 9-11 was so much fun! Paul Derkasch Old First Church Huntington, N.Y. The PCUSA should go back to being a church March 30, 2007 About the Washington Office: I think it is time for us (the PCUSA) to go back being a church. We not a social agency. As a Reformed church, we are to lead people to participate, not to occupy their places. The present model is too similar to the centralizing, Roman Catholic model. John Soares A response to recent letter concerning Riverside Church in Iowa March 30, 2007 I wish it were as simple as Jeff McDonald states in his letter [Letters, March 28, 2007]. However, as the record shows, the session of Riverside took action June 28, 2006, to recommend that "the Riverside Presbyterian Church secedes from the Presbyterian Church (USA) and seek union with a confessionally Reformed evangelical denomination which holds to the Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy." A congregational vote was taken July 30, 2006 to adopt the aforesaid motion. As is obvious, all of this took place before the call of a special presbytery meeting to elect an administrative commission to address the situation. Property issues aside, Presbyterian churches exist in a covenant relationship with each other and the denomination. The breaking of a covenant cannot simply happen by saying "we're gone" any more than a couple can divorce by one party saying to the other "I divorce you" and the marriage is over. A covenant is a contractual relationship that takes negotiation to sever. What is more, American civil law is very clear on the matter of contractual relationships. They are to be taken seriously. So, whether the issue plays out in ecclesial or civil court, no one can "secede" without serious consequences. Some Southern states once attempted to secede from the union – and lost. Church members, even the entire congregation and the pastor, can renounce the jurisdiction of the PCUSA, but an organized and incorporated body still exists that cannot be transferred, dismissed or dissolved without action agreed upon on by both parties. A church with zero members can still exist as an incorporated body of the presbytery. As is the case in all situations, conversation in a decent and orderly manner regarding disagreements and disputes is far better than one-sided actions prior to resolution. Yes, I have read "The Louisville Papers" – with two different sets of eyes. John Pehrson Salina, Kansas Regarding Russell Westbrook March 30, 2007 In response to Jeff McDonald's recommendation [Letters, March 28, 2007] I did review the specifics of the Riverside Church case. Interestingly enough, Mr. McDonald fails to mention that the Rev. Russell Westbrook has never been a PCUSA minister. He was an RCA pastor serving the congregation under the formula of agreement. It would seem logical to me that a pastor from another denomination trying to take a PCUSA church out of the PCUSA would be removed immediately no matter what the circumstances. It is in the best interest of the presbytery to investigate this matter. It seems awfully fishy to me. All in all, presbyteries need to do a better job of screening potential candidates and formula-agreement partners from outside the PCUSA who want to serve in our churches. Rev. Nathan Lamb Spring Hill, Fla. Growth means change, change means conflict March 29, 2007 According to Mr. Dillow, the church was growing, giving was increasing, there was an increase in both new members and baptisms at FPC Glasgow under the ministry of the Rev. Harris. Yet, there was great opposition by a part of the congregation. I know this sounds strange because one would expect that such success would breed support of almost everyone in the congregation. However, I have been the pastor of a church (not the one I now serve) that started growing shortly after I began my ministry there. For the most part, after the first new members class of about 18 people, everyone was surprised and pleased. After the next new members class (about six months later) of approximately 20 people, the "old guard" who had been in control saw the new members as a threat to "their church." They thought these new people, who were not like them, were coming into "their church" to take it over. Fear mounted! And the conflict began. Things were said about me that were not true and I found the presbytery to be of little help (though I was not fired). Growth always means change and change always means conflict – it has never been any other way. Presbyteries claim to want churches to grow, they just want it without conflict. The presbyteries with which I am familiar value conformity above creativity and church growth. They would like churches to grow so long as nothing is changed; after all, conflict slows the flow of money to other governing bodies – or so the theory goes. What a dilemma. Our denomination is in desperate need of pastors who dare to have an entrepreneurial spirit, yet the system does almost all it can to discourage the development of such radical hearts. Now, I don't know if this is what was going on at FPC Glasgow, but I would not be surprised. Thomas A. Litteer, Pastor First Presbyterian Church Sparta, N.J. Did I miss something? March 29, 2007 For many years, I have been an occasional reader of The Layman Online. During those years, I have also written letters, from time to time, as the Spirit moved me. More often than not, I have found myself in agreement with the longing for Biblical fidelity that characterizes so much of the content found in The Layman. More often than not, I have been in strong agreement with the passion for evangelism, Biblical literacy and integrity that has been found in the pages of The Layman. I, too, have longed for the PCUSA to repent of the idolatry of humanistic secularism wrapped up in religious garb. In fact, all of these things are just as near and dear to my heart as they have ever been. So, I've been watching The Layman with much curiosity over the past several months, hoping for a word or two of wisdom, insight and guidance during these times when it appears that the PCUSA is intent on pursuing idolatry to the point of self-destruction. Instead, what I've found is that The Layman appears to have become the media outlet for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. When did this transition take place? I certainly bear no malice toward the EPC, but I'm not very happy about the fact that they appear to have taken over a valuable and helpful news outlet, for dealing with the affairs of the PCUSA. Did someone send out a formal notice regarding this change of denominational affiliation? It seems like that step would have been very helpful to readers like me, who come to these pages looking for news and information about the PCUSA. Jonathan Van Deventer Johns Island Presbyterian Church Editor's Note: As part of its news and informational ministry, The Layman Online publishes a wide range of material regarding Presbyterian and Reformed denominations – focusing specifically on increased coverage of the Presbyterian Church (USA), but also providing news and other material of interest to its readers regarding other denominations. With all the news stories and other publicity surrounding a proposal to develop a non-geographic transitional presbytery within the Evangelical Presbyterian Church for congregations that are a part of the New Wineskins Association of Churches, The Layman Online has been publishing a selection of EPC position papers and pastoral letters regarding a number of issues. Again, as a service to its readers, The Layman Online also plans on publishing similar material from the PCUSA and other Presbyterian and Reformed denominations – providing reliable information on issues facing the PCUSA and, within the larger context, the Protestant mainline denominations. Where are the men? March 29, 2007 We already had a church – until we men abandoned it by failing to serve as elders, joining committees, and serving as delegates to presbytery and general assembly meetings. We lost our church to women who, in their kind and gentle caring ways, failed to see the big picture when voting with their hearts on issues that are now destroying the PCUSA as we know it. There is no taking it back unless men get involved. John Chilberg 'Doctrinal certainty and clarity' subject of poem March 29, 2007 In light of the coming revisions to the Book of Order, I hope the responsible parties will keep in mind our long history of doctrinal certainty and clarity as I offer this poem. Kirk Johnston, Pastor First Presbyterian Church Paola, Kansas
Action against church 'reflects poorly on Prospect Hill Presbytery' March 28, 2007 I want to thank the Rev. John Pehrson for his response [Letters, March 23, 2007] to my comments concerning Riverside Presbyterian Church in Iowa. Unfortunately, Pehrson failed to examine the news stories and documents related to the church's dissent. He mistakenly writes that Prospect Hill Presbytery could not utilize the dismissal procedure because the church had already renounced the jurisdiction of the PCUSA. Yet, it was only after an Aug. 14, 2006, presbytery meeting that Riverside renounced the jurisdiction of the PCUSA. Prior to the presbytery meeting, Riverside made a request to be dismissed. The presbytery did not even consider dismissal an option and immediately released the church's pastor. In Riverside's letter to the presbytery, following the presbytery meeting, Riverside's session wrote, "It is the intention of the presbytery to never act upon our lawful request to be released as a congregation." Prospect Hill Presbytery's attitude toward the dissenting congregation corresponds to the directives outlined in the notorious "The Louisville Papers." Pehrson writes as if he is unfamiliar with "The Louisville Papers." The presbytery's refusal to consider a charitable dismissal of Riverside Church is the fundamental problem. The presbytery seems to think that this dispute is all about them and their interests, rights and constitutional duties. In reality, though, this approach is selfish and reflects poorly on Prospect Hill Presbytery. Riverside's case appears to be an example of a presbytery that has uncritically accepted the hardball tactics of "The Louisville Papers." Jeff McDonald Omaha, Neb. Regarding 'Longtime pastor leaves denomination' article March 28, 2007 As one of those felt led to leave the PCUSA with Pastor Bill Martin, I just wanted to compliment you on your accurate reporting of the event and the issues surrounding it. As a now former member of NEPC, I felt your article captured the spirit and essence of what happened. Pastor Bill truly has a heart for the Lord. After this whole affair, I question if that is the case with the PCUSA. Eric J. Kolbinsky St. Petersburg, Fla. I respect and admire Martin and the rest of the staff March 28, 2007 As a charter member of Cornerstone Bible Church, I would like to add that I respect and admire Pastor Bill Martin and the rest of the staff for being obedient to God's call. After all, wouldn't it have been easier for Bill Martin and his wife to go to another church or another community and sit back and relax? With our trust in God, we press on as we walk through the road less traveled, looking ahead to a new beginning. As our chosen verse says:
St. Petersburg, Fla. About Pastor William Martin and Cornerstone Church of St Petersburg March 28, 2007 Thank you for the comprehensive and accurate article on NEPC and the PCUSA. Unfortunately, Bill Martin will shoulder the entire financial brunt of the PCUSA decision to not authorize a dime of severance pay due to the fact that Bill will to speak God's Word through Cornerstone Church. The severance letter was the perfect metaphor for the PCUSA and its PUP report, which states "peace, unity, and purity" but accomplishes the opposite. Yes, the devil is at work all around us. Bill's severance letter ended, "Yours in Christ. …" Bill Martin is a warrior in Christ's army, and he will receive his due reward in eternity. Jim Gagliardi St Petersburg, Fla. Hurray for Martin March 28, 2007 I am in Atlanta and had the good fortune of bumping into Bill Martin and a number of his congregation several years ago at an Intelligent Design seminar in South Carolina. They had a zeal and sincere surety about serving God, which was apparent with an initial shaking of hands during an introduction. Circumstances have had me visiting his church a half a dozen times since in St. Pete. I was so impressed with the congregation's methodical, dogged commitment to truth and, ultimately, Bill's leading a large number of folks in doing the difficult, but courageous and correct thing. To me, the issue was, and is, pretty clear cut. Staying with the PCUSA is not an option for anyone wanting to experience the fullness of what God has in store for his children in these sadly demented times. Compromise comes with a cost. The world desperately needs the love of God and the light of the truth. Bless Bill Martin for his indefatigable graciousness in dealing with this apostasy. Shame on the PCUSA for the positions it takes against godly congregations that have poured their time, treasure and talent into their churches. Shame on them for thus denying to those congregations what our Founding Fathers held to be self evident – that they, the denomination, derives "their just powers from the consent of the governed." Their denying those rudimental "certain unalienable rights" to these congregations will one day require their accountability. Dean Kolbinsky Atlanta, Ga. Cornerstone is a 'telling development' March 28, 2007 The departure of the pastor, staff and a good chunk of the membership of Northeast Presbyterian Church's membership is a telling development, indeed. First, a trusted pastor (he was there for 21 years, so they must have trusted him!) tells his congregation that the PCUSA is irretrievably lost to apostasy, cannot be reclaimed, and is unfaithful to God, unfaithful to his Word, unfaithful to his people, unfaithful to the Gospel, and unfaithful to the Great Commission. He teaches from Scripture that the faithful must not remain yoked to the unfaithful. And many follow him. The New Wineskins Strategy Report concluded that, faced with such a situation, faithful options include both departing and staying, so long as the call for each option came from God. Those who chose to remain at Northeast expressed many concerns and reasons for staying. Let's look at those excuses. Are they an expression of faithfulness to God? 1. Who would evangelize the neighborhood? That is a legitimate concern, although one wonders how you evangelize to a neighborhood in the name of a denomination that is unwilling to expressly confess Christ as "the way, and the truth, and the life?" That may be the reason that they have not yet crossed your doorstep. 2. Who would be left to reform the PCUSA? That is a concern for those who truly want to save the PCUSA from its national leadership. In light of the PCUSA's conduct for the past two decades, I pray that the folks espousing this excuse have recently seen a dry fleece on a wet Florida front lawn. 3. Whether walking away would be disrespectful to the church's forebearers? I have the advantage of being a member of a nearly 300 year-old church, so we are fairly safe in saying that our forebearers would have been appalled by the PCUSA of 1983-present. Northeast presumably knows its history and, if its forebearers were accepting of apostasy and expediency, I suppose this is a valid reason. They know for sure. 4. Not wanting to leave a property in which there was so much financial ($8 million to $10 million, by Martin's estimation) and emotional investment. Aha! "The Louisville Papers" win! If you threaten their property, they will stay. Better re-read Matthew 19:16-30. The in terrorem philosophy of "The Louisville Papers" also is evident in the opposition to a severance package for a pastor and staff who had done the right thing and saved a congregation the agony of protracted litigation. What a witness to the neighborhood and the world that would have been: folks who disagree on theology nonetheless sending forth a part of their body to carry out the Great Commission. Nah – can't do that. Louisville won't like it. Why? In the months since the publication of the NWAC Strategy Report and the Orlando convocation, I have received numerous phone calls from elders and members of churches who say, "Where can I find out more about what is going on in the denomination? We hadn't heard about PUP, the Trinity paper, or any of the other things you guys wrote about. We asked our pastor and he told us not to worry about it. Now we're worried." The proposed gag order on Pastor Martin was, I suggest, evidence that the bureaucracy knows that it is completely out of synch with the grassroots of the denomination. They are terrified that new EPC congregations will attract many of the faithful, and they will do anything to keep the lid on. In the meantime, we need to support Cornerstone – spiritually and financially. They witnessed to us; it is the least we can do. Michael R. McCarty Elder-member NWAC Strategy Team Listen to the people in the pews March 27, 2007 I read the article about the General Assembly Council trying to find ways they can make per capita something the whole church is giving to and supporting. First, they might want to just listen to those in the pews. They have often received a large outcry from those in the pews about the ways they use our money. Often, these outcries have even come before they spent the money – do you remember all the flap when Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick and the powers-that-be insisted that they were going to bail out the nearly defunct National Council of Churches back in the 1999-2000 period? There was a huge outcry, but it was totally ignored. Then, just a few years later, the-powers-that-be tell us we have to cut missionaries because we don't have enough money to pay them. We might have saved a few missionary positions if we had still had the several hundred thousand dollars that Rev. Kirkpatrick gave away to one of his favorite charities, in spite of a large number of the people in the pews pleading with him not to do it. This is the sort of thing that angers us and leads to a lack of support for the things of Louisville. I quote The Layman Online article: "He said local congregational giving is up, but national giving is down. 'We need to find the link from congregational to national.'" Miracle of miracles! There is an easy way to get the congregations involved again – just listen to us. But, then, you don't really need to, do you? You have seen to it that the presbyteries violate our consciences and send the money onto you, even when we redirected it away from Louisville to causes we can more joyfully support. Our congregations have written the GAC and the stated clerk many times through the years, but you ignore us. It is a bit like the Congress. You think the money is yours by right and it will just keep coming, and you can spend it any way you choose. You have totally forgotten where "your" money comes from. First and foremost, the money is the Lord's and entrusted to the stewardship of the people in the pews. It is our fiduciary responsibility (even if you don't see it as yours) to see to it that his money, which we are called to give, is used for what we believe to be his clear purposes. It is given freely to the work of God by the people of God. But the people of God will not abide the use of their money (his money) for works they consider un-godly or for something that seems to bear no relationship to God's clear purposes. That is when we quit giving it, and ask the presbyteries to withhold our funds. The crisis in the middle-governing bodies right now is in large part because they are passing on up the line funds they are not receiving from the congregations because the people in the pews won't use the Lord's money to support some of the things that Louisville does. Since when do I give the Lord's tithes to support the Democratic Party, or the socialist, pro-choice, pro-gay, un-American, anti-Israel, purely secular agenda of the Workers Socialist Party line. Our "church" looks more like a branch of A.N.S.W.E.R than a church of Christ. Unplug your ears and hear us! There might still be hope for this denomination. Mimi Jamieson, elder Arden, N.C. Communications are a two-way street March 27, 2007 In a March 23 article on The Layman Online, Linda Valentine, executive director of the General Assembly Council (GAC), claims that the reason for the financial problems and trust issues in the Presbyterian Church (USA) is communications. Communications are, in my thinking, the cause of the PCUSA's financial problems, but not in the way Ms. Valentine suggests. Communications are a two-way street, and we Presbyterians who sit in the pews are, indeed, communicating with each other. We are communicating on many issues, including the fact that the leadership in Louisville places a priority on funding the Washington Office, the World Council of Churches and the National Council of Churches while they are cutting mission support. It is my feeling that people in the pews will continue to "de-fund" the GAC and the Office of the General Assembly as long as missions take second place to the Washington Office, the WCC, the NCC and similar organizations. As mentioned above, communications are a two-way street. Ms. Valentine ought to take time to listen to the people in the pews rather than continue lecturing about where she chooses to spend our gifts. Preaching and re-preaching a message we've heard before and don't buy on to isn't going to change attitudes. To be sure, there are other important concerns causing the drop in contributions, and they are well covered by The Layman. In the meantime, we in the pews are going to continue communicating with each other about why we can't trust the leadership in Louisville. Joe Woods Wallingford, Pa. David Swanson 'says it all' March 27, 2007 The quote by Dr. Swanson says it all. Please make many copies – it is complete, simple and says what I think the average Presbyterian sees as our church. Kermit Gay Response to 'A Social Creed' March 27, 2007 The draft of A Social Creed for the 21st Century reads like it was written by the Democratic Party's platform committee. The universalization of a particular promise given to God's "chosen" at Isaiah 65:22-23 is a lovely liberal touch. What is more, A Social Creed for the 21st Century plucks that promise right out of the eschatological setting of the passage. Taken in context, the hoped for just and peaceable kingdom awaits that day when God will create a new heaven and a new earth (Isaiah 65:17). Of course, we are to labor at making an "exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world" of the here and now (G-1.0200). Public advocacy is an important tool to employ in such a demonstration. Still, we need to labor in that arena in the full knowledge that our best effort will never be more than an approximation of "our Triune God's gracious will" (A Social Creed, draft version, paragraph 1). Great care must be taken against carving idols out of the causes we champion. A substitution of the endeavor toward the humane and just treatment of all people for the humble quest to seek God's face falls short of loving God with our whole being. "'Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the Lord of hosts" (Zechariah 4:6b). A Social Creed for the 21st Century communicates little of this truth on its way to completely missing a Biblical understanding of where we are heading together on this good earth. We are bound for that day when God makes the enemies of Christ Jesus into a footstool for his dear Son's feet (Psalm 110:1). We are rushing toward that day when God will "make the ends of the earth [his Son's] possession" (Psalm 2:8b). We are on a collision course with that day when "every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father" (Philippians 2:10). A Social Creed for the 21st Century is void of the fervency and immediacy that a right understanding of Scripture can inspire. It prattles on to this weak end: "With all those who labor and are heavy laden, we commit ourselves to a culture of peace and freedom that embraces non-violent initiatives, human dignity and greater equality, with a deeper spirituality of inward growth and outward action. By these means, we witness to our hope in the God who makes all things new, whom we know in Jesus Christ" (A Social Creed, draft version, last paragraph). Left unspoken, but implied, is this liberal/progressive affirmation: and whom Buddhists know in Buddha and whom Muslims know in Mohammad and whom animists know in the circle of life and whom ad infinitum . . . . Where is the call to come to Christ Jesus? He alone is Lord of all and he alone holds the rest longed for by every human heart. Where is the challenge to shoulder his yoke? (Matthew 11:29). Where is the charge to take up our cross daily and follow him? (Luke 9:23). Where is the invitation to "Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way?" (Psalm 2:12a). Even the demons know God in Jesus Christ, yet not one of them will inherit "the kingdom of his beloved Son" (Mark 1:24, James 2:19; Luke 13:26-27, Colossians 1:13). Jim Henkel, NWAC endorsing church pastor North Benton Presbyterian Church North Benton, Ohio About the resurrection of a church March 27, 2007 Ms. Tena [Letters, March 20, 2007] urges us to consider that no human being is either illegal or alien. In one sense, that is true; in another, it is a misreading of "love your neighbor." In the early church, there was neither "slave nor free." At church services, slaves and masters prayed side by side. Back home afterward, though, the slave was bound to do his master's bidding. This is a country based on law (sometimes more so than others). We have laws regarding who may come in and how. Over the last 230 years or so, millions of immigrants have come in, run the gauntlet to become naturalized citizens, and helped make this country what it is. Over the past 70 years or so, millions have decided that law is of no importance to them, and came here without regard for our way of life – in too many cases, bringing lives of crime with them. I'm not painting all illegal immigrants with that brush, but the fact remains that they all share the first crime: illegally crossing the border. Even Mexico does not stand for people crossing its southern border. As she would not welcome strangers to live in her house indefinitely, we need not welcome strangers – with no desire to "blend in." I suggest that "alien" is a neutral term, with a particular definition: "foreigner: a person who comes from a foreign country; someone who does not owe allegiance to your country." Whoever that shoe fits may wear it. Neither is the term "illegal" misused. One who breaks our laws by crossing the border illegally is a lawbreaker; hence, illegal. Michael D. Zorn Santa Ana. Calif. About recent attempts to alienate the Divine March 23, 2007 While I enjoyed Sam Kornell's review of the recent books by Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett ("Assessing recent attempts to alienate the Divine and elevate atheism"), I was a little surprised to find in the piece the assertion that "as any undergraduate religious studies major can tell you, the intellectual subtleties of St. Augustine, St. Aquinas and Immanuel Kant notwithstanding, reasoned justification for God ended around about the time of David Hume, in the mid-18th century." With this statement, and a couple of others, Kornell seemed to be conceding the intellectual and reasonable high ground to Dawkins and Dennett, and assuming that people who believe in God are operating from a position of confirmed unreasonableness. Yet, although Kornell may be correct with regard to philosophical "proofs" for the existence of God, he is wrong if he is suggesting that there is no "reasoned justification" for religious faith in that God. And, if I'm not mistaken, Dawkins and Dennett (and Sam Harris, for that matter) would argue that faith or belief in God is also irrational and unreasonable, not just the attempt to prove that there is a God. After all, according to Dawkins, those of us who believe in God are "delude," – hardly a positive endorsement for the intellectual integrity of our faith claims and convictions. Philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga, Basil Mitchell, Richard Swinburne and Austin Farrer, not to mention my mentor and former professor at Princeton Seminary, Diogenes Allen, have all demonstrated conclusively that there are, in fact, enormously reasonable and rational grounds for religious faith. Many other distinguished names could be added to this list as well. While Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, et al., are free to not believe in God if they so choose, their contention that those of us who do are either deluded or irrational is simply not true – and it is not true on very strong philosophical grounds. This is a very important point, and I would have liked to see it emphasized, or at least mentioned, in Kornell's piece. Dr. Rick Boyer Trinity United Presbyterian Church Zanesville, Ohio About Riverside Church in Iowa March 23, 2007 Jeff McDonald [Letters, March 20, 2007] appears troubled by the actions of Prospect Hill Presbytery, yet it is the actions of Riverside Church that should be troubling. There is a process for a church to be dismissed to another Reformed denomination. It appears the Riverside Church thumbed its nose at the process that would have allowed things to be done decently and in order. Here is the process:
I have participated in this process and it has worked with an amicable dismissal to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Members of the session expressed appreciation for the work of the administrative commission, and we have remained on friendly terms with one another. In fact, this EPC church is still yoked with a PCUSA church and served by the same minister with standing in both denominations. Riverside Church, like the Kirk of the Hills, voted to renounce the jurisdiction of the PCUSA and not follow the decently-and-in-order process. As such, the members (and their pastor) are no longer a part of the PCUSA and, therefore, are not eligible to be involved in the orderly process. The property is there for the "use and benefit of the PCUSA," which first formed the church and has authority over its ministry. Congregants often argue that they built it, have maintained it and, therefore, it is theirs. The other side is that it was started under the authority and leadership of the denomination as a mission to the people of the area. With this viewpoint, the building is still there for that purpose. There are many orderly dismissals every year that never make the news, but can be found in the back of the statistics book. Those who thwart the process often play on sympathy, feel abused and become angry. Yet, a close look at their own actions reveals much of the reason why things are the way they are. I hope this is helpful. John Pehrson Salina, Kansas Illegal alien or no? March 23, 2007 Krystal Tena [Letters, March 20, 2007] criticizes Robert Linthicum for saying that some people are illegal aliens. "No human being" should be so called. Good grief! It's become typical of the PCUSA to split hairs, call black white, "reinterpret" the Bible, etc., etc. etc. When you enter the country without application, by golly you're illegal (broke the law) and you are an alien in this country as opposed to a citizen or legal immigrant (or even someone holding a proper Visa). Stop this nonsense! Fred Edwards Holland, Pa. Reader takes issue with headline March 23, 2007 Your headline, "Top Episcopal bishop throws out election of evangelical as bishop" is worded in a way that raises suspicion. The election was "invalidated" because of e-mail votes, which are not accepted according to their canon. Do you deny them the obligation to obey their rules? Your choice of words, again, are inflammatory and distorts the meaning of the facts in this case. Mary Lawson Editor's Note: The Layman Online stands by the headline on the story. Your reporting is right on! March 20, 2007 In February, the Synod of the Trinity held a meeting in Pittsburgh. The subject was church property, and the format followed "The Louisville Papers" you published right down the line. The meeting was chaired by the two lawyers from the G.A office who were mentioned in your article. Keep up the good work and keep us informed. Gerard Niebauer Prospect Hill Presbytery's actions troubling March 20, 2007 This writer would like to express his concern regarding how Prospect Hill Presbytery has responded to the dissent of Riverside Presbyterian Church in Linn Grove, Iowa, a town of 211 people. As Presbyterians, we must respect the dissent of our fellow Presbyterians and we should be willing to listen to other people's views. Yet, in the controversy surrounding Riverside Church, it does not appear that the presbytery has demonstrated "forbearance." The unfortunate result of the presbytery's inability to act in a constructive manner has resulted in a lawsuit against the small church. The presbytery's actions have left this writer puzzled. On Aug. 17, 2006, Diane Patton wrote on behalf of the presbytery's committee on ministry to Riverside's pastor, Russell Westbrook. She informed him that he was to be placed on "administrative Leave in order to protect loyal Presbyterians." The congregation voted unanimously – 83 to 0 – to join another Reformed body. Who are the Presbyterians the presbytery is trying to protect? Almost half the town voted to leave, and the other half are not members of the church. It is an affront to think that the presbytery should overrule almost half the town in order to go on a search to find members who disagree with the church's decision. This is especially true when the presbytery admits that no such members have yet come forth since the congregation voted to leave over seven months ago. The presbytery required Westbrook to have no contact with any member of the church. This stipulation seems nonsensical due to the fact that Linn Grove is a town of 211 people and Westbrook is surely going to have at least some contact with church members. One church member he definitely will see is his wife. The presbytery seems to be operating in an unreasonable manner. The tone of the presbytery's letter to Westbrook and the impossible nature of the requirements placed on him cause one to pause. What is the presbytery trying to achieve? The presbytery's heavy-handed actions are hurting both the welfare of the town and the welfare of the worshiping community. Patton writes, "In our Reformed tradition, maintaining the decency and order of how we interact with each other is a hallmark of our Presbyterian denomination." The presbytery places a high emphasis on "decency and order," but then it acts in what appears to be a discourteous manner. Riverside Church asked to be dismissed to another Reformed body. The presbytery's immediate response was that it would not even consider it. Why not? The church asked to be dismissed and this desire was clearly in accordance with the provisions of the PCUSA's Book of Order. Why did the presbytery ignore the constitutional dismissal procedure and move directly to release the pastor and assert a rigid control over the church? It is understandable that the presbytery wants to defend its interest, but this not the way to go about it. Ignoring the wishes of Riverside's members and putting their pastor on administrative leave was an improper approach to their dissent. Members of the PCUSA should be troubled by Prospect Hill Presbytery's treatment of Westbrook and Riverside Church. As a connectional church, we have a duty to build up Christ's church and further his kingdom. In this case, one has to seriously question whether a positive work for the church has been done. The presbytery, in this writer's mind, has failed to model the decency that is part of our venerable Reformed tradition. Jeff McDonald Omaha, Neb. The story of the resurrection of a church in California March 20, 2007 I read through Mr. Linthicum's article, "The story of the resurrection of a church in California." I sincerely appreciate the activism of all who participated in attempting to make Pomona a more pleasant place to praise God and live. However, I could not help but notice one emanating aspect of the article. The beginning of the article makes references to the demographic changes that occurred in Pomona. The decidedly precise incorporation of the expression "illegal aliens" as a descriptive tool left me disappointed, as well as quite concerned. As a prominent figure of a religious congregation and a former pastor, you are expected to acknowledge that no human being should be seen as illegal or as an alien. I realize that recent political debate over immigrants has left much of American society quite influenced as to what to consider undocumented immigrants. I would only hope that such a pious man such as yourself would not negotiate his morals nor let himself be manipulated as easily as the rest of us sinners. Krystal Tena Most pressing issue . … March 20, 2007 Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. The most pressing issue facing presbyteries is not money, it is a lack of trust and a lack of the congregations having anything in common other than being "Presbyterian" (whatever that means today). The reason mission funds are drying up is not just a trend of people and congregations to "follow their donations." The need to follow donations and to direct donations is because denominational offerings have been used to fund anti-Christian organizations and activities. There is no trust. And the fact that some presbyteries cannot afford a full-time presbytery executive should not be a real problem at all. Neither the PCA nor the EPC have presbytery executives. Neither did most of the presbyteries in our parent denominations prior to the 1940s and 1950s. During most of the history of Presbyterianism, there were no such positions and things worked rather well. To preserve our presbyteries and synods, trust needs to be restored and presbyteries need to be returned to the hands and control of their member congregations. And the essentials of the Reformed faith must be defined and allegiance to them required. Anything less will not suffice. Dave Horner, pastor Bethany Church Mendenhall, Pa. Reply to Dallas Jackson's letter of 3/16 March 20, 2007 If you want to speak out regarding Kirkpatrick's lack of approval from the pews, here is contact information for the White House. I've already sent my letter, and added my support for the president's policies toward Israel.
Irving, Texas |
|
| March
2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |