Letters to the editor on Achtemeier/Layman controversy Archives of letters to the editor

Achtemeier's solidly Scripture-based theology is beyond dispute February 9, 2005 Mark Achtemeier has been wrongly accused and is fully justified in defending himself. We have never met. He does not know me from Adam's house cat. I greatly respect his work and have read and tried to understand much of it, particularly his joint efforts with Andrew Purves. That work has enriched the lives of PCUSA members in adult Sunday school classes and adult Bible study in our church and throughout the denomination. While he does not need me or other "in the pews" evangelicals to come to his defense, it must be pointed out that his long public track record in supporting the ordination vows, and his solidly Scripture-based theology are beyond dispute. The Layman plays a critical role in the church. I find myself in agreement with 90 percent or more of its positions. Occasionally, as with all human efforts, mistakes can be made. With respect, the investigator who supplied the information to Rev. Williamson for The Layman article really missed on this one. Someone forgot to exercise due diligence before accepting as fact a student's misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Dr. Achtemeier's views. A prompt and genuine apology is in order. Let us not judge too severely a fellow evangelical placed in the position of participating in the task force which operates by consensus. We make a mistake in attempting to attribute his personal views to the collaborative preliminary committee report on Christology. Indeed, the full Christology of Ephesians has been truncated in that report, as aptly observed by Bob Gagnon. However, it is unfair to level criticism against Dr. Achtemeier for the entire committee report. He is but one member of a much larger and more diverse group. I see no basis to conclude that his personal position has changed. For a quick and clear take on his theology as applied to the current state of the denomination and his view of sexuality, one need look no further than Union in Christ, a Declaration for the Church, which he co-authored. It may be found as a link on the front page of the Presbyterian Coalition's Web site. At a time when the voice of evangelicals needs to be clearly articulated within the task force, those of us who proudly proclaim that we are evangelical Presbyterians should feel confident in Dr. Achtemeier's position and applaud the work Jesus Christ is doing through him. Keep up the good work, Mark. George (Pete) Bloss, elder and clerk of session Westminster Presbyterian Church Gulfport, Miss. Seems to be too much 'me' in Achtemeier's teaching style February 9, 2005 The problem with Reverend Dr. Mark Achtemeier is that there appears to be too much of 'me' involved in his teaching style. We are supposed to remove ourselves from the equation when teaching the Word of God. I think he and many other seminary professors have forgotten this concept or abandoned it altogether. It is amazing to me that so many of our church "leaders" are not held accountable and are allowed to get away with this today. What right does anyone have to remove or distort the Word of God? We are merely vessels from which God uses to speak to others. Interjecting our own opinions and prejudices does nothing but get us into trouble and only serves to blur the message. Only God's words inspire. Our words are spiritually empty and useless. To think otherwise is complete arrogance and foolishness. No one has a right to "depart from Biblical tradition," especially those who are training others to teach. Where would we be if Paul had decided to stray from the teachings of Jesus? Can't these supposed learned individuals not see the danger of straying off the path? David Hankins Check the validity of your source's claims February 9, 2005 I believe that it behooves you to check the validity of your source's claims, especially when it involves a sister or brother in Jesus Christ. I believe Dr. Achtemeier when he unequivocally denies the claims in your article. Premature statements concerning such issues as people's positions on homosexuality do not further the cause of Christians who are trying to promote a responsible, evangelical position in our denomination. It only feeds those who desire to discount you further. Daniel E. Hale Petersburg, Va. Hoping Layman got it wrong about Achtemeier February 9, 2005 I don't know if you have seen Mark's response to The Layman's article, posted on Presbynet. My hope is you got it wrong about Mark( though I know it would be a bit awkward for The Layman). In any case I think his statement needs a prompt response. Harriss Ricks Has Layman prostituted itself? February 9, 2005 Based on his rebuttal, The Layman has prostituted itself re Achtemeier article. Though I have sometimes defended your publication, your Achtemeier article is clearly 'over the line.' Lawrence Wood, senior pastor The Church of the Hills, PCUSA Duluth, Ga. Lay Committee is divisive and hurtful to the evangelical cause February 9, 2005 Your refusal to apologize to Dr. Achtemeier for your slanderous comments only continues to foster the view that Lay Committee is divisive and hurtful to the evangelical cause. I openly identify with the evangelical wing of the Presbyterian Church but I find your refusal to accept any responsibility for the false accusations against a fine evangelical scholar to be unacceptable. Robert L. Simmons Phoenix, Ariz. Response to response was superb February 9, 2005 Way to go on the Dr. A thing! Your response to his response is superb. The Layman remains a gem amid the fiberglass. Dr. Robert R. Kopp Article seems like gossip as the Scriptures would define it February 9, 2005 You know the extent of my efforts to support you and Presbyterian Lay Committee as you do your work. I hope you will take that support into consideration when I say that I think you are wrong in the case of the story about Mark Achtemeier. I know how seriously you uphold the Scriptures. Aware of that seriousness, I would share, as a friend, that your article seems like gossip as the Scriptures would define it. You publicly shared information that was hearsay. It was damaging. It was not true. Dr. Achtemeier's reply thoroughly refutes what you reported about him. Dr. Achtemeier was not obligated to return your phone calls. He is right that, in order for education to occur, he must be free to teach without fear that his words will be taken out of context. His hesitation to respond is commendable. Dr. Achtemeier is right to expect an apology. He wrote, "This is a serious breach of journalistic trust, and I demand that the editors of the Layman retract the article and issue a printed public apology." I concur. Rich Zimmerman, pastor Tualatin Plains Presbyterian Church Hillsboro, Ore. Is there a recording of the class discussion? February 9, 2005 I hope that you have verified and substantiated all positions and quotes by Rev. Dr. Mark Achtemeier. Perhaps a student has a tape of the class discussion. It would be unfortunate to see The Layman operating like Dan Rather and CBS News and not checking information carefully before posting an article. I look forward to seeing this clarified. Rev. Tom Unkenholz Confessing Church pastor Harrison, N.Y. Print apology and correction now February 9, 2005 You had better print an apology and correction before losing all credibility. Check out your story next time and discipline the person who ran that without checking out the facts. Greg Wiest What was the rush to publish the article? February 9, 2005 I have to agree with Mark Achtemeier that the Layman Online owes him a retraction and an apology. Regardless of the issues in question, how can The Layman justify printing comments about a class based simply on the viewpoints of "several" students out of 20, and without having spoken to Achtemeier himself? Repeated attempts to contact someone does not justify printing allegations about them. The Layman could have waited until Achtemeier returned home (Achtemeier's desire not to respond seems legitimate to me – who wants to answer such allegations while away from home?) What was the rush to publish the article? Remember the problems CBS had with a story last year when they didn't take the time to properly investigate the charges they made. Parker Williamson and The Layman should admit their mistake, do their homework next time, and humbly apologize for rushing a story without adequate evidence to support it. Rev. Steve Elderbrock Ottawa Presbyterian Church Ottawa, Ohio Student: Achtemeier's comments 'reflect a man whose positions are in dynamic process' February 10, 2005 As one of the students in this now infamous class at Dubuque Seminary, I write to respond to the article from February 7, 2005 titled "PCUSA task force member declares his 'departure from Biblical tradition'." I do not write to defend Dr. Achtemeier. That is not my place, and he has already done so quite strongly for himself. I write because I believe that the printing of this article does great damage to the respectability of those of us fighting from the more "conservative" side of the issues in question. The ethics of how we engage in the debate is surely as important as any victories we hope to win. The unethical journalism of this article has done irreparable damage to the credibility of The Layman (short of a full retraction and apology). The Layman and the students who broke confidence have violated a sacred trust that should exist within the family of God, and therefore have weakened the cause of conservatives by calling into question our integrity. Firstly, while there was no "covenant" in this class that legally bound us students not to discuss what was shared by Dr. Achtemeier that day, there was a value higher than any legal ethic. Namely, honor and trust between student and professor, and between brothers and sisters in Christ. Whichever students spoke to you violated such honor and trust. It is ironic and tragic that these students would violate ethics in the context of taking a class on ethics! Likewise, The Layman's pursuit and printing of such hearsay is a shameful and grievous violation of such bonds of honor and trust between Christians. "A kingdom divided against itself …" Secondly, the reason Dr. Achtemeier asked us to guard in trust what he shared in class is not that he was trying to conceal his positions. Rather, he knew that any isolated comments would be misunderstood out of the context of the much larger discussion in which they came, and because he reserved the right to express his views for himself. This reserved right is what was tragically violated by the students who broke confidence, and by The Layman which irresponsibly printed second-hand information. The comments shared that day seemed to me to reflect a man whose positions are in dynamic process (as I would hope is true for us all). Hence, any quoting of isolated statements as done in The Layman cannot possibly capture the nuance or integrity of such honest, commendable and critical wrestling. Lastly, what Dr. Achtemeier modeled for us students that day in class was not a man who has now betrayed our conservative cause, and therefore doomed the task force and hence the future of the denomination to heresy. Rather, he modeled a humble human who is honestly wrestling with integrity over the very difficult questions of grace, redemption, sanctification and unity. He modeled the importance of first fully understanding the heart, mind and experiences of the opposing side to avoid demonizing and caricature. He modeled what we all – liberals, conservatives and all points in between – need to emulate, not attack, if we are to go forward as the body of Christ engaged in the redemptive work of the kingdom in peace, unity and purity. Christopher English M.Div student UDTS Layman's credibility is coming under question February 10, 2005 You are wrong and your creditability is coming under question by conservative, evangelical Christians in the Presbyterian Church. Timothy A. Wilson Article sounds too much like a defensive excuse February 10, 2005 Sometimes it is more Christian to just go ahead and admit you blew it and that you were wrong. This article sounds too much like a defensive excuse. Nobody is perfect, not even The Layman. Again, I believe that this further weakens your position to set the standard for orthodox, evangelical, Presbyterian Christians. Daniel Hale Petersburg, Va. 'We don't need to alienate Dr. Achtemeier. We need him' February 10, 2005 As a former student of Dr. Achtemeier's, I somehow smelled something amiss regarding the article purporting Dr. Achtemeier's departure from Biblical tradition. As someone moderately conservative myself, I appreciated, in his lectures and in personal discussion, his quite traditional theological positions, yet also his presentation of other opinions. Dr. Achtemeier, while not afraid to put forth his own views, also was fair in presenting opinions with which he did not necessarily agree. And that precisely is what college and post-graduate work is supposed to include. As much as I am a supporter and regular reader of The Layman, I am saddened that it didn't check out "the rest of the story" before printing it. It would have saved no small embarrassment. Dr. Achtemeier was right in so forthrightly demanding a retraction and apology. As a side, but related note, those of us who seek a return to, or preservation of, traditional theology and doctrines (in our view the most Scripturally viable, and thus the ones rightly held), we don't need to alienate Dr. Achtemeier. We need him. And we need him badly. The Layman, I pray all involved will forgive you, that you will do better, and let's move forward together. Rev. Steven L. Seng First Presbyterian Church Wellsburg, W.Va. 'You still owe Achtemeier an apology and a retraction' February 10, 2005 Despite your protestations to the contrary, I believe you have breached the protocols of journalistic integrity with your report on Mark Achtemeier and your refusal to issue any retraction or apology. Your interpretation of his response is vastly different from mine to the extent that I'm wondering if we're reading the same document. You state that he does not deny what you allege in your report – that the church must make room for monogamous same-sex relationships. I believe his response denies this. Furthermore, his response categorically denies or places in context numerous material facts alleged in your article, such as the request for students not to make public statements on what he believes based on quotations taken out of context or misrepresentations of his actual viewpoints on the subject. In hindsight, it appears that Achtemeier had good reasons for making such a request, based on your treatment of this story. I am further dismayed over how you evaluated the quality and veracity of the sources for your story. How do you know that these sources do not have their own agendas? How do you know that they understood the context of Achtemeier's remarks? Also, why could you not wait for Achtemeier to return from an out-of-town trip and then respond, to ask him your specific and even pointed questions then? What was the need to run with the story so quickly that you could not wait a reasonable period of time? I cannot think of one such need, regardless of your deadlines. I appreciate much of what you have done and do in the life of the PCUSA. But now you have crossed the line into the sort of reporting that you, in other situations (especially those that involve you), rail against and decry. You have taken the words of unnamed seminary students, who could have an ax to grind or who could have missed the nuances of the class lecture, over the word of a respected evangelical leader and scholar without giving this leader and scholar an adequate opportunity to explain or to defend himself. I am not a friend or colleague of Achtemeier, so I have no agenda here other than what I currently perceive as unfair treatment by the media. If additional information about this situation comes to light, then perhaps my opinion will change. But as for now, as a former member of both the Evangelical Press Association and Associated Church Press from my previous service as a church magazine editor, I cannot and will not support you here. Despite your best spin on the subject, you still owe Achtemeier an apology and a retraction. Clay J. Brown Associate Pastor for Christian Formation and Discipleship Grace Presbyterian Church Houston, Texas Web site should not be a haven for anyone wanting to publicize their own agenda February 10, 2005 Whereas I am often sympathetic to The Layman's causes, I believe the letter concerning Mark Acthemeier demonstrates a flaw in its reporting. Such a letter should have never been put on your web site without checking its validity. This reminds me of the CBS debacle in which they aired a story about President Bush's National Guard record without verifying the facts or sources. The Layman web site should not be a haven for anyone who wants to publicize their own agenda. If I want to read this kind of journalism, I will go to the checkout line of my neighborhood grocery store. Bob Gant Layman could have waited until Acthemeier could be reached February 10, 2005 Without laying blame on anyone, my opinion is that The Layman could easily have held publication of the story until the good doctor could be reached. I have been a contributor to The Layman for some time, but The Layman's obvious bias concerns me, as does that of the church hierarchy which does a very poor job of keeping Presbyterians informed. C. Richard Nelson Summerville, S.C. Achtemeier didn't refute statements on monogamous same-sex relationships/homosexuality February 11, 2005 You have been taking a lot of criticism from some of your readers lately. There seems to be some concern about the reliability of using Dr. Achtemeier's students as sources for your recent article. As a minister of the Word and sacrament, I can understand that problem. If I had actually said some of the things that some of my parishioners and Sunday school students attributed to me, I would deserve to be in a great deal of trouble. I appreciate Dr. Achtemeier's attempt to set the record straight. But I still have a little problem. It has to do with two statements that I think are the heart of your article. They are "He (Dr. Achtemeier) said he has come to the conclusion that the church needs to support homosexuals who commit themselves to monogamous relationships." And, "He said that he was unwilling to say that homosexual behavior is either a sin or not a sin." I have read Dr. Achtemeier's response several times and although he has proclaimed that he has followed the authority of the Scriptures and seems to be setting forth his orthodoxy, I noticed that he did not refute these two statements. If he really wants to set the record straight, then he should tell us or you what his beliefs really are in this matter. This is of the utmost importance because Dr. Achtemeier is on the PUP task force. We know that this task force was supposed to consist of people of all viewpoints on the theological issues that are dividing us. We know that there are several "progressives" on the task force. We know that there are some "moderates." There were also supposed to be some "conservatives" or "evangelicals." But some of the "conservatives" have been sounding a lot like "moderates" lately. If Dr Achtemeier has moved over to join the moderates on this issue, then (in my humble opinion) there may be only one true "conservative" remaining on the PUP task force As a "conservative," I need to know this as I prepare to review the report of this task force. So does the rest of the PCUSA. And I thank you for sounding the alarm if your allegations are correct. Dave Horner, pastor Mendenhall, Pa. Accurate reporting of hearsay is not accurate reporting February 11, 2005 You have been ably and justly taken to task by several writers, not least by student Christopher English. I would simply add that accurate reporting of hearsay is not accurate reporting. While I appreciate your vigilance and sincerity, you owe him and your readers an apology. On the other hand, I don't know what to make of David Hankins' letter complaining of too much "me" in Dr. Achtemeier's teaching style. Huh? Steve Jones Kokomo, Ind. Achtemeier avoids the issue February 11, 2005 Dr. A still avoids the issue that was brought up by Mr. Williamson. Be a man and answer it. I want the true Presbyterian church back. Pray for us all. John McDonald Posting negative letters indicates that a cover-up is not taking place February 11, 2005 I hope that cooler heads will prevail in the Dr. Achtemeier story. Those who accuse The Layman of rushing to judgment concerning the professor appear to be rushing to judgment themselves. I think we should allow some time for the facts to come out before we start calling for the demise of The Layman. From what I have read, the editors truly believe in the account given by the students. These students were obviously concerned or disturbed by something they heard, or else they concocted a hoax. Remember, the students, whoever they are, took a huge risk by coming forward. If they are to be discovered, they risk all sorts of repercussions. One writer stated that the students broke some kind of honor code by talking about the class. Is a lecture made by a college professor considered protected speech? I never recall taking any oaths of loyalty back in my college days. It is too early to start comparing The Layman to CBS. If The Layman has made a mistake, I am faithfully certain that a retraction will be forthcoming. I base this on the fact that The Layman has consistently printed letters critical of their positions. In fact, almost 100 percent of the letters in the previous two days have been negative. These actions do not indicate to me that a cover-up is taking place. If in fact The Layman makes a retraction, it will exceed the journalism standards of CBS. The question is, will that be enough satisfaction for some of you? It appears from the content of some of the letters that some of you were just waiting for The Layman to make a mistake. I smell a tinge of blood in the water. I know that I am walking out on a limb for The Layman. If they have falsely damaged the reputation of Dr. Achtemeier in any way, they must do everything in their power to repair it. That is the Christian way. However, I for one am not going to abandon a proven friend in our cause over one mistake. That is not the Christian way. David Hankins In zeal to confront legitimate issues, Layman compromised Biblical principle February 11, 2005 I wish to join those who have expressed concern about The Layman's coverage of Dr. Achtemeier's purported comments and his request for an apology/retraction from The Layman, and I urge you to reconsider your response. I am an elder in a Confessing Church and I share The Layman's concerns regarding the theological crisis in the PCUSA. Nonetheless, I find it troubling that The Layman chose to publish its report without first securing Dr. Achtemeier's account of the events in question. The Layman need not be concerned with "scooping" the competition. So you waited seven days before publishing the story. Would there have been harm in waiting until Dr. Achtemeier returned from his travels? Does his failure to respond to your timetable warrant characterizing him as departing from orthodox teaching regarding sexuality and the authority of Scripture? It appears that in your zeal to confront these legitimate issues (which zeal I share), you compromised the Biblical principle of going to one's brother or sister first before exposing the matter to the whole body. Your credibility is indeed compromised. We cannot expect others to repent of their sin when we refuse to repent of our own. Daniel R. Henderson, elder Eastminster Presbyterian Church Grand Rapids, Mich. Parker and The Layman do not 'fabricate stories to advocate ideology' February 11, 2005 Maybe the PCUSA is auditioning for one of those reality shows. Or maybe our thanatos libido is just catching up with us. All I know is Salvador Dali is a lot clearer than what's been going on for too long now. Well, I guess the whole Dr. A thing has emboldened those on the left to call for Parker's head in a liberal Christian kind of way and the accommodating right to show the left that they aren't really lemmings for The Layman. So take that! It reminds me of the faint hearts preparing for the CCM Atlanta gig a few years ago who didn't want Parker to speak because they didn't want to alienate the middle to left. Yeah, right. If that's what new wineskins are all about, then ... Anyway, here are a few quick and unsolicited insights or indigestions. First, while the left and right use Parker and The Layman as whipping boys (sorry about that non-inclusive stuff) whenever it's convenient for either, I have never known Parker and The Layman to fabricate stories to advocate ideology. Hate 'em for what they believe, but don't accuse 'em of reporting what was never said or happened. Ain't a part of their hermeneutic! Second, why does it surprise anyone that a Psalm 55-like evangelical friend would change his position? I've changed lots of positions over the years; except, of course, my Biblically based and constitutionally nurtured Christology. Gee, didn't one of the great confessional scholars of our franchise who became a moderator change his positions on lots of things? Besides, I know lots of so-called evangelicals who show up at judicatory meetings and agree with the last person in conversation while hoping the next person in line didn't hear the last person and on and on and on. Third, I like Parker and The Layman. They have stood for the truth as personified in Jesus and prescribed in the Bible with more courage and consistency than the rest of us who have put personal and vocational securities ahead of Jesus on too many occasions. O.K., pick on Parker and The Layman. And while we're at it, let's censure and silence them. Let's defrock 'em. Isn't that the most liberal thing to do from a conservative perspective? Because I was taught at Princeton to avoid ending a homily with an interrogative, let me add two more words. Chill out. Dr. Robert R. Kopp Isolated remarks in a classroom setting should not be publicized February 11, 2005 I have frequently defended The Layman as a source of information that the liberal hegemony of the PCUSA would prefer unpublished. However, it is simply not possible for me to defend your publishing of Dr. Actemeier's private comments to a seminary class. As the student who had the courage to write to you openly ably points out, isolated remarks in a classroom setting should not find their way into a widely disseminated publication. I might have a different view had Dr. Actemeier systematically tried to influence his students toward the liberal view of Scripture, but there is no evidence of that. A seminary professor should be able to challenge students to think deeply about what they believe without having to respond to inquiries from The Layman about private class discussions. It would be far preferable to wait for the final commission report (which I am very concerned about) and comment on any substantive issues raised by that report rather than expending difficult to recover credibility by publishing articles on isolated classroom comments. Mike Madden Talking Rock, Ga. Williamson and Rather February 11, 2005 Just wondering . . . is The Layman in any way associated with CBS News and is Parker Williamson kin to Dan Rather? Robert Montgomery Tuscaloosa, Ala. Don't question Achtemeier's honor February 14, 2005 Look. Nobody could ever, ever, ever accuse me of being liberal or leftist. Rush Limbaugh might be a bit too liberal for me. However, I studied under both Paul and Elizabeth Achtemeier at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Va. I knew young Mark well enough to know this: If Mark says something is so, then it is so. Period. End of conversation. I may not have always agreed with what he had to say in those few times I spoke with him, but I never dreamed of questioning his honor. In fact, if anyone wishes to question Mark's character; please come see me first. And bring friends. Before I became sensitive, I was part of Special Operations Command. Honor is very important to me, and Dr. Achtemeier has a boat load of it. Now, having said that, I know, maybe as much as anybody, how far our wonderful Presbyterian Church has fallen away from the one who is the truth. But there is no need, in our pursuit of purity, to persecute a truly good man. Let's avoid witch hunts, shall we? Rev. Garet Aldridge Chaplain, USA (Ret) If students are telling the truth, shouldn't someone be concerned? February 14, 2005 Just today I am catching up on past articles and letters to The Layman. The issue dealing with Dr. Achtemeier and the responses of so many who write in to defend his position is not at all unusual for the PCUSA's way of handling the subject of homosexuals in the church. Somehow, with all the finger pointing going on, I have missed the point of the accusers. Sorry, but it is so confusing as I am reading the letters from what seems like a mob ready for a lynching of The Layman. I have to honestly ask myself? Who is in charge? Is there a fair trial going on and does anyone even care about truth and common sense governing us as all hell breaks loose around us? For one so concerned about unity and the spirit of Christ, I'd have never guessed by the tone of the good doctor's letter it was his bottom line. What The Layman reported, right or wrong, is true to who they are as watchman doing a role God has given them over this Church. The jury's not in yet, to be real, but I am not so sure The Layman should be quick to apologize for reporting a story as it was reported to them before further investigation into the truth of the matter? In reality, the situation is serious and requires accountability on the part of one who is professing to be a teacher and authority as ordained by God to teach others his Word who are there preparing for ministry. They, in turn, will be teaching others. Is anyone even interested in what it is they said and why they said it? Should there be an apology on the part of a teacher who confused his own students as to what he believes is right and wrong according to the word of the very God he says he is studying? If the students who have reported what they heard are telling the truth, shouldn't someone care enough to listen to their concerns? Who owes who an apology? Does The Layman owe Dr. Achtemeier an apology for misquoting him before seeking out the source of the words according to young reporters who were on the scene at the time as witnesses? Or, in truth, does Dr. Achtemeier own Jesus Christ an apology for not taking the word of those who have testified of what they heard him say in truth as witnesses but got it right in their reporting? Maybe that is another whole ball of wax nobody wants to even mention. Karen Kolbinsky Hillsborough, N.C. Many feel torn about the Christian view regarding homosexual unions February 15, 2005 The controversy about a professor stating in a classroom that his view regarding homosexual unions is not "Biblical" points to more than poor judgment (if it is true), a gossipy spirit on the part of the students, and our hunger for the prurient and morally repugnant. It really is a parable about where we are as a church. We don't know with certainty what was said by the professor. Students do mishear, and people do misspeak. There was no tape recorder or TV crew capturing the lecture. But that doesn't matter. The crowd is arguing about the person who is at the center of the controversy. He is a good man. He is an evangelical. He is a person of integrity. Or some say, he should resign, he has renounced his evangelical foundations, he is wrong. The commentators line up on the person. But there is more here. If he said what is reported, would that be a position that would exclude him from teaching at Dubuque? Probably not. If he is quoted correctly, he is representative of perhaps 30 or 40 percent of the pastors in our church, and his position would be squarely in the center of those working in our denominational headquarters. His statements, if true, are a true reflection of our theological confusion, our moral relativism, and our departure from our historic roots. But that should surprise no one. If he was quoted incorrectly, then his students have been gossiping and slandering a man without cause. Gossip is a terrible sin. If the students heard him correctly, did they speak with him directly about his statement? Did they go to him in private? Did they ask him to reconsider his position? You see, in these battles the conservatives are often just as guilty as liberals in destroying reputations and casting aspersions unfairly. Gossip, even in the name of winning, is still repugnant. If he is accurately quoted, the students should have dealt with this in the classroom, in the professor's office, and with the board of Dubuque, or even before the presbytery, before it was ever spread upon the pages of any journal. Evangelicals who truly hold to Biblical faith, are not only concerned about defending right morals in sexual matters, but also in matters of gossip and the law of love. Our church acts like a political party, with conservatives and liberals hurling invectives toward one another, rather than seeking to influence each other with grace and truth. But what about those who are willing to listen, wanting to learn, eager to follow Christ – should we not engage them in conversation, or confront them (with love and patience) with the great compendium of confessional history on this matter? This matter was not handled well. There are perhaps thousands of pastors and elders, members of the Presbyterian Church (USA) who are confused, have doubts, and feel torn about the Christian view regarding homosexual unions. But when Biblical truth and the historic record are expressed with venom or with outward assault toward individuals – individuals who are often very kind and well-intentioned people, great harm is done in the war to win hearts to our Biblical faith. So it is not only what we say, but how we say it. It is not only what we hear from others, but how we respond to what we have heard. It is not only Biblical truth but living Biblically in word and in deed that matters. I believe the evangelicals are right in what we say and wrong in how we say it. Thomas Warren, pastor Deltona Presbyterian Church Deltona, Fla. Achtemeier will eventually clarify position on monogamous same-sex relationships March 2, 2005 Thank you for inserting the interesting article written by Dr. Gagnon, I believe, on his own website. I was one who had wondered if you had jumped the gun concerning Professor Achtemeier; it had seemed so to me. Now, I am not so sure. Although I would like to give Professor Achtemeier the benefit of the doubt, I found Dr. Gagnon's words helpful and they provided for me a perspective that was necessary, including how these issues may have been evolving over the past few years. I had received other indications that something in Dr. Achtemeier's position may be changing, but I wasn't sure. To be honest I am still not sure. He will eventually clarify whether or not he believes that the ordination of homosexually oriented people who are committed to a monogamous relationship of the same sex is a Biblical view. In the meantime it behooves us to keep all in our loving prayers during this time when our denomination is so broiled in matters of identity and purpose. Daniel E. Hale Petersburg, Va. Writer doesn't care what Achtemeier's views are regarding homosexuality March 7, 2005 I think it is clear that Mark Achtemeier and Robert Gagnon are talking about two different issues. For Dr. Gagnon, the issue is one of theology: Achtemeier's beliefs on homosexuality. For Dr. Achtemeier the issue is journalistic integrity: false and misleading comments made by a publication within his own denomination. They are not addressing each other's issues in their responses to each other. I happen to agree with Mark Achtemeier, as I noted in an earlier letter, that he has suffered at the hands of The Layman, and that he is owed and deserves an apology for statements made about him based on interviews with a scant number of students from his class and without the journalistic courtesy of an interview with him before publication. For a Christian publication, this type of journalism is especially upsetting. The original article was unfair and did not serve anyone well – not Achtemeier, not his students, not Dubuque, not The Layman, and not the PCUSA. It has only served to ratchet up the rhetoric. I do not know, nor do I really care (to be honest) what Mark Achtemeier's personal views are regarding homosexuality. I put more stock in his description of his class and what he was trying to do in that class rather than a few direct quotes attributed to him by a few students after the fact. I find the whole discussion a little silly, actually – as long as we as a denomination keep trying to smear the "other side" rather than trying to build fellowship through our shared beliefs and being humble enough to listen to people with differing views and acknowledge the possibility – just the possibility – that God might be able to speak through them as well as through us, our denomination will continue to suffer. Being respectful of someone else and engaging with them in dialogue does not mean we condone their positions. Jesus calls us, always, to act out of love – not out of spite or a desire to smear someone, regardless of which side of which issue they may be on. Rev. Steve Elderbrock Ottawa Presbyterian Church Ottawa, Ohio Layman's vitriolic comments alone betray its false prophetic voice March 7, 2005 Consistently throughout the years, The Layman has made spurious claims, published biased reports, presented distorted half-truths, and actively sought to split the Presbyterian Church (USA). This rag is about as credible as a supermarket tabloid. Frankly, I'm surprised that anyone takes it seriously. The paper's vitriolic comments alone betray its false prophetic voice. And if we remember correctly, Jesus had a few choice words for false prophets. The Rev. Scott Alan Nesbitt Ainsworth Community Church Ainsworth, Iowa Achtemeier affair reminiscent Kingsbury controversy March 7, 2005 I share with you your misgivings about the Mark Achtemeier affair and the way it is being handled in the church press, print and internet. However, your comparison of these circumstances with those that faced Prof. John Leith at Columbia Seminary in the '50s puts me in mind of a more recent controversy in which a colleague of John Leith's was put at the center in the 1990's, Union Seminary's Jack Dean Kingsbury. In that instance students "taking notes" induced (or were induced by) the seminary administration to derail a distinguished scholar's career, sparking a schism in the seminary community which has yet to heal. I suggest that the editors, both of The Layman and of The Outlook, review that controversy and what they wrote about it at the time. Perhaps some wisdom might be gleaned that will assist the church and its seminaries in the crisis of the present hour. Reid Dalton Burlington, N.C. Confusion has to do with those who are interpreting God's Word March 7, 2005 As we are reading exchanges between Professor Achtemeir and Dr. Gagnon, it seems most obvious that there is a simple solution. Somebody is not telling the truth. As uncomfortable as it might be to acknowledge the fact of the matter, it's what all things boil down to when there are two sides to a story and they aren't lining up. Especially if they are diametrically opposed. The confusion has to do not with what God himself says, it has to do with those who are interpreting his Word. The bottom line here is coming down to what a word means to whoever interprets that word, whether it be spoken by God or by man, and who is authorized by God himself to interpret his Word for him as he himself meant it when it was initially spoken through the prophets? Does Dr. Achtemeir recognize the Apostle Paul as one given such authority? Was Paul, in his teaching to a culture that was already clearly confused about the subject, simply stating choices that can be made according to belief systems that may exist in Corinth? Rome? Is Paul's teaching about homosexuality being contrary to all of nature and what God has made irrelevant now compared to that of a society who is rapidly descending into the same darkness of thought existed in an Empire whose gods were symbols of sexual power and perversion? Wasn't Paul exhorting the Gentiles who'd been delivered out of such a pagan mentality so the clear light of truth through the Holy Spirit could enlighten their minds and encourage the hearts of those who might yet be confused or deceived into a wrong way of thinking imposed on them by generations of heathen ancestors? Was it Paul's intent to present them with choices or to give them the clear mandate he himself as God's servant had received through his personal prayer life and witnessed to as the truth of God's own Word? Wasn't it the intent of every true prophet and apostle and minister of the gospel to teach others who had come to them seeking truth how they, too, might "know the mind of God" by studying the things God himself has made? If Professor Achtemeier, by his confession of belief, led students to become confused over what to believe God himself has to say, is he teaching truth or opinions of men? If the word "evil" and "abomination" do not apply to the act of homosexuality as clearly stated in the writings of Scripture we profess and confess we believe to be God's own Word, what do they apply to? "Are the words simply being eliminated as no longer relevant to our time?" Karen Kolbinsky Hillsborough, N.C. No 'smear' since Achtemeier hasn't 'denied the substance of the allegations' March 17, 2005 With all due respect, Rev. Steve Elderbrock (Mar. 7 letter) has not read carefully when he claims that I have missed the real issue in the Achtemeier-Layman controversy. According to Rev. Elderbrock, the real issue remains the journalistic "smear" done to Mark Achtemeier by The Layman through "false and misleading comments" and through failure to extend "the journalistic courtesy of an interview with [Mark] before publication." My main point, which Rev. Elderbrock has apparently not grasped, is that there can be no "smear" if the two main allegations are accurate; namely, that he was "unwilling" to say that homosexuality is a sin and had "come to the conclusion" that the church should support committed homosexual unions. Since, as of today, Mark Achtemeier has not denied the substance of the allegations, and since two past statements by Mark suggest their plausibility, where then is the "smear?" Please explain. Moreover, when Rev. Elderbrock complains that Mark was not given an adequate chance to respond to The Layman's story before publication – six phone calls in seven days with an acknowledgement on his spouse's part that he had received the messages – he ignores the fact that Mark himself has never registered such a complaint. Mark didn't return The Layman's calls because he did not want to feed into what he pejoratively perceives as The Layman's self-appointed role as Grand Inquisitor of the PCUSA. Period. And since he still hasn't answered the two key allegations there is no reason to believe that he would have responded to a phone call. Again I ask: where is the "smear?" Please explain. Although Rev. Elderbrock doesn't acknowledge it to himself, it is clear from his last paragraph that what he really means by "smear" is any negative reaction that might arise in the renewal movement from information that one of their influential representatives on the task force may now support the church's acceptance of committed homosexual unions. Sorry, Rev. Elderbrock. Such a reaction is firmly grounded in the witness of Scripture and Jesus and is in no way contradicted by current socio-scientific evidence. I wonder if Rev. Elderbrock would consider it a "smear" if people from the Covenant Network or "More Light" expressed concern over one of their leaders on the task force suggesting the church should withhold endorsement of homosexual unions. Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D. Associate Professor of New Testament Pittsburgh Theological Seminary Achtemeier's articles 'clearly point' to a man 'wrestling with his spiritual principals' March 17, 2005 In regard to the Dr. Mark Achtemeier controversy, we must not forget The Layman has been a loud and persistent voice in attacking the liberalization of Presbyterian seminaries. It should come as no surprise to anyone that it would print an article on that subject, no matter who is involved. To me, Dr. Achtemeier has made the situation worse by his reaction. He has asked The Layman to print a retraction without question. Does this mean that Dr. Achtemeier is beyond reproach? Are professors somehow immune? No matter the circumstances, I believe we have too much of that kind of attitude in the Presbyterian church today. We may come to find out that Dr. Achtemeier is the victim of a terrible misunderstanding or hoax. But, again, he knows what The Layman stands for. Given the evidence, The Layman would have been slammed for not printing the story or softballing it. Should the professor get a pass just because he is one of "our" guys? Doesn't the Bible testify that all of us may suffer for our faith at some time? Are we not warned that even our friends will let us down and persecute us? Would Paul have made such a snit if he were the subject of a negative Layman article? My point is that it is not a Christian response to get all bent out of shape if our pride and ego have been injured. The Layman is our rock as far as illuminating the evil that exists in the church. It does the dirty work that many of us do not want to get involved in. After reading the original article again this weekend, I still cannot find evidence of a witch hunt. The information came from credible sources. It was neither mean-spirited or sugar coated. It is disappointing that some of Dr. Achtemeier's supporters have trivialized and downplayed the student's actions. In fact, Dr. Achtemeier has hardly addressed them at all. Their importance in this matter has been downplayed and all but ignored. The students that came forward claim to have been in the room at the time. I see no reason for them to take such a huge risk of coming forward, unless they were truly concerned with the message Dr. Achtemeier was presenting. The question I have in this situation is why the students did not approach Dr. Achtemeier directly. Were they afraid to do so, and why? Would the professor have had the same reaction to them as he has to The Layman? I wrote recently that Dr. Achtemeier appeared to have too much of "me" in his responses. I pray that he has not allowed himself to become larger or more important than his students. This story is really about them, and what is being taught in seminary. His reaction to the article tends to place him above everything, and most assuredly applies more pressure to the students involved. If anything, Dr. Achtemeier owes an apology to them. In reality, the professor may owe The Layman a debt of gratitude. This public "rebuke" may just serve as a wake up call for him not to stray off the spiritual path. It is possible that he needed some correction from his Christian friends. Instead of an admonition, this could be viewed as an act of love and concern. The Layman has provided many examples in the past of teaching that "departs from tradition." It is nothing more than making the seminaries accountable. If Dr. Achtemeier has nothing to be ashamed of, then he should have no problem with accountability. These are simply questions of Dr. Achtemeier and not accusations. He may truly be a great professor, and this one incident should not be his only legacy. I pray that he and his class will be able to get past this. I also hope that Dr. Achtemeier will realize that he is in denial somewhat on the issue of homosexuality. This is not a condemnation. The two articles he asked us to read clearly point to a man wrestling with his spiritual principals. The depiction of his friend Scott was very poignant. The task force experience has obviously affected him. Many of us can relate to this example. The bottom line is that we just do not know how to solve the problem. I give Dr. Achtemeier credit for having the courage to admit that he is struggling for answers. It is refreshing to see someone of his background having an epiphany. Depending on which side you are on, it may be a positive or negative one, but at least he is willing to talk about it, and it serves more of a purpose than squabbling about who said what to whom in a college classroom. Perhaps it is possible for something positive to come from this debate. I challenge Dr. Achtemeier to put this incident behind us. I say us because it unfortunately has been played out in public. And, I challenge him, because even if he were wronged somehow, he can still rise above it with dignity. He has the power to end this matter. David Hankins Memorial Presbyterian Layman isn't open to the moving of the Spirit March 17, 2005 You do have a way of "reporting" things as though it is an "investigation" into wrong doing. You certainly have been consistent with that disposition in your articles about the work of the task force. Your current article uses terms like "disclose," and "reveal." I thought the work of a task force for to come to meeting of minds, render their work and present it with one voice. If there is need for "minority" reports, so be it. But to try and "dig" out who is writing what is rank with suspicion and an acknowledgment that you trust only those who agree with you or value the insights of those who concur with your opinion(s) on what is or is not acceptable. I don't get the feeling that you are open to the moving of the Spirit but are rather gifted at mandating people to say what you have determined the Spirit is or should be saying at all times, in all places and to all people. It might be helpful if you always disclosed, "revealed" and "disclosed" your sources, your assumptions and the resources that shape and inform your own published articles. Who had a hand in writing what, beyond just the name of the author being given credit for the piece. Seems what you demand of the goose might be good for us who read the writings of the gander. Thank you for your consideration! Bob Martin Black Mountain, N.C. The Layman's criticism of Achtemeier is pitiful March 17, 2005 Having known Dr. Marl Achtemeier since his days at Duke in the '80s, I think he is an extremely committed and serious Christian who shows forth the gospel in his manner of life, teaching, study and writing. His Christologic exegesis is mainstream Reformed theology (and is "conservative" by almost any analysis). The Layman's criticism of this pillar of the church is pitiful. Mark S. Currie, M.D. Did Mark Achtemeier listen to his mother's classes on Biblical theology? June 20, 2007 If, as it has been reported, Dr. Achtemeier truly asked, "Is this harvest of despair consistent with the ministry of Jesus, who broke bread with outcasts and promised life to all who trust in him?" – then I would respectfully suggest that he did not listen closely enough to what his mother had to say in her classes on Biblical theology. As Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier often noted, it is most assuredly true that Jesus regularly broke bread with outcasts, and promised life to all who trust in Him. But she also went on to say that the Gospels inevitably highlighted outcasts such as Zaccheus who, having once been outcasts, repented of their outcast behaviors after having come into the presence of the Messiah. Nor can it accurately be said that the Presbyterian Church (USA) has ruled that self-identified homosexual persons are "categorically unqualified for ordination." Rather, the same standards of qualification are applied equally to both heterosexual and homosexual candidates for ministry: celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in marriage between one man and one woman. Will Dr. Mark Achtemeier, Jack Rogers and others now try to tell us that for 2,000 years the Church of Jesus Christ has been in error, and that Scripture really intended to bless same-sex marriages, but they just never got around to it? This is precisely where their line of reasoning leads us – toward accommodation of sin, rather than transformation of sinners. This is assuredly not the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that Drs. Paul and Elizabeth Achtemeier taught to hundreds of seminarians during their long, faithful and distinguished careers. Perhaps it is fair to say that, in the past, the Church has been inappropriately "homophobic," if such a word actually exists. Nonetheless, the remedy is not to become inappropriately "homophilic," which appears to be the aim of many in our tattered denomination. God hates sin. That's what Dr. Elizabeth Achtemeier taught me. But she also taught me that God loves, redeems and transforms sinners. This, rather than accommodation, should be our aim if we are to be faithful to Scripture. Jonathan Van Deventer Johns Island Presbyterian Church A response to Mark Achtemeier June 20, 2007 Seminary professor raises "unsettling questions." Yes, indeed! It is unsettling to see how far their scholarship has fallen in order to justify the lustful desires of today's society. Normally, I don't bother to read what Presbyterian Church (USA) seminarians have to offer, but a few points in Dr. Achtemeier's offering caught my attention. One was the observation that we have a pastoral problem. "Countless gay and lesbian persons showing up on the church's doorstep do not believe that there is any alternative path available to them other than the way they are on." Well, yes. And countless others show up struggling with all sorts of other problems that they don't want to let go of. Did your Jesus say that if your sinful desires are deeply imbedded and if they give you much pleasure, then they are OK? Mine didn't. "But to ask someone to renounce the possibility of life lived in nuptial communion with another, that is asking them to renounce a piece of their humanity that God has placed in all of us as a good and gracious gift." Wrong! Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the gift to wisely marry is given to everyone. Marriage is blessed, but many faithful servants do and should remain single. Let's see, what was Paul's wife's name? Society is now more tolerant of sin, now that is a fact. But does that mean that God is more tolerant? Yes? Maybe? No? Finally, "God is at work among us." Indeed, indeed, but so is Satan. Whom, then, should we serve? John Cowan Cartersville, Ga. Another response to Mark Achtemeier June 21, 2007 In his address before the Spring President's Colloquium at Austin Theological Seminary, Professor Mark Achtemeier followed retired theology Professor Jack Rogers' lead in suggesting that perhaps a faithful reading of the Bible would lead one to believe that a faithful, monogamous homosexual relationship would be condoned by God. As his premise, Achtemeier draws a comparison between asking practicing homosexuals who are in a committed relationship with one another to break that relationship to asking a man (Achtemeier uses himself in this example) to leave his wife. "I would think (that for the church to ask me to leave my wife) was immoral and unfaithful." First, although it is generally immoral for the church to ask a man to divorce his wife, this principle must not be held to be absolute. After all, this is precisely what the Lord commanded of the Israelite men in Ezra's time who had taken pagan wives (Ezra 10.3). Just as the Israelites were wrong to take pagan wives (Dt. 7.3-4, II Cor. 6.14), so too are individuals wrong who establish sexual relationships – long term or otherwise – with individuals of the same gender. Second, a close or even intimate relationship between two people of the same gender is not in and of itself an evil. After all, the relationship between a father and his son, or between a mother and her daughter, or between brothers, or between sisters, or between two people unrelated to one another to form a close or intimate bond is certainly not forbidden by Scripture. After all, Jonathan son of Saul "made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul" (I Sam. 18.3). It is also not a sin for two unrelated men or two unrelated women to move into the same household, or for that matter to share the same bed. It is, however, a sin for two people of the same gender to engage in sexual relations, regardless of whether or not a committed relationship exists between them. Third, we have Jesus' commands, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments," (Jn. 14.15); "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven," (Mt. 5.17-19); "Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me," (Mt. 10.37); and, "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple" (Lk. 14.26). Following this logic, we start with the presupposition that we love Jesus. If we love Him, we will strive to keep His commandments, not in order to be saved but in thankfulness for His salvation of our souls upon the Cross. Moreover, Jesus claimed the whole of the Old Testament moral law to be in effect, which includes the Scriptural prohibitions against the practice of homosexuality. Thus, if we love Jesus, we will strive to keep not only any commandments He gave us directly in the four Gospels, but also all the moral law, for the Father and the Son are one and do not disagree, and it was the Triune God who gave us both the Old and the New Testament prohibitions against homosexuality. Thus, if we love Jesus, we will obey the Old Testament laws regarding sexual purity. Finally, if we were to love our wedded spouse more than Jesus, we would not be worthy to be His disciple, per His own testimony. How much more, then, are we condemned if we form an elicit sexual relationship forbidden in Scripture and presume to say that we are nonetheless acceptable as a disciple of Jesus. This is precisely the position that individuals who are in a homosexual relationship (committed or otherwise) find themselves in when they seek ordained office in the Church without repenting of that relationship: By their actions, they declare that they love their homosexual partner more than they love the Lord Jesus. They are therefore, by the testimony of Scripture, not worthy of being Jesus' disciples, let alone an ordained leader in His Church. Lastly, if we were to consult John Calvin on this matter, we would not find an ear sympathetic to the homosexual cause. First, Calvin wrote of homosexuals (arsenokoitai) in his Commentary on I Cor. 6.9-11: "The fourth description of crime is the most abominable of all – that monstrous pollution which was but too prevalent in Greece." Now, Calvin did not write extensively on homosexual practice, since it was not common in the 16th century, but regarding cohabitation, he wrote, "Hence, it is evident, that any mode of cohabitation different from marriage is cursed in his sight, and that the conjugal relation was ordained as a necessary means of preventing us from giving way to unbridled lust. Let us beware, therefore, of yielding to indulgence, seeing we are assured that the curse of God lies on every man and woman cohabiting without marriage" (Inst. II.8.41). We can be assured that he would not agree with Achtemeier's and Rogers' sophistry in defending supposedly committed, monogamous homosexual relationships. How, then, are we to treat practicing homosexuals who show up on the church's doorstep? We are to love them as Jesus would love them. We are to show them kindness and treat them graciously and mercifully. But we are not to let them think that their homosexuality is somehow acceptable to God, for while we must love them, we must also speak the truth to them in love (Eph. 4.15). And the truth that we must tell them is not the "truth" of Achtemeier and Rogers "that members of (their) longtime friends and colleagues did not want to hear," a false "truth" that would leave them in their sin and liable to the judgment of God, but the truth that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Heb. 13.8) and that just as it was 2,000 years ago, He desires that all should come to repentance (II Pet. 3.9) and He is willing and able to deliver men and women from the penalty, power and ultimately the presence of sin, including the sin of homosexuality. Now, Achtemeier would leave them in the mindset that "deep in their hearts (they) do not believe there is any moral or practical possibility of their ceasing to be gay." But as the Lord Jesus Himself said, "With man, this is impossible, but with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19.26). Loren Golden Overland Park, Kansas

Home · News · PLC Publications · The Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links