 |
|
| September
2007 letters Archives of letters to the editor  |
|
| 'Blessed
by the ministry of these women' September 28, 2007 Thank you for the excellent letter [Letters, September 26, 2007] you published in The Layman Online by James H. Logan Sr. concerning women in ministry. I originally came to Christ in a holiness church in New York City and one of the ways I grew in my faith was listening to the preaching of many women who came to our church. It was never a threat to the folks or leaders of the church and we were very blessed by the ministry of these women of God. I was taught that the Holy Spirit came upon all of God's people at Pentecost and God has called all of God's people to ministry, which includes preaching, teaching and pastoral ministry. When I became convinced of the Reformed theology and tradition, I was glad to know that the Presbyterian Church (USA) ordained women to all the ministries of the church and that, by doing so, they were not caving into "liberal" theology. As an evangelical within the PCUSA, I am thankful that we do not have to battle whether women are called or not to Christian ministry and I am thankful to my holiness beginnings that it was never a struggle in my own life. There are other more important issues that we should continue to focus on so that we do not lose our vitality as a church. Thanks for publishing Mr. Logan's letter. Rev. Eddie Soto Associate for Latin American Ministries Charleston-Atlantic Presbytery Charleston, S.C. Proving a point? September 28, 2007 About Pete Simpson [Letters, September 27, 2007] and proving a point: Just what is Mr. Simpson's point and what is he advocating? James H. Logan Sr. Rock Hill, S.C. Thank you September 28, 2007 I want to thank the Rev. Ray Bagnuolo for his wise, thoughtful and gracious letter [Letters, September 27, 2007], "Finding ways to be together without G-6.0106b," and I want to thank The Layman Online for printing it. As Rev. Bagnuolo wrote, "We can work this out. We can pray and practice this out faithfully. I have to believe that, and I hope some of you will, as well." Rev. Andrew L. Cullen, interim pastor Rolling Hills Presbyterian Church Overland Park, Kan. Malawi and South Africa September 28, 2007 Since Larry Brown [Letters, September 26, 2007] has asked me a question and The Layman Online has published it, I will give a response. But, first, a clarification of some confusion from his recent message. Mr. Brown suggests that I mentioned the rate of HIV infection in Malawi as something that resulted from traditional attitudes about homosexuality when, of course, I did nothing of the sort. My comment about HIV responded directly to his earlier statement about husbands and wives being forbidden to hold hands in public in Malawi, and my reference to the incidence of HIV in Malawi made a point of stressing that more women than men are infected - indeed, about three times as many. By far, most of those suffering from HIV/AIDS in Malawi and elsewhere in Africa are heterosexual, and any discussion of HIV/AIDS incidence and prevention in Africa is, by numbers, primarily a discussion of heterosexuality. My mention of the recent legalization of homosexual marriage in South Africa was in response to something only tangentially related, since Mr. Brown had disputed Mr. Joiner's assertion that some on the continent would disagree with Mr. Brown's blanket assessment of African attitudes to homosexuality. Mr. Brown cites statistics about HIV/AIDS in South Africa which, of course, are similar to those in Malawi (despite obvious differences between the countries in urbanization, history and geography), as one may confirm by consulting the web page of the World Health Organization. I would not think that my letter could in any way be interpreted as suggesting that South Africa serve as a model for dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis. President Mbeki's damaging statements denying the link between HIV and AIDS alone is sufficient to consider South Africa a poor model. But since the word has been put out there, I would not hesitate to suggest that South Africa could serve as a model in other ways. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a model for how a people can put injustices behind them without a need for vengeance. The patience and fortitude (perhaps related to "ubuntu") in the face of slow progress as expressed by the South Africans with whom I have spoken is a model that I wish my fellow Americans could follow. Although Mr. Brown will disagree, I believe that recognizing the unions of gay and lesbian citizens is an appropriate model for the world to consider. This has no important link to the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa and could hardly make even a small dent since the vast majority of those infected are heterosexual, other than the fact that promoting marriage and fidelity even for a very small part of the population is a positive thing. No doubt lesbian marriage will have essentially no effect with respect to HIV/AIDS. Regarding Mr. Brown's request that I enlighten him about how I think people may establish that they are a supporter of civil rights: I have already answered that question, but am happy to elaborate. Since Mr. Brown mentioned Martin Luther King, I recommended that rather than talk about the issues of four decades ago, he might consult those who were close to and worked with Dr. King regarding what Dr. King would say to us today and see where he is on those issues. I mentioned John Lewis, a man whose personal courage, faith commitment and accomplishments would require many paragraphs for even the briefest summary. Or one could consider the words of Coretta Scott King before her recent death. Or Andrew Young, one of King's chief aides and a person on whom King relied to give a conservative outlook so that King would have room to "split the difference" with more radical advisors. James Lawson, Julian Bond, and others are still alive and active. There are many issues to consider, but since Mr. Brown objects strenuously and especially to linking the civil rights movement with rights for homosexuals, let's consider the following: John Lewis: "I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation." Coretta Scott King: "Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." It is not difficult to locate similar statements by Lawson, Bond, Young or others. Regarding whether Mr. Brown should become a comedian, I would answer sincerely "don't give up your day job" since I do hope that he will continue his work in Malawi. But perhaps I did not sufficiently stress my curiosity about a question he has not answered: Why does Mr. Brown of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church exert such time and effort in criticizing my denomination, the Presbyterian Church (USA)? I might suggest that if his experience at a non-PCUSA church in having petitions in support of the Confederate flag shoved at him by all in attendance is typical, then perhaps he could first address the need for a prophetic voice to Americans a little closer to his spiritual home and let other prophets speak to the PCUSA. David Carothers Harrisonburg, Va. 'Your young men will see visions' September 27, 2007 The letter from James Logan [Letters, September 26, 2007] demonstrates the peril of using a paraphrase to prove a point. In Hebrew, Joel 2:16ff reads: "Your sons and daughters, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. …" Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. Finding ways to be together without G-6.0106b September 27, 2007 Sent in response to, 'There is one thing worse than a lie: a half truth by the Rev. Dr. Allen Kemp [Letters, September 24, 2007]. I want to thank Rev. Allen Kemp for his writing, comments at presbytery, and faithfulness. Whatever disagreements I may have with others who see G-6.0106b as an important checkpoint for church leaders, I have always felt that such individuals come to their beliefs and responses with the same conviction and call that I feel in my own being. It is what makes this such a difficult process, seeking a welcoming place in the full work and worship of our church for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, along with all our sisters and brothers. The use of these words, alone, evokes such a response that it is often near to impossible enter into a safe and Christian space, where we can each hear each other and listen to how God speaks to us in our own hearts. Dr. Kemp and others, while maintaining their positions, have always been able to do that. I appreciate their witness and practices in this and many other ways. I am not writing to fight, to divide, or to persuade anyone to change their minds about gay people. We've all tried that. I have sat with Biblical scholars, each taking a position on verses from Scripture, giving clear and impassioned interpretations of those verses, with those who agree supporting their respective speakers. In the end, both sides walk away feeling good about what they have done and nothing changes. We return to our own sides of the Presbyterian Church (USA), faithful witnesses and still apart. General Assembly committees often reflect this dynamic. Yet, I see us in our presbyteries and at General Assemblies. We worship together, debate, seek justice, truth – all of us together – and the ceilings of the churches and civic centers don't fall down upon us. Somehow, we manage to walk and work together, even though our theological positions may be very far apart. Maybe there is something in that practice that we can use to figure out how to be faithful and together even in our greatest of differences. Most everyone knows someone who is lesbian or gay. I am an ordained minister of the Word and sacrament serving the Palisades Presbyterian Church in New York. I am a man who is openly gay and was ordained as such. I also teach high school in the public school system in Westchester County, New York. In both roles, I have heard from people who have experienced the pain and suffering of discovering that a member of their family was different. I have counseled young people tossed out of their homes when they came out to their parents or guardians: seeking acceptance only to be rejected. Somehow, that has always struck me as the sin, not that they might have been created as a person who was gay, nurture and nature arguments aside for now – but rejected. There are many more stories; many of you have your own. Whenever I work with someone or hear about someone who has been marginalized or tossed out – I think that we, our church and other churches, have failed to grow enough in God's love and hospitality to possibly err on the side of compassion and love in taking the risk of opening our doors to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community as full members. Instead, we draw lines of separation because of different sorts of fear. We become more entrenched in our own beliefs, maybe so much so that we forget the risks Jesus took to save us all. There must be a way that we can find space in our understandings of God and Scripture that makes it possible for us to make the PCUSA an example of God's love, not based on certainty but on trust that God would prefer we take the chance, rather than shut the door on one another. God has to be bigger than our arguments. Has to be ... if we could just rely on that bit of faith. Look, there will always be congregations that will have their own methods of worship and interpretation of Scripture. If a person who was gay showed up at the door of a church who loved but could not welcome a gay person, they could simply say to them: "We have a sister church where you will be more welcome than here ..." or something to that effect. And, in the other way, someone who seeks a more literal interpretation and traditional worship service could be directed to a sister church so that none were lost or rejected. There must be a way we can work together so that none are lost. Yes, I absolutely believe G-6.0106b needs to go because it divides us. I am pleased that our presbytery voted to send an overture to do that to General Assembly and I am deeply aware of how this hurt some of our members. Someone always seems to be hurt in this ongoing difficulty we share. Maybe we can heal with each other and limit such unnecessary pain and fear. And I disagree that the removal of G-6.0106b will open our church to all forms of sexual impropriety. G-6.0106a is fully able to maintain required guidelines for appropriate behavior, along with the other requirements of the Book of Order and protocols required of candidates in being cleared to seek a call, and they are considerable. Ask anyone who has gone through them. What G-6.0106b does is eliminate LGBT folk from serving since it calls for requirements in "marriage," a sacred commitment not yet available to gay people. We end up using this to exclude people from our church: good people, friends, family, faithful, called people. That can't be the best way to be faithful for any of us. Yet, some of us are so sure we are right that we are ready to split the church. In a world already dividing up into smaller, more ragged, violent and isolated pieces, how could this ever be God's call to any of us? I will not debate or argue here. Neither of those will achieve anything near consideration of a sacred trust and a way of being together that really takes a risk based on all we hold true. Our world needs this church, all of this church and all of its members. Our diminished numbers have more to do with ways we exclude people than ways in which we include them. At least I think so. I, and others I know, will be happy to meet in forums or person to help work at being church together. I do not see us as liberals, conservatives or other political groups. I see us as members of God's family, sharing the same baptism, with differences that do not need to divide us. We can work this out. We can pray and practice this out faithfully. I have to believe that, and I hope some of you will, as well. Then, once we work it out, we can teach the rest of the world how we did it. That's witnessing that would humble us all in the power of the Holy Spirit it might just unleash. Thank you for taking the time to read this. Rev. Ray Bagnuolo Palisades Presbyterian Church Palisades, N.Y. Another viewpoint regarding women's ordination September 26, 2007 I have followed the discussion about women's ordination with interest. I am reminded of a letter to the editor from a pastor I saw some years ago. He said there were 35 women in his seminary class. He went to each one and asked why she came to seminary. He said 34 said they were there because they had a "right" to be there. One said she had been called by the Lord to ministry. Pete Simpson Bloomington, Minn. Your sons and daughters will prophesy September 26, 2007 Some were amazed and perplexed, asking, "What does it mean?" (Acts 2:13). Full of wine, others mocked, "They have had too much wine" – these folks who are speaking in their own language but being heard by others, each in his own language. But Peter brought Holy Spirit clarity to the scene, bringing about 3,000 people to acceptance of the wonderful message (2:14): "Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: 'Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It is only nine in the morning! No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. "Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. "Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.'" Acts reports the marvelous events of that Pentecost day, leaving no wiggle room for His intent. No more distinction between slaves, or freemen, or Gentiles, or Jews, or men, or women. His spirit poured out on all mankind. The argument should be over. If Joel and Peter are not liars, then any person on whom God pours out His spirit must be accepted. My dear sisters, when the Holy Spirit calls you to speak the Word, speak it with power, unafraid. Congregations, your legitimate question is, "Has God called that son or daughter to prophesy in our midst?" It is not a question of entitlement, it is a question of the Holy Spirit calling and sending whom He will and of people, listening to the Spirit, ratifying that call. It is not about civil rights or women's rights; it is about the sovereign rule of King Jesus, the head of His church, choosing whom and where He will send. We do violence to Jesus when we place non-Biblical restrictions on whose calling we will sanction. Somewhere, there are females having the only Word from God that someone desperately needs to hear. The fields are truly white; pray God that He will send empowered men and women of every tribe and nation uniquely equipped for that task so that lives will be rescued and the harvest of souls will be great. Men and women are suffering and dying in their sins, not knowing who Jesus is and not having the assurance of pardon of their sins. It is time to get on with our Father's business! James H. Logan, Sr. Rock Hill, S.C. A response regarding the ordination of women September 26, 2007 It fascinates me the way that your readers take my simple question [Letters, September 20, 2007] and run off in all directions. A few points are worth making. First, I never said that ordination was a "right," nor did I say that everyone coming for ordination should be pushed through. After six years on a committee on ministry, I assure you that I wish that committees on the preparation of ministry would do more gate-keeping. That said, my statement about women who feel called was a direct response to the writer's saying that the Evangelical Presbyterian Church shows "love and charity" toward those who find the ordination of women unacceptable. My question was, "Where is the same love and charity toward women who feel called." To say not everyone is called or not everyone is qualified is one thing. To say that people are disallowed simply because of their gender is entirely another. Second, no one seems able to answer the simple question of whether the EPC/writers consider the ordination of men "essential," that is something that a church or presbytery would be required to do. I find the effort of Rev. Brown to imply that I equate the ordination of women on equal footing with the Resurrection in importance to be rubbish. I am only trying to get a read on how the EPC understands the ordination of women vis-a-vis the ordination of men – the language of "non-essential" for the former belongs to the EPC. Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop Davenport, Iowa A response to David Carothers September 26, 2007 In his lengthy rebuttal [Letters, September 24, 2007], David Carothers suggested that Malawi has a 15 percent HIV/AIDS infection rate that is caused by some traditional attitudes on homosexuality. He went on to suggest that South Africa, with its openness to gay marriage, should serve as a model. Here's what he didn't say. I got the following from www.avert.org/aidssouthafrica/htm, accessed 25 September 24, 2007: "It is difficult to overstate the suffering that HIV has caused in South Africa. With statistics showing that almost one in five adults are infected, HIV is widespread in a sense that can be difficult to imagine for those living in less-affected countries. For each person living with HIV, in South Africa and elsewhere, not only does it impact on their lives, but also those of their families, friends and wider communities. "With antiretroviral drug treatment, HIV-positive people can maintain their health and often lead relatively normal lives. Sadly, few people in South Africa have access to this treatment. This means that AIDS deaths are alarmingly common throughout the country. It is thought that almost half of all deaths in South Africa, and a staggering 71 percent of deaths among those aged between 15 and 49, are caused by AIDS.2 So many people are dying from AIDS that, in some parts of the country, cemeteries are running out of space for the dead.3 A recent survey found that South Africans spent more time at funerals than they did having their hair cut, shopping or having barbecues. It also found that more than twice as many people had been to a funeral in the past month than had been to a wedding.4" Mr. Carothers also said, regarding me: "He does not directly praise the social attitudes in Malawi that forbid married couples from holding hands in public, but since he suggests that they are somehow related to the absence of what he calls 'Hollywood-driven propaganda,' we might at least infer that he has some positive feeling about them." My response: Go ahead, infer away. One has no control over what people choose to infer. I will not attempt to do any inferring on Mr. Carothers. And then he said: "I might mention that applauding those who 'marched with Martin Luther King' is no longer sufficient to establish one's bona fides on civil rights in the U.S.A." Enlighten us, Mr. Carothers, what does it take to "establish one's bona fides" and what specifically have you done to establish yours? Finally, he says of me: "Citing an unwillingness to support a Confederate flag resolution as evidence of a progressive stand on civil rights is almost comical." Hey, maybe I should quit the mission field and take up stand-up comedy. I'm sure there's more money in it than being a missionary, and I bet I'd be funnier than Mr. Carothers. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi 'Truly a difficulty of life in the church' September 25, 2007 Meghan Foote has a good point [Letters, September 24, 2007]. She asks how it is possible to reconcile condemning people who disagree over Scripture with the fact that there are issues in which faithful Christians disagree. This is truly a difficulty of life in the church. How do God's foreordination and man's free will work together? Should we baptize infants or only adults? What is the nature of charismatic gifts in today's church? These are challenging issues that good people disagree on. What is the solution? At the root, there are two options: Number one: The church drops all distinction in doctrine and simply allows every person to seek out how to follow their religion as their own conscience dictates. Number two: The individual denominations decide on what constitutes their own essential doctrines and then faithfully seek to adhere to those standards. Recognize that the first solution will create complete anarchy. Such a church would neither be pure nor unified. I highly doubt it would be peaceful either. There is clearly a point at which two opposing views are so tangential that they cannot work together. Personally, I believe that the issue of homosexual ordination (that is, gay-affirming, practicing homosexual ordination) is one of those issues. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has recognized this same incompatibility in its denial of ordination to anyone who takes a complementarian (i.e., patriarchal/misogynistic) view of women's ordination. If you cannot affirm women's ordination, you cannot be a PCUSA minister. Obviously, I see the second solution to be the only viable alternative. We must recognize that there are core essentials of Christianity, issues that are theologically (denominationally) distinctive, and debatable matters. Core essentials are those doctrines that mark someone as an orthodox Christian or not. Though the PCUSA seems unable to get these straight either, it is things like the deity of Christ, the necessity of the Atonement and the Trinity. Theological distinctives are those issues that we recognize Christians can disagree on. Many of my friends practice believer's baptism. I believe in covenantal (infant) baptism. Though we love the same Lord, we respect each other's right to practice as our consciences dictate and we serve in different denominations. As believers, we are part of the same Universal Church but, here on earth, we keep our distinctives. Finally, there are those issues that must be recognized as debatable. Sometimes, these cause the most conflict. How should believers dress? Is it best to educate kids in public school, Christian school or to home school? What color should the new carpet in the sanctuary be? Now, here is the real challenging part: deciding what will be your theological distinctives and what you are comfortable leaving open to debate. In the PCUSA, affirmation of women's ordination is a theological distinctive (i.e., you must affirm it to be ordained). The Presbyterian Church in America also sees women's ordination as a theological distinctive (i.e., you must deny it to be ordained). The Evangelical Presbyterian Church believes it is a debatable matter (i.e., you may take either position and be ordained). In the PCA and EPC, the denial of homosexual ordination is a theological distinctive. The PCUSA, in passing last year's PUP report, has made homosexual ordination a debatable matter. If I were a betting man, I would put money on it eventually becoming, like women's ordination, an essential distinctive. The list of issues goes on and on: Calvinism versus Arminianism, inerrancy of the Bible, the nature of the creation, the church's role in politics, etc. I am currently preparing for ordination in the PCA. Based upon my theology, I am not welcome in the PCUSA (though I was saved in that denomination). I considered the EPC, but felt I was a better fit in the PCA. There are too many issues, for me, which the EPC considers debatable and I consider distinctive. And that is OK. I am happy that the Lord Jesus is being lifted up in other denominations by my brothers and sisters. Christ is the only Lord of our consciences and it is good for us to have denominations where like-minded believers can serve together. Meghan, I hope you recognize the necessity of distinctions between denominations. Yes, Christians can disagree on issues. And there are times when those issues are significant enough to split apart denominations, even while affirming that those we disagree with are our brothers and sisters in the Lord. Tom Mirabella Faith PCA Wauchula, Fla. Parochial questions September 25, 2007 Reading about the continuing misadventures of Heartland Presbytery's struggle to define parochial fidelity juxtaposed to our Biblical and constitutional heritage, two questions come to mind. Parenthetically, please note I am discouraged by both the increasing apostasies and schismatic movements in our franchise. I ask these questions because I am called to remain faithfully rather than separate to be faithful. Be that as it is, my questions: 1) Does anyone see the irony in the anti-institutional children of the '60s dominating mainline ecclesiastical bureaucracies being so obsessively compulsive about maintaining the status quo of dying denominations? 2) When it comes to our particular franchise, the Presbyterian Church (USA), is it intellectually inconsistent not to mention spiritually bankrupt for those who defy or enable defiance of our constitution's ordination standards to insist on enforcing our constitution's property clause? I'm probably missing something, especially in the second question, which is almost as rhetorical as the first. I look forward to hearing from folks who can help me with the cited confessional contradiction in the second question. I may be too "old school" to get the distinctions. When I was ordained, I understood I would subscribe or at least submit to the entire constitution, rather than embrace just my favorite parts. That's why I've been equally nauseated by the apostasies and advocates of schism. But, again, I'm probably missing something. I look forward to being enlightened on how ordination standards are optional in our constitution while the property clause is not optional in our constitution. Silly me! I thought both were, uh, constitutional. That's what I thought when I was ordained. Next thing you know, someone will come along and say you don't have to believe in Jesus to be a member, officer or pastor in the PCUSA. Robert R. Kopp A response to letters by Chris Joiner, Larry Brown September 25, 2007 I found your editorial comment interesting regarding Chris Joiner's response [Letters, September 19, 2007] to Larry Brown's letter [Letters, September 18, 2007]. You noted: "In our original assessment of Mr. Brown's letter and a subsequent review, we see no evidence of 'hate speech' in the letter as written." Actually, you are correct. However, I will point out another observation. Mr. Brown notes in his caveat: "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." Okay, in order for one to walk his/her talk, I think the words are more accurate if said: "If you're a sinner 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 sinful behavior, which is why so many American Episcopalian churches are now under the authority of African bishops." After all, sin is sin and no sin in particular is any different than another. Correct? I hope so, for that was true when I last checked the Bible and what Jesus taught. I seriously doubt that the paradise Mr. Brown lives in would actually turn any sort of sinner away. That is the whole point of being the Body of Christ, in being a healing community that welcomes and helps those who struggle (sinners) to find a better way of life through Christ. I expect in the debate Mr. Brown, in his passion, said words that he didn't realize would single out a group of sinners, as though those sinners are any different than anyone else in the world or even any believer in Christ. The bottom line is we all fall short of the glory of God and will sin until our last day on earth. The good news is that, together, we are a community of believers in Christ and those believers will not forsake us any more than God or Christ does. In the end, it is love speech. It can never be hate speech. Earl C. Apel Member Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Cincinnati, Ohio There is one thing worse than a lie: a half truth September 24, 2007 The headline read, "Group Opposes ban on gay clergy: Presbyterian Church rule called contrary to Jesus' teaching." While religion writer Gary Stern accurately relayed what the majority of delegates voted in the meeting, he failed to mention what the (only) two dissenting voices expressed. One said that permitting gay ordination so dilutes our standards that it makes our sexual misconduct policy a farce and this author said that, by bringing the resolution now, the presbytery is truly seeking to force all the conservative/evangelical churches out of the denomination. So much for love. Stern quoted the resolution where it claims "Current denominational policies regarding ordination contradict the foundational principle of Jesus' teachings" – God is love. There is one thing worse than a lie: a half truth. The resolution is replete with misleading claims about what the Bible says about gay ordination. Yes, God is love, but Jesus also said, "And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck" (Mark 9:42). Hudson River Presbytery, by taking actions like this, causes "little ones" – i.e., the innocent and unknowing – to fall into sin. It is theologically preposterous to suggest that Jesus, because He welcomed sinners, must also condone sin. Jesus' love called people to a higher, inward standard of righteousness: "Be perfect even as your Heavenly Father is perfect," He said. The Bible makes it clear that homosexual practice is sin: Genesis 18-19; Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:8-9. To deny this is to deny the veracity of the Bible. It strikes this member of the presbytery, one of the last orthodox voices who has not quit coming to presbytery meetings, that Hudson River Presbytery does not care about Scripture, its own Confessions of Faith or its own ordination vows where we promised to abide by the Scriptures and those Confessions. The reality is our denomination does not have a "ban on gay ordination." We are not that biased and insensitive. Our Constitution says, "Those who are called to office in the church are to lead a life in obedience to Scripture and in conformity to the historic confessional standards of the church. Among these standards is the requirement to live either in fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness. Persons refusing to repent of any self-acknowledged practice which the confessions call sin shall not be ordained and/or installed as deacons, elders, or ministers of the Word and Sacrament." This standard raises the bar for all of us, and it's not just about our personal sex lives. If Hudson River Presbytery gets what it wants by removing this standard, then it opens the entire church up to sexual misconduct and other scandals far worse than what has befallen other denominations. Dr. Allen V. Kemp Suffern Presbyterian Church Suffern, N.Y. A response to Loren Golden September 24, 2007 I'd like to thank Loren Golden [Letters, September 20, 2007] for putting together the Biblical texts regarding the ordination of women. It's nice to be able to go to chapter and verse, and I especially appreciate the way both sides of the argument were equitably presented in the letter. In my own walk, I have seen the wonderful things done by women in positions of leadership. I have heard others generally discuss it, but have been a bit hesitant as I am not as familiar with the Scriptural basis for it. In good Presbyterian fashion, I can't agree with everything in the letter. As far as hijacking a meeting to hash out these issues, I tend to think we (at least in our local church) have such good committee work that taking time to hash out these issues at our local meetings does more good than "working" on the routine issues that dominate our meetings, but I digress. I agree with the letter's perspective on gays and I appreciate The Layman Online for providing this forum. I feel that I am learning by reading these letters. Frank Christian elder Palm Desert Community Presbyterian Church Second-class citizens? September 24, 2007 I have been following the responses to Megan Foote's letter [Letters, September 17, 2007] concerning ordination practices in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. My attention was grabbed by the Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop's letter [Letters, September 20, 2007] and her claim of a de facto declaration that EPC women are second-class citizens. She also extends this to the Roman Catholic Church. She goes on to complain, asking, "One wonders where the love and charity is toward women whose spirit feels called to ordained ministry, but who are effectively blocked by church or presbytery refusal [to ordain them]?" I wonder whether Rev. Hislop realizes that, every year, Presbyterian Church (USA) sessions and presbyteries turn away people requesting to become inquirers and candidates for ordination for all manner of reasons – as do all other denominations and even independent churches. These decisions are made without denying the person's sense of call. Who are we – any of us – to declare that a person does not have a sense of call? However, just because someone claims to have a sense of call does not put a corresponding obligation on any church to agree that such a sense of call must necessarily be lived out under their particular discipline. If God is truly calling a person to ordained ministry, in His sovereignty God will provide an arena in which that call can be exercised – and it might not be exactly where the person called would prefer. Ultimately, a person who feels called has a responsibility to find that place rather than insist that, despite their standards, a particular denomination ordain the person. That kind of insistence, in my opinion, is a mark of immature, adolescent petulance and a sense of entitlement and lack of respect for the church's beliefs signaling that perhaps this person would not be a good candidate for ordination even if the way were clear. And the genuine love and charity so sought by Rev. Hislop and her ilk on the part of a church that cannot ordain someone who feels a sense of call is found in pointing this out to the seeker and perhaps even helping such a one along in the journey. Rev. Bill Pawson Westminster Community Church Canton, Ohio Another response regarding the ordination of women September 24, 2007 Fine. I'm stupid and ignorant. But none of you have actually answered my question, so I'll restate it as clearly as I can: 1. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church policy on the ordination of women is an example of people of good faith disagreeing on the interpretation of particular Scriptures. 2. The people who are leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA) for the EPC must at least tacitly approve of that policy and, by extension, must then admit the possibility of good people disagreeing on the interpretation of particular Scriptures. 3. Why, then, is it utterly impossible for people of good faith to disagree on the interpretation of the Scriptures that you believe condemn homosexuality? The primary thrust of the responses so far has been to re-iterate that you believe that these texts condemn homosexuals. I knew that. But I also know that there are people, myself included, who I believe to be of good faith who disagree with you on those interpretations. How do you reconcile condemning those people as self-indulgent, misguided heretics with your approval of those who disagree with you on other texts? Meghan Foote Greeley, Colo. Letter 'contributes to the muddiness' regarding women's ordination September 24, 2007 As much as the Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop [Letters, September 20, 2007] claims that the water is being muddied by previous respondents regarding the Evangelical Presbyterian Church's policy on the ordination of women, I think Hislop's argument contributes to the muddiness. Her statement at the end of her latest letter about "women whose spirit feels called to ordained ministry, but who are effectively blocked by church or presbytery refusal," convinces me. It should be clear, but often isn't, that ordination is not a right granted just because you feel the call, because you're a good person, because you want it. The call to ministry must be investigated, discerned and confirmed by the larger church – the external component of a true call by Reformed standards. I have served on a presbytery committee on preparation for ministry and, in so doing, was part of a group that had to tell some folks they wouldn't be ordained. Some recipients of this message were male, others female. The key point was the discernment of the calling of God on their lives. They thought an internal call was sufficient. Our experience with and assessment of them led us to believe otherwise. Their internal sense of call was not validated by an external call by the church. This is not an "either/or," but a "both/and." So, in a very real and practical sense, yes, any ordaining body can tell a man that he will not be ordained and tell a woman the same message. But I don't think that's what Hislop is attempting to get at with her complaints. Her "can you refuse to ordain a man?" line of thought makes muddy the two very real issues at the heart of this discussion on which we need more clarity and less mud. The first real issue is, "Are women proper candidates for ordination?" Women's ordination is a Johnny-come-lately historically, and much of Christianity disagrees with it. The EPC's compromise may not be the best one around, but it is one that respects the consciences of those who disagree with women's ordination while still creating pathways for that ordination to take place. I am thankful we ordain women in the Presbyterian Church (USA). I come by this honestly: before I came into the PCUSA, I was a Cumberland Presbyterian minister, a denomination ordaining women since the 1880s. But I recognize that many – indeed most – of the Christian world doesn't see women's ordination the way I do, and I respect that difference of opinion. The EPC policy has some flaws, but at least it tries to find some middle ground for conscience on both sides of the issue. The second real issue is, "What is essential for a denomination to believe and to practice in order to be a denomination?" For Hislop, women's ordination is clearly such an essential. I grant that it may indeed be essential for polity and organizational reasons, for our communal life together, to be of one mind on this and other issues. It certainly lubricates the gears of the machinery! But women's ordination is not an essential of the faith unless you are willing to say that it rises to the level of the Apostles' Creed in terms of our allegiance and that Christians who do not ordain women flirt with apostasy. But women's ordination does not rise to this level. Now, if we were talking about, say, affirming the Resurrection of Christ as a real, actual, historical event, I would reply that now we're on to something truly essential. But the bald-faced truth is we live, move and have our being in a denomination that holds women's ordination to be essential: You can't be ordained if you believe otherwise. At the same time, we live, move and have our being in a denomination that does not effectively require ordained ministers to believe in the Resurrection of Christ as essential: you can say Jesus' body is rotting in a Palestinian tomb with impunity, for your presbytery will not touch you. There's a lot of muddiness to go around. Rev. Clay J. Brown pastor First Presbyterian Church Mooresville, N.C. A reply to the letters about Reformation Day September 24, 2007 I do agree with what brother Jacob Gordon from Pennsylvania [Letters, September 21, 2007] is saying. The reason why I suggested the push is to avoid seeing articles in some of our Protestant publications telling churches how to celebrate all saints day on Halloween as an alternative to it. And to discourage some churches that do celebrate Halloween. My wife is a Sunday school teacher and every year she has to explain to parents, newcomers to the faith and some old members why we do not celebrate this American holiday as it was told to her. In my conversations with members of other churches and denominations, they don't really know much what really happened and some don't even know who John Calvin (not to be confused with Calvin Klein) was. As Presbyterians and members of a Reformed Church, we have a duty not to forget the past, and teach those who are coming into it, why we are not Roman Catholics (specifics) and why we should avoid the mistaken ways of the old church. Who we are as a Christian society will see it – we are called to be different, not part of the furniture. God bless us all. John Soares A response to the truncated Reformation rallying cry September 24, 2007 Some time ago, I vowed to protest the next time I found a Reformed church writer omitting the all-important third clause of the "Reformation rallying cry." Jacob Gordon's otherwise excellent letter [Letters, September 21, 2007] triggered this response. The almost uniformly omitted third clause – "according to the Word of God" – states the basis on which the Church was reformed, as well as the only basis on which continuing, genuine reform can occur. Omit the third clause and the Church is at the mercy of those who, in Melanchthon's words, "improperly mingle philosophical and social ethics with the Gospel." Fenton G. Cates Ashland, Ore. A response to letters by Mr. Brown and Mr. Joiner September 24, 2007 I have never understood why members of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church or the Presbyterian Church in America are so anxious to write at great length about issues in the Presbyterian Church (USA), since each denomination surely has plenty on its own plate to deal with. In particular, the Rev. Dr. Brown of the EPC manages on a regular basis to tear himself away from dealing with the critical shortage of clergy in Malawi to expound on what he believes are the shortcomings of the PCUSA. Now, Mr. Brown [Letters, September 21, 2007] is engaged in an exchange with Chris Joiner [Letters, September 19, 2007], first about the nature of hate speech and now extending to understanding culture. No doubt we could learn much that is useful about the culture of Malawi from Mr. Brown, but it seems to me from his recent message that in spending time outside the country in recent years, there are some changes in American culture that he may not have noticed. Some years ago, most people understood "hate speech" to mean those sorts of things you would hear at an American Nazi Party march or read in KKK publications or in sympathetic comments on the edges from a broader group of people who were not members of such groups. It is a sign of progress that those sorts of speech are a little less common than they once were, and we have moved on to a broader understanding of what speech supports prejudice and hate. Those who in the past might have used more inflammatory words now speak in code words and euphemisms. In a context in which violence is hinted, "unpleasantness" is one of those words. Mr. Brown was in the midst of writing about the fine qualities of the people and culture of Malawi when he used that word to describe what gay visitors might encounter. He did not directly suggest that this "unpleasantness" was appropriate, but neither did he in any way suggest that a likelihood of anti-gay violence was one of the shames of Malawi culture, as indeed it is if what one would infer from Mr. Brown's comment is true. For words to border on hate speech, it is not necessary that the speaker is threatening violence. Suggestions that such violence is common and perhaps just one of the local "quirks," a sort of "boys will be boys" attitude, was in the background before the Matthew Shepherd murder in Wyoming and must no longer be allowed to pass without a response. Mr. Brown is concerned that he is being "lectured" by Mr. Joiner about Africa, but in fact Mr. Joiner suggested no more than that, "There are many Africans living on the continent who would take issue with his broad statement." Perhaps Mr. Brown has read the newspaper and knows that gays and lesbians now may legally marry in South Africa, or perhaps not. Mr. Brown could be a little more clear in speaking to us about mores and attitudes in Malawi. He says that he enjoys more religious freedom that we do in the U.S.A., even though in Malawi he describes the attempted appointment of a bishop resulting in a fistfight and police intervention. He does not directly praise the social attitudes in Malawi that forbid married couples from holding hands in public, but since he suggests that they are somehow related to the absence of what he calls "Hollywood-driven propaganda," we might at least infer that he has some positive feeling about them. Given that the incidence of HIV in Malawi is about 15 percent, is most prevalent among young people and is higher among women than among men, I might humbly suggest that attitudes about sexuality in Malawi are really not working out so well. Regarding an analogy between homosexuality and civil rights, I might mention that applauding those who "marched with Martin Luther King" is no longer sufficient to establish one's bona fides on civil rights in the U.S.A., since one can scarcely find anyone not willing to praise an iconic leader now safely dead for nearly four decades. One might better consult reliable sources who knew Dr. King, Congressman John Lewis of Georgia comes to mind, regarding what they think Dr. King would have to say to us today and see if one can support those ideas. Citing an unwillingness to support a Confederate flag resolution as evidence of a progressive stand on civil rights is almost comical. And surely Mr. Brown must also realize that there are an ample number of scholars, including many evangelicals, who would disagree strenuously with his assertion that there is no ambiguity in that handful of Biblical passages that may refer to homosexuality. There is a particular irony in Mr. Brown's protests in being lectured about Africa while he is in the midst of lecturing Mr. Joiner about understanding homosexual Christians. David Carothers Harrisonburg, Va. A response regarding D. James Kennedy September 24, 2007 Any church denomination would have been proud to claim Dr. Kennedy as one of its own, with the exception of the Presbyterian Church (USA). Dr. Kennedy was a voice of reason in an otherwise insane world. Unlike other modern Biblical "scholars," he didn't allow his superior intellect to supersede his faith. David Hankins Memorial Presbyterian Church A question about women pastorates September 24, 2007 It seems to me women who are ordained as ministers of the Word and sacrament have small congregations. I have yet to see any women pastors pastoring churches over 1,000 or more and I wonder why? Louis Stephen Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Don't celebrate Reformation Day as part of 'the purpose of the Reformation' September 21, 2007 John Soares ["Reformation Day is coming," Letters, September 19, 2007] writes to ask that more churches celebrate Reformation Day so that "we may not forget the purpose of the Reformation." Though I am a member of a church that does mark Reformation Day, I imagine that Calvin (and others in the Reformed tradition) would not see celebrating Reformation Day as part of "the purpose of the Reformation." While he certainly must have felt some kinship with Luther, Calvin would likely have been appalled that we observe a holiday created by humans, celebrating a human event (the posting of the 95 Theses). In fact, it wasn't all that long ago that many American Presbyterian churches did not observe such holidays as Christmas (in either public or private life) because they found no Scriptural basis for these celebrations. All this goes to say that perhaps instead of having one day to remember the purpose of the Reformation, we Reformed Christian – both liberal and conservative – should live out the rallying cry ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda – the Church reformed and always being reformed – and, remembering that it is God who does the reforming and not we sinful humans, pray that God will work to reform the Church He has called out. Jacob Gordon Export, Pa. A response to Chris Joiner September 21, 2007 As much as I would rather let it pass, I feel a need to respond to Chris Joiner [Letters, September 19, 2007]: In my letter to The Layman Online, which included a passing reference to the homosexual issue specifically in Africa, I intended no hate nor a threat, veiled or otherwise. But even in today's America, where the last remaining icon is the abstract concept "tolerance," you have the "governator" of a large state who speaks with open contempt of "girlie men." Now then, I first arrived in Malawi nearly 15 years ago. Even today, I don't claim to be an expert on Malawian culture. But I know that it is vastly different from America's. Fifteen years ago, an expatriate male arriving at the airport with long hair would either be given a haircut or else ordered to get back on the airplane and go home. An expatriate woman arriving at the airport in anything other than a skirt or dress would either be given a kachinje (a long, wraparound skirt) or else ordered back on the plane. Here, there is nothing like the ACLU. Once, on an election day, I went to a nearby polling place to observe the voting and was ordered to leave. Here, boys and girls – and married couples – are forbidden to hold hands in public. Here, most people can't afford satellite TV (some of them don't know where their next meal is coming from), so they don't tune in to Will and Grace and the rest of the Hollywood-driven propaganda. So you see, Chris, I was merely acknowledging the fact that social mores here, especially those touching sexuality, are quite different from those of American culture. Oh yes, you said that you thought that Africans would disagree with what I wrote. Are you aware, Chris, that a year or so ago there was an attempt to appoint an expatriate gay bishop in an Anglican diocese in Malawi and fistfights broke out in church? The police had to be called in to break up the fracas. Did you know that, Chris? Actually Chris, just how much do you know about Africa? How much time have you spent here? Please enlighten us with your vast knowledge about African life and culture. I long ago grew weary of being lectured by people who have never set foot in Africa. My general response to my critics: "Come and see." And then you drew a false analogy between the civil rights struggle and the homosexual issue. Now, this is the proud father of an adopted Malawian-born child talking (he's only five now, but I predict he will be the first Olympic gold medalist to win the Nobel Prize in physics). Chris, the Bible gives us wiggle-room regarding the ordination of women, but there is no ambiguity regarding homosexuality – it consistently condemns it. If expressing reservations about gayness is "hate," then God must apologize to Sodom. Homosexuality is a sin, Chris; blackness isn't. I applaud those who marched with Martin Luther King. How much of that struggle did you share, Chris? I once showed up at a party in which everyone attended the singles' group at First Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Miss. I was handed a petition to sign. It was a petition to retain the Confederate "Stars and Bars" – blacks considered it a symbol of racism – on the state flag of Mississippi. I refused to sign the petition, explaining that I saw no reason why Mississippi couldn't design a new flag. I found myself surrounded by a roomful of people all lecturing me at once. It was a lonely feeling. I also felt disappointed at some fellow Presbyterians. So please, Chris, don't accuse me of hate, don't preach to me about Africa, and don't preach to me about civil rights. Larry Brown African Bible College Lilongwe, Malawi A response to Chris Joiner and hate speech September 21, 2007 So, Chris Joiner [Letters, September 19, 2007] now wants to play the hate speech card. We know that it is on the homosexual activist's agenda. Chris should go Leviticus 18:1 and see who the speaker is – it is the maker of heaven and earth who so loved this world that He gave His only Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Homosexuals want to paint those who detest their sins as hate-mongers. Go to Leviticus 20:13, as well as other passages in the book, and see that Moses made it clear that it was God who was speaking, specifying capital punishment for these behaviors. We know from Scripture that the perfect man, Jesus, died for the sins of the world and that He rose again from the grave victorious. He paid the price of death that we each have earned as wages for our sins. So, now the practicing homosexual need not be put to death but, rather, be restored to wholeness through Jesus' stripes by which we are healed. No, it is not hate speech, it is love speech. How different our world would be if we simply followed God's laws. James H. Logan Sr. Rock Hill, S.C. Don't confuse 'local option' on ordination of women and homosexuals September 20, 2007 Meghan Foote [Letters, September 17, 2007] complained that it is not consistent to have a "local option" policy for the ordination of women, but refuse to have one for the ordination of homosexuals. The issue of the ordination of women in Scripture is not clearly stated. On the side against the ordination of women, Paul commanded the church at Corinth that women should not speak in church (I Corinthians14:34-35) and he commanded Timothy that women should not teach or have authority over men (I Timothy 2:11-12, which immediately precedes the Biblical qualifications for elders and deacons). On the side for the ordination of women, the Bible contains passages where women, without Biblical condemnation, do indeed speak in church or teach or have authority over men (e.g., Judges 4:4-5:31; II Kings 22:11-20 Luke 2:36-38; and Acts 18:26, 21.9) and Paul himself commends to the church at Rome a woman named Phoebe, who was a deacon of the church in Cenchrea (Romans16:1). Because "all Scripture is God-breathed" (I Timothy 3:16), and because God does not contradict Himself, these two seemingly contradictory sets of passages must be reconciled. Generally, those Christians who believe that God generally does not call women into ordained ministry believe that the instances where women taught or had authority over men were God-sanctioned exceptions to the rule (akin to His not saying anything to David about his multiplying of wives, which was in clear contradiction of Scripture [Deuteronomy 17:17]), and they believe that Paul's use of the word diakonos in Romans 16:1 is properly interpreted "servant" rather than "deacon," as it is in I Timothy 3:8. Those Christians who believe that God calls women into ordained ministry believe that Paul's proscriptions in I Corinthians14:34-35 and I Timothy 2:11-12 were tied to cultural circumstances in Ephesus (where Timothy was when Paul wrote his first letter to the young evangelist [I Timothy 1:3]) and Corinth. Specifically, in Ephesus there was the cult of Diana (Acts 19), and in Corinth there was the promiscuous cult of Aphrodite. Because these two cults were typically led by priestesses, Paul perhaps wanted to dissociate the new churches planted there from the false teachings of those cults. Both positions have recourse to Scripture and neither position is Biblically unassailable. Historically, the position against the ordination of women has held dominance, but in the last century, the position for the ordination of women has gained favor among Bible-believing Christians. The Evangelical Presbyterian Church, in holding to a local option for the ordination of women, seeks to bring peace to members who fervently hold one or the other position. This peace is all the more necessary, as I can attest, since in a church in another city in which I was previously a member I was a member of the Adult Education Committee when, during one meeting, an elder and a deacon who held these two opposing positions hijacked the meeting to hash out their differences. A local option for the ordination of practicing homosexuals, on the other hand, is untenable because Scripture roundly condemns the practice of homosexuality (Genesis 19:4-7; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17; Judges 19:22-25; Romans 1:24-27; I Corinthians 6:9-10; and I Timothy 1:9-10), and is bereft of examples where God sanctions homosexuality. The ordination of impenitent homosexuals to the offices of elder, deacon or minister of Word and sacrament has no warrant in Scripture, as does the ordination of women, and the position against the ordination of practicing homosexuals is Biblically unassailable (and lest some homosexual apologist lobby some supposedly Biblical arguments against this position, I would reference a previous letter of mine, dated June 18, 2004, titled, "By searching Scriptures to justify sin, we twist its words to suit our meaning," in which I responded to some of the more common attempts by homosexual apologists to try to find some sort of Biblical rationale to support their claims). Loren Golden Overland Park, Kan. A response regarding the EPC and women September 20, 2007 Mr. Steve Jones [Letters, September 18, 2007] does a nice job of muddying the waters around the question of the ordination of women in the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, but does not answer my query. If, as he now says, ordination itself is non-essential, does that mean that any EPC church or presbytery is free to refuse to ordain men? To me that is the heart of the matter. I believe Mr. Jones when he says that Rev. Oliver never said that women are second-class citizens. The Catholic Church, which refuses to ordain women because they do not look like Jesus, also never "says" that women are second-class citizens, but that is how they are treated – as secondary. Tell me that any church or presbytery in the EPC can refuse to ordain men because the ordination of men is non-essential and I will agree that the EPC does not officially treat women as second-class citizens – though, of course, there is the de facto outcome of the policy. Rev. Oliver is so concerned about the love and charity toward those whose "conscience" dictates against ordaining women, one wonders where the love and charity is toward women whose spirit feels called to ordained ministry, but who are effectively blocked by church or presbytery refusal? Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop St. Andrew Presbyterian Church Davenport, Iowa A reply to Megan Foote's letter September 20, 2007 Regarding Ms. Foote's letter [Letters, September 17, 2007]: The last time I checked the Bible, this is what Romans 1:24-31 said: "24 Therefore GOD gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. "25 They exchanged the truth of GOD for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. "26 Because of this, GOD gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. "27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. "28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of GOD, He gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. "29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder,strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, "30 slanderers, GOD-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; "31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. "32 Although they know GOD's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."Nowhere in the Bible can I find the same things said about godly women serving in the ministry, thus the difference. Fred Hoaglin Hilton Head Island, S.C. This is not a response to Meghan Foote September 20, 2007 I am glad to see that there are others who read Meghan Foote's letters [Letters, September 17, 2007] and wonder at the shallowness of understanding which seems to shine through. Both Mr. Pettus [Letters, September 19, 2007] and Ms. Jamieson [Letters, September 19, 2007] did a wonderful job of offering a corrective response to her. What really concerns me is that it seems that there is a deeper issue at play here. This is not about an individual such as Ms Foote. It is about so many of our saints in the pews and congregations who are suffering because they are not being effectively pastored. If Ms. Foote were to take her opinions and understandings to a pastor equipped with sound, traditional Reformed teaching and practice, she would already know how she errs. What she and most other Presbyterian Church (USA) members ought to be asking is: Who is our pastor anyway? Does he (or she) have integrity? Is he (or she) teaching Scripture or opinion? If the pastor is a wonderful person, but does not stand on the firm foundation of the truth of God's Word, that congregation is not being effectively led. How do you know this? Ask yourself some questions. Does the congregation know:
The biggest problem facing us is not found in the activism on either the right or the left. It is in the great middle majority of clergy and members sitting with their eyes averted, pretending that nothing is wrong. Rev. Jim Yearsley Tampa, Fla. Kennedy an 'oh so faux' Presbyterian? September 19, 2007 Today, I read this paragraph by the Presbyterian News Service commenting on the recent passing of Dr. D. James Kennedy: "The Rev. D. James Kennedy, who died Sept. 5 at age 76, was widely described in the media as a Presbyterian. Kennedy, a pioneer Christian broadcaster and megachurch pastor whose conservative worldview helped fuel the rise of the so-called religious right in American politics, was a longtime member of the Presbyterian Church in America, which splintered off of the former Presbyterian Church in the United States in 1973." The paragraph states that Dr. Kennedy was merely "described" as a Presbyterian, though apparently the official mouthpieces of the Presbyterian Church (USA) find that difficult to believe. Often more is said by what is unsaid. While the writer's comment may be described as a statement of truth, it lacks the fullness of truth. Such regard (or lack thereof) for the conservative "competition" smacks of unreasonable, unsustainable and unattractive smugness. Unless we are to believe that the continued growth of the PCA is a fluke and the PCUSA will rally any minute now from it's decades-old decline in membership and support, I would suggest that we all learn from Dr Kennedy. His tireless dedication to preserving and proclaiming the integrity of God's Word amid a religious culture which encourages "sermonettes for Christianettes" has drawn the greater catch. Anyone who watched or heard Dr. Kennedy knows that he was not charismatic in his delivery, nor did he have the entertainment appeal of a hyper-caffeinated showman. His was not the most attractive or dynamic presentation. Instead, people were drawn to the truth of his words, as well as a ministry based on the truth of his convictions as informed by the whole body of Scripture, not just the parts that he agreed with or the parts that agreed with him. His message was consistent, challenging, encouraging and affirming. The entire News Service blurb seems to distance the PCUSA as far as possible from Dr. Kennedy. First, to bolster their claim that Kennedy was "supposedly" Presbyterian, the writer links him with that audacious outlaw splinter group, the PCA – they're not Presbyterian! And secondly, rather than speaking of the positive effects of Dr. Kennedy's ministry, he is painted as one who "regularly" "condemned" and "rejected." There is no mention of what he affirmed: Calvinistic principles such as the sovereignty of God, the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ, salvation through Christ alone, and the reliability and infallibility of Scripture. There is no mention of Evangelism Explosion, his efforts to battle popular cults or his emphasis on global missions. He was quite a man. My beloved PCUSA could learn quite a lot from his successes. I wish they would. Randy Hardy A response to the Beaver-Butler Presbytery proposal September 19, 2007 Finally, something approaching sanity and sanctity and grace. Rev. Bill Solomon executive pastor Montreat EPC Montreat, N.C. A response to the letter by Meghan Foote September 19, 2007 Ordaining a person who practices sexual immorality is to ratify sin. Meghan Foote (Letters, September 17, 2007] asks: "Why is it alright (sic) 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?" Being a woman in and of itself is not sinful behavior. To ordain a woman into leadership is not to advocate sexual immorality. Living a deliberately homosexual lifestyle or a sexually promiscuous heterosexual lifestyle outside of marriage are one in the same: sin. Ordaining a person who practices sexual immorality is to ratify sin and declare it all right in the face of Scriptural teaching that such behavior is unacceptable. For ordination, leadership is the issue. Who sets the moral tone for a community of believers means good people may disagree about gender for servant-leaders. But there is no room for disagreement about what is "good" when it comes to fornication, which is what homosexual behavior is. The ordination of proponents of sexual immorality is to spit in the face of God. Philip Pettus San Gabriel, Calif. Two sides to women's ordination presented in Scripture September 19, 2007 In response to Megan Foote [Letters, September 17, 2007]: She comments on the Evangelical Presbyterian Church's position that women's ordination is a non-essential of the faith and compares it to the local option on homosexual ordination in our own denomination. She asks, "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?" She then states, "There seems to be at least as much Biblical support for not ordaining women as there is for not ordaining homosexuals." I would remind the Ms. Foote that there are two sides to women's ordination presented in Scripture. Paul's admonitions about leaders being "the husband of one wife" and women keeping silent in church stands over and against the women mentioned in leadership positions, such as Priscilla, and as prophetessses and judges. There is enough on either side to honor the conscience of those on either side. In no place, in either the Old or New Testaments, is homoerotic behavior mentioned as anything other than sin, immorality, and even as an "abomination." Scripture offers no other perspective on continuing, unrepentant sin. It calls us to repent and turn from our sin and says, "and such were some of you." Nowhere in Scripture is being a woman represented as being sinful in and of itself, any more than being a person of color is somehow a lesser or more sinful state. This is the error of the argument that places the questions of women's ordination and the civil rights movement in the same category as homosexual ordination and marriage. How can a faithful church bless what God has called an "abomination" in His Word! These three categories are not the same when they are presented in Scripture, and people truly seeking to be faithful to Scripture should not attempt to construe them as such. Mimi Jamieson elder Mills River, N.C. An error in geography September 19, 2007 If you look at the newspaper that the article on the Greenwich church was taken from, you'll note that it comes from Bridgeton, N.J., which is located in southwestern New Jersey on the Delaware River where it flows into Delaware Bay. So, Greenwich Presbyterian Church is located in Greenwich Township, New Jersey, not Connecticut. You might have been thinking of the Presbyterian Church of Old Greenwich, which is in Connecticut, on Long Island Sound. Greenwich, Conn., is the first town that one comes too after crossing into Connecticut on I-95. Just thought you might appreciate the information. Mike Schrowang Londonderry, N.H. Editor's Note: The Layman Online thanks Mr. Schrowang for his sharp eyes. The headline has been corrected, and The Layman Online regrets the error. Reformation Day is coming September 19, 2007 Just a reminder that, while many people and even some churches will be celebrating Halloween, the date of October 31st is Reformation Day for many Protestant churches across the planet. It would be interesting to see a push for the celebration of it, so we may not forget the purpose of the Reformation. John Soares A reply to the letter about Africa and homosexuality September 19, 2007 I have always refrained from writing in to The Layman Online, for a variety of reasons, but I cannot let the recent letter from Larry Brown [Letters, September 18, 2007] go unanswered. I find it appalling that The Layman Online would publish such a letter, since it borders on hate speech. More than that, it contains a less-than-veiled threat of "unpleasantness" if a homosexual perchance wandered openly into his "paradise." Pray tell, what kind of unpleasantness is Brown referring to in this letter? He says that Africans are not noted for their acceptance of homosexuality. There are many Africans living on the continent who would take issue with his broad statement, perhaps even some living in Malawi. They may be keeping silent. I suppose that's wise, since they would not want to experience any "unpleasantness." By the way, that was a popular word in the south in the U.S.A. when whites warned African Americans that if they became "uppity" they would experience "unpleasantness." The Layman Online ought to be ashamed of publishing such an inflammatory and hate-filled, threatening letter. It clearly deviates from our call to embody the Spirit of Christ. Chris Joiner Editor's Note: As part of its news and informational ministry, The Layman Online welcomes letters from its readers, such as those written by Larry Brown and Chris Joiner, and we thank all letter writers for their contributions to this forum. In our original assessment of Mr. Brown's letter and a subsequent review, we see no evidence of "hate speech" in the letter as written. Maybe there's light at the end of the tunnel with Kirkpatrick's retirement September 18, 2007 I was thinking that, with the retirement of Clifton Kirkpatrick, there might be light at the end of the tunnel for our denomination. How naive of me. I am sure that Loren Golden [Letters, September 14, 2007] is right. Frankly, if I was not happy with what is going on at my church, Geneva Presbyterian Church in Laguna Hills, California, I would walk out the door because of what is going on at the denominational level. Louisville does not inspire devotion to Christ. Louis Portillo Laguna Niguel, Calif. The PCUSA's inability to state what is actually 'essential' September 18, 2007 The Rev. Anne-Marie Hislop's letter [Letters, September 17, 2007] illustrates a central concern for evangelicals in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who are considering a move to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church – the PCUSA's inability to state what actually is "essential." The EPC states clearly and succinctly what the essentials are. There is no mention of ordaining anyone because there is nothing essential about ordination. All this was explained by the Rev. Austin Olive in his earlier letter [Letters, September 14, 2007]. If she had read his letter, Rev. Hislop may have noticed that Rev. Olive did not in any way refer to women as "second-class citizens" or "decry" their status in the EPC. Unlike Rev. Olive and the EPC, Rev. Hislop and the PCUSA consider the ordaining of women "essential" while remaining unable to state what the essential tenets of the Christian faith might be. This is truly symptomatic of the PCUSA's sickness. What the Bible states clearly, the PCUSA is unsure of (or, more likely, is unwilling to obey). Where the Bible is, indeed, open to interpretation (i.e., the ordination of women, which is not explicitly addressed), the PCUSA is utterly confident that it has the right answer. In contrast to the EPC's well-known motto, the PCUSA's motto might well be, "In essentials, confusion; in non-essentials, unity; in all things, acceptance; truth is relative." When it comes to evaluating the EPC's position on ordaining women, I'll pay more attention to the Bible and to the ordained women and men (pastors, elders and deacons) of the EPC than I will to PCUSA spin doctors. At least with EPC officers, I know the essential tenets of the faith that they have professed. They, on the other hand, can assume nothing about my beliefs based on my ordination as a PCUSA elder. Steve Jones Kokomo, Ind. |
|
| September
2007 letters, page 2 Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |