 |
|
| May
2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| 'When
it comes to the media, the PCUSA will say anything' May 31, 2007 I read the following paragraph in a story in The Louisville Courier-Journal:
Jack O'Brien Beverly Heights Church Pittsburgh, Pa. 'Only congregations have title to local church property' May 31, 2007 The perception held of property ownership affects every decision and the way decisions are made in the church. Only congregations have title to local church property. Consider: The audited financial statements of the United Church of Canada do not report congregation property as an asset and only congregations have insurance for local church property where the Insurance Act R.S.O. 1990 reads:
Rev. Don Anderson White Lake Pastoral Charge, Renfrew Presbytery United Church of Canada A response to James Logan May 31, 2007 Mr. Logan [Letters, May 30, 2007] notes in his letter in response to mine that Leviticus 18:22 makes things crystal clear. He states: "The prohibitions and punishments are clear for any adult. To state it clearer or in more graphic terms would put the text in the realm of pornography!" Well, here are the facts. First of all, a man can't lay with another man as a woman as the anatomy is different. It's impossible. So, I guess I would have to conclude that Leviticus 18:22 has no relevance based on the literal words. Or does the verse simply mean the two men are laying side-by-side taking a nap? Yes, a man and a woman can do that. But then, I guess that means one has to interpret what it means? Otherwise, a many good men who are friends taking naps side-by-side are in deep sin. OK, there is the bottom line. In this debate, people claim to know exactly what the evil in question is. But then, if someone like me asks the simple question about having details, then I'm told that is a little extreme and is "in the realm of pornography." I hope Mr. Logan doesn't take my words the wrong way, as I'm simply reaching out to him for I feel one does need to be willing to provide some answers, although they might not be completely adequate. I've found myself frustrated for some time in the debates about homosexuals as to what "homosexual practice" really means. I think we, as Christians, would have no problem discussing the gory details of what "murder practice" or "genocide practice" is. So, if "homosexual practice" is such a great evil, why is it a problem to discuss the horrible details? Isn't it odd that so much fuss is made about this so-called sin, yet public debates for the most part steer away from the horrific details? I, of course, speak from a different point of view. But it seems insane that we, as a church and society, are most willing to address the evils of murder, genocide, wars and hatred in detail, but won't do the same about homosexual activity (whatever that means). If I and other men should truly be put to death since we lie with another man as we would with a woman, then those having this point of view should have no problem in confronting this evil and seeing that we are put to death. And they must be willing to state the graphic details as to why. But the reality that is the passion is not really there. It's all words without action, as I view it. Of course, we Presbyterians tend to be more gracious and not quick to put someone to death over a sin as Leviticus 18:22 mandates. I appreciate this. Regarding obedience and feelings, I will simply note that my feelings led me to God as revealed through Jesus Christ, and through those feelings I wish to obey God and thank Jesus for being my Savior. Having obedience on its own, to me, seems quite empty. You have to have something alive inside of you that makes you want to be obedient; that is, the living God that you feel and know. This is an evangelical concept, and my home church taught me this. Maybe I didn't make that too clear. The bottom line is I don't understand how a Christian can be obedient to God without the relevance of feelings. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio A way in which we can stand up May 30, 2007 The purpose of this letter is to explain a way that we can stand up! The most critical issue is the general assembly's stated clerk position. The renewal groups – especially the Presbyterian Coalition, the Presbyterian Renewal Network, the Presbyterian Lay Committee, the New Wineskins Initiative and other groups that are not an official part of any of these – as many as possible need to agree to work together on this. Then all the newsletters of these groups would emphasize that the groups intend to work together to find, to endorse, to support and to fund the best candidate – and that they want people to nominate others or to be volunteers themselves for the general assembly stated clerk's screening process. I believe that we have a conservative Rev. Eugene Carson Blake or a conservative ruling elder William P. Thompson in our ranks (and it certainly isn't me at 74). However, such a person is far too smart to be a Don Quixote and to tilt at windmills. If even some of these groups worked together (or if even one or two renewal groups agreed to do this, the others will follow, I believe). Then, when such a person emerged from the consultations, the commissioners from presbyteries around the country would take this seriously. Why would a person want to go to Louisville and live in that difficult environment? Well, why does anyone decide to be a foreign missionary or to serve as the pastor of a church in great conflict? We need again to make the Presbyterian Church (USA) to be a light set on a candlestick, to be a city set on a hill! Do you agree that this is the most important issue now? Is the Lord calling you to start this? Have you come to the Kingdom for such a time as this? Rev. Bruce W.H. Urich Winter Park, Fla. A response to Col. Ronald Everett May 30, 2007 I am very grateful for your wise letters to the Layman, Colonel [Letters, May 29, 2007]. I agree with your comments about Richard Cizik, the public voice of the National Association of Evangelicals, whose comments lately have been listing decisively to port. (I am sorry, sir, but I am a Navy veteran. I think in those terms, my phrase meaning "leaning decisively to the left!") I have not yet read "Toward An Evangelical Public Policy." But I once was a member of the organization Ron Sider founded, Evangelicals for Social Action, only leaving because most of its recommendations are geared for urban rather than rural people, such as the ones I serve. I also have met and had the opportunity to speak with Dr. Sider on a couple of occasions. He firmly stands with us evangelicals on social issues like abortion and homosexuality. He also consistently has urged us evangelicals to be concerned for the poor and reach out to them in their need. So, I would not worry about him going far left, or Diane Knippers and her successors at the Institute on Religion and Democracy. But your points on the NAE itself are well-taken. Thank you. Rev. Rick Johnson Ebenezer Presbyterian Church George, Iowa A response to Earl C. Apel May 30, 2007 I sure pray that someone else will more clearly tackle this issue, but I must be obedient to the Spirit. Responding to Mr. Earl Apel regarding feelings: From his letter posted May 21, 2007: "The fact is I have had no relations for over 10 years with any person of any sex or gender." From the context of the ongoing discussion, it seems the clear meaning of Mr. Apel's note was a denial that he has had any sexual intercourse with any person "for over 10 years." Mr. Apel's post [Letters, May 29, 2007] is perplexing as to just what is his point. There is little room for interpretation of Leviticus 18:22: "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Or Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on heir own heads." The prohibitions and punishments are clear for any adult. To state it clearer or in more graphic terms would put the text in the realm of pornography! Does Mr. Apel practice "it?" The Leviticus texts defines the practice. "Who knows?" Mr. Apel knows and there is no wiggle room! This conservative only cringes at the prospect of having had an opportunity to answer Mr. Apel clearly and without ambiguity, failing to do so in this public forum, and then to face Jesus Christ, the righteous judge at my death! That makes me tremble! Next, Mr. Apel attempts a diversion from the topic to defining "what is a Christian?" Jesus prayed for us who believe on Him through the words of His disciples, including the one Christ had to recruit from heaven, the one liberals love to hate, Paul. To obey the teachings of Christ as taught by these is to be Christian. To disregard the words of those holy men is to be un-Christian. I am genuinely sorry that Mr. Apel was not taught obedience in his home church. Perhaps the failure of churches to teach the Bible is why so many now feel they have the right to imagine God on their own terms. Disobedience has been man's main problem since Eden. It even barred Moses from the Promised Land! It is bad enough that some were not taught scripture in Sunday school, but self-serving wolves-in-sheep-clothing fake pastors fail to teach the Scriptures at the eleven o'clock hour. Making a choice for Christ does not negate feelings; in fact, when one decides to abandon all pretences and throw himself at the mercy of Jesus for pardon from his sins, the feeling of cleansing flow is overwhelming. The feeling to which I made reference is the whiny feeling that one should be allowed to just unrepentantly continue on in their sins. Paul says, God forbid! Find the story, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, of the man who was coming to the fellowship of the saints while "having his father's wife." Paul said to expel him. What an arrogant question: "Does it make sense that in obeying God we throw others out of the Church …?" Yes, it makes sense because that is what Jesus' apostle to us Gentiles said to do. Mr. Apel makes reference to Exodus and God not giving up on His people. Read more carefully and completely: God did not fail to punish their disobedience. And, yes, there were real feelings of fear as the children of Israel traversed the desert for 40 years - forty years so that all over 20 years of age would die in the wilderness and not reach the Promised Land – all for disobedience! Would that God would strike fear today into so-called Christian ministers more afraid of meeting an angry God than facing an upset board of session. Fear of the judgment rather than offending a parent whose child declares that he/she is a homosexual, or brings a live-in boy/girl friend home to share a bedroom. Fear of a holy God rather than fear of losing the contribution of wealthy adulterous hell-bound members. Fear of a God who will judge, rather than members who cheat the helpless. No! No! God does not, will not, come to us on our terms. We come to Him on His terms. He calls us, where we are, to follow Him. We put off everything that is not like Him as the Spirit and the Word, in perfect concert, instruct us. Feelings are dangerous, when unbridled by God's direction. They will lead us to sin. Feelings are relevant to a person's walk with God, when they confirm obedience to the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit testifying of Jesus, the Christ. When one submits to the unreserved will of God, there is a profound feeling of peace and joy. Sadly, they are also relevant, when they bring the overwhelming conviction and remorse that we have sinned, failing to follow God's direction. James Logan Sr. McHenry, Md. What's with the National Association of Evangelicals? May 29, 2007 There has been some recent controversy regarding statements made by the Washington Office (Richard Cizik) of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) on the topic of global warming. I didn't pay much attention to it since it seemed to involve the typical kind of disagreement discussed in any ecumenical group, even evangelicals. However, I just read a startling review of the NAE's "Toward An Evangelical Public Policy," edited by Ron Sider and the late Diane Knippers, that makes me wonder if the NAE is being taken over by the far left. I assume most folks are well aware of the far-left positions of Sider's organization, Evangelicals for Social Action. Now, starting in the first chapter of this new public policy book, the efforts of conservatives, the religious right and the anti-Communist movement that ended with the dissolution of the Soviet empire is called "an exercise in destruction." Meanwhile, the Marxist ideas of liberation theology that are enthusiastically supported by the likes of Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Sider and Richard Barnet of the Institute for Policy Studies are commended for their stance on poverty, foreign policy and the environment. Anyone who thinks socialism reduces poverty has not paid much attention to socialism's record over the past hundred years. All socialism does is equally distribute poverty. If the NAE follows the policy outlined in this book, we're all in trouble. They would do well to publicly denounce this book before their membership flees in horror. Col. Ronald Everett North Olmsted, Ohio A response to James Logan May 29, 2007 Mr. James Logan Sr. [Letters, May 25, 2007] notes that I claim appear to be a "celibate, not a practicing homosexual." Well, quite honestly, I still haven't figured out what a practicing homosexual is? Do I practice it right or wrong? Who knows? I think the definition makes both conservatives and liberals cringe if they truly want to address the definition. The definition that most want to avoid addressing is what is a practicing Christian? It is easier to address persons with other labels that, for their convenience, make certain undesirables practicing whatever be apart from our faith. Mr. Logan says: "The issue, Mr. Apel, is not how we feel about what God has said; the issue is our obedience." Well, sorry Mr. Logan, I wasn't taught this principle in Sunday school at my home church, the Owingsville Christian Church in Kentucky. I was taught that my feeling does matter and that I make a choice to accept Christ as Savior or not. The choice is, indeed, a feeling and I am grateful that the feeling and realization and reality of God came to me as a feeling. It's also part of evangelism. I will never forget the time that God and Jesus became real to me. It is something to be cherished and not anything to apologize for. The real question, I think, to Mr. Logan and others is what does obeying God really mean? Have you really given it thought? Does it make sense that in obeying God we throw others out of the church, especially when the persons in question are even open to God in the first place? The Exodus account makes it quite clear that God does not give up on Moses and those delivered from bondage, even though those people give up on God. In the Exodus account, the people in question were practicing idolaters in forgetting the living God. But God shows grace in the end that is most consistent. And the good news is that the practicing idolaters get in touch with God through feelings, not being afraid of being struck down. God spoke through Moses as God spoke through Jesus. God comes to us on our own terms as humans and seeks to develop the relationship through feelings. The evidence is crystal clear. If feelings are, indeed, not relevant to a person's walk with Christ, I am open to the thoughts of those in this forum who will explain this. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio A response to Anne-Marie Hislop May 29, 2007 I appreciate the Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop [Letters, May 25, 2007] taking the time to correct me regarding Pope Benedict XVI, limbo and purgatory.
The fact remains, however, that contrary to what L. Rus Howard asserted, Roman Catholicism has never fully returned to a Scripture-based faith. In Catholic theology, tradition is placed on a par with Scripture; salvation is a faith-plus-works proposition, rather than "by faith alone" as Protestantism has always taught; and the "Holy Father" still determines, or at least profoundly influences, official church dogma. Having said all that, I believe that, although I'm a member of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, I have more in common with a conservative Catholic than with a liberal Presbyterian. The Catholic and I would agree as to who Jesus is. After all, it wasn't a Catholic who asked the now-famous question, "What's the big deal about Jesus?" Incidentally, whenever I'm on furlough in the U.S.A., I find that there's a popular myth that once upon a time there was something called "Celtic Christianity" that was close to the Protestantism that came later, and that it was tragically squelched by Catholicism (because a seventh-century Anglo-Saxon king decided in favor or Rome). Actually, "Celtic Christianity" was very much a sacerdotal kind of thing, and should be thought of as a variant of Catholicism rather than as an early predecessor of Protestantism. It is true that it produced my favorite hymn, "Be Thou My Vision," but it is not true that St. Patrick drove all the snakes out of Ireland. That would have been truly hissss-torical. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi 'Imagined' world is seriously incomplete and impoverished May 25, 2007 With regard to the article "Atheism Fills the Void as Religion Falters in Europe:" After spending the past hour leading a Bible study and hymn-sing at a local nursing home, I have to agree that that noted theologian and Biblical scholar, Elton John, hit the nail right on the head. Boy, what a bunch of "hateful lemmings" those old folks were! And kudos to Mr. John for exposing my real motivation for leading such a study – I must have been doing it for the prestige and glory, not because of any religiously motivated sense of compassion or care. After all, "organized religion" is "not really compassionate." Elton John's ridiculous statement, and the title of Christopher Hitchens' book (God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything), demonstrate a common approach that the popular atheistic movement likes to employ in its dealings with religion: Highlight the worst or the most simple-minded that religion has to offer, assume that this represents the attitudes and sensibilities of most or all religious people, and then condemn/critique/ridicule those positions for all the harm they do or have done over the centuries. According to this approach, most Christians are "young earth creationists;" the Bible can only be read in a literalist/"fundamentalist" manner; religion itself (and not the corrupted human nature that needs what religion has to offer) is what drives intolerance, imperialism, hate, and just about anything else bad that ever happens; and nobody ever did anything in the name of God that was noble, gracious, generous, loving, merciful, wise, understanding, kind, or self-sacrificing. According to the atheist sages, religion is just plain bad and we'd all be better off if we could join John Lennon and "imagine" a world without it. To say the least, such a view of religion is seriously incomplete and impoverished, and is itself a mere caricature of what it means to have a genuine religious faith. Obviously, it's all too easy to find faults, and sometimes massively dreadful faults, with any religious system. As we all know, history is littered with the tragic wreckage of appalling evil perpetrated in "the name of God." Nevertheless, to think that such faults tell the whole story, or even most of the story, of what religion is and what religious belief means to those of us who hold it is to demonstrate a striking lack of understanding of what it is to believe in God and to live a life of faith in Him. And without that understanding, the tomes of people like Hitchens, Dawkins, et al., are going to miss the mark, no matter how intellectually astute they may be. Hey, the last time I saw Christopher Hitchens interviewed on television, he was referencing the Inquisition and the Crusades. Now, there's a couple of events that inform day-to-day church life here in Muskingum County! Dr. Richard Boyer Trinity United Presbyterian Church Zanesville, Ohio So, what is new? May 25, 2007 Earl C. Apel [Letters, May 21, 2007] appears to be claiming to be celibate, not a practicing homosexual. Temptation to sin is common flatly states our apostle, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:13:
And if one claims to believe in his heart that Jesus is the God-sent, sinners-murdered and God-raised-from-the-dead Christ, why will they reject Moses', the prophets' and apostles' Holy Spirit-inspired words? The argument that they don't know what they do sounds hollow. We teach and preach the Bible just so that they will know, just as all practitioners of sinful lifestyles will also know. The issue, Mr. Apel, is not how we feel about what God has said; the issue is our obedience. I am three-score and 10 years and I testify to the faithfulness of God; that He has always provided an escape, just as He did on the shores of the Red Sea. I declare that when I have stood, delivered on the other shore, I could fellowship Miriam's rejoicing in Exodus 15. James Logan Sr. McHenry, Md. Limbo and purgatory May 25, 2007 Mr. Larry Brown's statement [Letters, May 21, 2007] that the current pope "abolished purgatory" is incorrect. Pope Benedict approved a statement in the catechism which explains that the Roman Catholic Church never had an official doctrine of limbo. Limbo is the state of "natural happiness" popularly believed to be the eternal home of infants who die un-Baptized. The happiness is described as "natural" because it is not the complete joy of being "with God" in heaven. The new catechism says that the un-Baptized infants are left to the mercy of God. The Catholic teaching on purgatory holds that it is a state of after-death purification from sin – sin which is not severe enough to warrant eternal damnation. The Catholic Church still teaches that such a time of purification is the lot of most sinners. Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop Davenport, Iowa Bravo May 25, 2007 Bravo!!!! B.J. Anderson, elder St Paul's Presbyterian Church God is in charge May 24, 2007 Thanks, Rus, you said it all. Unfortunately, you are correct on the condition of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The denomination is becoming meaningless in a world needing hope and faith in Jesus Christ. Fortunately, there are individual churches struggling to remain faithful to the word of God. I belong to one of those, but many who seek truth are being led by false words from those not living up to their ordination requirements to teach God's Word. The church at Laodicia is alive and well and has been renamed PCUSA. Thankfully, God is in charge and in the end will be victorious. God bless you and your church. Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C. There is no 'J' in Hebrew May 24, 2007 Mike Zorn [Letters, May 18, 2007] needs a lesson in Hebrew. There is no "J" in Hebrew. The Tetragramatron consists of Yod, Hay, Vov and Hay. The vowels are unknown to us at this time, but the addition of the vowels from Adonai has been accepted for 2,000 years at least. The absence of a "J" sound in German or any other Nordic language has no bearing in the pronunciation. Robert Demarest Cuminale deacon, PCA Charlotte, N.C. Catholics restored the place of Scriptures? May 24, 2007 I read L. Rus Howard's article, "Here I Am." I thought it was right on target, except for the following sentence:
Vatican II (1962-65) encouraged Bible reading, mandated celebration of the Mass in the vernacular, and started referring to Protestants as "separated brethren" rather than "heretics" but, again, basic Catholic theology was unchanged. However, lately the current pope, Benedict, abolished purgatory, but then he cleared the way for the celebration of the Mass in Latin once again. Just wanted to set the record straight. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi 'We're all evangelicals' May 24, 2007
"We're all evangelicals." Former Moderators Susan Andrews, Bob Bohl, and Jack Rogers are "evangelicals." So is Cliff Kirkpatrick. Maybe it is time to stop using meaningless cliches and tell people what we really believe. Blessed are the saints who have been equipped with the sound doctrines of T.U.L.I.P.! James E. Tuckett Women officers and the EPC May 23, 2007 Lately, there's been a lot of discussion about women officers and the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I read the letter [Letters, May 21, 2007] written by my brother Austin Olive (we're in the same presbytery). I was ordained by the Central South Presbytery of the EPC in October 1990. For what it's worth, I'm all in favor of women being allowed to be whatever they feel called to be. My late wife had a doctor of Theology degree and taught with me here at African Bible College in Malawi. Whenever a student would come running up to us saying, "Dr. Brown, Dr. Brown," we would have to answer, "Which one?" Actually, Janet was the more gifted one; I thought of her as the brains of the Brown household. Most who have known us would agree. The contribution made by women here on the mission field has been incalculable. Women went overseas and planted thriving churches and engaged in activities, often in dangerous areas, from which they were barred in the U.S.A. Meanwhile, their male counterparts pastured churches that had thick carpeting and air conditioning. And where is Christianity growing today? In those areas of the world that were open to those dauntless women missionaries. The professor of missiology at the seminary I attended as an M. Div. student, himself a former missionary, once told us that whenever he had a job to do that was dirty, difficult, or dangerous, he would send a woman to do it. Another neat trick I've seen some multi-staff, mega-churches do is to hire a woman to replace an associate pastor, give her the title "director" or "coordinator" instead of "pastor," then pay her half the salary of her predecessor, even though she was doing the same work. As for Scripture, I long ago noticed that men often cite I Corinthians 14:34, 35 – in which Paul appears to be prohibiting women from leadership – as being normative, while their response to verse 39 ("Do not despise prophecy and do not forbid speaking in tongues.") is "Well, that was then, and this is now." What hermeneutical acrobats! Meanwhile, I feel that the EPC is correct in not mandating quotas. When that happens, you may get a woman on the session who does nothing except sit there and be female. Particular congregations will know which, if any, of their women are qualified for church office. Making women officers a local option seems to me to be the most logical and workable approach. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Wasted hope May 23, 2007 At last!" I thought to myself as I read the article about the meeting at Memorial Park Presbyterian Church in Pittsburgh. Since the last night of General Assembly in Birmingham, I have been asking for someone – anyone – to help me frame the argument for remaining in the Presbyterian Church (USA). You see, I am of the "stay-fight-win" camp. I stay there in spite of so many friends and colleagues who have come – reluctantly – to understand that they and their congregations cannot continue their faithful witness in a denomination that has become increasingly secularized and unfaithful to our Reformed heritage and doctrines. You can imagine my excitement when I realized that three men I truly admire were going to make the argument for me. I count Jim Mead and Steve Wilson as not just colleagues, but as friends. I know their evangelical hearts. There is no professor and educator that I admire more than I admire Andrew Purves. He has been an enormous factor in Pittsburgh Seminary's success at turning out faithful, well-prepared pastors. I really thought that if any one group could make this argument, it would be these three. Sadly, I must say they were not much help. I had hoped for some new insight, some revelatory thought. What I have read are tired old platitudes and even (sadly) some divisive language such as "abandonment" and "betrayal." What may have been the most disappointing position was the weakly asserted premise that we are "free to be faithful." Am I to be comforted, and worse, to try to comfort the people in my congregation, with the idea everything is okay as long as the denomination permits me to teach and be true to "the classical formulations of the church?" I hear echoes of Chamberlain coming home from Munich. Is it really a good and strong argument that we have a smorgasbord Book of Confessions from which we can pick and choose those doctrines which comfort us? Andrew made the point that the PCUSA has not abandoned its faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Really? Perhaps the majority of the laity have not. But, if not, then why is there such a pervasive attitude of elitism and syncretism in Louisville that permitted – nay encouraged – such behaviors as the "Re-imaging" conferences for several years and which spent so much effort trying to defend Dirk Ficca; and a leadership which has encouraged Sophia worship and which has produced a document which commends the use of language for the Trinity that is heretical? There is another aspect of this that is also troubling. That is the arrogant assumption that the PCUSA is somehow better or more complete or more faithful than some other Reformed body. The last time I checked, neither Calvin nor anyone else was speaking about the PCUSA in defining the true church. As I remember his definition, it was that church where the Word is faithfully preached and the sacraments rightly administered. If a majority of a congregation no longer believes that the PCUSA meets that standard, then perhaps the faithful response is to send them out, with love and prayers and affection. Not with legal maneuvering, property disputes and anger over "betrayal and abandonment." Alas, I am still waiting. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Some of us have been called to stay in the PCUSA May 23, 2007 I am a member of Memorial Park Church and was in attendance at the meeting that Parker Williamson has written about in this article. His report is accurate and thorough, but does not reflect the responses and feelings of those of us who have been called to stay in the PCUSA. Two things need to be said that were not expressed in that meeting. First, the mantle of shame to which my dear brother Gerrit Dawson referred goes two ways. There has been plenty of shame laid on those of us who are staying in the last month – it goes with the territory in this kind of dispute – and it is hurtful for the receivers on both sides. Second, although I have not used the words "betrayal" or "blasphemy" and do not find them to describe my feelings toward those leaving, I have expressed to some of my dear friends at Memorial Park Church and to others in the denomination who are leaving my feelings of "profound abandonment." Those are true feelings and cannot be denied, but they are only feelings and, in living a faithful and obedient Christian life, our feelings are irrelevant. We stand on the promises in the Word of God and they are enough. Those of us staying in the PCUSA are holding ground in a great spiritual battle. It will be more difficult if some of our true brothers and sisters leave, but God is able to sustain us and it is He who will win the victory. God will not abandon us and He will also be present with those who leave, and I fully anticipate that blessing and fruitfulness in mission will follow them as well. God is bigger than denominations and, though we cannot understand one another's callings, we can trust the One who calls us all to follow Him. For my part, I'm grateful that Andrew Purves, Jay Wilson and Jim Mead will be standing with me and with thousands of others "who have not bowed the knee to Baal" and never will. Marie Bowen Memorial Park Church Pittsburgh, Pa. Women's ordination 'isn't an issue' in the EPC May 21, 2007 In his recent letter [Letters, May 18, 2007], Dr. Allen Kemp made this comment: "The two [Evangelical Presbyterian Church] churches nearest us won't ordain women (my wife and I co-pastor here in Suffern, N.Y.), so we'd be facing that battle on a regular basis." As a minister in the EPC, I would like to reassure Dr. Kemp by pointing out that in the EPC there is no battle over women's ordination. Neither he nor any other incoming minister/church would face any battles over this. It is a resolved issue. The Book of Order (please note the sections I have highlighted in bold) says this: §17-5 Limitations in perpetuity: Certain rights are held in perpetuity by Christians, both individually and gathered in congregations. These rights must always be guaranteed by the Church. These rights include, but not by way of exclusion, the following:
As the motto says, "In Essentials, Unity; In Non-Essentials, Liberty; In All Things Charity; Truth In Love." Women's ordination is not an essential of either the Gospel or of the Reformed faith summarized in the Westminster Standards, and so we have liberty. I want Dr. Kemp to know: We really do operate like this. (Please be assured that I am in no way trolling for new members for the EPC. I am merely trying to put these repeatedly mentioned concerns to a rest.) Rev. Austin Olive Faith Presbyterian Church (EPC) Covington, La. Bravo to Tom Mirabella May 21, 2007 Well and lovingly said, Tom Mirabella! [Letters, May 17, 2007] James Logan McHenry, Md. Another view on the letter by Tom Mirabella May 21, 2007 I thank Tom Mirabella [Letters, May 17, 2007] for continuing dialogue with me on the issue of who we throw out of the church and keep in, for better words. He notes: "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." OK, what if the person does not see their actions as being inconsistent with Christ? Am I strange, but isn't it weird that our religion (or we as Christians) simply dismiss that person? Christ didn't do that on the Cross when He said to forgive those who don't know what they are doing. Christ didn't say just simply let those persons go to Hell – in other words, sorry you picked the wrong number of this game and lost. Christ noted that God should forgive them for they know not what they do. In the debate of homosexuality, I get the drift that many think those of us who are Christian and happen to be homosexual don't know what we are doing either. Isn't it strange that Christ can forgive the persons murdering Him because they don't realize they are committing murder, yet so many in the church are hung up on how two humans engage in loving relations? Sorry, but this really seems too strange. Regarding my own circumstances (which Mr. Mirabella seems to want to probe), I'm probably more a saint than he is or many in the Presbyterian Church (USA) might want to admit. It is nothing to boast about, as Paul warned us about boasting. The fact is I have had no relations for over 10 years with any person of any sex or gender. Maybe some will want to claim I should be cast out just for that fact. Some will say, 'Are you real Earl?" Well, yes, that is the way the debate goes. So, yes, you must get real and honest about it. The real tragedy continues to be how we all make assumptions about a certain church or persons in the Body of Christ. Note that I speak this message to liberals as well as conservatives. I really mean that! And the good people in the middle, as well. My simple message is that we all need to follow Christ. The rest of the mess will get solved in the end. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio 'Any volunteers out there to organize a new presbytery?' May 18, 2007 The New Wineskins Association, of which we are members, keeps talking about these two options: leave and join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church for a new thing or stay and work for reform in your presbytery/the Presbyterian Church (USA). I don't like either of these options. Here, in Hudson River Presbytery in lower New York State, the prospect of reform toward an evangelical theology is nil. Most in our presbytery consider us evangelicals as lepers. The EPC isn't a greener pasture either. In the Northeast, there are so few EPC churches it is impractical to have a viable presbytery. And besides that, the two EPC churches nearest us won't ordain women (my wife and I co-pastor here in Suffern, N.Y.), so we'd be facing that battle on a regular basis. I hate going to our presbytery meetings because there are so many who believe and preach a different gospel than the one the Apostles preached (Galatians 1:6). The meetings are so depressing it takes me days to get over them. But why should our church leave the PCUSA? My good friend in Shenango Presbytery in western Pennsylvania, who pastored in Hudson River Presbytery for nearly 20 years and knows our congregation well, tells me that Suffern Presbyterian Church would be perhaps the most liberal church in his presbytery. Wow! There are places we'd fit in. Maybe. I'm not sure I want to move to such a conservative community. I don't want to leave the NYC metro area that God has called us to. I desire to work alongside other like-minded PCUSA pastors and congregations that are committed to reaching the lost with the Gospel. I think our focus needs to be how we as local congregations can become more missionally minded and actually make a difference in our communities. That's how we will not only survive, but grow our churches. For this, it probably doesn't matter what denomination or even what presbytery we are in. I love the idea of the Beaver Butler overture. I will quickly participate in and work for a new evangelically minded presbytery in our New York City metro area if the General Assembly allows us this privilege. There are plenty of us PCUSA evangelicals around here to make an awesome presbytery (there should be, given there are 25 million people living within a two-hour drive of Manhattan). But what I don't want to do is spend the next 15 years in organizational meetings to form this new presbytery and end up losing sight of our mission: to reach the lost. Any volunteers out there to organize a new presbytery in the New York City area? Dr. Allen V. Kemp Suffern Presbyterian Church Suffern, N.Y. A different opinion on peace and justice issues May 18, 2007 I always enjoy the comments made by Dr. Larry Brown as he seems to provide a refreshingly unique view of many issues. His letter [Letters, May 10, 2007] reflected the abundance of "justice" expressed by the denomination, while little is said about proclaiming the Gospel and other Christ teachings. I was reminded of this today upon receiving the latest solicitation from the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship. Their last solicitation inspired me to write The Layman about the dilemma I faced trying to decide whether to join them in their March demonstration in Washington where they were offering instruction on how to get arrested, or to attend the Ligonier Ministries National Conference in Orlando. Fortunately, I chose the latter, where the messages were inspiring and the weather was wonderful as opposed to what the Presbyterian Peace Fellowship experienced in D.C. Strangely, I heard absolutely nothing about the Washington demonstration until receiving the new solicitation today. The solicitation included a four-page fairy tale written in small print by our former Presbyterian Church (USA) moderator, Rick Ufford-Chase. Aside from the tale being almost incoherent, it was another message demanding "justice" and suggested that the gathering in Washington may well be the start of something really big – that being that we all become pacifists and everyone gets along with their neighbor. Seems all it takes is for us to have a few demonstrations to get the ball rolling and, before you know it, our Islam brothers will open their arms to us. I'm no doubt biased on this subject, but this doesn't sound to me as the road to "justice" unless you take into consideration, as Dr. Brown did, that these are the same people who support abortion rights. However, the letter did mention one aspect of justice that I might agree with. Apparently, in the late night hours of March 16th, some 222 candle-carrying worshipers were arrested as they crossed the police line by the White House. I guess, at least, their training was effective. Col. Ronald Everett AUS-Ret. North Olmsted, Ohio 'I agree with you that we should be consistent' in Naming Our God May 18, 2007 In Genesis, God is named both Yahweh and Elohim. This is because there were two sources, "J" and "P." (There are also two (or three) other sources.) Both names are used in Genesis, in the creation story and the flood story. It may be too obvious to point out that "God" is Who He is, and "Yahweh" and "Elohim" are His names. "Jehovah" – the precursor name to "Yahweh" (that because Luther was German and couldn't say "J") is just the Tetragrammaton JHVH with the vowels of "Adonai" interspersed. The King James renders "Jehovah" as "LORD" (all caps), and "Elohim" as "God"). (Compare, for example, Gen 2:2 with Gen 2:4.) I agree with you that we should be consistent. In everyday discourse, "God" ought to be sufficient – at least among Christians. Mike Zorn Santa Ana Calif. Washington Presbytery's actions not 'particularly gracious or pastoral' May 17, 2007 Actually, Rev. Roush [Letters, May 15, 2007], I am also troubled by the idea of taking each other to court in contravention of the clear teaching of Paul's letter. "We are not to do so. O sinful men that we are. …" At any rate, I would take issue with your letter on one basis. You said: "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." I would agree with you if, in fact, I believed that the presbytery was acting in such a gracious and pastoral manner. However, I don't think that misrepresenting the congregation's position, or repeatedly placating them with the idea that "... we will have a process - soon" is particularly gracious or pastoral. It sounds to me that the primary desire of the presbytery leadership was to get an administrative commission in place as quickly as possible. Again, I am reminded of "The Louisville Papers." In the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as I understand it, once the presbytery acted and empowered the administrative commission as it did, the only protection available to Peters Creek Church became the secular courts. I am simply glad I did not have to make the decision. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. |
|
| May
2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |