 |
|||
FEEDBACK  |
|||
 |
|||
Gathering VI
October 10, 2001 My wife, Mary Ellen, and I attended the Coalition meeting in Orlando. Both she and I were baptized into the Presbyterian Church as infants. The figures will now show that the two of us have spent 146 years in this church. At that much discussed moment of the Coalition meeting, both of us stood and applauded, but we each perceived that moment from different perspectives. The following day Mary Ellen and I attended different breakout sessions. She chose to attend "Stay, Fight and Win" while I chose to attend "Gracious Separation." She came away from her breakout session deeply impressed by the arguments for staying. I came away from mine equally convinced that sooner or later there will be a separation. You may have guessed at my "dilemma." It may be the same dilemma that has raised so much heat regarding your much discussed article. There were people who applauded at that moment for different reasons. Some like Mary Ellen applauded the words regarding "No tolerance for the status quo." Others like myself applauded the whimsical coincidence of the "Exit Sign" that appeared simultaneously on the screen. In the light of our common dilemma, I would make this appeal. No matter how you applauded – whether we decide to stay or separate, please let's prayerfully do it together. Mary Ellen and I have 146 years at stake. Rev. Bill Hansen Pastor Emeritus Church of the Valley Apple Valley, Calif. 'I did applaud the word exit' October 10, 2001 I was there. I applauded rarely. I did applaud the word "exit." I think I was delighted that finally it posted for all to see. It's like facing your worse fears, there is a kind of release is just acknowledging the possibility. I don't know how many were evoked by the word "exit" nor do I know what they found appealing in the word. Some – maybe very few – might have been thankful for the chance to recognize the camel who has more then his nose in our tent. Gary Miller Thanks for printing both sides October 10, 2001 I have returned from a trip which kept me from Orlando and have had several E-mails in my box regarding the "applause issue" and what it meant. The preponderance of people that I have heard from believed it was in response to the "no more status-quo" statement, but there are good arguments that "exit" could have fostered it as well. I appreciate that you have had the open stance I have seen come forward and will take care to print the other view from the article already published. May I also encourage you to editorialize on what you believe is right. I have so appreciated your views on staying and fighting like there is not tomorrow. Keep putting it out there and keep people informed. Russ Ritchel The writer is pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Winston-Salem, N.C. Disappointed with description of applause October 8, 2001 Of all the things to report on from the Gathering, I'm disappointed that you chose to emphasize the call to exit. Although I didn't remember the crowd standing, obviously there were differing understandings of what exactly people were affirming when they stood – [whether for] Marnie Crumpler's words or the Power Point slide (which said "Exit"). There were 300 folks in the stay-fight-win strategy session as well as Mark Toone's (I suspect folks intentionally split themselves up to have representatives from presbyteries in all the sessions). When the straw poll was taken, 1,300 were not present (since many had already left for the airport) my guess is that maybe 800-900 folks were still there. The straw poll showed equal responses of about 50-50 for stay-fight-win and separating. Bob Howard's presentation got a standing applause and he didn't mention separation. I'm concerned that you are further marginalizing the evangelicals and all the renewal groups that participated in the event by drawing such strong conclusions. I suspect that many at the Gathering will be offended by your article and the brush you are using to paint them. Sue Cyre On second thought … October 8, 2001 I said earlier that I thought The Layman article got the facts substantially right, but that we needed an interpretive understanding … Tonight, however, in a mission committee meeting, the elder from our church who also attended the Gathering prompted my memory with her narrative that included that moment, though this discussion was entirely unknown to her. What she recalled that Marnie said while the exit sign was on the screen that drew such enthusiastic applause was this: "We are not going to settle for the status quo." And that is exactly what I, with this prompting, remember as correct. Yes, the exit sign was on the screen and may have provided some context. But my sense is that one of the strongest points of our unity at the Gathering is just this: We are not going to do this again. Remember Bob Howard drew considerable support when on Wednesday morning he made similar statements. I know I stood and cheered. I did not cheer the exit sign. I cheered the goal that we can not make 2002 another 1978 or 1996 or 1997 or even another 2001 by continuing this controversy. I happen to think that goal is underneath all of our casting about for some other option. Any other option. And I would suggest that there were close to 300 in the chapel for the property discussion and I wonder if there weren't another 300 in the Remember, Repent and Overcome gathering. Sure, we are not going to hold back on considering and being attracted to the ultimate means of not going around the block again on ordination. But I don't think the cheering was for exiting. Half the crowd would not have been doing that. Also, I think the lead that Presbyweb put on the story plays that angle up too much. Thanks for your patience with my memory. I'd be willing to check the tape, if I had one. Maybe someone could do that. Is there a video? Jim Tony You got 'incredible' wrong, too October 8, 2001 You know I am a firm supporter of The Layman, the Confessing Church Movement, the Coalition and the orthodox Reformed faith. So please take this response to the article titled "Possibility of PCUSA split draws standing applause" in the spirit it is meant. You wrote in your report: "And a third issue to draw hearty applause was a single-word response to accusations by some denominational leaders that the Confessing Church Movement is being orchestrated by The Layman, the Coalition or Presbyterians for Renewal. The slide said: 'Incredible!'" This is a small point, but important, as accuracy in reporting is always a chink in our armor that the left seeks to exploit to discredit us. Indeed, the issue that the CCM is being orchestrated by renewal groups was addressed. But the discussion was that the CCM is in reality a grassroots movement and not an organization per se and certainly not the creature of any particular renewal group. But if my memory serves me correctly (and please excuse me if I am in error here) – and you might want to check the video or audio tapes of the message – the slide saying "Incredible!" was in response to the charge that the CCM was undermining the peace, unity and purity of the church. And indeed, this is an incredible charge. Bill Pawson Pembroke Pines, Fla. Interpretive understanding is needed October 8, 2001 I remember the standing ovation. I believe that The Layman reported accurately. Jack Haberer Applause wasn't about schism October 8, 2001 I have to disagree with my friend Jack Adams' recollection of what caused the standing ovation at Gathering VI. It wasn't talk about schism, but the line "Things must change; we won't keep going on like this anymore." (Or something like that.) I stood and hollered with the first person I saw rise! Though one or two talked about schism, the most enthusiasm I saw was for staying, fighting, and winning back our denomination for the glory of God. On a level playing field, where the duly elected have equal voice and unelected denominational bureaucrats are reduced in their power, this will surely happen. Things really can't keep going on like they have been for the last 40 years much longer. Powell Sykes Pastor, Westminster Presbyterian Church Burlington, N.C. Article was a little off track October 8, 2001 The article on the Coalition is a little off track. As I recall the standing ovation was in response to the comment that the status quo could not continue. The applause (mine included) was not for splitting the denomination but in recognition that we have had enough of the current moral decline. Later in the article it says that the one word "Incredible" referred to The Layman sponsoring the CCM. That was not what it spoke to. The slide said that the moderator had said that the three tenets of the CCM were schismatic. It is incredible to think that Jesus as Lord alone, Scripture as infallible, and holiness are schismatic concepts. I recommend you double check the facts as reported in this article. Bill Crawford Attendee at the conference Article may prompt 'I told you so' October 8, 2001 I was distressed and surprised to see the article titled "Possibility of PCUSA split draws standing applause." While the content of the article states that that is not the present intent, those who contend the sole purpose of the Confessing Church Movement is to split the PCUSA are rejoicing over this article with an "I told you so" attitude. Our congregation is questioning the decision of session to join the CCM and we will have a congregational forum next week to discuss this vote and the CCM. I am on session and a strong supporter of the CCM, but I know this article will be available by our opponents at the forum. It will be a difficult one to handle since we have been saying that the purpose is to restore unity and purpose to the denomination and not to split it. Hedy Howe Applause for changing status quo October 8, 2001 In responding to the article published under the headline "Possiblity of PCUSA split draws standing applause," I must offer a correction. While the slide on the screen showed an "Exit" sign, representing one of many options available to evangelicals in the Presbyterian Church (USA), I do not believe that it was the "Exit" sign that most of us were applauding. What we were applauding was the remark made by Marnie Crumpler that one thing was certain, "The status quo cannot be the status quo anymore!" At the end of the gathering there was a straw poll taken of those in attendance, and the vast majority indicated energy to stay, fight, and win rather than leave the denomination. Rev. Jeffrey Hayes Wildrick First Presbyterian Church Dunellen, N.J. Applause for 'status quo' statement October 8, 2001 My heart sank as I read The Layman article "Possibility of PCUSA split draws standing applause" on Oct. 4. I was present at the Coalition Gathering in Orlando and remember vividly the statement we were affirming with a standing ovation. The Rev. Marnie Crumpler said, "People are not satisfied with the status quo." That ovation was a release of years of pent-up frustration over the direction the PCUSA. Unfortunately, the slide projected on the screen at that moment was the last of possible directions for the Confessing Church Movement, and it read "Exit." But the crowd was not demonstrating for a denominational exodus or a church split. I felt awkward that the "Exit" slide stayed up on the screen during our prolonged applause, knowing how that could be misinterpreted by the press. By the meeting's end it was clear that we would not support a "gracious separation" unless/until God's leading was very clear and compelling. As of this date, this leading is not evident, nor could any one of us attending even agree on a list of events that might trigger such a consideration. There was considerable feeling at this meeting, however, that conservative Presbyterians have lost their patience with the status quo and that many are becoming proactive in the workings of our church to bring change and vitality to the witness and ministry of the PCUSA. The first step in that direction is to organize our efforts to defeat Amendment A in the presbyteries. It was not helpful or accurate to portray this electrifying moment at the Coalition Gathering as an indication that the gathered body would celebrate a split of the PCUSA. Please do take it for what it was: a demonstration of our dissatisfaction with the way things are. The Rev. Mary Holder Naegeli Pastor, First Presbyterian Church of Concord Concord, Calif. Tone of articles needs to change October 8, 2001 I would like to give you one reason why many do not like The Layman. It is the tone of your articles. Gathering IV seems to have been a wonderful time for unification around the need for renewal in the denomination – but giving the title or your article with the undertone that a split in the denomination got a standing applause only gives good reason for Rogers and Kirkpatrick to say that CCM and other renewal efforts are devisive. I do appreciate The Layman and all that you are doing to support the CCM, but I would appreciate it if there was a little less divisive talk. There is a couple in my church that I am convinced left (they have now returned after a several month leave) because of the tone of your articles. I plead with you for the sake of the denominations future renewal – think twice or more about how you title and approach reporting the news related to the CCM or the Coalition or any positive renewal group. David Bennett Inquirer, Boston Presbytery Member, Fort Square Presyterian Church Fanning the fires of criticism October 8, 2001 I continue to be dismayed by the responses of those who defend the "Confessing Church Movement" as a means of providing righteousness for the Church. The Presbyterian Lay Committee has throughout its history fanned the fires of continued criticism against the Presbyterian Church, not with the intention of re-forming the church but of embarrassing the church through "ain't it awful" reports on where you have found the church to be failing in faithfulness. You report with pleasure the prospects of schism, and keep tally on a "movement" that you insist has not been "promoted" by the Presbyterian Lay Committee. You have been sewing the seeds of discontent for decades. Why point to denial of your affirmation from the sidelines? I have retired from active ministry. I am saddened by your portrayal of us whom you consider "liberal" to be actively supporting gay lifestyle and homosexuality. You put us in a "box" you created, and have been relentless in defining what our position is. Are you always offended by issues that cannot be resolved yes or no, right or wrong? Will you not trust your brothers and sisters in Christ to be part of an on-going debate which the Book of Order will not resolve? Your characterization of the GA as "apostate" became the final "blow" of your own trumpet to sound what you felt was a prophetic judgment. You probably received an ovation for your forth rightness, but you have undermined much of what it is you profess to support. I don't know that the Lord cares about what happens to the Presbyterian Church USA, but I believe the Lord cares about all of us who profess to be his servants in and through the fellowship of the church and the way in which we seek to be his messengers. In this regard we all have much to learn, but I take no joy in the way you seek to demonstrate the good news of Jesus Christ. Bob McQuilkin Gracious separation' makes sense October 8, 2001 Mark Toone's call for a "gracious separation" makes sense. While he and I would not find ourselves in the same denomination, I would hope we could convey mutual respect in the midst of our disagreements. The issue is not Amendment A and the decisions made by our governing bodies. There are two different visions of the church before us that will express themselves again and again through proposed amendments to our constitutional standards. It is time to deal with the root causes of our differences rather than continuing to fight each other through Book of Order changes. William H. Berger |
|||
Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |
|||