 |
|
FEEDBACK  |
|
 |
|
Amendment A When will debate over sex end? December 19, 2001 When will this finally be over? Our denomination has spent too much time, too much effort and, dare I say, too much money debating this issue. Is it even possible that when Amendment A is defeated -- and it will be defeated -- that those on the "left" will give up? Our continued debate about this issue is making us a laughingstock. We can only hope. Rob McLallen Elder Fairfax Presbyterian Church Fairfax, Va. Who'll lead us out of decline? December 12, 2001 In all of the earnest debate about Amendment A, has any progress been made in hiring someone to lead our denomination in its number one goal? I realize that not many folk will probably want to take a position in Louisville right now, especially when it looks like the part of the denomination that needs the most help with evangelism (the More Light crowd) is going to self-destruct. But truthfully, it seems to me that since the Confessing Church Movement and the Presbyterian Coalition is in for the long haul of "Stay, Fight, Win" there has to be someone among those vibrant congregations willing to shoulder the burden of leading PC(USA) out of the morass of membership decline. Donald D. Denton Jr. The consequences of Amendment A December 14, 2001 I wonder sometimes if we really stop to consider just what the actual consequences are of voting yes on Amendment A. As I was preparing to go to our Presbytery's recent meeting, during which we were to vote on Amendment A, something dawned on me. Numerous names out of The Bible and out of history came to me. Let me share them with you: Adam, Eve, Moses, Abraham, David, Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Ruth, Hosea, the Apostle Paul, the Apostle Peter, the Apostle John, Timothy, Mary, St. Francis, Origin, St. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Spurgeon, Phinney, Wesley, Barth, Graham and Jesus Christ. As I pondered these great men and women of the Bible and of our common Christian history, a new depth of meaning came to me in this whole debate. Based on everything I'd ever read or studied about all or any of these people, it seemed quite clear that none of them would ever vote in favor of Amendment A. That being the case, it became crystal clear to me that anyone who votes in favor of changing our denomination's ordination standards via such an amendment must part company with all of these folks. Moreover, it would mean that each and every one of them had seriously failed to follow God's Word on this issue before us. In addition, if Amendment A were to somehow pass, our denomination would immediately, it seems to me, be responsible for writing a huge apology to gay men and women over the ages as well as in the present. It would be morally incumbent upon us to have to admit that now, and only now, the full light of God's Word has been shed on this subject and that all our forefathers and mothers, such as those listed above, were terribly misguided in their faith. I just wonder if those voting for Amendment A realize the breadth and depth of what they are actually putting forth and what it really means. John McWilliams Full-time Missionary Naples, Fla. No debate on Amendment A December 14, 2001 I thought you would like to know that when Amendment 01-A was brought up for a vote at the Presbytery of Southern Kansas meeting, there was absolutely no debate. The council had docketed a time of small group discussion, emphasizing the time should be spent in listening to each other, and not persuading each other. That time was amended to add 15 minutes for prayer at the end. When it came time for debate, the procedure was very clearly outlined, timekeepers were in place and mikes were ready. When debate was called for, no one came forward. Finally, someone moved the previous question and the vote was taken. With all the good the above indicates, there were two things I personally found somewhat disturbing. The last amendment we voted on included a large number of changes to the Book of Order, chapter 14. Not having done my homework, I was overwhelmed at the number of changes and did not have the time left to read them all. During the debate, I asked if the changes were originated by the church membership or the church staff. I was informed that the changes were requested by the stated clerk (staff) and the work was done by General Assembly staff. What disturbs me is that the professional staff of any organization has no business making changes in that organization's constitution unless they are requested to make recomendations by the membership. In the case of the PCUSA, the request should have originated at the presbytery level. Once the above factor was pointed out, there was other debate against the changes, and the vote approving the amendment was fairly close and had to be clarified by a standing vote count. The other disturbing item was the various elections, including commissioners to General Assembly. I had never attended presbytery when one of these votes was taken before this year, so I was (I'll use the word again) disturbed with the procedure. The nominating committee only submitted one name for each position. I understand that this may be acceptable when nominating people for committees within the presbytery, but not for commissioners to GA. One person was nominated from the floor, but as expected, she was defeated. The vote split was similar to the vote on the chapter 14 changes. The problem as I see it is that the people who are constantly active in the presbytery, moving from committee to committee according to the term limits, get to pick their own candidates. This allows people of one position or another on certain issues to communicate between presbyteries and stack the deck with people they are certain will vote the way they want them to on controversial issues. It would appear that something needs to be done at the presbytery level to both begin to nominate more than one person for each position and to encourage people to get actively involved in "running" for these positions. Then the people who are asked to vote will know more about them and which way they would expect to vote at GA. Howard W. Tice 4840 Kimberly Lane Wichita, Kan. Voice of the pews needs to be heard November 7, 2001 As a member of the Presbyterian Panel, I want to underscore how important it is to see the "voice of the pews" represented in the vote on Amendment A. The denomination's surveys make it clear where the heart of this church truly is. If ever there was a classic situation where the vast majority of an electorate must assert itself, this is it. If that voice is to be heard, each session must ensure solid representation and coordination to ensure the defeat of Amendment A. This is not a time for equivocation or anything less than exclusive solidarity to carry the membership's message. Calls for "fairness" or "proportionate representation" are unacceptable because the majority must rule in an up-or-down final tally. The future of this denomination, embodied in the Amendment A outcome, will not be determined on "proportionate representation" either. Each member of this denomination is personally responsible for those who vote at presbytery. First, make sure your representatives are subservient Biblically and give them explicit instructions. Second, make them accountable! Require a report of their recorded vote back to session. Third, ensure all other churches in your presbytery are fully organized along similar lines. Lastly, ensure turnout because in elections like this, there are no excuses or second chances. That means identifying and driving all your members and even retired clergy to ensure a victory. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. We have our call, we have the clear and compelling Scripture upon which to test our mission, and we have no excuses if we fail to run this race. Dan Greenblat Mount Soledad Presbyterian Church La Jolla, Calif. |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |