 |
|
| May
2007 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| 'PUP
report was the straw that broke the camel's back' May 17, 2007 Last week, our church celebrated its 40th anniversary. There wasn't much to celebrate without a pastor, half the congregation, most of the elders and all of the staff. They left the Presbyterian Church (USA) to form an Evangelical Presbyterian Church in the same neighborhood. The PUP report was the straw that broke the camel's back. Apparently, the pastor had no desire to have the congregation vote for dismissal and get involved in a property fight with the Presbytery of Tampa Bay. I suspect the presbytery would have prevailed. The split in our church was headlined in The St. Petersburg Times, noting that the division was caused by the PUP report allowing the ordination of self-avowed, practicing homosexuals. All across the PCUSA denomination, churches are seeking dismissal for the same reasons. They view such behavior as sinful and in violation of the Scriptures. Before the year is out, perhaps 100,000 members of the PCUSA will have departed because of the PUP report. After the split in our church, new elders were elected. Their first act was to select a strong committee to seek renewal in the PCUSA and overturn those policies and programs that are not Bible-based. However, it will be difficult to recruit new members because of the reputation created by the PUP report. The leadership in Louisville could stop the destruction of the PCUSA, but they have chosen not to. Jack Vanderbleek elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St.Petersburg, Fla. Another view on the issues of sin and repentance May 17, 2007 Thank you, Mr. Apel [Letters, May 11, 2007], for continuing to dialogue with me about these important issues of sin and repentance. In response to your last letter, I am afraid that you are misinterpreting 1 Corinthians 5 to say that the man's sin will cause him to fall out of the fellowship, thus "removing" him. On the contrary, Paul is rebuking the congregation for having arrogantly accepted his sin and for not kicking him out themselves. This is so relevant to your situation where, instead of mourning the sin that you have admitted to practicing, you celebrate it. Look further down in chapter 5, he says that in his previous letter he had warned them not to associate with sexually immoral people. This prompts an immediate explanation: "not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world" (1 Cor 5:10, ESV; emphasis added). He then explains that they are not to associate with anyone who calls themselves a Christian (bears the name brother) and engages in these sins. "But wait," you will say, "everyone continues to sin. No one is perfect and it would be hypocrisy to pretend that we don't!" But this would be failing to differentiate between repentant sin and unrepentant sin. Listen, I know I sin against my wife. I am a selfish man, I can be thoughtless and rude. When I do those things, am I actively repentant of them? Of course not, not in the moment of the sin, but my life is still characterized by repentance. I know that I have failings and I seek to make restitution for them. I ask forgiveness and I genuinely strive to change, through the power of the Holy Spirit. Contrast this with a person who yells and screams at his wife, who commits emotional or even physical abuse against her, and then brags about it to his buddies (all while sitting in the pew on Sunday and calling himself a Christian). Or who, when confronted, explains that his anger is just part of who he is and that he therefore neither needs to repent, nor cease his abuses. The church is called to confront a man like that, to tell him that his actions are most certainly sins, and to remove him from the fellowship if he continues in unrepentance. Why should we "deliver a person to Satan?" So that they will see that their actions are consistent with a person on the path to Hell. They are to be treated as lost souls, because the indication of the fruit in their life is that this is what they are: Lost souls. Mr. Apel, I am so sorry that you are involved in a church that will not preach the truth, one that does not have the courage to stand up and condemn sexual immorality (and I mean all sexual immorality. I am not singling you out here as a homosexual). The church is not doing you a service by "accepting" you as you are. It is helping to usher you down a path of destruction. You said in your letter that, "The bottom line is what counts is that a person truly seeks God as a reality through Jesus." My question for you is if you are "truly" seeking the holy God of the Bible, or if you are seeking a god made in the image that you want him to be in. Are you submitting to God's law, or are you so desperate to find ways not to obey that you have been blinded to the truth. Mr. Apel, I don't hate you because you are a homosexual. And I am not dismissing your faith because your homosexuality gives me "jitters." I am simply sad for you because you are either a lost soul, playing at being religious, or you are a destitute Christian, tossed by the currents of a sinful culture and living a life of dishonor to your Lord and Savior. For the sake of your soul, I hope it is the second, but I rather more hope that you truly would seek God for who He is and can come to realize that your arguments and justifications are only a sad attempt to keep the light of God away from your personal idol of immorality. Tom Mirabella Harrisonburg, Va. Trust in the PCUSA 'shattered by The Louisville Papers' May 16, 2007 Trust is a wonderfully marvelous thing when honored, but devastating when violated. The trust one may have had in the Presbyterian Church (USA) institution has been utterly shattered by "The Louisville Papers." Why would – no, why should – the Rev. Rus Howard and the Peters Creek United Presbyterian Church trust General Presbyter David Bleivik and Washington Presbytery? Rus Howard and his session is concerned about his flock, about 20 to 50 or even more families who will leave if the unrest is not settled. Arguably, this is more concern than the PCUSA has displayed over the more than 100,000 people who are walking away from the PCUSA this year. Why not trust David Bleivik and Washington Presbytery? David Bleivik is an employee of the PCUSA institution. Can one doubt that, regardless of how David feels, David will march to the beat of the institution that drew up and is executing the plan exposed in "The Louisville Papers?" The evidence keeps being revealed – good people in the position of executive presbyter (or like title) around the country are apparently following in lock step with the draconian practices advocated in "The Louisville Papers." Trust is gone! James Logan Sr. McHenry, Md. Leadership of the PCUSA 'doesn't seem to care' May 16, 2007 First, I'd like to commend the Presbytery of Stockton for their bravery in submitting the overture item 05-07 that sought to repeal the trust clause in the Book of Order at the 2006 General Assembly. As their rationale states, there simply is "no Biblical or moral basis" for the Presbyterian Church (USA) to bully the local congregations into submission through a trust clause should they decide to leave the denomination for any reason they deemed important. We must remind ourselves that "only God is the Lord of our consciences" and afford ourselves freedom of self-determination. If we are to depart from this historic principle, the PCUSA no longer exists as to what it intended to be at its inception. Unfortunately, the leadership of the PCUSA doesn't seem to care. They want to ram the PUP report's authoritative interpretation down people's throats - yet, if any congregation in their good conscience protests by way of leaving, they whack them with the trust clause. The rationale of the Advisory Committee on the Constitution, seconded by the Committee on the Office of General Assembly, admit that Chapter VIII must be preserved to give "broad discretion to the presbytery in the resolution of the property disputes," especially in the civil courts. Hence, the confidential strategy documents were circulated to usurp the properties of the unsuspecting local congregations. I thought we were "representative," "connectional" and "expression of the whole (whole being the entire body of Christ, not just the PCUSA, according to the historic principles)" and not hierarchical or congregational. Isn't that why the Article 7 of the Articles of Incorporation of the PCUSA state that the corporation has "no members?" (This is an important fact to remember if any congregation is looking to leave because this fact alone brings the neutral principles of law to your favor.) Unless we bring our faith back to the pre-FDR era, I don't see much future in what may be still the great church of all times. The only way to infuse life back into our dying collective body is by humbly heeding "the voice of the wilderness" calling out from the people. Rev. Peter B Min Torrance First Presbyterian Church Straying into heresy: A historical note on Terry Mattingly's article May 15, 2007 This is not the first time the Anglicans have had a dispute about territory. Back in the 18th century, a lot of people complained when John Wesley came to town and preached because the local pastors and bishops did not give him permission to do so. So, Wesley preached out in the fields and converted a generation. He spoke to the common person in language that a person could understand. He helped bring about an age of social reform, including the anti-slavery movement. But the bishops and local pastors didn't want him to come to town as he rocked the boat. This, by the way, was in England. You would think that they would have been ecstatic to have someone come and revive the faith of the people! I'm a Presbyterian and we have our own sins. But maybe one of the sins in the Anglican tradition is the sin of territorialism. And, certainly, the bishops – who are supposed to be the defenders of the orthodox faith – strayed into heresy. Robert G. Campbell pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church Sharon Hill, Pa. 100 profess Christ at 'Upwards' program May 15, 2007 Glade Run Presbyterian Church has done "Upwards" in partnership with one other church in the Pittsburgh area. This year, we had about 600 children participate, and about 2,500 folks showed up at the closing program – with 100 professing Christ at the program. I recommend this program to any church that has a gym or access to a gym. We've enjoyed doing "Upwards" for the last two years. Greg Wiest Valencia, Pa. What has happened to our process? May 15, 2007 I have had many conversations with Dr. Howard over the years. I know him to be an honest and open and eminently just man. If the following statement is accurate as to what was reported to the presbytery as a whole, I am concerned about the actions of Washington Presbytery's leadership. The statement which concerns me is:
What has happened to our process? Where have the men and women of good intent gone? What has brought us to the point that property and power now trump all? Can you say "The Louisville Papers?" Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Churches wanting to leave and going to court May 15, 2007 This is a response regarding the most recent story about a church wanting to leave the PCUSA and filing action in a civil court. I do not deny that there may be a time when separation is the final and faithful option for all parties involved. As I understand these very trying and complicated times for churches, these actions are taken because members of congregations and presbyteries feel that they are being committed disciples of Christ and faithful to the Word of God. Indeed, most of the congregations that are opting out or exploring options to leave the denomination cite as one reason among many as wishing to be faithful to Scripture as the inspired, authoritative, infallible Word of God. They feel the wider church has departed from this view of Scripture and, therefore, they must leave. I understand why some feel this way, and I understand why some have determined that the only way to be faithful to the Word is to go. But I am dismayed that these churches that profess to hold Scripture in such high regard would choose to ignore a very clear passage concerning lawsuits amongst Christians. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 seems pretty clear:
It seems as if Washington Presbytery is trying to graciously and pastorally deal with fellow believers in an agonizing and painful process. It seems as if this process, though not easy, is the faithful route. Rev. Bart Roush Geneva, Ill. A response to Earl Apel's letter May 15, 2007 Context! Context! Context! If brother Apel [Letters, May 11, 2007] will read the whole passage, he will get the whole message. 1 Corinthians 5:13: "Remove the wicked man from yourselves." Sounds pretty definite to me. The Greek root word means "'to lift up,' 'to remove.'" Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. 'Unity without purity is not realizable and … does not produce peace' May 11, 2007 I found the article by Dr. James Goodloe concerning the striving for unity in the Presbyterian Church (USA) by Jack Haberer interesting. Unity in what? Don't know what Jack based his desire for unity on other than the fact that we are a disunited, broken denomination. That we can all agree on. However, there is little agreement between evangelicals and the Louisville crowd as to why we are not united and how to fix the problem. Louisville sees the solution in everybody knuckling under and accepting the un-Biblical direction that Louisville is taking the church. I don't know what Jack Haberer said but, reading between the lines, I get the feeling that his definition of unity did not touch on purity in Christ, but merely how do we keep the PCUSA functioning. That is, functioning as a dysfunctional body. The question is: Does God really want a dysfunctional body in the capital "C" Church? We have moved far from the Bible in our progressive, politically and culturally correct theology. Recent articles from the Washington Office are good examples of this. Earlier, our stated clerk attacked Taco Bell, Burger King and others rather than attack the sin that our leaders ignore, hoping to sidestep the real issues. The denomination as defined by Louisville is dead spiritually and probably should be buried. he congregations that want to worship the true God and serve Him should be allowed to leave with their assets. Presbyteries should make that possible. In short, unity without purity is not realizable and certainly does not produce peace. Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C. Questions and points regarding Mirabella's letter May 11, 2007 I thank Tom Mirabella [Letters, May 9, 2007] for his thoughts on my letter. He raises some questions and points. First of all, regarding 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, I think it is important to realize that Paul says "Let him" be removed. It doesn't say "Remove him." It also is interesting that this account notes that, for the person in question, we should "deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." Isn't it strange that Satan has a good role in restoration? Perhaps not. A good question to ask is: Would Christians (left or right) honestly think it a good idea to make an effort to "deliver" a person to Satan? Of course not! So, what is going on here? It seems to me it's a case of a person off the track for a moment. This may be a case of several circumstances, including sins that bring one down in life and out of touch with God. No argument there. The account mentions other sins, such as coveting (stealing or wanting something from another); idolatry (worship of some ideal above God - that's easy in the U.S. with our focus on money and power); drunkard; extortioner; or a railer (this came from the King James – what does that mean?). So, we as Christians "let" the person be delivered to Satan on that person's own actions in order to be restored. We don't kick the person out. We expect the person to be restored and, thus, that person really remains part of the faith even though the person may not realize it at the time. Regarding the account of Jesus and the woman, Jesus did say to her to not sin any more. But the catch is we don't know what happened after that. Did the woman sin again? I expect so since she is human, though she may have not done the original sin she was going to be stoned for. Mr. Mirabella notes that Paul is talking about removing unrepentant sinners from the congregation. That seems to me a contradiction. Both Paul and Jesus tells us we will always sin to the end of our days. Can any Christian who has sinned honestly claim that in committing the sin he/she was repentant at the same time? Or knows for sure he/she will never do it again? We know better, as both Paul and Jesus taught us it is not possible to be perfect and sinless. The debate, of course, goes back to when do we consider some sins to be a little more important than others? The problem with that question is we focus too much on actions and just don't see people as people. It's really more simple to see people as people. Jesus did that and, for some strange reason, that seems to get lost at times in all of the fuss. The bottom line is what counts is that a person truly seeks God as a reality through Jesus. Yes, I, as a homosexual can affirm that. Yet, my saying I'm a homosexual, or a human being that happens to have an affection for other human beings of the same sex, sends jitters up others who are Christians who find it easier to dismiss my own faith as though it is not real and that I might as well be an atheist. Isn't that strange? Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio A response to letters by Van Marter, Carothers May 11, 2007 A careful reading of my letter [Letters, May 7, 2007]on "Presbyterian control" would indicate that: 1) It was framed as a hyperbole to reply to the actions of the Washington Office and to show the insanity that passes for Presbyterianism these days. 2) It did not directly assert that the shooter was a member of the Presbyterian Church (USA) or lapsed from such, but that this is the type of warped morals our policies create when carried to their logical extreme. 3) I only suggested the hierarchy of the church, not every member, receive "therapy," despite Mr. Carothers' misreading. Thank you for your replies [Letters, May 9, 2007], but perhaps reading a letter more carefully before responding may help you both in the future. Also, Mr. Carothers should learn to distinguish what, in reality, is more damaging: Calls for reform or the actual vitriol and violence "The Louisville Papers" indicate our hierarchy is undertaking now to punish evangelicals and further alienate them when all they wish to do is leave. Sadly, since evangelicals are unheard and spurned at the presbytery, synod and general assembly levels, letters to The Layman are the only outlet myriads of Presbyterians have. Martin Thompson 'No wonder the PCUSA is receding like a polar ice cap' May 10, 2007 In my possession is a copy of the Presbyterian Church (USA) 2001 Missions Yearbook. I suspect little has changed since then. The title says it all: "Let Justice Roll Down Like Waters." About every third or fourth word is "justice." Other frequently used words or phrases are "mercy" and "peace-making." I looked in the index for "evangelism." It is on page 274, and is two or three paragraphs long. There's nothing about Gospel proclamation, church-planting, leading souls to Christ, or baptisms – just more justice, mercy and peace-making. I looked up "Malawi," the country in which I live. I've known PCUSA missionaries working in this country, and at least one couple were authentic evangelicals. But you wouldn't know that by reading the article. It describes the 1999 presidential election. It quotes a Malawian as saying, "Now my people have freedom." The man elected that year was a Moslem, and has since been charged by the current government with egregious corruption. The article goes on to describe how a mentally challenged person showed up somewhere with a duck, and the people on the scene treated the man and his duck with respect. There is nothing wrong with doing social work. The students at our Bible college engage in feeding programs and other outreach to the poor around us. But they combine such activities with Bible study and the preaching of the whole counsel of God. Moreover, I find it supremely ironic that a denomination that emphasizes "justice" is also a strong advocate of abortion rights. To me, abortion is the ultimate injustice. Evil is a reality. There are men on the planet who can cut out your liver and then pick up the phone and order pizza. There are dictators in the world who can order mass exterminations. Warm, fuzzy intentions and service projects will never counter such evil. But preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ can. I know a man who, in the 1970s, was a guerilla fighter in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe. One evening, he entered a Christian tent revival meeting with hand grenades, intending to blow everybody up. He heard the preacher's message, fell under conviction and converted on the spot. Today, he is the chief executive of a large evangelistic ministry here in Malawi, and a powerful Bible preacher. By the way, the PCUSA, through its World Council of Churches' connection, supported the Marxist insurgency of Zimbabwe in the '70s. Today, a Marxist dictator is in power, there's a red star on the national flag and, because of the dictator's ruinous economic policies, millions of Zimbabweans are now facing imminent starvation. Thanks, PCUSA! Justice! No wonder the PCUSA is receding like a polar ice cap. They're suffering from an identity crisis. They think they're the Peace Corps. Will they ever realize that if you want to do humanitarian projects, you can join Habitat for Humanity, Kiwanis or the Lions' Club? You don't have to roll out of bed on Sunday morning, drive to church, put money in the collection plate, and then listen to an insipid sermon about justice, mercy, peace-making and respect for somebody's duck. Larry Brown, D.Min., D.Th. African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Brown correctly identifies strengths of New Wineskins May 10, 2007 Stephen G. Brown, chairman of the Presbyterian Lay Committee, writes of the work of the New Wineskins group and correctly identifies its strengths. New Wineskins has come up with a real plan, it allows for those who would stay and those who would leave this particular denomination [the PCUSA]. The article also highlights the unanimous vote for leaving at their recent meeting in Orlando. What New Wineskins and Presbyterian Global Fellowship do not have is recognition, even by many informed people in the pews. It is hard to lead a revolution when people do not even know who you are, or that you even exist. Waving a sword on a distant hill when no one knows you are there may be good exercise, but it does not a revolution make. But let us be honest, most Presbyterians have not a clue who Clifton Kirkpatrick is, or who the current moderator is for that matter. Now, New Wineskins has an amazing idea for Presbyteries that is based on a missional connection between congregations and authentic relationships on a scale that can work, instead of a corporate body – sized to hire a professional staff. Global Fellowship has a sweeping vision of getting Presbyterians together from local congregations to do mission, a compelling vision of being the church and shifting energies away from sex talk to Christ living. Both are compelling visions and they are complementary. Global Fellowship will likely have the greatest appeal in the pew, where busy parishioners would happily spend time and resources following after where God is leading and working in the world. New Wineskins appeals to those who are tired and tortured by the burdensome and ineffective system of presbytery organization that we have used for the last 40 or so years – yes, brothers and sisters, there was a time before paid presbytery and synod staffs in all parts of the country. So, is New Wineskins correct that it is time to go? Is this the next essential step? Is leaving the next best way to get across the point to an entrenched non-representative bureaucracy that is governed by and for the minority and self perpetuates itself through a wholly controlled nominating committee that defies its responsibilities under the Book of Order to provide theological diversity? Will they hear when New Wineskins leaves? If a man's wife is cheating on him and using his credit card to get the hotel, his first and wisest course of action would be to cancel the credit card. Yet, the largest New Wineskins churches are still sending money in to pay for the lawyers who are gearing up against them. It would be tantamount to this same husband getting a credit card for the man cheating with his wife. Before we go to divorce court, we have a responsibility to cut off the resources that fund the bad behaviors of the Washington Office and the other things related to the stated clerk that are offensive and un-Christian. There is an old saying, "Money talks and '_________' walks." Since the folks on the left are so fond of dialogue, let's have the kind that really talks. The left wingers sure understand this funding scenario: In the new proposed Book Of Order, "per-capita" language disappears and is replaced by a compulsory "apportionment" that governing bodies can mandate from local congregations. Identify the problem. Identify the source of the problem. Procure a solution. Preferred solution? The least invasive solution is the first preferred. Rev. Jim Conner Arcadia Presbyterian Church 'To the greater glory of God or the pursuit of mammon?' was outstanding May 9, 2007 Your editorial regarding the tactics being advocated and used by the Presbyterian Church (USA) to coerce congregations into staying in that now putrid denomination was outstanding. Those desiring to leave, but who are concerned about the dirty tactics, might want to consider the price for not just walking away. C.S. Lewis said it much better, but let me say it this way. Satan understands how to boil a frog to death. The proper way to boil a frog to death is not to plop it in a pot of already boiling water. If you do that, the frog will immediately jump out because it knows the danger. The way to boil a frog is to put it in a pot of lukewarm water. Then, gradually turn up the heat. The frog will not realize that it is being cooked layer by layer before it dies. Don't mother, child and life-giving womb and local option on the ordination of non-repentant, practicing homosexuals and adulterers raise the temperature level to the point that you know you're in the wrong pot? God did not ordain denominations – they are made by man. Why cling to a denomination? To put the question in the context of the title of your article, do you stay in the PCUSA to keep your property? Step forward in faith and be willing to be tested by fire. Richard Tyler McGrath Mechanicsville, Va. Presbyterian Church (USA) is interested in 'only' continuing the PCUSA May 9, 2007 I just finished reading the April-May issue of The Layman. I have concluded that it is time to drop my subscription, but with a very heavy heart. I have been a Presbyterian for almost 40 years and in leadership positions since 1978. I raised my family in the Presbyterian denomination. However, following the 217th General Assembly fiasco, my wife and I decided it was time to find a Christian church that had more Godly leadership. Since we are retired in the rural Texas Hill Country, there were no other Presbyterian churches that were not Presbyterian Church (USA) within driving distance. My wife and I have found a nondenominational Bible church, which has re-established our relationship with Jesus Christ. It appears to us that the PCUSA is interested in "only" continuing the PCUSA. I'm sorry, General Assembly leadership, it's all about Jesus Christ and furthering His Kingdom, and not about the church. I commend The Layman for what it is, what it does and it's leadership. You are the only light in a very dark tunnel. I pray God will continue to bless you for all that you do. So, if you would please stop sending my Layman, I would appreciate it. However, you may want to send my copy to Clifton Kirkpatrick – he may accidentally learn something before he leaves this earth for his judgment day. Bill and Marlane Klotz Llano, Texas A response to Earl Apel's letter May 9, 2007 In response to Earl C. Apel's letter to the editor [Letters, May 8, 2007] in which he expressed that, "To claim that Paul would even believe in throwing people out of the faith borders on heresy," I must ask: Have you read 1 Corinthians? Paul is dealing with sexual sin when he says: "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord" (emphasis added). (1 Corinthians 5:1-5, ESV)Paul is talking about removing unrepentant sinners from the congregation of the people of God. The key word is "unrepentant." In your example from John 8 of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, does Jesus end the account by saying, "Now go and keep doing what you have been doing because I made you to have adulterous desires and would never give you desires I didn't want you to fully express and fulfill?" Of course not. He says, "Go, and from now on sin no more" (emphasis added). I am not intimately familiar with the ministry of OneByOne, but it takes about two seconds looking at their Web site to see that you have misrepresented them. They are not a ministry about affirming homosexuals in their sin and welcoming them into the church. They are about loving and restoring those who are struggling with sexual sin and seeking to live a life of repentance. I believe it is possible to love people without affirming their lifestyle choices. This is the great divide I see in all discussions about homosexual issues in the church (and in politics, for that matter). Paul is loving the man who he is judging and removing from the fellowship (not treating him like "garbage," as you say). Love is not represented by undiscriminating acceptance, it is shown in desiring a greater good for the person. It is not shown by smiling and waving as a person runs down the path to destruction and Hell, it is shown in confronting, with gentleness and humility, so that "his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord." Mr. Apel, if you have placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, you need to know that "so-called same-sex behavior" truly is a sin. God is not mocked. If you think that your lifestyle is acceptable and glorifying to God, then you are deceived, and dangerously so. Please, humbly search God's Word and see that this sin is condemned throughout the Scriptures. "Restoration is a free gift for all," but you must recognize that to "restore" means to bring back to a right condition. Restoration starts with repentance. Tom Mirabella Harrisonburg, Va. A reply to Martin Thompson's letter May 9, 2007 As the Presbyterian News Service reported more than two weeks ago, the Virginia Tech shooter was a lapsed member of a Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) congregation, not a PCUSA church. Therefore, I doubt he read the PUP report or paid any heed to the Presbyterian Washington Office. Jerry Van Marter Presbyterian News Service About the letters May 9, 2007 A recent letter from Martin Thompson [Letters, May 7, 2007] citing Cho Seung-Hui as a "lapsed Presbyterian" links the tragedy at Virginia Tech to the Presbyterian Church (USA) and "directives from the General Assembly" and calls for restorative therapy for the whole denomination. This seems all-too typical of the kind of vitriol and attack appearing in letters and editorials in The Layman. And perhaps also typical in its accuracy, since Thompson fails to note that the Centreville Presbyterian Church where Cho had been a member is a PCA congregation. Letters to The Layman are filled with words like "apostate" and "faithless" in describing other Presbyterians. The Layman seems to take particular interest in a favorable view of Episcopalians who abandon their denomination to affiliate with a Nigerian Anglican whose church has supported legislation that would not only criminalize homosexual behavior, but would give prison sentences to gay people seen together in public and could threaten AIDS workers. Examples of extreme viewpoints can be found on all sides, but it seems noteworthy that writers for Presbyterian organizations like the Covenant Network do not resort to this level of name calling, in no way promote the idea that churches as a whole should leave the denomination if a majority of members disagree with a policy, and do not build an ideology based on exclusion from the church. And, regarding our Anglican friends, while The Layman seems to find much to admire in Bishop Akinola's opposition to basic human rights in Nigeria, many other Presbyterians continue to find a much more kindred spirit in another Anglican cleric from that continent, Desmond Tutu. David Carothers Harrisonburg, Va. French Camp 'gift' had 'nothing to do with property' May 8, 2007 I just read your article about the French Camp church and their being dismissed from St. Andrew Presbytery. The $30,000 figure was one developed by the session of that church as repayment for some pastoral support granted by the presbytery back in 1991 that helped them call a pastor. The amount given to the church then was $18,000; the difference is four percent interest from then until now. So this money, as far as the session was concerned, had nothing to do with "property." Now, the presbytery may like to think that, but that was not the view of the session. Rusty Douglas former session moderator French Camp Presbyterian Church French Camp, Miss. 'I'm really getting sick of the Washington Office' May 8, 2007 I'm really getting sick of the Washington Office speaking for the people in our denomination. Their proposals are inane nonsense time and time again. And, now, they want to limit the use of handguns. They claim that one of the weapons used at Virginia Tech and previous shootings around the country was a rapid-fire, large-capacity, ammunition-feeding type of gun and that those guns should be "out of the reach of anyone and that the only purpose of these weapons is to kill people." I'm no expert, but I understand that the two guns used at Va. Tech were a Glock 19 9mm and a Walther P22. The Glock 19 is a self-defense gun often used by police officers. It has a standard magazine of 15. You can buy optional magazines that handle up to 33 rounds. However, local and state regulations control hi-capacity magazine policies. The Walther P22 is a 22 cal. and isn't good for anything but target practice. It has a standard magazine of 10 rounds. I understand it is banned in California because the barrel is threaded (you can change it out from standard to target very quickly). Both of these weapons are semi-automatic. Help me out here. Which one of these guns was a "rapid-fire, large-capacity, ammunition-feeding type of gun" that should be "out of the reach of anyone and that the only purpose of these weapons is to kill people." I find this language extremely pejorative and an insult to those of us who legally own handguns and use them responsibly. The fact is, the Washington Office and those who support them just don't get it. The problem isn't the guns – it's the people who use them. The Washington Office can't see the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. What happened at Va. Tech was a horrible and very tragic thing, and those who survived and those who lost loved ones need our prayers. But to go after millions of responsible gun owners is both wrong and damaging to our constitutional rights at the same time. I grew up in a home where we had handguns, rifles, shotguns, and I could have started a small revolution if I had wanted to. I didn't because I had a dad who took the time to teach me gun safety and respect and love for others. Never once did it cross my mind to use one of those weapons, which were readily available, to harm someone else. I knew better. And there are a lot of people out there just like myself who know better, too. In the view of the Washington Office, though, we don't have that kind of ability. We are little children who need big brother to tell us how to think and what to do. All I can say to the Washington Office is, "You don't speak for me and thousands of others who are tired of your ranting." It's time the people in the pews shut down the Washington Office. Joe Blevins Thomaston, Ga. About the Washington Office and travel to Cuba May 8, 2007 After reading the article regarding the Washington Office's "Washington Alert" regarding United States-Cuban relations, embargo and travel relations, and subsequent letters from the Rev. Eddie and Paul Walter Soto [Letters, May 3, 2007], having never been to Cuba, I have a couple of points of clarification that I am interested in finding out some answers. First, as I understand it, there are 192 countries in the United Nations plus a handful of countries not in the U.N. The United States is the only country that does not trade with Cuba. That means at least 98 percent of the countries in the world do have trade with Cuba. So, is it our fault that Cuba is in such a mess? Since the people in Cuba have now had over a generation to prove how well communism's "worker's paradise" can function, you would think that they would be just overflowing with economic wonders so great that they would be able to give us economic aid and that they would be sending mission workers to us. If it is such a wonderful place, why does a tropical island have to ration fish? Everyone "knows" that it is the "evil and corrupt for-profit American businesses" that are ripping off the Third World people, stealing their natural resources and creating sweat-shops all over the world. Why are the same people that say these things about American businesses now saying that the reason Cuba is such a mess is that those very same businesses are not helping Cuba? Everyone "knows" that Cuba has such a great health-care system, that everyone is covered and well taken care of without the evil insurance companies ripping us all off. Meanwhile, Fidel Castro has to specially fly in a doctor from Spain to minister to him. Why? Remember in March of 2003, when Castro and his regime cracked down and arrested members of Cuba's independent civil society, rounding up 75 independent thinkers, journalists, librarians and academics? These individuals were sentenced to as many as 25 years in prison for carrying out activities that citizens living in democracies across the world participate in every day. In the four years since, 59 of the original remain behind bars. Those who have been released know that it is "conditional" and live with the constant threat of being sent back to jail. While the Washington Office has yet to say anything about that, by advocating normalization of relationships with Cuba, are we not putting our "stamp of approval" on such actions? And, finally, if Cuba is such a great and wonderful nation and the United States is such an evil and corrupt nation, why would anyone want to risk their lives in old leaky boats and make-shift rafts to try to come to the United States? And why, oh why, are thousands of people not lined up on all of the shores of our country trying to get to Cuba any way they could? Just some questions for the "experts" who know more than me. If they can answer those questions, maybe then we could start talking about "normalizing" relations with Cuba. Rev. Herb Goetz Slippery Rock, Pa. Another view of the Washington Office and Cuba May 8, 2007 The Presbyterian Church (USA)'s Washington Office has shown great deal of interest in Cuba. Perhaps they should move their office there. There, they could live in harmony with their fellow man without issues and conflicts that they are not capable of handling. Cuba, a land flowing with milk and honey, where a women can happily have abortions and men can study war no more. Thousands of loving Christians would be more than happy to escort them to the continental borders of the United States of America and launch them on the boat ride. Bon voyage, Washington Office. William M. Reeves Birmingham, Ala. Can you print more news about Presbyterian military chaplains? May 8, 2007 I am an avid reader and supporter as far as my means of The Layman, but I am curious as to why on Page 8 (April/May 2007) under "People" you carry the news note about three Evangelical Presbyterian Church chaplains' change of duty and retirement when there are many Presbyterian (USA) chaplains who deserve recognition, such as Chaplain Margaret Kibben, USN, who just returned from seven months in Afghanistan. I am confident that the Presbyterian Council for Chaplains and Military Personnel in Washington, D.C., would gladly keep you apprised of significant chaplain changes of duty and retirements. They perform an outstanding ministry as pastors to our chaplains. David Chambers Chevy Chase, Md. Editor's Note: As part of its news and informational ministry, The Layman 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. Such is the case with the news item about EPC chaplains. The Layman has contacted many organizations – including the Presbyterian Council for Chaplains and Military Personnel – for information regarding their ministries and personnel. As that material is made available, it will be published in The Layman and The Layman Online. A response to Dick Carter's letter May 8, 2007 It is unfortunate that Dick Carter in his letter [Letters, May 1, 2007] stated about Paul: "The poor benighted apostle advocated removing the homosexual crowd from the body of believers until they repented and turned from such practices." Being that I'm one of the supposed homosexual crowd and a part of the body of believers, this is news to me. In fact, Mr. Carter's statement contradicts the ministry of OneByOne, a PCUSA-affiliated group that seeks to help homosexuals and others in sexual conflict find healing. While I don't agree with the stance of OneByOne on so-called same-sex behavior that is considered sin, I do respect the obvious passion that OneByOne has for making sure that the homosexual crowd is part of the body of believers instead of throwing them out as garbage. For the point is that, if one is put out as garbage, will that person really repent and turn from the practice of being garbage? Of course not! The body of believers have to be willing to get in the dump and restore the garbage. To claim that Paul would even believe in throwing people out of the faith borders on heresy, although I don't think that is always such a good word to use. I'm sure Mr. Carter means well. The OneByOne Web site shares the encounter Jesus had with the woman that would be stoned and thus treated as garbage, something to be discarded. Jesus made the most interesting comment that whoever is without sin can cast the first stone. One might also say that whoever is not garbage may dispose of the garbage. Jesus did not dispose of the woman, nor would Paul. OneByOne makes a wonderful statement about this account: "The story speaks for itself. The Church is not called to condemn. The Church is not called to humiliate or shame. Neither is the Church to compromise Scriptural standards. The Church must respond with repentance and forgiveness for its own sins and the sins of others. The Church must continue to exhort its people to live holy lives. And, the Church must offer forgiveness and restoration to anyone, no matter how horrid we might consider the sin. Restoration is a free gift for all." Regardless of where people stand on these debates about sexuality, theology and so on, why can't the simple statement, "Restoration is a free gift for all," be enough? For everyone is restored in one way or another through Christ. That is what really matters. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio A call for 'Presbyterian control' May 7, 2007 In the wake of the tragic shooting in Virginia, the Washington Office called for "gun control." Perhaps it would be as logical to call for "Presbyterian control" … or at least "Washington Office" or "Louisville" control. Why? These people were killed by a lapsed Presbyterian with a cheap view of human life and low sexual morality as evidenced by his hiring of "escorts." These are precisely the type of Presbyterians produced by the activists in the PCUSA who gave us the PUP report, who promote abortion at all costs, and who promote them no matter what directives come from the General Assembly. Perhaps restorative therapy for our whole denominational hierarchy is in order. Instead of apologizing for North Carolina Communists and Klansmen, shooting one another when our connections with that incident seem quite remote, perhaps the PCUSA needs to really apologize for our role in creating this mass murderer? We may have actually had some hand in his acts by encouraging abortion at all costs and base sexuality that have become the trademarks of our "progressive" denomination and which this killer embodied. Martin Thompson I don't understand 'gift' in church's dismissal May 7, 2007 Thank you for your article on the French Church's dismissal with its gift of $30,000 to the presbytery. What I don't understand is the thought, mindset or necessity behind such a "gift." It would seem to me the most gracious thing to do, if we're using "gracious separation" language, would simply be to let them go without a monetary contribution. Even the use of the term "gift" seems disingenuous and dishonest. It seems to me it would most fully be seen as a "gift" if a congregation insisted on it while the dismissing presbytery was reluctant to accept it, as opposed to the presbytery asking for it while the congregation grudging agrees to it. The point of this is to ask what is it about the releasing of a congregation that would necessitate a presbytery to seek, or a dismissing congregation to give, such a contribution? This is a serious and honest inquiry I'm making. What is it about the relational change that makes the monetary gift necessary? My gut reaction is, "Not a dime." But, then, I can't know what all is involved in the dismissal. It seems to me the release simply is granted and each goes their different direction. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. A response to the Washington Office, PCUSA about partial-birth abortions May 7, 2007 Why do you abandon sound doctrine? Why do you seek to put the doctrine of men above the doctrine of God? Why do you hear not the Word of the Lord our God? Only life begets life. We are knit in the womb and wonderfully made. Clothed with skin and flesh and fenced with bones and sinews. We are known to the Lord our God before we are formed in the womb. It is written, "Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer and He that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things" (Isaiah 44:24). "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works. And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them" (Psalm 139:13-16). "Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews" (Job 10:11). Did not God speak to Jeremiah, "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee?" (Jeremiah 1:5). Did not John the Baptist when yet still in his mother's womb jump for joy for Christ our King? "And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit" (Luke 1:41). Can we deny that which God acknowledges? Is our knowledge greater than that of God? Where were we when the foundations of the world were laid? Let us humble ourselves, listen and be obedient to God's holy Word! The leadership of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has abandoned the Word of God. Yet, they alone are not to blame. We disciples, we stewards of our faith, have allowed into positions of authority those who not only deny, but defy the Word of God. We are called unto repentance. Only life begets life. The unborn child is the seed of our seed, flesh of our flesh and known to God. Those who advocate for abortion are advocating for the cessation of life. Woe to us for our sinful ways. Delight in how wonderfully made we are. Delight that we are known to God before we are yet formed. Delight in the life that is knit and nourished inside the womb. Delight in the Word of the Lord. James Brancato Former member, elder Presbyterian Church (USA) Banning assault weapons, limiting access to handguns isn't the answer May 3, 2007 I agree that we need to do something about crime like what happened at Virginia Tech, but banning assault weapons and limiting access to handguns isn't the answer. We need the laws we already have to be tougher and re-enforced. We need to allow only American citizens the right to own guns. The Washington Office is now saying that limiting access to handguns will stop this kind of violence, but allowing women the right to abortions is not what we as Christians, and Presbyterians, should believe. Guns don't kill people … people kill people when they sin and kill innocent people. Charles Freeman Mississippi Gun control is not the problem May 3, 2007 It is not gun control that is the problem – it is the Presbyterian Church (USA), Louisville, and the Washington Office. These people are totally out of control. Oh dear, what will they come up with next? Control our lives? Tell me, Christians, when have these two organization ever suggested we just read our Bibles? They are more interested in us writing to our congressmen about issues than talking and praying to God. William M. Reeves Birmingham, Ala. Another view about the travel restrictions to Cuba May 3, 2007 I was very interested in reading the article, "Washington Office Watch: Restore the right to travel to Cuba for Americans." The reason for my interest being that I am of Latin American background (Puerto Rican, born in New York City). I spent almost 30 years studying and ministering in Latin America, served as the Presbyterian Church (USA) coordinator for South America during four years, and have been to Cuba three times to preach as well as to lead and interpret for church groups. I am not a fan of the government of Cuba nor of the Washington Office of the PCUSA, but I am strongly against the embargo we have, as a nation, placed on Cuba and the recent travel restrictions placed on Cubans who have family members back on the island. I have seen first-hand what the embargo has done to the Cuban economy and know that it is mainly the common Cuban people who suffer from the embargo more than anyone else. To me, it is criminal, unjust and un-Christian and it should be denounced as strongly as when left-wing injustice is denounced here in the U.S.A. To me, this is not a left or right issue, it is a human issue wherein decent common folks are being castigated to the point of despair. I emphasize that I am a convinced and committed evangelical PCUSA Christian minister involved in holistic ministries and am sorry that our government has not been more humane in this embarrassing situation, which only places in doubt if we truly believe in liberty and justice for all or if we are not just inclined ideologically one way (to the right) instead of criticizing the right or the left when they violate human dignity. I personally, in my ministry, have tried consistently to denounce the extremes when the situation has demanded it and have not endeared myself to either side but, no problem, I stand for the principles of the Kingdom of God, which places in judgment all political ideologies since none are perfect and all are wanting. Also, one day I will have to give an account to God as to where I stood when injustice was practiced and I was a witness to it. I just pray that more Christians will stand up for what is right and be willing to denounce wrong wherever it comes from and not be so concerned with partisan allegiances. Rev. Eddie Soto associate pastor for Missions and Outreach Faith Presbyterian Church Tallahassee, Fla. About Richard Conway's letter May 3, 2007 I would like to hear Richard Conway [Letters, May 1, 2007] explain what he means that there is some kind of "secular, societal positioning" involved in the "Montreat issue." When the presbyters of the Presbytery of Western North Carolina recently assembled and acted on a report on how to resolve the matters related to the Montreat Presbyterian Church, it was wholly an ecclesiastical action. Mr. Conway may be upset with the way in which they acted, but I can find nothing to do with any kind of "secular, societal positioning" in their actions. Just so elder Conway understands what they did, the Book of Order, which he is bound to uphold as an ordained elder, empowers the Presbytery of Western North Carolina to organize, receive, unite and dismiss congregations within its boundaries. It is also under no obligation to organize, receive, unite and dismiss congregations unless and until it, as a presbytery, believes that doing so promotes the mission of the presbytery. The fact they divided the Montreat church into two congregations and dismissed one to the EPC was in total accord with the requirements of the Book of Order. I believe that WNC presbytery acted pastoral to all involved and should be commended, not denounced. David Walters First Presbyterian Church Andalusia, Ala. I agree with lifting the ban on travel to Cuba May 2, 2007 I, for once, agree with the "Louisville people." I have traveled to Cuba twice and done so legally. It quickly became apparent to me that our policy was benefiting Castro and our friends in Canada and Europe. The only losers are the Cuban people and American business. When you try something for over 40 years and it doesn't work, perhaps it is time to try something new. It is our policies that give Fidel an excuse for the failures of his economic system! They also provoke anti-American feelings among the Cubans who are suffering under his "socialist" system. The Cuban people and American business both deserve better. Both of our political parties are so concerned with a few congressional seats, particularly in Dade County and in northern New Jersey, that they refuse to work for our brothers in Cuba and for the American people. In Havana one sees the signs, "Cuba, Si, Yanqui, No!" If we are to make this world a better place we need to read, "Cuba, Si, Yanqui, Si." Then we can proceed to a great future. With "Cuba, No, and Yanqui, No," we hurt everyone and descend to a miserable failure. Paul H. L. Walter Savannah, Ga. Restoring the right to travel to Cuba for Americans 'is more bull!' May 2, 2007 This is more bull! If I sound upset, I am. Why my denomination continues to uphold and defend these Communist and terrorist regimes completely baffles me. I was born in the U.S.A. from Cuban parents and, from hearing my parents and other relatives that escaped the Communist regime in Cuba, I know what they went through and what the regular Cuban goes through. Why doesn't the Washington Office condemn the many tourists (including U.S. citizens that travel to the island from third countries) that exploit Cuban boys and girls (from ages 9-to-13) for sex in exchange for shoes, a shirt, a handful of sugar or $1.00? Come on! This is injustice and intolerable. My God, continue to have mercy on those of us who continue in the Presbyterian Church (USA) and who the continued sins of the denomination are not accounted toward the faithful that remain. Jesus R. Sanchez Reyes Director of Music Primera Iglesia Presbiteriana Hispana de Miami First Spanish Presbyterian Church of Miami Miami, Fla. Abort the Washington Office May 1, 2007 Isn't it time to abort the Washington Office? Where in the Constitution is the right to choose abortion mentioned? I thought the Washington Office motto was, "So that All Can Freely Serve." Well, that is except the aborted. They don't get to count or serve. William M. Reeves Birmingham, Ala. Washington Office says women have 'constitutional right to choose abortion' May 1, 2007 The PCUSA continues to disappoint me, just as the Presbytery of Western North Carolina did again with the recent Montreat issue. From my vantage point, these are not Biblical positions but secular, societal positioning. Richard Conway elder First Presbyterian Church Morganton, N.C. About separate presbyteries May 1, 2007 Reading the proposals for separate presbyteries [Letters, April 27, 2007] that would allow churches to choose whether they wish to be affiliated with those who prefer ordaining active homosexuals or those who think such action is sin: Too bad Paul did not think of that when dealing with the Corinthian church. The poor benighted apostle advocated removing the homosexual crowd from the body of believers until they repented and turned from such practices. Of course, we have come a long way since Paul. Or, perhaps, we have gone a long way since Paul's time – downhill. Dick Carter inactive elder Covenant Presbyterian Church Amarillo, Texas |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |