| |
Redwoods PJC should be rebuked for judicial activism
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010
In regard to the Spahr ruling, it seems to me to be an egregious abuse of power for a PJC to use a judicial decision as a forum to stump for a particular theological position, for it clearly and stridently advocates for a policy and theological position that is not presently held by our denomination.
I thought a PJC’s job was to involve itself in resolving a lawsuit and rendering a judicial decision. Explaining the resultant decision is one thing. But the Spahr decision went far beyond that.
In addition, their rebuke of our denomination’s polity on this matter was clearly an even stronger rebuke for those of us who see Scripture clearly indicating homosexual activity as sinful. Thus, in one sense, while seeming to rebuke our denomination as a whole, on the other hand it exhonerated and celebrated those who are working to change our standards while vilifying those who believe God has spoken clearly through His Word. It’s occurred to me to wonder if the Redwoods PJC, itself, ought to be rebuked. Instead of remaining neutral and dealing with matters as a court ought to, they took sides and it grates on me.
There was no necessity for the diatribe on page 3 of the decision. If the PJC decision had come down just as strongly on the other side of the issue I wonder what uproar would have been raised. Isn’t this a clear case of judicial activism? Perhaps I’m naive, but I've always expected courts to be fair and unbiased, especially supposedly Christian courts.
|
Does anyone else feel ‘un-churched?’
Posted Tuesday, August 31, 2010
I was baptized in the Presbyterian church more than 60 years ago and have been a Presbyterian all my life.
I joined my “current” PCUSA church 30 years ago, but am no longer active. At one time, I served on several committees and taught Sunday school.
I think if one is to be active and have a voice in the church, one should donate money, if one can, to help underwrite expenses. I can donate, but I won’t. I won’t donate because I know that a substantial part of every donated dollar helps underwrite the cost of a bloated bureaucracy and a radical agenda.
I am patiently waiting for the Presbyterian Church of America to approve the ordination of women. When it does, I will be ready. So will my wife and daughters.
But, for now, I am “un-churched.”
|
PJC rebuke a faint slap on the wrist
Posted Monday, August 30, 2010
Let’s be clear: Jane Spahr won the day.
The rebuke of Spahr shows that we can always count on certain PJCs in a time of crisis to stand as tall and firm as a gleaming tower of Jello. This rebuke amounts to the faintest imaginable slap on the wrist, especially when set beside the great heap of adulations to Spahr for being “prophetic,” “faithful” and otherwise enlightened.
Furthermore, the PJC’s apologies to the re-unmarried gay couples do not speak for Presbyterians – or Christians – anywhere. The shame over the Bible’s pronouncements regarding homosexuality has them cringing into a corner from which they can do nothing but fling apologies and excuses for their guilt-by-association with Christians who believe the Bible condemns homosexual behavior as sin.
Don’t imagine Spahr felt rebuked; her fortitude (let’s give her that) in these matters proved a greater force than the PJC representing Redwoods Presbytery, Presbyterians everywhere and Christianity in general.
Had we been there, I’m sure we would have been touched by the graciousness of her defeat: Spahr generously and tenderly absolving those who unfortunately felt they had to abide by the clear wording in the Book of Order (you hear that, PCUSA?). I’m sure we missed moments of sympatico affection during breaks, wherein Spahr and PJC members mutually grieved the draconian boundaries all the backward Christians seem to squeeze out of the Scriptures. I’m sure they left these proceedings much closer sisters and brothers. It really brings a tear to the eye.
Despite the ruling, the day was Spahr’s. Biblical Christianity – and evangelical Presbyterianism – lost. Spahr won.
|
Why am I not Catholic?
Posted Monday, August 30, 2010
I was born and baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church (RAC), confirmed in the Presbyterian Church (UPCUSA) and ordained as an elder 40 years ago.
Consider: The late Father Richard John Neuhaus cites Lutheran theologian Peter Brunner as saying, “One does not know what it means to be Lutheran unless one asks every day why he is not Catholic.” Surely Martin Luther himself could have answered Brunner’s question in the 16th century. But would Luther himself choose to leave the Catholic Church in the 21st century? Would he choose to be, say, Presbyterian?
Lately I have been reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, available in the U.S. since 1995. As I read it, I thank God for the deep depository of Christian teaching I find here. I remember Jesus’ promise, “The gates of hell shall not prevail,” and I am comforted. Even if all the efforts of all the renewal groups in all of the mainline Protestant (reformation) churches fail, has the Lord’s promise failed?
Are the failures of the Protestant Churches to witness truly to the Lordship of Jesus Christ leading us back to a “reformed” Holy Catholic Church? What would Luther contest in Roman Catholic teaching today? What would you and I contest? I have begun asking Brunner’s question: Why (remind me again) am I not Catholic?
|
Why has PCUSA singled out Caterpillar?
Posted Friday, August 27, 2010
I find it interesting that no one has done their homework in the PCUSA regarding Caterpillar and Israel. Cat sells its equipment to the U.S. Department of Defense, which then gives it to the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and also to Egypt and the Palestinian Authority as a part of ongoing aid to the region and as a part of the Camp David peace accord. Did anyone clarify that in the latest discussions about the issue? Further, there are hundreds of companies that are in the same situation vis-a-vis Israel. Why is Cat singled out? I just don’t understand, but then again, maybe I do.
|
PCUSA seems to be some sort of neo-pagan political organization
Posted Friday, August 27, 2010
I came to know Christ at a PCUSA church in Vienna, Va., some 12 years ago. A few years later, I moved to Leesburg, Va., and given the lack of a good PCUSA church I started going to an independent evangelical church.
Around the time of my move I also started reading The Layman. I was quite shocked by what I read, since the church in Vienna was relatively conservative and was and still is very much of a Bible-centric church. Over the years I have become more and more discouraged over the direction that the PCUSA was taking.
Your last issue, in which you covered the General Assembly, was perhaps the most depressing I have ever read. If even 50 percent of your coverage is accurate, whatever the PCUSA is at the national level, it is not a Christian church. Instead, it seems to be some sort of neo-pagan political organization, obsessed with sex and homosexuality, and heavily bureaucratic. Little if any time seems to be spent on evangelism or instructing its members in how to live Godly lives.
All this pains me greatly because my initial experience in a PCUSA church was so positive. I will pray for your church
|
Disease language historically has been used against suppressed groups
Posted Friday, August 27, 2010
The question has been raised by two readers why I labeled language dealing with an article posted on The Layman as hate speech. Let me offer some clarification.
What strikes me in the blog post is the language of homosexuality as disease or condition in need of a cure. Historically language of disease and uncleanness has been used against groups that were violently suppressed in societies. Part of the rationale behind Jim Crowe was a sense that African-Americans are somehow “dirty.” A foolish idea but a prevalent one nonetheless. When a group of people is described in this way it demeans them and gives permission to society to look down on them.
As for viewpoint, I have no issue with anyone disagreeing with me. In fact, I value it. What troubles me about this article is that it uses language that is similar to what the left uses to describe “all conservatives” as intolerant or bigoted. That is no more true than the idea that GLBT persons are diseased.
I hope that helps clarify what prompted my letter.
|
Tip of the hat for the August Layman
Posted Thursday, August 26, 2010
I am generally not quite as conservative as The Layman, but I would like to thank you and tip my hat to you for your August 2010 issue. You hit the mark on the GA’s pagan worship, and it needed to be said. And thank you for lifting up the words of Siarhei Herdun and Edith Humphrey. All in all, it was well done, and I wanted to let you know.
|
Article has reasoned arguments not hate speech
Posted Thursday, August 26, 2010
Dr. Robert Wm. Lowry, in his Aug. 23 letter, refers to an article linked under The Layman’s “news” page, “The Top Ten Same Sex Marriage False Facts,” labeling it “hate speech.”
In re-reading the article just now, I see only reasoned arguments and reference to facts. Exactly how do these things amount to “hate speech?”
Dr. Lowry doesn’t explain his accusation; he only says he will cease defending The Layman to his liberal friends.
He concludes his letter with this: “I do not know what has happened to The Layman. Whether it is a matter of editorial policy or the pressing of an agenda, you should be ashamed.”
I’m afraid I do not know what Layman Dr. Lowry has been reading all this time, since I cannot see that this article violates the character of this publication over the years I have known it.
But, finally, since when is truth “hatred?”
|
PCUSA no longer acts like a Bible-believing Christian denomination
Posted Wednesday, August 25, 2010
There are so many stories of congregations wanting to leave the PCUSA and learning that the presbytery covets their real and personal property. Although Scripture teaches us that we should not covet our neighbor’s property, that teaching is only respected by Bible-believing Christians.
The reason congregations want to leave is because the PCUSA no longer acts as one would expect a Bible-believing Christian denomination to act, so it should come as no surprise when the presbytery shows signs of coveting the congregation’s property.
In view of the covetousness displayed by so many presbyteries, congregations should take steps to protect their property well before taking any action to depart. They should examine their organizational documents, the deeds to their property, and so on with legal counsel and take whatever steps are necessary to secure clear title to their property. A congregation may not want to leave the PCUSA, but still should take steps to secure their property in case there is a change of heart.
Lloyd Lunceford’s book, A Guide to Church Property Law, second edition, provides a great overview of church property law, which is changing rapidly due to so much litigation, however it cannot substitute for the advice of counsel in a particular case.
I Corinthians 6:1-8 regarding lawsuits among believers is a problem for some. One should remember that if presbytery officials acted like Christians there would be no need for a lawsuit. It is only because they have stopped acting like Christians and may, in fact, not actually be Christians that a lawsuit becomes necessary. One should have no compunction about suing non-Christians, if necessary, because Paul only criticizes suits between Christians.
Congregations must realize that the officials at the presbytery may not behave as one would expect Christians to behave and it is an open question whether Jesus is still the head of the PCUSA or whether the other guy has taken over, and proceed accordingly.
|
Presbyterians: People of the Book, or people of the stole?
Posted Wednesday, August 25, 2010
I was struck by the number of colorful stoles many Presbyterians were wearing around their necks at this year’s General Assembly in Minneapolis. As I walked up and down the vast corridors of the convention center I noticed that about one-third of the attendees were wearing stoles. If you have not been to a GA the stoles are worn by Presbyterians who support homosexuality and homosexual ordination. Organizations such as Covenant Network and That All May Freely Serve were unreservedly handing out stoles to anyone who wanted to display their support of LBGT (lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender) persons. Someone visiting the GA could conclude by observing all the stoles that the PCUSA is quite supportive of homosexuality. Frankly, I felt a bit out of place wearing a dress shirt and slacks without a stole adorning my neck. During my time in Minneapolis I thought I was an uninvited guest at a gay party.
I have been to most General Assemblies since 1989. I really can’t remember when the push for homosexual ordination became so “in your face.” I spent most of my five days in Minneapolis feeling sad. As a denomination we have logged in many years of fighting over the homosexual issue and have spent so little time learning how we can help minister to those who have unwanted same-sex attraction. We would rather debate this issue rather than roll up our sleeves and do the hard work of ministering to those who have homosexual attraction. I am pointing the finger at myself, progressives and conservatives in the PCUSA.
What I am about to express will make some people angry. I am at a place in my ministry where I don’t care what people think of me. So, here goes. I have found in working with homosexually-identified people that many of them have created God in their own image. They want God to work for them. If God made their life better or pain-free they would trust Him more. When God didn’t change their same-sex attractions they gave up believing that He could. Thinking they can never change, they limited God’s power to transform their lives. They tried to find security and happiness by embracing the words “God created me to be a homosexual.” By believing that lie, they greatly diminished God’s grace, power and unconditional love to change their homosexual affections. When they hear testimonies at the General Assembly of men and women coming out of homosexuality, they don’t believe them. They say, “How can God change them and not me? They must not be true homosexuals.” And to be blunt, I don’t know if many of these homosexually-identified persons have had their hearts warmed by the love of the Savior, Jesus Christ?
I will probably go to the next GA in Pittsburgh (I grew up in Pennsylvania). Most likely more people will be wearing stoles. I assume someday we Presbyterians will be called “people of the stole” instead of “people of the book.” I will wear a dress shirt and slacks with no stole around my neck. And once again I won’t be invited to the gay party.
|
Heartland Presbytery may be guilty of blasphemy
Posted Wednesday, August 25, 2010
This is your wakeup call – again.
If my brother Gary Nusbaum [letter to the editor, posted Aug. 23, 2010] is correct in his statement that: “... the Heartland Presbytery, ... accused Colonial Presbyterian of ‘arrogance’ in rejecting the presbytery’s belief that Jesus is but one of many ways to God,” Heartland Presbytery is itself therefore guilty of blasphemy.
Now, I know that seems an archaic term in this "feel good anything goes denomination" but, it is not. The third mark of the true Church (as defined in our Reformed confessions) that church discipline is maintained. Perhaps it is time for the appropriate synod (or the GA) to empower an administrative commission to take jurisdiction of that out of control judicatory calling itself Heartland Presbytery.
For a presbytery to make a policy statement that it believes that Jesus Christ: “... is but one of many ways to God” is nothing short of blasphemy. Oh, in case you don’t know: blasphemy –behavior or language wherein one insults, offends or vilifies the deity, Christ or the Christian religion.
As I said, if Mr. Nusbaum’s report is accurate, Heartland is guilty of nothing less. Accordingly they have lost any moral authority within the church and should be dismissed accordingly. In fact, I might recommend that position to Colonial as they move forward.
|
Presbytery exhibits the normal behavior of spiritual darkness
Posted Wednesday, August 25, 2010
From all I have been reading, it appears that the PCUSA and Heartland Presbytery are exhibiting the normal behavior of spiritual darkness, since darkness hates the light.
We are seeing this all around us, from the radical gay agenda to the employees at abortion facilities ... and now to so-called church bodies. Groups masquerade as churches when they have no content or purpose worthy of a church.
Hatred is the common response to truth by truth-deniers, by truth compromisers, since a compromised truth is truth no longer.
Jesus said you shall know them by their works. We are also told believers will be known by their love.
All of this sounds like a lesson for us all: We need to love our God, our Savior, the Holy Spirit – and one another more powerfully, more faithfully than ever. If God inhabits our praises, we need to seek to praise more energetically, more enthusiastically, more consistently than ever.
Let’s hum a joyful tune to the Lord as we go about our day – concentrating on our love for Him and for our brothers and sisters in Christ, worldwide.
Nothing makes darkness shrink away more effectively than our open love for our wonderful God and for one another! And while we’re at it, remembering to love our enemies so they will have no basis for their charges against us and, we hope, something that will eventually reach their hearts.
|
Presbytery has effectively abandoned one Christian doctrine after another
Posted Monday, August 23, 2010
I have learned that the Heartland Presbytery, speaking in the infinite wisdom [sic] of its theological pluralism at a meeting with the session, accused Colonial Presbyterian of “arrogance” in rejecting the presbytery’s belief that Jesus is but one of many ways to God.
Even a cursory analysis of that proposition reveals that the presbytery has effectively abandoned one Christian doctrine after another. Those would include, to mention only a few:
the doctrines of sin and total depravity
- the doctrine of hell
- the doctrine of Christ
- the doctrine of the sovereignty of God
- the doctrines of atonement and substitutionary atonement and limited atonement
- the doctrine of particular redemption
- the doctrine of irresistible grace
- the “Five Solas”
Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness)
Solo Christa (salvation is by Christ alone)
Sola Gratia (salvation is by grace of God alone)
Sola Fide (salvation is by faith alone)
Soli Deo Gloria (all is to be done for the glory of God alone)
- the doctrine of unconditional election
- the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints
Indeed they have abandoned so many of the foundational doctrines of the faith that what remains “is not Christianity at all, but a religion which is so entirely different from Christianity as to belong in a distinct category.” (Machen, J. Gresham, Christianity and Liberalism: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman, 1923) Machen correctly observed in The New York Times that “two mutually exclusive religions are being proclaimed in the pulpits of the Presbyterian Church.” (Machen, J. Gresham: The New York Times, January 10, 1924)
This cannot stand. It is blasphemy to reject Jesus’ own exclusive and unique claim to be the one and only way to the Father, and “represents a return to an un-Christian and sub-Christian form of religious life.” (Machen, J. Gresham, Christianity and Liberalism: Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdman, 1923)
It nullifies grace in favor of a self-made religion that attributes spiritual empowerment to the natural, unregenerate man. This I categorically reject.
Additionally, if this proposition of the presbytery truly reflects the heart of its representatives, then I categorically reject the notion that they and I share in any brotherly relationship whatsoever. Though they hold to a universal “brotherhood of man,” the true brotherhood according to the teaching of Scripture is the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of the redeemed in Christ, of which they cannot by their own admission be a part of, protests to the contrary notwithstanding.
Paul says in 1 Corinthians that in spite of our Christian liberty, we should do nothing to make a less mature brother in the faith stumble. How much more, then, should we not do to allow a non-believing, albeit professing, individual to labor under the misconception that they are among the brotherhood of the redeemed? That would certainly not be the loving thing to do!
Therefore I shall cast my vote in favor of leaving the PCUSA.
|
‘What If …’
Posted Monday, August 23, 2010
We need more like this, hope it gets great response.
|