Letters to the Editor

Sept/Oct, 1997
I am a minister of the Presbyterian Church of Australia, ministering as national Convener and NSW Director for Christian Education; one of 12 trustees of denominational finances; lecturer at the Presbyterian Theological Centre in NSW; and a published author on Australian Presbyterianism. I was a pastor for 10 years before my present educational roles.

I have just finished reading your Standing Firm: Reclaiming Christian Faith in Times of Controversy. I write to offer encouragement to you and like-minded people in the PCUSA. As a lecturer in the history and thought of Christianity with a particular interest in the history of ideas, I was both interested and impressed with the historical and theological framework for your discussion of PCUSA issues.

David Burke, Mittagong, Australia
I was appalled, offended, and embarrassed by your July/August edition, which featured the General Assembly meeting. You made it sound as if the commissioners were too lame, dull witted, and stupid to make wise decisions. Instead, we were controlled by inordinate back room politicking, parliamentary maneuvering, and outside interests

It is true that once Amendment B+ [the Syracuse amendment that proposes to delete the Constitution’s sexual behavior standards for ordained leaders] passed, there were those in the halls who celebrated and sang. Some of us celebrated not because the changes would permit the ordination of anyone who was not ordainable under Amendment B [the Constitution] but because … B+ [the Syracuse amendment] brought the amendment [the Constitution] into agreement with our vows.

Parrish Jones, Windber, PA

Ms. Mary Ann Lundy and her cohorts pray to the goddess Sophia. Certainly Ms. Lundy and her colleagues have the right to practice their own religion, but they should hire their own hall and pay for it out of their own pockets. Presbyterians should not be expected to sponsor her idolatry. And what of the future? Will Buddhists also be allowed to appear at General Assemblies and hold prayer services to their gods? Who planned the 209th General Assembly in Syracuse?

David Dudenhoefer, Fort Worth, TX

If our church is split asunder, it will be because of your head-in-the-sand, unChristian attitude. Why not find an acceptable Christ-like basis wherein Presbyterians can embrace each other and get on with making a better church and a better world?

Ernest Ohle, Tucson, AZ

We are privileged in this year of our Lord 1997 to be witness to a rare event in the annals of legislation, the Syracuse Amendment [Amendment A]. We are being urged to make a law more, rather than less, vague. Why this sudden reversal of normal process?

If this were the world of secular politics, the best way to find out would be to employ the old rule: Follow the money. But this is a church battle, so try another old rule: Qui bono, or who gets something out of this? Now it becomes clear. Look to see who is supporting Amendment A. Is it supporters of orthodoxy, of the great Reformed Tradition, that which we received and want to pass on to our children? It is not.

Despite all the denials that this amendment would open the pulpits to self avowed practicing homosexuals, it is they and their supporters who placed this amendment before the Syracuse Assembly and who are pushing it in our presbyteries. We may not be able to see how it benefits them, especially if we let speaker after speaker tell us, in the words of that great charlatan, the Wizard of Oz, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” But they can see it. They orchestrated the Syracuse General Assembly. They were organized, focused and singleminded. And this amendment is what their minds were on. If they want this passed, that alone is reason enough for us to be opposed.

Lowrie Beacham, Durham, NC

I find your publication to be too one-sided and divisive. The insert in the July/August issue … was insulting to me as a commissioner to the 1997 General Assembly. You’ve made it sound as though we were all possessed of the devil and too stupid to know right from wrong. Could it be that the Holy Spirit was as much at work at the 1997 General Assembly as it was at the 1996 General Assembly?

June Sievers, Dover, NJ

I am not a Presbyterian, but I have always appreciated your centuries of sound doctrine, your backbone in standing for the right (your “Presbyterian Rebellion” in 1776, for example), and the greatest reformer of them all, John Calvin. I support your work in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Ormond Howard, Ione, CA

I can only assume from what I read that your view of the Word of God is alarmingly narrow and your objective to “provide an adequate and reliable source of information” about our denomination is specious, to say the least. I worship and serve the God of Love whose primary message in scripture is “that we should love one another as God has loved us.” I see no evidence of that love in your publication.

Katherine Brouwer, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI

Excerpts of an open letter to Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick from the Session of Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church, Palos Park, IL, in response to an “open letter” signed by the Stated Clerk and the Moderator:

“We had counted on the Stated Clerk to affirm and even defend the Constitution produced by the orderly process of Constitutional amendment, at least until that same process has produced any further change. We are deeply disappointed that you have chosen, instead, to promote the change proposed by the recent General Assembly. You call it “more in accord with the historical understanding of Presbyterian polity.” More in accord than the Constitution itself? … We are deeply disturbed to find the officer of the court who will be called upon to interpret the Constitution overtly biased against the Constitution …

“We want you, and our brothers and sisters in Christ, to know that we reject your assessment that the proposal to change G-60106b represents “unity on divisive issues.” We believe it has brought shame on us as officers. Our assessment leads us to believe that large sums of money, energy and attention will need to be spent to overcome the dissension created by this proposal. In addition, we now sense that the very officers who are charged to support the processes of orderly and fair consideration, may be promoting divisive and corrosive changes. We frankly wonder whether we can continue to support this promotion of the very causes of our division …”

James R. Tony, Moderator; Nancy Rode, Clerk, Palos Park Presbyterian Community Church, Palos Park, IL

I constantly thank God for the work of The Presbyterian Layman. I applaud your tenacity in continuing the superb research and dogged determinism for the truth. I realize that many must be the times in which you and the staff of The Presbyterian Layman are besieged with exhaustion and a feeling of spiritual abandonment by the very church you love. Know that I keep you in my daily prayers. Continue the good work in the Lord.

Gilbert Fitzsimmons, Pittsburgh, PA

Every time I receive [The Presbyterian Layman] my stomach becomes upset … It seems you as a group have a special relationship with God and Jesus that no one else has or could have. How do you become a member of such an elite group?

In my journey for knowledge I do not contend that what others do or their interpretations are wrong. I am a Deacon and Elder, and have been the Elder for the Adult Education Program for our church. The programs I put together were on many subjects dealing with the problems of today … When it is time to answer for what I have done with my life, I can say that it was spent in a positive way.

Bruce Nelson, Novato, CA

After reading your May/June issue we were excited to know that there is a solid Reformed voice in our denomination. Sometimes the policies and views on important biblical and social issues that are taken by our denomination are depressing to us. It is reassuring to know that there is a voice out there that stands for the faith and values of historic Presbyterianism. Don’t back down.

Randy Haas, Wilcox, AZ

Too many people, even some of our pastors and priests, adopt a mistaken assumption. They assume that because Jesus “stood behind” a prostitute and an adulteress, Jesus condoned, accepted and encouraged their behavior. Think about it: If a prostitute had gone to the Last Supper in a pair of shorts and a see-through blouse and offered to rent herself out to anyone there, Jesus included, what do you think would have happened?

To the adulteress Jesus said, “Go, and sin no more.” He did not say, “Go, and sin lots more,” and he certainly did not tell his followers to “stand behind” those who refuse to repent of their sins. Jesus could see the heart of the woman. He could see that she was ashamed, embarrassed, remorseful and had the attitude of repentance for what she was and had done. In that light Jesus today stands behind those who have chosen to leave behind their former adulterous and homosexual behavior.

Robert Forman, Lakewood, CO

There are women, ostensibly Christian, who feel they cannot worship a male God. They have created a god in their own image, called Sophia, or they have taken to worshiping Diana or Artemis, or some similar pagan deity. These women are theologically and historically ignorant.

Theologically: God is Spirit. He has no gender. We use the pronoun “He” to refer to God because English does not have a genderless pronoun that refers to a person, and we worship a personal, living God. To use the pronoun “she” would be no more correct than the traditional “He.”

Historically: To accomplish his purposes, God had to come to “dwell among us” as a man, the Son of God. In that time and culture, to come as a woman would have been futile, since women had no standing or “clout,” to use a current concept. No woman could have challenged publicly the religious leadership of that day, nor could she have “proclaimed the gospel” to the populace. And I am sure that neither religious leaders nor Roman rulers would have crucified a woman. A “Son of God” was the only option.

Finally, when women feel that God should have come as a woman and declare that they cannot worship Jesus Christ because he is a “male God” they are passing judgment on the way God chose to enter this world. They are saying that God made a mistake. How can any Christian say this?

Helen Tucker, Detroit, MI
Home · News · PLC Publications · The Presbyterian Layman
Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links