 |
|
| September
2007 letters, page 2 Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| Christianity
in America is not growing September 18, 2007 I just read the letter written by my brother Austin Olive [Letters, September 14, 2007] to answer the charge that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church treats women as second-class. I think that there two important facts that everybody is overlooking: (1) Christianity in America is not growing; and (2) there exists in the U.S.A. an enormous ministerial glut. Each year, the seminaries of America dump another load of graduates into an already crowded field, and many of them will have to find secular employment. In the presbytery to which Rev. Olive and I belong, there are quite a number of men listed as "without call." Actually, I kind of wonder why my presbytery has a "candidates committee." If we have so many out-of-work ministers, why should we have more candidates? Anyway, if we were to start ordaining women simply to escape the charge that the EPC treats women as second class, we would find ourselves adding women to an already considerable list of ministers who are "without call." Never fear, I have a solution. I serve in Malawi, where the church is experiencing incredible growth, but where there is a pastor for every 5,000 church members (and that's a very conservative estimate). The typical congregation here is in a village that sees a pastor about three or four times a year. I propose that we send all ministers listed as "without call" and women who are aspiring pastors to Malawi and similar countries, let them learn the local language and ride bicycles to meet the spiritual needs of scattered "prayer houses." This modest proposal of mine solves two big problems simultaneously: ministerial glut in the U.S.A. and a dire ministerial shortage overseas. Such relocated American clergy in Malawi may not experience an American standard of living but, on the other hand, they would get to see churches grow about the way they do in the Book of Acts. Here, even the Presbyterians shout "Amen!" Plus, this isn't exactly a penal colony. My late wife used say each morning "JABDIP – Just Another Beautiful Day In Paradise." There is greater religious freedom here. You would have the freedom to proclaim Christ even in a public school, which is totally out of the question in the U.S.A. – and this was true even back when we had a Muslim president. So, whaddaya say? If you're a male minister without call or if you're a woman who feels shut out because of your gender, here's your solution. There is one caveat, however. If you're gay and you're open about it, this wouldn't be the place for you. Your arrival here could cause, well, unpleasantness. Africans aren't noted for their acceptance of homosexuality, which is why so many American Episcopalian churches are now under the authority of African bishops. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi What difference does the departures of Kirkpatrick, Giddings Ivory make? September 17, 2007 Before the evangelicals of the Presbyterian Church (USA) break out the champagne to celebrate the departures of Elenora Giddings Ivory and Clifton Kirkpatrick, consider: How do you know whether their replacements won't be cut from the same cloth or worse? After all, evangelicalism is still the minority opinion within your denomination. In all likelihood, the short-term effect of Kirkpatrick's decision to retire will be that the New Wineskins churches that had been considering switching to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church will now take a hopeful, wait-and-see attitude. It is equally likely that nothing of substance has changed. Even if Kirkpatrick's successor has a viewpoint that is closer to the center and is more even-handed and less selective in his enforcement of the constitution, you are still left with a denomination in which open heresy is tolerated – even commended – while evangelicalism is only grudgingly accepted. Evangelicals control no presbyteries. They are consistently outvoted at the General Assembly level and in synodical permanent judicial commissions. I have read letters to this editorial column that made the claim that there are now many evangelical students in PCUSA seminaries, but what evidence to those claims exist? If those evangelical students are really there, how easy is it for them to receive calls and pass ordination exams on the floor of presbytery? A story is told about just such a case; perhaps it is apocryphal. A conservative candidate for the ministry was being grilled hard and raked over the coals on the floor of a presbytery. Finally, an older presbyter asked a traditional question: "Young man, would you be willing to go to hell for the glory of God?" "Sir," he replied, "for the glory of God, I'd be willing for this whole presbytery to go to hell!" One hopes that these departures will signal a turnaround for the PCUSA. It could happen. It could happen if the delegates to the 2008 General Assembly consider what a leftist domination has done for them over the past several decades. The PCUSA is still by far America's largest Presbyterian denomination and its potential for doing good remains. Therefore, let evangelicals everywhere earnestly pray that these recent events will mean more than just changing the nameplates on office doors. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi Many reasons why PCUSA has lost members during Kirkpatrick's term September 17, 2007 Just a few comments on the decision by Clifton Kirkpatrick not to seek another term. There are many reasons why the membership of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has fallen during the time Cliff Kirkpatrick has been stated clerk. Some have left, yes, because of poor policy decisions and poor leadership at the General Assembly level. But most Presbyterians neither know nor care about the General Assembly. The truth is that we have lost many to death and they have not been replaced, either through the birth and retention of our children and grandchildren. And let's all be honest, as a denomination we have not been doing the task of evangelism effectively. We cannot blame the General Assembly offices, no matter how poor or excellent the leadership has been, for our failure to win others to Christ. And yes, there has been some excellent work done by General Assembly staffers. Most, (not all) of the work that comes out of the Theology and Worship Office is helpful and sometimes excellent, the Trinity report not withstanding. Cliff Kirkpatrick, in my opinion, made some serious errors and bad decisions in his time. Some of what has happened was not his fault. I am certain he wishes the whole question of sexuality would just go away. But, in any case we cannot blame him for the lower number of members in the denomination. The stated clerk simply doesn't have that much power. We should blame ourselves – anyone who is not doing the work of evangelism. Rev. Robert G. Campbell pastor Tully Memorial Presbyterian Church Sharon Hill, Pa. A question regarding Rev. Olive's letter September 17, 2007 I have a question, in the light of Rev. Olive's letter [Letters, September 14, 2007], for those who are planning to leave the Presbyterian Church (USA) for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church: Why is it alright for the EPC to have that kind of "local option" on the ordination of women, but an abomination for the PCUSA to have a similar policy on the ordination of homosexuals? There seems to be at least as much Biblical support for not ordaining women as there is for not ordaining homosexuals. If it is okay for people to differ on the Biblical interpretations that would lead one to decide whether or not to ordain women, why is it not okay for people to differ on the Biblical interpretations that would lead one to decide whether or not to ordain homosexuals? Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo. A response to the 'EPC and women' letter September 17, 2007 I find Rev. Olive's letter [Letters, September 14, 2007] interesting, his heartfelt appeal touching. He decries the notion that women are second-class citizens in his denomination, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Yet, for all his nice words, he states the reality. Women's ordination is for the EPC "non-essential." I would bet that the ordination of men is "essential" in EPC thinking. Can a church or presbytery in the EPC refuse to ordain men? My guess is that that is not the case. Regardless of all the talk of love and charity – and the statements that the Presbyterian Church (USA) lacks love and charity for requiring equality for women in terms of church leadership (ordination), when women's ordination is "non-essential" (what Calvin called a thing of indifference) and men's ordination is "essential," women have second-class status. Wrapping it up in pretty talk about love and charity towards those who choose to discriminate does not change that. Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop PCUSA Davenport, Iowa Thank you for the response to my letter September 17, 2007 I'd like to thank several people who responded to my previous letter [Letters, September 12, 2007] in this forum. Conversation is a good thing and I could not be more pleased. As to what separation is about, Walter [Letters, September 13, 2007], I appreciate the comments, but the church is for people. When the church becomes so hurtful for people, then there is a real problem, period. You have said that your church is not involved in separation and this can be seen from your comments. Perhaps you do not understand the pain of the people who do not want separation because your church has never experienced this. As for comments about women in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Austin [Letters, September 14, 2007], you have your right to your point of view and I respect that. However, my point of view, and it is not going to change, is that giving up women's ordination to go to the EPC is wrong. You have every right to speak out with your opinions, as I do. What is essential is meaningless talk to me as God moving through, speaking through all people, without artificial barriers of gender or anything else, is essential to reaching and ministering to all of God's people. I value all people regardless of who agrees or does not agree. I have lost count of the number of denominations I have been affiliated with one way or another and I appreciate all of them. Rather, God speaks through all of them with uniqueness, spiritual power and love in each heritage that God knows fully. I disagree with the "us against them" mentality that the New Wineskins encourages; however, I have met some New Wineskins people and have had productive conversations with them. I have no problem worshiping and being in fellowship with people that have different opinions, as God calls us to minister to the world in all its diversity. There are also some very powerful moments in which, while listening to another's point of view, God enters the situation. God's power can be felt in these moments and God's goodness as well. God uses these encounters in fellowship and friendship with others. Carol Joan Schaef member Memorial Park Presbyterian Church McCandless, Pa. A response to the letter by Jack Vanderbleek September 17, 2007 Mr. Vanderbleek [Letters, September 10, 2007] makes some amazing observations about conservatives, as well as liberals, in their beliefs. It's easy to say everyone is the same in whatever camp until one looks at the facts. I was once a member of a conservative Presbyterian Church (USA) church and still am fond of my past fellowship. I checked out their latest Web site where I found some interesting statements, although was not surprised. This is from the Web site of the College Hill Presbyterian Church in Cincinnati:
The fact is that, in most cases where there is division, there is really more to agree on in the end. I know that Mr. Vanderbleek and others will find this hard to believe, but since I am one that has had experience in both churches with various points of view, I find more similarities and passions than differences in how they seek to follow Christ as Lord and Savior. Regarding comments about the denomination, the facts remain that all who are members have the right and power to bring about change. I suspect too many sit on the sides as they shouldn't, but don't blame this on liberals or even conservatives. That's too easy. Get out of your pew and do something, rather than complain, is the best I can offer. Earl C. Apel member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio I am honored that you would highlight my sermon September 17, 2007 I am honored that you would link to one of my sermons! It's actually from Mark 14:1-9 (in the header). It's just wrapping up a summer series based out of Hebrews 12:1. Rev. Robert Austell pastor Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church Charlotte, N.C. 'The Truth Project' September 17, 2007 Jasper McClellan [Letters, September 14, 2007] suggests responding to those in our denomination who have rejected essential Biblical truth by applying the technique Peter used in addressing Simon in the Book of Acts. I'm sure we have all felt that way from time to time and, while I would love to agree with him, it seems a lonely and probably a dead-end path in today's culture. One of the reasons for this is that for one to be able to be heard above the clatter of the culture requires the establishment of a meaningful relationship of trust, both with the person being addressed and those who will observe the confrontation. As our culture has deteriorated over a span of the last half century, our ability to even communicate Christian essentials effectively with both Christians and non-Christians has been all but lost. Before we can effectively change this, we need to establish some common baseline of understanding as to how one determines what is right, real or true. The means for doing this is available. I just returned from the first "local" presentation of "The Truth Project" being offered by Focus on the Family. This program was rolled out about 16 months ago and up until now has only been presented to about 15 regional conferences, which are basically a live presentation of what is otherwise available on the program's set of 12, 55-minute DVDs. By contrast, the local conferences are designed more as a "train-the-trainer" program. The program is designed to teach people to take the available materials and organize small-group studies throughout the nation. Already, some 150,000 or more people have been exposed to this program. The purpose of the program is to provide a basic understanding of what is truth and how this fits into our worldview. Without this kind of foundation, a discussion of essentials is simply meaningless in today's culture. Space does not permit me to elaborate about this program, but let me say that it is magnificently prepared and presented and supported by an amazing array of supporting materials and interactive programs available on the Web. Anyone truly interested in having an impact on their friends, church, denomination or culture needs to take a hard look at this foundational program. There is a nice sampling available on their Web site. However, don't expect to be able to buy their DVDs. They are only available to those who have attended one of their conferences. Believe me, this is a program that is going to spread to millions of people in the next few years and has the potential for transforming both ourselves and others to understand why Christian essentials are necessary for our own future and that is society. Please check it out. Col. Ronald Everett (AUS-Ret) North Olmsted, Ohio Kirkpatrick's departure viewed 'with a sense of relief' September 14, 2007 Although I view the pending retirement of Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick with a sense of relief, since his decade-plus of mismanagement will at last be coming to an end, I do not hold out hope that his successor will be any different. Consider this statement from his retirement announcement: "I am making this announcement now so that the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee, which was elected at the General Assembly last summer, will have ample time to search diligently and discern whom to propose to the 218th General Assembly (2008) for election as the next stated clerk." In our Presbyterian system of government, the nominating committee is presented as a slate produced by the previous nominating committee before the body that votes on them. In the local congregation, the members of the standing nominating committee are selected by the previous standing nominating committee and presented as a slate before the congregation to vote on. Nominations, of course, can be made from the floor, but seldom are. The standing nominating committee then selects members of the congregation who they believe would be good candidates for the Pastor Nominating Committee (PNC) and present them as a slate to the congregation to vote on. Again, nominations can be made from the floor, but it is a foregone conclusion, with few exceptions, that the congregation will vote to accept all the members proposed for the PNC. The PNC will search diligently and bring a candidate before the congregation who they believe will serve the congregation well. The congregation typically listens to a sermon by the candidate pastor, then votes. In almost all cases, it is a foregone conclusion that the PNC's candidate will be elected into office. This is the same process followed at the General Assembly level. The nominating committee that nominated the members of the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee that nominated Dr. Kirkpatrick in the 208th General Assembly also nominated their successors, and are thus in the same pedigree as the committee that nominated the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee in the 217th General Assembly last year. And, of course, the General Assemblies for the last dozen or so years have simply given their rubber stamp to the members of the various nominating committees. In his book, Invitation to Sociology, Peter Berger makes the comment that although the form of government of mainline churches may be Episcopal, Presbyterian or congregational on paper, the denominations are governed, at least in their upper echelons, by a bureaucracy. That observation is 100-percert true when it comes to the government of the Presbyterian Church (USA). The denomination is governed by entrenched bureaucrats and our current stated clerk is the consummate bureaucrat. The primary purpose of the Presbyterian Church (USA) stated on paper may very well be to further the cause of Jesus Christ in the world, proclaiming His Gospel message of salvation in Him alone and making disciples of every people, tribe, tongue and nation, but the primary purpose of the bureaucracy in power in Louisville is to stay in power. They will always act in accordance with that purpose and they will always act against any threat to their hegemony. This is why the stated clerk's office has attempted to mandate per capita and why it has opposed every attempt by dissatisfied congregations to separate from the denomination with their property. Furthermore, because bureaucracies can exercise hegemonic power more easily without the restriction of law, the stated clerk's office has been lobbying for years for the effort currently under way to revise and reduce the Form of Government in the Book of Order. Despite having been "elected" by the 217th General Assembly, the Stated Clerk Nominating Committee was effectively selected by the same bureaucracy that effectively selected Dr. Kirkpatrick. The bureaucracy in Louisville is in complete control of the entire process of the election of the stated clerk. They doubtless have influence on each nominating committee in order to ensure that only candidates friendly to the bureaucracy are nominated and, at each General Assembly, the entire bureaucracy is on hand as "resource persons" for the delegates in order to influence voting so the outcome is acceptable to Louisville. Thus, we can rest assured that whoever is "elected" stated clerk at next year's General Assembly will be no less bureaucratic and no more amenable to denominational reform according to the Word of God than the current occupant of that office. Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan. A proposal for consideration September 14, 2007 The malignant problems devastating the Presbyterian Church (USA) today are so similar to those decimating American culture and society it is uncanny. The solution for the problems in both the "church" and the "state" is simple, yet profound. In the strictest sense, the problems that are overwhelming us are the result of aberrations from time-honored and God-pleasing standards. Those standards for our church have always been the "God-breathed" Holy Scriptures and the man-made Constitution. The U.S.A. has had its standards in the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, the ratified Constitution and, yes, the Scriptures. These standards, at least in part, have served the church well for nearly 2,000 years and America for more than 200 years – yet, today, aberrations proliferate in both the church and the state. When the "aberrationists" (to coin a word) can't get the standards changed to support their deviant, non-Biblical and abominable practices, they rely on "judicial supremacists" to "legislate from the bench." It matters not whether it is some federal judge or court or a permanent judicial commission at some level of PCUSA judicatories. "When the foundations are being destroyed, what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3). Hopefully, this proposal will help answer that question. The situation is so critical that, if not abated, the future is not at all reassuring. Case after case has shown that "personal opinion" or "political correctness" or "international opinion" or "cultural mores" or a dozen other excuses trump the standards – in effect, nullifying those standards. The very existence of the PCUSA as we know it is at stake. Ditto for "government of the people, by the people and for the people." Many renewal groups within the church and patriotic groups have sought diligently to return their respective entity to adherence to the standards. It is these groups and these groups alone that have kept both the PCUSA and the U.S.A. from total self-destruction. May God increase their kind, yet something more drastic than these groups have yet proposed is crucial to stop the malignancies. Unfortunately, it may be too late to utilize the system authorized by the standards for this very purpose in both the church and the state. It is time not only to say, "enough is enough," but for some thinking outside the box and some bold, courageous actions that would make John Knox rejoice. "A clear trumpet blast must be sounded or no one will show up for the battle" (I Corinthians 14:8). If, perhaps, there are any "aberrationists" reading this, they will most likely posit any of their ubiquitous and over-worn mantras: This is "bigoted" or "exclusive" or "patriarchal" or even "fundamentalistic," etc., ad nauseum. Therefore, let me confess my own sinfulness and my constantly "missing the mark" and falling short of the glory of God. While it may seem mere "vain repetition" to some, each night before retiring I plead in heartfelt and sincere prayer, "Lord Jesus, Son of the Living God, have mercy on me a sinner." I love the church and the state and desire to be a vessel fit for use in both, for the common good and the glory of Christ the Lord. For almost three score and ten years, I have tried so to do. The PCUSA and the U.S.A. are both worth salvaging. I call upon Christians everywhere (and PCUSAers in particular) not to wait for deacons, elders, ministers, commissioners, politicians or staffers (at any level) to end the malignancy (they have been at it for years), but to initiate remedial "surgery" immediately. That "surgery" can be called the Petrine Principle for Presbyterians or perhaps The Petrine Principle for Patriots. It comes from the standard of the Bible and is found in the eighth chapter of the Book of Acts. It can, I believe, meet the need of the hour. Simon, the worker of magic, was an "aberrationist" in Acts. Though he was the equivalent of a baptized church member, he sought to "aberrate" from the standard of receiving God's Holy Spirit as a gift. He thought that he, as an individual, should be allowed to exercise the "local option" to purchase the power of the Holy Spirit with money. Peter's response was doctrinally sound and immediate: "To hell with you and your money. You have no part or share in this ministry because your heart is not right before God. REPENT of this wickedness (aberration) and pray to the Lord. Perhaps (no assurance of pardon here) He will forgive you for having such thoughts in your heart. For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin" (emphasis added). In short, Biblical doctrine matters! Standards must be honored and obeyed. I challenge Presbyterians and patriots everywhere to apply the "Petrine Principle" any and every time our members or leaders deviate from the respective standards. With all the love you have for His church, the state and the individual person, proclaim as clearly as possible, "To hell with you and your aberrations. REPENT! Pray to the Lord. Perhaps He will forgive you" (emphasis added). To say the least, this would be seen as a novel approach, as we are all too familiar with what a church group would have done in this Petrine scenario. "Let's establish a three-to-four year task group to study the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we can all just get along, being kind and respectful and gaining consensus while not violating anyone's scruples." (Violating and/or ignoring the standards is, of course, acceptable.) Perhaps since Simon had already been baptized, we would just have challenged him to "renew your baptismal vows" and directed him to where and when such services were available. Thank God that neither the Apostle Peter nor the Reformer John Knox was "politically correct" nor bound by cultural mores, but boldly shared the truth motivated by the love of Jesus the Christ. Let us consider following Peter's example since God has seen fit to have it recorded in Holy Writ. To the "aberrationists" of our day, born-again, Bible-believing, standard-obeying Christians, with all the love and concern they can muster, must also distinctively declare, "To hell with you and your aberrations. REPENT! PRAY that God will forgive you. Otherwise, you have no part in this ministry." One must immediately confront these "aberrationists" at every level, even as Nathan did David. It is the kindest and most loving thing one can do for them, the church or the state. (Try to imagine the life of David without such a confrontation from Nathan.) It might not win approval in "Evangelism 101" but then, if people are not already Christians, they are bound for hell anyway. There is no way anyone can make their situation worse than they have already chosen for themselves. We simply cannot wait for overtures, acceptance/rejection of task group reports, study papers, re-authorization of "authoritative interpretations" and such. When the house is on fire is not the time to study fireproof building materials. To those who maintain that "the system" is working, we should say, "Open your eyes. The system is not working. Our membership has been in decline for decades." Both this church and the state are well on the way to self-destruction. We should have no fear of enemies without, but courageously sound the clear trumpet blast at the aberrant "enemies" within. Simon proves that being a baptized "church member" is inadequate to prevent aberrations. The standards must be honored and obeyed and the Petrine Principle must be applied to the aberrationists and done so with genuine love. While we will always have diverse opinions on non-essentials (color of choir robes/paraments, worship styles and times, and even annual vs. biennial assemblies, etc) honoring and obeying the standards should be a given. Continuing to accept (and in many cases promote) aberrations adds nothing to the peace, purity and unity of the church or state and, in fact, exacerbates the problem greatly. No doubt, many Christians will find the Petrine Principle far too harsh in a contemporary setting. Their "solution" is simply to pray, pray again and then pray some more. Unquestionably, while prayer is absolutely essential, we would do well to remember both Peter and Moses. Peter did not call for a special prayer gathering to rectify Simon's aberrant behavior, he just spoke the truth in love directly to him. After God clearly told Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egyptian bondage, there came a time when God "rebuked" Moses for praying in lieu of acting. "Why do you continue to cry out (pray) to Me? I have told you what to do; (the standard for Moses was God's Word, even as it is for us) get moving!" (Exodus 14:15). It is not an either/or option to pray or to act, rather we pray and we act, even while continuing to pray. Prayer could have saved Sodom and Gomorrah but, because they refused to repent, God destroyed both. Repentance saved Ninevah (at least for about 150 years or so) and could do the same for the PCUSA and this nation (II Chronicles 7:14). Without widespread and genuine repentance by the citizens of the nation and the members of the church, the future is not reassuring at all. With genuine repentance, the future could not possibly be brighter. Maranatha! Jasper McClellan elder and former CLP San Angelo, Texas Regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church and women September 14, 2007 In her recent letter [Letters, September 10, 2007], Carol Joan Schaef, who is a member at Memorial Park Presbyterian Church, wrote this: "I will never understand why anyone would want to join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church when women are treated as second-class citizens. The women of Peters Creek will suffer from operating in a male-driven culture." As a pastor in the EPC, I would once again like to set the record straight. The official EPC policy regarding women's ordination is that it is not an essential. In other words, women are not second-class citizens in the EPC. The difference between the EPC and the Presbyterian Church (USA) on this issue is this: in the PCUSA, ordaining women is an essential. It is enforced through the binding of the consciences of those who, through exegesis and in line with 1,900 years of church tradition and history, feel conscience-bound to respectfully disagree. On the other hand, in the EPC there is liberty of conscience on this matter (cf. WCF XX.2). Each session and presbytery has the inviolable right to determine this issue for itself on the basis of their study of Scripture. The General Assembly cannot force presbyteries to accept or to disallow women's ordination as ministers. The presbytery cannot force a local church to have female elders or deacons, nor may they disallow it from doing so. There is liberty of conscience in an environment of love and trust. Let me explain. In the EPC, we have a motto that says this: "In Essentials, Unity; In Non-Essentials, Liberty; In All Things, Charity; Truth In Love." This motto is definitive to understanding the ethos and attitude of the EPC. So, how does this play out? In the EPC, we have four confessional standards (see www.epc.org). The first is "The Essentials of Our Faith." This is a statement of the baseline essential facets of the Gospel. These points are the sine qua non of saving faith. Assent to these is required for incoming members and all officers. To state any exception to this document leads to immediate removal from office for deacons, elders and ministers. The next three confessional standards are the Westminster Standards (The Confession, the Larger Catechism and the Shorter Catechism). System subscription to these is required for all officers (i.e., affirming that these documents "contain the system of doctrine taught in Scripture"). Exceptions may be allowed in so far as they do not do violence to that system. As a result, there are "A" issues, "B" issues and "C" issues. a. "A" issues are those issues central to salvation. They are essential (thus our "Essentials" document). b. "B" issues are those that, while not essential to salvation, are essential to the Reformed faith. (e.g., God's sovereignty in salvation and Providence; "Calvinism" [i.e., T.U.L.I.P.]; the doctrine of the Covenant, etc.) These are the issues that make or break your ability to be ordained (thus, system subscription to the Westminster Standards). c. "C" issues are those that, while important to many of us, are not the sine qua non of denominational unity. These are the non-essentials. In the EPC, women's ordination is a non-essential. Thus, there is liberty and, consequently, charity and love for those who differ. In the PCUSA, there is (officially) no liberty on this issue and, consequently, no charity or love (officially) for those who differ. (If you question this, I refer you to the famous Kenyon case.) In the EPC, we ask ourselves these questions:
I am not angry or anything, I just wish that we could discuss important issues in light of the truth, not in light of gossip, slander or ignorance. Jesus wants us to exercise liberty, charity and love for one another in an environment where truth is valued. Anything else is from the Devil. Rev. Austin Olive Faith EPC Covington, La. Kirkpatrick's departure offers opportunity for real change in the PCUSA September 13, 2007 During Cliff Kirkpatrick's tenure, there was a loss of 364,348 members, which represents a 13.85 decline in the denomination's membership. This retirement should have been done sooner rather than later. Will the decline end with a new stated clerk? Time will tell. The conservative wing of the Presbyterian Church (USA) has the opportunity to promote real change and if this conservative wing is viewed as cultural Christianity, a Christian in name only, the status quo will be its testimony. It is time for conservatives to put up or shut up, to be blunt. The losses have been great since 1965, and the opportunity is there for real change for Christ. As Cliff has mentioned, "for everything there is a time." Yes, Cliff, time to ride off into the sunset with a legacy of contention and declining membership during your tenure as stated clerk of the PCUSA. Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. A response about the trust clause in the Book of Order September 13, 2007 Jim Berkley [Letters, September 10, 2007] makes some very good points in his letter concerning the Book of Order trust clause references. I am very pleased to say that our church is the recipient of Christian attitudes and actions on the part of our presbytery (Muskingum Valley) which, during this past summer, dismissed us to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. As our session and the administrative commission sat to discuss the details of our dismissal, there was a wonderful sense on the part of the administrative commission that we were trying to determine God's call on our congregation. When they finished their research, they decided that we were indeed being called to another denominational affiliation, that we could (and would) be dismissed with property and all assets, and that no money in any amount needed to be transferred or even considered. As our session had predetermined, we said in our final agreement that we would continue our missions pledge for 2007; we believed that budgeted amount was appropriate to forward as scheduled. And we said we would consider a "love gift" to be given to the presbytery. The final agreement (available on the presbytery's web site) neither demands nor suggests anything other than "consideration of a gift." And, at this point, our session is still pondering what that gift may be or how it may be given … some time in the future ... and no one is pressing us to make it happen from any quarter. A ransom need not be the way of doing business! To the credit of the administrative commission and the presbytery, they conducted themselves in a manner worthy of our respect and we departed with a strong sense of Christian fellowship, simply headed to a different calling. The administrative commission was absolutely within the guidance and provisions of the Book of Order in their decision. I so wish and pray for other presbyteries to come to that same understanding. To be so tied up over material goods when the world is going to hell and is need of a Savior is such a blemish on the Christian community. Maybe when stories like ours and the few others get more publicity, more presbyteries will also understand that they have great liberty to dismiss in myriad ways. And maybe they will also decide they can really be "Christian" about how they do their business. Rev. Tom Sawyer pastor Middle Sandy Presbyterian Church Homeworth Ohio A response regarding separation September 13, 2007 Carol Joan Schaer states in her letter to The Layman Online [Letters, September 10, 2007] that "Separation from the PCUSA only creates pain, anguish, heartache, loss of church, loss of friends and loss of a caring community." Furthermore, she also states that the New Wineskins group is "hurting so many people by encouraging and planning church separations." While I am not serving a New Wineskins congregation, I must say that the people who have been "hurting people" and actually causing church separations are those who, effectively, have declared that Jesus Christ is not Lord over their sexual passions or over their personal lives. Those who have, in the face of the plain text of the Constitution and in the face of vote after vote against them, continued to impose sexual immorality and theological error on the Presbyterian Church (USA) are the heretics, the schismatics and the kind of folks described at length in the Book of Jude. Let's put the focus where it ought to be placed. Rev. Walter L. Taylor pastor Oak Island Presbyterian Church Oak Island, N.C. News about Kirkpatrick welcome – 'and at least four years too late' September 12, 2007 The news that Clifton Kirkpatrick will not seek a new term as General Assembly stated clerk was welcome news – and at least four years too late. It was interesting to note in the news coverage of his decision what might seem to be, at first glance, a contradiction. The Layman Online's analysis included Mr. Kirkpatrick's oft-expressed mantra that it was "not his job to enforce the Constitution." Mr. Kirkpatrick's own letter announcing his decision listed as one of the "tremendous privilege(s)" of the position "to uphold our Constitution." Although the Layman Online may disagree, both statements are true, but constitute a disingenuousness on the order of parsing the meaning of the word "is." It is not the stated clerk's job to "enforce" the Constitution. That is the responsibility of the governing body that has jurisdiction over the person or entity that allegedly has violated the Constitution. The G.A. stated clerk technically is supposed to be a potential resource person to all sides in such situations. However, this does not prevent the stated clerk from discharging the responsibility of "upholding our Constitution," which at times he did with gusto (per capita and property issues – I'm upholding the Constitution! (sic)), and at other times seemingly reluctantly and ambiguously (ordination issues – it's not my job to enforce the Constitution!). In the latter example, Mr. Kirkpatrick effectively sided with one side of the dispute over ordination standards, and wound up doing what a stated clerk should avoid doing at all costs: compromising his ability to been seen as a resource who would give fair and reasoned counsel to all sides of an issue before the church. For too long now, Mr. Kirkpatrick has been unable to be the stated clerk for the entire denomination. Hopefully, the next General Assembly will elect someone who will see the position not as a vehicle to "give expression to my passions … for the things that really matter" but, rather, someone who, with passion and without prejudice, will faithfully and consistently interpret, implement and uphold what the General Assembly and the entire church has established as the policies of the denomination. Dan Williams pastor Second Presbyterian Church Staunton, Va. My last word on Calvinism September 12, 2007 Rev. Patterson [Letters, September 10, 2007]: I do so appreciate your excellent defense of your position (although I have to admit I'm left somewhat unsure of exactly what that position is). I think that, if we were neighbors, we could have a great and strong friendship and tease one another endlessly about our respective views. I am actually much more willing to entertain mystery than I used to be, much more willing to listen to those of other persuasions. And I have found your exchange to be delightful in every sense of the term. Thank you for revealing such a sharp mind and a willing spirit to engage in repartee with a fellow believer. You've challenged my mind and thereby kept it from deteriorating so quickly by stretching its limits. Be well, my unmet friend. Marc Benton retired pastor A response to the Peters Creek Church case September 12, 2007 This review of the vote speaks for itself. Peters Creek Church members now have to meet to discuss what they are going to do while the rest of the church celebrates their vote. Memorial Park Presbyterian Church refers to leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA) as a "Pentecost." Where is the Pentecost for the people who don't agree? "We really feel we could solve our problems from within. …" "It's broken up the church terribly. It's very, very sad." Separation from the PCUSA only creates pain, anguish, heartache, loss of church, loss of friends and loss of a caring community. What a terrible thing for seniors in Peters Creek Church to suffer. It's hard to believe that Peters Creek church members celebrate separation while others are hurting so terribly. What is to be gained? What will change in the church? Is it really worth taking our cherished senior members and treating them like this? Where are the New Wineskins when people are suffering? I will never understand why anyone would want to join the Evangelical Presbyterian Church when women are treated as second-class citizens. The women of Peters Creek will suffer from operating in a male-driven culture. The New Wineskins should focus on their message and their views instead of hurting so many people by encouraging and planning church separations. Focusing on the issues would provide honest, open communication instead of driving apart church families while falsely claiming it is a Pentecost. Carol Joan Schaef member Memorial Park Presbyterian Church McCandless, Pa. PCUSA's property trust clause 'controversial and ambiguous' September 11, 2007 James D. Berkley [Letters, September 10, 2007] is not only correct in theory, he is correct factually when he says that no payment was or will be made to Pittsburgh Presbytery as consideration for release from the denomination's controversial and ambiguous property trust clause. The newspaper article says that the Rev. Stuart Broberg said some monetary payment was needed to satisfy the denomination's property trust clause. Elsewhere, the newspaper article refers to a mission gift. You have this first-hand: the mission gift is not a consideration for waiving the property trust clause. Why? Because, as Berkley points out, waiving the property trust clause is neither permitted in the constitution nor necessary. What's more, if he had wished to stipulate such consideration, Rev. Broberg, a trained attorney, would have done so in the final separation agreement. Recently, a friend told me that "everybody knows what the payment is for." But, regardless of what Rev. Broberg, my friend or anyone else thinks, we have a legal document that makes no mention whatsoever of the property trust clause. That tells you everything you need to know about how close anyone wanted to get to this can of worms. I serve on the committee that met with the presbytery's general council and now is awaiting a final vote on the agreement that was offered to the presbytery with the unanimous approval of the council. Our session had determined that because we were an early mover on the New Wineskins/EPC path that we would be careful not to create any situation that would make it more difficult for other congregations to follow. During a break in the negotiations, I specifically told our counsel, as our session's representative, that consideration (suggesting any validity to the property trust clause – an argument separate from Berkley's), would be a non-starter as far as I was concerned. Please also note that a request to pay consideration for release from the property clause never was made of us. I also can say that our work with the general council was blessed by comity and sincerity, by Christian love and kindness. We remain brothers and sisters. I had never met any of the people we worked with, and those with whom I got to spend some time were prayerful, caring and thoughtful. Yes, there were tough questions and moments of discomfort, but there was trust, too. We all are going where the Spirit leads us, and that appears to be in different directions. So be it. Jack O'Brien elder Beverly Heights Church Pittsburgh, Pa. A brief word on Calvin and particular Atonement September 11, 2007 I must point out an error of Rev. Lyle's [Letters, September 10, 2007] that was made here in this forum. Rev. Lyles has asserted that Calvin did not teach limited Atonement. This assertion is quite common in today's church. However, like many unexamined assertions, this one is just not true. Calvin implied the Scriptural doctrine of a particular redemption of the elect by Christ, wrought on the Cross of Calvary. Here is a portion of this implication from his own pen: Institutes, Book Three, Chapter 21 (italics mine):
Yes, Rev. Lyles, theology does progress. But it does so in greater and fuller clarity as to reasonable exegesis of Biblical teachings. Deleting the "L" from T.U.L.I.P. does not make one an Arminian, though. For the record, it makes one a Four Point Calvinist, or Amyraldian. I think that Spurgeon explains it best for us: "I may be called Antinomian or Calvinist for preaching a limited atonement; but I had rather believe a limited atonement that is efficacious for all men for whom it was intended, than an universal atonement that is not efficacious for anybody, except the will of man be joined with it. Why, my brethren, if we were only so far atoned for by the death of Christ that any one of us might afterwards save himself, Christ's atonement were not worth a farthing, for there is no man of us can save himself - no not under the gospel; for if I am to be saved by faith, if that faith is to be my own act, unassisted by the Holy Spirit, I am as unable to save myself by faith as to save myself by good works." Toby L. Brown pastor First Presbyterian Church Cuero, Texas Pittsburgh Presbytery official got it wrong about churches paying to leave PCUSA September 10, 2007 In The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article about Beverly Heights Presbyterian Church, I read: "The Rev. Stuart Broberg, chairman of the presbytery council, responded that some monetary exchange was required to satisfy a property clause in the denomination's constitution." Not so! I realize that the reporter may have misunderstood a part of our arcane Presbyterian polity and so may have failed to quote the Rev. Broberg accurately. However, if it is a correct quotation, the concept Broberg articulated needs to be respectfully contested. It is simply not true that a congregation must pay something to be dismissed with property to another denomination. Presbyteries have every right by our Constitution to be magnanimous rather than possessive; to have the good of the greater Church in mind, rather than the ruthless liquidation of assets for the presbytery's sole benefit. In our Book of Order, G-8:0300 reads:
I would hope that every congregation would stay within the PCUSA, working together to transform our gasping-for-breath denomination as an at-home mission field, rather than walking away to supposedly greener pastures. But if congregations do feel called to be faithful within another denominational arrangement, presbyteries most certainly can be generous, blessing a departing congregation, rather than greedily holding on to whatever mammon can be wrested from the congregation. James D. Berkley Director of Presbyterian Action Bellevue, Wash. Will Washington Office policies change? September 10, 2007 Elenora Giddings Ivory is leaving her position at the Presbyterian Church (USA) Washington Office, but will the policies of this office really change? Hopefully so, but probably not. Our stated clerk, Cliff Kirkpatrick, uses this office to rail against conservatives in the church and in government. He rails against anyone or any church that puts God ahead of the forms of political correctness espoused by his liberal supporters; i.e., the Covenant Network and the More Light group pushing for same-gender unions and the ordination of practicing homosexuals. Look for Giddings Ivory's replacement to be from the same mold. I don't know Giddings Ivory's background, but her opinions are very left-leaning and in many cases in opposition to our constitution. It seems that the closer one gets to Louisville, the more a person's values are compromised. I remember being very impressed with Moderator Joan Gray last year after she was elected. I see now that her beliefs have been somewhat corrupted by the influence of the Louisville crowd. I know that her position is primarily PR and to preside over the General Assembly, but some of her writings support the Kirkpatrick agenda. It's a shame from a gifted and spiritually minded person. Why do we continue to support the Washington Office, the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches with our per-capita gifts? Why do we pay per capita that is used to wrestle property from churches stressing obedience to God rather than obedience to a spiritually defunct denomination? Are we to worship in an apostate organization or the Church of the true God? Would not some of our financial and membership problems be solved by better stewardship? With the General Assembly unable to cut Cliff loose from the stated clerk's job, hopefully a position at the NCC or WCC will become available to him. Bill Arthur Greenville, S.C. A response to Giddings Ivory's resignation September 10, 2007 Unlike Jim Yearsley [Letters, September 7, 2007], I have no desire to wish Ms. Giddings Lovejoy "Godspeed." Why speak a blessing over someone who has little regard for the Scriptures or the constitution? What will her departure achieve? Let us ask ourselves, "Who dictated the terms of this departure?" Jerry Voss Millbrook Presbyterian Church Fresno, Calif. An observation about diversity in the PCUSA September 10, 2007 A Harvard political scientist has prepared a study on the impact of diversity on communities. The study shows that the more diverse a community, the less people care about and engage the community. Diversity seems to breed distrust and disengagement. This study on diversity reminds me of what is happening in the Presbyterian Church (USA). After many years of observing what is happening in Louisville and my own presbytery, the following thoughts come to mind. Liberal Presbyterians worship diversity. Diversity allows them to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they like and reject those parts of the Bible that do not conform to personal desires. Diversity prevents them from being judgmental since each person's views are to be accepted at face value. Abortion, homosexuality, same-sex marriages and desires of the flesh have equal standing with fidelity and abstinence. Liberals have an affinity for spreading their influence throughout the denomination. They seek membership on committees, workshops, study groups, etc., at all levels. This allows diversity to prevail, even if it brings division and discontent. Conservative Presbyterians, on the other hand, have a unified view of theology. They are taught and believe that the Bible is the inerrant, authoritative Word of God. They agree that sinful behavior is to be rejected and condemned. They don't question God's Word or try to interpret it according to personal feelings and desires. Within their local churches, their efforts are focused on local matters to do good wherever they can and to bring their neighbors to faith in Jesus Christ. They have little interest in what higher levels of the denomination are doing. They derive satisfaction from worship and fellowship with those who have similar views. Jack Vanderbleek Elder Northeast Presbyterian Church St. Petersburg, Fla. More about Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church lawsuits September 10, 2007 Some of you have watched the situation involving the internal investigation and lawsuits (yes, now there is a second one) in which Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in New York City was one of three defendants. Is it not time that church investigations (sex meets religion meets church governance) cease to be veiled in secrecy? As a member of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, I can't help but think that if: 1) Church misconduct policies were construed very strictly and taught to congregations and clergy twice a year with enforcement procedures outlined; and 2) That any subsequent investigations were given in an open forum, then we would deter the behavior that creates the need for such investigations. That is what research shows works. If you go online to the New York State Court Web site, you will now see the settlement amount of $50,000 posted in this public place for the 2005 lawsuit. Clergy and seminarians know that there is a strict code for "do's and don'ts," yet congregations are largely in the dark and, when trouble hits, the operating principle seems to be "it was the people, not the policies that are the problem." Thinkers on this topic think that clergy should have regular, church-paid-for counseling. From my observation, the belief seems to be if the people disappear, okay, problem solved. Does that sound like an adult way to handle the problem? And we might take a lesson from medical schools, which are now working on doing criminal background checks for its medical school applicants. Not doctors for licenses, applicants for medical school. Because now we have a lot of information at our disposal on the government court Web sites that the Presbyterian churches and their hiring entities can use to know about the people they seek to call and bring into the church, whether to hire or sponsor. What are our written factual and character criteria for those we hire or sponsor for seminaries? Because if we don't set standards rigorously, then how do we know when they have not been upheld? And men, in particular, are sports-loving people and every sport I have played or observed has written rules and ways for upholding them by the people standing or sitting on the sidelines, equipped with whistles, broad hand gestures or little flags. Sometimes, sports miscreants sit in a penalty box (ice hockey) for all those watching to observe. Surely we can do as well. Margaret Ost member Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church New York, N.Y. Another response to limited Atonement September 10, 2007 I fear that I (and others) may be testing the goodwill of you, the readers, and the patience of The Layman Online's editor with our theological wrangling, so I will try to draw my thoughts to a conclusion – at least for now. To Rev. Austin [Letters, September 6, 2007]: Grace and peace from our Lord Jesus Christ. While you may think the decision to widen the horizons of our (PCUSA) confessional standards was ill-conceived, I believe it has led our denomination to a land that is fruitful and good. The light of God's truth did not stop at the point of the Westminster Confession, but shines upon every age and believer. I understand why you are EPC and I am not. Your conclusion that our failure to remain captive to the words of men (I hold that such captivity belongs only to the Word of God) is the source of our denominational decline fails to account for the many other factors at work in the loss of membership. I find your reasoning in regards to the "if I call on him" and limited Atonement to be rather circular. I am reminded of the character who said to Alice in Wonderland, "A word means what I say, no more and no less" (not verbatim). Unconditional election, however, means just that. No preconditions of a foreknown Christic confession can be attached. Unconditional means God can save a Hindu fakir on the top of a Himalayan mountain or a devout atheist Trotskyite no less than a professing Christian. To resort to "God knew who would come to faith" is to jettison election completely. I am wary of all attempts to fit our faith on a postage stamp, however Scripturally based. Depending on your choice of Scripture, such compendiums can vary in the extreme – see Chick publications for some of those extremes. As for monergistic salvation, synergistic or any other manner thereof, I find my assurance in none of them. Instead, I look only to Jesus Christ, to whom alone we are to cleave and in whom alone we are to find our hope and our life. To Marc Benton [Letters, September 6, 2007]: Such bonhomie on the pages of The Layman Online – knock me over with a feather. I do appreciate your words, even though I disagree with most of them. But how could you have a debate without difference? Viva, la difference! I don't believe I'm "in fits" over limited Atonement, simply trying to state my point of view that this doctrine is not the only conclusion to which Scripture points and, in fact, goes against the grain of the truth revealed in God's Son. Just because it was adopted by the Synod of Dordt – T.U.L.I.P. was not conceived of in Geneva, but Holland – does not make it immutable doctrine, as it was in the beginning so shall it be in the end. Failure to regard every petal of that Reformed flower as Holy Writ does not make one an Arminian. Speaking of irresistible grace, I once knew a gal who lived up to that name, but that's another story. All joking aside, being a Presbyterian does not make one a T.U.L.I.P. lover. You seem to want to return to the days of "subscriptionism," but they are gone, and good riddance. The length and breadth of Presbyterian/Reformed theology has expanded greatly since the 16th and 17th centuries and includes many voices that would dispute your conclusions. More importantly, the very tradition in which we both stand is based on the idea of reform/change and to set one period/document/theologian as beyond all future correction/emending, even repudiation, is to betray one of foundational ideals. We did not free ourselves from the iron hand of Rome only to exchange it for another, even if it be that of John Calvin himself. To do so is to find ourselves in the situation described in a song by one of the greatest rock bands of all time: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." If you mean by identifying me as an Arminian that I believe we can somehow find our own way to God, you are mistaken. As Scripture says and I know, "We love because God first loved us." I know I am a Christian only because of God's grace and goodness that reached out to me long before I could say a word. We do not meet God halfway, it is God all the way. I believe that is quite Calvinistic, thank you very much. As for logic, that is the last redoubt of those who cannot abide mystery. Is it logical to think that God became a human being? Is it logical to turn the other cheek or pray for our enemies? Is it logical to go to your death for the very people who nailed you to a Cross? Enough with logic! The wisdom of God is folly to the world, then and now. So, we try to make it all line up neatly and lose the forest of grace in which we live and move and have our being for the narrow trees we have nourished (a trait not ours alone). Finally, appropriately enough, I turn to "eternal destiny." Herein lies the root of my problem with limited Atonement. I believe that Jesus is my Savior, not because of anything I have done, or think – least of all my theological conclusions – but because God has reached out to me in love from before the foundation of the world. What that means for everyone else – past, present, or future – is in God's hands alone. I do find guidance, not from the "L" in T.U.L.I.P. (and remember, you will search in vain for such a summary in Calvin's writings for the basis of these "core beliefs"), but in the confessional exhortation to "have a good hope for all." I base this not on treacly sentiment, but on the God revealed in Jesus Christ, one whose mercy is without measure, whose love flows forever full and free, and who offers forgiveness 70 times 7 to the nth power. That is the God I would tell of to someone who worries about their eternal destiny. A final testament from a Trappist monk, who was martyred in Algeria, that echoes the words of our Lord. "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" sums up my hope far more eloquently than I ever could. Against such a hope, I find the idea of limited Atonement to be a frail reed indeed.
P.S. Since I said, "No more debate for now," I will remain true to my word. I do want to say "Thanks" to the Rev. Taylor [Letters, September 7, 2007] for correcting my mistake regarding the good Dr. Achtemeier. I was fortunate to have studied under both Paul and Elizabeth, exemplary scholars and teachers. Giddings Ivory's resignation 'marvelous news for the denomination' September 7, 2007 Godspeed, Ms. Ivory. This resignation is marvelous news for the denomination. Inasmuch as Ms. Ivory's activities, behaviors and pronouncements have sounded much more like the World Council of Churches than the Presbyterian Church (USA) for years, this is little more than a much-needed correction. I hope and implore the General Assembly Council to seize this opportunity to make a long-needed adjustment in our denomination. To put it directly, please take this opportunity to close down the Washington Office. It has become nothing more than another leftist lobbying organization that acts in defiance of the will of the larger church. Besides, is this office the best possible stewardship of precious resources? By closing it, perhaps we can provide more direct support to missionary workers in the field. Or, (gasp) perhaps even send out some additional workers to proclaim the Gospel. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Regarding the departure of Elenora Giddings Ivory September 7, 2007 The departure of Elenora Giddings Ivory from the position of director of the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is not an unqualified good, as many recent letter writers have suggested. The position will doubtless be filled by the bureaucratic Office of the General Assembly with another activist who will use the office to promulgate liberal political causes, such as:
Overland Park, Kan. A response to the resignation of Elenora Giddings Ivory September 7, 2007 Our gain is their loss. James E. Tuckett A response regarding Peters Creek Church September 7, 2007 The letter [Letters, September 4, 2007] from David Walters of Andalusia, Ala., struck me as ironic and amusing. The only thing that David Walters revealed was that he is as uninformed about the situation at Peters Creek Presbyterian Church and the administrative commission of Washington Presbytery as he accuses Mr. Yearsley of being. He criticizes Jim Yearsley for reporting from sunny Florida when he lives a short distance away in pleasant Alabama. What David Walters does not realize is that Jim Yearsley is from Pittsburgh, Pa., where Peters Creek Presbyterian Church is located in the southern suburban community of Venetia. As pastor of Peters Creek Presbyterian Church, I never received a call from Mr. Walters inquiring as to what was going on in these parts of the woods, whereas Mr. Yearsley has made calls and spoken to numerous individuals who are well aware of what is happening in this northern community so far from Mr. Walters' southern residence. Please, Mr. Walters, know your facts before you judge a brother. This is a southern courtesy I learned while growing up in the Deep South. L. Rus Howard pastor Peters Creek Presbyterian Church Venetia, Pa. Another response about limited Atonement September 7, 2007 I think that many of us would acknowledge that the expression "limited Atonement" is an unfortunate expression, given the misunderstanding that it creates. This is why many Reformed people prefer the expression "particular Atonement." It does not change the meaning of it, but it does make the point a bit more clear, that Jesus came, in the words of Matthew 1:21, to "save his people from their sins." The Rev. Patterson Lyles [Letters, September 5, 2007], arguing against this doctrine, refers to Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor and from the chapter added to the Westminster Confession in 1903 by the Northern Presbyterian church in order to consummate union with the majority of the Cumberland Presbyterians, who had ceased to believe in many particular Reformed doctrines back in the 19th century [he quotes from 6.187]. The fact that many in the Northern church saw it as problematic does not take away the fact that it is there. However, it is not in the Southern church version of the Confession that appears next to it (part of the sloppiness of the 1983 reunion is that we have two different versions of Westminster side-by-side in The Book of Confessions!). I do wonder, however, from Rev. Lyles' statements, whether he has embraced some form of universalism in his understanding of the scope of salvation. Is this the case, Rev. Lyles? Finally, I would point out that Dr. Paul Achtemeier is not the "late" Paul Achtemeier yet. His wife, Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier, died several years ago, but Paul Achtemeier is still with us. Rev. Walter L. Taylor Oak Island, N.C. Resignation of Giddings Ivory brings 'tears of pure joy' September 6, 2007 The resignation of Elenora Giddings Ivory brings tears … of pure Joy, that is, at her departure to the World Council of Churches. What a greater joy it would be if Rev. Kirkpatrick would pack up and leave. Through the years, both have put their noses under the tent flap of the WCC and other organization that despise the U.S.A. America certainly is not always right, but neither are these two. The Presbyterian Church (USA) and America can become much stronger and closer to the Lord without them. We must continue in prayer for "God-inspired" leadership, not leadership that caves to the desires and pleasures of man. Bob Campbell Kingman, Ariz. Giddings Ivory's resignation is good news September 6, 2007 The notification that Elenora Giddings Ivory has resigned is good news indeed. Now, if Louisville will just close the Washington Office and place the money the office has been costing into the mission budget, they will have done something useful. Jim Harper clerk of session First Presbyterian Church New Smyrna Beach, Fla. Resignation improves the PCUSA September 6, 2007 Elenora Giddings Ivory leaves the Presbyterian Church (USA) for the World Council of Churches, improving both organizations in the process. Noel K. Anderson Executive Pastor First Presbyterian Church Bakersfield, Calif. Peters Creek has honored every request by the administrative commission September 6, 2007 Jim Henkel, pastor of North Benton Presbyterian Church, in response to Jim Yearsley's letter [Letters, August 29, 2007], advises [Letters, September 5, 2007] the session of Peters Creek Presbyterian Church to submit to the instructions of the administrative commission. The session of Peters Creek has submitted to and honored every single request made of it by the administrative commission of Washington Presbytery. The session has given the administrative commission free and open access to the congregation. The session of Peters Creek Presbyterian Church made these decisions and commitments early on in the process. While many have questioned the wisdom of doing so, we wanted to give Washington Presbytery ample opportunity to work with us in an honorable and gracious spirit. Only after receiving permission from the administrative commission did we schedule our vote for this Sunday, Sept. 9. Please pray for us. L. Rus Howard pastor Peters Creek Presbyterian Church Venetia Pa. Thanks to Rev. Henkel September 6, 2007 I always look forward to reading the Biblically wise letters here by my esteemed colleague in the New Wineskins effort, Jim Henkel. One of these days, I must go hear him preach. I just wanted to respond here to Jim Henkel's latest letter [Letters, September 5, 2007] to Jim Yearsley and myself about our letters [Letters, August 29, 2007] about the Washington Presbytery fiasco. I'm still a young minister (six years of ordination) and a fairly young Christian (baptized for 12 years), so I have little doubt that Jim H. is a wiser minister than I. And I also highly respect his Biblical references for us to consider. Certainly, the example of our Savior in these matters must take our highest model for our own responses. I confess I often struggle with how to confront the many evils that surround us on a daily basis. The unbelieving world does not thank us for our reliance upon the teachings of Christ, certainly. However, we must always respond in love and humility, as we forcefully teach by words and example. But what of the evils from within a supposed church of Jesus Christ? When fellow Christians use the powers of manipulation and fear to malign our brothers and sisters and harm their churches and ministries? I confess to being less than charitable to these organizations. Presbyteries and their committees should know and do better! They owe it not only to the congregations that they are supposed to serve but, more importantly, they owe it to the one whom they profess to be following. Yes, I get pretty angry when church councils err, even after my six ordained years of seeing this happen over and over again. And, yes, sometimes this anger pours out in ways that might be considered less than diplomatic in their expression. Rather than do nothing, I choose to speak out, as both Rev. Henkel and Rev. Yearsley also have done. Perhaps my outbursts of written anger at abusive acts carried out by presbyteries could be seen charitably as one particular way to call attention to the wrongful acts in our midst? I hope that my manner does not violate the teachings of our Lord. I also pray that all of our collective responses to these outrages done in the name of our church will be used for God's greater glory. May God richly bless the ministry and writings of both Jim Henkel and Jim Yearsley. We need them both. Toby L. Brown pastor First Presbyterian Church Cuero, Texas A reply to David Walters September 6, 2007 This is no less than the type of ad hominem attack I expected in response to shining some light into the dark corners of what is going on in Washington Presbytery. Just for the record Mr. Walters, considering we have never met or spoken, you presume [Letters, September 4, 2007] to know many facts not in evidence. In point of fact, I know my polity quite well. I also can recognize a duck from the way it walks and quacks. I might suggest that you re-read my report on the events under way in this case. As you do so, I would tell you that my information comes first-hand from people engaged in the efforts at Peters Creek. Further, I would challenge you to tell me which part of the following reported behaviors is, in fact, in line with your understanding of how our polity should work. Quoting from my original letter:
Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Another response regarding limited Atonement September 6, 2007 Not to get us all too bogged down in debate, but I would like to make a few comments in response to Rev. Lyles' reply [Letters, September 6, 2007] to my reply [Letters, September 4, 2007]. First I am a member of a denomination (the Evangelical Presbyterian Church) that still believes that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms "contain the system of doctrine taught in Scripture." I'm sorry that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has watered down its orthodoxy by adopting The Book of Confessions and removing the requirement that its ministers and elders subscribe to the Westminster Standards, as this has created much confusion and has directly led to the decline of that church over the last 40 years since that happened. But, the fact still remains that the Confession of Faith teaches limited Atonement and it is still one of your doctrinal standards. And second, I am quoted as saying, "Limited Atonement teaches Christians that if we call on Christ, no matter how stained with sin or how guilty or ashamed we may be, we can know that the risen Christ stands before His Father and says, 'Father, I have suffered your wrath for that sin – that specific sin – and 'It is finished.'" In response, Rev. Lyles says this, "Even more, Rev. Olive resorts to the very argument limited Atonement stands against when he writes: "Limited Atonement teaches Christians that if we call on Christ. …" Note the stress on "if" – this is Baptist "decisional salvation," not the "double predestination" that lies behind limited Atonement." By way of reply, let me simply note that I agree with the "double predestination" taught in Scripture and enunciated in the Westminster Standards, and that saying "if" in no way undermines that. After all, all of those for whom Christ died will call on Him. So… "if" you call on Him, then you know He died for you. How else will you know He died for you? Tea leaves? Those He didn't die for won't call on Him. Therein is the proof that He didn't die for them. I learned the Gospel through Campus Crusade and, as a result, I memorized the "Four Spiritual Laws." But in conclusion, let me enunciate my understanding of the simple Gospel with "Five Points of Good News," with references to Paul's letter to the Ephesians: T) I am more sinful than I could ever imagine, being sinful from my mother's womb and corrupt in my thoughts, words and actions. God's righteous requirement is love for Him and others as the sole motivator of my every thought, word and action, and on my best days I can't even come close to this (Ephesians 2:1-3). U) But God has loved me from the beginning of the world, and he has loved me for nothing good in me, but just because He wanted to (Ephesians 1:3-6). L) Because of His great love for me (me personally), the Father sent His only Son Jesus to die for me. He lay down His life and was punished on the Cross by the Father for each and every sin that I (and each and every one of those whom the Father has chosen) have ever or will ever commit (Ephesians 1:7-10, 2:4-6, 8-10). I) Having died for me, this same Jesus has now risen from the dead and sits enthroned in heaven as Lord of lords and King of kings. He is the hound of Heaven, pursuing His loved ones without ceasing. As such, He directs the whole course of history and bends the heavens themselves if need be to prove His love and grace to His people so that each of those for whom He died will come to be His, and will grow in His love and grace through their lives (Ephesians 1:11-14, 2:7-8, 10). P) And now, having died for us and having determined to prove His love for us, the Holy Spirit now lives in our hearts and will never leave us nor forsake us, for He is the covenant Lord, the God who promises and who always delivers on His promises (Ephesians 1:13-14, 15-23). That's the Gospel I cling to and hold dear. Limited Atonement (or, better, "specific Atonement") is the lynchpin of my assurance. In that I am in the good company of the likes of Bunyan, Spurgeon, Edwards and many others who looked in vain for assurance in anything other than purely monergistic salvation. Once again, I hope this helps. Rev. Austin Olive Faith EPC Covington, La. More on limited Atonement September 6, 2007 Pastor Lyles seems to have missed my main point (see Letters, September 6, 2007, and earlier), which is that the Presbyterian Church was founded on the five doctrines of Calvinism, of which one is the one which has him in such fits: limited Atonement – the idea that Jesus dies only for the elect, whom He foreknew from before the foundation of the world. I am well aware (having debated Arminianists on several occasions – there are many such opportunities, since the vast majority of American Christians are that brand of believer) that there are indeed Scriptures to support both limited and unlimited Atonement. He and I could sit down and have quite a spirited discussion about it, probably for hours on end. My point, however, is that if he really is Arminian, he belongs in the Methodist or Baptist or Pentecostal or most independent churches, not in the Presbyterian or any other Reformed church. Of course, nowadays it does not matter at all which church you belong to since most of the folks in the pews have little idea of what doctrines belong to which denominations. The people I have preached to over the years have, by and large, been absolutely shocked when I expounded on the Presbyterian (i.e., Calvinistic) doctrines since they had never heard them. I am Calvinistic because it seems to me to be much more rigorously logical a stand than the Arminian. I can understand the arguments of both, but Calvin's five points seem to be much better shaped to Scripture as a whole than those the Arminians hold to. In fact, most Arminians want to subscribe to some of Calvin's points (especially perseverance of the saints), but you cannot hold to that one and logically also hold to unlimited Atonement. Calvin's points stand or fall together. So, Pastor Lyles, what do you tell folks who worry about their eternal destiny? Do you try to wedge that last one of Calvin's T.U.L.I.P. into your Arminian theology or do you use logic and explain that they can indeed fall from grace and end up damned since it was their choice to receive Christ, not His decision, and, therefore, they can equally make a decision to leave Him (and die without salvation). Or do you waffle at that point and say that even though He offers freedom to all, once we accept, then we no longer have choice, but are guaranteed the trip to eternal life? Ah, yes, I do love a good debate … and so I await your answer, Patterson. Marc Benton retired pastor A response regarding church membership September 6, 2007 Much has been written about church membership. Certainly, we should welcome all who wish to attend. How else can the sinner hear the Good News? Having said that, most everyone seems to ignore the main point. The Lord got my attention in 1970 and I began to attend a church in my neighborhood. It soon became apparent to me, if I was serious about this Christian business, I would have to do something about my drinking problem. I went to my pastor and told him I was an alcoholic. He prayed with me, the church prayed for me and I prayed for deliverance. Praise God! He delivered me. I have been dry these 37 years. Church membership should not be allowed unless the person is willing face up to sin, confess, repent and start anew. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. A response about Caldwell Memorial Church September 6, 2007 Apparently, I missed the Caldwell article when it ran, but I read it and the response from Charles Brooks [Letters, September 4, 2007] with concern. I fear that Mr. Brook's thoughts on this matter reflect many in the mainline churches today. The problem really is right back in the matter of who Jesus is and what He accomplished for us on the Cross. For Caldwell's pastor to say that Allah and Jesus are the same deity is so common today that we too often just slough it off and go on. Yet, that flag needs to be raised regularly and often so that our children and other members realize that it is absolutely false. However, it is also the basis of my concern with Mr. Brooks' e-mail. What he doesn't seem to understand is that we still have an enemy, whose name is still Satan, and according to Jesus' timeless words, Satan was a liar from the beginning (John 8:44) and will never be trusted to tell the truth or to do anything on his own that will ultimately benefit the Church or the human race. We are, and will always be, immersed in the battle between good and evil! We may not always know it, recognize it, acknowledge it or like it! But the battle rages. Praise God, we know the victory of the end. Someone might look at Caldwell's situation and say that they were loving enough to extend the facility to the Islamic school and that any difficulties could be put in the category of "suffering for Christ" as commented on by Christ in Matthew 5:11. However, we must note that Caldwell is not suffering for their stand for Christ. They would be suffering if they had been sued for not covering up the images. Instead, they gave in to the request to eliminate Christ and, thus, willingly went over by desire for monetary gain. May I suggest there are some other Scriptures that would speak to that concern. So, what seems expedient in worldly terms becomes a snare of Satan. The picture of the present trap is that Christ is not being lifted up above other "demands" of various types. Instead, the "porridge" desired for "improvements" may simply well turn out to be a lost birthright in that neighborhood, as the Christians act as if another faith and religion is superior to their own. Are we to be loving and caring? Of course. But when we capitulate on the primary purpose and relationship of our faith – Jesus Christ – we are being neither loving (they will still go to hell without Jesus) nor helpful to the cause of Christ. I truly believe the Caldwell congregation would be far more blessed by God if they found a way to maintain their witness for Christ while seeking ways to raise funds for improvements. As it is, they will probably fade away since they seem to have lost their first love and have given up on their Great Commission. Pastor Tom Sawyer Middle Sandy Presbyterian Church Homeworth, Ohio Leadership in Louisville 'dead in trespasses and sins' September 5, 2007 Ephesians 2:1: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins." The higher leadership in Louisville characterize being dead in trespasses and sins. For a denomination to act as the wicked and white tombstones is what Christ declared the religious leaders in His day, blind leader of the blind. For all practical purposes, the Presbyterian Church (USA) can be declared dead with no witness and certainly does not demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5). The PCUSA is rotten from the inside out – as has been written by many for so many years who love the PCUSA, but have seen a great and glorious denomination infiltrated by wolves in sheep's clothing. The liberal lefties are in charge dismantling what is now left of a Biblical, evangelical witness while the cultural so-called Christians who call themselves conservative have their heads buried in the sand hoping for a revival – doing nothing, but hoping. Calling the PCUSA Laodicean is kind, instead of being called "A Synagogue of Satan." Why? It would be interesting if the body politic could answer this question openly. This is the challenge and you are welcome now to respond. Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. 'I'm delighted to be wrong' September 5, 2007 Sometimes, you are delighted to be proven wrong. On Aug. 30 Gary L. Cole Jr. [Letters, August 30, 2007] furnished statistics showing that the Presbyterian Church in America did indeed grow between 2005-06. In fact, the PCA grew by 2.34 percent during that time, from 331,000 to 338,700. The next day, Larry Rued [Letters, August 31, 2007] contributed a link showing that only a fifth of Presbyterian Church (USA) losses are due to deaths. During the same period, the PCUSA` decreased by about two percent, from 2,313,000 to 2,267,000. I figure that, at that rate, the PCA will reach parity in membership with the PCUSA in 2044. Then, the PCUSA will cease to exist in 2057. But, in all likelihood, current trends will not continue. I hope that the PCA continues to grow, but the losses suffered by the PCUSA may accelerate because of the aging factor. On the other hand, if the PCUSA losses were to bottom out, and if evangelical congregations remaining within the PCUSA "truly got a handle on being 'missional,'" it could be a different story. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi A response to Jim Yearsley and Toby Brown September 5, 2007 I am not a member of Washington Presbytery, but I do want to comment on Jim Yearsley's report [Letters, August 29, 2007] about the administrative commission appointed by that presbytery to "handle [the] problem" at the Peter's Creek Church. He writes that the commission has issued a not so "veiled threat" to the session should they proceed to receive a new member class, before the question of the congregation's denominational affiliation has been put to a vote. My "conservative" counsel is that the session should concede this point. Apologize to the new member class for the delay, and move on toward a vote. Employ the genuine inconvenience imposed upon these prospective members as one more reason to get the vote on the calendar ASAP. Of course, the civil litigation involved may have put the vote on hold in this case; this is unfortunate, but the session should still acquiesce to the request of the presbytery's administrative commission. From the perspective of commission members, it no doubt ap |