 |
|
FEEDBACK  |
|
 |
|
May letters Warning against ecumenical group disheartening May 22, 2002 Regarding "Theologian is wary about new ecumenical movement" [May 15], it is extremely disheartening that Mr. Ogden (and The Layman) count as DOA any new attempt to include evangelicals in ecumenical association unless there is total capitulation on economic issues in favor of the dominant "free market" orthodoxy right wing politicians (claim) to embrace. The Bible judges severely those practices which lead to exploitation of the poor by the rich and by implication is even more critical of those practices which accuse the poor of exploiting the rich (oxymoronic as that sounds, this is what a lot of the right wing rhetoric boils down to). I know The Layman will not agree to the above characterization – but at the least you all should support the idea of trying to talk about these things together. There is a growing attempt to be more inclusive precisely on the basis of those "essentials" of the faith that there has been so much diatribe about! Have the guts to insist on that as the basis of the new ecumenism also AND then try to advance any other social agenda you think the Bible supports. But when you dismiss the latest call for real dialogue out of hand you betray yourselves – as a right-wing economic interest group using orthodoxy to cover your real agenda much like a wolf in sheep's clothing. Truly I hope you can say it isn't so. I have tried to support The Layman on many issues but always the hidden economic agenda pops up, especially after you win one or two! (Like the rounds on ordaining active gays, which thankfully was defeated, and more importantly on asserting uncompromisingly that Jesus IS Lord of all.) But always I wind up disappointed..... Again, say it ain't so....! Robert R. von Oeyen Jr., pastor Bethany Presbyterian Church Staunton, Va. A last gasp for liberal theology May 22, 2002 Once again, Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick is taking the denomination in a direction he wants it to go, apparently without bothering to ask the rest of us what we think. "Christian Churches Together" sounds more like the last desperate gasp for liberal theology than, in Kirkpatrick's words, "a major turning point for the ecumenical life in this country." I do not dispute the PCUSA's charge to ecumenical commitment with other Christian bodies (Book of Order G-15.0102), but I question the wisdom of aligning with a movement that implies in its assertions that it will be able to "embrace the full spectrum of Christian belief in the United States." Has anyone stopped to ask what that means? And what it will lead to? G-15.0102 states, "The Presbyterian Church (USA) will seek to initiate, maintain and strengthen its relations to, and engage in mission with, other Presbyterian and Reformed bodies and with other Christian churches, alliances, councils, and consortia." Note that "other Presbyterian and Reformed bodies" is listed before "other Christian churches, alliances, councils, and consortia." Why is it that the PCUSA leadership is so eager to engage the latter while almost completely ignoring the former? If Mr. Kirkpatrick wants to participate in a major turning point for ecumenism, he ought to focus the PCUSA on unity in the Gospel, rather than the gospel of unity. As Iain Murray explains in his book Evangelicalism Divided, we've been down this road already and it simply leads to confusion. I would suggest as an ecumenical movement one that is already bearing much fruit – The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals. Our problem is that we keep trying to reach for unity on the world's terms instead of repenting and putting our trust in Christ who alone is the Church's hope for unity. The reason no current ecumenical organization embraces the "full spectrum of Christian belief in the United States" ought to be obvious. It would be syncretic, not Christian. Any movement that claims to strive for such a preposterous distinction without first defining and limiting the term "Christian" ought to be fled from, not embraced. Eric Taylor, Elder Chapel by the Lake Juneau, Alaska Not all Presbyterians are disappearing May 22, 2002 Regarding Chuck Larson's lament that in 50 years there will be no Presbyterians: Sure there will be. They will all be in the PCA, the OPC, the EPC and the BPC. All of these bodies are growing numerically while the PCUSA is shrinking. Orthodox Christian Calvinist evangelical theology reaches people with good news of Jesus Christ. Do not despair! In 50 years there will be plenty of Presbyterians (unless Jesus comes again before then). P. J. Southam Circleville case another outrageous decision May 22, 2002 This is another outrageous decision by our Apostate Franchise. The only thing Circleville should be responsible for is assuming any outstanding debts/mortgages. Dick Lewis, elder Loves Park, Ill. Why raise $40 million for disappearing church? May 16, 2002 Isn't it interesting how we are now repairing to raise $40 million for new church development all the while our membership declines each year at the rate of three churches per week each with a membership of 200. Wouldn't it be wonderful to just stop the hemorrhaging of our membership, let alone all this big talk about starting new churches. Again, those in authority just don't get it. I have yet to read where Louisville is lamenting the sad situation of membership losses. At this rate, in 50 years there will be no Presbyterians left. Chuck Larsen Minden, Neb. Knees bend in the name of culture May 17, 2002 Is the music they make in the choir of the Seigle Avenue Presbyterian Church as well orchestrated as their exit? I doubt it for it's unlikely the "hospitality" crowd that rudely made their exit to make their point can read a score with greater discernment than they apply to Scripture. Knees bend in hasty retreat in the name of "culture" and "hospitality" that will not bow to the Name Above All Names, Jesus the Christ. Derek Simmons, elder Santa Rosa, Calif. Jesus didn't welcome 'whitewashed tombs' May 17, 2002 In your article regarding the Charlotte choir members' protest of Anne Graham Lotz' characterization of "homosexuality as sin," you quote the Rev. R. David Kaylor, interim pastor of Seigle Avenue Presbyterian Church, supporting that protest by noting that "[Jesus] welcomed all people. …" That is not exactly true. Jesus, in particular, denounced religious leaders who taught their own doctrines rather than the truth as "whitewashed tombs." The PCUSA, whatever else its shortcomings, is apparently suffering no lack of whitewashed tombs in its pulpits these days. Scott Kelly Collingswood, N.J. Anne Graham Lotz was correct May 17, 2002 Homosexuality, lesbianism, bestiality, bisexuality and other sexual behaviors used to be called deviant behavior, but today our society tolerates them by being politically correct. Anne Graham Lotz called homosexuality what it is – sin – and until the PCUSA and other denominations/fellowships accept the moral authority of the Holy Bible, this problem will plague America. Without morality from the Holy Bible, our society – any society – is doomed to failure. Lotz called at as she saw it from Scripture, which the church of Jesus Christ has been entrusted to protect and preach, the Bible being the Word of God. For those who walked out, please pray that God in Christ will work in their lives. Christ did not speak out, but that culture knew the issue of same sex behavior. Jesus was a friend of the down and out, a friend of same-sex people along with others, and Christ is our example of how to reach all peoples. But the body of Christ must not condone the behavior and must evangelize all people as commanded in Matt. 28:18-20. The Body of Christ has done a bad job reaching the unlovely, but we must begin to reach those who are not like us, love them and live Christ-like lives for all the world to see Christ in us, the hope and glory. Christ did not condone the behavior of the above, but has set the example, even dying on the cross, shedding his blood for his elect, giving his elect the mandate to evangelize the world for him. Lou S. Nowasielski Wilmington, Del. Bible is clear about what is sinful May 17, 2002 First, Anne Graham Lotz is absolutely right in characterizing homosexual practice as a sin. Since when does the Presbyterian Church (USA) decide what is and is not a sin? That is what the Bible does and, by adhering to Biblical standards, we then declare the Word of God. There simply is no way around the Biblical position on homosexuality: it is a grievous sin in the eyes of God. The Lord Jesus Christ welcomed those whom society rejected, but he never welcomed sin. He always admonished sexual sinners to "go and sin no more." His position on sexual sins was always consistent with the Torah and even intensified Old Testament proscriptions against adultery and divorce. We can only assume Christ's position on homosexuality, bestiality and incest are exactly the same as they eternally have been: They are perversions of God's order which defines human sexuality as between a man and a woman within the covenant of marriage. That was Christ's position on sexuality. End of discussion. Second, while we commend Anne Graham Lotz for her courage, we can only wonder at the wishy-washiness of the Cincinnati Presbytery. If the appropriate action is not taken against the renegades at Mount Auburn, then this church will have slid even further into the slough of Laodicea. Third, the Rev. R. David Kaylor stated that Mrs. Lotz was "like a segment of our society" that blames people for their inability to change. Perhaps in seminary Kaylor was not taught that none of us have the power to change. Change comes only through repentance and accepting Jesus Christ into our lives. With Christ, all things are possible for those that come to him in repentance. That is the message homosexuals need to hear from Presbyterian pulpits – not that they really are not sinners. Earl H.Tilford, Jr., Ph.D. Professor of History Grove City College Grove City, Pa. How can Jesus be Lord and not be Lord? May 17, 2002 I just went to the Mount Auburn Presbyterian Church Web site and read the beginning of Stephen Van Kuiken's sermon entitled "Seeking Things Eternal: Christianity and Hinduism." In his sermon, the pastor talks about "imperial Christianity" and those Christians who would impose their view of salvation on others. He says that some people demonstrate an underlying assumption that there is only one view of the truth. I have never understood this particular line of thinking. If I say that there is salvation only by faith in Jesus Christ through grace and someone else says that there is salvation in whatever religion one chooses, we can't both be right. One of us is wrong, or both of us are wrong, but we cannot both be right. We are saying contradictory things. Those two views of salvation cannot both be true. It does not matter how one might choose to sugar coat it. Why is this fact about truth so denied in our society? In Stephen Van Kuiken's view I take a "narrow" view in interpreting Jesus' statement that he is the way, the truth and the life. I do not know the wide interpretation of that verse. The thought that Jesus died on a cross so that people could be made right with God by their own efforts, or by belief in Buddha or some other "higher power" doesn't make much sense to me. Van Kuiken might find me "progressive," however, in that I lovingly welcome all people into our church. I do not "hate" my friends who engage in sexual relationships outside of marriage. (Neither do I condone their behavior.) I do not "hate" people who gossip, or who are proud, or who are greedy. I understand that the grace of Jesus Christ is way bigger than any of our sins. It is way bigger than my sin. Thanks be to God for his grace! (But let us not sin that grace may abound.) Celia Stone Farmville, N.C. Why don't some pastors resign? May 16, 2002 For some time I have wondered why liberal pastors like Steven Van Kuiken at Mount Auburn even desire to stay in the PCUSA. It seems like they would want to do the right thing and separate from a church whose vows they can no longer keep. There is no ambiguity in the vows a minister takes in the PCUSA to uphold the authority of Scripture, the foundation of our confessions, the discipline, peace and purity of the church. It also seems to me that if ministers take these vows without really meaning them, then they are lying in the face of almighty God. On the other hand, if our ministers decide over a period of some time that they no longer believe in their vows, then why don't they do the honorable thing and resign? Otherwise, they are still lying to God. It's scary to think as many as 40 percent of our ministers should resign because their unorthodox beliefs are in direct violation of their vows to almighty God. It is amazing that a minister of the Word and sacrament could take such a matter so lightly. The Bible is clear that ministers have a greater accountability before God. I pray that many of them will contemplate this. I could muster some respect for these people if they would resign their positions as a matter of conscience that they can no longer keep their original vows. Instead, they want to force feed the denomination an ideology it rejects and seize complete control of the assets. I think there is no honor among such ministers because they're focused only on the visible church. Unfortunately, I think it is all about money with them. If they were truly concerned about truth and justice, they would have graciously separated long ago and formed a new denomination. Michael Montgomery Atlanta, Ga. The gospel of self-esteem isn't working May 16, 2002 A recent letter comparing the writer's church to a social club speaks to a point that I suspect affects most Presbyterian congregations. We really no longer preach the message of a life altering God. The human psyche is complex and a theology designed primarily to build self-esteem fails to satisfy. Someone who wants to struggle with sin will seek a message that God wants him to fight, not just that he is loved and everything will be fine. Yes, the person dying of AIDS should be lovingly comforted. Yet, would it not have been more loving to have earlier confronted the destructive behavior and possibly prevented the illness altogether? How likely is one to hear a sermon from the Presbyterian pulpit that takes the first chapter of Roman's warning against homosexuality and sexual immorality and relates that to the present AIDS epidemic? We are a fine lot indeed. God hates sin, but we hate controversy. God gave us Scripture but too often we preach contemporary literature. God gave us a mind to better glorify him, but we try to be him. God gave us problems with Biblical solutions and we formed committees. How inviting is this to the prospective, or for that matter, the present member? After years of theological candy, all in a vain attempt to make everyone feel good about themselves, we may no longer speak a plausible message to anyone. Until we begin to deal with and preach the sometimes-painful lessons taught by the God of Scripture, many will and perhaps should go elsewhere. John A. Cowan Cartersville, Ga. Leaders sow seeds of confusion May 16, 2002 I have the many statements by Moderator Jack Rogers and Stated Clerk Clifton Kirkpatrick over the past year and I've come to one major conclusion – I don't understand their responsibilities either. Tom Palmer Havelock, N.C. 'Do we really have a constitution?' May 16, 2002 What on earth goes on here? All the hue and cry about the Presbytery of Cincinnati vs. Mt. Auburn Church misses the real issue entirely. Do we really have a constitution? Do we really want a constitution? If we have one, what do we do with it and what are the consequences of our actions? For the future of the PCUSA, we must answer these questions – and quickly. If we allow the Presbytery of Cincinnati to sidestep the constitution by legal chicanery, we say clearly that the constitution is merely a matter of convenience and that obedience is optional. What happens if another crucial issue presents itself? It will be difficult to act as strict constructionists after having waffled and caved in. Wake up, Presbyterians in all levels of church governance. We have already provided the hangman with a rope. Next time we may volunteer to spring the trap door. Pat Riggins Bloomington, Ind. Presbytery cannot demand per-capita payment May 13, 2002 While reading the provisional minutes of the Presbytery of Cincinnati Council meeting for information regarding the handling of the two overtures regarding the Mount Auburn PC, another action of the same meeting caught my eye. The sixth item of business considered by the council was titled "Sycamore Per Capita." The action, as recorded in their minutes, is printed as follows, verbatim:
Presbytery of Cincinnati, you are in all likelihood committing an irregularity if your "practice" is to require your member churches to pay per capita. The motion that was recorded in your minutes reads like something from the board of directors meeting of a bank, not the meeting of a presbytery council. Who in their wildest dreams would have ever thought that a PCUSA presbytery would have talk about arranging "payment plans" with the financial coordinator? This issue was decided long ago in Central Presbyterian Church v. Long Island Presbytery. However, this raises an even more important question. How can we expect a presbytery that commits a constitutional irregularity with one of its member churches to justly resolve a constitutional irregularity being committed by another of its member churches? If this presbytery cannot follow the ruling in Central v. Long Island, how can they ever be expected to enforce Londonderry v. PNNE as posed by Madeira Silverwood Session in their overture? Elder Mike Schrowang Clerk of Session Londonderry Presbyterian Church Londonderry, N.H. Look who's judging in God's place May 13, 2002 I am amused that you are constantly referring to the constitution, which was drafted by men and women and has undergone changes. The constitution could well have been changed again by the vote on the recent amendment. People seem to making laws, decisions and judgments. Has God died and are Jensen and other people stepping in to judge in God's place? Why, moreover, don't you look at the overall life and teachings of Jesus? Wasn't he about truth and justice? Are those who are critical of Mount Auburn the only people who have the truth and pursuit of justice in their back pocket? Don Fritz Oxford, Ohio So where's the impartiality? May 13, 2002 It is interesting to note that Sam Roberson, the general presbyter for the Cincinatti Presbytery, has been willing to openly telegraph by his language that he has no intention of being impartial in the case of Mt. Auburn Church. Indeed, it's hard to see how Mt. Auburn could have managed its stance to this date without a policy of "benign neglect" at the presbytery level. But I wonder if he understands that this kind of policy may have turned what might have been a minor brush fire into a major conflagration. If this were a civil issue, given his prior remarks, he might already have been disbarred from hearing the case. I hope he has the grace and conscience to consider recusing himself. Bruce M. Williams San Francisco, Calif. Pastors should be tried for heresy, defiance May 13, 2002 Steve Van Kuiken and Harold Porter preach pan-theistic heresy. They also defy our Book of Order and encourage their congregation to stand in defiance of the church. Then they and others of their ilk have the temerity to suggest that holding them responsible is "to disturb the peace and purity of the church." They should be tried for their heresy and defiance, and, if convicted, defrocked. Why does this not happen? As the gentleman from Grove Presbyterian Church in Aberdeen, Md., wondered, what is the difference between the PCUSA and a social club? The better question is, "Is this George Orwell's 1984?" Earl H. Tilford Jr. Grove City, Pa. Why not a quid pro quo for moderator? May 13, 2002 I just noticed in the "Covenant Network People in the news" section of the April Newsletter that Laird Stuart has resigned from the Network's Board of Directors. Laird is a candidate for moderator of the 214th General Assembly. He resigned to demonstrate his intent to serve the whole church. Does that mean he will no longer work to promote the ordination of practicing LGBTs while he serving as moderator? If Laird's strategy works, maybe next year Robert Howard could resign from the Lay Committee and run for moderator. I'm sure the Covenant Network supporters would give him a strong endorsement for his gesture to serve the whole church! John H. Pavelko Crossroads Presbyterian Church Walled Lake, Mich. We don't need to cut Book of Order May 13, 2002 In my opinion, we don't need a new abbreviated Book of Order. We need a new vision of the church. Cutting down the Book of Order will not solve the internal crisis facing our denomination. The liberals in the group would certainly like to do away with the Book of Order completely so they could then push their own agendas through. It's time we stop "straining at a gnat," because we have already swallowed enough camels. Why don't we just go ahead and declare our church a "congregational" church and throw out everything and then everyone can do whatever he or she wants to do. Shame on us. Want to know why we lost almost 32,000 members last year? Just read the article and what Mr. Kirkpatrick said. We desperately need the "Confessing Church" movement, if no other reason than to counteract these ridiculous moves by the General Assembly staff to CYA themselves and absolve themselves of any responsibility or accountability. I wonder what Calvin, Knox and Zwingli would say today about the church they founded. Probably not much positive. Shades of Laodicea! Anyway, a lot of people in the church don't abide by the Book of Order anyway, especially when they want their agenda pushed through. I think we had better read the first chapters of the Book of Revelation and what Jesus has to say to those seven churches. I think we may be on the list. Gene Edwards Minister of the Word and Sacraments Moose Club & PCUSA: Is there any difference? May 9, 2002 Our church believes in fun, food and fellowship. In fact our church has a reputation at presbytery as one of the most fun-loving and sociable churches in the presbytery. Of course, we do other things. We have a soup kitchen. We seek diversity wherever we can find it. We are good people, and we never criticize anyone. After all, who can say who is right in most controversial situations. We never discuss politics or religion. Publications like The Layman and Theology Matters are immediately destroyed before they see the light of day. Religion, of course, is a private matter. We should never try to influence others in their private beliefs. We don't know the difference between Amendment A and Amendment O, and we are proud of it. Why should we indulge ourselves in matters that may disturb our peaceful and happy existence? This "Confessing Church" movement, which seems to unavoidably come to our attention from time to time, is nothing more than an effort to infect peaceful churches with seeds of discontent. These people are causing trouble by quoting Jesus and expecting us to make moral judgments based on some things that were said almost 2000 years ago. This, after all, is the 21st century. In a nutshell, this our church. Why does it leave me uninspired? Actually I have been wondering if I should leave the church and join the Moose (The Loyal Order of Moose). I belonged to the Moose in my youth; and, I must say, I remember finding more fun, food and fellowship there than I find in our church today. The Moose people are good people, who help feed the hungry, give food baskets to the poor and generally do much good work in the community. They probably do as much as our church and they do it more cost effectively. The don't have the expensive hierarchy to support that we have. Like our church they never discuss politics or religion; and although they, of course, do not have the one-hour worship service on Sunday morning, I can enjoy several excellent Sunday morning services that are broadcast on radio and television. Perhaps there are other alternatives that I should pursue. I must give it some more thought. Jim Kniss, elder Grove Presbyterian Church Aberdeen, Md. Youth for the Truth is now international May 9, 2002 The past few months have been very busy for Youth for the Truth (an adjunct to the Confessing Church Movement). The member's page on our Web site, www.youth4truth.org, has a complete listing of who has joined and where they are from. Most surprisingly, Moses Mwaura Wachira from Nakuru, Kenya, joined after looking for a way to take a "global stand" for Truth with other like-minded young people. Truly, the Internet has become a tool to reach far beyond the borders of our country. Youth for the Truth has been encouraging other member youth groups to meet together and to think seriously about Truth. Here in Oostburg, Wisc., we started reading and discussing the book, Jesus Among Other Gods, Youth Edition by Ravi Zacharias. We did this by meeting Sunday nights and discussing issues such as who is Christ, how do we know the claims of Christ are true, and is God responsible for pain. We want to say thank you to everyone who has supported us and prayed for us as we started this journey over a year ago. Please continue to pray that God will use this group to motivate and mobilize young people within our denomination and around the world to stand up for his Truth. Ryan Brill Oostburg, Wisc. New organizational, structural models needed May 9, 2002 One of the severe problems we have encountered in the past 50 years or more is that we have espoused "new" cultural concepts, supposedly Biblically based, while relying on "old" organizational models and structures. We need new organizational models and structures for the isolated urban and rural churches. We also desperately need new models for evangelism and church growth. Eric Harrison Pittsburgh, Pa. Catholic Church's problems should be warning to PCUSA May 9, 2002 Can't we learn anything from our Roman Catholic friends about the cost in monetary loss and societal loss from the sexual indiscretions of their hierarchy? Since our property is not owned by our individual congregations, the whole denomination could be held responsible in a monetary way for those who transgress our youth sexually. R.W. Lott Elmwood, Ill. Queries about Enron, PCUSA leadership May 9, 2002 Do you think the CEO and members of a Board of Directors in a corporation that lost as much market share in the past forty years as the PCUSA has lost members and capital would still be writing letters to stockholders touting their plans for the future as the way to go? What charity or community organization in the future will want Mr. Kenneth Lay, late CEO of Enron, to have his name on their letterhead as a member of the board or as a consultant? Donald D. Denton Richmond, Va. Elder says he won't pay his per capita May 9, 2002 This is one elder who is not paying the per capita and has instructed his church not to pay it for him. When the General Assembly changes its tune and believes in the fundamentals of the Bible, I may change my mind and pay the per capita. If they want to strip me of my position as an elder, so be it. Jack W. Fox, elder First Presbyterian Church Towanda, Pa. Now it's time to vote for evangelism in PCUSA May 9, 2002 A very large majority of Presbyterians have voted repeatedly against changing the ordination standards of the Church. Let us give the devoted church members an overture that will encourage them to vote for calling people to faith in Christ. Now it is time to rebuild the Presbyterian Church. It has been 37 years since we recorded a net gain in Church members. We have lost more than 40 percent of our membership and nearly two generations of young people. Can we find ways to acknowledge those churches that grow and share what they have learned about evangelism with the whole church? Our churches are not controlled by anyone but Christ. No one will bar our ability to lead people to Biblical-spiritual pursuit of faith in Jesus Christ. John F. Seibert retired missionary-pastor Rule and enforcement prevent train wrecks May 2, 2002 Clifton Kirkpatrick's train wreck analogy doesn't work. Anyone who knows anything about railroading should know that the rule book is everything. The only reason why two trains would be on the same right of way going in different directions would be that one of them would be violating the rules. That's why the officials settled it. They enforced the rules. That's what Kirkpatrick is supposed to do – enforce our constitution. I think it's time he resigned. Joe Blevins PCUSA needs a correction in course May 2, 2002 At the recent conference on "The Role of the Constitution in the Life of the Church," David Wallace, dean of the Johnson C. Smith Theological Seminary, stated, "The enemy is not our fellow Presbyterians with whom we disagree. I believe the enemy is resistance to change. ... We need a new vision that helps us to act differently and to think differently." This statement is far too ambiguous to embody any meaning. When change occurs, it is always a change from one thing to something else. When we turn from our sin and to Jesus Christ, this change is good, and that which impedes such change is the enemy. However, when we turn from Jesus Christ to anything else, that change is wrong, and that which encourages the change is the enemy. Change in and of itself is neither good nor bad. For change to be evaluated, the ends must be evaluated: What are the consequences of the change, and what are the consequences of not changing? Suppose I was driving from St. Louis to Denver, and set out driving west on I-70. Suppose also that Dr. Wallace was to call me on my mobile phone as I was approaching Kansas City, advising me that I was in a rut and needed to change direction. I should turn left onto I-35 and go to Wichita, or I should turn right onto I-29 and go to Omaha. My resistance to change was the problem. Granted, I could still get to Denver from either Wichita or Omaha by different routes, but that would be as a result of a course correction once I left I-70. In the current crisis in our denomination, resistance to change is, indeed, the enemy, but it is not the enemy Dr. Wallace thinks it is. In the 1920s, the Presbyterian Church (USA) was under tension to turn off to the right or to the left. The course change to the right was toward the anti-intellectual disaster of fundamentalism, and the course change to the left was the faith-demolishing disaster of theological liberalism. Rather than persist straight on toward the goal, which is Christ, the Presbyterian Church veered to the left. In the 1960s, the Presbyterian Church veered left again toward the goal of cultural accommodation. The problem with that goal is that if the Presbyterian Church ever arrives, the Presbyterian Church will cease to be the Church of Jesus Christ. The forces pressing for change are the renewal organizations and the evangelical congregations in our denomination. The forces resisting change are those individuals, organizations, and congregations in our denomination who want to see the Presbyterian Church arrive at the goal of cultural accommodation. (Just as an aside, cultural accommodation in and of itself is not evil – it is the accommodation of the sinful expression of the culture, such as promiscuous sex and dogmatic pluralism, that is evil.) The description given by Kirkpatrick of the two trains facing one another at an impasse is inaccurate. In fact, there is one train, but it seems that there are two locomotives – one at each end pulling in opposite directions. The solution is clear: Those who seek to conform the Presbyterian Church (USA) to the ways of this world need to stop their futile efforts. They need to turn their locomotive around and aim toward the correct goal of Jesus Christ, or they need to uncouple their locomotive from the train and head off to oblivion on their own, without dragging the church along for the ride. And to quote the famous phrase from the sixties: "If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Loren J. Golden Overland Park, Kan. The Layman is called 'religious garbage' May 2, 2002 The Layman's flaw is that it thinks of itself as a newspaper, when , in fact, it is a tabloid of religious garbage. Joe Rutherford |
|
| Home
· News
· PLC
Publications ·
The
Presbyterian Layman Online Reviews · Archives· History of the Lay Committee · Feedback · Links |